1 The only question I'd ask, then (since we've asked it so often of 'moderate' Muslims since 9-11): is the silence by the vast majorities of gays not something akin to tacit approval? Now I'm not looking to cause trouble, but if we're going to believe that what you write is true, then those that are against such madness *HAVE TO* speak up about it, period--they simply have *no* option (And no, Gabriel writing this isn't going to be nearly enough just in case anyone wants to use this lone cry in the wilderness as overwhelming proof of it.)

2 Gabriel Malor, what do you think about many commenters idea that government should get out of the marriage licensing business altogether and let it be a civil contract with the title to be determined by the participants and/or their religion of choice?

Also, I assume then you would agree the courts would enforce laws related to division of property if the couple split up, or one died or became incapacitated, as well as child custody and child support, and the courts would apply this equally regardless of the name or lack thereof given to the union?

3 Christoph: Wouldn't any contract drawn up for those purposes be most of the enforcement required, i.e. if two people agree to be married and it's in writing what goes to whom when it's over (a la a pre-nup) that should be that, shouldn't it? And I, for one, think gov't. shouldn't be involved but let's not kid ourselves: the gov letting go of marriage is about as likely as them letting go of education and just about every other area where its managed to wreak havoc by involving itself in things it should never have been involved in in the first place.

4 Re: Your post, I think your point is well taken, Gabe.

Just like all Hispanics aren't La Raza open border advocates, nor all African-Americans supporters of Nation of Islam, nor all lesbians opposed to shaving their pits.

Some are even hot. No gay man is hot, though. Ever.

5 "Wouldn't any contract drawn up for those purposes be most of the enforcement required, i.e. if two people agree to be married and it's in writing what goes to whom when it's over (a la a pre-nup) that should be that, shouldn't it?"

The state has an interest in not supporting a spouse should they become incapacitated and the other spouse has financial reserves, so I'm not sure if there would be some exceptions to the contractual arrangement. I'm not an expert in U.S. law (nor Canadian!).

I assume also that the state has a strong interest in making sure the children are cared for regardless of any vagaries in the relationship.

6 Been watching these protests for a few days now and I begining to think I made a mistake trying to get my friends to vote against this measure . I hate judges making laws, but I could not bring myself to vote for prop 8. But these retarded protests makes me want to change my vote. I don't dig people acting like animals and lasing out at everything in site. If the pro gay marriage community wants my support they need to condemn these assholes. You don't reward children for bad behavior and you don't sit by and justify their actions by saying nothing.

7 Well, I can say the mood here in Utah on the matter is none too pleasant. Targeting temples - the most sacred edifices for Mormons - for protest and going so far as to jump on their gates and walls and spray graffiti on the gates and walls certainly didn't put the anti-8 activists at the top of most folks' "nice" list here. The fact that the protests were organized by an excommunicated BYU grad didn't earn them any bonus points either. I've heard reports that, supposedly, up to $22 million was donated by Mormons (virtually all by individual members) in support of Prop 8. If that's true, thanks to these tantrums, expect that number to pale in comparison when this issue hits the ballots again. I know that it will certainly make me dig much deeper into my bank account than before.

8

"So letÂ’s clear a few things up. First, these folks donÂ’t represent all gays, nor do they represent all people who want to legalize gay marriage."

They represent ENOUGH gays for their actions to be a significant sampling of "gays" in California.

As far as I'm concerned they get nothing, forever.

I'm sorry you are gay, but that does not oblige me to destroy or weaken societally beneficial institutions just to accommodate your whims and fashions.

9 I have zero sympathy for the California protestors.  You guys (the Obama voting gays) wanted Change?  Well, the black voters in California wanted change, too, they boosted their percentage up four points, and according to various news articles, it was their votes that made the difference in Proposition 8 passing.

So there you go, gay California Obama-voting change enthusiasts.  There's your change!  Enjoy!

10 re: 7...i don't live in cali and don't really know much about this whole issue, but it seems pretty hypocritical to me--IF someone fits the description--for people to be all upset about any Mormon funding let alone that it was so high, given the nonchalant attitude of so many towards Obama's war chest.

And give me a break, protesting if they really believe there is a problem with voting on it (because I guess it had been embedded into the constitution), fine, but punishing people for voting a way you disagreed with--well we all know what mentality of people they come from. I guess I'm saying I agree with you.

Drew's one "lone" post may not cover everybody but I'm glad he wrote it because it's like a reminder to me that not everybody would attack me for not agreeing with them.

But I don't get: why are they calling blacks the n word? What do they have to do with all of this as a group?

11 Well, the black voters in California wanted change, too, they boosted their percentage up four points, and according to various news articles, it was their votes that made the difference in Proposition 8 passing.

Kensington (or someone), can you explain this to me? I didn't hear anything about this part of the whole thing.

12 "I'm sorry you are gay..."

Gosh, darn that's funny.

Hey, I'm not. I regret every gay woman. That reduces supply. But gay men? Heck, I'm all for it. That reduces demand.

Conservatism, baby! The free market at work.

13 Someone should also let them know that f*cking up Westside traffic to have their temper tantrum won't win them any support either. I don't understand what it is with these idiot lefties that feel they have to protest in the middle of rush hour in the worst city for traffic. The anti-war protesters did it too back in 2003. These tactics don't endear them to anybody and the Westside for sure was against Prop 8 overwhelmingly. It's unfortunate the Mormon temple is located there. I'd like to see them protest in the heavily Hispanic and black neighborhoods. Let's see how smart it is to use the n-word there.

One of my former coworkers, who generally supports gay marriage, was super pissed because it took her FOUR HOURS to get home during one of the protest days. She was ready to add some uneven speed bumps to the Westside.

14 It's not about garnering support, it's a show of force.  It's just like those protests by the illegal immigrants.  With lefties controlling education, media and now the government, those activists don't really care about endearing themselves to anybody.  Change is going to come whether you knuckle-dragging, gun/bible clinging racists want it or not.

15 Yes.  But all of that doesn't negate the fact that a court found a "right: to gay marriage in the CA constitution.

This is the justification that has been used to stop Christian preachers from talking about Leviticus.

The current stupidity takes nothing away from previous cases.  It adds to previous cases and demonstrates that gey marriage should only be arrived at legislatively, not judicialy.

Brian

16 Yep, they don't represent me either. I, like 27% of my fellow fags and dykes, voted for McCain unlike these drama queens who got suckered by the hopey-changey BS.

I don't care one way or the other about gay marriage. Just as straights have the right in a free country to want the state to define marriage as between one man an done woman, so do gays have the right to ask for more. The debate will go on and we'll find a solution eventually. Actually I'd like the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the churches. The state should only recognize civil contracts.

Meanwhile pat these drama queens on the head and say: "You'll understand when you grow up."

17 Kensington (or someone), can you explain this to me? I didn't hear anything about this part of the whole thing.

Fireweed, I'm having trouble posting links because of an overly enthusiastic pop-up blocker, but if you google "black voters in california," you'll get links to articles analyzing the black voter turnout in California.  According to the Detroit Free Press, they went from a usual 6% of the vote to 10% this time, and that additional 4% contained enough voters to put Proposition 8 over the top.

My point is that this should maybe teach the protesters the big kid lesson that "change" isn't always for the better.  Sometimes, you end up with more than you bargained for.

Most of us aren't going to enjoy all of the "change" either, but you'll forgive me if I indulge a wee bit of Schadenfreude at their expense.  It's been a long, lousy week.

18 I called in my predictions

and I was right

Obama to release terrorists...
 
 

19 My dear, beloved California is a cesspool of instantaneous backlash against the will of the people. I don't even look at the players any more (so I don't see them as representative of the whole, G.M.). I only know that "Blah, blah, blah" passed and "So and so" filed suit and/or protested the next day. It's a game that can be played mostly because the 9th Moonbat Court of Appeals dwells among us. Lawyers sleep in a constant state of nocturnal emission here.

20

Well Gabriel this is no different than other groups that the media latches onto with their propaganda. People should know better than to trust the media when they are spewing their bullshit but even “conservatives” here at AOSHQ drink the Kool-Aid on occasion.

 

We have some posters who still believe Palin was stupid after the two interviews that the reporters edited the responses to. We have a huge following of otherwise smart people who believe all the bullshit the press has spewed about the South over the years.  We have a few who believe that Jesse and Al actually speak with the intent of “helping” blacks. We have a lot who believe all the hype about the baby boomers and the “flower generation”.

 

We even have a few who believe the AGW scam.

 

So, donÂ’t be surprised when some believe all the gay people in CA are like the idiots who hold parades in SF or who block traffic in the streets of LA.

21

"...the courts would enforce laws related to division of property if the couple split up, or one died or became incapacitated, as well as child custody and child support, and the courts would apply this equally regardless of the name or lack thereof given to the union?"

Christoph,

State law largely determines family as well as probate and property issues.  The "name or lack thereof given to the union" is precisly the point.  The "name" or legal status determined by your state legislature is the controlling factor (subject to Federal law.)  The courts cannot enforce laws (absent pure activism)  related to a division of property, etc. if the law does not apply to a particular couple.  Your question seems to imply that courts could enforce laws regarding, e.g. child visitation rights, regardless of the relation or status to the child.  Not true.  The recognized union is paramount., for example, parents, putative spouses, grandparents and those not related but who are caretakers have vastly different rights.

There are several legal presumptions in state family law, including a presumption of community property, child custody, visitation shared equally and, most importantly, the best interest of the child being of the highest consideration.

Absent legal status as a parent, statutory presumptions would not apply, so being married, even informally, grants much greater rights in the form of presumptions than does just caring for a child.

"Wouldn't any contract drawn up for those purposes be most of the enforcement required, i.e. if two people agree to be married and it's in writing what goes to whom when it's over (a la a pre-nup) that should be that, shouldn't it? "

ECM,

A contract is void or voidable if it contradicts existing law. While courts will not rewrite a K, the contract cannot undertake things that are illegal, e.g. a marriage between two people of the same sex. So, while you are right in that two people could certainly contract to form a "partnership" (which doesn't require UCC/State approval) to determine who gets what should a certain occurrence (e.g. breakup, death) transpire, you can't contract to arrange a relation that is prohibited by law. 

More importantly, these legal presumptions--e.g. visitation should one partner be hospitalized, presumptions concerning property, intestate division of the estate--are precisely those that the gay community are seeking be allocated to themselves. 

If civil unions provide these same legal protections, then the only demand really at issue is the nomenclature "marriage," it's consequence on the culture at large should it be altered and the extent to which our language represents our traditions.  Which is not a legal question--don't ask me, ask Goldstein.

     

22 Also, having to say that "such and such group doesn't represent me," I think, shows one of the many perils of identity politics. When a small but vocal group acts out, it makes everyone in that group look bad, whether or not the majority agrees with the minority. Unfortunately, because of the liberal dominated media, it's even more true for conservatives. Look how often we're painted as bitter gun and religion clingers. Or the "evidence" of hate during the campaign when one guy allegedly says "Kill him!" at a McCain rally.

But it's also Commiefornia. They protest everything here. And sue anything that moves. I'm told this state was one of the greatest, back in the day. Top of the line education system, successful economy, etc. I'm thinking that was never in my lifetime. How long before the bratty, spoiled children grow up and get real lives?

23 Do not make the mistake of thinking that gay marriage is inextricably linked to harassment of Mormons and blacks.

But it is. Particularly Mormons.

Redefinition of marriage to conform to a gay standard rather than the traditional standard affects everyone. It means people who are committed to traditional marriage - as Mormons are, and have to be, especially because of their history - will be treated as race bigots are, and stigmatized and perpetually punished. If a church can't agree the judge-made gay definition of marriage is right with God, it will be punished in every way, and if possible driven to destruction.

We can see the hatred that would drive that persecution. Does your church help with adoption but not think gay couples are right for kids? Bang, gotcha, we're shutting you bigots down! The church doesn't want to loan its sanctuary out for gay weddings? Bang, gotcha, now we're going to stick it to you homophobes again! Because the "civil rights model" as gays define it means defining whoever doesn't give you everything you want as being as bad as a race-hating bigot, with all that implies, there'll never be any end to the harassment and legal persecution till the churches are demolished or till their scriptures are rewritten to conform to legally enforced gay cultural dominance.

Redefinition of marriage to conform to a gay standard rather than the traditional standard also affects the state-dominated education of children. Children will be educated and enticed from kindergarten on through through books, guided discussions role-modeling and roleplaying, trips and teachable moments and so on that going gay is good, and that any contrary ideas mummy and daddy have are bigotry and must be firmly rejected. That would also go for mummy and daddy's church. We can already see this beginning, and teacher support for gay marriage is not reassuring at all.

We can see how much hatred and power-hunger is going to be expressed in law and enforced on everybody, especially Mormons, as soon as gays get their way on the legal definition of marriage.

Therefore for Mormons to oppose that legal redefinition is self-defense, as well as public-spirited defense of their fellow citizens who just want to be left alone to have traditional families (or the nearest you can get to them in the era of unilateral divorce and "fastest gun" lawyering) without being made pawns of a judge / gay driven project of social and sexual transformation.

This wasn't obvious to me before. (I just thought that the judges had gone too far and their interference ought to be rejected.) But now it has become obvious. It's not just the judges. Gay bigotry and gay aggression are right out there.

So whoever wants to live and let live had better vote against gay marriage every time it comes to a vote.

24 Posted by: LexisTexas at November 10, 2008 03:50 AM (Vt8uv)

you put quite eloquently what I have been getting at for some time...

25 well the first part that is... it seems to me you can will anything to anyone, your business, your property and your children.

26 "Therefore for Mormons to oppose that legal redefinition is self-defense, as well as public-spirited defense of their fellow citizens who just want to be left alone to have traditional families (or the nearest you can get to them in the era of unilateral divorce and "fastest gun" lawyering) without being made pawns of a judge / gay driven project of social and sexual transformation."

Word.

27 I have yet to meet a gay who is gung ho about "gay marriage".  One guy told me he's opposed just out of fear of the backlash.  Honestly, why would anyone want that kind of heat pulled down on them?  While I don't like that fear is his motivator, I understand his position.  Honestly, I don't think it's a physical fear, but a political one.

That said, these clowns in Cali are going to get a backlash.

28 I worked in a family law office as a legal assistant for 6 years. I've heard, but can't confirm, that the domestic partnership laws in California are equivalent to marriage in all but name. (I wish I could remember where I read that. Patterico's site, maybe?) I've only handled a handful of dissolution of domestic partnerships, but from what I recall, the paperwork is almost exactly the same as dissolving a marriage.  I think the law, for the most part, applies the same way re child support, visitation, spousal support, community property, etc. Gabe would probably be able to clarify that better as a recent law school grad.

I don't know if that really explains anything or not, but domestic partnership dissolution forms have been available for a couple years now. If a domestic partnership isn't marriage, why would you need the same divorce paperwork to end it?

But, as my gay coworker told me, it doesn't matter if all the benefits are exactly the same. They want the word "marriage" and they'll keep fighting until they get it, no matter the cost.

29 I agree with David Blue, who by the way posts from time to time on Winds of Change and is always very thoughtful.

This is all about power. It's to push Gavin Newsome, and the "whether you like it or not" comments down everyone's throats.

The power to punish Christian (but not of course, Muslim mosques) congregations and churches to force them to accept Gay Weddings, gay teachings, etc. or be disbanded.

The power to teach Gay marriage, etc. as part of the curriculum. Kids WILL be required to read "King and King" and stuff like that, and parents will have NO option. Not even to homeschool because Tin God Teleprompter Jesus is ending THAT.

That's why the Mormons and the Saddleback Church were targeted. This is all about Gay Power.

30 Yes, the rum seeking fellow, you have described the legal ramifications accurately. Your mistake is in believing that all they want is equal rights. That is false. The radical left seeks to destroy every tradition and societal building block they can. Whether its the family/offspring, capitalism, your retirement account, et seq. All must be destroyed before the new utopia can be imposed. Just ask Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, et al. You must look past the clap trap and find their real intentions.

31 Kaptain Amerika at November 10, 2008 03:38 AM (e1FTF)

Those goat rapers are soooooo lucky Bush is president, if it were me I'd start executing them immediately.

Of course any AQ captured on the battlefield under my administration would've been squeezed for intel like a ripe orange and then been given a short drop and a sudden stop, none of this namby pampy gitmo crap.

32

News Alert

 

We knew it was coming but it isnÂ’t taking long. The Vomit is getting ready to close Gitmo and bring them ALL to U.S. soil for trial in civilian courts.

 

IsnÂ’t he going to have to get Congress to repeal that persky Tribunal, Act first?

33 Gitmo. So what if the courts decide they were wronged and their civil rights were violated? Could we end up giving payola to guys that just want to buy weapons and kill us? Yea, I know, it's about the law and not about right and wrong. Before my only brother was hurt in a motorcycle accident he was a closeted homosexual. Injuries from the accident left him an invalid. I love my brother. I would have voted for prop 8. The problem for me is I don't believe the issue is tolerance any longer. This is a desire to be fully approved of by society. If the issue is legal status in regards to property rights, why not change the law in regards to that? Because it's not.

34 The gays would do well not to mess with the Mormons. They truly believe in their faith and are willing to die for it. I'm pretty certain they're also willing to kill to defend it. I know some and they're pretty well-armed and good shots. If it comes to a shootout between homos and Mormons, my money is on the Mormons. These aren't loser Muslims you're talking about here.

35 "18 I called in my predictions

and I was right

Obama to release terrorists...

I beat you to it Vic...

we all knew it was coming, but you're right... this is fast... I'm more scared today than I was Nov. 5th... every day it gets a little worse. and today it's a leap

36 Have to agree with whiskey, this is all about power. Domestic partnerships give the same rights as marriage, but they don't shock the normals. They don't rub "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" in the faces of Christians and other traditional values people.

Also, what happens after gay marriage? Do the HRC and NGLTF just dissolve and find real jobs? Unlikely. The established pattern is for civil rights groups to become even more radical after their initial demands are met.

37 I'm starting to think that the allure of being a counter-culture is driving a lot of this.  If multiple groups are divided as a result it makes their agendas less likely to happen - something I approve of. 

I think we can all agree that America, at its core, is an awesome country.  I have always thought that the majority Christian rule caused gays to be treated worse than they should.  The bulk of Christianity seems to view homosexuality as a transformative sin - as if they are the moral authority on doling out God's law.  Truth is we wouldn't even be having this conversation if Christianity wasn't so morally outraged by homosexuality and instead treated gays with the love and respect that God would.  I suspect we'd already be past the civil union mumbo jumbo by now if that were the case.  My take anyway...semi-religious as it is.

38

KA

 

I don’t look at it like a case of “beat you to it” since I think any of the AOS morons would know that this shit was coming. This is just a lot faster than any expected since not only has he not got in office yet, but Congress is ready to back him yet. He can not simply empty Gitmo on Executive Order since there is an applicable law.

 

Well, let me rephrase that, he can not “legally empty Gitmo” on executive order. Of course, Congress would not call hm on it if he did.

 

We are truly in for a massive fucking and it will not just be on the Marxist actions that bankrupt us. We will be back to Clinton and Carter foreign policy; Instead of speak softly and carry a big stick, itÂ’s carry a roll of toilet paper and squeal like a pig.

39

Many years ago I ran a sporting event in our local city Winter Carnival and got my employer, a bank at the time, to sponsor it.

 

Just my luck, one player, Elaine (formerly Jim) decided she would enter the womenÂ’s event and I was faced with the protests of the other born-female players and a real no-win problem.  I decided against this eligibility, although arguable and controversial.

 

In sympathy, Queer Nation decided to jump in with protests and briefs.  I donÂ’t mean legal briefs; I mean the mesh net, see-through kind.  Gays, transvestites and all sorts of other assorted groups were raging against the bank, the City, and me.  We even had a mini Dykes on bikes thing going for a while.

 

It is true that they go away after a while, but not without lingering effects.  Their goal is intimidation and their methods are extreme.  Talk about counter productive!

 

Even many years later, the memory of this still evokes strong emotions in me.  On the other hand, I have had nothing but good experiences with Mormons.  So there you go.

40

Many years ago I ran a sporting event in our local city Winter Carnival and got my employer, a bank at the time, to sponsor it.

 

Some are saying that this is about power, but I have a different take on it, although “power” could be just another way of phrasing it. I see it as a continued push for just another class of “protected specie” seeking to get preferential treatment, not equal treatment.

 

The reason I referenced your quote above is that we had a similar experience at the place I worked years ago except with women employees (real women).

 

Every fall, usually in November we would hold a big camping trip/drinking party/hell raising/pig pickinÂ’ at the head of a local lake in the middle of the woods far from any habitations and people. The people invited were limited to Category II Exempt employees (salaried) of the male persuasion. This wasnÂ’t a big problem initially because the only women we had working on site during the early days were in the admin office and we seldom saw them or interfaced with them at all.

 

Gradually that began to change as more and more women came in to jobs that had been traditionally male. And yes, we finally got one woman who complained because she had NOT been invited to the pig pickin’. She was single and known to be “somewhat loose”. Naturally all of the wives told their husbands that there would be absolutely NO WOMEN at this affair. (the wives were not in love with this tradition anyway).

 

To make a long story short, even though there were no company assets expended on this party we were ordered to cancel it and stop the tradition unless some way could be found to include the women employees.

41 "Just my luck, one player, Elaine (formerly Jim) decided she would enter the womenÂ’s event and I was faced with the protests of the other born-female players and a real no-win problem.  I decided against this eligibility, although arguable and controversial."

