I LOVE how lively it's been lately! Everyone's commenting, and debating... And yes, most of the time they're just piling on William, but I've got to admit: It's been a lot more fun and a lot more active lately since he's started commenting! So, William: sincerely and with no sarcasm or irony: THANK YOU for sharing your opinions here. As much as I like preaching to the choir, vigorous and spirited debate (and even the occasionally mean-spirited debate) is what I LIVE for! It's why I do this. So I'm more than happy to have a Conservative who comes in here and
(Plus my ad revenue is over $100.00 now, so unless Google finds a way to weasel out of it, I should be getting a check next month. It's like I said: I get paid whether there's any merit in what you post or not. So THANK YOU for that as well!) ;)
Now... ON TO THE TOPIC. I read a piece on MMFA yesterday that really made me angry. In terms of the media, it dealt with how often representatives of the "Family Research Center" have been interviewed and given a chance to spew their anti-gay rhetoric on not only Fox, but CNN and MSNBC as well! Now it's important to note that The Family Research Council has been designated as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone here (besides William) that whenever a Right Wing Think Talk puts the word "Family" in their names, this is almost always a front for a Funny-Mentalist hate group to force their radical and unconstitutional religious agenda down our throats. In this case, I'm not even sure which word their doing a greater Orwellian disservice to, "family," or "research."
In addition to the mere number of times these inbreeds have appeared on the various cable news networks, it is noteworthy that only TWICE have the networks mentioned that they represent a group that has been branded a hate group by the SPLC! And one of those mentions was on FOX! Imagine that: FOX does a better job than CNN disclosing the Right-wing leanings of their guests! Behold: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!
OTOH, considering Fox’s audience, their mention of this probably does more to denigrate the SPLC than to undermine the credibility of the FRC.
SPLC's position on the FRC is summarized as follows:
The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws and anti-bullying programs.And while I have no disagreement with that assessment – and I don’t see how any objective person COULD – MMFA goes on to to include some brilliant statement made by the three most prominent (media-wise) members of the FLC, Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg and Ken Blackwell. It was their personal comments that really pissed me off, especially considering that those "great bastions of Liberalism," CNN and MSNBC were turning to these hate-mongers for political commentary! So what follows will, in it totality, amount to what I think of as one of my better rants. Like all good rants, there's obscenity (so don’t be pussy), but I do still hope to make at least a few of you laugh (those that are capable) and a few of you think (again, those that are capable.) And if do I end up merely preaching the choir? Meh. I still found it personally rewarding to write it.
The FRC also strongly promotes the “ex-gay” movement as a way to combat LGBT civil rights measures, though professional organizations have repeatedly called so-called “reparative therapy” (which seeks to turn gays and lesbians into heterosexuals) into question and issued statements that don’t support it. [...]
Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.
Gems from Tony Perkins:
“It Gets Better” Project Tries To “Recruit” Kids Into A “Lifestyle” Of “Perversion.”- Yes! Long live discrimination, the fear of violence and the love of Jesus!
“Research Is Overwhelming” That Gay Men Are More Likely To Molest Children.- Sure… Except that in fact the exact OPPOSITE is true.
Gay Teens Commit Suicide Because They Know Being Gay Is “Abnormal.”- …And I’m sure that constantly having genetic defectives like you constantly hammering them with that opinion has nothing at all to do with it.
Anti-Bullying Programs Promote “Indoctrination Into Homosexuality.”- Note: Violence against children is OK, as long as the kid is a little faggot. Gotcha.
Gay Activists Are Intolerant, Hateful, Spiteful Pawns Of The Devil.- Question: (1) Intolerant of WHO, exactly? (2) Hateful, Spiteful… in what way, exactly? (3) How exactly would what the Devil… well, I suppose you WOULD know, never mind!
Senators Who Vote For DADT Repeal Will Have “The Blood Of Innocent Soldiers On Their Hands.”- Wait... Which soldiers? Mybe the GAY ONES who would face violence and possibly death at the hands of those bigots in our military who happen to think as you do. But in that case the blood is on their hands and yours. The blod of victims will alwyas, only, be on the hand of those who perpetrate it and enable it.
"Kids Do Worse In These Same-Sex Households. They’re More Susceptible To Violence.”- Well, yeah, I suppose they are ‘more susceptible to violence,’ seeing as how you lot are so keen to perpetrate violence upon them!
"Gays Are Trying To “Spread Fear And Intimidation So That They Can Disrupt And Destabilize"- LMFAO. I’ve had friends and co-workers who've been gay. Great folks, all. And, save for one, pretty much the least intimidating people I’ve even met. Seriously? You’re ‘intimidated’ by gays? Seriously? How can someone believe every stereotype about gays and still find them the LEAST BIT intimidating? That’s hilarious! OTOH… Who was it that was perpetrating bigotry and rationalizing violence again? Oh yeah… IT WAS YOU ASSHOLES!!! So… WHO is it that’s trying to intimidate people again? Oh yeah: IT’S YOU ASSHOLES!!! And, uh… what’s so “destabilizing” about two people settling down and building a life together? If that’s destabilizing, I have to ask: WHY DO YOU HATE MARRIAGE?!
Gems from Peter Sprigg:
Anti-Bullying Programs Indoctrinate “Impressionable School Children.”- TO REITERATE: Violence against children is OK, as long as there a bunch of little faggots.
Transgender People Should “Stop Pretending To BE The Opposite Of Your Real Sex.”- Um… they’re TRYING TO, douchebag!
Harvey Milk May Have Been A Pedophile, Faked A Hate Crime.- Oh! Oh! Let me try! Peter Sprigg MAY like to suck donkey dicks! Tony Perkins MAY enjoy watching scat porn! Ken Blackwell MAY like to fuck three men at the same time! Boy, isn’t this fun!
It Is Better To “Export Homosexuals From The United States Than To Import Them Into The United States.”- Well, yeah, in general it would be nice to close our trade deficit, but… somehow I don’t think that human trafficking is the way to do it, you Nazi scumbag.
Gems for Ken Blackwell:
“Homosexuality is A Compulsion That Can Be Contained, Repressed, Or Changed.”- I would say the same of bigotry and ignorance and have the benefit of actually being RIGHT. (I’d be inclined to include RELIGION in that as well, but then some might find that offensive.)
“Homosexuality Is A Lifestyle, It’s A Choice, And That Lifestyle Can be Changed.”- Homosexuality is a PREFERENCE. That is NOT something that can be changed. (Let me tell you: My life would have been a LOT easier if I didn’t prefer Red-Heads; but more on that later.) Following the lifestyle maybe be a choice, but it’s a choice between accepting who you are, and living a happy, fulfilled life and one where you live in repression and denial. But hey: I see what path YOU’VE chosen, so more power to you!
Same-Sex Marriage “Defies Barnyard Logic... The Barnyard Knows Better.”- That’s interesting. Because the FACT is that homosexuality has been observed in nature in just about every species of animal on earth. But hey: Don’t let the facts get in the way of your fanciful daydreams about barnyard animals. Also… Why should I (or a donkey) give two shits what a pig or a sheep thinks about my (or the donkey’s) choice of a mate?
(see what I did there?)
President Obama Shows Same Respect For Marriage That He Did For Osama Bin Laden’s Body.- I'm confused. WHAT, exactly, are you saying here? I must be missing something, because Bin Laden’s body was prepared according to his religions sacred rituals and the released at sea to protect his privacy and avoid a spectacle being made and/or it being desecrated. So… You’re saying that President Obama believes that marriage is a sacred and private affair deserving the utmost respect and should not be made into a spectacle? I mean… I’m OK with that and all, but you say it like it’s a BAD THING. Oh, but then you are the people who want to go around telling everybody else who they can and can’t marry, so… I guess that makes sense.
- Unless your suggesting that he somehow desecrated Bin Laden’s body? But then… do you really expect me to believe that you have a fuck to give about what happened to Bin Laden’s body?
So, to recap: The FRC advocates violence against children in and of and minority groups, the deportation of Citizens, the forcing of Religious beliefs upon the populace, and compares said minority groups to barnyard animals. At this point, I would offer that is it neither hyperbole nor a violation of Godwin’s Law that the FRC are bunch of FUCKING NAZI’S.
Now I’m going to say my piece. First of all, let me be clear: I do not research these things. Which is precisely which I defer to the people who do! I can, however, say that, unlike the jack-booted fascists over at the FRC, the conclusions of the research being done are not in contrast to my own observations in day-to-day life, going back as far back as childhood. Take for example the issue of CHOICE.
William tried to make a point about this in one of his recent comments. Something about how he might choose to walk fast, but that shouldn’t give him civil rights as a ‘fast walker.’ Well… I had a friend in college who was six-foot-seven. REALLY tall fucker. LOVED having him on my Basketball team, HATED trying to play against him. (Trying to shoot against a guy who’s 6’7” is like standing in the shade under a fucking tree!) And you know what? Fucker was BORN a fast-walker. And really? And anyone who would complain about the fact that this dude’s gate was about double that of a “normal” man’s stride? IS pretty much just being a dick. Now… Maybe some people are just born dicks, and maybe some people CHOOSE to be dicks. And you know what? It is ABSOLUTELY your civil right to be as BIG A DICK as you’d like too be, either way! Just like... du-da-dahhhh... it IS, in fact, your CIVIL RIGHT to walk fast (especially if your legs go up to my shoulders.) Come on Will, really? Have you ever seen a law passed that says you can’t walk above a certain speed? Or marry someone who does?
Your example is either completely irrelevant or precisely proves my point. I’m not sure which, but try not to throw it right down the middle next time, OK?
