Why Conservatives Can't Dance
May 29th, 2009 by Jon Taplin
This is one of the greatest exhibits of cluelessness in the history of the Internet.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8&eurl]
Pathetic.
This is one of the greatest exhibits of cluelessness in the history of the Internet.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8&eurl]
Pathetic.
It’s the Flight of the Conchords… with neo-cons.
It’s the Flight of the Conchords… with neo-cons.
@Dave, on behalf of Brit and Jermaine, I take offense, and request politely that you step outside with me now, to settle this like certain men might in a situation like this one. Uunless you’re not comfortable with that sort of thing, in which case, well I suppose I’ll have to ask you to retract your statement. Please. Oh, you’re willing to step outside? Er, well, I would… but, ah, my contract actually prevents me from participating directly in any physical labor on behalf of the band, and I think you’d agree this would qualify, right? Heh. Well. Cheers.
@Dave, on behalf of Brit and Jermaine, I take offense, and request politely that you step outside with me now, to settle this like certain men might in a situation like this one. Uunless you’re not comfortable with that sort of thing, in which case, well I suppose I’ll have to ask you to retract your statement. Please. Oh, you’re willing to step outside? Er, well, I would… but, ah, my contract actually prevents me from participating directly in any physical labor on behalf of the band, and I think you’d agree this would qualify, right? Heh. Well. Cheers.
There they go…limping off to oblivion.
There they go…limping off to oblivion.
But there are so many good rhymes! I can’t choose my fav:
“We need more women with intellectual integrity. I’m talking Megyn Kelly, not Nancy Pelosi.”
or:
“Three things taught me conservative love: Jesus, Ronald Reagan, plus Atlas Shrugged.”
or:
“Everyone can succeed because our soldiers bleed.”
Word! Young Cons In The House, Boyz!
But there are so many good rhymes! I can’t choose my fav:
“We need more women with intellectual integrity. I’m talking Megyn Kelly, not Nancy Pelosi.”
or:
“Three things taught me conservative love: Jesus, Ronald Reagan, plus Atlas Shrugged.”
or:
“Everyone can succeed because our soldiers bleed.”
Word! Young Cons In The House, Boyz!
they are trying to win over Obama’s disgruntled following one hip-hop millionaire at a time….
they are trying to win over Obama’s disgruntled following one hip-hop millionaire at a time….
Ever thought they might actually be both serious AND parodying themselves. As a young conservative myself, I find this to be very funny: partly because I agree with much of what they espouse (though not all of course), but also because they’ve nailed the clueless stereotype of conservatives.
I have yet to figure out why young conservatives can be very serious about their views, but mature enough to not take themselves too seriously, while most liberals I know are incapable of laughing at themselves.
I understand that as soon as I claim to be a “conservative” I am stereotyped as ignorant and arrogant, because many of my fellow conservatives are, in fact, ignorant and arrogant. All I ask is for someone who claims to be a liberal to say the same thing about their own (because it’s true).
As soon as I find that person we might actually be able to have a calm and productive discussion about the real problems.
Ever thought they might actually be both serious AND parodying themselves. As a young conservative myself, I find this to be very funny: partly because I agree with much of what they espouse (though not all of course), but also because they’ve nailed the clueless stereotype of conservatives.
I have yet to figure out why young conservatives can be very serious about their views, but mature enough to not take themselves too seriously, while most liberals I know are incapable of laughing at themselves.
I understand that as soon as I claim to be a “conservative” I am stereotyped as ignorant and arrogant, because many of my fellow conservatives are, in fact, ignorant and arrogant. All I ask is for someone who claims to be a liberal to say the same thing about their own (because it’s true).
As soon as I find that person we might actually be able to have a calm and productive discussion about the real problems.
I believe this can now define limp.
I believe this can now define limp.
I think the incoherence of what passes for “conservative thinking” is summed up in that one line: “Three things taught me conservative love: Jesus,(the alleged Son of God) Ronald Reagan, (staunch enemy of the Russian “Evil Empire”) plus Atlas Shrugged.”(by Ayn Rand…Russian atheist….)
I think the incoherence of what passes for “conservative thinking” is summed up in that one line: “Three things taught me conservative love: Jesus,(the alleged Son of God) Ronald Reagan, (staunch enemy of the Russian “Evil Empire”) plus Atlas Shrugged.”(by Ayn Rand…Russian atheist….)
Ah yes, the Christian Right trying to be black without the dues.
Neo cons are oblivious to irony.
Ah yes, the Christian Right trying to be black without the dues.
Neo cons are oblivious to irony.
Ah yes, the Christian Right trying to be black without the dues.
Neo cons are oblivious to irony.
First off, where the hell were their school ties?
Second off, so white men can’t jump, sing the blues, rap, break, go hudibrastic with their rhymes, busta? Is zat what I’m hearing?
And third off, you can’t attempt art without thought and thought leads to growth inevitably, indubitably, and growth leads to these young men either joining up or shutting up, we hope eternally. Word!
First off, where the hell were their school ties?
Second off, so white men can’t jump, sing the blues, rap, break, go hudibrastic with their rhymes, busta? Is zat what I’m hearing?
And third off, you can’t attempt art without thought and thought leads to growth inevitably, indubitably, and growth leads to these young men either joining up or shutting up, we hope eternally. Word!
First off, where the hell were their school ties?
Second off, so white men can’t jump, sing the blues, rap, break, go hudibrastic with their rhymes, busta? Is zat what I’m hearing?
And third off, you can’t attempt art without thought and thought leads to growth inevitably, indubitably, and growth leads to these young men either joining up or shutting up, we hope eternally. Word!
Jon, loved yesterday’s logo photo showing those two friends and today, well, if that wasn’t a Tex Winter’s dream of how to run a Triangle Offense then I don’t know my isosecles from my hard fouls.
Jon, loved yesterday’s logo photo showing those two friends and today, well, if that wasn’t a Tex Winter’s dream of how to run a Triangle Offense then I don’t know my isosecles from my hard fouls.
Jon, loved yesterday’s logo photo showing those two friends and today, well, if that wasn’t a Tex Winter’s dream of how to run a Triangle Offense then I don’t know my isosecles from my hard fouls.
isosceles, that is.
isosceles, that is.
isosceles, that is.
Interesting that they are careful to distance themselves from the Republican party. How low can a party get?
Interesting that they are careful to distance themselves from the Republican party. How low can a party get?
Interesting that they are careful to distance themselves from the Republican party. How low can a party get?
No, no, no. There was a rhyme in there. I was sure of it. Can’t find it just now, but I’m fairly certain of it.
(But about Ken’s distinction between the Christian Right and the black church, I’m not so sure…)
No, no, no. There was a rhyme in there. I was sure of it. Can’t find it just now, but I’m fairly certain of it.
(But about Ken’s distinction between the Christian Right and the black church, I’m not so sure…)
No, no, no. There was a rhyme in there. I was sure of it. Can’t find it just now, but I’m fairly certain of it.
(But about Ken’s distinction between the Christian Right and the black church, I’m not so sure…)
So funny! And just think, there are conservatives out there who are taking this seriously. Such pathetic little boys.
So funny! And just think, there are conservatives out there who are taking this seriously. Such pathetic little boys.
So funny! And just think, there are conservatives out there who are taking this seriously. Such pathetic little boys.
This is hilarious. Blatant lies in here obviously. I’m a democrat and I prefer Chess over Checker
If it achieved one thing, it’s make make people laugh, and I was quite surprised to see the breakdown when they did that superman thing.
I really hope this helps this gets picked up by the conservative movement so I can have another thing to blog and laugh about.
This is hilarious. Blatant lies in here obviously. I’m a democrat and I prefer Chess over Checker
If it achieved one thing, it’s make make people laugh, and I was quite surprised to see the breakdown when they did that superman thing.
I really hope this helps this gets picked up by the conservative movement so I can have another thing to blog and laugh about.
They sound like liberals……!! YUk
I have seen Obama dance on Ellen…..he stinks….
They sound like liberals……!! YUk
I have seen Obama dance on Ellen…..he stinks….
“Three things taught me conservative love: Jesus, Ronald Reagan, plus Atlas Shrugged.”
So, they love Jesus and a Russo-American atheist author whose philosophy pushes atheism? makes perfect sense.
“Three things taught me conservative love: Jesus, Ronald Reagan, plus Atlas Shrugged.”
So, they love Jesus and a Russo-American atheist author whose philosophy pushes atheism? makes perfect sense.
I can’t wait for the rap in the last stage: Political collapse.
Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout
I can’t wait for the rap in the last stage: Political collapse.
Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout
Scares me. Makes me ill. I don’t care that their hip-hop is hopeless; heck, there are a lot of African-Americans whose hip-hop is hopeless too. What concerns me is that a lot of people really do believe all those conservative slogans. It’s enough to make a grown man cry.
Scares me. Makes me ill. I don’t care that their hip-hop is hopeless; heck, there are a lot of African-Americans whose hip-hop is hopeless too. What concerns me is that a lot of people really do believe all those conservative slogans. It’s enough to make a grown man cry.
The lyrics are listed here, with commentary.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/30/young-conservative-r.html#comment-506457
The lyrics are listed here, with commentary.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/30/young-conservative-r.html#comment-506457
The lyrics are listed here, with commentary.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/30/young-conservative-r.html#comment-506457
This is my problem with conservatives/republicans (and I am one!), everyone should have the courage of their convictions and to stand up for what they believe in. BUT, when conservatives/republicans in the public eye espouse one way and behave in another credibility goes right out the window. This is something that I don’t think they have learned despite all the painful lessons. Miss California stood up in front of millions and showing that she had courage of her convictions stated her opinion about a subject that earned her praise and ridicule. Further, she appeared at her church etc. all the while knowing those “racy” photos of her were out there and BAM! they show up on the internet. This is my point, espousing one view and behaving in another, she has lost all credibility despite the fact that she was able to keep her status as Miss California.
The Republican Party and conservatives will continue to be looked upon as a joke and used as the butt of jokes if they don’t fix the credibility (and albeit many other) problems.
This is my problem with conservatives/republicans (and I am one!), everyone should have the courage of their convictions and to stand up for what they believe in. BUT, when conservatives/republicans in the public eye espouse one way and behave in another credibility goes right out the window. This is something that I don’t think they have learned despite all the painful lessons. Miss California stood up in front of millions and showing that she had courage of her convictions stated her opinion about a subject that earned her praise and ridicule. Further, she appeared at her church etc. all the while knowing those “racy” photos of her were out there and BAM! they show up on the internet. This is my point, espousing one view and behaving in another, she has lost all credibility despite the fact that she was able to keep her status as Miss California.
The Republican Party and conservatives will continue to be looked upon as a joke and used as the butt of jokes if they don’t fix the credibility (and albeit many other) problems.
This is my problem with conservatives/republicans (and I am one!), everyone should have the courage of their convictions and to stand up for what they believe in. BUT, when conservatives/republicans in the public eye espouse one way and behave in another credibility goes right out the window. This is something that I don’t think they have learned despite all the painful lessons. Miss California stood up in front of millions and showing that she had courage of her convictions stated her opinion about a subject that earned her praise and ridicule. Further, she appeared at her church etc. all the while knowing those “racy” photos of her were out there and BAM! they show up on the internet. This is my point, espousing one view and behaving in another, she has lost all credibility despite the fact that she was able to keep her status as Miss California.
The Republican Party and conservatives will continue to be looked upon as a joke and used as the butt of jokes if they don’t fix the credibility (and albeit many other) problems.
lol. he rhymed hyperbole with hyperbole.
lol. he rhymed hyperbole with hyperbole.
lol. he rhymed hyperbole with hyperbole.
“People who cry wolf obviously don’t have a clue what the real world is like…wake up and do some research instead of listening to idiots” Paul Orberson.
“People who cry wolf obviously don’t have a clue what the real world is like…wake up and do some research instead of listening to idiots” Paul Orberson.
“People who cry wolf obviously don’t have a clue what the real world is like…wake up and do some research instead of listening to idiots” Paul Orberson.
One thing for sure, not one of you who critiqued could do any better. They may not be “musicians” or “artists” but at least they did something…
KELLOGLOGGER – and the democrats are any different? Not even close. They’re all human my friend. You’ve got some repubs and some dems that stand for what they believe and back it up with the way they live their life. Then you have some repubs and dems who lose all credibility because they screw up or screwed up at some point. But, how many people do you know that haven’t screwed up at somepoint?
And the example of Miss California I don’t quite understand. She stood up for marriage. What does that have to do with her pictures? She didn’t stand up against models taking partially nude pictures then only to be exposed.
I believe she gained credibility. Only those, ironically, closed-minded, intolerant individuals who want to shut down someone’s opinion if it disagrees with their own were “offended”. The irony kills me…”join us cuz we are the tolerant ones but if you disagree with us we will absolutely do everything in our power to destroy you” – don’t believe, look at Perez Hilton.
One thing for sure, not one of you who critiqued could do any better. They may not be “musicians” or “artists” but at least they did something…
KELLOGLOGGER – and the democrats are any different? Not even close. They’re all human my friend. You’ve got some repubs and some dems that stand for what they believe and back it up with the way they live their life. Then you have some repubs and dems who lose all credibility because they screw up or screwed up at some point. But, how many people do you know that haven’t screwed up at somepoint?
And the example of Miss California I don’t quite understand. She stood up for marriage. What does that have to do with her pictures? She didn’t stand up against models taking partially nude pictures then only to be exposed.