We've got a black ex-woman on the job here who's a fire captain...never NOT been promoted through affirmative action who now is using a man's name...he/she is going to be a battlion chief in about a year. Mustache and hair allover her/his face. Thank you Daley and the democrats.

42

Ignore it and the little screamers will tire themselves out.

Or go back to filling their mouths with......ehhhh never mind.

43 Ah, the sweet sweet smell of Democrat identity politics finally coming home to roost. I expect a whole host of battles like this over the next four years. I've already got female donk friends (actual party members, not just voters) ripping Obama to shreds in private for his "sexism." That's gonna go public too eventually.

44 I don't think it is simply a tantrum.  I think it is an attempt to threaten an bully their way to the result they want, and they are willing to escalate.

45 #44

Agreed.  The "civil rights" concept is one of the more powerful blunt instruments in our society.

46

I checked the list of gay rights activists who are so much in favor of trying to reverse the will of the people of CA. No big surprise ite the nuts from the so called "entertainment" industry. Lets solve the problem...If Etheredge doesn't want to pay her taxes then dont buy her records or go to vastly overpriced "concerts"...If Pitt wants to have at the electorate...boycot his movies. Hit them in the pocketbook and maybe they will let the gays/lesbians who don't give a damn about so called 'marriage' get on with their lives.

By the way, I'm not gay, have friends who are, who gives a shit

47 I'm so tired of the Gay agenda being shoved down our throat.  I have a gay brother and a gay brother-in-law (two of those if gay marriage were legal) and they are family, but it does not mean that I have to accept their behavior as normal.

I don't and never will.  When my brother came out of the closet, he was proud and wanted to tell my kids.  I told him NO, you will not force my children to grow up any faster than they have to and that if he felt that way, he was not welcome in my house.  He came to his senses.

It's truly a shame how the gay agenda is subversively working to promote normalcy of their behavior through TV, comparing civil rights struggles to black people, legislation, and schools.

They have done a great job as they probably will get their way in another generation, but my generation will never see sexual behavior between the same gender as a protected right to be embraced.

48 I thought you were going to talk about some of the McCain losers in the Fox forums. Or some of the Obama winners. They're throwing tantrums too. I don't think I've ever seen more folks on the winning side of an election still attacking the other side, and throwing tantrums because the other side still exists. What is Obama going to do to outlaw conservatives?!? So, you know, there can be hopey-changey unity.

49 I don't object to gay marriage. But, if I had been in California, I would have voted against it. Because I don't much care for the people backing it, or he 60s radicals of the "smash monogamy" variety who were trying to use it as a wedge to deconstruct the nuclear family. I realize that's not the issue for most homosexuals who support gay marriage, or even hetersexuals, but those folks are there.

50 They're not going to tire themselves out.  Here's why.

Eventually, this will come up again....but SF will hold another, (or several), of their disgusting public gay whatchamacallits....which will turn voters against the issue, and gay marriage will be defeated again.

People don't see the moderates, they see the crazies on the fringe.

Lather, rinse, repeat.   SF is gay advocacy's own worst enemy, for allowing that idiotic festival to take place.

51

 victims of nothing more than hope

i have a feeling that in 4 years i'm going to see that more often then i wish.

52 The punishment for eight years of BDS temper tantrums was to get their Messiah, The Big Zero! elected Community-Organizer-in-Chief. These things work, and the homagamists know that. They just need to keep making pests of themselves and they know that eventually their opponents will be so beaten down that they give up and let them have whatever it is they want. Expect lots of this sort of thing these next few years, as every constituency group in the Dem alliance throws a tantrum when they feel (not think, feel) they aren't getting their fair share of the spoils of The Big Zero!'s victory.

53 The gay rights movement is based on "normalization" of homosexuality. Most straight people just want to be left alone and to be able to raise their children consistent with the laws of nature, religion, evolution and tradition. Sadly what Gabriel describes is not an aberration but consistent with the tactics which include fighting for protected class status, advertising their private matters, propagandizing to children, and of course, demonizing anyone who disagrees.

54 (1) Push for churches to lose their tax-exempt status.

Yeah, they were going to do that anyway. Even if prop 8 was rejected, the leftists behind using the "homo community" and pulling its strings were going to sue the churches for discrimination when they refused to marry a couple of homosexuals.

The whole fucking point to changing the American institution of traditional marriage is to destroy the culture. Part of destroying the American/Judeo-Christian culture is to ruin the churches.

A bunch of fucking nuts acting like they're civil rights are being violated all over a sexual fetish. Give me fucking break.

55 Well then, much like moderate Muslims need to speak out against radicals, gay leaders and icons like Melissa Etheridge should pipe up, condemn the hate and the violent protests and quit talk about not paying taxes because a vote didn't go her way and spouting stupid crap like 'no representation no taxation' which don't even apply. Do I not have to pay taxes since my choice didn't win for prez? People like her aren't helping. She also made a bunch of inflammatory statements about how 51% of CA residents didn't consider her a full citizen and yadda yadda yadda.

For the record, I don't so much support gay marriage as I've never heard a coherent argument AGAINST it. I defy anyone to come up with a valid argument not to allow gays to get married or how it harms marriage in general (which may be an outdated concept anyway. Why not 8 year options? That would be more reasonable!)

56 #8 Jimmy, I'm with you.

I'm normally influenced more by libertarian arguments than conservative ones, but I see this question as dealing with the fabric of society.  I don't care what people do in private, or even in public if I have a choice to watch or not to watch.  But marriage must be defined somehow, and between a man and a woman is how I'd define it, because that's how it's always been.

But what gets me remotely interested in the issue is the way gays always (always) protest about it: they insist on violating some other norm in order to change this one. Why protest at midnight?  Why act more "gay" (in whatever way) in a protest march than you do in real life? 

Obama has it right: act normal, and it won't set off conservative alarm bells.

There: fixed your movement for ya.

57 I think the whole thing is amusing on a lot of levels. Rather than retrench and think about the battles to be fought over this issue in the future, the gays have decided to live up to their stereotype of whiny, drama queens.

Lost in all of the religion bashing, though, is something that I think is really interesting. The gays apparently genuinely believed that oppressed minority communities would support them in their quest for "civil rights". Instead, they were the ones to put the ban over the top. Is it possible that blacks, hispanics, etc, don't equate gender preference to race? It seems as though, if they want to win next time, they'd better start some educational outreach in these communities to teach them that, as the homosexual advocates preach constantly, being gay is no more a choice than being black.

58

Hi, Gabe.  Good post as usual.

It got me thinking about something more philosophical.  Isn't it regrettable that so many things in our lives have become politicized?  By that I mean here we have what I think are a minority of gays going off the deep end, and because of that the more level-headed of the group have to enter the political fray and denounce them.

I think of it in terms of gun rights, oddly enough.  Owning a gun should not be a political statement, and yet because of the numerous attacks on guns and gun owners we have little choice but to enter the political arena to save something that shouldn't be political.  I certainly don't want to have to keep calling my elected representatives on the issue, I don't want to have to donate money to various pro-right groups, and yet here I am.

The spectre of a minority of gays presuming to speak for everyone unfortunately forces the entire demographic into the political arena.  That's sad.

59

Drew's one "lone" post may not cover everybody............

 

Bwahaha hahahahaha

60 I have always thought that the majority Christian rule caused gays to be treated worse than they should.

I think that they are treated far better than they should be. But that's the whole point of being an "oppressed minority" in America - it gets you better than average treatment.

Perhaps if the fags could live for a spell as a Jew or Christian (or even as a fag) in a Muslim country they'd have a slightly more sane perspective on what oppression looks like.

61 Dear Gabriel,

The Atlantic called, they want to do lunch with you.

62 When my brother came out of the closet, he was proud and wanted to tell my kids.

This is what really bugs me:  Why would telling your kids about this be a good idea?  Does he really think that everybody is like him and that telling kids about himself would enable them to find out about it sooner and deal with it better?  And that being related means that the have "teh ghey gene"?  Kids have enough difficulty coping with their identity in today's garbage culture world without heaping more on them.  Libs hate kids; I don't think there's anything that will convince me otherwise.

63 It just seems that everyone is behaving badly.  I don't believe that the word "marriage" should be applied to anything but a union between a man and a woman.  However, we all have gay friends so I do support civil unions.  It is essentially the same but the "words have been changed to protect the innocent".  I don't understand why they are attacking the churches.  The churches are just doing their job.

What is more frightening is the behavior.  It is encouraged.  It seems that the political party which is trying to seem to be a party of everyone really is a party comprised of a bunch of different shareholder groups.  A kind of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" alliance.  The way the dems break things down in this "melting pot" of a country is bizarre.  "The blacks, the hispanics, the gays, the socialists", the language is to divide and not to forge assimilation and harmony.  Regular folks, in support of the family, may have to take to the streets to protect their own ideas.  Can you see it?   "The family march on Washington"?  Almost feel like it is coming.

64 Sooner or later one of these protests will go too far and end up with gay mafia types throwing chairs though the windows of an LDS church.

SF gays point to the Harvey Milk city hall torch and riot night as a seminal moment for gay activism.

65

Here's my solution.  We let the homosexuals have the term 'marriage' and heteros will rename the act of commitment between a man and woman as 'gay'.   They can be married and we can be gay.  

Dude: Hey, when are you becoming gay?

Dude's friend:  June 15th. She wants to get gay as soon as possible. Her parents became gay on June 15th. 

Dude: I'm never going gay. Too much pussy out there.

66

I defy anyone to come up with a valid argument not to allow gays to get married or how it harms marriage in general

Then you must not have read David Blue's comment at 03:58 AM.

3:58 AM? Damn man... 1 part NyQuil and 2 parts Jack Daniels will help you with that..

67 At the basic level, the conservative argument is that tradition should be valued above change, making it necessary that change make its case (burden of proof) before it becomes necessary to embrace the proposed change.

My basic problem with the concept of gay marriage is that the arguments for gay marriage boil down to "What can it hurt?"  That's not going to fly.  The burden of proof rests with the side advocating a change in the status quo. 

1.  The root causes of homosexuality are far from clear.  There is some evidence that homosexuality has a genetic component, but honest research in the subject is hard to come by because of the politicization of the psychological and genetic research.  The end result is that alot of the cheerleading for gay rights is seen as begging the question. 

The fact that many of the opponents of gay normalization establish their foundation within the grounds of religion doesn't relieve the burden of proof from the advocates of change.

2.  As pointed out above, the homosexual agenda has aligned itself with the ideas of the far left which is problematic for those on the right.  There's alot of knee-jerking that goes on when the chief proponents of the cause are hollywood elite.  "If Rosie's for it, I'm agin' it" kind of thing. 

I understand that homosexuals aren't going to fall over themselves lining up with the religious right, but the history of eugenics and eradication of incovenient minorities that the far left has advocated for 150 years ought to give the gay community pause.  It seems that the libertarian position would be the most natural position for gays to take, and many principled advocates of gay rights do go exactly that route. 

3.  Stop it with the lawsuits already.  The courts are not legislative, despite what Barry O! believes.  A not insignificant subset of voters who were predisposed to support gay marriage are voting against it because we're uncomfortable with legislation from the bench.  Want to win long-term gay rights?  Convince us that it's more beneficial to society to extend the definition of marriage than to stick with the traditional definition.  See number 1 above.  Thuggish intimidation tactics and bigotry are counterproductive. 

68 I disagree with you Gabriel sir. I believe these protestors represent the majority of opinion in the homosexual group.
But that's just my opinion.

69 This is a really destructive reaction that may remove the opportunity for gays to have meaningful legal partnerships for decades.

Many people regard homosexuality as a mental illness, and when you consider how many gays come from abnormal upbringings, they have an argument. Many of my gay friends had missing fathers (e.g. dying at an early age) where the mother assumed the male role model, or mothers who were remarkably strong (nearly men) with feminine fathers. While I tended to wonder about that somewhat at first, I had enough friends who were fatherless and about as hetero as you can get, and also wondered if the feminine fathers might be have gay tendencies and settled for a traditional marriage, indicating genetics might be at work.

Unfortunately, the attacks on others reinforces the belief of those who think gays just need to visit the shrink or be institutionalized. I've also shared with my gay friends that they're fighting the wrong battle: marriage means male-female partnership and has a religious meaning. Why not force the government to quit recognizing marriages, and recognize personal partnerships instead, regardless of the sex of the partners? Leave that third rail of the marriage definition alone - it's meant something specific for several thousand years, is tied up in religious definitions that tend to get most people reacting and opposing you when they otherwise wouldn't. You'd have a lot of sympathy from people who think the government has no right conferring specific benefits on some while not on others.

70 I'm conflicted.

71 Gabe, maybe you can answer a question that's been bugging me.

Why reject civil unions and push for redefining marriage? Is there a benefit of traditional marriage over civil unions that I'm missing? Right now, it looks to me like the push to redefine marriage is more about pissing people off than working for equality.

72

The actual cost of gay marriage should also be a considerd factor.  We can already feel the effect of the cost of healthcare within those companies that provide benefits for domestic partnerships.  

If gay marriage becomes the norm then our Social Security system will be required to change and the finanical burden created as a result of the expanded qualified recepient pool will destroy it.  Workers compensation rates will  increase when they expand the definition of a surviving spouse.  Loss of consortium claims will become viable.  It will effect you pocketbook whether  you like it or not.

73 I've read that, except for the traffic problems, the protests have been going fabulous.

74 Around 70 per cent of the African-American voters who overwhelmingly backed Mr Obama also approved Proposition 8, helping pass the controversial ballot measure despite a small majority of whites voting against the ban on same-sex unions. Hispanic and Asian voters were split on the issue. The state's black turnout jumped to 10 per cent of the electorate, up from 6 per cent in 2004, as voters inspired by Mr Obama flocked to the polls for the first time. The Democratic candidate took the state with 61 per cent of the popular vote. Although the president-elect opposed the gay marriage ban, it appears his supporters may have helped pass the measure that was vociferously opposed by many white Democrats."  from national review online Andrew Stuttaford

75 Single motherhood. What can it hurt? Remove the stigma and provide welfare. So, now we are approaching a 35-50% out of wedlock child birth rate resulting in almost a 50% high school drop out rate, poverty, increased child abuse, and very angry fatherless boys. Again, marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to raise healthy and happy children. The state has the right to promote marriage because it is in the state's own interest. The gay marriage, i.e., "any thing goes" philosophy does not help the state. Friday, they made some crappy gay bar in LA a historical monument because there was a protest after the cops raided it in 1967. What they don't tell you is that this area was full of crappy gay bars, that became crappy gay sex clubs, that were eventually shut down in the late 80s for health reasons and because most of their customers died. They too had the mantra, How does this hurt anyone? Well, it hurt a hell of a lot of people.

76 This isn't about marriage; it's about forcing a view that homosexuality is good and normal and something to celebrate. Force doesn't work too well for that even if the point of view were true.

There is absolutely no good reason to permit interest groups to redefine basic social institutions to suit their preferences and no principled argument to stop the accommodating redefinitions once you start.

77

Rather than retrench and think about the battles to be fought over this issue in the future

Yeh, I followed a link to a blog entry somewhere about some black gays who got called names during a protest and I was shaking my head at some of the comments. They really, really didn't get why people voted against what they wanted.

"If people did not vote against Prop Hate, they were not necessarily homophobic, but possibly dreadfully misinformed or under-informed about the implications Prop Hate's success or failure"

"Once the Black Churches stop preaching hate, respect should trickle down."

There didn't seem to be anyone who thought that people understood the issue and had any valid arguments against it. If you don't understand your opponents in the least, discussion is nigh impossible.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/  showDiary.do?diaryId=8077

I added spaces in the middle of the link.

78 This isn't a civil rights issue. I know several people who are "former" homosexuals. They turned their lives around because they wanted to.
I've never heard of a "former" Black person. Ya' can't change that.

79

The thing is: THEY WILL WIN.

Eventually, gay marriage will be legal in the U.S. Because the passion to prevent “change” is rarely as powerful as the passion for “change.” And because people get tired of being portrayed as bigots (not only by the protesters, but the media, by pop culture.)

 

State-sanctioned gay marriage is not necessary, and it benefits no one but the couple (whereas heterosexual marriage benefits the whole community. But, itÂ’s coming. We all know it.

 

80

There has been a relatively low snark quotient in this thread, so I'll do what I can to bring down the level of discourse:

It means people who are committed to traditional marriage - as Mormons are, and have to be, especially because of their history ...

The Mormons have been committed to traditional marriage for what? 100 years?  And even then only under duress and a desire for Utah statehood.  That's not long enough to be a sacred tradition, it's barely long enough to be a habit.

And as I say whenever this comes up, Adam marrying Steve did nothing to undermine my traditional marriage, but a hot blonde from northern Italy did.  Which of you morons would outlaw hot Italian blondes?

81

Perhaps if the fags could live for a spell as a Jew or Christian (or even as a fag) in a Muslim country they'd have a slightly more sane perspective on what oppression looks like.

The Soviet Union outlawed homosexuality and it was an athiest country. With the slippery slope of socialism and the agenda leftists push for, this could easily be the outcome they end up with. If you think the government knows best then you'll always be suprised with the results.

82

And as I say whenever this comes up, Adam marrying Steve did nothing to undermine my traditional marriage..

It does, if only in that such a marriage does nothing for the community. We all celebrate the love of Adam and Steve. SMOOCHES....We just don't offer state sanctioning because it does nothing for the community. Hetero marriage actually serves a broader purpose.

83 Which of you morons would outlaw hot Italian blondes?

Oh man, I just got a storyline for a whole new generation of spaghetti westerns.

84 Gabe:  I know these fools do not speak for you.  If given the chance, I would vote to recognize same sex civil marriage.  But I also recognize this is something new (not same sex, that has been around forever, I mean same sex marriage).  And it does require getting the voters to recognize it.  Not by the courts, but by persusaion. 

85 I'm conflicted. Posted by: Gay Black Mormon at November 10, 2008 09:53 AM (TdBA+) You think you're conflicted...

86 Marriage is a fundamental right. True, I can't marry my sister, brother, cousin, dog, or house, a fourteen-year-old, a fourteen-year-old that I've bought from Thailand, a coma victim, a supermodel (well, that's just me, I guess), multiple Saudi Arabian wives, the profoundly retarded (I think), a woman in a shotgun wedding where I'm holding the shotgun...BUT STILL, marriage is a fundamental right. And to further promote that right, because I care so freaking much, I've helped extend the warm, gentle embrace of Sharia over the Middle East and the loving gaze of Vladimir Putin over Eastern Europe by voting for Barack Obama.

87 What if it's not specifically an objection to homosexuals, but a more general dislike for the entire idea of putting it in someone's pooper?  Homosexuals would just be the first and most politically expedient target on the list.

Really, people, if you want to keep your precious right to the freedom of buttsex, you'd better start sticking up for the professionals.

88 Good post, Gabe.

89 Just a side note: The media isn't "drama starved." They have a table full of drama they refuse to eat.

They just want candy, i.e. drama that supports their political agenda. It's less drama starvation and more drama hunger strike.

90 86, where does it state in any form that marriage is a "basic" right?
Our basic rights are "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Is that where you get it? If you do, that's a really big stretch.

91

So letÂ’s clear a few things up. First, these folks donÂ’t represent all gays, nor do they represent all people who want to legalize gay marriage. Do not make the mistake of thinking that gay marriage is inextricably linked to harassment of Mormons and blacks. It is not. And many gays (I would hope most gays) understand that Christians and blacks do not deserve the harassment they are getting from a few rowdy loudmouths who are being indulged by the drama-starved media.

i agree, but when these jackasses run around like this it makes me someone who doesn't give a damn about gays marrying makes me want to vote against gay marriage

92 Our basic rights are "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Marriage makes a dubious contribution to the third by curtailing the first and outright denying the second.

93

We just don't offer state sanctioning because it does nothing for the community. Hetero marriage actually serves a broader purpose.

Many of my hetero friends are in childless marriages.  What broader community purpose do their marriages serve than Adam and Steve's?

94 90: that was the basis of the No on 8 ads. "Marriage is a Fundamental Right", it's not fair, blah, blah, blah.

95 People have bitched and moaned about conservative blogs airing their dirty laundry post election, but it doesn't even come close to what the moonbats did in 2004. The DUmmies closed their forum to outsiders and had a one week blood bath. Their biggest scapegoats were gays who they believed brought out more conservative voters.

96 You're not contributing to the discussion. You've been warned. --TB

97 "Third, notably absent from these protests has been anything remotely resembling advocacy. The point of modern protest is simply to tell others how very, very emotional the protesters are. So itÂ’s a tantrum. Ignore it and the little screamers will tire themselves out."

I love this quote.  If you're going to have a protest, it needs to be backed up by some reasonable action that is being called for.  Reactive protests are little more than riots, where the rioters don't have the balls to destroy (very much) property.

Keep it real, Gabe.

98

Many of my hetero friends are in childless marriages.  What broader community purpose do their marriages serve than Adam and Steve's?

 

Encouraging hetro people to get married. Which is a good thing for everyone, even you. Because you depend on the next generation being born and raised just as much as straight people do. In fact, more so.

 

 

 

 

99

Many of my hetero friends are in childless marriages.  What broader community purpose do their marriages serve than Adam and Steve's?

Not much.

 

100 Don't care, Gabe. Whining and protesting won't change shit. Just pisses people off.

101 Marriage is a fundamental right.

Really?

Who do I sue since this "right" is currently being denied me? 

102 I have to disagree with Gabe, I think the radicals do represent most gays.  I left California, partly, because I was sick of their shenanigans.  Even in Idaho, I've only met two other conservative queers (curiously, one is Jewish and one is black).  Of course, the liberals here are far less radical than those in Cali.