Now… returning once again to the real world: Choice. Or… Does one choose to be homosexual? See… there’s a semantic argument, a trap really, at play here. Because the answer is, “It depends.” It depends entirely on what you mean when you say “be homosexual.” Do you me someone who PURSUES and/or HAS a sexual relationship with a member of the same gender? Well, yeah: That’s a choice. But that’s a BEHAVIOR, not an ORIENTATION. To me (and every thinking person who has the slightest clue and more than two brain cells to bounce together) homosexuality is not a behavior, it’s an orientation… a PREFERENCE, if you will . And you don’t get to choose what you prefer.
(Pay attention now, while I show you how analogies are done…)
I didn’t choose to hate bananas. But I hate them with a burning passion and so I choose not to eat them. And honestly? I wish I liked them! I really do. I wish that I could tolerate the taste, smell and texture of this highly nutritious food – one of the best sources of potassium on the market – and I'm sure I would be in much better health if I could. But I can’t. I didn’t CHOSE this. I just hate bananas. And life is too short already to spend it choking down anything I hate that much. So I don’t. See how that works? I also didn’t choose to prefer Red-Heads. But I do: Carrot-topped, Auburn Haired, Ginger, Freckle-Faced,
The CHOICE is not between homo- and hetero-. It is between self-acceptance and self-denial. Fulfillment in your relationships or indifference. Satisfaction in life or dismay. Gratification or needless sacrifice. Happiness or emptiness. It is a choice between following your own instincts and leading the life you want to lead, or wasting the only life you’ll have living to satisfy everyone else around you, none of whom can even claim to give a shit about your happiness or well-being.
Some fucking choice.
Now, I realize that anecdotal evidence does not trump actual research (just don’t tell the FRC!) but I still think it is worth pointing out that my own life’s experiences pretty much jive with what the research has concluded: That people are BORN homosexual. Whenever I’ve discussed the topic, or overheard it being discuss, with friends or co-workers their answer has always been the same. “How long have you known?” “Always.” (Usually with a dismissive hand waving and/or shoulder shrugging.) And even before being fully aware of their sexual orientation, they were aware that something about them was different. And oftentimes, so did everyone around them. A few years back a co-worker of mine came out of the closet. I hadn’t known him that long, or that well, prior to this but upon hearing the news, my reaction was, “I hadn’t realized he was actually IN the closet!” Another coworker has lamented the fate of his family name as he is gay and regarding his only male cousin… “I can already tell.”
Finally I am reminded of this one boy who lived on my block growing up back in Connecticut. He never really fit in with us. We didn’t bully him or anything – at least I didn’t, nor did any of my close circle of friends that I am aware of – but we never hung out either. Sure, I invited him to a couple of my birthday parties, only because he would have been the only kid at the bus-stop or in the Cub-Scout Pack who wasn’t invited otherwise, but neither me nor any of my friends (or the other kids on the block) ever really befriended him. He was just… different. While the rest of us were playing baseball, or soccer, (or Dungeons and Dragons – hey: it was 1982!) he was usually hanging out with the girls in the neighborhood, playing house or tag or some such thing. (And his was in grade-school, mind you, so not a time in which hanging out with girls meant you were some kind of stud.) Well, I moved away and lost touch with him. But years later, in college, I found out that he had also moved away, and ended up graduating from the same high school that my college friends all attended; in the same town that my parents now lived. And upon hearing that I knew him as a child, they pointed out that he was gay, and asked me if I knew that from way back when.
Well… I didn’t. And while I hadn’t given him a though in ten years one way of the other at that point, thinking about it? I was like… “Yeah, pretty much.” I explained that, as children, we didn’t precisely know that he was homosexual. I mean… we were eight. It’s not like WE were into girls or our own sexuality yet either! But knowing this NOW explained a lot of what we observed as kids. It didn’t change anything - not ever having been a bully myself, or ever having harassed him, etc… it wasn’t like this revelation filled me with any regrets. We weren’t friends simply because we had nothing in common. But it did certainly go a long way towards filling in some of the blanks.
Anyway, enough of that. I’ll believe you’re not born gay as soon as an actual GAY PERSON comes forward and tells me so, giving me some time to press him or her to make sure that we’re agreed on the semantics of the question. Until then? Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. I say so, every homosexual I’ve ever encountered says so, and the research done by people who are far more qualified to make that statement than I am says so.
Period.
The next point in debate that I want to address is that of marriage. In the same recent comment William summed up what I’m sure the right considers to be a reasonable position, saying that he “[PP] supports civil unions but has a problem with it being called marriage.” Now I have to make a confession and a partial concession here. Personally? I think that getting hung up on what it’s CALLED is just utterly stupid. Yes, I think it’s stupid for the Williams’es of the world, but I also – for the longest time – would get furious with the GAYS for pressing this point! For the longest time, my feelings were that if they’re being given everything they’re asking for – or shoot, even 99% or even HALF of what they’re asking for – and they would get this if they just accept that it be CALLED something different? Holy fucking shit, just take whatever you can get, you stupid fuck-wads! It’s not like all progress is going to end with any ONE THING! Take what you can get and MOVE ON – to getting more and more and more every passing year and worry about stupid shit like the fucking NAME after all of the PRACTICAL and LEGAL matters are settled!
I felt that way for a really long time, and I’ll have to admit that some small part of me still might. But the other 99.9% of me? No longer does.
I’m not going to make some irrelevant speech about the dangers of “separate but equal.” No one is going to make those with civil unions use a different water fountain or sit at the back of the bus. And the attack dogs and firehouses (or in the modern context: hate crimes) won’t distinguish between the married homosexuals and single ones. Because we’re talking about marriage in the sole context of it being a LEGAL CONTRACT, that carries with it certain RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES and OBLIGATIONS, it would be an almost trivial exercise to create a TRUE “separate but equal” status here. Because let’s face it: The LAST TIME we heard “separate but equal,” it simply wasn’t equal. But it could be in this case. All it would take is a Federal Law stating that any mention of marriage in any Law at the Federal, State or Local Level shall be assumed to read “marriage or civil union,” and that this assumption shall be binding and applied retroactively. One simple, clear statement would settle the “separate but equals” concerns for all time.
There are just a few problems with that...
First of all: NO ONE IS OFFERING THAT! Show me where this is being offered, and I might be inclined to go back to saying, “TAKE IT, NIMRODS!” But there’s also a…
Second Problem: Laws get changed ALL THE TIME. If there was merely ONE LAW that guaranteed this equality? It would only take a change to ONE LAW to take some of it away. Only ONE LAW would have to be repealed to take ALL of it away! Call it marriage? And you’d have to change THOUSANDS OF LAWS if you wanted to take away their rights. And that’s really why it must be called “marriage.” Because that’s what our LAWS call it.
And the more I think about it: Other than a desire to eventually make these two things increasing NOT EQUAL over time, why other reason (beyond placating the bigots) could there possibly be to have two separate names for these things?!
Also… I’ve gotten the argument many times that this should be a STATE issue. That each state should be able to decide how they want to handle it. This is bullshit a complete non-starter. Because while any state may have anywhere form a few dozen to a few hundred laws regarding marriage – including the protection of property rights, work benefits, co-insurance, etc…? The federal laws involving marriage and the rights and privileges of married people number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS. It absolutely MUST be something that is dealt with at the federal level, because it is the federal government that provides the lion’s share of the legal protections, rights, benefits and obligations regarding marriage. Arguing otherwise reveals only one’s own ignorance and arouses suspicions in others of one’s own prejudices.
And really… regarding marriage, or *sigh* the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. Really… these arguments from TRADITION are just plain stupid. In my lifetime there were still states where it was illegal for Blacks and Whites to marry. That changed. There remain countries today where interfaith marriages are illegal. And if you go back to biblical times – and up through to about a century or so ago – marriage was little more than a property transfer, as poor families married off their daughters as best they could, and royalty used it as a tool for diplomacy. That’s changed. The institution of marriage is CONSTANTLY changing. And even if you ignore the numerous changes in the way various societies have viewed marriage over the years, you remain faced with countless assaults on the Institution of Marriage far greater than the idea of two men or two women happily sharing a life with one another. In fact, given the divorce rate, the increasing rate of domestic violence, the rampant adultery, the 72-hour celebrity marriages, the bachelor / bachelorette Reality Shows, etc…? I’d say that they thought of ANY two people settling down and loving each other and building a life together would do the institution of marriage rather a damned bit of GOOD, regardless of their gender.
And finally, before closing on the LEGAL issues, I have a challenge for anyone who’s not with me yet.
First of all, let’s realize that as far as our Government in concerned marriage is in fact no more than a LEGAL CONTRACT. Any talk of spiritual bonding, or any other romantic ideal, is completely immaterial to our government. That is the purview (at best) of the individual CHURCHES. And, in case you haven’t heard, we DO live in a SECULAR NATION and DO, in fact, have and recognize the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. And this is one of those perfect cases that protects the CHURCH’S interests as much as the homosexual’s: Just as the Church (and their legions of brainwashed masses) do not have the authority to tell the government who they can and can’t marry, nor does the Government have any authority to tell any church that they marry, or indeed even recognize the marriage of, ANYONE they don’t wish to. (And the day the gays start ASKING for that, mark my words, I’ll be the first one to be arguing “separation of church and state” AGAINST them!) So you can put aside any mention of Jesus, God, Allah, Muhammad, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin or Ra, not to mention the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Iliad or the Odyssey. It doesn’t matter, and the First Amendment of our Constitution says as much in plain, simple English, so don’t waste your time or mine with any of that nonsense. Marriage, in any discussion involving the LAW, is no more than a legal contract.
