Crowd celebrates overturning of gay marriage ban....by Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO — A cheerful and noisy crowd is gathering in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood (Z; the gay neighborhood) to celebrate Wednesday's ruling by a judge overturning California's same-sex marriage ban.
After the ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, people throughout the neighborhood met in cafes and bars for small celebrations. In one bar, patrons toasted with glasses of champagne.
Coffee shops throughout the area were also packed as area residents watched the news on television.
With the crowd gathering on the street having grown to an estimated 400 early Wednesday evening, many were chanting and waving rainbow and American flags.
The celebration in the Castro neighborhood comes just before a planned march and rally to City Hall.
So, would you be clicking champagne glasses? And, ya, I can't believe I posted that picture, either. Sorry. HERE is more. Yahoo homepage news says this "reignites HOPE" :-)
z
164 comments:
Is NAMBLA rejoicing too?
Straights and gays have EXACTLY the same marriage rights, right now, in EVERY state. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. If gay marriage advocates want SPECIAL rights, I suggest that they be honest about it for starters. And not only that, I'd LOVE to hear them limit the definition of marriage in any way shape or form after they carve out a little special right for themselves.
It's probably just easier for them to call us "bigots, homophobes, and idiots." Those are but a few of the insults leveled at traditionalists.
It's entirely possible that those "bigots and idiots" have also thought through this in the same manner?
To me this is simply logic vs. emotion. It's emotionally easy to say that we should all have the same rights. Right now we do. If you want special rights, then make the case, and then please explain why that is the ONLY special right that should be allowed where marriage is concerned.
It's actually a very interesting topic. Constitutionality vs. will of people. There was a very interesting article in Reason a couple of months ago about this.
I'm not in the camp of the ones who think the will of the people can override the Constitution. Scalia, however, is.
In this specific matter, I am quite indifferent to say the least. Like I posted yesterday, I wish gov wasn't in the marriage business at all.
NAMBLA...they're next, Always; wait for it.
Jingo...what do you mean they have the same marriage rights now in every state?
Trestin; EXCELLENT point...so right.
FB, it is a fascinating situation, isn't it. I guess the real question is IS the will of the people not along the lines of the constitution.........since you have NO WORK (smile!) maybe you can do some research for us here!? (heh heh!)
I'd put the Constitution first BUT I do not believe the founders had gay marriage on their mind when they wrote it...how COULD they have...it still took another 250 years before this country fell apart and even entertained the idea of it. So, should they have included something about gay sex IN the constitution? Of course not........it was indecent; they knew it didn't move a healthy society forward. Very complicated ... other than the fact that most gays don't WANT to marry, gays do have a lot of the same rights, they just have to go to a lawyer to solidify them... I'm rambling..
going back to bed.
I say this: let them experiment with it and let's see what happens.
I doubt the founder had that in mind because I doubt they had marriage in mind. I think they were more preoccupied with establishing a nation with a solid constitution that will guarantee freedom and individual rights for centuries.
What is marriage? It's a partnership, an emotional and moral commitment (contract) between two individuals. Is it the job of the government to enforce morality or moral standards? For me that's the underlying question, however one defines moral standards.
I personally don't think the gov should define moral standards as it is not moral at all in nature. Quite the opposite and that is why the Founders wanted to limit it. Additionally, when we allow the gov to define moral standards, hence an elite, those moral standards can shit pretty quickly (e.g. welfare is the moral thing to do, a bailout is the moral thing to do). There's less stability in those standards and they can even get diluted since everything is "pitched" as the moral thing to do again.
Churches, religions exist to spread and enforce moral values. They should deal with marriage issues.
If the will of the people is in violation of the law it gets struck down.
The will of the people is not absolute.
The majority rule principle is dead. The majority of Californians who chose to define marriage as one husband and one wife don't matter.
This is one screwed up country.
"Jingo...what do you mean they have the same marriage rights now in every state?"
They have the exact same marriage rights as straights, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Once we carve out an exemption for gays, we CANNOT keep polygamous and incestuous unions from happening under the "equal protection clause", can we?
These people haven't thought it through, nor do they give a flying fornication about what happens next.
Once again, federal judicial fiat rules the day.
This will be affirmed by the 9th Circuit, then will find itself up to SCOTUS.
BZ
I hope the same logic for not limiting who can enter in a contract will also apply to healthcare if I wish not to enter in a contract with the government.
The will of the people is not absolute.
Wanna bet?
The will of the people is not absolute.
If there has ever been a better look into the leftist's mind...
This rivals Pete Stark
"The federal government … can do most anything in this country."
“I think there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life,”
Friend of yours Duck?
Trestin, right on.
What is marriage but a binding contract between consenting adults? The proper function of government is to uphold contract law not set the terms of it. That is what the real debate ought to be but instead here we are debating one form over another.
Duckster:
"If the will of the people is in violation of the law it gets struck down.
The will of the people is not absolute."
You're right. It's not very often that we agree. Now let me hear you expalin how "equal protection" also applies to siblings and polygamous unions. Thanks.
Jingoist, ducky can't be specific aside from the movie knowledge he has. For other things, he throws stones then cowardly runs away. Don't expect too much.
The irony of it is that on the one hand you've got people up in arms about the healthcare mandate protesting "How dare the government come between me and my doctor!".
And yet, it seems there's no compunction about government coming between a bond between two persons of the same sex.
I think if there were equal protection under the law under the law in this regard, the law which recognizes the right of contract or the right to freely assemble would not stand between one's ability to do so as it presently is.
I am not surprised that California's gay appeals court judge overruled the 7 million votes in favor of traditional marriage.
Our society no longer matters to the ruling elite, nor do the majority's rights or wishes. Contempt is all that's deserved for traditionalists. We just keep taking it and taking it. We have no value to them, no rights, we are nothing.
You're 100% right Soapster.
Thanks FrogBurger. It's merely a repeat of the smoking ban debacle. The real substantive issue was about the right to the use and disposal of private property and about the distinction between public use and public ownership. Yet, the issue became one of smoker rights vs. non-smoker rights.
Whether the restraint still exists against polygamy after the roundup of the cult in Texas is unclear but it gets decided on it's merits.
On a brighter note...the court also plans to recognize marriages to dolphins.
PETA won't mind, it'll keep the dolphins out of tuna nets because they'll be busy fulfilling their marriage duties.
I win the kewpie doll because it's already happened. Pay up duhkkky.
Here's some more duhkkky. I'd like the Shania Twain look alike kewpie doll. Thanks in advance.
Soapster, we're in a time where cold and rational logic is gone. Where bullets points replace thorough analysis. And where feel good attitude wins debate.
It's point-and-click thinking.
May I suggest a goat duhkkky, they're usually faithful and in a pinch can cook a mean barbeque.
I think Ducky would be better off with a fish. Something that goes in circles forever.
and if animals don't float your boat you can always try a trio
or if that don't work
try a carnival ride or a dead boyfriend
On the subject of marriage to animals, objects, etc.
The individual deciding that they wish to do so needs to decide with which pack they wish to run.
In the animal kingdom, the concept of marriage does not exist. In the human kingdom it does. But also in the human kingdom do we recognize that animals and objects cannot consent to the contract.
consummating a marriage to a carnival attraction might also draw a crowd but hey...
if they keep it in their bedroom
then there's the Eiffel Tower (didn't know it was take), a pillow and the ultimate example of narcissistic personality disorder...a man who married himself.
If the will of the people is in violation of the law it gets struck down.
apparently there are no laws restricting marrying the Eiffel Tower
Madsion, Memorial & Remonstrance
I. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which an question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
The federal government wasn't established to further your perverse statist idea of homosexual religion, mr. ducky. If Massachusettes wishes to become Gomorrah, so be it. But the federal government should have no say in it. There is no "right" to live in Gomorrah granted under the Constitution. All there is a limitation upon "Federal" power.
"What is marriage? It's a partnership, an emotional and moral commitment (contract) between two individuals. Is it the job of the government to enforce morality or moral standards?"
Why limit marriage to contracts between 2 individuals? To placate puritanical monogamists? To comply with the demands of religious fascists? To satisfy polygaphobes?
What sense does it make to force polygamists to live in the shadows, deprived of the rights that monogamists enjoy?
Homosexual and heterosexual monogamists should be ashamed of their selfishness and bigotry.
It's not the proper role of the government to tell people how many committed sexual partnerships that they can have.
STOP THE HATE!
Off topic.
On a side not for Pris and the baseball fanatics. Check out this catch. Now that's an ATHLETE. I wish baseball in the US didn't require to be so big and had more to do with agility. But again I know nothing about baseball.
One of the issues herein is that of "judicial activism" no?
I had the great fortune of posing the following to 3 Minnesota judicial candidates about 2 months ago and their answers were quite interesting.
