"Offal of the Damned"--What a great name for a band!

"They will not be satisfied unless and until they reinvent this country as a Christian theocracy and/or the "Rapture" whisks them all away to paradise, leaving the rest of us heathens to wallow in the offal of the damned."

I wonder if the Fundamentalist Christians and the Fundamentalist Islamics end up in the same Paradise. After all the two religions are pretty much "cousins" who worship the same deity as seen through the filter of two different, central prophets (Jesus and Muhammad). Wouldn't it kinda suck if you were a Christian in Paradise watching a Muslim cavort with 72 virgins while all you got to play was a harp?

Lee,

Works for me.

Mike,

Yeah, that would suck. Maybe a christian in heaven could find a closet gay muslim who always had a hankering to play the harp, and has no particular use for his bevy of virgins. It's a pretty good bet that the christian would have been a capitalist during his earthly incarnation, so making a deal should be no problem. Of course, I don't know if being a "closet" anything would work in the presence of an omnipotent god. That could get a little hinky, if you know what I mean.
Presumably, the heavenly christian ladies would pretty much have to be satisfied with their harps.

The question I have often posed for radical muslims to consider is whether 72 virgins are really enough. We are talking eternity, right? How would one, uh, space them out? That "world without end" thingy would make that tough to figure.

What happens to the erstwhile virgins once deflowered? Do they get kicked into the fire pit for being whores? Do they magically, at the wink of allah's eye, revert back to their virginhood? In that case, would one really need 72 of them?
Well,I suppose variety would be the spice of the afterlife, though. Again, we are talking eternity.

And, while we're plodding through these blissful promises made to suicide bombers, what do female martyrs get? What is their reward for blowing themselves and others into a pink mist? Seventy two studs? Given the male chauvinist bent of islam, that seems unlikely. Maybe martyrs of the gentler sex get to wear more colorful burkas made of a lighter, airier material in paradise to reduce the flop sweat, or perhaps they won't be beaten quite so often, and only with an open hand - no closed fists or belts, and NO rocks. There's got to be some incentive.

I wonder, if in the paradise you, Mike, suggest, would the christians and muslims - and presumably the jews, the other primary "one godster" tradition - remain more or less segregated as they were wont to be down here on the planet? Would they have mixers or pitch-ins? I can envision an ecumenical buffet with falafel, knishes and fried chicken. Or would they all be stewing in the same big happy melting pot?

Questions, questions, questions. What's a true believer to do?

B-tone

It is naive to think that opposition to same sex marriage is only made up of conservative fundamentals Christians. That fallacy may serve up a nice target to go after, but it will never win any marksmanship awards. Christians make their voice heard just as the pro gay activists do, but like all activist groups, it they were the majority, they wouldn't have to be activists.

People in general know in their heart of hearts that same sex marriage as not natural from a physical sense. Evolution designed the parts to fit a specific way to carry on the race exactly as the predominate animal kingdom, and there is no argument that can stand up to this fact.

If a man is attracted to masculinity to the point of sexual arousal, there are tons of women who are fully masculine in behavior. If a woman is attracted to femininity to the point of sexual arousal, there are tons of effeminate men out there as well.

The homosexual population is no larger then 4-7% of the population. The question that should be asked is how can such a fringe group cause such a commination with the mass population, and for example, force same sex education in schools.

People in general know in their heart of hearts that same sex marriage as not natural from a physical sense. Evolution designed the parts to fit a specific way to carry on the race exactly as the predominate animal kingdom, and there is no argument that can stand up to this fact.

No-one disputes the basic mechanics, Franco. However, another fact is that there is a small but significant section of the population of many species, one of which is humans, that does not behave that way. By the same argument, celibacy is 'not natural' either, but no-one would dream of proposing a constitutional amendment to ban it.

The question that should be asked is how can such a fringe group cause such a commination with the mass population, and for example, force same sex education in schools.

Why is it unreasonable to advocate that sex education should cover the full spectrum of human sexual behavior?

Your argument falls flat as a reason to legislate against same-sex marriage because it fails to demonstrate that such unions threaten in any way the continuation of the human species.

No-one disputes the basic mechanics, Franco. However, another fact is that there is a small but significant section of the population of many species, one of which is humans, that does not behave that way.

Name the other species that behave against their natural mechanics.

By the same argument, celibacy is 'not natural' either, but no-one would dream of proposing a constitutional amendment to ban it.

This is a straw man argument, thus a fallacy.

Why is it unreasonable to advocate that sex education should cover the full spectrum of human sexual behavior?

Why is it reasonable to advocate that going against ones mechanics is normal.

Your argument falls flat as a reason to legislate against same-sex marriage because it fails to demonstrate that such unions threaten in any way the continuation of the human species.

Another straw man fallacy

Natural mechanics are just that, they are natural. Misuse of natural mechanics is unnatural. Thus, your argument falls flat as a reason to legislate for same sex marriage.

Referring to my [completely natural, God-made] homosexual desires as the "misuse of natural mechanics" is just about the most offensive way I've ever heard this argument phrased.

And aren't you writing from a religiously conservative Catholic perspective? Where are the large numbers of non-religious people who get excited about this issue?