I believe she gained credibility. Only those, ironically, closed-minded, intolerant individuals who want to shut down someone’s opinion if it disagrees with their own were “offended”. The irony kills me…”join us cuz we are the tolerant ones but if you disagree with us we will absolutely do everything in our power to destroy you” – don’t believe, look at Perez Hilton.
lifewithapayplan -
What “research” would that be? It’s so easy to offer a platitude and then do nothing to back it up. So “lifewithapayplan” please offer us your wisdom.
lifewithapayplan -
What “research” would that be? It’s so easy to offer a platitude and then do nothing to back it up. So “lifewithapayplan” please offer us your wisdom.
My eyes! My eyes! There’s blood running out my ears. 4:38? Bilge water, that was an hour if it was a second.
My eyes! My eyes! There’s blood running out my ears. 4:38? Bilge water, that was an hour if it was a second.
rhbee-The Finals should be fun
Pathetic is Obama running this country into the ground. He is already worse than Bush.
@Kelly
Ah, gotta love them fallacies:
“not one of you who critiqued could do any better”…means what exactly?
a. I probably couldn’t do better – which is why I wouldn’t make such a video in the first place. They chose to put this out there? They’re as open to critique as anyone (and from anyone).
I don’t have to make a video of my own just so I can know this one sucks.
b. The quality of their singing has nothing to do with the content – which is the main point of ridicule here.
These guys are muppets.
But I really love this one:
“we are the tolerant ones but if you disagree with us we will absolutely do everything in our power to destroy you”
…umm, you don’t get it do you?
Being tolerant doesn’t mean being tolerant towards intolerance itself.
All the bigots of the world get this part wrong over and over again. You latch on to this argument as if you’re turning the liberal weapon against them. You’re not.
Promoting tolerance means quite the opposite – it means fighting and crushing every instance of intolerance that rears its plastic boob.
There can be no tolerance towards intolerance itself.
@Armand Asante
I would agree with you that they opened themselves to criticisim. That wasn’t my point.
I am confused on your version or defintion of “intolerance”. Would be please define it as you see it?
Typo: “Would you please define it as you see it.”
Nice to see a new visitor participate but just to clarify, Miss California made her statement and then after she lost the next competition she claimed her statement about marriage was the reason she lost. She offered no proof that this was so but apparently just the claim was enough to convince others eager to find fault and willing to justify their own intolerance.
rhbee, now that’s a reach. I will defer to the very JUDGE who asked her the question. Here is a quote from Perez off his blog site: “She gave the worst answer in pageant history. She lost because she’s a dumb bith, okay?”
She never called him a derogatory term. She just disagrees with his position and because of that she’s a “dumb bitch”. Wow. But her position is “intolerant?”
I’m confused on how you define “intolerance.” If you would, offer your definition.
The title is misleading, it should be why conservatives can’t rap. However, they did pretty well….
An observation, and perhaps an insight. First the observation:
I did not lose more than about 45 seconds of my life to this video. No need. Determined in the first few seconds that this was a feckless, pathetic and laughable effort from some Young Cons…
Now for the insight, your mileage may vary:
With the passing of William Buckley last year, I was saddened. Not because I agreed with the man, nor because I was a kindred spirit. I was saddened, because a good intellectual had died. One who had opposing viewpoints, who could articulate and defend them in open and honest debate.
I think this video is a symptom of a much larger problem. Worthless tripe like this now attempts to substitute for what should be very serious and very broad-reaching discussion and debate about our modern civilization, America’s role therein, societal preservation of the good, noble and just; etc. ad infinitum.
My insight is that with our current politics in this nation, and specifically the Republican Party, that a voice of intelligent thought and reflection would have no seat at the table. In this modern Repub party, it seems that intelligent debate and exchange of ideas or opinions is anathema. No invitation or tolerance in the discussion. No seat for an honest intellectual, whether or not you think Buckley actually was one.
And that, dear friends, is indeed a shame. Single party rule is a bad plan. Whether from the Obamabots, or from TurdBlossom’s permanent Repub majority (R.I.P 2001-2006, alas we hardly knew ye).
So, from my little corner of the Internet, an appeal to intellectual honesty, open debate, and respect amongst and for our fellow humans. If disagreements are indeed to be settled with baseball bats instead of reasoned debate (thank you Ms. Coulter), then I am less than enthusiastic about our long term viability as a nation, as a society and as a civilization.
Peace,
- Zhirem
Do you mean that you don’t actually know the difference between tolerance, the acceptance of others and their right to be different, and intolerance, the non-acceptance of anything that differs with one’s own opinion. Paris was intolerant and so was she. BTW, I don’t believe Paris was the only judge so his pettiness was just for his own personal point of view which I understand is all his blog is.
@rhbee
I never said I didn’t know I just asked what your definition was of intolerance.
You said “tolerance is the acceptance of others and their right to be different”. Would you agree to this statement: tolerance is the acceptance of others and their right to have a different opinion.
Of course, that is why you can come to this site to discuss and argue and even harangue, and still keep posting. So you can disagree but still keep your opinion though we will try to reason you out of it, we would never visit your church and shoot you.
I didn’t know that I verbally attacked you (the whole “harangue” is quite a stretch). Just asked for your opinion. And not sure about your “church and shoot” comment. It sounds as if you’re telling me that I’m one of those who would do that. That f___ing pisses me off as I am very good friends with George’s son. So if that’s your attempt to insult and demonstrate your tolerance you can suck it.
Now, the man-chest is down and back to the point. It appears you agree with my point about tolerating one’s right to an opinion because you started your post with “Of course.” So, why did you claim that Miss California was intolerant? She just expressed her opinion that gay marriage is wrong. And if you agree that “tolerance” can be defined as respecting one’s opinion that differs from yours then weren’t you intolerant? This tolerance thing has gotten so out of control. I challenge you to look up “tolerance” in any dictionary or go to dictionary.com. You will discover that tolerance does not exist with those that share your view because there is nothing to “put up with”. Tolerance can only exist when people disagree with you. She didn’t recommend people go out and gay-bash (which would be absolutely a horrible thing to do) she just simply disagreed with the position of gay-marriage.
When someone claims that the person they disagree with is intolerant then their argument commits suicide because by definition they are being intolerant since intolerance is the opposite of tolerance and tolerance is defined as being respectful of someone who disagrees with you…the irony kills me.
What’s really funny is you don’t even know what my position is on this topic. For all you know I agree with you. I just noticed some inconsistencies in your argument and in your definitions.
So up is the new down. As for taking the explanation you (this time I do mean you instead of the more editorial you) asked for personally, please feel free to beat your chest as much as you like. As I said, we tend to be tolerant here. As for your intent in asking my or Armand’s definition, it was clearly IMO so you could continue to harangue the point.
Zhirem- As usual an amazingly good analysis of our current situation. I too miss smart cons like Bill Buckley. David Brooks is trying to fill the gap, but he doesn’t have the chops. Sometimes we get a good oppositional argument here, but they are few and far between.
Oh my gosh, seriously. I find it odd that you seem to somehow understand what my intent was. Like you, I was intrigued by the first post. Like you, I resonded. Like you, someone responded to me. Like you, I continued the conversation. Unlike you, I don’t bail out with accusations and lame attempts to avoid what I obviously can’t describe and am confused about. You need to do some studying before you claim to understand what’s at issue my friend.
Or, I just realized there was a second alternative, you could simply remain an intolerant bigot.
Yah, Kelly, everything is everything, and nothing matters except winning debating points. Thank you for taking part in the dead-end sociobiological experiment called “Human Species.”
Sounds like what one hears on the TeeVee Televangelist Hours, complete with the ads for gen-yoo-wine “Spikenard Oil” personally blessed by some preacher babe with big hair and overwhite teeth and the usual pitch about how God loves you and wants you to be rich, so send her only one seed gift of $19.95 plus shipping and handling, for your Guaranteed Personally Blessed By Her With A Personal Prayer Directly To God Who She Talks With And Who Talks Back To Her All The Time vial of Spikenard Oil.
Kill the people we choose to call baby-killers, then justify it at the foot of the Cross as the divine will of the almight Father in Heaven. Wow.
I have to add that I for one do not think abortion should be used in lieu of birth control. It used to be used by force that way, see Skinner v. Oklahoma and “three generations of idiots is enough.” Most of us got past that moral idiocy. One would hope that all of us could come to some kind of moral understanding about the rest of it, although with a sweep around the horizon my belief is that any observant person would have to come to the conclusion that the species, as a species, has reached the end of its rope.
Intolerant? My aching posterior. Go check out the Scientologists or something, or the Aryan Nation or The Covenant, The Sword and The Arm Of The Lord. Etc.
I think everybody knows that conservatives can’t dance because of those one irons up their posteriors.
Must we devote entire threads to this sad state of affairs?
My girl friend thought sticks up their asses is funnier.
I hate the very thought of that, so I’m gonna go with… conservatives can’t dance because of those sticks up their butts.
I think she’s right- sticks up their asses is funny.
Conservatives are not. That is one thing about conservatives- they are never funny. Not one damn bit. Ever. The funniest thing about conservatives is watching them hop around with those sticks up their asses.
Maybe you oughta read the thread first…fairly obvious you don’t understand the topic…nothing to do with your diatribe on TV evangelists, abortion, or Scientologoy.
Feel free to start your own blog on those topics and I’m sure people will respond. But for now, all you’ve proven is that you were unable to provide any intellectual debate or comments so you simply made up crap to attack…rhbee, now that’s a harangue.
Just read the whole comment thread … who let the dogs out?
I’ve waited for you but no response. You said this:
“Promoting tolerance means quite the opposite – it means fighting and crushing every instance of intolerance that rears its plastic boob.”
So by your definition one must show intolerance towards intolerance; therefore, creating a circle of fighting. Have fun with that one. You’re intolerant towards me which then according to you I’m supposed to crush your intolerance. You then think I’m intolerant towards you so you then set out to crush my intolerance. I don’t think that will work.
“There can be no tolerance towards intolerance itself.”
Actually Armand, the very definition of tolerance is tolerance towards intolerance. One cannot satisfy the definition of tolerance towards those who agree with them already. You’re definition is false.
This isn’t hard and certainly should not resolve to insults. It’s very simply understanding the definition of the darn word. IT’S OKAY if we disagree on a particular topic. It’s not okay to ridicule.
Just reread the whole thread myself, and you know what, I could find only one person who decided to call names and lose their temper to the point of illiteracy.
Then you must have forgotten Armand Asante’s post since he also used the term “bigots”. But again, he agrees with you so you have no issue…you only call out those who don’t. BTW, there was never a loss of temper. I just told you “to suck it” since you made a lame, pathetic, cold, disrespectful attempt to associate me with the people who “show up at your church and shoot you” without knowing that I am very dear friends with George Tiller’s son. So again, you were unable to provide any intellectual answer and resort to name calling…I thought we handled that on the playground in 2nd grade.
When you’re ready to make an actual adult-like attempt to answer my posts then have it.
The difference is that we are speaking to you but you apparently want to hear it as about you. No one called you a bigot or accused you of shooting someone. You did that to yourself.
Nice try. Don’t you see rhbee how your inability to make a case against me in this thread led you to “generalizations” in response to me. So did Armand. He referred to people who hold the view I was presenting (again, he assumed that’s my view) as bigots…which of course would include me. I did nothing to myself. I just got you so frustrated all you could do was make silly platitudes and then say “See, we didn’t do anything. You did it yourself.”
Honestly, I guess what shocks me the most is the fact that instead of entering in to a conversation about tolerance you chose to battle against me. You chose to make it personal with comments that have no place like “we won’t show up at your church and shoot you.” Armand made comments calling people “like me” bigots. I used it in return to see just how it would make you feel and sure enough you jumped at it…you called my commentary “illiterate.”
Why haven’t you responded to the definition of tolerance? It’s not my definition. It’s its definition. Isn’t it possible that we’ve (as a culture) moved away from the real definition and become WAY to sensitive?
If tolerance can ONLY exist (not my opinion here but the definition of the word) where people stand opposed to each other…then shouldn’t the “gay marriage” crowd be more respectful of the Christian who doesn’t agree that gay marriage is good for our country? A Christian who doesn’t believe the gay crowd should have some special rights that others do not have simply because of their sexual preferences? Instead of acting respectful and civil (again the definition of the word) they call Miss California a stupid bitch. They call Christians intolerant bigots. There are examples of Christians too. There should be not ONE Christian standing on a corner with derogatory signs. Not one. It goes both ways here. I will say though, that virtually ALL gays and the pro-gay crowd use this terminology where it is but a small fraction, more just some wacky churches, that use the same tactic. Even the head lady of the Miss California pageant quit because of the “Hate Groups” that Miss California talked to. Hate? Really?
Please understand, I am only seeking to bring to light the definition of the darn word.
So if you disagree with me then you disagree with the word tolerance in the english language.
How am I being a bad guy here? What is so wrong about discussing something? What is so wrong about doing one’s part to “bring light” to an issue? I’m not attempting to change your stance on gay marriage. This whole thing started with Armand’s incorrect view of tolerance. And we hear it everyday.
I’m done here. So you can have the last word.
” A Christian who doesn’t believe the gay crowd should have some special rights that others do not have simply because of their sexual preferences? ”
What special rights that others don’t have would that be?
Please bring the light.
Tennesse, this discussion was not specifically about gay “rights”. The point was made to further illustrate the tolerance discussion. I am finished responding to rhbee and as I said he/she can have the last word.