So here’s the challenge: Give me an example of any other LEGAL CONTRACT that I can enter into with another person or persons where our genders become an issue. There isn’t any. Oh, there used to be. There used to be many examples, seeing as how at one point women weren’t allowed to own land, conduct business, vote, refuse the advances of their husbands, etc… But that’s all been done away with now. There exists now no other legal contract that requires a certain gender to be legally binding. And there’s simply no reason based in logic or legality to maintain gender discrimination in this case. And the “Why?” question that will inevitably rise from that statement leads into my final point:
IT DOES NO HARM.
It does no harm, and it brings great happiness to those people affected by these laws.
Who is harmed?
The parents? Puh-Lease. How long has it been, and in which backwards cultures do parents have any legal say in who you marry? My parents HATED my wife. Fuck ‘em. I loved her, and I remain married to her, and they just had to deal. Parents want grandkids? Hey: It’s only the action of ignorant bigots that prevents gay couples from marrying and adopting, so who’s REALLY doing all the harm there? Natural Grandkids you say? Well, first of all, my cousin, my sister and I are ALL adopted. So FUCK YOU. Secondly, does a naturally infertile couple victimize their parents or society? What’s that? They didn’t CHOOSE to be infertile? Well shoot… The other couple didn’t choose to be gay! What if I don’t marry at all? Isn't that my right? Am I harming my parents then? What if I become a Priest? Sure, not likely, but it’s still my choice, and not one my parents would prefer that I make. I still wouldn't be harming them! And BTW… I have two sons who are AUTISTIC. So if anyone thinks that I would have the slightest iota of sympathy for someone who’s crying over their child being gay or transgendered, my feeling on their "plight" can best summed up as: GROW THE FUCK UP, YOU WHINY LITTLE BITCHES! YOU THINK YOU’VE GOT PROBLEMS? YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT A PROBLEM IS! GROW UP, GET SOME FUCKING THERAPY, AND LOVE AND SUPPORT YOUR CHILD, YOU HEARTLESS FUCKS!
Parents always say that they “just want their children to be happy.” Well… time to man up and put your money where your mouth is regarding that otherwise principled ideal. Those who fail this simple test?
Head? Meet brick.
I once had one inbred jackass tells me that it spreads disease. One even told me that it CAUSES it. Ok… I PROBABLY don’t need to spell this out for MOST of my readers, but here’s a simple epidemiology lesson for the C-students out there. SEX spreads diseases. This is true with Heterosexuals, and this is true with Homosexuals. If two people who have no diseases have sex with each other, a MILLION TIMES, UNPROTECTED, guess what? They will NEVER get a sexually transmitted disease. (And, uh… tongue-in-cheek here, but homosexuality is also absent the risk of unwanted pregnancy.) (Just sayin’.) On the other hand… if one person is having unprotected sex with a person who HAS A SEXUALLY TRAMISSIBLE DISEASE… well, it’s really only a matter of time until they contract it. And again… This is true of heterosexuals and homosexuals. And the RATE of transmission is immaterial. That one practice may be slightly more risky than another is completely irrelevant because in each case it is a matter of inevitability.
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with another man who has no diseases?
ZERO
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with woman who does has a diseases?
>ZERO
Or…
=f(how many times we have sex)
So again… this is just stupid.
And in closing, because I can already hear someone *cough*
SHUT THE FUCK UP, NO I’M NOT.
Allowing someone to have a choice, and to make that choice without taking away any of the rights, freedoms and protections that the rest of society takes for granted is NOT how you “impose your values” on someone. I am not taking anything away from anyone, and nor does Gay Marriage. As usual, I am arguing for, and defending, freedom. And freedom is not something you can IMPOSE upon someone. Even if I “force” you to live free… What you do next, remains, by definition, your choice. That’s what freedom MEANS. I may not LIKE your choice, but as I leave it your choice to make, regarding your own life and taking nothing from anyone else? Well, I remain solidly on the side of freedom.
The only people who are “imposing their values on someone else” are the religious funny-mentalists that make up the opposition to Homosexual equality. Those people who would say, “NO, you MAY NOT do this thing!” Apply that test to ANY ISSUE, and you’ll see who’s on the side of freedom – those who would protect your choices – and those who are against it – those who would take those choices away.
God bless America and our freedom and the people that he decided to make gay and transgendered.
(And a big ‘FUUUUUCK YOOOOOOU!’ to anyone who’s not with me on that!)
First of all ... You're welcome for your increase in revenue. Do I get a cut? ;)
ReplyDeleteI'll just stick to expressing my opinion on this one and not react point by point to your statements. Can you name a place in time or history where "marriage" began? Using my 'history' book, I can. And, the same 'history' book also calls it a 'marriage between a man and a woman'. However, that 'history' book is also banned for reference in American law because we have a so-called separation of church and state (although no legal precedent for it, just a mythical claim of it). So, going on the premise there is being recognized a separation of church and state, the state should not be allowed to recognize ANY marriage. The extent that the government should be involved in this is for any civil union and civil unions only. Now, many people won't agree with that, but if that's how separation of church and state is supposed to work, then it should work that way for all. Bummer that those who are against organized religion have to face this two-edged sword by trying to force our government to recognize a religious ceremony. Gosh, they may have to start saying "Merry Christmas" at the local post office again.
I fully support the government recognizing all civil unions and allowing full family/financial rights through those unions. However, since marriage is originally constructed through a religious ritual, the separation of church and state laws should apply in this country and no marriage contract should be recognized by the either the federal or state governments. All those who support marriage as a religious institution should be allowed to continue to do so but would need a civiil union to gain federal/state recognition. All others who wish to invade the religious institution with their own version of it can do as they please, but the federal/state governments should not be allowed to recognize any of those 'marriages' either, on grounds that since marriage is a religious institution, then the separation of church and state prevents all and any 'rights' given because of those marriages. So, all those non-man/woman marriages being sought by immoral sinners can call their unions "marriage" if they want, but the federal and state governments cannot be forced to recognize them.
What private companies do in their own interpretation of what is a marriage or civil union is their own business. The government cannot force them to recognize a religious ceremony. But if a company chooses to do so, they can recognize any type they want. It would be against the law for the government to force a private entity to recognize a religious ceremony/ritual. And against the law to tell them what variation of a religious ceremony is legal/binding.
Personally, I have no worries. I was unioned at the local courthouse, then we had a church ceremony later in the year.
"However, that 'history' book is also banned for reference in American law because we have a so-called separation of church and state (although no legal precedent for it, just a mythical claim of it)."
ReplyDeleteSuch comments are so bereft of even the most rudimentary concern for the truth, and display a lack of knowledge so complete that any merit mined from anything you have to say is, as in every case in which you've commented, here, entirely unintentional. Your sole purpose, here, has been to spout absolutely absurd things that have no connection to reality.
As you said, Eddie, you're preaching to the choir, with one exception.
ReplyDeleteTony Perkins (not the late, lamented, actor who happened to be gay or bisexual) and his ilk are particularly slimy. If I were to indulge in the kind of "slippery slope" logic so favored by the right, I'd say they probably approved of stoning to death a woman "caught in adultery."
As far as choosing your orientation goes, two anecdotal statements: Thirty some years ago a biologist told me that research indicated that sexual orientation is decided by the end of the first trimester. I don't know if that's been confirmed by subsequent research or not.
I do know that the argument over "ingrained or chosen" made me look at my life, and come to a conclusion which is, I believe, logical if not scientific. I recently had occasion to pass this conclusion on. My youngest, now 16, came to me and said, "Dad, I've noticed that some of my friends are gay, and I still want them as friends. Does that mean I'm gay?" I asked two questions: 1) "Do you have an urge to touch them or to have them touch you?" Answer, no.
2) "When you have erotic dreams, are girls, guys, or both involved.?" Answer: Only girls.
Me: "I think that's your answer."
Going off-topic here: I noticed, but can't now find, you wondering where you picked up, "Those who love Ayn Rand are those who don't understand George Orwell." It was from my oldest son, via me, at MMFA.
William:
Thanks for the eye-opener. I had no idea that marriage existed only in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Silly me, I'd always thought that the saying, "Caesar's wife should be beyond reproach," meant that Caesar was married. Thanks for setting me straight.
" Your sole purpose, here, has been to spout absolutely absurd things that have no connection to reality."
ReplyDeleteApparently, you have no reading comprehension abilities. It was obvious from Eddies beginning statement, that I am helping him financially. So, obviously, my "sole purpose, here" isn't as you say. You are wrong again. Thanks for the non-hateful comments.
""Caesar's wife should be beyond reproach," meant that Caesar was married."
Um, wasn't she a consort? And, ancient Roman marriage ceremonies did include 'asking their gods for blessings'. You didn't defend your position very well. So, you're welcome.
"I don't know if that's been confirmed by subsequent research or not."
No, it hasn't. As evidenced by your tale about your son. It sounds like he now has your permission to experiment with his gay friends so that he can find out if he is gay or not. Let us know if you son decides to become gay or not.
@all: I have no idea WTF is going on with the PARAGRAPH SPACING, but it's been driving me nuts. I've tried fixing it like five times and finally gave up. So... sorry about this post looking like its paragraphs were laid out by a punch-drunk boxer with Parkinson's after a few shots of Whiskey.
ReplyDelete@William - No, thank YOU for your comments. I may vehemently disagree with 99% of what you say, but I can't deny that it's been good for generating debate, (and revenue. LOL)
And no, you can't have a cut! What are you, some kind of socialist? ;)
Also, on THIS issue, for the most part I've said my piece, and will stand by the original post as a sufficient counter-argument to what you had to say. (IMHO, the points here are self-evidet.) I will however opine that your comment of "It sounds like he now has your permission to experiment with his gay friends" to Conchobhar was not only completely absurd, based on what he said, but WAY out of line. I'm not telling you that you can't say things like that, I seriously don't care WHAT people post here, (and I'm sure the tough old Irishman can handle himself just fine) but I generally will still give my opinion about it. (That's why this blog exsists, after all!) And Dude: REALLY?! Also: you have an interesting view on the "history" of "marriage." And beyond shaking my head in disbelief, that's all I'm going to say.