Anyhow, the conservative ones are those nice guys that live across the street from you and go antiquing with your wife and otherwise mind their own business.  We will likely never be able to confront the HRC and those yahoos who the media presents as the face of the homosexual community.

Even if someone like myself did get a chance to be on the news and sell our case, the media would go out of its way to give us a pat on the head and tell us how stupid and naive we are for thinking Republicans will ever do anything for homos.

103

Gabe is still gay even after some of the more elightened commentors here explained the evils of his "choice"?

Some people, I guess they will never learn.

104

Encouraging hetro people to get married. Which is a good thing for everyone, even you. Because you depend on the next generation being born and raised just as much as straight people do. In fact, more so.

I believe the term of art for this in logic is "stoopid".

Even if my childless hetero friends' marriage furthers society's goals by encouraging others to marry and whelp, how would gay marriage detract from that?  Maybe encouraging stable pair-bonds in all couples would further society's interests. 

But that's beside the point -- when I married it had nothing to do with society's interest nor did I have children in order to promote the virtues of progeny.  I made these intensely personal decisions for purely personal reasons and was not influenced in the tiniest by whether the rest of society were marrying or conceiving in or out of wedlock or having straight or gay butt sex or by any other circumstance outside of my own, private, circumstances. 

105

Even if my childless hetero friends' marriage furthers society's goals by encouraging others to marry and whelp, how would gay marriage detract from that? 

Again, only in that one serves a purpose beyond the couple, and one does not. Homosexual marriage is symbolic, hetero actually serves a purpose. When you take something meaningful and water it down with symbolism, it of course gets a little weaker.

But, the "marriage is only a piece of paper" argument proved pretty strong, (although disasterous for women and children) so symbolism will win the day. We'll have gay marriage. It won't be the end of the world, it just won't benefit society.

106

Well, they are protesting in Seattle as well in solidarity with the folks in California. And what's this about Obama supporting gay marriage? Biden clearly stated in his debate that he and Obama were opposed to gay marriage, or has that been conveniently forgotten?

And ditto on why are they targeting Christian and Mormon churches but not Mosques?

107 Do not make the mistake of thinking that gay marriage is inextricably linked to harassment of Mormons and blacks. It is not.

It is now.

108 Why reject civil unions and push for redefining marriage? Is there a benefit of traditional marriage over civil unions that I'm missing? Right now, it looks to me like the push to redefine marriage is more about pissing people off than working for equality.

mpur, at least within the state of California, domestic partnerships are the legal equivalent of marriage. A domestic partnership comes with the same substantive legal rights and responsibilities. But a legal arrangement is not all that a marriage entails.

Important sociological benefits flow from the institution of marriage. It encourages monogamy, child-raising, and other long-term, high-cost behaviors which rely on stability like home- and business- ownership.

Allowing gays to marry also avoids the second-class status of being shoe-horned into domestic partnerships (which, in the original proposal were available for opposite-sex couples, and then changed to limit that to opposite sex couples where one is older than 62 years). If there is anything we should have learned, "separate, but equal" is anything but just.

And remember that civil unions cut both ways. If, as you suggest, civil unions are the same as marriages, then there is very little reason to discriminate as to a single word, "marriage." Obviously both sides believe there is some intrinsic value to the word. If it were worthless, Prop 8 advocates would not have defended it so vociferously and despicably (and yes, fearmongering about gay recruitment is always despicable).

I don't doubt that people actually believe that gays are trying to recruit kindergardners. It's ignorant and stupid, but gays can talk until they're blue in the face and the folks inclined to believe this will just ignore them.

Similarly, I don't doubt that people believe that if gay marriage becomes law churches will be forced to perform gay marriages. They can't point to any cases where that has actually happened, but it's a genuinely held fear.

The solution to these undesirable derivative outcomes of gay marriage isn't to ban gay marriage, but rather to ban the undesirable outcome. You want to protect churches? I guarantee that you'd get 75+% approval for that ballot prop without even breaking a sweat.

109

And remember that civil unions cut both ways. If, as you suggest, civil unions are the same as marriages, then there is very little reason to discriminate as to a single word, "marriage."

How about three words, "state sanctioned marriage."

There is simply no benefit for the state/community to change the definition. There is great benefit to the state/community in encouraging marriage for people having children.

110

They are a couple of mega churches near me that actually have "Yes on 8"" sings in front of them, but I have not seen one protester near the churches.  Did I mention that I live in South Central LA?

These whiny little brats aren't stupid.

111

As a principled opponent of gay "marriage," I agree with your post entirely.  It's sad to see the level of vituperative "hater" language that's emerging (and was thrown around during the runup to the Wisconsin marriage-amendment vote.)

 

It certainly doesn't represent the thoughts or attitude of most of the gays I know.  The screamers would do well to recall the effect of that well-publicized Illegal Immigrants parade with the Mexican flags...

 

But they won't.

112

why are they targeting Christian and Mormon churches but not Mosques?

Christians and Mormons disagree with homosexuality but don't Mormon countries actually put them to death?

113 (4) Equate opposition to gay marriage with bigotry.

I don't know what hole you've been living in Gabe but this was one of the main tactics used by the No on 8 crowd and it's what changed my vote fron No to Yeppers.

There was no talk about the social contract or rights vs license just, "Don't Hate, Vote No On 8". 

114 We just don't offer state sanctioning because it does nothing for the community. Hetero marriage actually serves a broader purpose.

All marriages serve a purpose beyond procreation; it's a commitment that allows two people the stability to make plans for the future together, whether that's having kids or buying a house.

Even if someone like myself did get a chance to be on the news and sell our case, the media would go out of its way to give us a pat on the head and tell us how stupid and naive we are for thinking Republicans will ever do anything for homos.

I was having drinks last week with an old college buddy (whom I just learned was gay this year), who was in town working on the "No on 8" campaign.  He, like other gay friends of mine, feels pretty strongly about the issue chiefly because of the message of societal acceptance it would convey.  They don't want to undermine your church, they just want to be recognized as equals with heteros without having to call their relationships something different.  Anyway, I learned that the anti-8 campaign was horribly disorganized and mismanaged largely because of the fragmentation and factionalization of the gay "community" (<-- which is kind of a misnomer) and the resultant disorganization of their fundraising and campaigning drives, especially when matched up against the Mormons, who were being basically ordered from the pulpit to contribute to the pro-8 side.  He and one of his anti-8 compatriots admitted that if it weren't for the gay Republicans, who stepped in late in the game with major fundraising and organizational assistance, their campaign would have floundered weeks before.  Somehow, however, I doubt that most gays will ever hear about that or give credit to Republicans for anything, even though it was anti-gay Democrats who put the Prop 8 vote over the top.

115 I don't doubt that people actually believe that gays are trying to recruit kindergardners. Why shouldn't theu? When you have kindergarteners signing LBGT pledges in crayon, stock the library with books titled, Daddy's Roommate, and dramatically announce that you're a gay man, and this other gay man is your wife to your kindergarten class, what else would you call it?

116

Similarly, I don't doubt that people believe that if gay marriage becomes law churches will be forced to perform gay marriages. They can't point to any cases where that has actually happened, but it's a genuinely held fear.

Will you have to provide SS benefits to the surivor of a gay marriage couple at age 60?  Will you have to provide Workers Comp benefits provided to survivors? How about the right not to testify against your 'spouse' or loss of consortium claims.  What about the tax code?  Will the divorced spouse of a gay marriage that lasts over ten years be eligible to collect on the other spouse's SS?  etc. etc.

And when you add kids to the mix you change more of our social traditions than just marriage.  I'm sure you can think of a few.

 

117

Oops I mean Muslim countries.

Apparently 10:43 a.m. is too early in the morning for me.  Or maybe it's because it's Monday. 

118 I don't doubt that people actually believe that gays are trying to recruit kindergardners. It's ignorant and stupid, but gays can talk until they're blue in the face and the folks inclined to believe this will just ignore them.

I know.  Folks, I can't speak for every single gay person out there, but based on the ones I know, they're not trying to bugger your kids and they're not trying to give them teh ghey, for chrissake.

As far as I can tell, all they want is for kids to grow up not thinking that gays are there to be mocked, ridiculed, humiliated, bullied, and beaten up, like many gays have been when they were growing up and even as adults.  That is they main thing they are seeking with the attempt to normalize homosexuality.

You want to know why so many gays are radicalized and hate middle America?  I live in SF and have interacted with my share of them: a high proportion of the radicalized gays have come here from small towns in the heartland, where they were made miserable by bullies growing up.  That is one of the main sources of their hate and their anger.  When a gay teenager can walk home from school in Indiana farm towns without rednecks gratuitously yelling "FAG!" out of car windows at him and maybe even pulling over to beat him up, the pool of future radical gay activists will start drying up. 

119

They don't want to undermine your church, they just want to be recognized as equals with heteros without having to call their relationships something different. 

This would include getting churches to recognize gay marriages as equal to hetrosexual marriages.  Churches are a huge and solid part of society.  If the acceptance of the churches didn't matter, the liberals wouldn't care how we discuss and present politics.  As it is, we are forbidden to endorse a particular candidate from pulput, etc.

120

All marriages serve a purpose beyond procreation; it's a commitment that allows two people the stability to make plans for the future together, whether that's having kids or buying a house.

 

LetÂ’s not blur the line so cavalierly. Buying a house is swell, but it doesnÂ’t come close to matching the impact of creating life, and committing to raising those children (so the greater community does not have to.) That is huge. And we only need look at communities in which the government is forced to play a signifcant role in child-rearing to see what happens when you screw with it.

 

Historically, of course, marriages DID serve a purpose beyond procreation: caring for the woman. Society had a vested interest in that (since the same society expected that woman to stay home and let the man pursue and education/career.) Today this is not the case.

 

So, the reason the state even got into the marriage-sanctioning business is because it received a benefit. Not so with gay marriage, which, again, benefits only the couple.

 

 

121 Similarly, I don't doubt that people believe that if gay marriage becomes law churches will be forced to perform gay marriages. Maybe not. But hasn't there been legal attacks on scandi churches who preached that homosexuality was against church teachings?

122 I live in SF and have interacted with my share of them: a high proportion of the radicalized gays have come here from small towns in the heartland, where they were made miserable by bullies growing up. Well, aren't they special! Guess what: bullies have been making straight people's lives miserable forever, including yelling slurs and beating them up. If you're not gay, they will find something else to use against you.

123 "Important sociological benefits flow from the institution of marriage. It encourages monogamy, child-raising...."

I'd feel more comfortable with that if sexual abuse of minor male children by male homosexuals was less common. Unfortunately, it is far more common per capita than heterosexual paedophilia.

Also, I simply don't believe homosexuals provide the best social role models for children. If some children become homosexuals anyway, so be it, but they should model normal (literal meaning of the term) sexual roles until such time. In a perfect world. No child was ever the product of a homosexual union! Some way, some how, two genders were involved.

Many homosexuals are good people and if a child happens to be in such a union, let it be, but it isn't the ideal to shoot for.

124

48- In Canada there is a Christian preach with a lifetime injunction on him against preaching about homo sexuality.

Which sort of puts the lie to Alex's point that gays don't want to mess with your church. Many gays see Christians as enemies and want them silenced.

 

125 Cold point 48, perhaps redheads need an advocacy group.

126 Er cold =Good

127 Well, aren't they special! Guess what: bullies have been making straight people's lives miserable forever, including yelling slurs and beating them up.

Heh. What AoSHQ geeks need is a whole city devoted to D&D and High School Band lifestyles.

128 "I'm sorry you are gay, but that does not oblige me to destroy or weaken societally beneficial institutions just to accommodate your whims and fashions." And how does it weaken of destroy marriage? I'm married and if my friend Bryan marries his significant other, how does that effect my marriage? My marriage stands on it's own strengths or falls on it's own weaknesses whether or not gays can marry.

129 I do not believe gays are going after kindergarteners but the fact is that the overwhelming number of staff members in elelmentary schools are extreme lefties and a much higher percentage of male staff members are gay and personaly beliefs are going to be part of the message, see MSM as an example, and if anyone thinks the message being sent in schools is anything other than extra pro gay, think again.

130 "Why not force the government to quit recognizing marriages, and recognize personal partnerships instead, regardless of the sex of the partners?"

Because marriage isn't about love, or partnership.  It's about the protection and raising of children.

131

When a gay teenager can walk home from school in Indiana farm towns without rednecks gratuitously yelling "FAG!" out of car windows at him and maybe even pulling over to beat him up, the pool of future radical gay activists will start drying up. 

I grew up in the Bay Area and knew people with similar experiences. So I start thinking that if gay relationships are more accepted, gay marriage is allowed, then it will be more part of the culture and there won't be that counter-culture aspect of it. And since that counter-culture aspect is part of what many people object to (just part, I know), there would be less resistance to the less radical idea of having Gabe and his partner living next door with their McCain Palin sign on the lawn.

132

If the government would stay out of education and religion, a lot of this would not be a problem. 

Let the schools go back to teaching education: reading, math, history, grammar, science.  Keep religion and sex out of it.  Make everyone treat each other with equal respect.  No PDA for anyone, straight or otherwise. 

Keep religion out of school.  If someone wants to pray silently on thier own or read their own religious books, so be it, but no forcing or denying anyone of doing so.  Schools should not teach religion.  It's not their purpose.

Keep government out of churches.  Let each church have the freedom to teach and worship as they see fit.  If their doctrine or bylaws prohibit them from allowing marriage between specific groups, that is their right. 

133

And how does it weaken of destroy marriage? I'm married and if my friend Bryan marries his significant other, how does that effect my marriage? My marriage stands on it's own strengths or falls on it's own weaknesses whether or not gays can marry.

 

Obviously, it doesnÂ’t affect YOUR marriage Ann.

 

The point is, state-sanction hetero marriage benefits the state (which must care for children if the parents aren’t committed to doing so), while state-sanctioned homosexual marriage would benefit only the couple, serves only as symbolism. When you change the purpose of anything from ‘actual’ to ‘symbolic’ it does weaken it. At a time when the last thing we need to do is weaken marriage.

134

And how does it weaken of destroy marriage? I'm married and if my friend Bryan marries his significant other, how does that effect my marriage? My marriage stands on it's own strengths or falls on it's own weaknesses whether or not gays can marry.

Just like Barack Obama has weakened my view of the office of President.  Becoming President just doesn't have the same feeling anymore.  Its like they just let anyone do it.  If he can become President, what's it really mean?

Also marriage has already become weaker without adding gay marriage.  Its easier to divorce and has less stigma than ever.  Marriage is more like what going steady used to be.  More people just live together now and don't even bother with marriage or they marry with the philosophy that , eh if I start not liking it , I'll quit.  Gay marriage is just another step in the decline of marriage.

135 Marriage is all about men and women. It is a recognition that men and women are different, that they are complementary, and that their union is (in general) fertile rather than sterile. It is an affirmation that there are, like the song says, fundamental things that apply as time goes by. This is exactly why the left has sought to undermine marriage and the family ever since Marx's manifesto -- the masses must be made to believe that the truth is entirely relative and arbitrary.

136 " In Canada there is a..."

kidney, you're Canadian: Your opinion is worthless.

137

"Why not force the government to quit recognizing marriages, and recognize personal partnerships instead, regardless of the sex of the partners?"

Because marriage isn't about love, or partnership.  It's about the protection and raising of children.

Proponents of traditional marriage have done a lousy job making this perfectly logical point. Forget the religious angle and all the other angles that just make the jobs of late night gag writers so easy.

The state doesn’t give a damn if you’re in love. (BUT I DO! GOOD FOR YOU!) The community just wants to know you’re committed to taking care of the family you’re going to start – so the rest of us don’t have to.

 

138

I don't doubt that people actually believe that gays are trying to recruit kindergardners. It's ignorant and stupid, but gays can talk until they're blue in the face and the folks inclined to believe this will just ignore them.

I call straw man.  ItÂ’s not that we think that gays are trying to recruit, itÂ’s that gays simply donÂ’t care that what theyÂ’re promoting may end up influencing the behavior of kids in ways that may not be good for society.  Historically, people do what their society invites them to do.  Were the men of ancient Greece all flaming queens, or was there maybe a societal aspect to why homosexual bondings were encouraged?

Sexuality (especially for women) simply isnÂ’t as set in stone as many would like to insist, and that raises the question of whether itÂ’s in societyÂ’s best interest to encourage a particular avenue.  Anyone whoÂ’s been to a party in the last twenty years knows that there are more young women exhibiting lesbian behavior than there used to be.  What explains this?  Have the gene pools suddenly start producing more lesbians, or have girls maybe picked up on the fact that most guys think this is kind of hot and started acting accordingly.

And maybe thatÂ’s fine, I donÂ’t know, but the constant insistence that gay marriage wonÂ’t influence behavior is laughable.  Look, I hate that there are some kid who get bullied by morons and live lives of confusion, but as soon as we start bringing up kids in a society that insists on equating same-sex marriage with heterosexual marriage, I think weÂ’re going to have even more confused kids.

But if you really want to convince people that their kids arenÂ’t being indoctrinated, maybe teachers could stop taking them out of class in order to throw rose petals at gay marriages.

139

To RECAP:

 

The state doesn’t CARE if Steven and Richard are in love and “want the whole world to know about it!”

 

For that matter, it doesnÂ’t care if Bill and Nancy are in love. It just cares that they are committed to raising the children they will create.

 

If Steven, the lawyer, and Richard, the IT manager, break up, the community has nothing riding on what happens to their shih tzu, Peaches.

 

I do NOT want homosexuals to think they are anything less than completely welcomed as 100% fellow citizens. But this push for a government sanction they donÂ’t need, when their “union”  -- NOT they, themselves, their union -- provides none of the benefits to the community that hetro marriage providesÂ…it just seems so... selfish?

 

 

140 "Because marriage isn't about love, or partnership. It's about the protection and raising of children." Maybe at one time that was true, but there are many married couples who, for whatever reason, don't have children. That does not make their marriage any less valid than one that has children - it's still a marriage.

141 CJ wrote:

State-sanctioned gay marriage is not necessary, and it benefits no one but the couple (whereas heterosexual marriage benefits the whole community

It's nice to see you admit that marriage will actually benefit the gay couple, but how, pray tell, does heterosexual marriage "benefit the whole community"?

If two horrible people get married and then spawn and teach their children to be horrible people (stealing, lying, destroying, etc.) then that marriage can't possibly be of a benefit to "the whole community".

If Jane marries Bob and Dan is jealous, then certainly that marriage wasn't beneficial to Dan.

If Jane marries Bob and Jane's family hates Bob, then that marriage isn't beneficial to Jane's family.

The list goes on and on, and that's because your faith-based reasoning is Christian bullshit.  The reason anyone opposes gay marriage is because it would benefit gay people, and that is the LAST thing you want.  Just admit it.

/But you won't, because that would make Christians look intolerant, so you will spin

142 The reason anyone opposes gay marriage is because it would benefit gay people, and that is the LAST thing you want.  Just admit it.

And that's why I voted Yes.

143 CJ wrote:

If Steven, the lawyer, and Richard, the IT manager, break up, the community has nothing riding on what happens to their shih tzu, Peaches.

The genie is out of the bottle, dumbass, and there is no way you can get it to go back in.  There are hundreds of thousands of gay parents who are currently raising children now.  I know you like to think that "gay people can't have children" but it is simply false.

Then again, perhaps Christians will try to invalidate gay adoptions, seize the children from gay families, and send those children to "good Christian homes"?  Would you object to that?

144 runninrebel wrote:

And that's [because he does NOT want the lives of gay people to improve] why I voted Yes.

"Christian love" in action!  Not only that, but pure Christian HONESTY as well!

You love me, you really really love me with Christ's love!  I am so convinced of Christ's love that I would like to convert to your religion!  Will you share the light of Christ with me?  Please witness to me and share with me your testimony!

145

Maybe at one time that was true, but there are many married couples who, for whatever reason, don't have children. That does not make their marriage any less valid than one that has children - it's still a marriage.

 

And this is the game that this debate becomes. “Because there are childless, married couples, the state should also sanction homosexual marriages.”

 

Citing an exception to the rule – as you have done – only highlights the rule: that government-sanction marriage serves a PURPOSE. The fact that some couples cannot have children, does not change the purpose.

146 Um, SuperKuief. I'm not a Christian. Never have been. I voted Yes because I only heard one side making an argument based on the social contract. All I heard from your side was the kind of bigotry you are displaying here.

147 I'm sympathetic to the same-sex argument that does exist and is in fact constructed as an argument to change the social contract. But until that argument becomes to basis of the same-sex marriage movement instead of intimidation and the courts, then I won't agree to change the contract.

148 Maybe we have BO release all those GITMO detainees into CA.  Sharia law seems to be quite accommodating toward the gay agenda. :-)

149

SuprKufr wrote:

 

“Dumbass.”

 

You make a great point. Very thoughtful.

 

Because a tiny fraction of gay couples adopt children, and because a tiny fraction of hetero couples cannot have children, hey, letÂ’s experiment with the bedrock of civilized society!  Â‘Cause the last experiment, the shift to single-parent homes, has worked out so well! (Except for the increased poverty, abuse, school drop-outs, crime, and stuff.)

 

Yes, letÂ’s experiment some more, so we donÂ’t have to hurt the feelings of the tiny fractions.

 

Selfish. Sellllffff-ish.