And yes, there is much undisputed, documented evidence of homosexual behavior in other species. You're just showing [more of] your own ignorance.

Write what you know about. Keep your nasty bigotry to yourself.

Name the other species that behave against their natural mechanics.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of species, including monkeys, dolphins, kangaroos and penguins. Some data is presented here, although you can also go to Wikipedia, which has a comprehensive list.

This is a straw man argument, thus a fallacy.

Calling it a straw man doesn't make it so. I was not constructing a weak argument just to shoot it down. I was responding to your justification for legislation against gay marriage on the grounds that it was not natural.

Why is it reasonable to advocate that going against ones mechanics is normal.

Because it is normal. See my link above.

Another straw man fallacy

I fail to see why.

Natural mechanics are just that, they are natural. Misuse of natural mechanics is unnatural. Thus, your argument falls flat as a reason to legislate for same sex marriage.

Now there's a straw man. Where did I say anything about legislating for gay marriage? That's a whole different debate and beyond the scope of the article.

I will grant that you are correct in calling Baritone out on the 'slippery slope' fallacy he commits in the last paragraph of his article, although I think he was just using hyperbole for effect.

My last paragraph was hyperbole only to the extent that "The Rapture" is ludicrous bullshit. There are, in fact, a large number of people who are anxiously - some desparately - awaiting it.

The argument regarding what is or isn't "natural" is also bullshit. It has weight only if one ascribes to some ancient text of at best dubious origins, from which its adherents pick and choose portions of it as they find useful and essentially ignore the remainder while at the same time claiming that the entire work is inerrantly the "word" of their god.

What is natural? The love for another human being is natural, is it not? That one finds pleasure in an intimate and yes, sexual relationship with another human being is also natural. Procreation is hardly the ONLY purpose of sexual intimacy, regardless of the gender of the participants. It feels just as good being touched and caressed by whoever might be doing it.

I am not gay, but I must admit that my first sexual experience when I was 11 or 12 was with another boy who had recently made an interesting discovery about his body. He enlightened me. Whoa! That felt pretty good! (Ah, now we're all getting uncomfortable, our faces flushing a bit. Oh, jeez, I hope nobody is reading this over my shoulder.)

Ultimately, the point is simply that whomsoever one chooses to love, and/or with whom one chooses to be intimate is no one else's goddamn business. If 2 men or 2 women choose to codify their relationship as a legally recognized union, it is not the business of a state legislature, the United States Congress, or the fucking president. Anyone desirous of living a puritanical, christian lifestyle is welcome to it. Knock yourselves out. But leave the rest of us the hell alone.

B-tone

And it is not Franco's, or anyone else's, prerogative to tell me that what I know to be part of my self, my identity, my natural humanity is wrong or against the will of God. It makes me unspeakably angry, on behalf of all gay people everywhere, that such ignorance still propagates. I would even go so far as to call it blasphemy.

I'm going to throw my two shekels into this argument. We are all G-d's creations, whether we are straight or not. Franco is right about the "natural mechanics" in terms of procreation but he misses a few subtle points.

First of all, the Torah does not apply to non-Jews. What applies to non-Jews are the Seven Commandments of Noah. While most rabbis would define homosexual behavior as an immoral activity, it will have to be the Noahide Court that makes this decision in the end, not rabbis. And issues of "holiness of the Land" do not apply outside of the Land of Israel.

1. It is just plain inhumane to tell a person to deny himself satisfying his sexual desires, whether they lead him to desire women or men. In addition, it is not practical. Such a prohibition will not be followed unless it is circumscribed carefully.

2. On the other hand, it does say in the Torah that homosexual behavior is an abomination. There is just no getting around that.

But, the same section of the Torah also says "do not contaminate yourselves with these practices; the previous residents of the land did so and they are being vomited out," or something very much to that effect.

What is really being said here (in my opinion) is that while humans may seek to desire to satisfy their homosexual longings, longings which G-d created them with for reasons that the rest of us do not know, they should do it outside of the Land of Israel.

This the circumscription I mentioned earlier. The Land of Israel is a tiny place, compared to the 57 million square miles of land that this planet has. In essence, a person could satisfy his homosexual desires on 56,970,000 square miles of the earth's surface, so long as he did not do it here.

So, in essence, Jewish homosexuals should stay out of the Land - not because someone wishes to discriminate against them, but because they should have the right to satisfy their own sexual desires without compromising the holiness of the Land. And non-Jewish homosexuals (should they have reason to be here) should not indulge their desires in Israel - for the same reason.

To someone holding to an absolute standard of "I gotta have it all", that will not be satisfactory. At this point, I would remind such an individual that the Torah is Jewish law, not for non-Jews at all. Full stop. The Torah is meant essentially to be applied here, and followed here. The Seven Laws of Noah are meant to be applied to the rest of the planet. And since Indiana isn't holy land, it makes no difference whether homosesuals enjoy each other there or not.

Boy, that's a relief. So, if I decide to "change teams," it's okeedokee as long as I don't defile the holy land. That should be easy enough. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks Ruv.

B-tone

Meaning what?

I suppose I come off as mean spirited, or somewhat of a smartass. I've got an attitude. I am fairly passionate about this issue and others involving religion. For Baronius' benefit, I guess I'm becoming a bit of a fanatic.