@Conchobhar - Please thank your son for that line, and THANK YOU for posting it. And WELL DONE, BTW, on addressing your son's questions about his sexuality. William may feel that you should have berated him for even ASKING, but when the battle lines are drawn I think YOU KNOW which side we'll all be standing on.
@Classic - Um... Yeah... What you said! LOL.
Um William, I wasn't defending a position. I was snarkily attacking your intensely ignorant statement that marriage originated with that 'history'." And if you're going to answer my sarcasm with sarcasm of your own, you'd be well advised to grab a dictionary.
ReplyDeletecon·sort [n. kon-sawrt, v. kuhn-sawrt] Show IPA
noun
1.
a husband or wife; spouse, especially of a reigning monarch. Compare prince consort, queen consort.
In addition to revealing your ignorance of the fact that a consort is, indeed, a spouse (and what was that non sequitor about the gods?) you're calling myth, history and history, myth in your response to Eddie. Remedial English, remember? (Also remember that humor, even vicious humor, has to have some grounding in observable reality; hence the egg that your "remedial Chinese" laid.)
How do you know that subsequent research hasn't confirmed what my acquaintance told me? Have you done any reading on the subject? Sources please, peer reviewed scientific ones. As for your misreading of my conversation with my son, which in the real world has no evidentiary connection to that research, it's about what I'd expect from you: intellectual laziness combined with bigotry.
Answer me this: given the bigotry, contempt and violence to which homosexuals have been subjected for centuries, how do you explain people "choosing" to be that way? And don't go into one of your ridiculous rants about homosexuality being considered a "virtue" by liberals. That's only in your own, fevered, brain.
Eddie: You're welcome to the bon mot. I thought it was really good, which was why I passed it on. You're welcome to do the same, (for my usual 10%, of course :>)
On my son, thanks for your support (now channeling Jon Stewart): William hurt my feelings SO MUCH.
Actually, I feel very lucky, to say the least, that CK feels safe discussing such things with me, at such a time of doubt and angst in his life. Of course, I'm a little worried that he's a slow learner, being 16 and not yet aware that his old man's the biggest idiot on the planet. I hope it means that stage will be shorter than I'm used to, not that he'll carry it past 20. His three brothers had reached the other side by that age.
BTW, after that conversation, I discussed it with a psychologist friend, who told me that I'd handled it just right, both on the theoretical and personal levels.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteJust noticed you also mentioned on another thread that I "stole your thunder" on this one. I swear by the gods my people swear by that I will not play Loki to your Thor again.
That said, thanks again for the back-up, but if you're going to refer to me as "old" again, please say "Mick," instead of "Irishman." I like the sound better, I like the fact that it keeps me in touch with what my people faced when they got here, and it's close enough to "Old Nick" to give my buddy William some vindication. I get the feeling he already thinks I'm devil's spawn.
Consort at dictionary.com has your description first and mine 4th. At Merriam-Webster.com they have my description first and yours 3rd. Are you being honest by insinuating only yours is correct?
ReplyDelete"Answer me this: given the bigotry, contempt and violence to which homosexuals have been subjected for centuries, how do you explain people "choosing" to be that way?"
Answer this one: given the bigotry, contempt and violence to which pedophiles have been subjected for centuries, how do you explain people "choosing" to be that way?
Now, does either situation get them the beloved "civil rights" you seek for one, but ignore for the other? And don't go whining that I'm equalizing homosexuality to pedophilia, I'm not. I am pointing out a similar legal situation. Both are sexual choices and both choices have consequences. But, to actually answer your question: because they choose to. Murderers choose to murder knowing full well what the consequences could be. Why? Because they choose to. Or are you saying murderers are "born that way"?
"On my son, thanks for your support (now channeling Jon Stewart): William hurt my feelings SO MUCH."
What did you think was going to be taken out of your story about your son? That he will continue being friends with gay people without being pressured to experiment? You basically told him to either leave his gay friends because he has no gay thoughts, or you told him to stay with the gay friends because ... because what? Because now your son can be with them yet not approve of their lifestyle while he has no gay thoughts? Or he can stay with them even though he isn't gay and they will happily embrace him as 'one of their own', but he never has to worry about being pressured into participating in their activities?
And WTF do you need "support" for? Do you think it is wrong to hang out with gay people? Why is there any support needed for YOU?!? Are you worried you son will become gay? Or are you worried he won't?
I'm sorry. If I'd had known you come here thinking no one is allowed to give an opinion ... only group support, then I'd stop considering coming here. Is this site just another mediamatters-lite? I've noticed all the liberals at that site simply spout the same thing over and over and show contempt and hatred towards anyone NOT falling into line as demanded.
Is that what this site is, Eddie ... a mediamatters part II ? If so, I'll be more than happy to stop coming and let all your liberal friends have a giant love-fest of 'wow, you're so sweet' and 'thanks for supporting me in my mental time of need'.
Darn those right-wingers. They keep creating income and the left-wingers always detest how it's done. Ok, fair enough. I'll stop posting on your site, Eddie. Thank you Conshobhar for setting me straight.
Eddie;
ReplyDeleteWhere are the little trash cans? If I could I'd dump the above and rewrite the first sentence. It was on the abortion thread that I stole your thunder.
I was just rereading (gotta keep your revenue stream flowing) above, and this jumped out at me:
"The CHOICE is not between homo- and hetero-. It is between self-acceptance and self-denial. Fulfillment in your relationships or indifference. Satisfaction in life or dismay. Gratification or needless sacrifice. Happiness or emptiness. It is a choice between following your own instincts and leading the life you want to lead, or wasting the only life you’ll have living to satisfy everyone else around you, none of whom can even claim to give a shit about your happiness or well-being."
Now, I wouldn't be a regular here, nor would I have signed on as a (ugh!) FOLLOWER, if I didn't have great respect for your head and heart, and the way you express yourself. But that paragraph, my friend, is your finest hour so far... it just soars. And stylistically speaking, the tag, which I didn't include, is like a Krupa rim shot... a brilliant finish.
It also reminds me of the essence of freedom, and it's personal cost, as modeled by the man I consider to be the freest American (and most famous world-wide, BTW) of the 20th Century, Muhammed Ali. He said, and stood by his statement and paid the price, "I don't have to be what you want me to be."
I referenced that recently, I hope not here. Don't want to go repeating myself.
William,
ReplyDeleteIt would take a better man than I to set you straight.
You and Eddie went back and forth about the differences between pedophilia and homosexuality, and he was right. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, pedophilia is a perverted compulsion to victimize. And in spite of your denial above that you are equating the two because you're referencing some imaginary legal equivalence, you are. The "similar legal situation" doesn't exist. Pedophilia is not even really about sex. It's about power and victimization, carried out in the language of sex. It's rape, and that's why it's criminal. The pedophile has more in common with serial killers than with the average homosexual. Not that I expect you to accept that, or even really think about it.
As humor-challenged as I know you to be, Willie, I did think that "(channeling Jon Stewart)" would have tipped even you off to the fact that I was joking. You didn't actually hurt my feelings. You did drop further down in my estimation, both as an intellect and as a person. Now, I realize that by including that anecdote I opened the door to cracks about my boy. But no decent person would have barged through it the way you did. I'll cut you a break, by assuming that you have no kids of your own. If you are a father, wow. That's foul.
What did I expect? I expected pretty much what I got, to tell you the truth, if you leave out your final crack. You completely misunderstood what I wrote, and attacked me (which is fine, I've been attacked by better than you) out of your ignorance and bigotry. And now, in this post, you've doubled down on the same, when you actually, if you had a conscience, would have apologized.
Con't
Con't
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, William, I do expect my son to continue to be friends with gay people without being "pressured into experimenting." What makes me confident in that? A lifetime as an actor. You may have heard that a lot of actors are gay? Well, I've worked with them, I've been on the road with them, I've had some of them as close friends. And William? I was good-looking enough to be signed to three lengthy contracts as a young leading man on a soap opera. And, guess what? In all my decades in the profession, I've only had ONE gay "pressure" me, and that was in a "casting couch" situation, something women have to endure from straight males in power positions far more than guys have to from gays. The fear you have of the "gay agenda" is pure hysteria.
And where in blue blazes did you get, "You basically told him to either leave his gay friends because he has no gay thoughts, or you told him to stay with the gay friends because ... because what? Because now your son can be with them yet not approve of their lifestyle while he has no gay thoughts? Or he can stay with them even though he isn't gay and they will happily embrace him as 'one of their own'", from what I wrote? Seriously, William. If it was only with me, I'd think that I probably wasn't expressing my thoughts well; but I've seen you go trapezoid with others on the site, too. You've got a problem, either with intransigent ideology, or reading comprehension.
And one more thing. You quite often mischaracterize arguments from me, Eddie and others as "whines." Here, William, is a really fine whine:"I'm sorry. If I'd had known you come here thinking no one is allowed to give an opinion ... only group support, then I'd stop considering coming here. Is this site just another mediamatters-lite? I've noticed all the liberals at that site simply spout the same thing over and over and show contempt and hatred towards anyone NOT falling into line as demanded.
Is that what this site is, Eddie ... a mediamatters part II ? If so, I'll be more than happy to stop coming and let all your liberal friends have a giant love-fest of 'wow, you're so sweet' and 'thanks for supporting me in my mental time of need'.
Darn those right-wingers. They keep creating income and the left-wingers always detest how it's done. Ok, fair enough. I'll stop posting on your site..."