 

 

150 Um, SuperKuief. I'm not a Christian. Never have been. I voted Yes because I only heard one side making an argument based on the social contract. All I heard from your side was the kind of bigotry you are displaying here.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 10, 2008 12:57 PM (0n9wc)

Boom. He never saw it coming.

I concur with your post, and the followup. There are a lot of us waiting to hear more than just "CHANGE IT. NOW!" from that side.

151 Gabe is still gay even after some of the more elightened commentors here explained the evils of his "choice"?

It's their right to express their own opinion, even if you disagree with it.

The lack of that knowledge in the gay community is what's causing nine-tenths of the problem here.

When a gay teenager can walk home from school in Indiana farm towns without rednecks gratuitously yelling "FAG!" out of car windows at him and maybe even pulling over to beat him up, the pool of future radical gay activists will start drying up.

That's probably true, Alex; however, the logic leap that doesn't make any sense is the insistence that gay marriage will somehow force acceptance.

Acceptance doesn't come from legislation. It comes from people coming to the realization that not all gays are flaming moronic sex-crazed idiots. That's coming bit by bit, but by far the most effective way of making it happen faster will be when the gay community reaches out and bitch-slaps people who do patently stupid things rather than celebrating said behavior in the name of "tolerance".

Case in point:

Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday's kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.

Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.

The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.

Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off.

And it gets better:

Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.

"Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn't have children to begin with," he said.

On second thought, bitch-slapping might not be strong enough. But were they? Hell no. The gay community just celebrated it as an example of "diversity", even though it made bloody obvious that gay liberals think taking children dressed as sex slaves to a sex fair counts as an "educational experience". Coming soon to a classroom near you.

152

Posted by: CJ at November 10, 2008 12:27 PM (9KqcB)

Stanley Kurtz has done a lot of research in this area and has found that in countries where marriage attitudes are apathetical at best, or for lack of a better term, "dumbed down," marriage rates suffer along with a corresponding decrease in birth rates.

It's easy to look at it in a vacuum and say "it doesn't hurt MY marriage."  But as with a lot of sociological things, the sum of the parts often creates something different than what the individual part may think is the case.

153

Workers' compensation in California already recognizes gay relationships when it comes to death cases. Payments made according to financial dependency. If a decedent has a gay partner/dependent, they will receive compensation as long the surviving partner/dependent can prove financial dependency. Case law on that goes back to the 70's.

I think that gay marriage should be allowed. It's not like they can do any worse with it. Look at the mess that the straight community has done with marriage; is it 2 out of every 3 marriages end with divorce? We have shows on TV called "The Starter Wife". Brittany Spears got married for 55 hours in Vegas on a lark, for God's sake! And people are arguing that gays are going to ruin marriage? Please.

I was wondering when the gays were going to realize that the blacks and Obama screwed them over. I wonder what the long term effects of that potential divorce will be.  

As for the Mormons and their historically bad behavior, I have three words for you: Mountain Meadows Massacre. I have honestly never met one that you can work with or trust.

 

154

It's nice to see you admit that marriage will actually benefit the gay couple, but how, pray tell, does heterosexual marriage "benefit the whole community"? If two horrible people get married and then spawn and teach their children to be horrible peopleÂ….

 

Woah, woah buddy. If two horrible gay people adopt kids, or get a job teaching, it won’t be good for kids either. Or society. We’re operating on the assumption that there are just as many decent heterosexuals as homosexuals, right? “Horrible” parents will likely produce horrible children. Fortunately, the vast majority of parents are not horrible.

 

And the “benefit” to gay couples is merely symbolic. Civil unions would take care of the real concerns. Let’s be honest.

 

The list goes on and on, and that's because your faith-based reasoning is Christian bullshit.  The reason anyone opposes gay marriage is because it would benefit gay people, and that is the LAST thing you want.  Just admit it.

 

Well, you certainly have your fellow citizens figured out. ThatÂ’s two times in about two minutes that you made yourself look silly by playing the Christian card, with a poster who isnÂ’t basing his opinion on religion. Maybe you should look beyond The Daily Show and Hollywood stereotypes and try to actually listen to people on the other side of this issue.

155 Why such anger?
No, it's not just the fringe, although that may be who is most vocal right now.
It's because it is finally sinking in that no, "gay marriage", is not going to eventually happen. Even in California it failed and not just by a small margin. There were 2 million less voters in Cal this year than their were 4 years ago. If they were liberal hopey changed types who were against Prop 8 they would have voted, they didn't.

Who were they? A bunch of conservatives who didn't see much damn reason to vote in deep blue state because their vote rarely makes a difference. Had every single one turned out and voted for McCain he would still have lost the state by half a million votes. But we'll be conservative, of course, and say only 2/3s of those voters would have voted fro Prop 8. So what was the "real" margin it passed by? 10% at a minimum.

There are many states now that have this as part of their constitution, not just a statute. Even of those states that haven't most haven't because they can't agree on just how conservative to be on this issue ala Arizona. It is rapidly approaching the number needed should a Federal Amendment ever reach the states. Should a federal court be so stupid as to rule in favor of "gay marriage" it wouldn't last 2 years. A Federal Amendment would go  through like wildfire.  The only thing inevitable about 'gay marriage" is that it will never be recognized by federally or by nearly all of the state governments.

Why did it fail? 2 reasons, the first is a bad argument which totally ignores why people are voting against this because of concentrating on who is most vocal.

This isn't a religious argument. No religious argument alone will ever stand for long in the US.  If opposition to "gay marriage" relied on religion alone it would get nowhere. Abortion is not an issue almost 40 years after Roe vs Wade simply because religions have a problem with it. You can be an atheist and be pro-life. You can also be an atheist and oppose "gay marriage"  This is the heart of the bad argument. It is not whether "gay marriage" is bad but whether society should call 'gay marriage" marriage. It is about a minority literally forcing everyone to redefine a word. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, that's it. Love and whether it's good or not had nothing to do with marriage as far as the state is concerned. Marriage predated the US and has always had one definition. Why should anyone change that? Gold is Gold. Water is water. Marriage is marriage.
This is an argument over who gets to decide how a word is defined.  Abortion is the same. We have the same wrangling over what the definition of life is. Does the average American really want to spend the next 40 years arguing over what marriage is? No they have been down this road before with abortion and they aren't going to do it again.  Society has clearly determined they want to be who decides. Not a few judges and not a few more legislators.

So,
And remember that civil unions cut both ways. If, as you suggest, civil unions are the same as marriages, then there is very little reason to discriminate as to a single word, "marriage."

The argument isn't discrimination, never has been no matter how badly any push this malarkey. Marriage is the union of a man and woman and any man can marry any woman he likes and visa versa. What has love got  to do with it? No one is being discriminated against. Any more than someone being discriminated against when they aren't issued a beach pass to go hunting. The whole argument is insulting and stupid, especially to ethnic minorities. No one is born gay. We can argue over when and where someone becomes gay but it's clear you have to become it. All people are born with is the desire for sex, the same as hunger.
What we use to assuage that desire is up to to us.

The 2nd reason "gay marriage" will never happen:

Because it's clear what the agenda is here. It's to use the government o force society to accept homosexuality and "gay marriage" as good.  States will be forced to teach this in the schools, all schools. Every government entity will.  Are teachers in Alabama still allowed to teach that slavery was a  good thing? If you don't think this will be forced on families and their kids just look at the stories coming out of Mass.

Forcing everyone to feel and act on this in a certain manner is the ENTIRE agenda. The really stupid part about this? Even if "gay marriage" was passed as a Federal Amendment it would never be seen as good. Adultery has had no criminal or even social penalties for decades. Does society see adultery as good?
Abortion is the same. Does anyone see it as good? Does society think even a woman just deciding to kill her baby is good or would most think adoption is better?People commit adultery, do they raise their kids to think it's good? They abort their children. Would they ever teach their kids that as good?
Even if "gay marriage" was to win passage, it's doomed to fail.
The government doesn't decide what is good, society does and always has.
Government merely reflects that and in extraordinary cases, like marriage, actually promote it be granting privileges, not a right.

156

It's easy to look at it in a vacuum and say "it doesn't hurt MY marriage."  But as with a lot of sociological things, the sum of the parts often creates something different than what the individual part may think is the case.

 

I agree. Marriage is man-made. ItÂ’s not natural. If society doesnÂ’t promote it and defend it, it dies.

 

I love the short-sighted “If gays want to marry, it doesn’t affect my marriage.” That’s swell. Now if we can get them to think a little bigger than their own home….

157 Duplicated from another site:
I believe everyone is ignoring the real pragmatic reason why people are opposed to gay marriage. After going though all the work and pain and trouble and effort of raising children, most people look forward to having grandchildren. Homosexual children do not provide grandchildren. Although some homosexuals seem to be that way from an early age, others learn to be homosexual. This should not be encouraged and every parent who has raised children has the right to be opposed to those who would encourage their children to become homosexual.

The attacks by the gay activists against the boy scouts, where parents work hard to see their children brought up, has made me forever opposed to the gay "community" and their political machinations. The more news that gets around of black people being cursed and churches attacked the more dislike people will have of something that they already instinctively oppose. Parents want grandchildren.

Gabriel Malor, you better teach the activists what Ace has done well here.  Control the venom or empower the the other side.   The attacks on the boy scouts were unforgivable.   These new attacks are worse.

158 runninrebel wrote:

I voted Yes because I only heard one side making an argument based on the social contract.

You're backpedaling.  According to what you wrote earlier, you voted yes because you did NOT want the lives of gay people to improve.  Which is it?

All I heard from your side was the kind of bigotry you are displaying here.

And what, pray tell, is "my side"?  I do not support marriage for gays OR straights!  Marriage is special rights for magic relationships and is therefore bullshit.

My point still stands: the reason that people resist gay marriage is because it would benefit gay people, and that is the LAST thing that Christians (and crypto-Christians like you) want.

159

My point still stands: the reason that people resist gay marriage is because it would benefit gay people, and that is the LAST thing that Christians (and crypto-Christians like you) want.

That's not a point, it's an excretion.

160

I do not support marriage for gays OR straights!  Marriage is special rights for magic relationships and is therefore bullshit.

 

Holy shit.

 

Raising kids ain’t “magic” bub. It’s hard work, and it’s necessary. (Like, for the human race, and stuff.)

 

What “special rights” by the way?

 

 

161 As for the Mormons and their historically bad behavior, I have three words for you: Mountain Meadows Massacre. I have honestly never met one that you can work with or trust.

historically bad behavior:  lolwut!?!  Is there any group that hasn't had their moments that they wish they could take back?  You act like Mormons are fucking Scientologists and cite one incident as a defining moment.  I wish I could exchange all my deadbeat non-lesbian neighbors for Mormons.

162 blankminde,

As a Mormon I agree that my fellow Mormons and other Christians could have practiced greater compassion and love towards gays and lesbians.  Many of us do practice what we preach in regards to love and compassion but the failures get more attention.  It's somewhat a fine line to walk to be compassionate towards someone while unwaveringly condemning what they are doing as sin (love the sinner, not the sin) - and you'll find that the Mormon church at least has begun to focus on this fine line a lot more.  We are willing to love people regardless of the sins they have committed but we cannot and will never accept homosexuality as good.  I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the 'radicalized' part of the gay community is willing to accept this compromise.  If, as you say, religion hadn't been morally outraged at homosexuality then their wouldn't be a conflict I have to agree - because religion wouldn't exist without a constant moral compass.  If the requirement for peace between practicing Christians and a certain section of the homosexual community is for us to give up our belief that we do have moral authority from God then there can be no peace.  Any religion becomes just a social organization without the belief of moral authority from God - asking us to give this up is asking us to stop existing/practicing.

I believe in democracy and could respect the will of the people if it contradicted my morals.  While I believe my Church has absolute moral authority I also respect the will of the people in a republic as long as it preserves my Constitutional Rights (free speech, self-preservation(guns) and to practice the religion of my choice).  As Dave Blue eloquently put it - some these fundamental rights appear to be the final target of these people and they will not be satisfied with my love or compassion without the capitulation of my religious beliefs and practice.  It's not Christians who are making this an 'either/or' conflict and are unwilling to compromise reasonably.

163 CJ wrote:

Because a tiny fraction of gay couples adopt children, and because a tiny fraction of hetero couples cannot have children, hey, letÂ’s experiment with the bedrock of civilized society!

"Tiny fraction" = hundreds of thousands of gay parents, potentially a million children being raised by them.

What do you plan to do about that?  Do you think those parents should have their parental rights terminated and the children should be relocated to "good Christian homes"?  Yes or no?

 

Selfish. Sellllffff-ish.

And so are you.  You can't escape it.  Wouldn't it be selfless of you to give the gays everything they want?  Wouldn't it be truly selfless of you to aid your enemy?  Selfish you are, sellllffff-ish!

Woah, woah buddy. If two horrible gay people adopt kids, or get a job teaching, it wonÂ’t be good for kids either. Or society.

Likewise, if two horrible straight people adopt kids, or get a job teaching, it won't be good for kids either.  Or society.  You and I agree: sometimes marriage is NOT good for society.

And the “benefit” to gay couples is merely symbolic.

Marriage either benefits gay people, or it doesn't.  Earlier, you said it would benefit gay people.  Now you're putting scare quotes around it and calling it symbolic.  Which is it?

 Civil unions would take care of the real concerns. LetÂ’s be honest.

The concern of gay people is that they want to be treated as equal to straight people, and both you and they know quite clearly that allowing their relationships to be treated as equal to those of straight people would have a hugely positive impact on their success and legitimization.  And that is the LAST thing you want, correct?  You want gays to be illegitimate, second-class, deviant trash, correct?  Let's be honest.

Well, you certainly have your fellow citizens figured out. ThatÂ’s two times in about two minutes that you made yourself look silly by playing the Christian card, with a poster who isnÂ’t basing his opinion on religion.

Yes, I do have Christians figured out.  They lie like fucking rugs.  They have learned to spin, spin, spin and pretend that their faith-based hatred of gays is something else.  Let me be more blunt: Christians brazenly and habitually lie about their reasons for opposing gay rights.

Maybe you should look beyond The Daily Show and Hollywood stereotypes and try to actually listen to people on the other side of this issue.

Why the fuck would I want to watch bullshit leftist garbage?  I hate leftists even more than I hate Christians!  They out-Christianed you and they deserve nothing but contempt and derision for it.

164

And what, pray tell, is "my side"?  I do not support marriage for gays OR straights!  Marriage is special rights for magic relationships and is therefore bullshit.

You don't understand sociology at all, do you?

Marriage, as it's currently constituted, encourages people (reinforces the social norm) to be monagamous.

This is imperative to child rearing. Children need stability. Without any formality it's easier, for instance, for fathers to be gone before the first period is ever late. Look at - again, just one example - crime rates among kids without single parents vs. 2 parents.

Having societies future population raised by two individuals - and the same two individuals - works better. Works better at getting a populace that will respect your rights. Unless you like being mugged or fancy yourself an anarchist. Not minarchist, anarchist.

As for gays, what's the point? Marriage is about children. Gay people are not ideal for child-rearing. Children need both male and female role models. Marriage is about establishing the ideal situation (working with the averages) for child rearing, and establishing it and reinforcing it as a social norm. Homosexual unions ain't it, so no marriage.

And lest I be assaulted with anecdotes, the plural of anecdote is not data.  This isn't about individuals or individual cases. It's about the aggregate.

165 Kensington wrote:

That's not a point, it's an excretion.

You wrote that because you can't come up with the reasons why you think it's wrong.  So let's dig into it and see if you can be honest.  Probably not, but we'll try.

My point is twofold:

1. gay marriage will improve the lives of gay people
2. people who oppose gay marriage do so because they do NOT want the lives of gay people to improve

So which one of the above (#1 and #2, above) do you think are shit?  And why?  Be specific.

166

"My point is twofold:"

Okay, letÂ’s try it your way with my example:

1.  I think the bank should be forced to give me $1,000,000,000 out of the vault.  That would improve my life.

2.  People who oppose forcing the bank to give me $1,000,000,000 do so because they do NOT want my life improved.

"Let's dig into it and see if you can be honest.  Probably not, but we'll try."

Hey, fuck you, too, Jr.  You bring nothing to this discussion but hysteria and, ironically, bigotry.

167

gay marriage will improve the lives of gay people

How?

168 CJ wrote:
 

Raising kids ain’t “magic” bub. It’s hard work, and it’s necessary. (Like, for the human race, and stuff.)

I should know.  I am a parent, after all.  Are you?

Marriages don't deserve special rights.  I oppose special rights.

By the way, are married couples who never have children truly married?  What about couples who get married and hate children, are they truly married?

What “special rights” by the way?

This is part of Christian lying which has become so common that I think you actually believe that lie.  The lie in particular is "married couples get no special rights".

http://tinyurl.com/22jfyh (Wikipedia)

The special rights happen automatically for married couples, but some of them can be emulated if you jump though a bunch of fucking legal hoops.  This is because the "married" relationship is magic and therefore deserves the special rights by default and should be recognized everywhere, EVEN IF THERE ARE NO CHILDREN EVER!

Yes, even shack-up-and-fuck-like-rats common-law marriages get the special rights!

169

The concern of gay people is that they want to be treated as equal to straight people, and both you and they know quite clearly that allowing their relationships to be treated as equal to those of straight people would have a hugely positive impact on their success and legitimization. 

YOUR concern (and theirs) is a leftist "equality of outcome" scenario.

Just because all men are equal does not mean all men are equally good at playing basketball. I shouldn't sue for my right to have an NBA contract.

They want their relation to be treated as totally equal to a hetero one, even though IT ISN'T.

Hetero relationships are better for child rearing. Homosexual relationships are not as good of an environment for child rearing. It's parental imprinting. Most people form their expectations about how each sex should behave, and how the sexes interact, by watching their immediate family. In a homosexual union, there is no adult of the opposite sex to serve as a role model.

The relationships AREN'T equal. You're trying to use the government to force the same treatment anyway. It's like Affirmative Action for adoption.

170 Kensington wrote:

Hey, fuck you, too, Jr.  You bring nothing to this discussion but hysteria and, ironically, bigotry.

I was right!  You couldn't answer the question!

Let me try again.  Perhaps this time I'll get an answer!  I maintain:

1. gay marriage will improve the lives of gay people
2. people who oppose gay marriage do so because they do NOT want the lives of gay people to improve

Which one is bullshit, and why?  Maybe you think both are bullshit?  Be specific why you think they're bullshit.  You claimed that my argument is bullshit, so you must be able to tell me why.  It shouldn't be that hard!

171

EVEN IF THERE ARE NO CHILDREN EVER!

Because douchebag, as it has been pointed out 15 times when you weren't listening, it still reinforces the societal norm (hence 'institution') of heterosexual pairing, which produces the best results not in every case, but in the aggregate.

172

1. gay marriage will improve the lives of gay people
2. people who oppose gay marriage do so because they do NOT want the lives of gay people to improve

Which one is bullshit, and why? 

1) The governments job is not to make people's lives better for them. If the government gave me 1 billion dollars, my life would be improved.

2) because they want the future populace of their society raised in optimal conditions.

173 Because douchebag, as it has been pointed out 15 times when you weren't listening, it still reinforces the societal norm (hence 'institution') of heterosexual pairing, which produces the best results not in every case, but in the aggregate.

But that blows a hole right in the heart of the argument that "marriage is about raising children" if you are now arguing that marriage is really about regulating sexual pairing between heterosexuals.  You can't have it both ways!

Additionally, you are a douchebag for trying to have it both ways.

174

Do you think those parents should have their parental rights terminated and the children should be relocated to "good Christian homes"?  Yes or no?

 

Of course not. What an odd question.

 

Wouldn't it be truly selfless of you to aid your enemy?

 

Enemy? What an odd word.

 

You and I agree: sometimes marriage is NOT good for society.

 

Um, but weÂ’re not talking about individual marriages. We are talking about the institution itself. It is either good for society, or not. And the evidence is that it is not only good, itÂ’s the damn bedrock. If you want kids, get married. If you donÂ’t want kids, do whatever the hell you want. No one cares.

 

Marriage either benefits gay people, or it doesn't.

 

It makes them feel accepted? Isn’t that the argument? That’s the difference between civil unions and marriage – it makes them feel like accepted. Is there another benefit you can name?

 

allowing their relationships to be treated as equal to those of straight people would have a hugely positive impact on their success and legitimization

 

I donÂ’t know what this means. Can you rephrase?

 

Why the fuck would I want to watch bullshit leftist garbage?  I hate leftists even more than I hate Christians!  They out-Christianed you and they deserve nothing but contempt and derision for it.

 

Ohhh. I get it. YouÂ’re play-acting. Pretend to be a nut to get those damn conservatives all worked up. IÂ’ll play along, because so far IÂ’ve shredded the serious side of your argument.

175 Entropy wrote:

1) The governments job is not to make people's lives better for them. If the government gave me 1 billion dollars, my life would be improved.

2) because they want the future populace of their society raised in optimal conditions.

Thank you for actually attempting a rational argument.  Kensington is clearly too stupid to do what you're doing.

1. I agree with you that if the government gave you 1 billion dollars, then your life would improve.  Likewise, I also think that if the government gave a gay people the right to marry, then their lives would improve.  Do you agree or disagree that the lives of gay people would improve if they were given the right to marry?

2. I don't think anyone wants children raised in sub-optimal conditions.  It would be nice if all children could have rich parents and go to awesome schools, but, as you say, that's not government's job.  Do you want the lives of gay people to improve, yes or no?

Perhaps I can phrase it this way, a way that even you can understand.

Do you want the lives of gay people to:

1. get better

2. stay the same

3. get worse

176

You want gays to be illegitimate, second-class, deviant trash, correct? 