I pose it to all of you:
"If a judge overturns a decision, as was most recently done regarding the overturning of the moratorium on deep water drilling: http://newsone.com/nation/associated-press/judge-overturns-obamas-offshore-drilling-moratorium/, for which those on the right side of the political spectrum agree, is this too not a clear instance of judicial activism?"
"How or what defines when such an action is justifable by the court?"
How'd we ever get to a 'tyranny of the minority?'
God willing, this will all be straightened out. Pun intended.
The court issued a ruling in overturning the ban. Now in a strict sense you can consider any decision to be activism, no?
Activism boils down to two concepts.
1. Stare decisis - now here the most activist judges in the nation are Scalia and Thomas. The least active judge on SCOTUS is Ruth Ginsberg.
2. I don't agree with the judge - this is the most common meaning of "judicial activism" currently.
So in this case we have a judge who states that the California law illegally limits rights. Is that activist? Should we drop judicial review or just substitute religious courts that agree with the religious right?
In the light of stare decisis, perhaps mr. ducky can explain the precedent for homosexual marriage? Caligula's horse?
Should we drop judicial review or just substitute religious courts that agree with the religious right?
Good question but same question applies to the other side.
Proves one thing: human nature is flawed. Nothing you can do about it. Yet the left keeps thinking it can be perfect and engineered. And using the judicial system is also one of their big tactics for that.
good question, Anonymous.
Stare decisis is an obligation of the court and I don't have time to investigate anybody who is or isn't a stronger stare decisis adherent...I don't see the down side.
Imagine the forefathers who wrote the laws? "Hey, what about if two MEN want to get married?" Ya, it's puzzling they wrote nothing about that into law, isn't it? :-)
Also, there are secularists and homosexuals against this, too.
Soapster, why pose the question from the conservative angle? You suggesting it's never happened with leftwingers!!!????
If you want to see activism, check on the 9th Circuit.
Every decision in German courts is based on precedent. There is absolutely no activism.
"Soapster, why pose the question from the conservative angle? You suggesting it's never happened with leftwingers!!!????
If you want to see activism, check on the 9th Circuit."
I work in law. I am well aware of the 9th circuit and the pervasiveness from which it comes from the progressive left movement. This is all the more reason to pose it from the other angle.
"Well the left does it." is not an argument in my opinion. You lose all credibility when you set foot in that direction. Tis why we ought to define when and if and under which circumstances such instances are just (to say they are).
Every decision in German courts is based on precedent. There is absolutely no activism.
What if the precedent was based on activism? It's a bit of a chicken-egg problem.
Do you really think it's true? I could say the same about France where jurisprudence becomes law. But one judge can always change the jurisprudence.
One good thing about France is the Constitutional Council that can scratch any law that is deemed unconstitutional before the law becomes effective. I with the US had this. In the case of the healthcare bill, that could potentially save billions of dollars. And the non-sense of it.
"Every decision in German courts is based on precedent. There is absolutely no activism."
This presupposes that the first decision was just to begin with. To be sure, you can have really bad case law from which subsequent decisions are rendered.
Get Eric Holder on the case, Ducky.
Missouri voters just passed a proposition declaring that Missourians don't have to comply with the mandatory purchase of health insurance under Obamacare.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c847dc7c-564c-5c70-8d90-dfd25ae6de56.html
Soapster, never have I said "Well, THEY do it" in regard to law.
Also, not only 'the right' agreed with that judge's decision; we all have to agree that most Louisianans are not from the Right, and there still are plenty of people who make their livings down there who did NOT want a ban based on one bad accident (which, thank GOD, is looking a little less grim than before from what I'm hearing...I hope that continues..)
Whatever anybody thinks of the German law and how we parse and pull apart, it works very well there. They also have 3 judges, no 'jury of peers'. But, let's move on from Germany.
The Amendment backing this bill is clear and, based on the time it was written, this would not have applied due to plain old decency and decorum; people didn't demand to change traditions of 2000 years back then...Suddenly, we need to change to accomodate situations which are almost never healthy for society. My main concern is that NONE of my own gay friends are activists and none of them want this change to marriage in America.
Beamish, that's HUGE. And Missouri is not alone, that's for sure.
What do you think of the muslims and Amish not having to participate in the health insurance scam?
even a conservative like Obama thinks marriage is between a man and a woman
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/40683
I would strongly advise Obama to take a stance for gay marriage (as urged by his supporters) right before November. That would be a really, REALLY good move.
:-)
One wonders how long it may take before the state requires pastors and other clergy to perform these marriages despite being morally against them
Anonymous, wait and see.......let's see how he dances around the subject. As my link suggests, there are going to be activists demanding he make a decision.
It will be for gay marriage, wait for it.
Anon...I'd say about 3 days.
Was not implying that you emplyed the "well the left does it". But it is used as a defense by the right and a weak one at that.t
the judge should have recused himself...he's gay
z, you miss the point. When the Massachusetts ruling was enacted it was because there were no laws restricting gays getting married.
The court ruled that the denial of a civil license was arbitrary and that the legislature would have to specifically deny the right to marry.
That attempt failed on equal protection grounds and it's quite likely that will be the case with the Prop 8 appeal.
Meanwhile we have "anonymous" keeping it classy and Beamish manages to elevate the conversation.
We started out with Jingoists kneejerk meme that this is "logic vs. emotion" and as usual it is only as usual he gets the sides wrong. Haven't read much logic from the opposing side just a lot of emotion like "here comes NAMBLA". And until you can move away from your fear you will continue to lose because your fear simply isn't a logical argument.
oh, REALLY, soapster? you've never heard that from the Left? REALLY? :-)
I hate to use that "well, THEY did it!" crap because it gets nobody ANYWHERE EVER. But, when I do pull out that card, I MEAN IT. I will not stand by and have hypocrites slam the Right and stay silent on the hypocrisies of the Left because Americans need to hear that, too....so many only watch THE VIEW and network television news. That's toxin, there are no viewpoints other than slamming the Right and I'm SICK of it.
Ducky, who the HELL is 'fearful'? Honestly, it's like you're in the Dark Ages still under the ridiculous delusion that because more than half of America doesn't want gay marriage, that has to mean half of America hates gay! that's so ridiculous it doesn't even merit discussion.
The hilarious thing I'm hearing all over the leftist media yesterday and today is how "Blacks couldn't marry whites until the law changed" as if that's got anything to do with two men marrying each other.
re NAMBLA, actually GLAAD has spoken out strongly against it, which I applaud.
But, to suggest that because there might only be 1000 official members of the actual group doesn't mean there are nonmembers who're hurting young people every day is a joke, sadly.
I personally don't see the connection with gay marriage and men doing little boys, but...oh, wait a minute.
Now I do. I guess it's just a matter of age, isn't it. eeeoo
Today’s Prop 8 decision is disappointing, if not surprising. Adding to Kathryn’s excellent comment below, a couple of legal observations.
The court’s legal premise is pretty novel. Judge Walker rules that laws reflecting the understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process and equal-protection clauses. That is to say, he believes Proposition 8 took away a fundamental right and singled out a protected class for unfair treatment. The bottom-line conclusion in support of both legal theories is that California voters could have had no motive in supporting Proposition 8 other than a desire to signal that people who identify as gay and lesbian are inferior to heterosexuals. This is deeply problematic on at least two levels.
First, none of the testimony in the trial showed (nor could it have shown) the voters’ subjective intent in approving the measure. A corollary point is that the question is entirely irrelevant. If voters pulled the lever for that law because they liked the number 8, or because they have atavistic hatreds, or because they really believe that marriage between husband and wife is a uniquely valuable institution though they have no problem with their gay and lesbian neighbors, it is hard to imagine what those intentions could have to do with whether the law they approve accords with the Constitution. It is worth noting that, since California gives all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through another legal status, the idea that most or even many voters were acting out of hatred is pretty unlikely.
The second, more fundamental problem stems from the reality that marriage has always been understood, with very few exceptions, as the union of a man and a woman. This is true across time, across cultures, across religious traditions, etc. Does it really seem likely that this remarkable consensus is nothing but a nasty desire of one group to flaunt its privileged position over a minority? Is it really feasible that the world’s cultures all consulted about how to put down gay people and came up with marriage as the solution? Judge Walker seems to think gender and children have nothing to do with marriage; the facts suggest precisely the opposite. All of this just to say that the idea that marriage is a homophobic conspiracy is a conclusion not anchored in reality. - William Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation
Z,
Ducky, who the HELL is 'fearful'? Honestly, it's like you're in the Dark Ages still under the ridiculous delusion that because more than half of America doesn't want gay marriage, that has to mean half of America hates gay! that's so ridiculous it doesn't even merit discussion.