You did raise a good question and maybe we should take this one somewhere else but I will provide a response to you Tennessee.
The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.
It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals–non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers–share those benefits, either. Why should they? What was that movie with Adam Sandler and the other guy who were firemen and they arranged a plan to get married for the benefits? Even Hollywood illustrated this point because in the movie there are a couple characters employed by the state who have to confirm that the couple is in fact gay. If they weren’t gay then it would be illegal. They even mention in the movie an example of another couple who faked it and both were sent to jail including their employer since he knew about it. So it seems that it’s all about sexual preference and not simply two men.
If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?
The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she–and they–are still covered).
These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.
Thank you for your response. Families are built in every imaginable combination of men, women, boys and girls. You are getting into property discussions and things like that. Women in marriages used to be property. They still are in some places. Things change. Sometimes for the better. Gay people feel that they are being denied rights straight people have. A LOT of gay people are married to straight people and all that kind of thing. Your statement, “Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex.” is kind of weird. That is some pretty tortured logic, is it not?
Same goes for, “Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?” What if they weren’t sexually involved and just wanted to live together and love each other? And, don’t a lot of straight people get together because they are sexually involved? I mean, where do these families come from?
I can’t believe I’m actually having this insane discussion. What fun! Thank you, Kelly. You are out there.
Tennesse, I honestly do not see where my argument got into a “property discussion”. You’d have to explain that one to me.
I would agree that “families” are built in every imaginable combination but they ALL came to be from a man and woman relationship. No family has ever and will ever be “created”, or to use your term, “built” by a gay couple.
“That is some pretty tortured logic, is it not?” I’d have to say no because isn’t the whole point of gay marriage about people wanting to marry someone of the same sex? How is that “tortured logic”? Maybe I just didn’t understand your point.
And your final statements: “What if they weren’t sexually involved and just wanted to live together and love each other?” That’s fine. I certainly don’t propose making homosexuality illegal. A homosexual couple lives a few houses down the street from me. Often, in the evening, when the neighborhood dog owners let the dogs play in the park, one or both of them are out there. I know them. I’m friends with them. I don’t “oppose” them loving each other and living together but that’s not the point. The point is as I stated earlier about the supposed “right” that they don’t have…you can refer to my lengthy comment from my previous post.
“And, don’t a lot of straight people get together because they are sexually involved?” Of course, just like homosexuals do.
“I mean, where do these families come from?” Not sure exactly what you mean here. But, um, they come from a man and woman relationship.
I am a little surprised that you called this “insane” and that I’m “way out there.” I believe these points are very valid and logical. You have not provided a sufficient response to change that stance. You did mention again that gay couples feel they don’t have the same rights heteros do. But we all, straight and gay, have the exact same rights. We all can marry in any state of the Union. We just can’t marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions ALL citizens share equally. There are ZERO rights being denied to any gay person. All the rights are equal. I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
I understand that not having some of the same “legal benefits” is more of a substantial argument. But again, as I mentioned in detail previously, there is no other non-marital relationship between individuals that share these benefits either. Why should they?
Tennesse,
This thread is getting too long. I also don’t want to run it off on tangents. I am interested in your response so I will be looking; however, I won’t be responding unless it’s something you’d like me to do and you provide another forum. So, the last word goes to you friend.
Tennesse,
This thread is getting too long. I also don’t want to run it off on tangents. I am interested in your response so I will be looking; however, I won’t be responding unless it’s something you’d like me to do and you provide another forum. So, the last word goes to you friend.
Tennesse,
This thread is getting too long. I also don’t want to run it off on tangents. I am interested in your response so I will be looking; however, I won’t be responding unless it’s something you’d like me to do and you provide another forum. So, the last word goes to you friend.
Tennesse,
This thread is getting too long. I also don’t want to run it off on tangents. I am interested in your response so I will be looking; however, I won’t be responding unless it’s something you’d like me to do and you provide another forum. So, the last word goes to you friend.
Another question. What would you think of a woman and a man and getting together and not having sex? (Isn’t that how many marriages are anyway after a while?) I mean is marriage only for raising families- having children?
More nonsense. Getting married and not having children is next door to abortion when it comes to screwing up the Traditional American Family tradition. And still it has a vague middle eastern ring to it. Egypt, maybe. BC.
Another question. What would you think of a woman and a man and getting together and not having sex? (Isn’t that how many marriages are anyway after a while?) I mean is marriage only for raising families- having children?
More nonsense. Getting married and not having children is next door to abortion when it comes to screwing up the Traditional American Family tradition. And still it has a vague middle eastern ring to it. Egypt, maybe. BC.
Another question. What would you think of a woman and a man and getting together and not having sex? (Isn’t that how many marriages are anyway after a while?) I mean is marriage only for raising families- having children?
More nonsense. Getting married and not having children is next door to abortion when it comes to screwing up the Traditional American Family tradition. And still it has a vague middle eastern ring to it. Egypt, maybe. BC.
Another question. What would you think of a woman and a man and getting together and not having sex? (Isn’t that how many marriages are anyway after a while?) I mean is marriage only for raising families- having children?
More nonsense. Getting married and not having children is next door to abortion when it comes to screwing up the Traditional American Family tradition. And still it has a vague middle eastern ring to it. Egypt, maybe. BC.
Okay. I gave you the floor and you just asked more questions. I answered your questions but you’ve made no attempt to answer mine.
What would I think about a man and woman “getting together and not having sex”? That’s totally up to them. The same goes for a gay couple. They too can “get together” and not have sex. But don’t get confused on relationships and marriage…they aren’t the same.
“Is marriage only for raising families?” You haven’t quite asked this question appropriately. Are you asking, is the only reason people choose to get married in order to have kids? Or, is a state-sanctioned marriage and all the benefits that come with it, for the support and purpose of raising a family? You’re not clear on this one.
And then you say “more nonsense”. Okay. That’s fine that you think it’s nonsense. Please illustrate why. Show me logically the faults to my argument. But when one just says “nonsense” and leaves it at that they’ve lost the debate.
The “getting married and not having children is next door to abortion” comment is just another platitude. There’s nothing to discuss here because it’s akin to me saying “Oh yea, well my favorite ice cream flavor is Chocolate Mint…so there.”
Keep in mind, the “Traditional American Family” has only been around for just over 20o years. Cultures not recognizing gay marriage has been around since the dawn of day. This is nothing new. Again, gay marriage is NOT a RIGHT. You have ALL the rights everyone else does. I’ll agree that you don’t have the “benefits” but that’s for a purpose. Those benefits are for the purpose of raising families.
Now, this may sound rude but it’s certainly not intended to be. I will support gay marriage IF a man gets another man pregnant. Or a woman get another woman pregnant. That child will need both of its parents. And those parents deserve the benefits. Until then, marriage has nothing to do with one’s sexual preference.
Please don’t respond with just some more questions and empty commentary. Provide an argument AGAINST my statements. They aren’t meant to be mean, they’re meant to be for debate. Remember, tolerance can only exist when you disagree with someone else’s opinion. So, Tennessee, I would welcome your argument to disprove my points.
If you respond in a similar fashion I will not continue this discussion. So go off and call me anything in the book if that’s how you want to end it. Or, provide a rebuttal.
Okay. I gave you the floor and you just asked more questions. I answered your questions but you’ve made no attempt to answer mine.
What would I think about a man and woman “getting together and not having sex”? That’s totally up to them. The same goes for a gay couple. They too can “get together” and not have sex. But don’t get confused on relationships and marriage…they aren’t the same.
“Is marriage only for raising families?” You haven’t quite asked this question appropriately. Are you asking, is the only reason people choose to get married in order to have kids? Or, is a state-sanctioned marriage and all the benefits that come with it, for the support and purpose of raising a family? You’re not clear on this one.
And then you say “more nonsense”. Okay. That’s fine that you think it’s nonsense. Please illustrate why. Show me logically the faults to my argument. But when one just says “nonsense” and leaves it at that they’ve lost the debate.
The “getting married and not having children is next door to abortion” comment is just another platitude. There’s nothing to discuss here because it’s akin to me saying “Oh yea, well my favorite ice cream flavor is Chocolate Mint…so there.”
Keep in mind, the “Traditional American Family” has only been around for just over 20o years. Cultures not recognizing gay marriage has been around since the dawn of day. This is nothing new. Again, gay marriage is NOT a RIGHT. You have ALL the rights everyone else does. I’ll agree that you don’t have the “benefits” but that’s for a purpose. Those benefits are for the purpose of raising families.
Now, this may sound rude but it’s certainly not intended to be. I will support gay marriage IF a man gets another man pregnant. Or a woman get another woman pregnant. That child will need both of its parents. And those parents deserve the benefits. Until then, marriage has nothing to do with one’s sexual preference.
Please don’t respond with just some more questions and empty commentary. Provide an argument AGAINST my statements. They aren’t meant to be mean, they’re meant to be for debate. Remember, tolerance can only exist when you disagree with someone else’s opinion. So, Tennessee, I would welcome your argument to disprove my points.
If you respond in a similar fashion I will not continue this discussion. So go off and call me anything in the book if that’s how you want to end it. Or, provide a rebuttal.
Okay. I gave you the floor and you just asked more questions. I answered your questions but you’ve made no attempt to answer mine.
What would I think about a man and woman “getting together and not having sex”? That’s totally up to them. The same goes for a gay couple. They too can “get together” and not have sex. But don’t get confused on relationships and marriage…they aren’t the same.
“Is marriage only for raising families?” You haven’t quite asked this question appropriately. Are you asking, is the only reason people choose to get married in order to have kids? Or, is a state-sanctioned marriage and all the benefits that come with it, for the support and purpose of raising a family? You’re not clear on this one.
And then you say “more nonsense”. Okay. That’s fine that you think it’s nonsense. Please illustrate why. Show me logically the faults to my argument. But when one just says “nonsense” and leaves it at that they’ve lost the debate.
The “getting married and not having children is next door to abortion” comment is just another platitude. There’s nothing to discuss here because it’s akin to me saying “Oh yea, well my favorite ice cream flavor is Chocolate Mint…so there.”
Keep in mind, the “Traditional American Family” has only been around for just over 20o years. Cultures not recognizing gay marriage has been around since the dawn of day. This is nothing new. Again, gay marriage is NOT a RIGHT. You have ALL the rights everyone else does. I’ll agree that you don’t have the “benefits” but that’s for a purpose. Those benefits are for the purpose of raising families.
Now, this may sound rude but it’s certainly not intended to be. I will support gay marriage IF a man gets another man pregnant. Or a woman get another woman pregnant. That child will need both of its parents. And those parents deserve the benefits. Until then, marriage has nothing to do with one’s sexual preference.
Please don’t respond with just some more questions and empty commentary. Provide an argument AGAINST my statements. They aren’t meant to be mean, they’re meant to be for debate. Remember, tolerance can only exist when you disagree with someone else’s opinion. So, Tennessee, I would welcome your argument to disprove my points.
If you respond in a similar fashion I will not continue this discussion. So go off and call me anything in the book if that’s how you want to end it. Or, provide a rebuttal.
TWS, you have a higher tolerance for pain than I do.
TWS, you have a higher tolerance for pain than I do.
TWS, you have a higher tolerance for pain than I do.
TWS, you have a higher tolerance for pain than I do.
I can think of no more exquisite torment.
I can think of no more exquisite torment.
I can think of no more exquisite torment.
I can think of no more exquisite torment.
To Kelly,
I’m aware that both dems and repubs lose credibility and my point about Miss California was that if you are going to stand for somthing as she did, have the credibility to back it up. More specifically, she stated that the way she was raised was that she didn’t agree with same sex marriage so automatically the democrats are going to brand her as an intolerant, racist, extremist because it seems that is what they do when someone has a different view from theirs. Then…having those “racy” photos of her plastered all over the internet only adds more fuel to the democrats screeching that republicans preach one way and behave in another.. or.. have no credibility. Now, you have the murder of the abortion doctor and democrats are only going to lump him in with “right wingers” and say “see, see, they’re all like that”. Don’t believe me? just wait and see.
And Kelly old timer, I wasn’t asking questions, I was feeding you straight lines. My life partner and I were hoping you would knock those out of the park.
Keep up the great work. You are an inspiration, just like the Harvard student that had the nerve to ask Barney Franks ” a really tough question”. It is so refreshing to see youth with conservative values, that can think for themselves, and have not been brainwashed by the liberal loons.
I couldn’t agree more.
Oh, and by the way, here comes the pregnant man you require.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/28/content_7874764.htm
“Keep in mind, the “Traditional American Family” has only been around for just over 20o years. Cultures not recognizing gay marriage has been around since the dawn of day. This is nothing new.”
Except, of course the Traditional American Family. That is extremely new, even though it has been around for 9,850 years, approximately. Cultures not recognizing antibiotics has also been around since the dawn of day. I suppose it all depends on which day you are referring to.
So, master, if- “Those benefits are for the purpose of raising families,” should not heterosexuals (if there is such a thing) who do not have children have the right to the benefits of which you write?
And the more nonsense of which I wrote was the sentence that followed the phrase- more nonsense- the sentence you deemed a platitude, having to do with the proximity of not having children and abortion.
You are one cagey mother fucker, Kelly (if that really is your name.)
There. I’m glad that’s all straightened out.
(I’m sorry that you dragged us into all this degradation.)