When self proclaimed people of piety decide it is their right and religious duty to judge people and make accusations of immorality against others, I get testy. I mean, what happened to judge not lest ye... yada, yada, yada? My anger builds because I see it as so self serving. Such meddling has little or nothing to do with concern for others, but rather it is concern for the eternal future of their own souls.

Scripture commands them to prostelytize spreading the "good news" to all who can hear. Failure to do so, and/or failure to eradicate perceived sinful behaviour puts the souls of true believers in jeopardy. They want their tickets punched for the double decker bus to heaven. They could be "left behind" if they don't turn all evil homos to godly heteros. That renders all this legislative doo doo as less than selfless, doesn't it?

B-tone

#8 --handyguy

Referring to my [completely natural, God-made] homosexual desires

Using God as support for accreting your position that the gay lifestyle is completely natural is absolutely no different from that of a religiously conservative Catholic using God as support in accreting against you. Thus trying to use God to make your point while crying foul against Christian fundamentalists using God to make theirs against yours is hypocritical at best.

The "misuse of natural mechanics" is just about the most offensive way I've ever heard this argument phrased.

There are many truly offensive terms used to describe the details of the physical act of homosexuality. Those who chose to use these offensive terms instead of choosing to discuss/debate this issue with mutual respect, would rather intentionally and with malice of forethought do their best to offend and then move on. Your trying to stereo type me into that group is showing your own bigotry in action.

My commenting on natural mechanics is not, and was not, intended to offend. In fact it is a neutral scientific reference. Thus, I suggest that you are simple offended by anyone making any argument not in favor of the gay lifestyle no matter how professionally they say it. Have you ever looked up the word bigotry?

And aren't you writing from a religiously conservative Catholic perspective?

Absolutely not!

Where are the large numbers of non-religious people who get excited about this issue?

You seem to be looking for large numbers of excited people. Your use of the world "excited" is not applicable here. Excited people are activates from both sides of the discussion/debate and they make all the noise and yet they are in the minority or they would not be activists. The large numbers as you refer to are men and women and their families who support and believe in the straight lifestyle and are going through life unnoticed quietly living out their lives.

And yes, there is much undisputed, documented evidence of homosexual behavior in other species. You're just showing [more of] your own ignorance.

This statement is classic homosexual movement rhetoric and is one of the most over used fallacies of the times. Nothing could be future from the truth. You could only believer that if you have chosen not to review it, because it's out there in documented scientific mass. Your choosing not to review it only bring into question who is showing ignorance.

There is substantial documented scientific evidence to prove it is faulty science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is acceptable behavior for rational man.

Animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Dogs will mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female: Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.

Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his ethics. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

Although what appears to be homosexual behavior in the animal world, it is most uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, is a rarity.

Homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality.

Now I'm not insisting that you have to believe any of this, but don't claim there is usdisputed evedence and then write the following sentence.

Write what you know about. Keep your nasty bigotry to yourself.

I never made any personal attacks on homosexuals in my previous post. Nor did I in this one after you came out personally attacking me. I have only taken your personal attacks and redirected their negativity back where is finds its home.

Whether you like it or not, I do not have to agree with the homosexual lifestile and will state my position at will. I choose to do so with respect for the other side, while you see that as unacceptable even done that way.

The additude in your post displays the classic behaivor of he homosexual movement.

The expression homosexual movement is used to designate a vast network of organizations, pressure groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, activists pressure society to legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as same-sex "marriage," while relentlessly assailing those who disagree.

I am neither impressed or intiminated.

Franco:

I am gay. You are not. I speak from experience and first-hand knowledge. You speak from prejudice and second-hand rhetoric. What you write is remarkably hurtful and hateful, whether you are capable of realizing it or not.

Not nearly all straight people agree with you. Look at national opinion polls on the subject, especially those taken of respondees under 40. A big majority of Americans have a live and let live attitude, and many would be as offended by your rhetoric as I am.

Don't pretend to be the victim in this conversation, and don't tell me my words are "typical" of "the gay movement," of which you know little or nothing. I am speaking for myself. I assail you man to man. You are dead wrong.

Dr Dreadful,

You seem to have drawn the conclusion that humans going against their natural mechanics are normal based on the premise that it is normal in the animal kingdom.

This supports the homosexual movements attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature by trying to prove its animal homosexuality theory as being both natural for animals and thus man.

I can not except that premise based on the following reasons.

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his ethics. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature with was covered in my last post.

Man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. Thus we shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in.

Then why are you trying to craft them based on what a human's 'natural mechanics' are?

This problem is always talked about by LGBT. I have read many articles about it. Gay marriage has been accepted by most of people. It would be really nice. and I am as a bisexual here show my gratitude for your being so open-minde. "What about adopting a child for us?" is always the popular quesiton for LBGT, espcially for bisexual at **bimingle.com**. There is no dout that we all love the world, love the children, and do not mean to hurt anybody. Hopefully, everybody can accept us.

Part of my aching sorrow as a gay man is that everyone wants to portray the sex act as animalistic. It's not. It'a an act of giving, an act of sacrifice of ego, and of love to someone you trust and care for.