The whole point of this site is argument, William. Stop whining when people you accuse of group think snap back at you.
"Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, pedophilia is a perverted compulsion to victimize."
ReplyDeleteStrictly opinion. My opinion is that homosexuality is a perveted sexual orientation. My opinion is that pedophilia is a perverted sexual orientation. Sure, one involves more violence than the other, but both are perverted. IMHO. At least until you find that elusive "gay gene" that pre-determines you will be gay, both are choices people make.
"And yes, William, I do expect my son to continue to be friends with gay people without being "pressured into experimenting." What makes me confident in that?"
Well, after telling everyone that you were pressured into experimenting (forgot to tell us what you decided), I could assume that your confindence is misplaced. Oh, and that pressure you received on that casting couch, you describe it as: "something women have to endure from straight males in power positions". Hmm, sounds like a perverted compulsion to victimize to me. And you say homosexuals are different in what way?
W.,
ReplyDeleteYou have demonstrated perfectly what I have long believed and touted... That one of the greatest differences between Liberals and Conservtaives is that we are able to have an OPINION about something without feeling the need to pass laws about it, taking away people's freedom merely because we think it's 'icky.'
Homosexuality does no harm, Pedophilia does great harm. And that's not merely OPINION. That's FACT, until you show me otherwise. "Perverse" is not, and SHOULD NOT BE the legal threshold to take away someone's freedom. HARM should be, and TYPICALLY IS, save for when bigoted Rigth-Wingers muck things up with their radical religious, anti-freedom agenda.
Of the three of us (You, me and Conchobhar) only one of us is proposing the curtailing of another's freedom. How can you do this and call yourself "American?" How can you wish to impose you OPINION onto another's life, take away his or her rigths, and say that you 'love freedom?' (And if you do not love freedom, how can you love America?) It's a free country, dude. And SOME OF US would like to keep it that way. (Or rather: RESTORE IT to TRULY being one!) You're entitled to your opinon. And you are not only entitled to state it by law, but you are more than welcome to state it HERE. But you know what? EVERYONE ELSE is also more than welcome to come here and tell you how full of shit it is. That's how freedom works. So, welcome to America. Once you get used to it, I think you'll find it a great country.
Jaysus, William, you never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity to grow. You have, as the man said, a right to your opinion, but not your own facts. Pedophilia involves coercion and child abuse. Homosexual activity involves the consent of adults. You may consider them both perverted, but there are worlds of difference between them.
ReplyDeleteGo back, reread what I wrote about my career, and tell me that you didn't take one part of it out of context and twist it to the point that you took out of it the opposite of what it said. (Your favorite M.O.) And, to satisfy your pornographic curiosity, I've never had an homosexual experience because (1) I'm not built that way, and (2) I'm not a puritan, but I wouldn't trade sex for a job, even a starring role. That would hold true if the casting director was a woman, btw.
As far as that "gay gene" you're talking about, are you aware that recent neurological research has determined that, not only do male and female brains fire differently, but there are significant differences between the cerebral activity of straight and gay males? The orientation is biological, and your opinion doesn't change that. You're free to judge people for acting in accordance with the way they were created, and I'm free to, let me put it gently, disapprove of that.
You could assume that my confidence is misplaced? And, on another thread, you could assume that I'm an atheist if I don't tell you what religion I "follow?" William, if you've made anything clear in the time you've been posting here, it's that assuming is your stock in trade, and your assumptions are impervious to facts or logic.
And, just for fun, answer me this: If your son had the courage to come and ask you the question my son asked me, how would you have answered?
". "Perverse" is not, and SHOULD NOT BE the legal threshold to take away someone's freedom."
ReplyDeleteThat's kind of funny, since you asked me for a "legal" opinion on something and then slammed me for "falling into the trap".
" You may consider them both perverted, but there are worlds of difference between them."
Sure. Murder and shoplifting are both crimes but there are worlds of difference between them. Just leave me to my OPINION and let me vote on what I think 'should be' in this representative democracy and leave your 'my opinion means more than yours' out of it.
Right, William. You live in the narrow little world of your opinions, and I'll stick with the fact-based community.
ReplyDeleteWhich facts are those? The fact (unproven) that gays are born that way? The fact that gays cause no harm (anyone ever looked up the stats on WHO has hiv/aids in America)? Or the simple fact that because gays are more sensitive they should be given more rights?
ReplyDeleteWhich facts are you promoting in your community?
I'll be happy to answer these questions, William, after you directly confront the question I posed to you above (one of well over a dozen, by now, questions you've sidestepped). If your son had the courage to ask you the question my son asked me, how would you have answered him?
ReplyDeleteMy son believes in God and that His Words are true. My son would offer advise and options for those who are misguided. He's smart enough that I wouldn't NEED to give him advise on this subject.
ReplyDelete"I'll be happy to answer these questions"
Fact is: you have no intention of answering my questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou realize that you've dodged my question rather than answering it, don't you?
ReplyDeleteYou're right, that the origin of sexual orientation is not proved. The preponderance of evidence indicates, however, that the only "choice" involved in the matter is sexual activity or celibacy, a truly unnatural choice.
Yes, I have looked into the statistics of infection, both U.S. and worldwide.
Your third question is idiotic, based on a bigoted stereotype but I'll answer anyway. I think gays should have the same rights that you and I have, no more, no less. Not because they're "more sensitive;" because they're human beings.
So, William, you started and ended your post with assumptions. I have no way of judging the accuracy of your assumptions about your son, but your assumptions about me have been uniformly wrong.
"I think gays should have the same rights that you and I have"
ReplyDeleteThey do have the same rights and you and me. They're even allowed to practice their form of sexual deviance as they please, no matter how much it causes harm to others (HIV/AIDS doesn't appear on it's own). And, yes, choosing homosexuality does have a harmful effect on others. Will you support prosecuting a gay person who knowingly gives another human the HIV/AIDS disease (attempted murder)? Will you support prosecuting any gay person who un-knowingly gives another human the HIV/AIDS disease (attempted manslaughter). And if the person dies of that disease, then the charges get bumped up to charges without the "attempted" aspect. If you are going to demand EQUAL rights, then you should be demanding EQUAL responsibility.
And, does that mean you think the US should overstep it's bounds and demand a religious ceremony be given priority over other rights? That is what is happening through the demands for "marriage" rights. Marriage is a religious ceremony and therefore cannot be mandated by the US or state government. I have shown that "marriage" is a religious ceremony founded in religious traditions, you have not shown that "marriage" is not a religious ceremony. You DO support the "separation of Church and State" don't you?
In essence, this means you will use unproven facts and opinion to support your stance on this subject, while denouncing those who use facts and reality to support theirs. Good argument strategy.
"I have shown that "marriage" is a religious ceremony..."
ReplyDeleteWilliam, you haven't shown anything but religious fanaticism, and so much foaming-at the-mouth homophobia that I'm beginning to suspect you're a closet case. Ted Haggard springs to mind.
You don't get to make up laws, you know. Unknowingly causing another person's death can, in some circumstances, be prosecuted as negligent homicide, but it cannot be classified as "attempted murder." It all has to do with intent. Even your first case, as you've stated it, fails the intent test. If, however, a person can be said to have stated the intent, e.g., "If I'm ever diagnosed with HIV or AIDS I'll infect as many people as I can; I'm not going alone," I would definitely support charges of first degree murder.
And, no, gays do not have the same rights that we do. A monogamous gay couple cannot, for instance, file joint tax returns. As a result, they will pay, on average, 33% more in taxes than a heterosexual couple with the same income.
If I'm not mistaken, Eddie has gone into this at greater length. Do some re-reading.
Your ignorance on the history of marriage, as you've previously shown, is profound. Marriage is not only a "religious ceremony." (I'll give you a pass on the atrocious grammar.) Marriage is a legally recognized domestic arrangement, entered into through a civil contract, and approved by a state issued license. Justices of the Peace and ships' captains are authorized to perform valid CIVIL marriage ceremonies. Priests, etc, are also recognized by the state as performing LEGALLY RECOGNIZED marriages. The sacramental aspect is a matter of personal preference, and the state has, and should have, no interest in the matter. You think the marriage of two gays or lesbians is an abomination? You're free to hold that opinion, and express it. Much as I abhor that opinion, I respect, and would fight to preserve your right to hold it. If you put that opinion into action, however, to continue to withhold from homosexual Americans all the rights that heterosexual Americans enjoy, I will oppose you with all my strength.
Interesting article in Salon, today, on this subject. Harsh reading for you, Wlilliam, and pleasant for Eddie and me.
ReplyDeleteHere's a sample, a quote from Dubya's Solicitor General, Ted Olsen, explaining why he joined David Boies (his opponent in Bush v Gore) in suing to establish gay marriage as a constitutional right: “We believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage.”
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/30/the_year_gay_rights_arrived/
Ted Olsen said that?? Well! I guess I've been wrong all this time. Wow, Ted Olsen said that. He's such a hero to so many. I'll bet you'd support Dubya if he came out in support of your gay issues.
ReplyDeleteBut, you didn't fail to miss that there is a 'separation of Church and State' being demanded by so many left-wingers. When you're able to address that concern, perhaps you'll get off your soap-box and stop telling others what you demand to have instituted in America. At what point did a religious ceremony become a "right" for anyone?
As for your gay couple paying more taxes, well that is strictly because all of YOU who fight for "rights" for gays are seeking to have ONLY the word "marriage" put into all the laws you seek. I've already given you the easy answer and the voter proven method: seek "civil union laws". When all you seek is a religious matter to be demanded of by the government, I'm afraid you will continue to get stone-walled.