Once again, I remind you that Ducky is a leftist and therefore not obligated to speak rationally, even in the highly unlikely event that he were actually capable of doing so.
Z,
The overwhelming electoral rejection of compliance with Obamacare in Missouri is a sign of the times for the Congressional elections in November:
It's too late to not be a Democrat.
Congress is ours.
Beamish, Wm Duncan is SO right and explains it so well. Thanks for posting that.
But, you see, this is what the left does; if you're against illegals stealing into our country, you hate Hispanics.
if you believe Black Americans are every bit as capable as White AMerica and should succeed on their own, you're a racist.
If you believe America worked better when people weren't slamming the faith that formed her, you're a fundamentalist nut.
If you are against two men marrying each other, you just hate all gays!
It's all too stupid for words, and TOTALLY dishonest, but our teachers have set this up in young American minds and it's tough to teach the truth after that...even adults follow this stupid and deceptive line of thinking...
Obama's going to have to come down on one side and it'll be pro gay...I hope he does it in late October.
Meanwhile we have "anonymous" keeping it classy and Beamish manages to elevate the conversation.
well duhkkky if he had ruled the other way and you found out he was Calvinist...?????
The hilarious thing I'm hearing all over the leftist media yesterday and today is how "Blacks couldn't marry whites until the law changed" as if that's got anything to do with two men marrying each other.
Black could marry whites all along. The only anti-miscegenation laws ever enacted in America were state and local ordinances enforced by the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and advanced by the eugenics theorists of the progressive left.
Just so we're clear.
You're right Z. There's no place for thinking things through. It's all black and white, all or nothing thinking.
Someone said implification leads to tyranny. It is so true.
Global warming is the perfect example a very complex topic requiring the understanding of multiple sciences (climatology, astro physics, etc...) dumbed dow to the point of creating tyranny.
Haven't read much logic from the opposing side just a lot of emotion like "here comes NAMBLA".
Well duhkkky you claimed that someone would come along and suggest that this would put us on the slippery slope to letting anyone marry anything
it's not that it's going to lead to that...it already has...hence the examples...
BTW the woman filed taxes as a married head of household
[end sarcasm]
then you claimed that because there was no law forbidding gay marriage as a justification...to wit the mention that there is no law forbidding marriage to a carnival ride or the Eiffel Tower either
it's not those who support marriage between a man and a woman who are the extremists here...it's the other side
Why Ducky supports fag marriage:
"Abolition of the family!" - Karl Marx
Ducky's wedding songs:
"Pokerface" by Lady Gaga, a song about a drag queen fooling a man to sleep with him / it
"oh, REALLY, soapster? you've never heard that from the Left? REALLY?"
I'm not aware that I ever stated I wasn't.
Look, my thing has never been to call out or bash Democrats on their hypocrisy, their unethical behaviors, their want to raise taxes, bash business, et al.
I'll leave that up to Hannity, Coulter, and the rest of 'em.
The reason why I don't is because I've come to expect this from Democrats. It is not shocking in the least to me.
What my "schtick" is (if you will) is and always has been holding Republicans to the fire always. They are the ones that are supposed to serve as an opposition party. And when they f* up I'm going to let them know it.
So long as Republicans can work on building their credibility, they will then have a leg to stand on so that when they do call to attention the errors of the Democrats people will be much more likely to listen.
It's like Tuesday when I was listening to POTUS on XM and John McCain and Coburn had a press conference about some report they put together on wasted stimulus funds. Both of those jokers voted for the TARP bailout. They've zero credibility to preach about wasteful spending. Ya dig?....
Soapbox..ya, "i did"..but "What my "schtick" is (if you will) is and always has been holding Republicans to the fire always. They are the ones that are supposed to serve as an opposition party. And when they f* up I'm going to let them know it." is largely what got us OBAMA.
Conservatives wanting to show the RNC...well, they sure did SHOW 'EM, huh? They stayed home or even voted for the Dem and..voila
I'd say times are too dangerous now to be doing anything BUT displaying the hypocrisy and horrible and apparent goals of Democrats these days...THEN we can get Reps in and hold their feet to the fire BIG TIME through the power of the TPers.
Beamish...there were never fed laws against black/white marriages? Man, the leftist lies even made it into my skull.
Anonymous...wouldn't you THINK that people who want two girls to marry are the extremists? I would.
I am not heartless to two nice homosexuals who want to marry, I really am not. And this blog's never said differently....
But the dishonesty comes when people suggest that all gays want or promote gay marriage or that children aren't affected negatively without at least having the chance of a father and a mother to develop their characters as originally planned, or that gays can't live together with all the civil allowances of marriage, as Beamish so rightly said.
My older gay friends, now all dearly departed, loved their partners, loved their friends and would have laughed out LOUD if someone said "Want to get married?"
my bad the woman and the dolphin were in England...so I suppose the NIH is picking up the tab on the birth control pills
"is largely what got us OBAMA.
Conservatives wanting to show the RNC...well, they sure did SHOW 'EM, huh? They stayed home or even voted for the Dem and..voila"
Indeed Voila! And now what?? Now..the Republican party is attempting to reassert their committment to fiscal prudence right? Right.
"I'd say times are too dangerous now to be doing anything BUT displaying the hypocrisy and horrible and apparent goals of Democrats these days...THEN we can get Reps in and hold their feet to the fire BIG TIME"
Too dangerous? Not even close. All this that has been done legislatively, judiciously, and executively can be undone. I'm confident about that. But the second part of that is something I will never ever understand. You have virtually no power to hold their feet to the fire AFTER they've been elected. The only time you might is around election time, anytime thereafter....hardly.
You don't give your children an allowance and then tell them to clean their room. Quite the opposite. Legislators are no different.
Z,
Beamish...there were never fed laws against black/white marriages? Man, the leftist lies even made it into my skull.
It's true. Anti-miscgenation laws were never federal at anytime in American history.
A good rule of thumb to follow is to assume a leftist doesn't know a f*cking thing about what he's talking about. You'll never go wrong.
Soapy,
How do you square ""Well the left does it." is not an argument in my opinion. You lose all credibility when you set foot in that direction with What my "schtick" is (if you will) is and always has been holding Republicans to the fire always. They are the ones that are supposed to serve as an opposition party. And when they f* up I'm going to let them know it.
Dissemble like an idiot much?
You could extricate and say you only criticize Republicans that act like / or are leftists, but you don't criticize leftists at all.
Instead, you criticize Republicans as a whole for the few leftists among them.
Try opening the garage door before driving out.
then again this could be a left wing cabal to get out of paying estate taxes
Anon: "then again this could be a left wing cabal to get out of paying estate taxes"
And this whole conversation could partly be to keep our minds off that astonishing estate tax change in '11 , too..
I'm thinking of blogging the estate tax shockers but need more info first.
WHo IS going to have any money left when the leftwing thugs get through with us? ANYBODY? Oh, ya..China.
Beamish, I keep forgetting :-(
thanks for backing me up on the left/right criticism thing.
"You could extricate and say you only criticize Republicans that act like / or are leftists, but you don't criticize leftists at all."
You sure about that last part? If you're going to infer that I'm an idiot I'd suggest you make certain you are absolutely sure about that last part lest you end up yourself looking like one.
For the record I do criticize the left on matters of policy. As a candidate myself it becomes entirely necessary to do so.
I'm not sure how homosexual marriage abolishes the family, Beamish.
Sort of like the far right calling all this "defense of marriage". How allowing people to marry weakens marriage is frankly lost on me.
But as long as you get hung up on these fights you can't win and trot out the tea bag knuckle draggers you just make it easier for Nancy Pelosi to retain power. Terrific strategy. Now isn't it time to figure out why you're taking it on the chin and switch tactics?
Whenever I've brought up the following argument I've been accused of slippery-sloping but if a brother and sister want to marry each other by what standard can you deny them but allow gays to marry? There is an incest lobby in this country in case you haven't noticed, not big like the gay lobby of course but intellectually you have to still answer the question I posed even if it's still only abstract. Soapie I think government can recognize the terms of the marriage covenant or contract if they so wish. To use a fictitious example let's say you have an uncharted island, start a civilization on that island, set up a gov't etc. and decide to recognize some form of marriage or lifelong bonding, why can't that new government set terms for who can get married? Soapie I can't say I agree with you here.
Ducky
I'm not sure how homosexual marriage abolishes the family, Beamish.
Sort of like the far right calling all this "defense of marriage". How allowing people to marry weakens marriage is frankly lost on me.
I really tried to stay out of the middle here, but defense of marriage is my "thing".
I'm going to be as nice as I know how, but homosexual marriage really has absolutely nothing to do with politics, Ducky. The political debate over definition of marriage and gay "legal rights" is just one manifestation of rebellious man's attempt to throw off God's directing influence in society.