The gay sex act is not natural, it is a gift of inprovisation, because some of us have enough conscience not to marry a girl, get her pregnant and raise a family, all the while living a miserable lie.

Having someone to love, is an act of giving, of caring and of sacrifice. Some of you make it sound like a violent act of rape.

While some of you hetros wince and cower at the very thought of the mechanics involved in gay sex, and don't pause to consider how much a man must have to care for the needs and wants of his partner to go through such an ordeal, and that's what it is if there's no love behind it. We're not all blind animals you know, that mince around, lisp, and chase after little boys.

The generally accepted stats are that we comprise about 10 percent of the population, though the born-agains keep screaming it's only four... Well if you tell a lie long enough you'll believe it I guess.

The Israelites used the only weapon they had to win back their holy land in ancient times... They had as many children as they could, because they knew that in four or five generations, they'd be the majority and outnumber their oppressors. That meant strickly banning anything that didn't mass produce babies, such as masturbation and gay sex.

Sort of what the hispanics are doing in the U.S. because soon they'll be the majority, then we'll have to fight for the right to have our legal documents in English instead of Spanish

Baritone, this is a well thought out article, and one of the few I've read all the way through.

Thanks
Jet

Good to read differing views from gays and hetero here. For some reasons, I just can't accept that gay sex is a form of giving. It just seems so unnatural.

From a gay's point of view, it is totally natural. So the debate will rage on and on because the 2 sides can never see eye to eye.

It is a touchy issue that any government will have a headache handling, guaranteed.

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his ethics. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature with was covered in my last post.

Which is to say that manm has free will. And, having free will, he can make all sorts of different choices as far as how he chooses to live his life, and so long as those choices do no harm to others, it's not appropriate for anyone to second-guess them.

Dave

Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue.

"It is a touchy issue that any government will have a headache handling, guaranteed."

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it until I die:

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO GODDAMN BUSINESS STICKING ITS NOSE INTO WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A PRIVATE MATTER!!!

Why, why, WHY do Americans invariably want their corrupt, inept, dictatorial government involved in every aspect of people's lives??

Sheesh!!

Clav,

It is the inbred predisposition of those of a puritanical bent to intimidate and cajole others to conform to their bloodless life view.

B-tone

It's the law of the jungle Clav. Lower class and inferior people who feel powerless and picked on, do everything they can to find someone else in which to delude themselves into thinking they're better then they in order to not feel as if they're at the bottom of the "food chain" of society.

To judge someone is to imply power over them. To imply and then force their "morals" on someone else makes them feel better about their own miserable lives.

Forgetting of course "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"...

I guess we can thank all the "stone casters" of history for today's great major league pitchers. Ya think?

B-tone

Say what!!!

"It's an act of giving, an act of sacrifice of ego, and of love to someone you trust and care for."

This is one of the funniest and pathetic excuses for having anal sex...gee I wonder if I can use this line to convince my wife to give me access to her but?

JOM "Pronfucius say - beware of amorous men with wide stance"

"Pornfucius say - beware of amorous men with wide stance"

When self proclaimed people of piety decide it is their right and religious duty to judge people and make accusations of immorality against others, I get testy. I mean, what happened to judge not lest ye... yada, yada, yada? My anger builds because I see it as so self serving. Such meddling has little or nothing to do with concern for others, but rather it is concern for the eternal future of their own souls.

Scripture commands them to prostelytize spreading the "good news" to all who can hear. Failure to do so, and/or failure to eradicate perceived sinful behaviour puts the souls of true believers in jeopardy. They want their tickets punched for the double decker bus to heaven. They could be "left behind" if they don't turn all evil homos to godly heteros. That renders all this legislative doo doo as less than selfless, doesn't it?

Looks to me that what pisses you off is Christianity, because that is the doctrine you are citing above. I don't have to "witness" to you or any other shit. I could give a rat's ass about raptures and getting "left behind" or any of the other bullshit Christianity peddles in its bottle of "Dr. Good" snakeoil. I'm not preaching to you or anybody else. I am telling you my own perspective and how my perspective relates to the Law I believe I'm bound by.

Until one reads Leviticus 18 in its entirety, one misses its point. It confirms what I've been telling the ignorant lot of you since I came onto this site. JEWISH LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU! It applies only to us in our own country!!

If you take a code of law designed to make a priestly people holy and try to extend it to all of Mankind, you will get chaos, war and injustice.

Hmmm.... Seems to me that this is exactly what you have today, isn't it?

If you want to get pissed off, get pissed off at the Christians, who try to force their beliefs down your throat, and whose beliefs you vomit up in anger.

I knew that if I exposed part of my heart to you people, that JOM would find a way to shit on it.

Thanks for not disappointing me...

Looks to me that what pisses you off is you are stuck being an unhappy jew, because that is the doctrine you drone on and on about! I don't have to give a shit about your chosen people crap. other shit. I could give a rat's ass about kosher bullshit. judaism peddles hatred and doomsday doctrines. I'm not preaching to you I am telling you my own perspective YOU ARE A HATEFUL ANTI CHRISTIAN BIGGOT HIDING BEHIND YOUR CULT OF VICTIMZATION.