How is this even remotely rational? You reduce yourself ot nothing more then a sexual proclivity.

Are gay people allowed to vote? Ride in the front of the bus? Raise their own biological children as they see fit? Hell, they can even marry people of the opposite sex!

Because you cannot marry a dude, you're a "second class" citizen?

You wouldn't know real oppression if it bit you in the ass. You also, apparently, put other people's approval of your buttsex above your right to free speech or representative government.

177

I should know.  I am a parent, after all.  Are you?

 

Sure you are. Married?

 

Again, which "special rights" are bugging you?

Any sane society supports those who create and care for families. Which “benefit” is bugging you?

178

Do you agree or disagree that the lives of gay people would improve if they were given the right to marry?

They would be improved in the same way my life would be improved if the government gave me a Ferrari, or made it legal for me to put cameras in the woman's bathroom.

I mean yeah. Giving me things I like can be said to 'improve' my life.

I'm not sure their life would change very much at all, but I''m sure they'll be happy.

Would a Ferrari actuall improve my life? I don't know if you could say that - then again maybe you can. It would definetly make me happier for a while.

179

Which one is bullshit, and why?  Maybe you think both are bullshit?  Be specific why you think they're bullshit.  You claimed that my argument is bullshit, so you must be able to tell me why.  It shouldn't be that hard!

 

Well, it seems unfortunately clear that youÂ’re going to insist on refusing to understand, but fine.  IÂ’ll give it one more try.

 

Assertion 1, that gay marriage will improve the lives of gays may or may not be true.  I donÂ’t know.  It depends on a number of factors that you arenÂ’t taking into account, such as whoÂ’s getting married, how society receives them, what happens to the gays whose marriages end up failing, etc.

 

I will concede that gay marriage could or may improve the lives of gays, but thatÂ’s not, in and of itself, enough of a reason to take a sledgehammer to the bedrock relationship of human civilization.  Not even the ancient Greeks had same sex marriage, and their society was huge on same-sex relationships of a sort.

 

Assertion 2, that people who donÂ’t support gay marriage do so because they donÂ’t want gay lives improved may be true (although itÂ’s a remarkably simple-minded reduction of the matter), but you have not demonstrated any basis for assuming it beyond your anti-Christian bigotry, a bigotry so rank that youÂ’re even throwing it on the non-Christians wasting their time talking with you.  This thread is filled with arguments from people who are not motivated by the desire to hurt gay people

180

“Thank you for actually attempting a rational argument.  Kensington is clearly too stupid to do what you're doing.”

Hey, douchebag, I made the exact same point that youÂ’re now praising in comment 166.

But IÂ’ll hand it to you:  your troll-fu is pretty impressive.

181

#123 Christoph

You should have some actual statistics to back up that pedophilia claim. I used to work with sex offenders when I lived in Indiana. I can say from personal experience that 95% of my cases invloved abuse of a minor child of the opposite sex. I'm not saying that homosexual abuse doesn't happen, I'm just saying that what you said is a broad accusation that needs to be backed up by cold hard facts, not what you think/feel is correct.

I'm all for gay marriage being called porcupine if everything single thing about it is the same as hetero marriage. That would mean you take exactly what every state and federal government currently has legal language for hetero marriage copy and paste it into a new law and change the word marriage to porcupine.

But I'm one of that 27% that voted for McCain and if you people want the word marriage so much, you can have it. Or "state sanctioned marriage" as it may be.

182 "gay marriage will improve the lives of gay people How? " They qualify for the marriage tax write off.

183 Change the definition and in short order another group (bigamists and polygamists) will demand the same. Pretty soon, marriage will mean whatever someone wants it to mean, therefore meaning nothing.

Marriage is a heterosexual institution. Such a thing should not be a threat to those who dishonestly say that they're for "diversity".

184 More fun with CJ!

Of course not. What an odd question.

That's reassuring.  Not every Christian agrees with you, so it certainly isn't an odd question.

 

Enemy? What an odd word.

Gays are your friends and allies?  Perhaps I misspoke in calling them your enemies?

 

Um, but weÂ’re not talking about individual marriages. We are talking about the institution itself. It is either good for society, or not. And the evidence is that it is not only good, itÂ’s the damn bedrock.

Give me a fucking break.  Marriage is NOT the "bedrock" of society.  Does a "bedrock" fuck up as frequently as marriages do?  And when I say "fuck up" I mean "divorce", as in, EPIC FAIL.

The bedrock of society is capitalism.  Selfish, greedy capitalism, and I love it.  Not marriage, and certainly not Christianity.

If you want kids, get married. If you donÂ’t want kids, do whatever the hell you want. No one cares.

Surely you're not that full of shit and pollyannish.  If a woman wants a kid, all she has to do is find some guy and get cunt-fucked by him.  No marriage required!  And millions of women do this every year.  Are you to say that "no one cares" about this?

 

It makes them feel accepted? Isn’t that the argument? That’s the difference between civil unions and marriage – it makes them feel like accepted. Is there another benefit you can name?

It won't merely make them feel accepted, it will make them BE accepted.  Surely not everyone will immediately switch over to loving gays (God forbid, right?), but it will have a huge impact on the acceptance of gays in society.  Think about it.  The government would say to everyone, "Gay relationships are equal and equivalent in every way to straight relationships".  Does that idea scare you?  Do you think some people will be affected by that, in a way that makes them more accepting of gays?

I donÂ’t know what this means. Can you rephrase?

I think I did so above, but I'll rephrase it again anyway.  The government will no longer be saying that straight relationships are superior to gay relationships.  Instead, they will be equal and equivalent.  This will make people be a lot more accepting toward gay people, and that will improve the lives of gay people.

 

Ohhh. I get it. YouÂ’re play-acting. Pretend to be a nut to get those damn conservatives all worked up. IÂ’ll play along, because so far IÂ’ve shredded the serious side of your argument.

I'm not acting.  I really am this vicious and spiteful to Christians but even more so toward Leftists who are even worse than you (the Leftist attitude toward Islam(e) can best be described as "full-throated fellatio").  And saying you've shredded my argument and actually doing it are two very different things!

185

Also, you do not even address my issue about optimal parenting.

You ignore me and ask me if I want gay people to have better lives.

Hey dude... I really don't give a shit. Gay or straight.

186

Hey, douchebag, I made the exact same point that youÂ’re now praising in comment 166.

It certainly isn't the same point.  Yours was merely a mocking strawman while Entropy was changing the subject and actually trying (but failing) to mount a counter-argument.  But we can agree to disagree on this.

If you actually want to answer the question seriously, then by all means try, but I really don't think you can.

Are you even a Christian?

187 SuprKufr, I find your views intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

188

Cost/benefit

Pro/Con

TANSTAAFL

Myopic fixation on the part at the expense of the whole.

 

Some concepts that seem to be foreign to a particular "contributor" here.

189

The bedrock of society is capitalism.  Selfish, greedy capitalism, and I love it.  Not marriage, and certainly not Christianity.

Ayn Rand, meet Frederich Nietzche.

190 Its more an effort to terrorize and intimidate people, to make them suffer and pay for doing what these people don't like. They are trying to make sure people are afraid to do what they feel is right, afraid to disagree, to intimidate and force people to do what they want. This isn't just a tantrum.

191

Entropy was changing the subject and actually trying (but failing)

It's not a seperate subject. IT's very much the topic at hand. I directly answered the questions you posed. How is that changing the subject? Because your questions were rhetorical and you're not interested in answers except the ones you built from straw?

As far as failing, you have not even addressed the issue that gay people make less optimal parents, OR that marriage is an institution designed to reinforce social norms optimal for parenting.

You just ran off and asked me if I want to help the gay people.

Emotional appeal is not rational argument.

How is any of this going to help the starving children in Africa, I ask you?

192 Because you cannot marry a dude, you're a "second class" citizen?

What about me?  I can't marry a dude, either, and even if there's an amendment to the Constitution allowing two dudes to marry, I'm still a "second-class" citizen, denied special privileges and tax breaks and the ability to collect a pension someone else earned.  The two classes are not "straight" and "gay" but "married" and "unmarried"--which is why this whole "civil rights" claim is bullshit.  The gay marriage lobby doesn't care about eliminating the underclass of unmarried people and they don't care about "equality under the law"; they just want to be in the favored class themselves.

Now, back to viciously mocking the people who are upset that identity politics doesn't always work the way they want it to.

193 "There is simply no benefit for the state/community to change the definition. There is great benefit to the state/community in encouraging marriage for people having children." People are not vassals of the state or the community. People have a right to look out for their own self interest as long as it doesn't harm society (i.e. crime). It is not my obligation to have children to serve society - so it shouldn't matter to you if I get married and remain childless or if Steve and Adam get married. This benefit for society sounds a bit too much like the "it takes a village" mentality. I imagine it would benefit society if gay men were monogamous and married, it certainly wouldn't hurt.

194

And notice (this is the hard part for a lot of people to grasp, apparently) I did not say marriage is an institution for parenting.

I said it's an institution designed to reinforce social norms that are optimal for parenting.

Marriage does not ensure, in any individual case, that parenting is optimal, adequate, or even existance.

Marriage ensures that the scenario which - in the aggregate - produces the best results on average is socially reinforced.

195
1. gay marriage will improve the lives of gay people
What gay person is being denied the opportunity to "marry" their lover?
Any wiccan or UU will do it for 50 bucks. So what you mean is the state calling it good will improve the lives of gays. The government recognizes and promotes marriage because it makes society good, not the other way around. I don't think really see how gays lives are improved because of something the government did and I don't see why I should want it anyway. I don't see it as the governments job to improve people. If society wishes to recognize a same sex union they will decide to and what to call it. Not a few judges or a brief majority of legislators.

2. people who oppose gay marriage do so because they do NOT want the lives of gay people to improve

People oppose "gay marriage" because they  think marriage is the union of a man and woman, and they don't really want the government deciding for them that it isn't or telling them they can't go right on thinking that. People oppose "gay marriage" because they want to raise their children as they see fit and they don't want their schools and their governments to force them to do otherwise to appease a aberrant but vocal minority.

196

People are not vassals of the state or the community. People have a right to look out for their own self interest as long as it doesn't harm society (i.e. crime). It is not my obligation to have children to serve society - so it shouldn't matter to you if I get married and remain childless or if Steve and Adam get married.

Who said anything about taking away that “right”?

 

All IÂ’m pointing out is that one type of marriage benefits society (so the state has an interest in sanctioning it) and the other does not (so, no reason to sanction.) The demand to treat the two as the same is disingenuous. They are fundamentally different in the cited regard. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

 

 

197

"gay marriage will improve the lives of gay people

How? "  They qualify for the marriage tax write off.

 

And why would they need a write-off? Again, the REASON those benefits were provided is that the couple with children provide a BENEFIT to society. We WANT to support people creating and raising children. We have no reason to support Richard, Steven and their dog Peaches.

 

 

198 Actually, as we see, the benefits of marriage to liberal gays are that they get the tax writeoffs while still maintaining the promiscuous lifestyle.

Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”

Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”

http://tinyurl.com/658nqf

Can you imagine the outcry if straight men went in the New York Times and argued that their wives should ignore their playing around because "men are pigs" and "it doesn't mean anything"?

Sound from the gay community when gay men do that: crickets.

199

Allowing gays to marry also avoids the second-class status of being shoe-horned into domestic partnerships

Gabe, I was more or less in agreement with your original post.  But you lost me here...

How is that "2nd -class"?  Are you claiming stigma here?  I've lived in California 30-plus years...and the only people who claim that those in domestic partnerships are "2nd class" are gays themselves.

If that's how the gay community feels...well I guess that's too bad.  If the gay community would quit crying "victim", maybe it would stop feeling so victimized.

 

200

Posted by: Ann NY at November 10, 2008 02:40 PM (nG/mN)

 

It's like this.

If you look at countries where marriage is trivialized you find that birth rates are quite low...below replacement, actually.  Check out Europe. 

It's axiomatic that where marriage is trivialized that fewer people bother.  And it appears that from there, fewer people go through the trouble of having a child because if there's no committment there, what assurance would someone have that he/she wouldn't be a single parent.  You mention the tendency of people to look out for their own self interests...well, marriage is the facility by which those folks are looking out for their self interests and not getting stuck with a child when one parent decides  to run off.

After reading America Alone by Mark Steyn there is a very good case made for governmental sanction of marriage..that of our survival.  When birth rates are far below replacement rates, it creates a vacuum and outside demographics move in.  You're seeing that in France now, with Muslims filling the void so France can keep her outrageous social programs...but sooner or later the very identity of "French" will be irrevocably changed. 

This isn't about touchy-feely "make gays feel good about themselves" policy.  This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a question of survival.

201

How is this even remotely rational?

It isn't rational at all, but it is the way that millions of people, Christians in particular, *want* to see gay people.

Do you think that the love shared between two gay man can equal or surpass the legitimacy of the love shared between a married straight couple?  Yes or no?

You reduce yourself ot nothing more then a sexual proclivity.

That's rich.  Let's see who brings up gay sex in a minute.  Who will it be, you or me?

Are gay people allowed to vote? Ride in the front of the bus? Raise their own biological children as they see fit? Hell, they can even marry people of the opposite sex!

Because you cannot marry a dude, you're a "second class" citizen?

No, because people choose to see gay people's love as "counterfeit", "illegitimate", and "deviant", then I'm being deemed a second-class citizen, or worse, a criminal.

Let me be more clear.  Do you remember Lawrence v. Texas?  The effect of that ruling eliminated sodomy laws across the USA.  Do you think that was a good thing for society?  Do you think it improved the lives of gay people?

I believe that you think that gays have too many rights right now, so the LAST thing you want is for them to have any MORE rights!  But maybe I'm reading you wrong, and you actually think that the ruling and outcome of Lawrence v. Texas was good for society.

You wouldn't know real oppression if it bit you in the ass. You also, apparently, put other people's approval of your buttsex above your right to free speech or representative government.

And who is the one who is reducing me to nothing more than my sexual proclivities?

As an aside, are you one of those conservatives who relishes discussing the details of gay sex acts?

Additionally, do you think Christians have abused gay people at all?

202 These people are thinking too small.

Forget cutting church tax status; strike at the root and repeal the 1st Amendment.  Puts them damn Christers (except the dangerous ones in East LA and South Central) in their place AND it makes the fairness doctrine unchallengeable all in one shot.

203

More fun with CJ!

 

Heh. The Fox NFL Pre-game show has less faked frivolity than that attempt.

 

Perhaps I misspoke in calling them your enemies?

 

Ya think??

 

Marriage is NOT the "bedrock" of society.  Does a "bedrock" fuck up as frequently as marriages do?

 

Eh, so creating and raising THE NEXT FREAKINÂ’ GENERATION OF HUMANS takes a back seat to Â…capitalism? Takes marriage to make healthy, intelligent kids -- all those lilÂ’ capitalists.

 

“If you want kids, get married. If you don’t want kids, do whatever the hell you want. No one cares.”

 

Surely you're not that full of shit and pollyannish.  If a woman wants a kid, all she has to do is find some guy and get cunt-fucked by him.  No marriage required!  And millions of women do this every year.  Are you to say that "no one cares" about this?

 

What part of “If you want kids, get married” did you not understand? Of course many women do that. And it’s a disaster. But thanks for underlining the larger point: The state should only sanction what’s good for society. Marriage = Good. Children out of wedlock = Bad. Gay Marriage = No Purpose.

 

The government would say to everyone, "Gay relationships are equal and equivalent in every way to straight relationships". 

 

Except theyÂ’re not equivalent when it comes to the issue at hand: what benefits the community. They offer no benefit.  Gay people themselves do, but their “relationships” simply do nothing for society. We donÂ’t need government policy drafted based on what you saw in an ABC After School Special.

 

This will make people be a lot more accepting toward gay people, and that will improve the lives of gay people.

 

I think people should be more accepting of gay people, and anyone awake for the last three decades knows that is exactly what has happened. And there is no reason to think acceptance will not continue to increase without changing the definition of marriage. (The effort actually has the opposite effect, not that that is a reason to be for or against it. But the effect is there.)

 

I really am this vicious and spiteful to Christians but even more so toward Leftists who are even worse than you

 

So you hate everyone from the Far Right to the Far Left.  I donÂ’t care. I still like you.

 

204 Fun with Entropy:

They would be improved in the same way my life would be improved if the government gave me a Ferrari, or made it legal for me to put cameras in the woman's bathroom.

I mean yeah. Giving me things I like can be said to 'improve' my life.

I'm not sure their life would change very much at all, but I''m sure they'll be happy.

Would a Ferrari actuall improve my life? I don't know if you could say that - then again maybe you can. It would definetly make me happier for a while.

This conversation is actually becoming productive, and I'm being serious.

Yes, indeed, giving "things" (in this case, property) to you will improve your life, be it a Ferarri or a billion dollars.  You and I agree.

Likewise, giving "things" (in this case, rights) to you will also improve your life, be it the right to have sex without being prosecuted by the government, the right to enter into a magic, government-sanctioned relationship, or the right to inherit your partner's property without it being taxed by the government.  Those aren't really comparable to property becasuse, well, they aren't property.  But I can see why you would want to denigrate them as "goodies" because it suits you to make your enemies look materialistic and cheap.  You reduce them to "things I like", like an ice cream cone.  Indeed, I "like" not going to prison just as I "like" an ice cream cone, but I think you and I would agree that there is a world of difference between the two.

So I'm not buying it when you write, "I'm not sure [gays'] life would change very much at all [if they got special marriage rights]".  Tell me, would your life change very much at all if all of your marriage rights were immediately rescinded and you and your wife are now nothing more than roommates as far as the government is concerned?  Is the only difference between that status and your magic married status just a bunch of goodies that you like?

(You are bordering on the "being married actually sucks!" argument that Conservatives inevitably fall into when defending why gays shouldn't get the special rights.)

205 Sorry John T, Europeans don't have children because their high taxes make it too expensive and their welfare state makes them (falsely) believe that they don't need children to take care of them in old age. This was a trend long before gay marriage was even discussed.

206

If you look at countries where marriage is trivialized you find that birth rates are quite low...below replacement, actually.  Check out Europe. 

So you think the West is worth saving? Racist!

207

The institution of marriage is precisely what preserves heteronormativity and monogamous normativity in the country.

So gay people wanting to get married are quite directly trying to destroy heteronomativity. And will also inadvertantly (in some cases) destroy monogamous normativity.

Absent any reinforced societal norm after those have been torn down, society will increasingly become polyamorous and polymorphically preverse.

Thus spake Zarathustra. One more step toward the Last Man and the validation of Nietzche, who was himself no fan of Christianity.

His whole 'ubermenchen' strategy for combating nihilism absent the classical values didn't quite deliver as advertised... (for reference see: World Freakin War 2).

The capitalism and democracy you love cannot exist without God. Whether God exists or not - that is, God as a social construct, not a metaphysical reality.

If God as a social construct did not exist, mankind would have need to create him. As, actually, well, they did create him. See? History validates me. Neccessity is the mother of invention, and God was invented.

If God is dead AND the ubermenchen try to kamikaze the Jews (and that allready happened), the whole of our (Western) society is well and truly fucked.

There will be a time of nihilistic, Bacchian decadence followed by Dark Ages.

And Ayn Rand didn't have any other solution either. Other then maybe to die with dignity. Oddly, that I recall none of her own books even had any of her new ubermench heros actually winning.

208 Of course, they don't represent all gays, just about 99%. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

209

Posted by: Ann NY at November 10, 2008 03:15 PM (nG/mN)

It was actually a trend when marriage itself is being trivialized, not necessarily specific to gay "marriage."

The birth trends were on the downslope before the high social taxes started kicking in...indeed, that's a big reason WHY the taxes started climbing, since the population was aging and there were fewer and fewer young people across which to spread the tax burden.

210

Europeans don't have children because their high taxes make it too expensive and their welfare state makes them (falsely) believe that they don't need children to take care of them in old age. This was a trend long before gay marriage was even discussed.

I donÂ’t think he said it was connected to gay marriage, Ann. He said it followed an apathetic attitude toward marriage.

211 Even more fun with CJ (and more fun that NFL football, which sucks):

Eh, so creating and raising THE NEXT FREAKINÂ’ GENERATION OF HUMANS takes a back seat to Â…capitalism? Takes marriage to make healthy, intelligent kids -- all those lilÂ’ capitalists.

 

This is false.  Marriage is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for raising healthy, intelligent children.

And yes, capitalism > marriage.  Capitalism is necessarily moral, while marriage isn't always moral (think forced marriages or abusive marriages).  Special rights are never moral.  Capitalism is the bedrock of America.  Period.

What part of “If you want kids, get married” did you not understand? Of course many women do that. And it’s a disaster.

I agree that single parenthood, like the death of a parent or, worse yet, divorse, has been a disaster for children.  I think that having two parents at home is better than one, particularly if one of the parents isn't working a regular job (stay-at-home parent).  Additionally, I think that three committed parents would be better than two, since it would lend to even more stability and family income than two parents.

The part that I didn't understand is that your "If you want kids, get married" is false.  You don't need to be married to have kids.  If you want kids, and you're a woman, just go get cunt-fucked.  BAM!  Kids!  No marriage required.

But thanks for underlining the larger point: The state should only sanction whatÂ’s good for society. Marriage = Good. Children out of wedlock = Bad. Gay Marriage = No Purpose.

I think that the state should support individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and that's it.  But you and I disagree.  I support individual liberty, while you think the state should intervene in individuals' lives and tell them what to do.

The purpose of gay marriage is greater acceptance for gays in society.