The reason you don't understand how acceptance of homosexual union destroys marriage is that you don't understand what is the point of marriage in the first place.
Once you get a clear view of the picture, there is no way you can blithely give a "pass" to those who want to destroy the the picture, whether it is by way of pro-gay unions, divorce, polygamy or any other means.
Willful destruction of the biblical definition of marriage is an affront to the person of Christ.
There is no riding the fence on this subject. All professing Christians have to choose whether pleasing man or God is more important.
heather
Now isn't it time to figure out why you're taking it on the chin and switch tactics?
You mean like vote for Prop 8 like the majority of Californians (a state often described as liberal)did?
Nah...we like being ignored by the oligarchy.
at least until November.
...switch tactics?
euphemism for rolling over
Makes me sick, just about as sick as when GWB was put in the WH.
Same thing, different day.
"...why can't that new government set terms for who can get married? Soapie I can't say I agree with you here."
They most certainly can set terms for who can get married. Additionally they can set terms for how many children you can have or they may declare that homosexuality is a sin and punishable by stoning to death or any other number of things.
I guess fundamentally it comes down to what sort of government we want to be and how we want to live. Do we want to live free and liberated and by right or do we want to live according to government edict and by permission?
I'm not sure how homosexual marriage abolishes the family, Beamish.
Have you ever noticed that your boyfriend can leave off his condom and still not concieve a child in your throat and rectum, Ducky?
Sort of like the far right calling all this "defense of marriage". How allowing people to marry weakens marriage is frankly lost on me.
The definition of marriage - the union of man and woman, ostensibly to concieve children and raise a family - is altered when its essences, gender roles and child-rearing, are removed. While it is nice of you to confirm that your argument rests upon the typically leftist lack of reading conprehension skills, we already knew you were an idiot. I mean, leftist.
But as long as you get hung up on these fights you can't win and trot out the tea bag knuckle draggers you just make it easier for Nancy Pelosi to retain power. Terrific strategy. Now isn't it time to figure out why you're taking it on the chin and switch tactics?
Nancy Pelosi will not retain power if she's left as a small island backbencher Fagocrat in a majority sea of Republicans.
Now get your jaw out of my boot treads.
"You could extricate and say you only criticize Republicans that act like / or are leftists, but you don't criticize leftists at all."
You sure about that last part? If you're going to infer that I'm an idiot I'd suggest you make certain you are absolutely sure about that last part lest you end up yourself looking like one.
It's rather clear, in this thread alone, that you're ready to "hold to the fire" Republican by name. If you have criticized the left beyond generics when you're not poo-pooing specific critics of the left with your own "well Republicans did this..." you might come off as something a little more than mendacious.
For the record I do criticize the left on matters of policy. As a candidate myself it becomes entirely necessary to do so.
I look forward to you making a name for yourself in this endeavor, "Soapster."
"I look forward to you making a name for yourself in this endeavor, "Soapster."
I'd be more than happy to share stories from the campaign trails. Do stop by some time...
http://soapboxgod.blogspot.com/
Well soapie how do you feel about a brother and sister team or a little farmer-in-the-dell action?
It isn't just California, Spain and Argentina have legislated.
Part of a move toward modernity and the world is trying despite the American right. The issues most have with the right is that they are completely closed and negative. They complain about "the main stream media" but they stay fairly closed from world events.
Moves in Islamic countries to ban child marriages, moves in Syria to ban the veil in schools ... but the right will just stew and post up some clip from Pam Geller.
It's that intense resistance and some kind of yearning for a "traditional" nation that may never have been.
There's some idea that if we could just get back to 1778, everything was resolved then and the utopia achieved. What scares the right is modernity.
"Well soapie how do you feel about a brother and sister team or a little farmer-in-the-dell action?"
I've no interest in using the force of government to impose morality. As disgusting as the former is, I would leave that decision to the two of them. Presuming that both individuals are of sound mind (which, given their apparent want to engage in such, calls to question their judgement I do suppose) let them I suppose.
As for the latter, if someone wishes to engage in beastiality (again disgusting indeed) they will certainly do so despite whatever laws are in place dictating otherwise. However, with regards to marriage between human and animal, as I previously stated, an animal cannot logically consent to such an arrangement. If one wishes to make an argument that a wagging tail, licking of the face, or friendly bark is a sign of consent then I suggest they go run with the pack in the woods for their be no need to marry.
What scares the right is modernity.
It is a mistake to confuse movements that reverse true abuse and "liberation" of those who wish to indulge in sin.
If "modernity" is finds it's primary meaning in the embrace of God-dishonoring behavior, then someone ought to have enough sense to be scared.
H
Read Ecclesiastes Duhkkky, there's nothing new under the sun.
Unless you count the Iphone.
What scares the right is modernity.
And speaking of fear...
For argument's sake, let's assume the American "right" is a grand scale minority, stubbornly standing alone against a rising global tide of sin-promoting "modernity".
Fear of what could eventually happen *might* be a motivating factor for some.
But to stand up and take heat for bringing attention to things that are just plain wrong is not a matter of cowardice.
I still don't believe the political arena offers our ultimate answer, but it takes a spine to be able to firmly resist the temptation to just sit down and shut up and go along with "the flow".
H
What scares the right is modernity.
It's such a lame duck (pun intended) argument.
It's so true that the left has led the world to modernity in general. Things like more poverty, less economic and individual freedom, more unemployement, more class differences, less sociali mobility certainly are good criteria to judge modernity.
Define modernity for me, Ducky. I'm tired of people using jargon like 'progressive' and 'modern'. Aside from meaning "being cool and nice", I haven't seen much progress and modernization from a *result* standpoint from people who define themselves this way.
This isn’t just a question of whether men or women should engage in sexual behavior among their own kind … even as most people regard such behavior as queer. It isn’t our fault: nature provided us with complimentary parts for a reason. Society can debate this all they want … but I think we are asking the wrong questions.
The question should be this: Do societies determine their laws, or is this something courts force upon society? It seems to me that people determine their laws through their legislative representatives; courts enforce those laws. On the issue of pornography, our highest courts determined that local communities are best able to define it and regulate it. Then why isn’t local society unable to do this vis-Ã -vis sexual deviance?
Well, you got me, Heather.
But I can't shake the vision of the average right winger being someone who listens to the Alex Jones show and refuses to get their kids vaccinated.
Or they may be like Beamish and call that guy who comes on in the middle of the night and talks about space alien abductions.
mustang, what happened to interpreting the law, or in this case ruling that there is NO legal foundation for denying gay unions. You seem to live in this utopia that is free of clouded language and conflicts of interest.
And there is considerable writing that demonstrates that the Constitution is purposefully vague because there was limited agreement. But it is no surprise that you care most about enforcement.
I can't shake the vision of the average right winger being someone who listens to the Alex Jones show and refuses to get their kids vaccinated.
Or they may be like Beamish and call that guy who comes on in the middle of the night and talks about space alien abductions.
LOL! I don't even know who Alex Jones is. But my husband once worked with an Art Bell enthusiast and I can assure you he was nothing like Beamish.
Keep working on broadening your horizon, Ducky. You might be pleasantly surprised to discover more "right wing" variety than you ever dreamed possible.
H
Ducky, if this is true "But I can't shake the vision of the average right winger being someone who listens to the Alex Jones show and refuses to get their kids vaccinated" no wonder you can't intelligently argue without insulting.
Who is Alex Jones and why not vaccinate? We all made it somehow.
Educate yourself...how can you read my posts and all these good commenters and still think THAT?
Mustang and Beamish, I think the 'body parts' argument of homosexuality is a compelling one......unnatural and unproductive. Sad, but true.
But I can't shake the vision of the average right winger being someone who listens to the Alex Jones show and refuses to get their kids vaccinated.
I despise Alex Jones, a leftist kook I know on my original blog loved the guy. Always posted his conspiracy laden youtube videos at my site.
Personally none of my 'right' wing friends have anything against vaccinations.
Heather is right, broaden your horizons there duhkkky.
testing.
EB
Personally none of my 'right' wing friends have anything against vaccinations.
Vaccines are not what they were when we were kids.
This is not the appropriate place to go into discussion, but it pays to research beyond the paperwork that is distributed by the pediatric office. There are actually some valid health-related (not lunatic conspiracy) reasons for either not vaccinating, doing a minimal treatment or spreading out the shots over a much longer time frame than is typically recommended.
Can we still be friends?
:)
Please let's not go into vaccines here, okay!?
thanks!
Sorry, but that picture is enough to gag a maggot!
Poor California can't win for losing. To heck with what the people want.
Silvrlady
Please let's not go into vaccines here, okay!?
I won't.
:)
It isn't just California, Spain and Argentina have legislated.
Spain? That's the country that extends human rights to apes.