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery-health/34368-pregnant-man-how-a-man-gets-pregnant-video.htm
(I’m sorry that you dragged us into all this degradation.)
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery-health/34368-pregnant-man-how-a-man-gets-pregnant-video.htm
(I’m sorry that you dragged us into all this degradation.)
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery-health/34368-pregnant-man-how-a-man-gets-pregnant-video.htm
(I’m sorry that you dragged us into all this degradation.)
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery-health/34368-pregnant-man-how-a-man-gets-pregnant-video.htm
My life partner sent me this:
Remember When Blacks Couldn’t Marry Whites?
Posted Jun 14th 2007 1:58AM by John Mullaney
Filed under: Gay Rights, Massachusetts Senate
Looking back in time, it is so easy to see how the U.S Supreme Court was right in making many of its decisions. One might say, they were creating laws. Those creations made this country a much better place for all of us to live. Having said that, many of the historic decisions were not well accepted at the time.
40 years ago this week, on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man, could marry. In order to change the law and allow such a marriage, the court relied on the fourteenth amendment. In writing the opinion for the court, Chief Justice Earl Warren said:
“This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Many of the states were outraged with this decision. You see, these laws were created as part of the democratic process. If two people who were of different races made love, it was a misdemeanor as long as they were not married. If they married, it was a felony. The states wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage. The federal circuit court judge cited God in making his decision.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Now let us fast forward the story 40 years. This Sunday, in Braintree, a Catholic priest decided to use the pulpit as a political soapbox. He pointed out that in each pew there was a thank-you card that was prepared and ready to be sent to the State Senator who has voted to allow the citizens of Massachusetts to vote on whether gay marriages should be allowed. The Massachusetts Supreme Court already said they should be allowed on constitutional grounds.
Just like 40 years ago, the people trying to prevent gay marriage have no legal problem with people having gay sex. They just don’t want them married. Gays can live together. They can adopt children. They just can’t get married. Sounds a lot like the same thought process used in the Jeter-Loving case.
Now, back to the priest and what he had to say. He went on the attack against a state representative. From the pulpit, he criticized the rep’s decision to vote against allowing the citizens of Massachusetts to vote for a ban on gay marriage. The rep is a lawyer who knows history and the law. He knows that you can not deprive people of their constitutional rights by vote. If that was the case, we would still have anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia today.
My life partner sent me this:
Remember When Blacks Couldn’t Marry Whites?
Posted Jun 14th 2007 1:58AM by John Mullaney
Filed under: Gay Rights, Massachusetts Senate
Looking back in time, it is so easy to see how the U.S Supreme Court was right in making many of its decisions. One might say, they were creating laws. Those creations made this country a much better place for all of us to live. Having said that, many of the historic decisions were not well accepted at the time.
40 years ago this week, on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man, could marry. In order to change the law and allow such a marriage, the court relied on the fourteenth amendment. In writing the opinion for the court, Chief Justice Earl Warren said:
“This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Many of the states were outraged with this decision. You see, these laws were created as part of the democratic process. If two people who were of different races made love, it was a misdemeanor as long as they were not married. If they married, it was a felony. The states wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage. The federal circuit court judge cited God in making his decision.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Now let us fast forward the story 40 years. This Sunday, in Braintree, a Catholic priest decided to use the pulpit as a political soapbox. He pointed out that in each pew there was a thank-you card that was prepared and ready to be sent to the State Senator who has voted to allow the citizens of Massachusetts to vote on whether gay marriages should be allowed. The Massachusetts Supreme Court already said they should be allowed on constitutional grounds.
Just like 40 years ago, the people trying to prevent gay marriage have no legal problem with people having gay sex. They just don’t want them married. Gays can live together. They can adopt children. They just can’t get married. Sounds a lot like the same thought process used in the Jeter-Loving case.
Now, back to the priest and what he had to say. He went on the attack against a state representative. From the pulpit, he criticized the rep’s decision to vote against allowing the citizens of Massachusetts to vote for a ban on gay marriage. The rep is a lawyer who knows history and the law. He knows that you can not deprive people of their constitutional rights by vote. If that was the case, we would still have anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia today.
My life partner sent me this:
Remember When Blacks Couldn’t Marry Whites?
Posted Jun 14th 2007 1:58AM by John Mullaney
Filed under: Gay Rights, Massachusetts Senate
Looking back in time, it is so easy to see how the U.S Supreme Court was right in making many of its decisions. One might say, they were creating laws. Those creations made this country a much better place for all of us to live. Having said that, many of the historic decisions were not well accepted at the time.
40 years ago this week, on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man, could marry. In order to change the law and allow such a marriage, the court relied on the fourteenth amendment. In writing the opinion for the court, Chief Justice Earl Warren said:
“This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Many of the states were outraged with this decision. You see, these laws were created as part of the democratic process. If two people who were of different races made love, it was a misdemeanor as long as they were not married. If they married, it was a felony. The states wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage. The federal circuit court judge cited God in making his decision.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Now let us fast forward the story 40 years. This Sunday, in Braintree, a Catholic priest decided to use the pulpit as a political soapbox. He pointed out that in each pew there was a thank-you card that was prepared and ready to be sent to the State Senator who has voted to allow the citizens of Massachusetts to vote on whether gay marriages should be allowed. The Massachusetts Supreme Court already said they should be allowed on constitutional grounds.
Just like 40 years ago, the people trying to prevent gay marriage have no legal problem with people having gay sex. They just don’t want them married. Gays can live together. They can adopt children. They just can’t get married. Sounds a lot like the same thought process used in the Jeter-Loving case.
Now, back to the priest and what he had to say. He went on the attack against a state representative. From the pulpit, he criticized the rep’s decision to vote against allowing the citizens of Massachusetts to vote for a ban on gay marriage. The rep is a lawyer who knows history and the law. He knows that you can not deprive people of their constitutional rights by vote. If that was the case, we would still have anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia today.
Tennessee,
Thumbs up! You finally entered the conversation. I do truly appreciate you putting together your argument.
First of all, that is NOT a pregnant man. Nice try. “He” was born what? A woman. “He” has what kind of plumbing? Woman’s plumbing. Please. “He” may be legally permitted to call “himself” a man but do you really believe “he” is physically? Of course you don’t.
I don’t see you point on the past cultures and how they related to homosexual marriages. Nothing is different. It has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman…it’s can’t be classified as only the Traditional American Family. No realy response here because your point wasn’t expressed very well. And what’s up with comparing it antibiotics?
“should not heterosexuals (if there is such a thing)” – now that’s funny – “who do not have children have the right to the benefits of which you write?” I will say that that actually is a great question. Seemingly very challenging to answer. The answer of couse is yes. The reason? If the government began to step in and play big brother on what defines “family” and then changes laws to deny these discussed benefits to only those couples who have kids then the government is WAY too involved…not what the founders envisioned…and, the gays would still be left out. Again, the purpose of marriage is to build families. The government wants families to be built. The government provides certain benefits in order to promote families being built. Maybe your response is valid…but then we’d be more like China.
I’m just going to have to give you the “proximity of not having children and abortion”…I have no idea where you’re going with that one.
Now Tennessee, calling me a name…tsk tsk. I like the cagey thing though.
I’m glad you stepped into this interracial thing. I’ve been anticipating it because it ALWAYS comes up. Ready?
This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.
Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,” he snaps. “Yes,” the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”
In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is NO difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.
This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions (“In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either.”). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.
Now, if you dare to walk down the path and say that there is a difference between a black and white human being other than skin color, then have at it. You better watch out though, the ACLU will be all over you. Remember, “we are all created equal.” I know where you’ll go with that but remember again, we already have the same equal rights.
Now that was fun. I certainly hope you didn’t really call a mother fucker and mean it, because wouldn’t that then prove my first point in this thread?
Tennessee,
Thumbs up! You finally entered the conversation. I do truly appreciate you putting together your argument.
First of all, that is NOT a pregnant man. Nice try. “He” was born what? A woman. “He” has what kind of plumbing? Woman’s plumbing. Please. “He” may be legally permitted to call “himself” a man but do you really believe “he” is physically? Of course you don’t.
I don’t see you point on the past cultures and how they related to homosexual marriages. Nothing is different. It has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman…it’s can’t be classified as only the Traditional American Family. No realy response here because your point wasn’t expressed very well. And what’s up with comparing it antibiotics?
“should not heterosexuals (if there is such a thing)” – now that’s funny – “who do not have children have the right to the benefits of which you write?” I will say that that actually is a great question. Seemingly very challenging to answer. The answer of couse is yes. The reason? If the government began to step in and play big brother on what defines “family” and then changes laws to deny these discussed benefits to only those couples who have kids then the government is WAY too involved…not what the founders envisioned…and, the gays would still be left out. Again, the purpose of marriage is to build families. The government wants families to be built. The government provides certain benefits in order to promote families being built. Maybe your response is valid…but then we’d be more like China.
I’m just going to have to give you the “proximity of not having children and abortion”…I have no idea where you’re going with that one.
Now Tennessee, calling me a name…tsk tsk. I like the cagey thing though.
I’m glad you stepped into this interracial thing. I’ve been anticipating it because it ALWAYS comes up. Ready?
This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.
Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,” he snaps. “Yes,” the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”
In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is NO difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.
This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions (“In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either.”). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.
Now, if you dare to walk down the path and say that there is a difference between a black and white human being other than skin color, then have at it. You better watch out though, the ACLU will be all over you. Remember, “we are all created equal.” I know where you’ll go with that but remember again, we already have the same equal rights.
Now that was fun. I certainly hope you didn’t really call a mother fucker and mean it, because wouldn’t that then prove my first point in this thread?
Tennessee,
Thumbs up! You finally entered the conversation. I do truly appreciate you putting together your argument.
First of all, that is NOT a pregnant man. Nice try. “He” was born what? A woman. “He” has what kind of plumbing? Woman’s plumbing. Please. “He” may be legally permitted to call “himself” a man but do you really believe “he” is physically? Of course you don’t.
I don’t see you point on the past cultures and how they related to homosexual marriages. Nothing is different. It has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman…it’s can’t be classified as only the Traditional American Family. No realy response here because your point wasn’t expressed very well. And what’s up with comparing it antibiotics?
“should not heterosexuals (if there is such a thing)” – now that’s funny – “who do not have children have the right to the benefits of which you write?” I will say that that actually is a great question. Seemingly very challenging to answer. The answer of couse is yes. The reason? If the government began to step in and play big brother on what defines “family” and then changes laws to deny these discussed benefits to only those couples who have kids then the government is WAY too involved…not what the founders envisioned…and, the gays would still be left out. Again, the purpose of marriage is to build families. The government wants families to be built. The government provides certain benefits in order to promote families being built. Maybe your response is valid…but then we’d be more like China.
I’m just going to have to give you the “proximity of not having children and abortion”…I have no idea where you’re going with that one.
Now Tennessee, calling me a name…tsk tsk. I like the cagey thing though.
I’m glad you stepped into this interracial thing. I’ve been anticipating it because it ALWAYS comes up. Ready?
This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.
Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,” he snaps. “Yes,” the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”
In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is NO difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.
This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions (“In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either.”). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.
Now, if you dare to walk down the path and say that there is a difference between a black and white human being other than skin color, then have at it. You better watch out though, the ACLU will be all over you. Remember, “we are all created equal.” I know where you’ll go with that but remember again, we already have the same equal rights.
Now that was fun. I certainly hope you didn’t really call a mother fucker and mean it, because wouldn’t that then prove my first point in this thread?
I shoud proof read first. Sorry for the typos.
I shoud proof read first. Sorry for the typos.
“I would agree that “families” are built in every imaginable combination but they ALL came to be from a man and woman relationship. No family has ever and will ever be “created”, or to use your term, “built” by a gay couple.
So Kelly in this weird world you live in, if two people get married and don’t have children, do they have to get divorced? And if two same sex partners adopt a child, do they get to get married?
And where exactly did you study tax law to come to believe that “The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she–and they–are still covered).”
As for your compatriot, Kelloglogger, if what she contends were true, then where are the murdered anti-abortionists, and the blown up right wing churches?
See, that is the difference between tolerance and intolerance. We tolerate your intolerance by confronting it not by killing you. We tolerate your right to be wrong but we don’t kill you because of it. We tolerate your belief in your opinion but we do not kill you for having it.
To bad your intolerance keeps you from seeing the difference. But go back to your close personal friend, Dr. Tiller’s son, and explain it to him, I’m sure he’ll understand.
“I would agree that “families” are built in every imaginable combination but they ALL came to be from a man and woman relationship. No family has ever and will ever be “created”, or to use your term, “built” by a gay couple.
So Kelly in this weird world you live in, if two people get married and don’t have children, do they have to get divorced? And if two same sex partners adopt a child, do they get to get married?
And where exactly did you study tax law to come to believe that “The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she–and they–are still covered).”
As for your compatriot, Kelloglogger, if what she contends were true, then where are the murdered anti-abortionists, and the blown up right wing churches?
See, that is the difference between tolerance and intolerance. We tolerate your intolerance by confronting it not by killing you. We tolerate your right to be wrong but we don’t kill you because of it. We tolerate your belief in your opinion but we do not kill you for having it.
To bad your intolerance keeps you from seeing the difference. But go back to your close personal friend, Dr. Tiller’s son, and explain it to him, I’m sure he’ll understand.
“I would agree that “families” are built in every imaginable combination but they ALL came to be from a man and woman relationship. No family has ever and will ever be “created”, or to use your term, “built” by a gay couple.