"William, you haven't shown anything but religious fanaticism, and so much foaming-at the-mouth homophobia that I'm beginning to suspect you're a closet case. "
Completely expected statement after you find yourself with no further argument in favor of forcing the US government to use a religious ceremony to give "rights" to people who choose to put themselves in more direct danger of contracting a disease that there is no cure for. Yet you say nothing about the harm that homosexuality can cause. It's as if you ignore that HIV/AIDS is real, and you live your life thinking gay people are just happy folk who do no harm to anyone. I wonder if that Salon site you visit has stats on how many gay people die each year from HIV/AIDS. And how many of those gay people contracted the disease from somewhere other than another gay person.
Reread what I wrote, and try to come up with a coherent response.
ReplyDeleteRe-read what part? You mean the part where you call me gay for having an opinion on gays? Wow, who'd a thought you would use 'gay' as a form of derogatory description. So, you support gay rights, but think being gay is bad? Is that why you use calling someone gay as a way to demonize someone else who has a differing opinion than yourself?
ReplyDeleteIs that what I should have responded to?
Touchy, touchy.
ReplyDeleteI support human rights. And this may come as a shock to you, William, but believing in freedom as a concept means recognizing that people whose lifestyles and mores one may disapprove of or find distasteful have the same rights as he, or those he approves of, have.
But to answer your question on aids related deaths: I don't know what Salon has on the subject, but aids causes 10% fewer deaths annually than homicide, slightly more than half as many as suicide, about 10% more than drug abuse, 2 1/2 times fewer than auto accidents, close to the same ratio for alcohol related deaths, and 35 TIMES FEWER DEATHS THAN SMOKING. Now, to use one of your rhetorical questions on you, since the cigarette is the one legally obtainable product that, used as intended, will kill the user, will you support charges of mass murder against tobacco executives?
You should have rewritten the gobbledygook about separation of church and state. I don't expect you to, because your thinking on that isn't thinking at all. It's Bartonesque drivel.
"At what point did a religious ceremony become a "right" for anyone? "
ReplyDeleteThis would be a good place to begin your rewrite. As a guide, you might check out an obscure piece of 18th Century political hackery called "The Constitution of the United States of America." There's collection of amendments at the end. Check out the first one.
Tobacco is a bad analogy. Every package of cigarettes comes with a warning of the dangers of using that product. However, since you mention that industry, many US cities are starting to ban smoking in public places. That means it IS illegal to smoke simply because of the harm it may cause to those who don't even participate in the activity. And, every example you gave, to justify the dangers of homosexuality, is against the law also. Homicide, suicide, drug abuse and alcohol related deaths .... all against the law.
ReplyDeleteThe 1st amendment? Ok, what part are you trying to use as a tool, here? I see it forbidding the government from forcing the use of any given religion.
"believing in freedom as a concept means recognizing that people whose lifestyles and mores one may disapprove of or find distasteful have the same rights as he, or those he approves of, have."
That is a load of bunk. You don't believe that for a second. Example: pedophilia.
You claim that "lifestyle" should be banned and participants punished because 'it causes harm to another'. But, defend a "lifestyle" that causes harm to others simply because you think they have a right to cause harm to others. You claim one requires knowledgable approval or causes untold mental health damage to all concerned, yet defend the other as a right because of the mental health struggles they may face for choosing that way.
So, we have one "lifestyle" that you disapprove of and find distasteful.
And another "lifestyle" that you approve of and find acceptably tasteful.
One "lifestyle" you think should be illegal and the other you think should be defended, but from your description of what you believe about "freedoms" you are being hypocritical concerning peoples "lifestyle" choices.
Some decent arguments in your first paragraph; kudos. Too bad you couldn't keep it up. The weakness?
ReplyDeleteWell, you seem to be living in the glory days of Prohibition, if you think drinking is against the law, and as for driving, well...
However, your point is well taken. Let's look at diabetes deaths, then. While there is definitely a genetic component to some cases of the disease, genetics cannot explain the explosive epidemic that we're experiencing. The American diet, sugar-laden and nutrition-poor, inexorably promoted by corporate propaganda (advertising) is the culprit. Yearly deaths from AIDS are now 16,000-18,000. Diabetes? Around 230,000 in 2009.
But you ignored, as is your wont, a direct question. Those warning labels on cigarettes were put there (horrors, government regulation!) after years of battle, years in which the tobacco companies suppressed what their own research had shown, and hired unscrupulous, pseudo-scientist hacks to "cast doubt" on overwhelming scientific consensus. (Many of those same hacks have done an effective, and equally dishonest, job for Big Oil, "casting doubt" on global warming.) The tobacco executives even perjured themselves before Congress on the matter of smoking's dangers. They knew, and denied that they knew, that smoking, by its nature, is something that will kill you. They're walking around today, free and rich. Do you approve?
Homosexuality has been part of the human equation as long as there have been human beings, and it is only recently that it has been targeted, in this country at least, by a lethal virus. Why it should be sexually transmitted more broadly in Africa than here, I don't know, but that is a medical problem to be solved. And if the transmission of disease were actually a concern to you, rather than a talking point, logic, not to mention decency, would have you supporting anything that contributed to loving, stable relationships. Monogamous, uninfected couples, homo or hetero, neither contract nor spread STD's. Nor, for that matter, do monogamous, infected couples.
Nice selective reading of the 1st Amendment. What is there about "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," that you don't understand? As both Eddie and I have tried to make clear to you, and as you have unwittingly stipulated when you mentioned having had both civil and sacral services, marriage is a legally licensed civil state, which people of all religions that I know of call upon their god(s) to bless. I am not, nor is anyone that I know of, calling on the state to force any religion to perform marriage ceremonies for gays. I am, however, calling on the state not to discriminate against those religious congregations which do perform such ceremonies, nor to discriminate against those couples.
Con't:
ReplyDelete"You don't believe that for a second. Example: pedophilia."
Grow up, William. You don't get to tell me what I believe, any more than you get to decide what facts are; as in: "Fact is: you have no intention of answering my questions." (Risible, coming from you.) You can't accept the fact that there are worlds of difference between homosexuality and pedophilia? That's your problem. (Logically, then, you should disapprove of statutory rape prohibitions.) But don't use pedophilia in an argument with adults.
Not that I want you to continue with your pedophilia obsession but, really, William; don't you ever proof read?
"You claim one requires knowledgable approval or causes untold mental health damage to all concerned, yet defend the other as a right because of the mental health struggles they may face for choosing that way."
Let's ignore the fact that the final, prepositional phrase is a complete fabrication on your part, assuming a motivation for me that I've never stated. Even giving you a pass on that, the sentence makes no sense at all. You have, not for the first time, gotten lost in an illogical labyrinth. And your concluding sentence is a total joke.
"Homosexuality has been part of the human equation as long as there have been human beings, and it is only recently that it has been targeted, in this country at least, by a lethal virus."
ReplyDeleteA wiki site says that estimates are that half-a-million people have died from H/A in the US. An article at avert.org estimates there are 680K (in the US) living with the disease now. The wiki article estimates 1.2 million.
What is the mortality rate of HIV/AIDS?
It sounds like you're defending the gay lifestyle as a safe/community based lifestyle which has no dangers? That it's participants are unduly harassed because of that lifestyle? That it harms no one and therefore has earned civil rights protected by the US Constitution? While another lifestyle is strictly forbidden because it causes harm to another participant? Sorry, I just don't understand your logic.
You don't understand logic, period. No one who had the slightest regard for logic would come up with the "sounds likes" that you do. Show me where I've said anything remotely like "a safe/community lifestyle which has no dangers."
ReplyDeleteAnd WTF are you prattling about with "a life style that...has earned civil rights...?" People have rights, William, not "lifestyles." Gay people have rights.
If you don't understand the difference between activity involving consenting adults which has some serious risks involved, and the rape of a child, there is no hope for you.
There is NO "right" to marriage in the constitution. There is a right to equal protection, but NO "rights" given for a choice lifestyle to tell the government they must sponsor/recognize a religious ceremony. In fact the constitution says just the opposite. It says it can NOT force a religious ceremony upon us or recognize one religion over another.
ReplyDeleteDid I ask questions about how you feel? Did you NOT answer those questions? Are you now accusing me of putting more words in your mouth because you can't/won't answer those questions?
"If you don't understand the difference between activity involving consenting adults which has some serious risks involved, and the rape of a child, there is no hope for you."
NAMBLA disagrees with you. They even have the cute rainbow colors on their web-site. You must be right again, there is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality.
But, I think you are wrong. I think there is little difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. Do you know what the difference is? It is the difference between the ages of 16 and 18. In some states, when you're 16 you can make legal/binding decisions (including sexual partners) but in some states having sex with a 16 year old is considered rape. Wait, you're going to tell me if pedophiles have same-sex with children aged 13 (or less) that's illegal and immoral, when they have same-sex with kids aged 16 or more it called homosexuality at which point it becomes legal and moral AND completely different than pedophilia.
Which side of that fence do YOU choose to sit on? You already know I sit on the side where sexual perversions are considered perverted no matter how old you are. But, you can pick and choose which perversions you will support all you want. I expect hypocrisy from the liberal side of things.
Wow, William, you're a follower of NAMBLA? I'd never have guessed. Your last paragraph proves the accuracy of my last sentence in the previous post, so I'm not going to dignify it with a response, other than to point out that you've got a tautology in there.
ReplyDelete"Did I ask questions about how you feel? Did you NOT answer those questions? Are you now accusing me of putting more words in your mouth because you can't/won't answer those questions?" Jesus, don't you ever proofread? WTF are you talking about? I won't answer questions that I've answered?