If you want to get pissed off, get pissed off at the Jews,like Ruvy, who try to force their beliefs down your throat.

Read this quickly the editors only allow Christiaon bashing in here and will not tolerate someone speaking out against the high rabbi of BC -RUVY - The Christian Hating Jew


JOM-

Jet...your welcome!

Was that a Fruedian slip...."find a way to shit on it"?. Pretty funny in the context of the debating the normalcy of anal sex...

Pretty funny stuff!

JOM - Pornfucius Say - "Man with gerbil in but have hard time riding bicycle"

31 is addressed to ruvy-the Christian hater

"The expression homosexual movement is used to designate a vast network of organizations, pressure groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, activists pressure society to legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as same-sex "marriage," while relentlessly assailing those who disagree."

quoted for truth.

John...good job! There are those in here who think they can bully people into agreeing with their views and when are forced to debate and defend the issues they run and cry discrimination and attack the messenger....


JOM

Is Clavos done with that gun yet?

I apparently wrote too soon. As I suggested, it appears that the issue is far from dead. I heard the teaser on local news but missed the actual piece, but apparently some members of the Indiana House are putting the screws to Rep. Pelath to force the measure out of committee. Stay tuned.

By the way, I couldn't help but notice just how incredibly bigoted and ignorant some commenters are here at BC. It just boggles the mind.

B-tone

Just One "Man" wrote:

There are those in here who think they can bully people into agreeing with their views and when are forced to debate and defend the issues they run and cry discrimination and attack the messenger....

And for the perfect example....

I am telling you my own perspective YOU ARE A HATEFUL ANTI CHRISTIAN BIGGOT HIDING BEHIND YOUR CULT OF VICTIMZATION.

If you want to get pissed off, get pissed off at the Jews, like Ruvy, who try to force their beliefs down your throat.

....the editors only allow Christiaon bashing in here and will not tolerate someone speaking out against the high rabbi of BC -RUVY - The Christian Hating Jew....

All this italicized ranting was the work of

you guessed it! JUST ONE "MAN". In case anybody didn't get the idea of which messenger he was attacking, he added:

31 is addressed to ruvy-the Christian hater

JOM - lowering the quality of Blog Critics Magazine wherever he goes

Ruvy,

We don't often agree about much, but I'm with you on this one.

To me, JOM is the personification of the "Ugly American."

B-tone

HOLD THE PRESSES!!!

Another update:

The efforts to force the measure out of committee have apparently failed (so far.) While those efforts were ongoing in the Indiana House, a rally of a couple hundred supporters of gay rights took place in the rotunda of the state house.

What I think is NOT going to work for them are efforts to introduce legislation to specifically protect gay rights. While I am sympathetic, I can't see any Indiana legislature supporting such a measure. The apparent defeat of the same sex marriage ban just barely squeaked through. Even a small ground swell could wind up sending it back to the house for consideration.

At the very least they should let the dust settle around the ashes of the defeated constitutional ammendment before launching anything that will raise the ire of the christian right - of whom there are many in both the Indiana Senate and House. It would be useful at this juncture to tread lightly. Showing bravado by being confrontational may be inspirational to some, but, to my mind, it would only add fuel to the opposition's fire.

B-tone

Heh.

Dave, Baronius, Clavos, John, Obnox, Dan and all our other right-of-center friends:

Isn't JOM something? Doesn't he make you want to join the Democratic Party just to get away from him...?

;-)

No Doc it doesn't, but it does tempt me to leave BC permanently. As a BC writer I have to hold my comments up to a higher standard than JOM, therefore he has the freedom to follow me wherever I go taunting.

It's just no fun here anymore.

Paranoid? you just have to read the comments on this string alone.

I'm very tempted to leave and just write on my own blog. The problem is there are too many people here that I care about and respect.

It's impossible to write anything on this website without him showing up, placing comments that make it impossible to recommend that any of my friends read my articles without seeing his shit.

*There are those in here who think they can bully people into agreeing with their views and when are forced to debate and defend the issues they run and cry discrimination and attack the messenger....*

wtf - ? this from you JOM - ?

I think you've gone round the bend

Jet - I've never understood why you take him down with your superior wit or simple ignore him

Jet - I've never understood why you don't take him down with your superior wit or simply ignore him...(that's better)

Because without exception, I'm deleted for my efforts.

In the midst of another string, Clavos quite cleverly wrote "BLAM BLAM!! GOT HIM!!!" This was a reference to that clever comment.

If you're paranoid enough to take that as a threat so be it, I'd expect that from some class-clown of a fool who has absolutely no respect from everyone on this website, except for the few (thankfully) other nuts who agree with him.

JOM doesn't write for this site for a very good reason, he wouldn't be able to take what he dishes out

Believe it or not there's something even more annoying that JOM on this website-the repeated warnings I get saying that BC is trying to install Flashplayer on my system, even though I already have it.

Enjoyable as it is, the problem with taking JOM down by virtue of superior wit is that he doesn't recognize wit, superior or otherwise.

I almost feel cruel sometimes - as if I'm participating in bear-baiting or something.

he must be foreign or something...

to the extent that messing with JOM types (myself included) is performance art it doesn't matter that the target doesn't realize what's going on...the audience does

oh well i tried...