So Kelly in this weird world you live in, if two people get married and don’t have children, do they have to get divorced? And if two same sex partners adopt a child, do they get to get married?
And where exactly did you study tax law to come to believe that “The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she–and they–are still covered).”
As for your compatriot, Kelloglogger, if what she contends were true, then where are the murdered anti-abortionists, and the blown up right wing churches?
See, that is the difference between tolerance and intolerance. We tolerate your intolerance by confronting it not by killing you. We tolerate your right to be wrong but we don’t kill you because of it. We tolerate your belief in your opinion but we do not kill you for having it.
To bad your intolerance keeps you from seeing the difference. But go back to your close personal friend, Dr. Tiller’s son, and explain it to him, I’m sure he’ll understand.
I read my response a second time, typos drive me crazy, and I feel I didn’t take a strong enough position on the “childless” marriages thing.
Clearly, not all families have children. Some are in fact childless, by choice or by design. This proves nothing though. The natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.
It seems to me that if marriage is redefined and special rights are given to gay couples and they now have the benefits to go with it, then we should also do the same for those heterosexual couples who aren’t married but live together. They’re a couple too. I have yet to see an argument that effectively counters this position. We are NOT dealing with RIGHTS. If we are then when my college buddy and I were roommates after college, both very hetero, then we should be able to apply for “marriage” benefits because we live together and we love each other…he’s like a brother to me who I truly love. Why shouldn’t we get it too? The answer, because that’s NOT what marriage is for.
Wow, I have typed a lot. I guess that’s what happens when you’re the “master.”
I read my response a second time, typos drive me crazy, and I feel I didn’t take a strong enough position on the “childless” marriages thing.
Clearly, not all families have children. Some are in fact childless, by choice or by design. This proves nothing though. The natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.
It seems to me that if marriage is redefined and special rights are given to gay couples and they now have the benefits to go with it, then we should also do the same for those heterosexual couples who aren’t married but live together. They’re a couple too. I have yet to see an argument that effectively counters this position. We are NOT dealing with RIGHTS. If we are then when my college buddy and I were roommates after college, both very hetero, then we should be able to apply for “marriage” benefits because we live together and we love each other…he’s like a brother to me who I truly love. Why shouldn’t we get it too? The answer, because that’s NOT what marriage is for.
Wow, I have typed a lot. I guess that’s what happens when you’re the “master.”
Wow rhbee you are one scorned individual. Not sure where all your hatred comes from but you certainly have a lot.
I addressed the childless comment above…you can go there. And about gay couples adopting children. Why is it that they can only adopt children from a hetero relationship? I actually am pro-gay adoption. My stipulation is that if a gay couple wants to adopt then I think they should only be able to adopt children that are produced by a gay couple. That seems fair.
I was waiting for your “tax” rebuttal but you didn’t provide one.
The anti-abortionists and the right wing churches: I don’t know. I don’t know of all the news throughout the country. I will say this: are you so naive to actually think that anti-abortionists and “right-wing churches” (curious what a left-wing church is to you) aren’t persecuted in this country? Wow.
As far as your so-called “tolerance”. I’ve never killed anyone. Not sure why you put me into that category. I don’t kill anyone either for disagreeing with me. So we’re equal. But if you think that only “right wingers” and “anti-abortionists” are the murderers then you’re just full of crap. Why do you spit out such utter nonsense? Put a damn argument together rhbee.
You know, I did talk with my friend who lost his dad. He didn’t agree with his dad’s job but he loved him…how’s that for tolerance. If I was your dad, would you love me? Now that’s the question of the day.
Wow rhbee you are one scorned individual. Not sure where all your hatred comes from but you certainly have a lot.
I addressed the childless comment above…you can go there. And about gay couples adopting children. Why is it that they can only adopt children from a hetero relationship? I actually am pro-gay adoption. My stipulation is that if a gay couple wants to adopt then I think they should only be able to adopt children that are produced by a gay couple. That seems fair.
I was waiting for your “tax” rebuttal but you didn’t provide one.
The anti-abortionists and the right wing churches: I don’t know. I don’t know of all the news throughout the country. I will say this: are you so naive to actually think that anti-abortionists and “right-wing churches” (curious what a left-wing church is to you) aren’t persecuted in this country? Wow.
As far as your so-called “tolerance”. I’ve never killed anyone. Not sure why you put me into that category. I don’t kill anyone either for disagreeing with me. So we’re equal. But if you think that only “right wingers” and “anti-abortionists” are the murderers then you’re just full of crap. Why do you spit out such utter nonsense? Put a damn argument together rhbee.
You know, I did talk with my friend who lost his dad. He didn’t agree with his dad’s job but he loved him…how’s that for tolerance. If I was your dad, would you love me? Now that’s the question of the day.
Wow rhbee you are one scorned individual. Not sure where all your hatred comes from but you certainly have a lot.
I addressed the childless comment above…you can go there. And about gay couples adopting children. Why is it that they can only adopt children from a hetero relationship? I actually am pro-gay adoption. My stipulation is that if a gay couple wants to adopt then I think they should only be able to adopt children that are produced by a gay couple. That seems fair.
I was waiting for your “tax” rebuttal but you didn’t provide one.
The anti-abortionists and the right wing churches: I don’t know. I don’t know of all the news throughout the country. I will say this: are you so naive to actually think that anti-abortionists and “right-wing churches” (curious what a left-wing church is to you) aren’t persecuted in this country? Wow.
As far as your so-called “tolerance”. I’ve never killed anyone. Not sure why you put me into that category. I don’t kill anyone either for disagreeing with me. So we’re equal. But if you think that only “right wingers” and “anti-abortionists” are the murderers then you’re just full of crap. Why do you spit out such utter nonsense? Put a damn argument together rhbee.
You know, I did talk with my friend who lost his dad. He didn’t agree with his dad’s job but he loved him…how’s that for tolerance. If I was your dad, would you love me? Now that’s the question of the day.
Wow rhbee you are one scorned individual. Not sure where all your hatred comes from but you certainly have a lot.
I addressed the childless comment above…you can go there. And about gay couples adopting children. Why is it that they can only adopt children from a hetero relationship? I actually am pro-gay adoption. My stipulation is that if a gay couple wants to adopt then I think they should only be able to adopt children that are produced by a gay couple. That seems fair.
I was waiting for your “tax” rebuttal but you didn’t provide one.
The anti-abortionists and the right wing churches: I don’t know. I don’t know of all the news throughout the country. I will say this: are you so naive to actually think that anti-abortionists and “right-wing churches” (curious what a left-wing church is to you) aren’t persecuted in this country? Wow.
As far as your so-called “tolerance”. I’ve never killed anyone. Not sure why you put me into that category. I don’t kill anyone either for disagreeing with me. So we’re equal. But if you think that only “right wingers” and “anti-abortionists” are the murderers then you’re just full of crap. Why do you spit out such utter nonsense? Put a damn argument together rhbee.
You know, I did talk with my friend who lost his dad. He didn’t agree with his dad’s job but he loved him…how’s that for tolerance. If I was your dad, would you love me? Now that’s the question of the day.
You know what rhbee. I realized that were not made aware of a tragic story that happened just this past Monday. What a bummer the media didn’t cover this one.
William Long died. The 23-year old Army Recruiter was gunned down by a fanatic; another fellow soldier was wounded in the ambush. The soldiers had just completed their basic training and were talking to potential recruits.
You’re going to love this next quote. But most all of all, it’s the person who said it that will probably make your blood boil since the hate in you is strong. This was her response to the murder of George Tiller AND William Long.
“Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death.”
Governor Sarah Palin
You know what rhbee. I realized that were not made aware of a tragic story that happened just this past Monday. What a bummer the media didn’t cover this one.
William Long died. The 23-year old Army Recruiter was gunned down by a fanatic; another fellow soldier was wounded in the ambush. The soldiers had just completed their basic training and were talking to potential recruits.
You’re going to love this next quote. But most all of all, it’s the person who said it that will probably make your blood boil since the hate in you is strong. This was her response to the murder of George Tiller AND William Long.
“Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death.”
Governor Sarah Palin
Kelly, your best work to date! And thank you for your apology.
Kelly, your best work to date! And thank you for your apology.
Kelly, your best work to date! And thank you for your apology.
And thank you, NormaJ. I fully intend to keep up the great work. The liberal loons are all crazy as hell and are destroying this great country.
And thank you, NormaJ. I fully intend to keep up the great work. The liberal loons are all crazy as hell and are destroying this great country.
And thank you, NormaJ. I fully intend to keep up the great work. The liberal loons are all crazy as hell and are destroying this great country.
And thank you, NormaJ. I fully intend to keep up the great work. The liberal loons are all crazy as hell and are destroying this great country.
As Margaret Cho once said, “those who feel see tragedy, those who think see comedy.”
As Margaret Cho once said, “those who feel see tragedy, those who think see comedy.”
As far as your so-called “tolerance”. I’ve never killed anyone. Not sure why you put me into that category.
I know I’m coming to this late, but I’ve read the entire thread, and I think, Kelly, just an observation, that rhbee puts you in “that category” because of your tone.
It comes off as a little unhinged, a little “the lady dost protest too much, methinks” -ish.
It is really hard to understand why you aren’t grokking the point. Homosexuality isn’t a “preference” and your particular unwillingness to understand that there is aprejudice against same sex relationships being codified by law, and it is unfair from nothing less than a human rights standpoint, however many years of human history notwithstanding, it just makes you come off as a little… well, probably not a very good dancer.
As far as your so-called “tolerance”. I’ve never killed anyone. Not sure why you put me into that category.
I know I’m coming to this late, but I’ve read the entire thread, and I think, Kelly, just an observation, that rhbee puts you in “that category” because of your tone.
It comes off as a little unhinged, a little “the lady dost protest too much, methinks” -ish.
It is really hard to understand why you aren’t grokking the point. Homosexuality isn’t a “preference” and your particular unwillingness to understand that there is aprejudice against same sex relationships being codified by law, and it is unfair from nothing less than a human rights standpoint, however many years of human history notwithstanding, it just makes you come off as a little… well, probably not a very good dancer.
As far as your so-called “tolerance”. I’ve never killed anyone. Not sure why you put me into that category.
I know I’m coming to this late, but I’ve read the entire thread, and I think, Kelly, just an observation, that rhbee puts you in “that category” because of your tone.
It comes off as a little unhinged, a little “the lady dost protest too much, methinks” -ish.
It is really hard to understand why you aren’t grokking the point. Homosexuality isn’t a “preference” and your particular unwillingness to understand that there is aprejudice against same sex relationships being codified by law, and it is unfair from nothing less than a human rights standpoint, however many years of human history notwithstanding, it just makes you come off as a little… well, probably not a very good dancer.
As far as your so-called “tolerance”. I’ve never killed anyone. Not sure why you put me into that category.
I know I’m coming to this late, but I’ve read the entire thread, and I think, Kelly, just an observation, that rhbee puts you in “that category” because of your tone.
It comes off as a little unhinged, a little “the lady dost protest too much, methinks” -ish.
It is really hard to understand why you aren’t grokking the point. Homosexuality isn’t a “preference” and your particular unwillingness to understand that there is aprejudice against same sex relationships being codified by law, and it is unfair from nothing less than a human rights standpoint, however many years of human history notwithstanding, it just makes you come off as a little… well, probably not a very good dancer.
MD, I would add to that that perhaps gayness, or homosexualness (if you prefer) is a preference, and that is exactly why they should get preferential treatment, if you follow. This is all very intellectual.
MD, I would add to that that perhaps gayness, or homosexualness (if you prefer) is a preference, and that is exactly why they should get preferential treatment, if you follow. This is all very intellectual.
My God, TWS, you’re so right. You are so freakin’ right. Touchdown. Game over.
My God, TWS, you’re so right. You are so freakin’ right. Touchdown. Game over.
My God, TWS, you’re so right. You are so freakin’ right. Touchdown. Game over.
My God, TWS, you’re so right. You are so freakin’ right. Touchdown. Game over.
I think it’s fair to say that rhbee has finally exited the building.
MD, “Kelly, just an observation, that rhbee puts you in “that category” because of your tone.”
My tone? I have to admit, I find this rather comical. Even if my “tone” seems a little forward, how does that overshadow insults, empty arguments, and personal attacks? How is that possible? Honestly. You know, that’s not “comical”. That’s absurd. You stand up for something and maybe put a little emotion in the words and those who disagree with you put more weight in the emotion than their own constituent’s ridiculous and callous remarks. That to me is the opposite of tolerance – boy the original thread still finds its way back in. How can a “tone” put someone in the category of murderers?
You think that I should be more sympathetic and understanding of the point? I feel the same way. You then brought up arguments that have ALREADY been said and you too offered no counter. You just simply restated them. “That pen’s black.” “No it’s not, it’s red. Look. See the ink?” Pause. Pause. Pause. “That pen’s black.” Not buying it. But, let’s go ahead and deal with your “arguments” again.
You’re going to have to prove the whole “preference” thing. To date, there is no evidence that you’re right…only opinion. Even if it could be scientifically proven that gays were “born that way” the point is still the same. What if I was born with a “natural” inclination to beat up gay people? Is that something that I should be allowed to do because I was “born that way?” Just because one is born with a trait or characteristic does NOT automatically allow them to live it out or act it out. The whole “isn’t a preference” thing is totally irrelevant.