Yeah, we should follow the leads of a nation rendered a economic basketcase by the disciples of the leftist Benito Mussolini (Juan Peron in Argentina) and the nation that places humanity on par with freaking poo-flinging animals.
Real thought there, Ducky.
What scares the right is modernity.
As if seamstresses like you could sew a spaceship to the moon in your little "liberal arts" hovel.
uThe whole debate has been shifted from the real danger, which is the courts making laws rather than ruling by the law.
I'd be more than happy to share stories from the campaign trails. Do stop by some time...
Will the candidate name "Soapster" or "Soapbox God" appear on the ballots, or do you try to be taken seriously "in real life?"
Shouldn't your potential constituents know their candidate thinks himself a "god?"
Mustang and Beamish, I think the 'body parts' argument of homosexuality is a compelling one......unnatural and unproductive. Sad, but true.
I'm sure Ducky the leftist believes his "life partner's" Hepatitis C infection has the right to colonize his rectal cavity.
Vaccines are not what they were when we were kids.
ok, maybe one 'right' wing friend
Oh, yes, Elbro, and we'll all hear about it very soon, wait for it.
And I won't blame him.
Beamish, PLEASE stop the real graphic stuff, if you don't mind.
S**T!! Anything's 'vague' if it doesn't fit Ducky's view of the world. At least he's addressed the topic this time, that's something.
Art Bell had a radio show YEARS ago late at night in LA and he wasn't at all the nut he's turned out to be!
Hey, Beamish...I just heard about LOVING V VIRGINIA, a case where a black woman and white man were arrested for having married in DC and then living in Virginia where it was illegal..... in 1967. The SCOTUS ruled they could stay married in VA...THIS is what the Left wingers always say represents "BLACKS COULDN'T MARRY WHITES IN AMERICA?"
z - I do not like gay sex(including two men kissing in the above picture). On the other hand I avoid watching straight sex in movies. I think sex is a private thing - straight or gay it should be kept private.
There are a lot of gays in this country and they are not going away. I know there are many gay people who were born that way(not all) and who live quiet lives. These are the people who could benefit from the legal aspects of gay marriage. The issue that bothers me is children raised in gay families. But they probably would be raised without marriage.
I must admit that although there are some good marriages, with the divorce rate so high, and cheating rampant(I saw an article on the internet saying that cheating is actually healthy for a marriage)I don't consider marriage so sacred anymore. If this is where we are headed then maybe gays should have the advantage of marriage also.
I know, you are thinking that this is another liberal talking, and of course it is the liberal coming out in me. But it is also someone who cares about people, and someone who thinks our country has other things to do - to stay above water.
ok, maybe one 'right' wing friend
I should clarify that I'm not so much anti-vaccination as I am anti-ignorance. My perspective is that it is important to make well-informed decisions in this area, just as one should become informed about a political candidate before entering a voting booth.
Not quite as radical as I made it sound. Sorry about that, Z.
H
Sue, I don't disagree with you much here, except I do consider marriage sacred (there are sites which ENCOURAGE fooling around, I know! We're really reliving the roman empire)...and, believe the anti-Republican hype or not, we care about people, too.
Heather, I don't think you sounded radical. There is very good reason to be extremely careful about vaccinations these days. That wasn't my problem. I'd seen Ducky's ridiculous comment of "all you right wingers who are Alex Jones fans and don't like vaccinations", however, and some of us told him how ridiculous that generalization was, and then you chimed in about vaccinations being questionable!!
I don't mind his little silly disdain, I just don't give him ammunition. By the way, there are WAY more left wingers who don't vaccinate...
Prudence about what you give your children in the way of drugs is not a political thing, though
Z - Of course, according to the Bible, marriage is sacred. I know both of my daughters think so, and live that way.
But it's hard to watch big, extravagent weddings after the couple have lived together for several years - and this seems to be the norm. Then, with the divorce rate one out of two, and as I said, the cheating, it is discouraging.
That was the first time I had seen the site about how cheating is healthy for a marriage. It said that the couple should actually work it out that way.
I know that many people respect the sacrament of marriage - my parents were married 70 years, and I respect that. It wasn't always easy for them. Now it's so easy to just cut the strings. Even Christian marriages have a high rate of divorce.
And I wasn't accusing Republicans of not caring about people, but I was merely refering to my own attitude. Like other moral issues, gay marriage is a hard one. It is easy for me to talk about it when I don't have to make a decision.
For once Beamish made my head explode. Homosexuality is part of humanity. It is an exception, not a rule. Yet it is part of nature.
As much as I get pissed at the exhibitionism of some gays, I also know some suffer from it. Or that some live with it happily without being in your face.
My mostly Libertarian principles are based on the assumption that human nature is what is is and we must accept it in order to allow freedom. That includes homosexuality.
And I think we're a lot less open minded than the Greek soliders who would come back from battle and go "practice" with same sex partners.
Hey, Beamish...I just heard about LOVING V VIRGINIA, a case where a black woman and white man were arrested for having married in DC and then living in Virginia where it was illegal..... in 1967. The SCOTUS ruled they could stay married in VA...THIS is what the Left wingers always say represents "BLACKS COULDN'T MARRY WHITES IN AMERICA?"
That's an interesting case because it overturned Pace v. Alabama which ruled that prosecuting the couple for violating Alabama's anti-miscgenation laws was not a violation of equal protections because it prosecuted both the white and black person involved equally; and complimented the Republican efforts to break the Democrats' traditional Jim Crow racial hygiene laws based in bigotry given imprimatur by progressive leftist eugenics "science" arguments.
I wonder if gay marriage may be ultimately overturned as a "right" under equal protection clauses because two straight men or two straight women can't legally marry each other either.
Beamish we disagree on this one. Not sure the Greeks had condoms. And it is not because we have condoms these days that I decide to engage in homosexual behaviors.
Did I say it had to be celebrated? No. Far from it. I just accept it.
And between a gay conservative and an heterosexual communist/socialist, I'd rather befriend the gay conservative. I think he'd be less sick in his head than the latter.
Frogburger,
Beamish we disagree on this one. Not sure the Greeks had condoms. And it is not because we have condoms these days that I decide to engage in homosexual behaviors.
Well, I hope that you don't "decide" to engage in homosexual behaviors, for the sake of your own hygienic health and that of your loved ones and the general public at large you'll put at risk by becoming a epidemiological carrier of activated retroviral disorders communicable by non-sexual contact.
Did I say it had to be celebrated? No. Far from it. I just accept it.
Bully for you and your "political correctness." I don't accept it, and further, don't have to. I'm not going to sugar coat the fact that homosexual behavior is a epidemiological disease vector that has societal threatening consequences far beyond the privacy and boundaries of the bedroom, bathhouse, jail cell, or truck stop bathroom stall.
And between a gay conservative and an heterosexual communist/socialist, I'd rather befriend the gay conservative. I think he'd be less sick in his head than the latter.
I'd rather befriend the sick-in-the-head leftist heterosexual. Likely less chances his handshake might bear a communicable infectious disease.
//If the will of the people is in violation of the law it gets struck down.//
What federal law did it break?
Z
Prudence about what you give your children in the way of drugs is not a political thing, though
You have no idea how much I wish health care had not been made into a political thing!
FrogBurger
Homosexuality is part of humanity. It is an exception, not a rule. Yet it is part of nature.
Homosexual tendency exists. However, it is not "natural" to use a clearly marked exit as an entryway, but rather is a breaking of certain rules of nature.
As much as I get pissed at the exhibitionism of some gays, I also know some suffer from it. Or that some live with it happily without being in your face....
There is truth in this statement.
And I think we're a lot less open minded than the Greek soliders who would come back from battle and go "practice" with same sex partners.
Thankfully, we are still less "open-minded". Ancient Greece was eventually overthrown by Rome...
Heather
Will the candidate name "Soapster" or "Soapbox God" appear on the ballots, or do you try to be taken seriously "in real life?"
Shouldn't your potential constituents know their candidate thinks himself a "god?"
The name on the ballot is Chris Hiatt. If a constituent has some compunction with my online moniker, such is not a constituent I expect to ever enter our ranks anyway (thanks Goldwater for that).
Heather,
Ancient Greece was "ruled" by the mad ramblings of oracles whacked out on ergot poisoning and inhaled methane gases hallucinating messages "from the gods" divined from looking at the entrails of slaughtered animals.
Not exactly a model of governance to emulate. Stripped of poetics, Hellenic society was just as barbarous as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" reruns. Classical stupidity posing as social science.
Ancient Greek accounts of military homosexuality and pederasty isn't exactly the hallmark of civilization gay "scholars" like to portray it as. Clear readings of Plato's Symposium has Xenophon criticizing the warrior class for using gay lovers as the basis for military formations, as an "effiminizing" (malakia) factor.