Proof the left has no tolerance for diverse ideas and opions...

JOM

Unfortunately many view my (and Other's) exchanges with jom like verbal sparing between professional wrestlers on TV and constantly tune in, in order to see who came up with the best smartass yet snappy retort.

As you all know, eventually most intelligent people change the channel after only a few minutes.

Unfortunately the whole article winds up being hijacked by jom-which I believe is his entire purpuse. If he doesn't agree with the article's contents, he childishly makes it impossible for anyone to have an intelligent conversation in the comments section, thus attaining his goal.

Baritone, I apologize that I was an instrument in his sabataging your thoughtfully conceived article, and will wander off, unless there's something here ON SUBJECT.

Jet

jom: "oh well i tried... Proof the left has no tolerance for diverse ideas and opions..."

jom, if we really want your "opion" on something, we can just consult fox news. it's okay. we hear ya. of course, fox news is filtered enough to leave out all the bigotry and not-so-funny asian syntax.

well, fox news leaves off most of the bigotry. or at least the more blatant examples of it. or at least most bigotry, except that against islamic folk. or something. at least they use a thin veil.

oh well i tried...

Yes, JOM, you're very trying.

Proof the left has no tolerance for diverse ideas and opions [sic]...

What, you mean diverse ideas and opinions like... oh, I dunno, that maybe gay marriage is a good idea?

"...it doesn't matter that the target doesn't realize what's going on...the audience does"

Excellent point!

Fox News? Not sure what that has to JOM...

So let me understand..to get along with you guys all I have to do is agree with everyone of your ideas and beliefs...and rid myself of my own free will and thought?

Is that what it takes to be a left-wing loon? If so it makes life pretty simple...

JOM "One small thought for man...a giant thought for mankind"

I think the relationship between Dave Nalle is a good example: He and I rarely agree on anything, but I think we respect each other because we present our points of view with intellect and reason, rather than jom's smartass remarks and sarcasm

But then that's only my opinion

So let me understand..to get along with you guys all I have to do is agree with everyone of your ideas and beliefs...and rid myself of my own free will and thought?

Let's put it this way, JOM. This was a fairly heated but civilized discussion, with strong views on both sides, until you showed up at comment 27 with one of your usual Neanderthal offerings.

Free will, thought and expression are fine things, but if you can't express yourself articulately, as Franco did - or at least do so in a civil manner - then why are you surprised when we call you out for your idiocy?

As Jet said - you dish it, but you can't take it.

Getting back to the article, Baritone what gets to me is that such a law would change nothing except a few tax codes.

I mean are they going to install cameras in everyone's bedroom? Let's not forget that oral sex between a man and wife is also considered sodomy.

To paraphrase Robin Williams, "So what happens when a man is arrested for sodomy? He's going to be put into a cell with a bunch of men that are going to sodomize him... Right-wing logic!"

Jet,

The long term ramifications of a same sex marriage amendment to the Indiana Constitution are difficult to gauge. It wouldn't fundamentally change how things stand in the state, what with the existence of a statute that also bans such unions.

But this amendment would be a definitive step backwards. As I've noted, overturning a constitutional amendment would be an arduous task and likely take several years - perhaps decades. In the mean time there would be more and more people forced to live under the radar, being denied many of the basic rights and services that hetero couples have and take for granted.

The root of the effort is, also as I stated, ignorance, fear and hatred.

Jet, I don't let JOM or others - remember Moonraven - intimidate me. Actually, Moon was a far more formidable foe than JOM. Moon has a decent level of education and intelligence. Her opinions are "out there," but she's articulate.

Dave and Clavos are truly superior commenters to spar with, because they are articulate and well informed. I especially appreciate Clavos as he has shown a greater willingness consider other perspectives and is willing to recognize another's points if he feels they are correct.

JOM reveals himself with his imprudent remarks.

B-tone

Jet, I don't let JOM or others - remember Moonraven - intimidate me. Actually, Moon was a far more formidable foe than JOM. Moon has a decent level of education and intelligence. Her opinions are "out there," but she's articulate.

Gotta go along with Baritone here. When dealing with dumb animals, there are just times when you have to disembowel them - (see comment #38).

Marthe Raymond was a far more formidable foe than JOM will ever be. But, she is a human being who is able to recognize another human being reaching out to her. Often, she and I had rather civilized discussions because of that fact. Her comments were often poisonous and she was often very obnoxious, but when approached as a human being, she responded as one.

B-tone, Jet,

Truth is, I do not have any views on this particular piece of legislation presently bottled up in the Indiana House. But as the US begins to come apart, I'd suggest the two of you (as well as other political observers at BC) start to keep a close eye on state legislatures and state governments - they will play a bigger and bigger role in American politics as the federal government recedes into bankruptcy and powerlessness.

Thanks to all

Christian conservatives like to portray a black and white, what God wants, what God doesn't want, world.

Ok, so God wants men to be with women and vice versa? Well, one in every 2000 children born in this country is of indeterminate gender. What does this say to the "natural mechanics" argument? What does God intend for these folks?

"one in every 2000 children born in this country is of indeterminate gender"

What is the source of this data?