As we’ve already discussed, there is NO prejudice towards gay relationships. ZERO. You can do all the things that ALL other non-marital relationships can do. None of them can qualify for the benefits of marriage either…why should gays get special treatment just because they’re sexually involved? As far as I know, it’s not illegal to be gay. It’s not illegal for you to live together. It’s not illegal for you to show affection. It’s not illegal for you engage in sexual relations. Its not illegal for you to get a job. It’s not illegal for you to get into politics or the movies. Same for heterosexual couples as well. To be honest, there is MORE acceptance of the gay lifestyle than there ever has been in the entire history of the world. You have the EXACT rights all other citizens have. This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.
Please, read the thread again…I went into detail on this. You did not offer a rebuttal you just simply restated the point again.
By the way, I’m a great dancer.
I think it’s fair to say that rhbee has finally exited the building.
MD, “Kelly, just an observation, that rhbee puts you in “that category” because of your tone.”
My tone? I have to admit, I find this rather comical. Even if my “tone” seems a little forward, how does that overshadow insults, empty arguments, and personal attacks? How is that possible? Honestly. You know, that’s not “comical”. That’s absurd. You stand up for something and maybe put a little emotion in the words and those who disagree with you put more weight in the emotion than their own constituent’s ridiculous and callous remarks. That to me is the opposite of tolerance – boy the original thread still finds its way back in. How can a “tone” put someone in the category of murderers?
You think that I should be more sympathetic and understanding of the point? I feel the same way. You then brought up arguments that have ALREADY been said and you too offered no counter. You just simply restated them. “That pen’s black.” “No it’s not, it’s red. Look. See the ink?” Pause. Pause. Pause. “That pen’s black.” Not buying it. But, let’s go ahead and deal with your “arguments” again.
You’re going to have to prove the whole “preference” thing. To date, there is no evidence that you’re right…only opinion. Even if it could be scientifically proven that gays were “born that way” the point is still the same. What if I was born with a “natural” inclination to beat up gay people? Is that something that I should be allowed to do because I was “born that way?” Just because one is born with a trait or characteristic does NOT automatically allow them to live it out or act it out. The whole “isn’t a preference” thing is totally irrelevant.
As we’ve already discussed, there is NO prejudice towards gay relationships. ZERO. You can do all the things that ALL other non-marital relationships can do. None of them can qualify for the benefits of marriage either…why should gays get special treatment just because they’re sexually involved? As far as I know, it’s not illegal to be gay. It’s not illegal for you to live together. It’s not illegal for you to show affection. It’s not illegal for you engage in sexual relations. Its not illegal for you to get a job. It’s not illegal for you to get into politics or the movies. Same for heterosexual couples as well. To be honest, there is MORE acceptance of the gay lifestyle than there ever has been in the entire history of the world. You have the EXACT rights all other citizens have. This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.
Please, read the thread again…I went into detail on this. You did not offer a rebuttal you just simply restated the point again.
By the way, I’m a great dancer.
I think it’s fair to say that rhbee has finally exited the building.
MD, “Kelly, just an observation, that rhbee puts you in “that category” because of your tone.”
My tone? I have to admit, I find this rather comical. Even if my “tone” seems a little forward, how does that overshadow insults, empty arguments, and personal attacks? How is that possible? Honestly. You know, that’s not “comical”. That’s absurd. You stand up for something and maybe put a little emotion in the words and those who disagree with you put more weight in the emotion than their own constituent’s ridiculous and callous remarks. That to me is the opposite of tolerance – boy the original thread still finds its way back in. How can a “tone” put someone in the category of murderers?
You think that I should be more sympathetic and understanding of the point? I feel the same way. You then brought up arguments that have ALREADY been said and you too offered no counter. You just simply restated them. “That pen’s black.” “No it’s not, it’s red. Look. See the ink?” Pause. Pause. Pause. “That pen’s black.” Not buying it. But, let’s go ahead and deal with your “arguments” again.
You’re going to have to prove the whole “preference” thing. To date, there is no evidence that you’re right…only opinion. Even if it could be scientifically proven that gays were “born that way” the point is still the same. What if I was born with a “natural” inclination to beat up gay people? Is that something that I should be allowed to do because I was “born that way?” Just because one is born with a trait or characteristic does NOT automatically allow them to live it out or act it out. The whole “isn’t a preference” thing is totally irrelevant.
As we’ve already discussed, there is NO prejudice towards gay relationships. ZERO. You can do all the things that ALL other non-marital relationships can do. None of them can qualify for the benefits of marriage either…why should gays get special treatment just because they’re sexually involved? As far as I know, it’s not illegal to be gay. It’s not illegal for you to live together. It’s not illegal for you to show affection. It’s not illegal for you engage in sexual relations. Its not illegal for you to get a job. It’s not illegal for you to get into politics or the movies. Same for heterosexual couples as well. To be honest, there is MORE acceptance of the gay lifestyle than there ever has been in the entire history of the world. You have the EXACT rights all other citizens have. This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.
Please, read the thread again…I went into detail on this. You did not offer a rebuttal you just simply restated the point again.
By the way, I’m a great dancer.
I think it’s fair to say that rhbee has finally exited the building.
MD, “Kelly, just an observation, that rhbee puts you in “that category” because of your tone.”
My tone? I have to admit, I find this rather comical. Even if my “tone” seems a little forward, how does that overshadow insults, empty arguments, and personal attacks? How is that possible? Honestly. You know, that’s not “comical”. That’s absurd. You stand up for something and maybe put a little emotion in the words and those who disagree with you put more weight in the emotion than their own constituent’s ridiculous and callous remarks. That to me is the opposite of tolerance – boy the original thread still finds its way back in. How can a “tone” put someone in the category of murderers?
You think that I should be more sympathetic and understanding of the point? I feel the same way. You then brought up arguments that have ALREADY been said and you too offered no counter. You just simply restated them. “That pen’s black.” “No it’s not, it’s red. Look. See the ink?” Pause. Pause. Pause. “That pen’s black.” Not buying it. But, let’s go ahead and deal with your “arguments” again.
You’re going to have to prove the whole “preference” thing. To date, there is no evidence that you’re right…only opinion. Even if it could be scientifically proven that gays were “born that way” the point is still the same. What if I was born with a “natural” inclination to beat up gay people? Is that something that I should be allowed to do because I was “born that way?” Just because one is born with a trait or characteristic does NOT automatically allow them to live it out or act it out. The whole “isn’t a preference” thing is totally irrelevant.
As we’ve already discussed, there is NO prejudice towards gay relationships. ZERO. You can do all the things that ALL other non-marital relationships can do. None of them can qualify for the benefits of marriage either…why should gays get special treatment just because they’re sexually involved? As far as I know, it’s not illegal to be gay. It’s not illegal for you to live together. It’s not illegal for you to show affection. It’s not illegal for you engage in sexual relations. Its not illegal for you to get a job. It’s not illegal for you to get into politics or the movies. Same for heterosexual couples as well. To be honest, there is MORE acceptance of the gay lifestyle than there ever has been in the entire history of the world. You have the EXACT rights all other citizens have. This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.
Please, read the thread again…I went into detail on this. You did not offer a rebuttal you just simply restated the point again.
By the way, I’m a great dancer.
“grokking”. grokking! WOW!
Let’s do some teseracting now!
Todd is Godd…
“grokking”. grokking! WOW!
Let’s do some teseracting now!
Todd is Godd…
“grokking”. grokking! WOW!
Let’s do some teseracting now!
Todd is Godd…
So MD you now agree that it’s a preference. Awesome, so do I. Changes nothing. All it does is put you right back into the loop of what marriage is designed for. It’s not designed for love. It’s not designed for social acceptance…which really is the main underlying point with the pro-gay movement. It’s designed to build families.
If you disagree, THEN FRIGGIN PROVIDE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST IT!
How was that for tone? Good? Did I get the point the across or did I sound like a murderer? Hey rhbee…BOO!
So MD you now agree that it’s a preference. Awesome, so do I. Changes nothing. All it does is put you right back into the loop of what marriage is designed for. It’s not designed for love. It’s not designed for social acceptance…which really is the main underlying point with the pro-gay movement. It’s designed to build families.
If you disagree, THEN FRIGGIN PROVIDE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST IT!
How was that for tone? Good? Did I get the point the across or did I sound like a murderer? Hey rhbee…BOO!
So MD you now agree that it’s a preference. Awesome, so do I. Changes nothing. All it does is put you right back into the loop of what marriage is designed for. It’s not designed for love. It’s not designed for social acceptance…which really is the main underlying point with the pro-gay movement. It’s designed to build families.
If you disagree, THEN FRIGGIN PROVIDE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST IT!
How was that for tone? Good? Did I get the point the across or did I sound like a murderer? Hey rhbee…BOO!
So MD you now agree that it’s a preference. Awesome, so do I. Changes nothing. All it does is put you right back into the loop of what marriage is designed for. It’s not designed for love. It’s not designed for social acceptance…which really is the main underlying point with the pro-gay movement. It’s designed to build families.
If you disagree, THEN FRIGGIN PROVIDE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST IT!
How was that for tone? Good? Did I get the point the across or did I sound like a murderer? Hey rhbee…BOO!
Kelly, are you a heterosexual? If so, when and how did you first recognize your desire to have sex with a person of your own sex?
Did someone tell you what marriage was designed for, or did you figure it out all by yourself?
PS Your tone, as you wrote to Mason Dixon, doesn’t seem a little forward. Quite the opposite.
Dance!
Kelly, are you a heterosexual? If so, when and how did you first recognize your desire to have sex with a person of your own sex?
Did someone tell you what marriage was designed for, or did you figure it out all by yourself?
PS Your tone, as you wrote to Mason Dixon, doesn’t seem a little forward. Quite the opposite.
Dance!
Kelly, are you a heterosexual? If so, when and how did you first recognize your desire to have sex with a person of your own sex?
Did someone tell you what marriage was designed for, or did you figure it out all by yourself?
PS Your tone, as you wrote to Mason Dixon, doesn’t seem a little forward. Quite the opposite.
Dance!
Kelly, are you a heterosexual? If so, when and how did you first recognize your desire to have sex with a person of your own sex?
Did someone tell you what marriage was designed for, or did you figure it out all by yourself?
PS Your tone, as you wrote to Mason Dixon, doesn’t seem a little forward. Quite the opposite.
Dance!
Oh, and who the hell designed marriage anyway? God? If so, I why did He wait so many millennia of human misery to institute it? I mean if America, as we are sometimes called, finally got it right. Why has it been (and still is) so many different things? It’s only been a sacrament even in the church for a couple of hundred years.
Somehow I don’t think you know as much about all this as you would like us to believe. Like for instance, are you married?
And, after you realized your attraction to people of your own sex, why did you decide not to act on it? Again, something you figured out yourself? Or did you try it both ways and decide you preferred sex with people of the opposite sex? And if you are an Conservative American Christian (CAN), what are you doing having all this sex out of wedlock anyway? This is beginning to get extremely dicey. Is there no end to your depravity?
Seriously, I don’t think you come here for the blogging.
Oh, and who the hell designed marriage anyway? God? If so, I why did He wait so many millennia of human misery to institute it? I mean if America, as we are sometimes called, finally got it right. Why has it been (and still is) so many different things? It’s only been a sacrament even in the church for a couple of hundred years.
Somehow I don’t think you know as much about all this as you would like us to believe. Like for instance, are you married?
And, after you realized your attraction to people of your own sex, why did you decide not to act on it? Again, something you figured out yourself? Or did you try it both ways and decide you preferred sex with people of the opposite sex? And if you are an Conservative American Christian (CAN), what are you doing having all this sex out of wedlock anyway? This is beginning to get extremely dicey. Is there no end to your depravity?
Seriously, I don’t think you come here for the blogging.
Oh, and who the hell designed marriage anyway? God? If so, I why did He wait so many millennia of human misery to institute it? I mean if America, as we are sometimes called, finally got it right. Why has it been (and still is) so many different things? It’s only been a sacrament even in the church for a couple of hundred years.
Somehow I don’t think you know as much about all this as you would like us to believe. Like for instance, are you married?
And, after you realized your attraction to people of your own sex, why did you decide not to act on it? Again, something you figured out yourself? Or did you try it both ways and decide you preferred sex with people of the opposite sex? And if you are an Conservative American Christian (CAN), what are you doing having all this sex out of wedlock anyway? This is beginning to get extremely dicey. Is there no end to your depravity?
Seriously, I don’t think you come here for the blogging.
Oh, and who the hell designed marriage anyway? God? If so, I why did He wait so many millennia of human misery to institute it? I mean if America, as we are sometimes called, finally got it right. Why has it been (and still is) so many different things? It’s only been a sacrament even in the church for a couple of hundred years.
Somehow I don’t think you know as much about all this as you would like us to believe. Like for instance, are you married?
And, after you realized your attraction to people of your own sex, why did you decide not to act on it? Again, something you figured out yourself? Or did you try it both ways and decide you preferred sex with people of the opposite sex? And if you are an Conservative American Christian (CAN), what are you doing having all this sex out of wedlock anyway? This is beginning to get extremely dicey. Is there no end to your depravity?
Seriously, I don’t think you come here for the blogging.
My sexual preference is irrelevant. And just as you said “when did you first recognize your desire…?” The word desire is key in your sentence. You see, desire has NOTHING to do with marriage. It has everything to do with sexual relations. That’s a straw man Tennessee.