Can't say such unsanitary, disgusting disease-bearing activities didn't have a hand in cutting the average Greek lifespans to a mere 35 to 40 or so years back then either.
Can you imagine dying of gonorrhea in ancient times by the time your were 12?
The name on the ballot is Chris Hiatt. If a constituent has some compunction with my online moniker, such is not a constituent I expect to ever enter our ranks anyway (thanks Goldwater for that).
Fair enough, Soapy. At least you didn't say your name was "Rand Paul." I might have had to skewer you further ;)
May your candidacy not be derailed by further invited mockery.
Beamish,
Ancient Greece was "ruled" by the mad ramblings of oracles whacked out on ergot poisoning and inhaled methane gases hallucinating messages "from the gods" divined from looking at the entrails of slaughtered animals... ...Can't say such unsanitary, disgusting disease-bearing activities didn't have a hand in cutting the average Greek lifespans to a mere 35 to 40 or so years back then either.
Can you imagine dying of gonorrhea in ancient times by the time your were 12?
Well, if I was reasonably sure before that we don't want what the Greeks had, there is no longer any doubt. :S
I recall watching a video once that included an explanation of how one Roman "oracle" spent her life suspended over a pit that constantly emitted noxious fumes. As Rome tended to absorb the cultures it overran, it doesn't surprise me to hear that the Greeks were doing it first.
H
I imagine you would give me a skewering, and just like Rand Paul on the civil rights legislation commentary, I'd take my punches but would have certainly raised the intellectual bar on the matter.
Wow, 138 comments so far?
Well, I'll just say that the vote is no longer valid. This judge just said that his will is worth more than 7 million others.
I'll bet the fact that this judge is gay had NOTHING to do with his decision, either. Yeeeeeeah.
I imagine you would give me a skewering, and just like Rand Paul on the civil rights legislation commentary, I'd take my punches but would have certainly raised the intellectual bar on the matter.
Please. Rand Paul can't even reach an intellectual bar with stilts on.
Do you, like the Pauls, gladly accept campaign contributions from neo-Nazis?
If you ever wish to debate or discuss in further detail the basis of his civil rights legislation comments then by all means let me know. Employing the argument from intimidation vis a' vis quirky personal attacks on one's character aren't really arguments at all but instead serve to evade the logic required to support an argument at all.
Brooke,
I don't think Vaughn Walker is gay. Just intellectually stunted as all leftists are.
Anyone hearing the Prop 8 case and biasing towards gay mafia advocate after gay mafia advocate to impugn the motives of 7 million voters voicing clear opposition to "normalizing" the abnormal is not exactly posing an intellectual challenge to a can of Cheese Whiz, much less ruling in a neutral fashion.
sue, gay marriage is a VERY tough one, I agree. I guess I just can't look at the admonitions of the Bible and think "Well, this is 2010, and those were the days, and today's is TODAY..." But, I ABSOLUTELY can understand your disillusionment, believe me, I have it, too.
I watch House & Garden TV and more than half the couples are buying houses unmarried...NO PROBLEM telling the world that, this is quite a big change and not a healthy one, in my opinion...they're either living together couples or gay couples on H&G. If that isn't an agenda the station's promoting, I don't know what is.
Beamish..Also, yes, I have heard that Walker IS gay. It's a fact. But, he has voted AGAINST gay issues in the past, too.
And, what am I supposed to do with what you wrote? There's NO NEED, we get the graphic stuff.
If you ever wish to debate or discuss in further detail the basis of his civil rights legislation comments then by all means let me know. Employing the argument from intimidation vis a' vis quirky personal attacks on one's character aren't really arguments at all but instead serve to evade the logic required to support an argument at all.
I'm rather disinterested in the crypto-leftist anti-Semitic and racist crackpot views of either Ron Paul or Rand Paul, or the mendacious gymnastics required to sanitize them of their origins in inherent stupidity. I'm a libertarian conservative, not an idiot.
I was in my youth a member of the Libertarian Party proper until disgusted by the racism displayed by Ron Paul's newsletters, and discarded my association with that party in 1988, just as I became old enough to vote. The GOP would do well to send him off to an insane asylum.
His son is actually much worse, and being named for life after Ayn Rand is a serious sign of clinical psychosis on the part of his parents. Personality cult much?
These are not "personal attacks" or "argument by intimidation." The Pauls really do draw their campaign financial from national socialists.
No serious discussion of Rand Paul can commence without the common ground acknowledgement that the man is a sub-intellectual twit.
Beamish..Also, yes, I have heard that Walker IS gay. It's a fact. But, he has voted AGAINST gay issues in the past, too.
Well, if Judge Walker is in fact a faggot, then his impartiality in the case doesn't pass muster.
And, what am I supposed to do with what you wrote? There's NO NEED, we get the graphic stuff.
Really? Then why are we (or rather, y'all) afraid to push back against that "being opposed to disgusting behaviors is just like being a racist" meme?
I'm too busy firing on the enemy to worry if his body falls on a pillow.
Really? Then why are we (or rather, y'all) afraid to push back against that "being opposed to disgusting behaviors is just like being a racist" meme?
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18
Not much wiggle-room in that statement, although I tend to prefer a bit less graphic approach myself ;)
Racism is pretty disgusting, too, though.
H
All that said Beam, you still haven't made a rational argument why a private business owner should not be permitted to dictate the use and disposal of his/her property inclusive of whom to hire and whom they wish to voluntarily conduct business with.
Because government holds a monopoly on the service it provides, there is no alternative if one wishes to acquire a driver's license, obtain a permit or license, etc. Therefore, unless government is willing to relinquish its monopoly on those and other services and turn them over to private entities, they cannot descriminate because there is not recourse as a citizen requiring said services.
BUT, if I should wish to patronize a private establishment (let's say a restaurant) as a minority or a homosexual or what have you, I most certainly do have recourse in that I can patronize a different establishment where the owner is less concerned about racial or sexual classification and far more concerned about turning a profit.
The suggestion is not to infer that one is racist or condones discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, or otherwise. It merely is a subject of private property and whether a free individual has the right to dictate the use and disposal of their private property so long as it does not violate the rights of another. Be it known there is no right to employment or the right to patronize a private establishment.
Z, did you beat your record on this post as far as comment number?
Soapy,
Ron Paul's defense of the anecdotal racist screeds that have appeared in his newsletters is that he didn't write them, but that they were written "by a staffer" in his name (and presumably fictionalized to be a tale from Ron Paul's 1st person persepctive) and that he didn't know what they said.
Than's Presidential material there. Dude doesn't kow his own staff is posing as him, or even what they're telling his own constituents in his name via newsletter?
I'm sure orbital mind control lasers may have something to do with it. It is a vast conspiracy to make poor Ron Paul look stupid, hatched by blood drinking Masonic lizard people in the basement of the Hotel de Bilderburg.
Or, maybe, just possibly, the guy is a twit making himself look stupid.
When confronted that they in fact have very large amounts of contributions from known racist and white supremacist neo-Nazi groups, Ron and Rand Paul neither repudiate the views of these contributors nor refuses to reject their contributions. The "Pauls will take money from anyone that gives it" defense doesn't wash, especially given Ron Paul's newsleter racism and both of the Paul's disturbing inseperable from leftists foreign policy vis a vis Israel in specific and the war on terrorism as a whole.
Candidates that won't address concerns about the people that bought and paid for them, can't be honest about either their own words or their inability to control evn the "staff" speaking for them, and distinguish themselves by being inseperable in foreign policy from the points national socialists and international socialists meet in agreement. Nothing libertarian or conservative in that swamp.
I did not bring up the civil rights issue of Rand Paul's longing for the days of Jim Crow segregation.
The Pauls' views enable alot - Islamic terrorism, the white supremacist agenda, etc. but nothing good.
My only question is why aren't the Pauls running as Democrats?
I believe the Pauls mistake libertarian for libertine. They can't even be held responsible for their own words.
Again, they're twits, unworthy of the needless gratuity of the fruitless search for redeeming qualities.
You take money from actively open racists and anti-Semites, and preach policies amenable to racists and anti-Semites in both foreign and domestic endeavors, your going to have to answer why 2 + 2 = 4 and not 5.
The Pauls are racists. Sickeningly so.
Beamish
Paul's language was very salty street Greek
Yes,it appears Paul (and the OT prophets, as well) said some things that American Christians don't typically hear on Sunday mornings. There are definitely some intensely relayed concepts in Scripture that are intended to make a person sit up and take notice.
We did have a pastor once who explained what was meant when Isaiah recorded that all our own righteousness is as "filthy rags".
I'm guessing Paul uses a similarly offensive word picture when counting his own efforts at righteousness as "skubalon".
I'm not about to give active homosexual behavior a silent "pass", just because someone might become offended at hearing that the behavior is offensive to God.