And if you're objecting to the fact that I called you out on misquoting me, go back to one of the other threads where you went into hysterics, accusing me of constantly misquoting you. When challenged to show that pattern, you came up with ONE WORD I'd used in characterizing (NOT QUOTING) what you'd said, and kept harping on it, even after I withdrew it due to your objections. So now, you go back, find where you've told my I've said something (which you DO put in quotes) and find the EXACT QUOTES you're referencing! If you won't hold yourself to the same standard of argument that you insist on from others, hypocrite, thy name is William.
"It says it can NOT force a religious ceremony upon us or recognize one religion over another."
Correct. So your congregation cannot, and should not, be forced to conduct marriages for gays. Full Stop. If another congregation believes that God created gays in His image, and that they are called by faith and love to sanctify a couples commitment to each other, the government should not recognize your religion over theirs, and should stay out the way, except for recognizing their marriage in the same way it recognizes yours. That is not forcing anything on you. It's not even forcing you to drink from the same water fountains as gays (something you do already, without being aware of it.)
"If another congregation believes that God created gays in His image, and that they are called by faith and love to sanctify a couples commitment to each other, the government should not recognize your religion over theirs, and should stay out the way, except for recognizing their marriage in the same way it recognizes yours."
ReplyDeleteThat's right. And I've said that from the beginning, the government has NO place in recognizing EITHER religious ceremony (mine or theirs). The other congregation can do whatever they want. However, the government cannot use that religious ceremony as a basis for receiving benefits/tax breaks.
And, with you probably being one of those people who want to have the word "God" removed from the scholastic vocabulary, then we have another example of the hypocrisy of the left-wingers. You want God taken out of government schools but left in the government benefits department.
Nothing unexpected there.
"Wow, William, you're a follower of NAMBLA?"
ReplyDeleteNo, but I am a follower of equality. Not just equality for those who whine the loudest or are the most hypocritical. But equality for all. And, just like their lifestyle, gays can choose to have that equality as soon as they stop telling the government they must circumvent the 'separation of Church and State' theory (that liberals/atheists have been demanding for all these years) in order to receive benefits.
"And, with you probably being one of those people who want to have the word "God" removed from the scholastic vocabulary, then we have another example of the hypocrisy of the left-wingers. You want God taken out of government schools but left in the government benefits department."
ReplyDeleteIf this were not a picture perfect example of your style of "argument" (quotes indicating sarcasm) I would advise you to look into the fact that some idiot is posting in your name.
You have made an assumption about me, treated it as fact, and then come to the "conclusion", which is made up of nothing but the miasma of your fevered brain. The whole thing is, along with close to everything you've posted, foecum bovi, and it gives the lie to your denials that you follow Limbaugh or Fox. You rely on the same logical fallacies that they do. Or maybe, to take an arrow out of your rhetorical quiver, it's just a function of the conservative mind, incapable of arguing from (or even recognizing, as Eric Cantor proved on 60 Minutes)facts in evidence, and so relying on prejudice and imagination.
That said:
Do you and your wife have a state-issued marriage license, and did you have to take blood tests before getting married? Did you not say that you had both civil and religious MARRIAGE ceremonies? The state requires the license, and legal divorce if it doesn't work out, because marriage has many civil (mostly financial) ramifications, in which the state has an interest. It is a domestic arrangement, one that is contracted by both religious and non-religious people alike. You have not, nor could you possibly, (in spite of your claims to have done so) show that it is an exclusively religious state. You might as well say that, because priests/bishops/ministers, etc. have blessed battleships and cannons in the past, industrialized mass murder is a religious endeavor.
You say you believe in equality, but you would exclude homosexuals, either god-fearing or godless, from the same legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy. (By the way, stop substituting the word, "benefits," for "rights". You sound like Frank Luntz.) To quote the inimitable Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means." That would also apply to "hypocrisy."
So, on the one hand you say that the state has "no place in recognizing EITHER religious ceremony (mine or theirs)." On the other hand you call the separation of church and state a "theory (that liberals/atheists have been demanding for all these years)." Well, it looks like it's more than liberals and atheists (not the same thing, you know) who recognize the wisdom of the Founders in creating that "wall" (Jefferson's word) of separation. You rely on it yourself when it suits your purposes.
Before you get your boxers in a bunch, I went back and reread, for the first time in weeks, your first post, and no, you did not say that you'd had a civil MARRIAGE ceremony, you said "unioned." Your distinction makes no difference,however, except in your own mind. You were legally married after that ceremony.
ReplyDelete"You have made an assumption about me, treated it as fact, and then come to the "conclusion", which is made up of nothing but the miasma of your fevered brain."
ReplyDeleteWhen you are asked questions and you don't answer them, I have to make some kind of decision as to what kind of person you are. If you are going to assume I listen to so-and-so or watch such-and-such, then I really see NO difference between YOUR style of discussion and the style you whine about ME using.
I guess that makes this sentence apply to YOU too: "I would advise you to look into the fact that some idiot is posting in your name."
" I went back and reread, for the first time in weeks, your first post, and no, you did not say that you'd had a civil MARRIAGE ceremony, you said "unioned." Your distinction makes no difference,however, except in your own mind. You were legally married after that ceremony."
Yes, I will CALL it "married" to anyone who asks. But, that doesn't change the fact that I have a "civil union" through the State (big distinction). BTW, no blood tests are required in my state. We walked in that afternoon, paid the fee, and were 'hitched' in just a couple hours by a judge (not a priest). Of course your best argument for "marriage" not being a religious based ceremony is someone ... at some time said: "Caesar's wife should be beyond reproach,". You couldn't even provide any factual proof to support that statement, merely used that statement as a provable fact that someone called Ceasar's consort a "wife" at some point in time. Is that still the best argument you have that "marriage" is not a religious ceremony?
And, of course, you have nothing to say on the close-knit family of gay boy lovers and how they are in fact a gay group who would benefit from the SAME "rights" you seek for other gay people. Any reason for this quiet hypocrisy regarding personal CHOICES? Why can't they have the same rights you seek for your son's friends? Besides, one of your son's friends may already be a member of that group. It IS a group for gay people, after all. But those gay people aren't 'good enough' to garner special "constitutional rights" that you seek for other gay people. I guess (in your mind) you have to be only a 'certain' kind of gay person to qualify for constitutional rights. Being born that way has nothing to do with it, huh? The main thing is that you keep the "bad gay people" out of your specially created laws that will only apply to gay people you approve of. You're right .... no hypocrisy there. Or bigotry.
"You say you believe in equality, but you would exclude homosexuals, either god-fearing or godless, from the same legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy."
How would civil unions exclude gays from anything legally? I have supported civil unions from my very first post (the one you finally read). If you can take "you would exclude" from "I fully support the government recognizing all civil unions and allowing full family/financial rights through those unions.", then you have a problem I am not capable of correcting. You should seek professional help.
And you STILL haven't been able to bring a viable argument in favor of demanding that the Government force religious ceremonial actions onto everyone before they qualify for benefits of that action. How can that be? If there is a separation of church and state, how can you demand that the state use a church function in order to verify eligibility for those benefits???
Don't worry, I expect you to continue to ignore the issue and for you to continue to whine about my writing skills or reading habits. That seems to be your MO to this point.
No, you don't have to make any assumptions as to what kind of person I am. You have to answer my arguments. You will note that when I did, for the first and only time, turn back on you your own MO, pointing out the obvious similarity of your non-sequiturs and ad hominems to those current in right wing media, I referenced that I was doing so.
ReplyDeleteCivil unions do not have the legal rights and protections that acrue to marriage, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, and you refuse to accept.
"Yes, I will CALL it "married" to anyone who asks. But, that doesn't change the fact that I have a "civil union" through the State (big distinction)."
It doesn't matter what YOU choose to call it, William. You're entitled to your own opinion, but your opinion is not a fact. You were legally married in the eyes of the state.
The quote about Caesar's wife was an answer to your erroneous statement that marriage originated biblically. It isn't the "best argument that 'marriage' is not a religious ceremony." Uh, marriage is not a ceremony, it's a domestic arrangement. There are ceremonies, both religious and non-religious, 'sanctifying' or formalizing that arrangement.
"And you STILL haven't been able to bring a viable argument in favor of demanding that the Government force religious ceremonial actions onto everyone before they qualify for benefits of that action."
Show me where I've demanded that the state do any such thing. Quotes necessary.
Your "gay boy" paragraph is contemptible in the extreme; the only excuse for it is mental illness. For your son's sake, I sincerely hope that he's not home schooled.
"I guess (in your mind) you have to be only a 'certain' kind of gay person to qualify for constitutional rights." I guess you're referring to the fact that I wrote that pedophiles should be incarcerated without trial and castrated. Oh, wait! I never said any such thing, did I? Then what are you referring to? Quotes necessary.
And by your 'logic', a pedophile who targets girls shouldn't be charged with a crime, because heterosexual relations between adults are not crimes.
You keep calling an ability to recognize the difference between legal and criminal activity 'hypocrisy'. The most egregious example of hypocrisy that has arisen on this blog is your response to my reference to the biblical proscription of passing judgement. You attempted to justify your judgementalism behind a putative 'agreement' with God's judgements.
"And by your 'logic', a pedophile who targets girls shouldn't be charged with a crime, because heterosexual relations between adults are not crimes."
ReplyDeleteActually, I've been fairly consistent on that matter. I have stated I consider BOTH to be perversions. I don't support (and haven't) giving constitutional rights to any perversion of morality simply because someone chooses to belong to that perverse group.
"Show me where I've demanded that the state do any such thing. Quotes necessary." :
"If another congregation believes that God created gays in His image, and that they are called by faith and love to sanctify a couples commitment to each other, the government should not recognize your religion over theirs, and should stay out the way, EXCEPT FOR RECOGNIZING THEIR MARRIAGE IN THE SAME WAY IT RECOGNIZES YOURS." (hi-lites mine)
"Civil unions do not have the legal rights and protections that acrue to marriage"
That has not been pointed out to me. And, if that is true, then that is what needs to be corrected. As I stated in my first post.