It certainly isn’t hard to figure out what “marriage” is designed for. Even gay couples who get married know this distinction. What about Kathy Palmer from San Francisco and her partner Laura. Laura was seven months pregnant at the time…I doubt Kathy got her pregnant, but that’s beside the point. Anyway, here’s Kathy’s quote: “We’re having kids and this (being the marriage) gives some credibility to the relationship and the family structure.” Notice the last three words. She got it. She understands it. It’s always been this way. I’m sure you’ve had some friend who got pregnant and inevitably had the conversation with the other about getting married. This isn’t knew. I didn’t have to discover it. Either did you.
Again, you still haven’t addressed the issue of special rights. You still haven’t addressed the issue that gays already have every RIGHT that heterosexuals have.
My sexual preference is irrelevant. And just as you said “when did you first recognize your desire…?” The word desire is key in your sentence. You see, desire has NOTHING to do with marriage. It has everything to do with sexual relations. That’s a straw man Tennessee.
It certainly isn’t hard to figure out what “marriage” is designed for. Even gay couples who get married know this distinction. What about Kathy Palmer from San Francisco and her partner Laura. Laura was seven months pregnant at the time…I doubt Kathy got her pregnant, but that’s beside the point. Anyway, here’s Kathy’s quote: “We’re having kids and this (being the marriage) gives some credibility to the relationship and the family structure.” Notice the last three words. She got it. She understands it. It’s always been this way. I’m sure you’ve had some friend who got pregnant and inevitably had the conversation with the other about getting married. This isn’t knew. I didn’t have to discover it. Either did you.
Again, you still haven’t addressed the issue of special rights. You still haven’t addressed the issue that gays already have every RIGHT that heterosexuals have.
My sexual preference is irrelevant. And just as you said “when did you first recognize your desire…?” The word desire is key in your sentence. You see, desire has NOTHING to do with marriage. It has everything to do with sexual relations. That’s a straw man Tennessee.
It certainly isn’t hard to figure out what “marriage” is designed for. Even gay couples who get married know this distinction. What about Kathy Palmer from San Francisco and her partner Laura. Laura was seven months pregnant at the time…I doubt Kathy got her pregnant, but that’s beside the point. Anyway, here’s Kathy’s quote: “We’re having kids and this (being the marriage) gives some credibility to the relationship and the family structure.” Notice the last three words. She got it. She understands it. It’s always been this way. I’m sure you’ve had some friend who got pregnant and inevitably had the conversation with the other about getting married. This isn’t knew. I didn’t have to discover it. Either did you.
Again, you still haven’t addressed the issue of special rights. You still haven’t addressed the issue that gays already have every RIGHT that heterosexuals have.
My sexual preference is irrelevant. And just as you said “when did you first recognize your desire…?” The word desire is key in your sentence. You see, desire has NOTHING to do with marriage. It has everything to do with sexual relations. That’s a straw man Tennessee.
It certainly isn’t hard to figure out what “marriage” is designed for. Even gay couples who get married know this distinction. What about Kathy Palmer from San Francisco and her partner Laura. Laura was seven months pregnant at the time…I doubt Kathy got her pregnant, but that’s beside the point. Anyway, here’s Kathy’s quote: “We’re having kids and this (being the marriage) gives some credibility to the relationship and the family structure.” Notice the last three words. She got it. She understands it. It’s always been this way. I’m sure you’ve had some friend who got pregnant and inevitably had the conversation with the other about getting married. This isn’t knew. I didn’t have to discover it. Either did you.
Again, you still haven’t addressed the issue of special rights. You still haven’t addressed the issue that gays already have every RIGHT that heterosexuals have.
I won’t get into a God conversation because that will lead down many different paths…many we would most likely agree on.
To say it has been so many different things implies that it’s constantly being redefined. The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men and women.
There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (ex: too young, mental disorders, interracial – we dealt with that one already). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But MARRIAGE has still been marriage. And spouses have always been MALE and FEMALE.
In the midst of these obvious changes in marriage, what feature remains the same? What is the essential core that makes marriage distinct from any other relationship? In spite of the variations, spouses have always been male and female. Why? What is unique about this human pairing?
My marital status is irrelevant, as well as my sexual history, and my political and religious beliefs.
I guess it’s getting dicey because you’re running out of arguments. There are several you have yet to refute. And finally, that’s a strong statement to say that I’m morally evil and corrupt. Again, why the insults? How can you possibly stand on the wall and proclaim tolerance when you don’t act upon it for yourself? Honestly. I have provide intellectual arguments for my view. Sure, you may disagree with them but I believe I have not been hateful or promoted hate in anyway. Certainly not “morally evil.”
I won’t get into a God conversation because that will lead down many different paths…many we would most likely agree on.
To say it has been so many different things implies that it’s constantly being redefined. The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men and women.
There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (ex: too young, mental disorders, interracial – we dealt with that one already). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But MARRIAGE has still been marriage. And spouses have always been MALE and FEMALE.
In the midst of these obvious changes in marriage, what feature remains the same? What is the essential core that makes marriage distinct from any other relationship? In spite of the variations, spouses have always been male and female. Why? What is unique about this human pairing?
My marital status is irrelevant, as well as my sexual history, and my political and religious beliefs.
I guess it’s getting dicey because you’re running out of arguments. There are several you have yet to refute. And finally, that’s a strong statement to say that I’m morally evil and corrupt. Again, why the insults? How can you possibly stand on the wall and proclaim tolerance when you don’t act upon it for yourself? Honestly. I have provide intellectual arguments for my view. Sure, you may disagree with them but I believe I have not been hateful or promoted hate in anyway. Certainly not “morally evil.”
I won’t get into a God conversation because that will lead down many different paths…many we would most likely agree on.
To say it has been so many different things implies that it’s constantly being redefined. The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men and women.
There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (ex: too young, mental disorders, interracial – we dealt with that one already). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But MARRIAGE has still been marriage. And spouses have always been MALE and FEMALE.
In the midst of these obvious changes in marriage, what feature remains the same? What is the essential core that makes marriage distinct from any other relationship? In spite of the variations, spouses have always been male and female. Why? What is unique about this human pairing?
My marital status is irrelevant, as well as my sexual history, and my political and religious beliefs.
I guess it’s getting dicey because you’re running out of arguments. There are several you have yet to refute. And finally, that’s a strong statement to say that I’m morally evil and corrupt. Again, why the insults? How can you possibly stand on the wall and proclaim tolerance when you don’t act upon it for yourself? Honestly. I have provide intellectual arguments for my view. Sure, you may disagree with them but I believe I have not been hateful or promoted hate in anyway. Certainly not “morally evil.”
I won’t get into a God conversation because that will lead down many different paths…many we would most likely agree on.
To say it has been so many different things implies that it’s constantly being redefined. The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men and women.
There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (ex: too young, mental disorders, interracial – we dealt with that one already). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But MARRIAGE has still been marriage. And spouses have always been MALE and FEMALE.
In the midst of these obvious changes in marriage, what feature remains the same? What is the essential core that makes marriage distinct from any other relationship? In spite of the variations, spouses have always been male and female. Why? What is unique about this human pairing?
My marital status is irrelevant, as well as my sexual history, and my political and religious beliefs.
I guess it’s getting dicey because you’re running out of arguments. There are several you have yet to refute. And finally, that’s a strong statement to say that I’m morally evil and corrupt. Again, why the insults? How can you possibly stand on the wall and proclaim tolerance when you don’t act upon it for yourself? Honestly. I have provide intellectual arguments for my view. Sure, you may disagree with them but I believe I have not been hateful or promoted hate in anyway. Certainly not “morally evil.”
Oh and by the way, I do in fact have a very successful blog.
Oh and by the way, I do in fact have a very successful blog.
Kelly, I am tolerating you assiduously.
“My marital status is irrelevant, as well as my sexual history, and my political and religious beliefs.”
I agree. Especially in regard to your political and religious beliefs.
In fact, I have no argument. Never have.
(You either.)
I am filled with mirth.
Thank you.
Kelly, I am tolerating you assiduously.
“My marital status is irrelevant, as well as my sexual history, and my political and religious beliefs.”
I agree. Especially in regard to your political and religious beliefs.
In fact, I have no argument. Never have.
(You either.)
I am filled with mirth.
Thank you.
Kelly, I am tolerating you assiduously.
“My marital status is irrelevant, as well as my sexual history, and my political and religious beliefs.”
I agree. Especially in regard to your political and religious beliefs.
In fact, I have no argument. Never have.
(You either.)
I am filled with mirth.
Thank you.
Kelly,
You swim in deep waters. For that, compliments. I’ll do you a favor: you shouldn’t take on TWS unless you intend no lo condere.
You seem not to have considered the happy fact of so many happy children raised in resolutely homo households. I must ask you, with your eye skewed toward upbringing: Is this not upbringing?
Also, you are mistaken in your estimate that this conflict does not rise to challenge the Equal Protection Clause. In our jurisprudence, the question of “equal protection” amounts to the matter of equalization, so that some “protected classes” are brought into our boat. It would seem that the time has come for us to extend an oar to a class of persons who have been persecuted without any respectable warrant.
I myself am an arch traditionalist, and as such I appreciate your fight for what you see as traditional marriage. As you know, in scholarship there is sociology, the study of societies, and there is anthropology, the study of cultures. Societies generally are fleeting; cultures are upbuilt over time. Both can be destroyed by dint, respectively, of the USAF or the USMC. We know that, unfortunately.
What I wish you’d take to heart is that you gloriously exemplify a young American who perseveres in defense of her beliefs, while you also exemplify a certain reluctance simply to hear, and consider.
Kelly,
You swim in deep waters. For that, compliments. I’ll do you a favor: you shouldn’t take on TWS unless you intend no lo condere.
You seem not to have considered the happy fact of so many happy children raised in resolutely homo households. I must ask you, with your eye skewed toward upbringing: Is this not upbringing?
Also, you are mistaken in your estimate that this conflict does not rise to challenge the Equal Protection Clause. In our jurisprudence, the question of “equal protection” amounts to the matter of equalization, so that some “protected classes” are brought into our boat. It would seem that the time has come for us to extend an oar to a class of persons who have been persecuted without any respectable warrant.
I myself am an arch traditionalist, and as such I appreciate your fight for what you see as traditional marriage. As you know, in scholarship there is sociology, the study of societies, and there is anthropology, the study of cultures. Societies generally are fleeting; cultures are upbuilt over time. Both can be destroyed by dint, respectively, of the USAF or the USMC. We know that, unfortunately.
What I wish you’d take to heart is that you gloriously exemplify a young American who perseveres in defense of her beliefs, while you also exemplify a certain reluctance simply to hear, and consider.
“As Margaret Cho once said, “those who feel see tragedy, those who think see comedy.”
Just for the record, that’s Horace Walpole.
But len,
Couldn’t we as well flip it?
How much was the loan? Is it in a good location? Did anyone make meth in the attic?
len,
You mean the continuation of
Lend-Lease? It was a square deal, IMHO. Britain had it coming, in spades.
Oh. I rhink I see what you mean, len. The anthro point. Yes. These things do not occur in a vacuum. You’re quite right.
But by the same token, are they not [culturally] premature? Let’s have patience, then, whilst the red states settle in. I love my people. They’re good. They’ll come around.
Some of them will. Some of them will have to be recycled.
Margaret Cho was channeling Horace Walpole?
Wow! there really is a curse.
I “shouldn’t take on TWS unless [I] intend no lo condere”? Why should I plea no contest? He still has avoided the primary point of the so-called “rights violation”. It appears as of now TWS should should intend no lo condere.
Your comment about children raised in homosexual households of course is “upbringing”. What’s your point? If it’s to say that there is no difference between the two then you need to read the studies. Same-sex marriage, by design, will always deny a child their mother or father. It also makes mothers and fathers interchangeable. So a mother offers no unique contribution to her children. She is just a warm body. A man could accomplish all her parenting functions just as well. This is not only counterintuitive, it flies in the face of decades of research that demonstrates children do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father. For example, studies show that fatherless children suffer from higher incidents of mental illness, educational failure,
substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual abuse, and other problems.
The fact that not every opposite-sex couple will have children doesn’t change anything. Marriage creates, by design, the environment in which children will grow up. We shouldn’t INTENTIONALLY create a parenting model that is inadequate to raise healthy children. But that’s what happens when we endorse same-sex marriage.
“In our jurisprudence, the question of “equal protection” amounts to the matter of equalization, so that some “protected classes” are brought into our boat.”
Once again, you folks keep making this claim but offer no proof. I’m tired of typing on this one…and you actually tell me that I am reluctant to hear and consider? I have heard this one now about four times and keep offering a rebuttal but NOT ONE OF YOU has offered a counter…you just restate it. Talk about not listening.
Give me a break that the gay “class” is “persecuted.” That is just plain silly. How are they persecuted? Because one may get beat up every now and then? People get bullied all the time…some because they have long hair. Maybe anyone with long hair should get a special right too. Foolishness. Utter foolishness. So, HUGO, what exactly is the injustice? GAYS HAVE EVERY SINGLE RIGHT THAT ANYONE ELSE HAS. Please read my comments above and attempt to refute the argument not just restate it…that wins no points. Honestly, it shows you can’t answer it so all you do is accuse me of not listening when you fact you can’t handle the objection. Maybe it’s you who needs to reconsider your position because the sand is shifting under your feet.
The above final few statements were not written in anger so don’t read them that way. Certainly not a bad “tone” that others have accused me of…ironically, they couldn’t answer the questions so they could only accuse me of having a bad tone.