JOM

"'one in every 2000 children born in this country is of indeterminate gender'

What is the source of this data?

JOM"

The ultimate source is American hospitals. The actual number depends on the definitions. The American Psychological Association claims one in 1500. Anne Fausto-Sterling's 2000 book claims 1.7% or 17 per thousand. Leonard Sax's 2000 article in The Journal of Sex Research claims that Fausto-Sterling's estimate is too high, because it includes individuals with Klinefelter syndrome (males with an extra X chromosome). Sax contends that this condition (and others) doesn't qualify as gender ambiguity. Sax arrives at an estimate of .02% or one in five thousand.

Lib,

Based upon your argument are we to accept all anomalies as "normal"?

JOM "Always taking the high road"

The better question is whether to accept all minorities (or as you put it, "anomalies") as lesser beings. Do you accept those individuals as lesser beings, JOM?

By the way, I'd just like to mention how incompatible Christian conservatism, especially in the United States, is with Christianity.

There are thousands of verses in the Bible about the poor, yet the conservative party wants to strip social programs and doesn't care about the poor at all with their tax cuts for the rich and their corporate sponsorship. Instead, Christian conservatives in America have hijacked the ignorant into thinking that Biblical principles can be summed up by two or three minor social issues of which the Bible and Christ had very little, if not nothing, to say.

Jordan...its not polite to answer a question with a question, so lets rephrase and try again....


"Based upon your argument are we to accept all anomalies/minorites as "normal"?

JOM

Well, it's not "my argument" so the issues of politeness in accordance to my comment are really irrelevant. I'm asking you a separate distinct question. The person to which you asked your question can respond to your question, I'd like you to respond to mine.

JOM,

"Normal" is subjective. It's a human construct. "Natural" is not. It is natural for some humans to be born something between male and female. If there is a God who directs these things then that God decided that this should be so.

The idea that God doesn't want people to be gay is ridiculous when God can't always make up his mind what gender someone is.

jom: "Based upon your argument are we to accept all anomalies/minorites as "normal"?

he said, no, they are not "normal," (but neither are you,) but they are not lesser and are, of course, subject to equal treatment under the law.

you're not so thick you missed that, are you?

So are all sexual anomolies considered "normal" ie accepted behaviors?

JOM "Staying the course while others attack"

jom: "Based upon your argument are we to accept all anomalies/minorites as "normal"?

he said, no, they are not "normal," (but neither are you,) but they are not lesser and are, of course, subject to equal treatment under the law.

you're not so thick you missed that, are you?

Zing...

Do I understand you to mean that sexual anomolies should be subject to equal treatment under the law regardless, if I or even the majority agree with that anomoly or not?


JOM..."Turning his other cheek"

as "sexual anomolies" are not a choice, yes. you can't agree or disagree with these things anymore than you can agree or disagree with someone's race or sex or height or shoe size.

"Do I understand you to mean that sexual anomolies should be subject to equal treatment under the law regardless, if I or even the majority agree with that anomoly or not?"

MY opinion; NOT speaking for zing:

We are a nation governed by laws. Until and unless the law is changed, they MUST be treated equally; that is what the law specifies.

Some conservative you are, jom, if you don't know and abide by that fundamental concept.

JOM, people are people and should of course be treated equally under the law. Their gender status is irrelevant to that.

Well, am omnipotent being is incapable of creating an anomoly because that would make it less than omnipotent but, being omnipotent, it is capable of creating an anomoly, but only if it wants to and then, of course, it's not an anomoly.

Who is the arbitrator deciding which anomolies are OK and which are not? And who will be the judge over which sexual preferences are accepted and which are not?

JOM

God?

JOM, you don't treat people equally only when you agree with their existence. If that actually is your philosophy, you have some serious ethical issues you need to sort out.

Hmmmmm so how can you be arguing that "mans laws" is deciding what is acceptable?

So assuming we are born with sexual preference and we do not have a choice...how can we draw a line on what is acceptable and what isnt? Where does it end?

JOM

It ends at "two consenting adults," doesn't it? The law can't really do anything else without citing some religious (and therefore questionable) rationale.

Jordy..

Hmmmm so you are saying that you support all sexual preferences as EQUAL?

JOM...

I prefer doggy-style with a redhead. That's ok with Leviticus, isn't it? When you guys take over, we'll be able to stay married, right?

It ends in the bedroom.

What is done behind closed doors between consenting adults is all good.

JOM, you seem to be missing the point of the questions being asked you.

If a person is born, meaning they have no choise, neither male or female, can they marry anyone under most current state laws?

Or because they are gender nutral, are they forbidden from marriage all together?

What is you opinion?

And why do you care what 2 or more people do that you can't see or affects you in anyway?

If what they are doing is against god, they will go to hell. All is well.

If some people broke into your house and started sticking some of your things in verious orifices, I would understand you having a problem.

I never thought I'd see the day...

JOM is trying to pull a Socrates.

The effect is rather like a caveman endeavoring to split the atom using a rotten cabbage.

All I did was go to my shrink's today, and look at all this-I missed the Jerry Springer show!!!!!