Paul pulled no punches. Why should I?
Not sure if that's directed at me or the general audience, but my own reasoning for not feeling a need to go into graphic detail is that I figure it's possible to determine that the contents of an outhouse stinks without having to yank open the door and dive down the hole for samples to pass around.
But that's just me
I guess there are others whose sense of smell is less finely tuned and who might benefit from a good verbal slap upside the head. You might even be able to build onto your case by way of Ephesians 5:11-13--if you can reconcile your approach with the instruction to reprove (expose) the works of darkness while still acknowledging the additional statement that it is a shame to even speak of such things.
If you believe the "in your face" approach is justifiable by way of the language used in Scripture, I'm not at this time prepared to launch an argument to the contrary.
I just don't personally feel the need to go that deep.
Stinky outhouses have always made me retch pretty violently.
H
Soap soap soap a government has the right to set the terms of any contract so how are a brother and sister's rights being violated if they aren't allowed to marry? If you see this as some kind of injustice then you ain't reading government correctly.
If you believe the "in your face" approach is justifiable by way of the language used in Scripture, I'm not at this time prepared to launch an argument to the contrary.
Well, personally I'm not even trying to be evangelical or make a theological argument against homosexuality. I'm merely pointing out the ludicrousness of defining and defending a vile and disgusting disease-triggering behavior and lifestyle as being a trait akin to skin color.
Imagine the trendy arguments in other contexts:
"Opposition to self-mutilation is racist"
"Opposition to coprophagia is racist."
"Opposition to mass murder is racist."
I'm merely throwing the onus back on faggotry for them to provide why their voluntarily engaging in behaviors that lead to becoming the carriers of exotic, epidemic diseases in a society should be overlooked, why it's "bigotry" to want to keep biological perils away from the healthy, why it's "hate" to not want turds on the buffet.
"Being nice about it" doesn't stop the negligent and purposeful spread of diseases. A faggot that donates blood is committing homo-terrorism, not a community service.
Beamish
Well, personally I'm not even trying to be evangelical or make a theological argument against homosexuality. I'm merely pointing out the ludicrousness of defining and defending a vile and disgusting disease-triggering behavior and lifestyle as being a trait akin to skin color.
The fact that I can't seem to be "unevangelical" about such things doesn't mean I expect everyone else to be like me.
You've obviously read up on the subject, and I'm okay with your making the practical health-concern-related argument. To be honest, human health and nutrition has been a bit of a hobby of mine for years and I've read some interesting (and rather graphic) information concerning a valid biological reason for the increased risk of disease proliferation that attends homosexual activity. I believe more people ought to become educated in this area.
And yeah, having a particular level of skin pigmentation does not automatically land an individual in the same realm as that of one who deliberately violates the obvious intention of natural design.
why it's "hate" to not want turds on the buffet.
I generally avoid buffets anyway. Have you seen how some people serve themselves? :P
It is neither hateful nor racist to desire to maintain a healthy environment, if possible.
Lying makes me crazy and I believe we all need to be willing to look honestly at this issue.
Remember, we're still looking for your upper tolerance level concerning the tone of my commentary. If at some point I've provoked you to the point of punching your computer screen, we'll know we've arrived. If not, I'll keep trying.
:)
H
FB..not even close :-)
As a matter of fact I"m losing people who feel discriminated against because I let beamish use the language I asked him to try to avoid after deleting others who'd used it and worse.:-( So, maybe we'd have had more good stuff to comment to.
I am glad Beamish is concentrating on the secular arguments against homosexuality; we've talked the Christian aspects SO many times over these couple of years here and most of these adults are very aware of all of that and, if they're Christians they already get it, if they're not, they're given a perfect entree to insult and demean. I don't want that here.
Another EXCELLENT site, a Lutheran site, discusses topics like this in depth, where a few VERy grounded, mature Christians are saying "After years of study, I see there really IS no admonition against homosexuality in the Bible.."!!!
Fascinating stuff over there, showing we're certainly not going to put this issue to bed HERE and it only confuses many, which is NOT why I have my blog.
The secular argument against homosexual marriage that I prefer is the recognition that marriage in all cultures and all times irrespective of religion is the union of heterosexuals. It may include many wives or rarely, many husbands, but it's always heterosexual. The idea of gay marriage is an innovation in the history of humanity and it makes no sense, it contradicts everything all people have known about the meaning of marriage.
However, in our time we HAVE lost the meaning of marriage -- what with easy divorce, easy cohabitation, "sexual freedom" outside marriage, socially supported single parenting and so on and so forth, and that is why it's even possible for the idea of gay marriage to occur to anyone.
Wasn't it the American Psychiatric Association that altered the definition of homosexuality as being considered a "mental disorder" — back in the '70's I believe. Since that time it's opened the floodgates to the deluge of today in which sexuality is used as a blunt instrument to advance agendas which usually result in name calling and labeling of those in opposing camps in the most vulgar way possible.
Hell, this is just another attack on the foundations of Western Civilization, IMO. It may sound "conspiratorial" but I believe it was John Maynard Keynes and his "boys" in Fabian Socialism who had dreams of the world being their "oyster" in just this way.
Today's culture is overrun with sexual and societal depravity of with homosexuality is but one of the more obvious symptoms.
Waylon
Faith, we HAVE lost the meaning of marriage, or some have; maybe most have.
Waylon, there's a commercial on TV now for a dating service..a young woman with a bunch of friends standing around her as she sits at her computer. She picks some guy in a picture and then there's a fantasy footage of them in a bedroom, his shirt's off, she's wearing a kind of body suit that would imply she's naked, and they bang her head on a cabinet as he lunges at her, then she bangs her head on a bed stand or something...the girls all then decide that's not for them ...not the sex but the way to meet a guy, I think? I get so furious at the graphic portrayal and lame attempt to show them having sex while somehow meeting federal TV guidelines that I'm not sure what the end is, frankly.
It's shown CONSTANTLY and it's so metaphorical of everything that's wrong in America in re to morality.
There IS none anymore.And, if you suggest there SHOULD be, you're a dinosaur who wants to keep young people in the 18th century.
The fact that I can't seem to be "unevangelical" about such things doesn't mean I expect everyone else to be like me.
I jsut don't think resorting to theology is particularly poignant. You can tell someone an act is an abomination to God's sight, but there are many acts that fall into that category. Arguing against homosexuality from biology, physiology, and epidemiology seems more to the point. Saying homosexuality is unacceptable because it puts lives at risk beyond the bounds of the sexual couplings - many homosexually-origined pathogens can spread by non-sexual contact, thus putting the public at risk - is far more relevant than the "you're gonna burn in hell" tactic.
My argument is from self-defense.
You've obviously read up on the subject, and I'm okay with your making the practical health-concern-related argument. To be honest, human health and nutrition has been a bit of a hobby of mine for years and I've read some interesting (and rather graphic) information concerning a valid biological reason for the increased risk of disease proliferation that attends homosexual activity. I believe more people ought to become educated in this area.
Or at least made to realize the stigmas associated with homosexuality didn't perpetuate theologically. Homosexuality is a disease vector. It is what it is. Science is universal.
Remember, we're still looking for your upper tolerance level concerning the tone of my commentary. If at some point I've provoked you to the point of punching your computer screen, we'll know we've arrived. If not, I'll keep trying.
You'll have to try harder. Try to sell me on the idea that Pepsi-Cola tastes better than Coca-Cola. ;P
Beamish,
I just don't think resorting to theology is particularly poignant. ... Saying homosexuality is unacceptable because it puts lives at risk beyond the bounds of the sexual couplings - many homosexually-origined pathogens can spread by non-sexual contact, thus putting the public at risk - is far more relevant than the "you're gonna burn in hell" tactic.
My theology is not a replacement for sound reason, but rather the dye that colors my thinking.
Really, everyone has a theology. Even atheists have ideas about God which either prompt them to ignore Him or try to prove He does not exist. I don't see the question to be so much whether theology enters the picture, but which theology is informing the view.
I could probably make a decent argument based solely on a secular foundation, if I tried. Biological incompatibility of body parts and general health concern are definitely factors. Some might also argue from a social standpoint and still others could cite a potential increase in health care costs (financial argument) that high-risk sexual behavior could place on a strongly socialized medical system.
What I'm not understanding is why Christians should be expected to leave Jesus standing on the outside of such discussion when scripture clearly defines marriage and points us to what it is meant to reflect.
If you developed an absolutely spectacular, life-enhancing invention and those who you commissioned to advertise for you either never mentioned your name or used the tiniest possible print in an obscure location, wouldn't you be at least a little miffed?
Why must we allow non-believers determine for us the terms by which we may build a case for the traditionally defined understanding of marriage?