I’ve had fun with this one but “gentlemen” it’s getting old. Either make a counter-argument or just say you’re done because continuingly to restate the same thing over and over again just gets old. I’m happy to “reconsider” and I have certainly listened because I have sought to answer EVERY question posed to me. The majority of my questions go unanswered. So please, challenge me with a refutation. Or, you can no lo condere.
Rosie O’Donnell candidly revealed her motivation behind same-sex parenting. When asked by her son, “Mommy, why can’t I have a daddy?” Rosie answered, “Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.” Notice that it’s about her and what she wants – not her son’s needs. The motivation is selfish.
Pro-gay supporters of this revisionist argue that marriage is merely a social construction, something we can change as culture changes. That’s impossible. Gregory Koukl writes that, “It is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren’t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.”
That’s why government protects and privileges opposite-sex marriages and families. They
provide tax incentives, inheritance rights, and other advantages to protect families that PRODUCE the next generation and create civilization itself. No society, in all of human history, has ever granted these privileges and protections to same-sex couples. Doing so is a social experiment that uses children as guinea pigs. Except with this experiment, we already know the outcome. We’ve already seen the harmful effects of fatherless and motherless children in our culture. Same-sex marriage simply makes government (you and me) sponsor these brave new families.
Now, I feel that is a fair argument. Not rude. Not cold. But offers a position that if you disagree with then please counter. It gets you no where to simply “disagree”. Why do you disagree? Do you believe that homosexual couples could build and continue to create civilization? If so, how? That doesn’t mean contribute to society it means “create” and “build”.
Come on, Kelly,
Don’t kill me with complaints about my “tone”. I don’t care about tone; I care about your thinking and mine, and that of the others.
Your jusisprudence is flawed because you don’t see this matter as pressing upon our Equal Protection Clause. It decidedly does so (and your side may win in court) because as TSW was trying to show you, marriage has become a right of state, rather than a rite of the church. As a (now) civil right, it falls into the category of civil rights, in which case, you lose longrun.
Look, I’m not unsympathic to your opnion; I just wish to counsel you not to be so doggedly assured in your views.
Let me make a case that assuredly will displease you as it displeases everyone else: Let’s have civil unions–and therefore fair treatment under the law–for everyone, regardless of sexual identity, and then let’s leave it up to the religious organizations as to whether to “sanctify” any particular union. Fair enough?
As an anthropologist I’m obliged to report my biases here. I, an American male, was married for eight years, and am divorced by color of law and of my church. We were unable to have children, alas.
TWS,
Why must you be funny when I wasn’t trying to be funny but should have been funny? Dangit!
You have not answered EVERY question. For your convenience and to make an honest woman of you, so to speak, I will list below the questions you have not answered.
Here are the questions you absolutely must answer to continue to have this conversation:
Is your sexual preference heterosexual?
If so, after you realized your attraction to people of your own sex, why did you decide not to act on it?
Or, did you try it both ways and decide you preferred sex with people of the opposite sex?
Now, here is a comprehensive list of questions you have not answered beginning with your hilarious question-
“Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?”
What if they weren’t sexually involved and just wanted to live together and love each other, would it then be okay for them to get married?
Don’t a lot of straight people get together merely because they are sexually involved, get married, and realize that the sex wasn’t enough to sustain the marriage?
What would you think of a woman and a man and getting married and not having sex and not adopting children?
You say that marriage is for raising families, having children? Is there any other important aspect that could recommend marriage to someone who does not want children?
If you are you a heterosexual, when and how did you first recognize your preference to have sex with a person of your own sex?
Did someone tell you what marriage was designed for, or did you figure it out on your own?
Are you married?
Oh, and who is it that designed marriage anyway? God? If so, why did He wait so many millennia of human misery to institute it? Did America, as we are sometimes called, finally get it right?
If so, why has it been (and still is) so many different things? It’s only been a sacrament even in the church for a couple of hundred years.
Kelly, when it comes to stating the same thing (in the same way) over and over, you have no equal. Please listen to Hugo. He is benevolent. And a LOT more knowledgeable (and a lot smarter, for what it’s worth) than you. Have a little respect. Please don’t be so full of yourself. Hugo could lead you to a finer, more loving Kelly, perhaps even a Kelly with a little humility.
In the meantime, you are transparent.
Hugo, your proposition above is just crazy enough to work.
“Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements!
Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets! ” – AG
Straight, married and happy but I’ve lived a long time in the entertainment and theatre tribes. From where I sit, homesexuality is natural, self-limiting and too often, self-absorbed. It is occasionally self-selected and that is not society’s choice to change. But no one is harmed by the civil same sex unions. The harm would be to force the church by civil legislation to recognize these as holy matrimony. It violates separation of church and state in a way and by a means that would have consequences far into the future. Tolerance will not come by force and understanding is not what the law guarantees.
Refusing civil rights on the grounds of sexual orientation where expressing that does not violate norms fixed for society’s health (No boy love; nope. Don’t even go there, Allen.) is wrong. It just ups the pain of one group to cover the psychoses of another.
That said, Kelly has one good point: these natural notions as political notions can devolve into a selfish “it’s all about me” attitude that corrodes civil discourse and pushes societal tolerance past bounds it cannot cross. Refusing to recognize how bad the timing was and how easily they were being led into the trap, we would have cut four years of death and misery out of our last eight had the gay marriage issue not been so well-played by the right. Timing is everything.
To tie other threads to this, if desperation to be ‘in the loop’, the essence of ‘me’ were not so high among the young, I might say they have some advantages or improvements on the boomers, but the truth is they are so much like the boomers as to be indistinguishable and making all the same mistakes despite immediate access to far more information for far less effort. By that measure, they don’t measure up to what the Boomers did.
I believe anyone of any age is better when they turn off their cellphones and learn to fix their own plumbing, cars and lawn mowers. Twittering is not communication; it is addiction to self-esteem.
From my perspective, civil unions are the same as marriage. They are simply marriage by another name. I think there are good reasons that we continue to treat marriage the way we’ve been treating it since the beginning of time, essentially. That it’s a way society honors, protects, encourages, and regulates the relationships that are long term commited monogamous relationships that create the next generation. And because of that fact, that they produce the next generation, by rule, by nature, by design, then the culture at large, the government, has an interest in stabilizing those relationships. It has no interest in stabilizing any other realtionships so it shoudn’t be involved in regulating or priviledging other relationships in the same way. My concern is, if we remove that distinction and we have the government saying that same sex unions are the same, in the eyes of the poeple, as heterosexual unions, then what happens is this treats marriage and family as if it’s a cultural convention rather than a natural institution that is at the foundation of all socitey. Instead they make it a construction of society rather than the thing that contructs society. This then undermines the very foundations of society. So we have to keep these things distinct.
What happens if we say “okay we’re not going to have same sex marriage but we’re going to have same sex unions”? This is where the government gives a licence to same sex couples who commit themselves to each other and then gives them priviledges and protections and regulations. What priviledges, protections, and regulations would that be? It’d be the same priviledges, protections and regulations that married couples have. Then what’s the difference? The name. I’m n0t interested in preserving a name. I’m interested in preserving the thing. Marriage. Whether it’s by that name or any other name.
And so civil unions are going to have the same impact as marriage. Why does the government have to be involved in this thing at all? If people want to pledge themselves until death do us part, buy a home, share the goods, have a honeymoon, live together, have sex, then they can do it. You have the right and the feedom to already. “Becase we want priviledges,” they say. Why should you get priviledges? Heterosexual marriages have distinct “priviledges” for a very particular and perculiar reason. Perculiar to the very nature of heterosexual relationships . That’s why the government gives them the priviledges. Why should anyone else get those? They shouldn’t.
Kelly,
People like you are the reason a whole lot of people like me have stopped going to church. I prefer to meet God in an atmosphere that is not quite so thick with sanctimony.
What!? There has not been one mention of God or one aspect of this thread given from a “church” perspective. All my commentary has stayed on topic and provided arguments against gay marriage and civil unions without bringing in religion.
I guess I would understand your statement if I was one of those who only quoted the Bible and said “See. It’s right there. In the Book.” But I’m not.
MD, where is my argument faulty?
On what authority do you say that marriage is for raising children? Where did you learn that?
What else is it for Tennessee? Asking me what “authority” I have or where “I” learned it is irrelevant to the issue her. What is relevant is my question to you: What else is it for other than building and creating civilization?
“Molloch! Molloch! Robot apartments…
Molloch a smouldering skull!”
Where are our Ginsbergs? We need them so badly.
Keep at it, Kelly. You’re in The Book, I feel sure.
Yes, our business is to upbuild civilization. How civilized are you willing to be?
Kelly, you asked:
“Why does the government have to be involved in this thing at all?”
I ask the same question.
On this we agree.
Sorry, len, for the misquotation of dear Ginsburg. I think he said something more to the tune of Molloch’s ear being a smoking tomb…
Glorious. Gorgeous. Horrible.
Okay, I’ve read the whole string. Really epic. Kelly-you are in a room full of epic hipsters, please appreciate that the last 15 posts are very close to the beat poetry jams of the late 50′s and early sixties.
Try to go more with the slightly humorous ,Lord Buckley flow of the conversation. BTW- We talk about God all the time here. I don’t think God has much to do with the issue at hand.
I don’t think we have gotten anywhere near the bottom of why conservatives can’t dance.
And seriously, if you think of it, God might have something to do with it. We shouldn’t be too quick to write Him off.
This is what I’m talking about.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/06/lear_jet_repo_man/
This is what I’m talking about.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/06/lear_jet_repo_man/
This is what I’m talking about.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/06/lear_jet_repo_man/
On scale of 1 to 10, 1o being the highest, I’m willing to be a 10.
On scale of 1 to 10, 1o being the highest, I’m willing to be a 10.
Well I surely didn’t go for humorous…probably because I get tired of hearing, and I do mean this literally, all the intolerant speech towards conservative thought.
rhbee, for example, hoping these two young men would shut up for “eternity” doesn’t sound very funny to me.
Armande Asante calling people of my ilk “bigots” doesn’t sound very funny to me.
rhbee putting me in a gene pool with murderers doesn’t sound very funny to me.
Tennessee calling me a mother fucker, doesn’t sound…wait, no that one for some reason was funny to me.
I think it was Hugo who claimed to have read the whole thread then called me a girl, maybe that’s a littel funny because of my name but not too attentive to details.
You may not have understood my statement about God and this issue. Tennessee tried to get me to go down that path but, like you, I didn’t think God had much to do with the issue at hand.
By the way Tennessee, I like the repo man article.
Well I surely didn’t go for humorous…probably because I get tired of hearing, and I do mean this literally, all the intolerant speech towards conservative thought.
rhbee, for example, hoping these two young men would shut up for “eternity” doesn’t sound very funny to me.
Armande Asante calling people of my ilk “bigots” doesn’t sound very funny to me.
rhbee putting me in a gene pool with murderers doesn’t sound very funny to me.
Tennessee calling me a mother fucker, doesn’t sound…wait, no that one for some reason was funny to me.
I think it was Hugo who claimed to have read the whole thread then called me a girl, maybe that’s a littel funny because of my name but not too attentive to details.
You may not have understood my statement about God and this issue. Tennessee tried to get me to go down that path but, like you, I didn’t think God had much to do with the issue at hand.
By the way Tennessee, I like the repo man article.
Well I surely didn’t go for humorous…probably because I get tired of hearing, and I do mean this literally, all the intolerant speech towards conservative thought.
rhbee, for example, hoping these two young men would shut up for “eternity” doesn’t sound very funny to me.
Armande Asante calling people of my ilk “bigots” doesn’t sound very funny to me.
rhbee putting me in a gene pool with murderers doesn’t sound very funny to me.
Tennessee calling me a mother fucker, doesn’t sound…wait, no that one for some reason was funny to me.
I think it was Hugo who claimed to have read the whole thread then called me a girl, maybe that’s a littel funny because of my name but not too attentive to details.
You may not have understood my statement about God and this issue. Tennessee tried to get me to go down that path but, like you, I didn’t think God had much to do with the issue at hand.
By the way Tennessee, I like the repo man article.
Kelly, wait a minute. You’re a guy and you’re a great dancer?!? Let’s have a look at your very successful blog!
(Glad you liked the repo man article.)
(By the way, Kelly, I’ve been totally joking around.)
Kelly, wait a minute. You’re a guy and you’re a great dancer?!? Let’s have a look at your very successful blog!
(Glad you liked the repo man article.)
(By the way, Kelly, I’ve been totally joking around.)
Kelly, wait a minute. You’re a guy and you’re a great dancer?!? Let’s have a look at your very successful blog!
(Glad you liked the repo man article.)
(By the way, Kelly, I’ve been totally joking around.)
Kelly, wait a minute. You’re a guy and you’re a great dancer?!? Let’s have a look at your very successful blog!
(Glad you liked the repo man article.)
(By the way, Kelly, I’ve been totally joking around.)
That’s why I wasn’t bothered by your MFer comment.
That’s why I wasn’t bothered by your MFer comment.
That’s why I wasn’t bothered by your MFer comment.
Now where is that blog?
Now where is that blog?
Now where is that blog?
Now where is that blog?
The first sound recording, 1860.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptsePQWJIX0
The first sound recording, 1860.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptsePQWJIX0
That was a trip and now for some some dancing.
That was a trip and now for some some dancing.