  

Except theyÂ’re not equivalent when it comes to the issue at hand: what benefits the community. They offer no benefit.  Gay people themselves do, but their “relationships” simply do nothing for society. We donÂ’t need government policy drafted based on what you saw in an ABC After School Special.

You are arguing my point.  You think gay relationships are worthless garbage, and you think the government should enforce that belief.  Do you think it would be a bad thing if more people started seeing value in gay relationships?

 

I think people should be more accepting of gay people, and anyone awake for the last three decades knows that is exactly what has happened. And there is no reason to think acceptance will not continue to increase without changing the definition of marriage. (The effort actually has the opposite effect, not that that is a reason to be for or against it. But the effect is there.)

 

Gay marriage is inevitable.  Your resistance will eventually fail.  I don't approve, as I would rather see special rights be rescinded for everyone, but we don't always get what we want, do we?

Furthermore, I don't see how you think people "should" be more accepting of gay people given that you think their relationships are such worthless garbage.  I think Christians' Personal Relationship with Christ(tm) is worthless garbage.  Do you think that I really want people to be more accepting of Christians after my having said that?

 

So you hate everyone from the Far Right to the Far Left.  I donÂ’t care. I still like you.

You're lying, but I'm not: I don't like you.  Additionally, you suck.

212

Do you think that the love shared between two gay man can equal or surpass the legitimacy of the love shared between a married straight couple?  Yes or no?

TO WHOM? Why the fuck do you keep looking to the same christians you DESPISE to validate and legitimze you? Stop trying to force them to accept you and live your own damn life.

I'm getting pangs of Freud here. I don't even like Freud. WTF is this, displaced parental approval? Your father doesn't recognize your love for Steve as the ultimate expression of how you want to kill your mother and sleep with with dad instead?

If you MUST look to ME for your validation - you can't have it. I'll never accept - on a personal level - that homosex is equal with 'real sex' because real sex is much hotter and doesn't make me queasy. Just like I'll never accept that plastic hot-dog casings are better then natural casings... If you're gonna make it about ME, then it goes on my whim. What _I_ prefer.

If you believe your love is just as 'legitimate', what the fuck do you need me for? It doesn't matter what I or other people believe. If you DRAG me into it, don't bitch when my OPINION ends up being, actually MINE, rather then yours parroted back.

 But I can see why you would want to denigrate them as "goodies" because it suits you to make your enemies look materialistic and cheap. 

No, I reduce them to 'goodies' because I want to be clear. I don't think being married is going to make gay people love each other more, or live longer, or make more money to any substantial degree.

It will make them HAPPY. That's it. Emotional gratification. If that's better, sure, better.

I'm not making any argument that marriage sucks. I will say plainly though, that getting 1 billion dollars would CHANGE my life a LOT more then a certificate validating my relationship would, even if it accompanies tax breaks. It's merely an issue of scale. I'm just trying to be clear. It's not like gay people are being marched through Bataan by the Nips. In that case, then maybe I would "want to make their lives better". In the case of gay people driving shitty Ford Pinto's, no. Buy your own car. Marriage is between those two.

Meanwhile - you STILL have not addressed

1) Homosexual couples are non-optimal parents

2) The purpose of marriage is to reinforce the normalcy of optimal parenting situations.

213 Do you think that the love shared between two gay man can equal or surpass the legitimacy of the love shared between a married straight couple?  Yes or no?

Better question: do you think the love shared between a pedophile and a child, or an incestuous couple, or a polygamous grouping, or a man and a dog, can equal or surpass the legitimacy of the love shared between a married straight couple? Yes or no?

And if no, then why not? Outline in detail exactly what it is that makes that love less legitimate. Remember, "love" is its own qualifier; you cannot make any sort of moral distinction or simply say that you believe something is wrong, because you have no right to impose your own views of "love" on other people.

214

Neveryou mind

3) that democracy requires foundational shared values to exist, and ours - for better or worse - are rooted in judeo-christian religiosity. God is the social construct that organizes and unites our society. If you remove it, you must replace it with something, or else explain how you're going to keep society from degrading into a bunch of self-indulgent nihilists voting themselves bread and circuses and eating lotus all day.

215

Better question: do you think the love shared between a pedophile and a child, or an incestuous couple, or a polygamous grouping, or a man and a dog, can equal or surpass the legitimacy of the love shared between a married straight couple? Yes or no?

It is worth noting that birth defects and mutations that result from incest within immediate family do not begin to show up until the 2nd generation or later.

There's really no good reason why you  can't knock up your sister, so long as your kids don't bang each other too.

And in Japan and other places it's pretty normal for cousins to marry. They're not immediate family and it won't result in incest-tards. They're plenty far enough removed genetically.

I'm just saying , if we got 'rights' to marry whomever we want and all...a right is a right. 'No good reason' is not a good reason to deny people, eh?

216  I have never been so glad that I voted FOR something in my whole life.....especially after watching the tantrums.
 Burn down churches? Oh yeah...that's swell. But it isn't new either....how about those creepy cross dressing "nuns" that go into catholic churches during mass?
 Boy, that's classy...really.
 I have now joined the ever increasing group of native Californians that want to say a big "fuck you and fuck off" to very gay or whatever person on the planet.
 Since gay people don't respect anyone else's rights ...you know little things like the will of the voters....screw them.
 Really.
 I know it's not every gay person, but frankly it's enough at this point. You have ruined my favorite city because you just can't act like decent adults, you have trashed the english language, and you have twisted everything you touch.
 And face it, we all know that this isn't about equal rights...it's about special super rights.
You know it, i know it, everyone at this point knows it.
 This isn't going to go away either. It's time to draw the line and save what is left of our once decent and productive society. This ain't the 60's ...they are
O-V-E-R....and so is the total scam of "we just want equal rights".
 That bullshit will never fly again...ever.
 And the gay movement is first. You just try and get prop. 8 overturned....all hell will break loose.

217 Could someone please show me a marriage statute or license with the word love on it?

Love has nothing to do with it. Neither it's quality or quantity.

218 Ahhh, yes - the petard of Identity Politics. It's becoming as bad as blonde jokes. Even tho you *write for AoSHQ *support conservative candidates [where they can be found] *live like a danmed capitalist, you have one thing in common with these drama-junkie street thugs: yer gay. That one commonality moved you to the need to specifically and publicly disavow their acts and tactics. WTF did we come to that?!? Iddn't it about time for all gay/black/latin/whatever Identity group members with sense to dismantle the Identity Politics mythos? hm? Get crackin'!

219 Better question: do you think the love shared between a pedophile and a child, or an incestuous couple, or a polygamous grouping, or a man and a dog, can equal or surpass the legitimacy of the love shared between a married straight couple? Yes or no?

You are being profoundly dishonest in conflating forms of sexual abuse and exploitation with a consensual relationship between consenting adults.  For you to pretend that a homosexual relationship between adults is comparable to the abuse of a child by a pedophile is such a non sequitur that I must conclude that you have no legitimate arguments to make.

220

“I imagine it would benefit society if gay men were monogamous and married, it certainly wouldn't hurt.”

 

Ann, perhaps you could have a word with Andrew Sullivan, then, because, as one of same-sex marriageÂ’s most vocal proponents, he has expressed a desire to do away with the pesky monogamous aspect of it.

221 The gay marriage lobby doesn't care about eliminating the underclass of unmarried people and they don't care about "equality under the law"; they just want to be in the favored class themselves.

That's it in a nutshell, and they'll succeed as long as they can avoid the facts, avoid needing to actually persuade and convince, and can continuously appeal to emotion and intimidation.

The argument that gays being married would benefit society by stability could be applied to any sexual perversion you can consider. If its true for gays why isn't it true for pedophiles or those who love their goats, or polygamists, etc, etc. Which of the arguments you use would not apply to those as well?

The magic word "consent" does not somehow come from the voice of God, that's just how the courts have happened to rule and laws have happened to be written so far - just like how they used to out law homosexuality.

222

This is false.  Marriage is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for raising healthy, intelligent children.

 

This explains a lot. Your debate is with statistics, not me. You can cite exceptions. I can cite the rule.

 

I agree that single parenthood, like the death of a parent or, worse yet, divorse, has been a disaster for children. 

 

ThatÂ’s so 1975. Worst of all is single parent by choice. Where that is concentrated, you find poverty and other social ills concentrated.

 

Additionally, I think that three committed parents would be better than two,

 

Heh. This explains even more. Too much, actually.

 

I support individual liberty, while you think the state should intervene in individuals' lives and tell them what to do.

 

But wait…I’M not the one arguing for the state to sanction yet another set of relationships. I am opposed to that expansion of state influence. The state sanctioning of heterosexual marriage is legitimate: Because without a commitment, it is MORE likely the STATE will have to use my tax dollars to raise the children from the union – and do it poorly. See? We are actually REDUCING state intervention.

 

You think gay relationships are worthless garbage, and you think the government should enforce that belief. 

 

Heh. Now don’t lie buddy. I never said that. I said they ‘do nothing for society.’ That is called: the truth. You can disagree, and state why. That is called: discourse. And since when does the government NOT doing something amount to the government….enforcing something? That’s slick.

 

Do you think it would be a bad thing if more people started seeing value in gay relationships?

 

Until you explain what the “value” is, I don’t see it as good or bad.

 

Gay marriage is inevitable.  Your resistance will eventually fail. 

 

You mean, like this wise man stated hours ago?

79

The thing is: THEY WILL WIN.

 Furthermore, I don't see how you think people "should" be more accepting of gay people given that you think their relationships are such worthless garbage.  I think Christians' Personal Relationship with Christ(tm) is worthless garbage.  Do you think that I really want people to be more accepting of Christians after my having said that?

 

DonÂ’t lie about what I said, youÂ’re better than that. And Christianity is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Comparison Fail.

 

You're lying, but I'm not: I don't like you.  Additionally, you suck.

 

When my kids tell me they donÂ’t like me, I love them all the more.

 

223

Hot, sexy fun with Entropy:

TO WHOM? Why the fuck do you keep looking to the same christians you DESPISE to validate and legitimze you? Stop trying to force them to accept you and live your own damn life.

Because what I want in society is greater acceptance of gays.  The primary reason that gays have had shitty lives is the intense hatred given to them, primarily from Christians.  If Chrisitans stopped hating gays so much, then the lives of gays would improve.  You are saying that it's unfair of me to get them to stop hating gays so much.  Yes, rejection is the opposite of acceptance.  Yes, they reject me because they hate me and they think I'm trash.  Yes, it was Christians who hated Lawrence v. Texas because, deep down, they really want gays to be publicly shamed, arrested, and put in jail.  Either that, or that gays should die from AIDS.  I despise Christians because of the completely unmerited treatment that they have given gay people.  They should atone for it and stop hating gays so much.  They should clean up their fuckin' act.

And I will mock and abuse them until they do.  I will not play nice, I will not appease, and I will not forgive.  Fuck Jesus!  Fuck him right up the ass!

If you MUST look to ME for your validation - you can't have it. I'll never accept - on a personal level - that homosex is equal with 'real sex' because real sex is much hotter and doesn't make me queasy.

This is actually a legitimate argument -- it's called the "ick" factor.  Likewise, I think that vaginas are horribly disgusting.  They are yeast belching, bloody crotch-cthulu mutant organisms.  Women are sick.  They make me gag with their bloody tampons and bitchy attitudes and their stupid romantic comedies.  I will never accept it as equal with gay sex because gay sex is so much hotter and doesn't make me queasy.

Should we be free to have sex with whomever we want to, provided we're not hurting anyone else?  Should other people shame us and put us in jail for our own sexual interests which might cause other people to say "ick"?

If you believe your love is just as 'legitimate', what the fuck do you need me for?

I would like to see greater societal acceptance for gay people.  I think it would make the lives of gay people better.  I think it is fair and kind.  I think treating the love for gay people as illegimate trash is harmful.

Presumably, you think that that's crap.  You think that gay people are trash and should suffer for it, correct?

No, I reduce them to 'goodies' because I want to be clear. I don't think being married is going to make gay people love each other more, or live longer, or make more money to any substantial degree.

It will make them HAPPY. That's it. Emotional gratification. If that's better, sure, better.

I agree with all of that.  I take that gay people being happier and emontionally gratified is unacceptable to you.  Am I correct?

Additionally, I don't agree that it will ONLY provide emotional gratification to gay people.  It will also increase acceptance of gay people in the general populace, and that will lead to less abuse of gay people.  That will also lead to gay people being happier and emotionally gratified.  I take it that that happeneing is also unacceptable to you.  Am I correct?

I'm not making any argument that marriage sucks.

Of course not.  You and I know quite well that the boatload of special rights which marriage confers is very, very helpful to a couple.  It provides a lot of happiness and emotional gratification, as you said.

I will say plainly though, that getting 1 billion dollars would CHANGE my life a LOT more then a certificate validating my relationship would, even if it accompanies tax breaks. It's merely an issue of scale. I'm just trying to be clear.

It is clear, I just don't think it makes any sense because gay people aren't asking for 1 billion dollars.  Futhermore, they aren't asking for something that you don't already have.  You get special rights, rights that confer to you happiness and emotional gratification.  Gays are saying, "We want those rights, too".  You are saying, "No, fuck you."  And I think the reason you're saying that is because you're quite happy with them being in the inferior position that they're in.  I don't think you're okay with all the acceptance they've garnered thus far, so you certainly don't want them to get MORE acceptance, and you also don't want them to have the special rights.  You especially don't want them to have the label because that would represent equivalence between gay people and straight people, and you REALLY don't want that.

Please let me know if I've said anything that is incorrect.

It's not like gay people are being marched through Bataan by the Nips. In that case, then maybe I would "want to make their lives better". In the case of gay people driving shitty Ford Pinto's, no. Buy your own car. Marriage is between those two.

I think you're repeating yoruself.  Gays aren't asking for a better car.  They're asking for the special rights.  And the label "marriage".

I oppose it, of course.  Instead, I think your relationship's magic label and special rights should be eliminated.  But I think that's pretty pie-in-the-sky, don't you?  Gay marriage will happen eventually, and the "magic relationship" class will expand.

Meanwhile - you STILL have not addressed

1) Homosexual couples are non-optimal parents

2) The purpose of marriage is to reinforce the normalcy of optimal parenting situations.

I haven't addressed them because they were outside the scope of the point that I am very close to getting you to admit.  But since you think they're so valuable, I will address them.

1. False.  Additionally, so fucking what?  There is no government requirement for "optimal" parents for having children.  Christians have never tried to amend constitutions to stop out of wedlock births, so the "optimal parent" think is just another gay-bashing smoke screen.  I notice that you are saying that gay people make necessarily shitty parents.  Will you say that to the face of a child of gay parents?  Do you think that will help?  It's not exactly a constructive response to the ever-growing number of children raised in gay households, and that is a BIG PROBLEM for you.  How will you respond when a gay family raises happy, healthy, and successful children?  Will you deny that they exist?

2. False.  The purpose of marriage has been, in every culture, to regulate sexual access, except among ruling classes where it was done for political reasons.  In any case, marriage does a shitty job at optimizing anything since people can lie and cheat, and they do.  Marriage is merely social window-dressing and you know it.  What counts is the committment in people's hearts, and the church nor the government has any power to create or affect that.  Let me put it this way.  If two people get together, commit to each other, and make wonderful caring partners to each other for ever and ever, loving and raising children, then does it matter if the church or the state blesses their "magic" relationship, or is it more imporant that they make good on their promises to each other and to their children?

224

the point isn't that some hetro couples don't have children (which some think proves the point that marriage isn't about children) the point is most do and therefor the human race lives on. the buddahists say "wisdom seeks wisdom, knowledge seeks knowledge" if that is true shouldn't life seek life?

225
You are being profoundly dishonest in conflating forms of sexual abuse and exploitation with a consensual relationship between consenting adults.

One man's "abuse and exploitation" is another's "love". After all, isn't that what the "L" in "NAMBLA" represents?

Either admit that "love" is not a valid underpinning for granting of marriage privileges, or agree that, since you insist that you have no right to deny marriage to anyone who "loves" someone else, that you have no right to deny marriage to pedophiles.

Furthermore, "consensual relationship between consenting adults" also includes polygamy and incest. Will you now demand that they be given marriage rights?

226 Gorgeous, loving fun with CJ:

This explains a lot. Your debate is with statistics, not me. You can cite exceptions. I can cite the rule.

 

No, my disagreement is with you.  You claimed that "[it]

akes marriage to make healthy, intelligent kids" and this is false.  It is possible to raise healthy and intelligent kids without marriage.  You are claiming that marriage is necessary, and that is false.  It is neither necessary nor is it sufficient.  A bad marriage will NOT raise healthy children.

ThatÂ’s so 1975. Worst of all is single parent by choice. Where that is concentrated, you find poverty and other social ills concentrated.

It really sounds like you haven't put a whole lot of thought into this and aren't taking it very seriously, either.

I disagree that single parent is the worst of all possible situations for a child.  The worst of all situations is an abusive parent, such as a married couple where the father habitually rapes and beats up his children (marriage is not sufficient).  Second worst is a divorced couple that hate each other and use their children as weapons against each other for years and years.

Additionally, what other kinds of concentrations do you see where you see single parents, poverty, and other social ills concentrated?  Perhaps the answer is more complex than you want it to be.

 

Heh. This explains even more. Too much, actually.

Did you actually think you were going to shame me for endorsing polygamy?  You can disagree and say why.  That's called: discourse.  Or perhaps I've reached your intellectual limits?  I'm fully prepared to defend polygamy if you can actually come up with a real critique of it.  (And your critique won't come from scripture -- the OT and the NT are open-and-shut cases for polygamy and YES I will quote scripture on that!)

  

But wait…I’M not the one arguing for the state to sanction yet another set of relationships. I am opposed to that expansion of state influence. The state sanctioning of heterosexual marriage is legitimate: Because without a commitment, it is MORE likely the STATE will have to use my tax dollars to raise the children from the union – and do it poorly. See? We are actually REDUCING state intervention.

"Not increasing" is not the same as reducing.  If you wanted to reduce state intervention, then you would argue that all marriage rights for straights should me immediately revoked.  That is the position I support.

  

Heh. Now don’t lie buddy. I never said that. I said they ‘do nothing for society.’

It is equivalent.  If something does nothing for society, then it has no value.  If it has no value, then it's garbage and it's worthless.  If you thought gay relationships were harmful, however, then I would have said you think that they are a poison or a cancer in society.  I'm not sure if you really believe that and, if you did, if you're open enough with me to admit it.  So I'll ask you point-blank:

Do you think gay relationships are also harmful to society?

 

Until you explain what the “value” is, I don’t see it as good or bad.

Gay relationships make individuals happy and thus encourage them to success and flourishing.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- I support it for all individuals.  In that sense, gay relationships, just like straight relationships, can be very valuable to individuals.  And that which is good for individual happiness is good for society.  Not pleasure, happiness.  I'm not saying that "if snorting coke makes you happy, then it's good" because drug abuse like that usually leads to misery and despair.

 

DonÂ’t lie about what I said, youÂ’re better than that. And Christianity is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Comparison Fail.

It's not a comparison fail at all.  Homosexuality certainly is a choice in how the individual chooses to respond to it.  They can embrace it, or they can try to suppress it and live a heterosexual experience.  Lots of men have made this choice, and there are many, many homosexual men who are married to women who made that choice because the stigma and hate shown toward homosexuals is so intense.  Even Christians admit that this choice exists, and they have their own terminology for it.  Those who accept it are called "gay identity" and those who try to suppress it are called "strugglers with SSA" (same-sex attraction).

What I'm talking about is greater acceptance of gay people, especially gay men, who fully embrace their homosexuality and live their life with another man instead of with a woman.  And I do not think that you think that people "should" be more accepting of that, considering that you think their relationships are worthless garbage.  (Not cancer or poison, just worthless garbage, right?)

  

When my kids tell me they donÂ’t like me, I love them all the more.

With "Christian love"?  Yes, I'm very, very familiar with "Christian love".

227 Yes, they reject me because they hate me and they think I'm trash.

Gee, what would give them that idea?

Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday's kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.

Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.

The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.

Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off......

Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.

"Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn't have children to begin with," he said.

http://tinyurl.com/35fd9k

228 SuprKufr,
You sound like bad professor at a community college. The one everybody avoids taking a class with.

  The primary reason that gays have had shitty lives is the intense hatred given to them, primarily from Christians.  If Chrisitans stopped hating gays so much, then the lives of gays would improve.  You are saying that it's unfair of me to get them to stop hating gays so much.  Yes, rejection is the opposite of acceptance.  Yes, they reject me because they hate me and they think I'm trash.  Yes, it was Christians who hated Lawrence v. Texas because, deep down, they really want gays to be publicly shamed, arrested, and put in jail.  Either that, or that gays should die from AIDS.  I despise Christians because of the completely unmerited treatment that they have given gay people.  They should atone for it and stop hating gays so much.  They should clean up their fuckin' act.

You are absolutely delusional. How exactly would their life improve by this? Christians could love gays to death it doesn't mean they wouldn't ignore them.
What you can't stand is being ignored. Even worse is being ignored while screaming about your "rights". "I'm screaming how the hell can you ignore me and not give me what I want?" Grow the fuck up already. It doesn't matter what the hell society does or doesn't do. As long as your quality of life if dependent on complete strangers it's not going to improve, no matter how much you complain.

229

rejection is the opposite of acceptance

Why do we have to accept your lifestyle?  We really do mean "hate the sin, love the sinner".  There are many people whom I love as friends and family while not accepting their lifestyle.  The true definition of tolerance is NOT accepting another's lifestyle.