"I guess you're referring to the fact that I wrote that pedophiles should be incarcerated without trial and castrated. "
"If you don't understand the difference between activity involving consenting adults which has some serious risks involved, and the rape of a child, there is no hope for you." AND "The pedophile has more in common with serial killers than with the average homosexual."
I guess I need to ask what penalty child rapists and serial killers should expect if you are in charge?
"I guess I need to ask what penalty child rapists and serial killers should expect if you are in charge?"
ReplyDeleteA fair trial, to which they are constitutionally entitled.
"I don't support (and haven't) giving constitutional rights to any perversion of morality simply because someone chooses to belong to that perverse group."
You do realize that immoral behavior is not necessarily illegal, correct? Please explain the above quote. From here it looks like you are in favor of subordinating the Constitution to your ideas on morality, ideas which, from what evidence I've seen, focus obsessively on sex.
"Civil unions do not have the legal rights and protections that acrue to marriage"
That has not been pointed out to me.
"...while any state may have anywhere form a few dozen to a few hundred laws regarding marriage – including the protection of property rights, work benefits, co-insurance, etc…? The federal laws involving marriage and the rights and privileges of married people number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS." That's from Eddie's original article.
And no, you have not been consistent, and you know it, since you ignored the "heterosexual activity between adults part of my post." You have attacked me as an hypocrite for recognizing a difference between homosexual activity between consenting adults and pedophilia with a boy as victim. Consistency would mean that you equate straight sex and male on female pedophilia, also.
I am not, as what you've quoted clearly shows, demanding that the government force a religious ceremony on anyone. I AM demanding that it observe the Constitution, and treat all religious sects equally (even the Phelps's, as evil as I find them).
You may think that the government should not recognize any religious marriage ceremonies, but that ship has sailed, and has over two centuries of precedent. It's not going to change.
"You do realize that immoral behavior is not necessarily illegal, correct?"
ReplyDeleteWhat is illegal which also isn't immoral? And whose opinion are you going to use as the 'morality barometer'? Can I use mine and you use yours? Or do I have to submit to your idea of what is moral and what isn't?
"That's from Eddie's original article."
Which part is "been pointed out to you ad nauseam"? I don't even see the words "civil union" in the statement you claim is proof of something. Looks to me like he's stating "marriage" conditions.
"I AM demanding that it observe the Constitution, and treat all religious sects equally."
Then you should be demanding all religious based "marriages" be disregarded by the US government ... AS I SAID IN MY FIRST POST.
"You may think that the government should not recognize any religious marriage ceremonies, but that ship has sailed, and has over two centuries of precedent. It's not going to change."
Ah, that's what I thought. YOU can demand that ship come back to harbor and change precedent but I cannot? So "over two centuries of precedent" should be changed to allow gay marriages, but they cannot be changed to prohibit US government acceptance?
"over two centuries of precedent" should be changed to allow gay marriages, but they cannot be changed to prohibit US government acceptance?"
ReplyDeleteYep; just as the laws against miscegenation were ditched.
"What is illegal which also isn't immoral?" Don't answer a question with another question, especially one that reverses the logic. To answer this, really dense question, though, plenty. Start with jaywalking, and go all the way up to crossing a border without documentation, in order to find work to feed one's family.
"Then you should be demanding all religious based "marriages" be disregarded by the US government ... AS I SAID IN MY FIRST POST."
Somehow I don't think you'd like the consequences of a law like that, nor would you be willing to pay the taxes required to fund the new government departments and employees needed to facilitate such a far reaching change.
Of course Eddie is stating marriage conditions, that's the point. The amount of laws that would have to be passed to make civil unions equal to marriage in rights is huge. Recognizing gays' right to marriage is much simpler and less costly. And it has the added attraction of bugging the crap out of people like you.
In the post above, I asked you to explain a quote. You haven't done so. Do it.
"When you are asked questions and you don't answer them, I have to make some kind of decision as to what kind of person you are. "
Number one, it is not "whining" to point out that basing an argument on an assumption, and concluding with another assumption, is fallacious. It IS whining to argue that, because I won't give you irrelevant information about myself, I am forcing you to resort to assumptions. It is also laughably weak, since it is an admission that the ad hominem is a necessary part of your rhetorical arsenal.
"In the post above, I asked you to explain a quote. You haven't done so. Do it."
ReplyDeleteDone. You're welcome.
"Start with jaywalking, and go all the way up to crossing a border without documentation"
So, you consider knowingly breaking laws (that are designed to keep all people safe) to be moral? Well, there's some "irrelevant information" about you I already knew. Good job of showing anyone else that you consider purposefully/intentionally breaking laws to be of good moral character.
"Somehow I don't think you'd like the consequences of a law like that,"
Somehow, I don't think you know what you're talking about. But, that's a classic way of avoiding the issue. What I like as a law or who pays for it is inconsequential in this discussion. Is that your way of refusing to accept you are wrong again? Or do you have some super-brilliant comeback for this one? Like you do for so many other issues you refuse to acknowledge.
"I guess I need to ask what penalty child rapists and serial killers should expect if you are in charge?" ...
ReplyDelete"A fair trial, to which they are constitutionally entitled."
Going with your typical question/answer form? I asked one thing and you answered something totally different than what I asked. I hadn't realized a 'trial' is a 'punishment'.
"Of course Eddie is stating marriage conditions, that's the point. The amount of laws that would have to be passed to make civil unions equal to marriage in rights is huge."
ReplyDeleteNo, it would only take one law. And the only expense is brought by the arrogant nature taken by all 'gay marriage supporters' who continue to sue state after state even when the VOTERS say NO to gay marriage.
"Civil unions do not have the legal rights and protections that acrue to marriage, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, and you refuse to accept. "
I'm still waiting for that proof. You said it was true, now back up your statements with facts.
"Yep; just as the laws against miscegenation were ditched. "
More liberal hypocrisy.
To name just a few:
ReplyDeleteCivil partners cannot succeed to Social Security benefits the way a surviving spouse can.
Civil partners can be excluded from the death bed of a loved one if the immediate family so chooses.
Civil partners are not entitled to health coverage as a spouse is.
Tax ramifications we've already discussed.
"Yep; just as the laws against miscegenation were ditched. "
'More liberal hypocrisy.'
Now, there's a telling argument. Take away the ad hominem, and you've got nothing. Explain how the equating two sets of laws that outlaw the marriage of targeted demographics is hypocrisy.
You really don't seem to know what the word means.
You're right. A fair trial is not a punishment. I choose not to answer the question, which I judge to be a red herring. When you actually answer the question I asked about what you'd do if your son asked the question mine did, you'll have standing to whine about it.
"So, you consider knowingly breaking laws (that are designed to keep all people safe) to be moral? Well, there's some "irrelevant information" about you I already knew. Good job of showing anyone else that you consider purposefully/intentionally breaking laws to be of good moral character."
Good job of showing anyone else that you're an incipient Talibaner. Let's add 'moral' to the list of words you don't really understand.
(And if you're trying to tell me you don't jaywalk, you'd better prove you're either Canadian or wheelchair bound.)
I've been proven wrong many times in my life, William. When you've done so, as in your hissy fit over the word, "much," I've manned up and admitted to it. You don't seem to have the integrity for that.
What it comes down to is that you have a fanatic's moralistic objection to people who are different from you, and you can't accept that marriage is a domestic arrangement common to many times and cultures, which may or may not have a religious component. You seem to think that your strongly held opinion should preempt centuries of tradition and American law. You also, given the constructions you've used, seem to think that rights not named in the Constitution don't exist...wrong; or that you and I have the power to 'grant' them to favored groups. Again wrong. However horrified you may be by them, gays are as human as you, and have the same inalienable rights. (Marriage would come under 'pursuit of happiness.'
And that is my last word on the subject.
If Eddie wants me to continue contributing to his bottom line he's going to have to post a new topic.
"You seem to think that your strongly held opinion should preempt centuries of tradition and American law."
ReplyDeleteAnd let me guess ... YOUR strongly held opinion "should preempt centuries of tradition and American law" also? Why is your opinion given more weight than mine? That "centuries of tradition" IS exactly what I'm trying to continue. Unlike you, who wishes to destroy centuries of tradition and force others to conform to YOUR low moral standards. Show me where the constitution would give someones 'personal choice' special rights not given to anyone else? People CHOOSE to be gay. Then they CHOOSE to game the system. Sorry, pal, if you want to game the system based SOLELY on your personal choices and low moral character, then go to another country and game theirs. I hear Iran really loves homosexuality. Perhaps you could put some of your precious time and and energy fighting 'the good fight' over there.
"However horrified you may be by them, gays are as human as you, and have the same inalienable rights."
Sure they are. But, "marriage" is NOT one of those "rights". Making sure they get all financial equality is, but NOT the word "marriage".
"When you actually answer the question I asked about what you'd do if your son asked the question mine did"
I did answer that. But, boohoo, you didn't like my answer. So you carry on this tirade about whining and whatever else you whine about.
"And that is my last word on the subject. "
Of course if is. You've got nothing to back up your stance (on this subject) so you run away whining about my 'problems'.
I said: "Of course if is. You've ... "
ReplyDeleteWhat I said was rude and inconsiderate. I apologize for this statement. Please forgive me.
No blood, no foul. Not to worry. Nothing to forgive.
ReplyDeleteAnd (expectedly) we get nothing concerning the hypocrisy of Conchobhar demanding "centuries of tradition and American law" be changed based on HIS "strongly held opinion", after complaining that MY "strongly held opinion" should NOT change those traditions and laws.
ReplyDelete