I'll have to re-read my comments to be sure, but I don't think I used the "your gonna burn" tactic and hope others have not felt I was talking down to them. I just happen to love the symbolism and it's hard to not talk about it.
Anyway, in my mind, adding the spiritual dimension to the secular does not alter demonstrable facts and allows for credit to be given where it is due.
You'll have to try harder. Try to sell me on the idea that Pepsi-Cola tastes better than Coca-Cola. ;P
DRAT!
Sheesh, you're hard to offend.
Okay then, I'll go work on my technique.
But I'm drawing the line at joining the communist party.
Z
I do hope this comment doesn't appear to be a blatant disregard for your previous statement about this not being the place for theological debate about this issue.
My intention is not to continue to push a religious view here, but only to try to explain my perspective to Beamish.
H
H,
I'm not dismissing the theological view (or "a" theological view) out of hand. In fact, we're on the same page vis a vis the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. Being something of a lay etymologist when it comes to examining the best translation of of the Greek used in the New Testament, I have found that Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians was extremely graphic (and decidedly "vulgar") in his listing of those that will not inherent the kingdom of God. Translating "effeminate ass-f*ckers" as "homosexuals and sodomites" for a more demure reading of the text to me seems to blunt Paul's razor sharp intent. Greek was a language of precision. Paul wasn't out to be "politically correct" and "non-offensive" to those considered an abomination to God's sight. He just threw it out there in plain sight. Today's left-wing audience would consider Paul a "bigot" and a "racist" but that has more to do with the left's absolute opposition to demonstrating a capacity for rational thought than actually addressing Paul's words to the Corinthians as written.
Please note that I'm not trying to invalidate the religious argument against homosexuality. I agree with it. Truth compliments truth.
I'm merely focusing on the true-on-sight. It's a lot harder to demonstrate "who's inheriting the kingdom of God" than it is to point out that homosexual behaviors keep exotic and venereal diseases afflicting the general population as a known, preventable epidemiological disease vector.
It's not "bigotry" or "hatred," as the mealymouthed left would have it, to desire not wanting to be infected by Hepatitis-C from eating a sandwich prepared by a faggot or acquiring AIDS from a transfusion harvested from a faggot blood donor.
I'm not the one swimming in sewage in this debate (and neither are you!) to be "tolerant," after all.
Wasn't it the American Psychiatric Association that altered the definition of homosexuality as being considered a "mental disorder" — back in the '70's I believe. Since that time it's opened the floodgates to the deluge of today in which sexuality is used as a blunt instrument to advance agendas which usually result in name calling and labeling of those in opposing camps in the most vulgar way possible.
It was in 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its listings of deviant behavioral disorders. Their reasons for doing so were not based in science whatsoever, but rather a bowing to political pressures (and perhaps an emergence of a large number of fags in the pyschiatry profession).
Now homosexuality is only defined as a "deviant behavioral disorder" if a fag can't rouse the self-esteem to make himself comfortable with his deviant behavior.
It's just made psychiatry / psychology more of a quack hucksterism than it always has been.
Please note that I'm not trying to invalidate the religious argument against homosexuality. I agree with it. Truth compliments truth.
I'm merely focusing on the true-on-sight...
No worries, then. It appears we don't actually disagree so much as emphasize different aspects of the same argument.
It's not "bigotry" or "hatred," as the mealymouthed left would have it, to desire not wanting to be infected by Hepatitis-C...
Of course it's not. But the charge of "hater" is more vague and a lot more difficult to address that either concrete scientific evidence or calmly introduced scriptural reference.
These days, "bigotry" is all about an individual's perception of what someone might be thinking rather than an actual crime that has been committed. Same goes for workplace "harassment".
I know someone who was acting supervisor and offered specific correction to one woman about the way she was doing her job and she shot back that she felt as though she was being "singled out".
Of course, she was being "singled out", as he couldn't very well instruct her without pointing out that she was doing a poor job. But what she meant was "I don't feel like improving my performance and am threatening to interpret this situation as hostile if you don't leave me to continue in my mediocrity". He called her bluff and told her to knock it off, because they both knew it wasn't true. And she straightened right up.
But not all situations are like that and there are plenty of unethical people who would push the "hate" button for all it's worth, simply because they couldn't get someone's full approval of what they're doing.
It's rather childish, but fairly effective at confusing the real issue if you aren't prepared for it.
Heather
Heather, as a matter of fact, yes this Christian is bothered.
YOu said "What I'm not understanding is why Christians should be expected to leave Jesus standing on the outside of such discussion when scripture clearly defines marriage and points us to what it is meant to reflect."
Please know that you might not be happy with things here or agree with my stance, but Jesus is NEVER STANDING ON THE OUTSIDE OF ANY DISCUSSION here, whether you think so or not. Everyone knows that most Christians do not support gay marriage, let's try to stay on the secular side, as Faith so well puts it in her comment...so we stay adrift of yet another fight showing that Christians can't agree on anything. My blog is to bring people TO the Lord in tender, easy ways...
thank you.
Beamish, you know, I ADORE you and I'm trying to be 'tolerant' at the language...what the??
You said "Now homosexuality is only defined as a "deviant behavioral disorder""
Are you SURE? BY SHRINKS? I'd have thought it would be, by this time, "A cooler, hipper way to go!" :-) xxx
Z
Heather, as a matter of fact, yes THIS Christian IS bothered. It's my blog and I reach out to nonChristians here, trying not to let Christians argue so much that the whole Body of Christ is BROKEN at geeeZ in the terrible example of fighting over Scripture, etc., okay?
Yes, it is your blog and I have much appreciated your desire to reach out to non-believers here. I'm not criticizing you for the way your have chosen to run your own blog site, and have tried to the best of my ability to honor your wishes while still being honest about the foundation of the opinions I've offered here.
By way of clarification, I wasn't arguing, and I didn't see that Beamish was, either. We made an honest attempt to try to understand where the other was coming from as we discussed the difference in approach to a commonly shared concern.
If Scripture had never been brought up, but we had been actually mistreating each other and parted ways with no resolution whatsoever over a completely secular matter, that would be a far worse example of professing Christians fighting amongst ourselves, don't you think?
YOu said "What I'm not understanding is why Christians should be expected to leave Jesus standing on the outside of such discussion when scripture clearly defines marriage and points us to what it is meant to reflect."
How am I supposed to take that? I know, you're sorry.
Actually Z, It wasn't intended to be a slam against you, so I'm not sure I need to be sorry about that. My statement is referring to a general observation I've made and it happened to touch on this subject as I was discussing with Beamish.
I've seen Christians elsewhere voluntarily muzzle themselves concerning their faith--to the point you'd never even guess they are believers. I truly don't understand why "we" as a group don't seem to enjoy speaking freely about our love for the Lord. That never has to be viewed as a source of contention among those of us who have claimed His name.
I enjoy reading blogs that make me think, and when I think, I generally appreciate being able to discuss with other thoughtful people. My commentary here has never been meant to be argumentative, inflammatory or hurtful to you or anyone else.
Heather
Heather, I purposefully softened my comment to you, as you can see I deleted the original one to which you replied.
I did that for many reasons, but one was that I was so sure you'd say that nobody's arguing.. ..and you did. I'm trying to prevent yet another argument here, okay? it's a terrible witness; just trust me that my opinions are valid, too, alright?
Please just respect my wishes. I have no need to go back and forth about this. All of us are entitled to our own feelings and I don't feel at all angry or insulted by you. I only ask that you respect my wishes.
By the way, I'm having trouble keeping my words and emotions to a minimum here...but suffice it to say I don't think ANYBODY here has asked anyone to not speak joyfully about the Lord.
I've said enough. Thanks.
Beamish.
thou dost protest too much.
Anonymous,
Beamish.
thou dost protest too much.
I'll turn out the light so you can move your circuit party back out from under the fridge.
Beamish, I should have read more carefully your original comment about the shrinks and homosexuality; thanks for clearing that up.
Thanks.
Some network did a thing on two or three gay men all of whom tried to
get straight....two of them definitely didn't 'take'..one did; for a while...the network seemed to take great joy in announcing that "Harold, TOO, finally had to succumb to his gayness again!" Oh, goody.
'circuit party'? I'm afraid to ask. I THINK I know and probably shouldn't ask, but......(be nice)! xx
'circuit party'? I'm afraid to ask. I THINK I know and probably shouldn't ask, but......(be nice)! xx
A circuit party is basically miniature Sodoms and Gommorrahs with a 4/4 dance beat instead of a fiery judgement from an angry God.
Circuit party
Basically a target rich environment if one were looking to acquire "Gay Bowel Syndrome" by the end of the week. A veritable shopping mall for sexually transmitted diseases.
Apparently "Anonymous" has nothing but a cockroach's courage for criticism of homosexuality on its lack of merits.
Post a Comment