230

Wow. That's a whole lotta non-sequitar.

Because what I want in society is greater acceptance of gays. 

I want greater acceptance of drugs, so the government should both legalize and encourage it.

I want less acceptance of Jews, the government ought to kill them all.

Who cares what you want? You want to use the government to FORCE people to accept you, and you beleive this is libertine?

Now this, this is the real MO behind the gay marriage push. It's not about the right to be married. IT's about FORCING people to accept gay marriage by legitimizing it.

They claim the first and it's oh so libertine, but in reality they're just looking to wield the club of government to push their own agenda on people against their will.

It's not enough that they can do what they want - they want to MAKE me accept it, and validate it, too. And punish me if I don't, will be next.

Well, shit, if that's OK we can do that that with... whatever we want! It's your standard tyranny. We could even - with just as much moral authority and ligitimacy - ban homosexuals and them all to reeducation camp.

Yes, ban and reeducate them all. Why not? Some people want that.. let them use the government to do it.

This admission really says it all. It IS about changing the culture, and others, the way he likes it.

The primary reason that gays have had shitty lives is the intense hatred given to them, primarily from Christians.

Nobody has a shitty life in America. You're spoiled. Get over it. Go to Zimbabwe for a while. Or spend some time in Tailand - anything goes there.

You're about as persecuted as a fat dude. Or a smoker.

They should atone for it and stop hating gays so much.  They should clean up their fuckin' act.

Why? You want to change them.

They want to change you.

You're made for each other. I say we get a cage and sell tickets. Loser gives up God/buttsex.

This is actually a legitimate argument -- it's called the "ick" factor.  Likewise, I think that vaginas are horribly disgusting.  They are yeast belching, bloody crotch-cthulu mutant organisms.  Women are sick.  They make me gag with their bloody tampons and bitchy attitudes and their stupid romantic comedies.  I will never accept it as equal with gay sex because gay sex is so much hotter and doesn't make me queasy.

Uh... dude I'm not asking you to accept or validate anything.

Fuck, dipshit, if you were trying to get rid of hetero marriage subsidies (and nothing else) I'd be a hell of a lot more sympathetic to your side. You're not.

You're trying to make me accept your actions. I won't. For - as you admitted - a valid reason. Yet you keep trying...

Should we be free to have sex with whomever we want to, provided we're not hurting anyone else?

Yes. And you can.

 Should other people shame us and put us in jail for our own sexual interests which might cause other people to say "ick"?

No.. UNLESS you think it's OK for the people to use the power of the government to force their views on others. In that case, yes, locking up the gays would be peachy.

Good thing I don't know anyone who thinks that!

(that was sarcasm, in case you missed that there...)

I take that gay people being happier and emontionally gratified is unacceptable to you.  Am I correct?

Straw man. I allready told you why I opposed it.

Futhermore, they aren't asking for something that you don't already have.  You get special rights, rights that confer to you happiness and emotional gratification. 

No.. I don't. I'm not married. If I have a RIGHT to happiness and emotional gratification, then I want to excercise that right. Right now.

Bring me a woman. Have her washed and deliver her to my bedchamber.

The government is not in the bussiness of emotionally gratifying people.

Now to the actual point of this topic :

There is no government requirement for "optimal" parents for having children.  Christians have never tried to amend constitutions to stop out of wedlock births

NOR have they ammended it to say gay people can't have the children they produce themselves. They can. Parents have rights.

You're missing the point so badly it's absurd. I EXPLICITLY SPECIFCALLY SAID that Marriage wasn't an institution for raising kids in individual situations but contributing to a social norm.

Can you not understand, or are you afraid to face that argument?

False.  The purpose of marriage has been, in every culture, to regulate sexual access,

Now you're just fucking full of utter shit. That's complete shit. Seriously that's so bogus... that's fucking bogus. You pulled that out of your ass. It's complete nonsense. I can't begin to describe how utterly wrong that is from a historic viewpoint of marriage. Greeks? Romans? Pssh. You know nothing.

Unless you come up with a new argument to address my claims and actually address them I guess I'll leave it at that.

231 SuprKufr....you are the poster child for everything that is wrong with the gay "movement".
 Sick, twisted and entitled.......
 You lost on 8...and you will continue to lose.
 Every. Single .Time.

232 NDT wrote:

Yes, they reject me because they hate me and they think I'm trash.

Gee, what would give them that idea?

No argument from me.  Gay culture is shit.

233 SuprKufr....and i should have added this:
 how about we heterosexuals have street parades where we have normal sex in front of you to shock and horrify you?
 hmmm?
 how about we go into gay bars and then file lawsuits that we saw icky things and it upset us horribly and now YOU should pay?
 hmmm?
 how about we go into your most special ceremonies [gawd i don't even want to know what they are] and ruin them by forcing our views on you?
 hmmmm?
 HUGE backlash against the gay community coming up in 3...2....1......

234

SuprKufr,

you say christians hate gays for arguements sake i'll agree, and exactly how do you get someone to stop hating something? which article of the Constitution gives the government the power to stop hate? what civil mechinism could be used to determine that hate in a person's mind? is it all christians that hate gays or are there "good" christians and if so, who decides who the good ones are and who the bad ones are? maybe it isn't christians as individuals that are to blame but just traditional judeo-christian teaching, then the logic follows that those teachings must either be drastically changed or destroyed, but the number of christians is huge, the institutions they control so powerful, their stance on the issue so concrete how do you do destroy or radically change it?.... answer:   infiltrate your opposing philosophy into their schools, their government, the popular media of their culture, even the very churches they go to every sunday, you leave no stone unturned, everywhere they go you go, constantly using their own words against them, constantly casting your side as the victim, and constantly pointing out any and every grievance anyone has ever had about them, and when they fight back you depict it as a completely unprovoked attack.

in other words do exactly what the GLBT community is in the process of doing as we speak.

 

235 SuprKufr....so you expect everyone to accept a "culture" that you admit is shit?
 great.....
 what "culture" is based solely on sex and mommy issues?
 name one that survived as a viable culture....

236

#234

You would have to destroy our Bibles.  That is where we get our religious teachings from.  We consider The Bible to be the Word of God so we're pretty stubborn about it. 

237 katya wrote:

Why do we have to accept your lifestyle?

Why do I have to accept yours?  Should I show you benevolence despite the fact that I think your religion is for pussy losers?  Or should I just hate you with all my strength?

We really do mean "hate the sin, love the sinner".

I know you really mean it.  Let me explain to you something and try to make it very, very clear.

When you say, "hate the sin, love the sinner", people think you are full of shit.  No one is buying it any more.  It isn't real love, it's "Christian love", which means, "love but not really".  Gluttony is a sin, and fat people are thus living in that sin.  Churches are full of fat people, why can't they be full of gay people?

Because you don't merely hate the sin.  You also hate the sinner.  You hate and reject them and want them to suffer.  You have been very, very clear about this message to gay people for years and years.  I blame your evil religion.  1 Sam 15:3, Hos 13:16

There are many people whom I love as friends and family while not accepting their lifestyle.  The true definition of tolerance is NOT accepting another's lifestyle.

The definition of tolerance is putting up with shit you don't like.  I don't merely want tolerance for gay people, I want greater acceptance.  The greatest obstacle to that is stupid Christian bullshit.  Fortunately, acceptance for gay people has grown tremendously in recent years.  I want that acceptance to continue to grow.  I think it would be a good thing.

Presumably, you disagree.  You want acceptance of gay people to decrease.  You would prefer that more people reject and despise gay people.  This is because hating gays is a very, very important plank in your religious faith.  Disagree?  Answer me this: if a Christian says that gays do not have to repent of their homosexuality, then are they still a true Christian?  (Compare with gluttony, a sin that Christians do NOT have to repent of.)

238

What makes you think that I hate gays?

 

239 christmasghost writes:

 how about we heterosexuals have street parades where we have normal sex in front of you to shock and horrify you?
 hmmm?

Then you would be doing what gay culture does to you, and yes, I hate it, too.

 how about we go into gay bars and then file lawsuits that we saw icky things and it upset us horribly and now YOU should pay?
 hmmm?

Why would you do that when reinstating sodomy laws is what you really want to do?

 how about we go into your most special ceremonies [gawd i don't even want to know what they are] and ruin them by forcing our views on you?
 hmmmm?

I believe this is called "evangelism", right?

 HUGE backlash against the gay community coming up in 3...2....1......

No doubt that would make you happy to see gay people suffer.

240 What makes you think that I hate gays?

Because you recoil at the notion of accepting them.  Meaning, you reject them.

Now what does this mean specifically for you?  It's hard to say.  Christians have grown very defensive around the word hate and have come up with many defense mechanisms and spin to counter it.

Do you think that Christians have, in general, been cruel and unfair to gay people, or do you think that Christians' treatment of gays is totally okay and completely justified?

241

Why do we have to accept your lifestyle?

Why do I have to accept yours?

You don't, jackass.

If Christians were making you accept their lifestyle you wouldn't be allowed to have gay sex and you'd have to sit in a pew.

Think about that.

You're pushing your lifestyle on them. They aren't.

242

Here you are - fuck jesus this, fuck jesus that.

You obviously DON'T accept their lifestyle. And guess what - you don't have to.

But you want to make them accept yours.

243 I guess that depends on what treatment you are talking about.  If you mean the treatment given Matthew Shepherd, then yes, that is beyond cruel and unfair.  Most of violently object to that kind of treatment.  If you mean that we don't accept your lifestyle, then I guess I must accept your label of cruel and unfair.  But, I repeat, I can love, even be friends with someone whom I disagree with.

244 shoey:

you say christians hate gays for arguements sake i'll agree, and exactly how do you get someone to stop hating something?

That's a very good question.  One thing is for certain: for gays to be appeasing and kind toward aggressive Christians does NOT work.  We need to hit back, hit back HARD, and hit them square in the heart and the nuts of their retarded faith.  That is what I espouse with unremitting and strident ferocity.  I love the sound that a Christian's faith makes when it goes from "on fire" to "lukewarm".

Would any Christian here like to have a Bible study with me?  I LOVE talking about the Bible!

which article of the Constitution gives the government the power to stop hate?

Another good question.  Lots of people have argued that the civil rights movement, specifically what the government did to counter Jim Crow laws, violated freedom of association.

what civil mechinism could be used to determine that hate in a person's mind?

I'm really not interested in that.  I'm more interested in dialog.  And fighting.

is it all christians that hate gays or are there "good" christians and if so, who decides who the good ones are and who the bad ones are?

There are good Christians, and the good Christians are those who do not think homosexuality is a sin.  There are lots of them out there.   There is an active debate among Christians if these gay-loving Christians are "true" Christians or not.  I love Christians who love me, and I hate Christians who hate me.  It's pretty fuckin' simple.

maybe it isn't christians as individuals that are to blame but just traditional judeo-christian teaching, then the logic follows that those teachings must either be drastically changed or destroyed, but the number of christians is huge, the institutions they control so powerful, their stance on the issue so concrete how do you do destroy or radically change it?....

One asshole at a time.

But what I think is also helpful is a general and more widespread disrespect for Christianity.  And that is happening quite a bit nowadays, and it's awesome.  Do you think that a book called "God is NOT Great" could have ended up with a book tour through the South in the 1980s?  Times have changed for the better.

answer:   infiltrate your opposing philosophy into their schools, their government, the popular media of their culture, even the very churches they go to every sunday, you leave no stone unturned, everywhere they go you go, constantly using their own words against them, constantly casting your side as the victim, and constantly pointing out any and every grievance anyone has ever had about them, and when they fight back you depict it as a completely unprovoked attack.

in other words do exactly what the GLBT community is in the process of doing as we speak.

What is this "GLBT" shit?  I'm not a lesbian!  I'm a gay man god dammit!

That said, victim-casting does not work.  To weaken ourselves only encourages the aggressor to attack more.  What we need to show them is that when they attack, we will hit back harder, every time, without fail.  We will hit them where they are weakest and we will NOT be merciful.

Good places for attack:

1. Slavery is supported in the OT and the NT

2. Cristians have to defend their god's genocidal actions.  Make them keep doing this, publicly.  Like this: god would never ask a Christian to have gay sex, but god asking a Christian to murder an infant is very well within the realm of possibility.  And gays are the immoral ones?

3. The women of the Bible are chattel

245 SuprKufr..."The definition of tolerance is putting up with shit you don't like. "
 Do you even read what you write?
 Uh huh...I have been watching all that sweet "tolerance" coming from your peeps.
 Yup, that tolerance is so great when it's only one way right?

 What would make you think that I want gay people to suffer?
 I don't.
 I want them to shut the fuck up and just live their lives as the rest of us do. Stop being such drama queens that are always parading around making spectacles of themselves so they can bitch later that people are looking at them funny and picking on them.

 And in case you haven't noticed it's not the gay people suffering it's the rest of us that are. We are watching as you fools trash our culture by forcing yours on us.
 So you think women and straight sex are icky, huh?
 Well then you should get right on those mommy issues and deal with your mommy right now.
 Here is a mental picture for you...since I have to look at your group's crap all the time....you know what the first thing you ever saw in this life was?
 Yeah...that icky vagina. The one that brought you into this world.
 Burn that into your mind's eye you small minded little whiner/hater.
You talk about tolerance while you are sliming Christians....classy and brilliant of you.
Typical..........

246 katya:

I guess that depends on what treatment you are talking about.  If you mean the treatment given Matthew Shepherd, then yes, that is beyond cruel and unfair.  Most of violently object to that kind of treatment.

What if a teenager tells his parents that he is gay, and they send him to a Christian "reparative therapy" session that blames his parents for his gayness and makes him suppress his feelings?  And if he chooses to embrace his "gay identity", then they tell him that he's going to hell and kick him out of the house?

That is a LOT more common than what happened to celebrity corpse Matthew Shepherd.  It ruins the life of gay kids.  These kids often end up becoming street kids, prostitutes, drug addicts.  Kids who feel that their family and god hates them.

Because their family and their god DOES hate them.  It's the Christian way.

247

good Christians are those who do not think homosexuality is a sin

So, by your definition, a "good Christian" is one who agrees with you?  Therefore, one cannot be good if one does not agree with you.

248 "....or do you think that Christians' treatment of gays is totally okay and completely justified?"

 What "treatment" you idiot?
 Have they burned you at the cross and I missed it?
 Drama queen.

 And this pearl...
  "I'm not a lesbian!  I'm a gay man god dammit!"

 Wait wait wait....did you just say ...gasp...GOD??????
 And best of all you are a spineless coward.
 Forget the Christians...they aren't killing you willy nilly right and left...how about the Muslims? Hypocrite. You are afraid of the Muslims both PC wise and in reality.
 I double dog dare you to start taking on the very people that are actually, not just figuratively [in other words completely in your frickin' imagination], killing people for being gay.
 Nay....make that the ever dreaded triple dog dare.........

249

What if a teenager tells his parents that he is gay, and they send him to a Christian "reparative therapy" session that blames his parents for his gayness and makes him suppress his feelings?  And if he chooses to embrace his "gay identity", then they tell him that he's going to hell and kick him out of the house?

I can only speak for myself.  I don't know what I would do, but I know I wouldn't kick my child out of the house or our of my life.  The above is probably a knee-jerk reaction borne of fear and confusion.  As in any other lifestyle I think is wrong, most of us continue to love and support our children in spite of their living a lifestyle we don't agree with.  I know several Christian parents with gay children and this is exactly what they have done.

250 SuprKufr..."The definition of tolerance is putting up with shit you don't like. "
 Do you even read what you write?
 Uh huh...I have been watching all that sweet "tolerance" coming from your peeps.
 Yup, that tolerance is so great when it's only one way right?

I am completely intolerant of hateful Christians.  If you want me to tolerate you, then you have to tolerate me.  I would prefer that we love each other.  But that is asking waaaaaay too much of a Christian who is only capable of "Christian love".

So let's fight!

 What would make you think that I want gay people to suffer?
 I don't.
 I want them to shut the fuck up and just live their lives as the rest of us do. Stop being such drama queens that are always parading around making spectacles of themselves so they can bitch later that people are looking at them funny and picking on them.

I have the exact same complaint about Christians!

I also agree with you that pride parades are shit.  Perhaps we have more in common than you would care to admit!

 And in case you haven't noticed it's not the gay people suffering it's the rest of us that are. We are watching as you fools trash our culture by forcing yours on us.

I have the exact same complaint about Christians!  You even have a word for it: evangelism!

 So you think women and straight sex are icky, huh?

Oh sweet Jesus yes.  Those weird lip-folds and that weird vestigial penis are just fucking disgusting.  But I don't hold it against you, and I certainly don't think the government should punish you for it.  To each his own.

 Well then you should get right on those mommy issues and deal with your mommy right now.
 Here is a mental picture for you...since I have to look at your group's crap all the time....you know what the first thing you ever saw in this life was?
 Yeah...that icky vagina. The one that brought you into this world.
 Burn that into your mind's eye you small minded little whiner/hater.

Fair enough, and I will extend to you a challenge of your own.  The next time you're masturbating and you have your dick in your hand, imagine it's actually some other guy's dick.  Burn that into your mind's eye.

You talk about tolerance while you are sliming Christians....classy and brilliant of you.
Typical..........

Again, we agree more than you want to.  Fuck tolerance!

251 katya:

So, by your definition, a "good Christian" is one who agrees with you?  Therefore, one cannot be good if one does not agree with you.

Yes, that's true, but it's really this one little thing.  I mean, Christians and I can disagree about abortion, or stem cell research, or preemptive war, or No Child Left Behind, or any number of things and they won't be a bad Christian.

But if they disagree with me about homosexuality being a sin, then they are evil.  No negotiation.  Instead, fighting.

252 SuprKufr.......Did you actually just say this?
 "celebrity corpse Matthew Shepherd."
 You are a crude, vile little creature aren't you? So he's not "fresh" enough for you to use him for your manipulative political ends anymore?

Well it appears that the mystery of why most people have no respect for the gay community anymore has been solved.
 All that intellectual dishonesty and just plain me me me of it finally was the death knell........

    Gay "community"  R.I.P.

 Death by hubris.............

253

But if they disagree with me about homosexuality being a sin, then they are evil.  No negotiation.  Instead, fighting.

I stand by my American and human right to disagree.  I guess you have to consider me evil, then.  I won't fight with you so I guess you'll just have to hate me.

254 SuprKufr...."I also agree with you that pride parades are shit.  Perhaps we have more in common than you would care to admit!"
 Don't count on it buckwheat.
 And you do realize that every fetus is a female to begin with, right? Or is all that science stuff too much for you?
 And I must point out that I am a woman and not a christian either..... so all your other offensive stupid comments really don't apply.
 Sometimes it's not just the parades you "guys" put on...know what I mean?

I don't think homosexuality is a sin. I think it's a very common aberration.
 Gauntlet thrown...your response?

255 No doubt that would make you happy to see gay people suffer.

Posted by: SuprKufr at November 10, 2008 05:40 PM (Xm81b)

Are we sure SuprKufr isn't a moby?  I can't think of any persona that would actually make otherwise indifferent people more inclined to wanting to see gay people suffer than his.

256

I stand by my American and human right to disagree. 

Sorry, that's been replaced.

You do not have a right to your own opinions. You do have a right to be sodomized by a donkey while aborting a fetus.

It's a give and take thing, really... Kind of a wash.

257 Ed...I haven't read all the comments so can you tell me is there someone that wanted to see gay people suffer?
 Where?

258

I stand by my American and human right to disagree. 

Sorry, that's been replaced.

Well, not yet, but The Dark Lord is working on it.

259

I just think it's a little odd that in the comment thread of a post decrying Prop 8 protester's tantrums there is a fellow who is, well, throwing a tantrum.   Gabe's last paragraph is remarkably prophetic:

Third, notably absent from these protests has been anything remotely resembling advocacy. The point of modern protest is simply to tell others how very, very emotional the protesters are.

Or, in this case, use it as a launching pad for an anti-Christian rant.  It certainly isn't doing his arguments any good.

260 katya...True enough. And since we all know what Barry "on the down low" Obama's leanings are....we will probably have gay marriage in all 57 states in short order.

261 christmasghost, I'm referring to comment #239, last sentence.

262

There are two conclusions about Obama's "leanings" and they both spell doom to Christians.

1.  Muslim.  Their teachings pretty much command them to kill infidels if they can't convert them.  Their present practices in a dozen or so countries as well as the history of Muhammad and those who followed him demonstrate this.

or

2.  Marxism.  Marxism (communism) demands a godless nation (in which case, Muslims would also be in trouble).  As with Islam, present communist countries as well as history, show this to be so.

 

263 Entropy:

If Christians were making you accept their lifestyle you wouldn't be allowed to have gay sex and you'd have to sit in a pew.

It used to be that way; specifically, it used to be illegal to have gay sex.  There are still lots of Christians who want that.  Some of them are on this board, but they know better to admit it in public.

Think about that.

You're pushing your lifestyle on them. They aren't.

I don't buy this "pushing your lifestyle" business, whether it goes from Christians to gays or from gays to Christians.  It makes more sense to put it this way.

Christians think homosexuality is a sin that gays must repent of or be punished.  I think Christians should give up on that.  If they don't, then I'm going to attack their faith publicly and humiliatingly.  And relentlessly, and cruelly.

If they give up on "homosexuality is a sin", then I will love them and forgive them.  It really is that simple.  They can treat homosexuality the same way they treat the sin of gluttony: as a non-issue.

264 Ed......I see what you mean.
 Are you saying that you think he is an anti gay shill or something?
 Because he just sounds like the *typical gay activist to me....you know, a selfish moron who doesn't give  a rip who he hurts as long as he is the center of attention.
 These guys have done more to hurt all the decent gay people out there [and there are lots] than any straight Christian ever has..........
 Frankly I haven't ever known of any Christians in this country in modern times doing anything bad to any gay people. Stats, anyone?

 * We have one of these worthless little creeps in my small rural and very old fashioned town. He chose to move here from West Hollywood and then immediately started to cause immense amounts of grief and trouble trying to make this community into another version of West Hollywood.
 Trying to force his [actually quite twisted] views on everyone.
 Guess what the first thing he did was when he came to the county? Before he really started stirring things up in a very bad way?
 Yup, joined the county's human rights commission.......
Gosh, not like he had a plan or a bad history of being an attention whore or anything right?
 This is what really tics me off. How would he feel if I moved to West Hollywood and started trying to change it into a version of this town?
 That's what these guys never ever think of. But ,then I have so many normal decent gay friends that all voted for 8 for instance and are horrified by these "activists".....
   Activist is just a code word for NPD sufferer.
 As my grandmother [who was really ahead of her time] once said "What happened to people just being assholes? Now everyone is a victim, now everyone has a story and we all must hear it...."
 Yeah, I dropped the turkey platter I was holding when she said it, she was 93 at the time and was just like ma kettle......what a great lady....

265 SuprKufr......."It used to be that way..."
 You know, you may be very very surprised at how many of us are just sick to death of small groups claiming victim status because once upon a time long long ago someone they aren't even related to and didn't even know was once persecuted.
You wrote it, so surely you understand the whole concept of old history?
 And please do explain why the sisters of perpetual indulgence [which could be the name for every gay activist BTW] go running into churches if they are so afraid of the big bad Christians? You are just looking for trouble.You are just looking for a fight.
 My real fear is that you will find it. It's not a bunch of nellies that are packing guns you know.....

266 Katya,

The guy that wrote this;

If you want kids, and you're a woman, just go get cunt-fucked.

and this;

Likewise, I think that vaginas are horribly disgusting.  They are yeast belching, bloody crotch-cthulu mutant organisms.  Women are sick.  They make me gag with their bloody tampons and bitchy attitudes and their stupid romantic comedies.

already hates you.

You don't have to do or say anything else. He hates you because you are.

267 christmasghost, I think SuprKufr is exactly who he he claims to be.  But it is ironic that the practical effects on this message board are the opposite of what he so stridently but passionately advocates for. 

268 Ed....as one of my gay guy friends so aptly stated "just because they are talking doesn't mean they have a brain"
SuprKufr exists, but it doesn't mean that he's particularily smart about his actions and the reactions they cause. but then, that is a special foible of the gay community.
 gay pride parades anyone? where they state that they are trying to shock and disgust people. invading Mass? screaming invectives at innocent people for existing and not being gay. in other words different. but as we have all seen different is only good if you are on the far left.
 i have heard the nellie-wants-a-fight meme before. But, seriously i really hope these guys don't keep this up or they will get a fight.they will cross the wrong people, which i strongly suspect is what the activists are up to anyway.
 they will get some young and inexperienced guy killed because he's trying to score points with the big boys and then they will use him....while his corpse is still fresh, natch, to beome even bigger victims than they are claiming to be now.
 the sad part? they have pissed people off so much that not only will it not cause the big outcry they want...it may cause more violence.
 I am a really tolerant person and tolerance should go both ways. that's how it works.
 but, to be honest, even i am getting pretty sick of being called a white cracker breeder bitch just for existing.

 and SuprKufr....try taking your little show where you scream the "N" word at people into east L.A.
 then get back to me about it.....if you can.
 or are you a coward who can only insult people who aren't going to hit back?

269

SuprKufr:

2. people who oppose gay marriage do so because they do NOT want the lives of gay people to improve

I supported it from a civil-rights standpoint before wankers like you told me, over and over and over again, that I was a biggot for not supporting it.  They knew I didn't support it because I'm right-wing and Christian.

Kinda surprising, I know, that people get mad and stop supporting you* when you start making negative shit up about them based on sterotypical tripe.

*collective, generalist 'you'.  Just thought I'd make that distinction since your particular species of troll likes to pull that kind of semantics bullshit.

270 katya:

I stand by my American and human right to disagree.  I guess you have to consider me evil, then.  I won't fight with you so I guess you'll just have to hate me.

And what, specifically, are you "disagreeing" about?  This whole "You just hate me because you disagree with me" is a tactic that pussy leftists have tried to pull on me.

The issue is this: should Christians hate gays?  I say "no".  You "disagree" about that.

So yes, I will hate you back.  I "disagree" with you about whether or not I should hate your religion.  And I do.  It is a vile, disgusting religion for pussy losers.  Your god is a baby-killer.  1 Sam 15:3, Hos 13:16

271 Second, minority groups are often mistakenly portrayed as being composed of nothing more than their loudest proponents.

Have you MET the new Adminstration?

272 "should hate your religion.  And I do.  It is a vile, disgusting religion for pussy losers.  Your god is a baby-killer.  1 Sam 15:3, Hos 13:16"

 okay, obviously a stupid loser troll......

 go play in east L.A...............

273

But if they disagree with me about homosexuality being a sin, then they are evil.  No negotiation.  Instead, fighting.

Boring.  Advocacy groups who make threats are a dime a dozen. Let me know when you reach actual suicidal rage and I'll pay attention.

274 christmasghost wrote:

Don't count on it buckwheat.

But I will count on it!  I think you and I have many things in common, many things which would make you feel uncomfortable.

 And you do realize that every fetus is a female to begin with, right? Or is all that science stuff too much for you?

Not at all!  Even more, I'm keenly aware that with modern advances in science, women can reproduce without the aid of men, producing nothing but females.  Granted that current levels of technology exist, men are completely unnecessary for the survival of the (all-female) species.  Am I supposed to be scared?

 And I must point out that I am a woman and not a christian either..... so all your other offensive stupid comments really don't apply.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I offend you?  You must be a particularly thin-skinned non-Christian woman.  What religion are you, anyway?  Scientology?  LaVeyan Satanism?  Muslim?   Mormon?

 Sometimes it's not just the parades you "guys" put on...know what I mean?

Sure don't!  Is this one of those "you should already know why I'm angry" bullshit mind-games that women play?  I'm so glad I'm gay.

I don't think homosexuality is a sin. I think it's a very common aberration.
 Gauntlet thrown...your response?

"Very common" contradicts "aberration" since the latter implies a departure from the normal.  Well, if it's "very common", then it isn't exactly a departure from the normal, is it?  I thought girls were supposed to be better at language than guys.  Then again, maybe you're full of shit about everything.  That's kind of what I'm thinking right now.

If I can offer a helpful suggestion, try using the bold tag more frequently.  Maybe it will help!

275 okay, obviously a stupid loser troll......

 go play in east L.A...............

Why would I do that when you are so much more fun to play with, you gorgeous non-Christian woman?  Clearly you think that I am also fun to play with because you just can't resist responding to me!  You're so easy, that's what I like about you.  Are you a fag hag?  You already mentioned you had gay friends.

276 SuprKufr,
Be careful what you wish for.

277 ed:

christmasghost, I think SuprKufr is exactly who he he claims to be.

I appreciate that.  I do not think christmasghost is who s/he claims to be.

But it is ironic that the practical effects on this message board are the opposite of what he so stridently but passionately advocates for.

Time will tell and you may very well be right, at which point I'll have a field of crow to eat.  I have taken this tack for quite a while here and elsewhere, and I've noticed some interesting results.  But I have noticed two things:

1. Trying to "make nice" with aggressive Christian gay-bashers does NOT make them love and accept me

2. Sequestering myself into a "separate but equal" enclave does NOT make Christian gay-bashers love and accept me

So I don't expect that my vicious attacks on the Christian religion will make Christian gay-bashers love and accept me.  I do think it will make them think twice before unloading with their usual bullshit.  And I think that because that's the effect I've noticed of me hitting them where it hurts when they start up with their encoded "homosexuality is a sin" bullshit.

And have you noticed something about this thread?  This thread was about the fact that the freaks in SF don't represent Gabriel.  This is true and it's a very principled thing for Gabriel to say.  They don't represent me, either.  He is like me: a gay guy who is generally conservative and is NOT represented by gay culture.  The thread then turned into a discussion of "preserving traditional marriage", but all it took was a few incisive questions to ferret out what the *real* issue is.

The *real* issue is the growing acceptance of gays in straight culture.  Gay integration, in other words.  It is anathema to both Christian gay-bashers and also radical gay-culture clones.

I think the only thing that surprised me about this thread is that there are still many conservatives who believe that gay people, particularly gay men, do NOT have children and are not / cannot be parents.  There are hundreds of thousands of children being raised by gay parents.  Perhaps the gayby boom happened so quickly that willful ignorance is the best response they can muster?  That seems to be as good a response as any, given how devastating that will be to the cause of treating gay people like garbage.

278 SuprKufr....
 Let's see, personal attacks, childish and churlish behavior...oh yes, you are a force to be reckoned with aren't you? sarc/ off

1. You cannot make people like or respect you.You should memorize that fact. You earn loyalty and respect....and not by attacking people's beliefs.
2. Biologically speaking, sex is for reproduction. I know you think homosexuality is very cutting edge but it isn't. It's a losing scenario that has been a die out tool for eons. In all species.
3. This comment of yours really made me laugh: "Very common" contradicts "aberration" since the latter implies a departure from the normal.  Well, if it's "very common", then it isn't exactly a departure from the normal, is it? "
 In science...yes, actually it is. Sex is for procreation, so homosexual interaction is an aberration.

4. And boy, I called this one "Is this one of those "you should already know why I'm angry" bullshit mind-games that women play?  I'm so glad I'm gay."
 Mommy issues alert!
 I'm glad you're gay too.
 5.  "Are you a fag hag?  You already mentioned you had gay friends."
 Really, now. How stupid are you? If you are gay then you know the diff. between having gay "friends" and being a sad pathetic fag hag.
 By your comments here I would have to guess you are a very lonely little man in his 50's....angry angry angry at the world for the hand you were dealt. And as we all know gay men have the same expiration date as a super model. After 30 you might as well be invisible or dead.
 It's your "culture" [ term used very very loosely] you are pissed at, not mine.
 Learn to deal with it or change it but don't take it out on straight people that have never done anything to harm you.
 Except perhaps in your twisted little mind.... merely because we exist.
 Your problem....not mine.

And you might want to rethink this:
 "The *real* issue is the growing acceptance of gays in straight culture. "
 I wouldn't take that to the bank if I were you...............

279

You are claiming that marriage is necessary, and that is false.  It is neither necessary nor is it sufficient.  A bad marriage will NOT raise healthy children.

 

Heh. I like the caveat. A “bad marriage” will not raise healthy children. And contaminated vegetables aren’t good for you. But overall, vegetables are good for you and, we encourage people to eat them. Overall, marriage is good for children, and we encourage people marry before having kids. That’s why the state got into the marriage-sanctioning business. When people have kids outside of marriage, everyone else pays.

 

It really sounds like you haven't put a whole lot of thought into this and aren't taking it very seriously, either

 

No, I just know much more about it then you. I donÂ’t know you, so I canÂ’t say IÂ’ve been thinking and writing about this issue more than you, but I have been thinking and writing about this issue more than you.

 

The worst of all situations is an abusive parent,

 

Of course, but that is equally likely in one-parent, two-parent, gay and straight homes. A useless variable here.

 

Additionally, what other kinds of concentrations do you see where you see single parents, poverty, and other social ills concentrated? 

 

None that competes with marriage as a statistical factor. See this:

 

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes. Each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

And this.

 

I'm fully prepared to defend polygamy if you can actually come up with a real critique of it. 

 

Nope. All yours.

 

"Not increasing" is not the same as reducing.  If you wanted to reduce state intervention, then you would argue that all marriage rights for straights should me immediately revoked. 

 

What I was referring to was, supporting state-sanctioned marriage ultimately reduces the reach of government in peopleÂ’s lives, in that government is not trying to raise children, not having to tutor the children of single parents, not babysitting those kids after school, not implementing extra policing to deal with the crime those kids commitÂ….and not taxing us more to pay for all of it.

 

Ignoring the reality that marriage leads to fewer government-raised kids gives us what the single-parent experiment has given us so far: more and more government “solutions” to cultural problems.

 

It is equivalent.  If something does nothing for society, then it has no value.  If it has no value, then it's garbage and it's worthless. 

 

Wrong. Plenty of things have value to my neighbor, but not to me, and are not “garbage.” Gay relationships are valuable to them, not to society. Hetero relationships are different in that they benefit society.

 

Do you think gay relationships are also harmful to society?

 

No.

 

In that sense, gay relationships, just like straight relationships, can be very valuable to individuals.  And that which is good for individual happiness is good for society. 

 

At least you admit the value of gay marriage is limited to this. Using this argument, gay and straight marriages start off equally valuable to society in that they both make people happy. Hetero marriage goes further and provides the best, statistical chance for health child development. Plus, regular old procreation of the species. ItÂ’s just not close, the tally of benefits.

 

What I'm talking about is greater acceptance of gay people, especially gay men, who fully embrace their homosexuality and live their life with another man instead of with a woman.  And I do not think that you think that people "should" be more accepting of that,

 

Well, youÂ’re wrong again. I do think that. If a man is attracted to both men and women, but wants to live life straight and can do it, fine. But faking it causes a lot of heartache for all involved. If you are gay, you should be able to live gay. The bible-thumpers need to admit that itÂ’s not a real choice, and many people need to live gay. And gay marriage fans need to admit that there is no reason for the state to sanction gay marriage, as it provides no societal benefit.

 

God bless you. Just kiddingÂ….god damn you and god damn America.

 

 

 

 

280

He is like me: a gay guy who is generally conservative and is NOT represented by gay culture. 

Dude, in what way are you conservative?

281 Suprkufr,
 Seriously what are you like 15? People aren't cardboard, you don't get to cut them out so they conform to exactly the caricature you have in your mind. Seriously, grow up.

When you say, "hate the sin, love the sinner", people think you are full of shit.  No one is buying it any more.  It isn't real love, it's "Christian love", which means, "love but not really".  Gluttony is a sin, and fat people are thus living in that sin.  Churches are full of fat people, why can't they be full of gay people?

 I am assuming you've given up on the marriage and government argument here because you have pretty much moved into an alternate universe where the government controls what goes on in church. I don't think that has happened yet. Pesky Constitution and all. To answer your stupid argument no church calls gluttony good. They don't celebrate it or advocate. Churches can be full of fat people the same as gay people. Both being sinners I am sure any priest would say a church is exactly where they belong. The question isn't who gets in but what the church calls good. . They don't assume all fat people are gluttons or that gay people are actually committing the sin of gay sex. They just insist that people follow their rules in their church and not eat a Happy Meal or French Kiss their Gay lover during communion. A church is a community, that community decides what it is good in their eyes. Belong to it or don't, it's your choice.

  Answer me this: if a Christian says that gays do not have to repent of their homosexuality, then are they still a true Christian?  (Compare with gluttony, a sin that Christians do NOT have to repent of.)

What the hell is a "true" Christian? If you accept Jesus as the son of God, as The Way, The Truth and The Life, then you are a Christian. The rest is trying to follow his teachings using the Bible. Christians do have to repent of gluttony. Christians need repent of every sin, every single one. Even then it will only be through Jesus' grace and mercy that a Christian will attain heaven. Communities of Christians, churches, form according to their view of his teachings and what they mean. They have the freedom to do this. What you like or want doesn't enter into it unless you chose to want to join that Church. Form your own church if it floats your boat but nobody should expect the Government to establish it for them.

The world doesn't revolve around you and what you want and it shouldn't be surprising that other people don't want the government to say it does, especially when it's counter to what they want. Get over it and grow up.

282 1. Trying to "make nice" with aggressive Christian gay-bashers does NOT make them love and accept me

2. Sequestering myself into a "separate but equal" enclave does NOT make Christian gay-bashers love and accept me.

Why do you give a shit if Christians love and accept you?
You're problem is not this. You're problem is that their love and acceptance is based on their conditions. Welcome to the human race Sunshine.

283 SuprKufr....I have a question for you.
 Other than giving you life what have women done to you to make you hate them so much?
 Just asking........

284 The *real* issue is the growing acceptance of gays in straight culture.  Gay integration, in other words.

Still living in your own made up world I see. The *real* issue is should people be forced by the government to give a shit about this vaunted acceptance you crave. Clearly they shouldn't be and are voting to make sure they aren't. Your integration is a matter of complete indifference as long as it doesn't attempt to undemocratically change society. Gays aren't an ethnic minority, the vast majority don't hate  and aren't afraid of them. They just don't give a shit and nobody is going to force them too. You're problem is not that they hate, it's that they don't care.

285 Rocks..."You're problem is not that they hate, it's that they don't care."
 I think you hit the nail right on the head with this one.
 Perhaps that's why gay activists are so annoying with their "look at me! look at me!" moments too....hmmmmmm

286 These protests are a nice way for a bunch of frustrated people to vent spleen, but that's about it. It will have zero effect on the Mormons. As someone who was born and raised Mormon right in the heartland of Utah, I can tell you that Mormons have a stubborn streak like you wouldn't believe. We will stonewall a bunch of protesters out of sheer SPITE. And we will outlast our critics. Just ask the Evangelicals. They've been yelling at us and preaching at us for over 100 years and come up with pretty-much zilch to show for it. We're used to angry unhinged people yelling at us. We get it at almost every major Mormon event by overweight, unwashed Evangelical street preachers with sets of Mormon underwear hanging off their belts. We've learned to basically tune it out. We also have a bit of a martyr complex and a tendency to fit everything into a narrative of being besieged by the rest of the world. Protests, insults, vandalism, and calls to revoke tax status tend to reinforce that. I guarantee you that the meaner this gets, the more likely it is that my people will close ranks and ignore you completely. In the meanwhile, you'll be painting a lovely picture for the rest of religious America that "gays hate religion" and want to see it marginalized out of existence. I suppose that's not fair, but... tough. Every protest outside a religious structure makes exactly that point. If the gay community wanted to make the passage of Prop 8 an even worse defeat for them than it already was, the current protest strategy is likely to do a fabulous job.

287 "I want them to shut the fuck up and just live their lives as the rest of us do."

The second Christians stop broadcasting on television each week, having dozens of buildings in every city in the United States advertising their faith and often specific messages to boot, and both funding and sending missionaries to literally convert people to their way of thinking, not to mention handing out brochures on the sidewalk, holding signs, and forming 527 groups, you may have a point.

Until then, you don't.

Plus this "shut the fuck up" stuff? You can want it all you want, but they sure as hell have the same 1st amendment rights as any other American.

288 I read this just today:

On Sunday, November 9, a band of about 30 gays stormed a church in Lansing, Michigan. Some were well dressed and were stationed inside Mount Hope Church; others were outside dressed in pink and black. The group of self-described homosexual anarchists, Bash Back!, claims the evangelical church is guilty of “transphobia and homophobia.”

The protesters outside the church were beating on buckets, shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. Fire alarms went off inside the church, protesters stormed the pulpit and a huge rainbow-colored flag was unfurled with the inscription, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!” The church was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers were confronted. There were no arrests.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:

“The real story here is the refusal of the mainstream media to cover what is surely one of the most disturbing events of 2008. If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn’t know about it.

“This is urban fascism come to America’s heartland. It must be quickly stopped before it gets out of control.

289 The second Christians stop broadcasting on television each week, having dozens of buildings in every city in the United States advertising their faith and often specific messages to boot, and both funding and sending missionaries to literally convert people to their way of thinking, not to mention handing out brochures on the sidewalk, holding signs, and forming 527 groups, you may have a point.

Finger broken on that remote? Those darn Christians, talking in their own places about what they believe, how dare they!?!??!?

290 Christopher Taylor, don't be intellectually dishonest.

I have no problem with Christians doing any of those activities. You know damn well I was responding to this comment regarding homosexual people:

"I want them to shut the fuck up and just live their lives as the rest of us do."

291 oh, christoph....surely you understood what i meant?
 of course everyone has first amendment rights [at least for now...] but invading people's churches, being as disgusting as possible in public places [i.e. parades] that would get any straight person arrested. these aren't equal rights...these are special super rights.
 and from what you said...you agree with them. you don't want equal rights you want retribution against Christians.and for what? because they disagree with you?
 disgusting....
 in the mean time...as i already said "i want them to shut the fuck up... and i will add...act like decent adults that are part of a society . not the center of the universe....
 no one should have to protect their kids from seeing what is seen almost everyday in san francisco for instance.
 it's obscene, it's childish and it's beyond selfish.
 you can change the channel on the TV but what do you do when your entire city has gone mad?

292 Hi guys. As I get older, I've learned to listen to people rather than accuse them of things. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Anti asthma. I found only this - pharmacy prednisone. Article in spanish anti allergic principles of rhinacanthus nasutus leaves. The act or process of treating with medicine. With love :rolleyes:, Kacy from Burma.

293 nice post buddy thanks for sharing
Personal blog newbie
witul4r's blog
Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat
Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat &

294 Excellent example. Egypt Air. We all know that the employees of Egypt Air are beyond reproach. Except, of course, the Muslim pilot who ditched his plane, Flight 990, in the Atalntic Ocean in 1999. But he's an exception to the rule. Besides, the joos were probably responsible.

295

Thank you for your effort, very glad that you gave this to us. It’s some pretty great and valuable reading.