I knew I should've set my VCR... ;)

So how do we allow those poor souls born predisposed to pedophila, beastality and necrophilia? These are not choice they have made...God made them that way.


Are we not going to treat them as equals under the law?


JOM "Turning the other cheek as the mongrels attack."

It means absolutely nothing to me what two consenting adults choose to do in private. If it turns out well for them THEY will benefit; it it turns out badly for them, THEY will suffer.

Plainly and simply, it is none of my business. It costs me nothing and is of no interest to me. (Why on earth would it be?) That is all I have to judge or deal with. It's called life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I want my freedoms, and so I am fine with others having theirs, too.

What I find really offensive is the value system and twisted thinking of those who want--need--to play God, judging, condemning, rejecting. Here's what they can't accept: You're mortal, flawed, and finite just like everybody else. Nobody died and left you to be philosopher-king. Nobody cares you're consumed with a neurotic hate for strangers you'll never know, or that you're poisonously prejudiced against those who aren't just like you. You're frustrated, powerless, inconsequential, and laughable.

Life is life. Get used to it.

I would support an amendment making it illegal for children, animals and dead people to marry (although you might have a problem getting the children part passed in places like Alabama, where 14 year olds can marry).

Lib,

Who are you to judge and prevent indivuals the freedom of living their lives as god meant them to be?

JOM

I think I just got whiplash

JOM, as a progressive liberal Christian, I absolutely support the idea that all sexual preferences are equal.

What I don't support is this notion that seems to exist primarily in the United States of America and within the Republican party design that states that Christianity reflects these social issues in a way that is clear and inerrant. With the historical evidence and the exegetical research I've done through the past 15 or so years, I do not find a support for Biblical inerrancy. What I do find is support for the evolution of scriptural law. It happens within the Bible itself, actually, as Christ evolved the concept of atonement through his very existence (if you take that literally).

There is a slew of laws within the covenant with Moses that exist, naturally, and many critics rightfully point to those laws as damning evidence against the effectiveness as Christianity as a life system for the modern world. I couldn't agree more. However, it follows that Christianity preaches (or at least Christ preached) that freedom from those laws is the order of the day. The moral code for ALL people is within. Some call it common sense, others call it innate morality, but we all know certain things are wrong and certain things are right. Then there's divisions on lesser issues, but we all have a basic understanding of right and wrong.

What American Christians have done is turn the Bible into an idol and turn the individual's God-given common sense and moral compass into a secondary deciding factor. Since when is Jesus Christ pro-rich? Since when is he pro-war? Since when does he only support one political party in the United States of America? Since when does he support the invasion of other countries for profit? Since when does he support racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc.?

After 15+ years of study, the conclusion I've reached is that Christianity, especially Christianity in the style of the "Religious Right" in the United States of America, is about as incompatible with the vision and teachings of Jesus Christ as possible.

Now, JOM, you're welcome to explain how I'm wrong here and how it's actually reasonable to assume that all human beings, as "created" by God, aren't equal.

Good God, now there's this picture of what Bush was doing after he read "My Pet Goat" during 9/11 and why no one could reach him for so long afterward...

groan

jom.

2 consenting adults. they can do what they like.

get it?

dead people, children, dogs and gods have nothing to do with it.

I'd love to find him High and on a road some time... excuse me while I puke

(%^p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, I agree with JOM here (but certainly not his points). I don't think these referential attacks are at all productive, especially when they're backed with the claims of dealing with a madman. Jet, you could always, you know, not read the topic if you find JOM that offensive. I know I'll be checking out briefly myself.

:)

But Jordan! So many of my fans what me to counterattack with wit and intelligence... I can't disappoint them, can I?

You certainly got me there. Carry on.

:)

Thank you Jordon for your rational and well writteb response. I agree with you to a point. My concerns are when race, sex and sexual orientation are used to provide preferential treatment to one group over another.

In addition, I do not believe it is fair for private citizens to be forced to adhere to laws that have moral or personal implications. For example as an owner of real estate I should be allowes to rent or not rent to who I please.

JOM "Again forced to defend himself from biased attacks"

JOM,

Children, animals and dead people (with the exception of some dead people living in some voting precincts in Chicago) do not have the freedom of choice that consenting adults have.

It's all a moot point. Opposition to same-sex partnership rights (in any form) is directly proportional to age. Overturning the civil union laws already in place will be impossible as the opposition simply dies away and the marriage amendments currently in place will fall one by one over time. In fifty years, people will look back at history and ask, "You mean way back when, black people couldn't vote and gay people couldn't marry?"

Well surely a ban on marriage rights wouldn't be a "preference" for any one group over the other. In fact, it is most assuredly a preferential treatment of heterosexual couples, so if what you say is true, you should be right on board with supporting gay marriage.

I also agree that it is not fair for private citizens to be forced to embrace laws with moral implications. Hence the argument that homosexual couples should not be forced to embrace laws that have moral implications!

It's interesting that you raise those points. Do you support war? Genocide? Bigotry? Poverty? There are laws in America right now that impose those things on private citizens, yet somehow I doubt you are as vocal on those aspects as you are on homosexual marriage and other modern social issues. ALL laws have moral and personal implications, JOM.

Jet...

Its really "not all about you". Why not use dialogue rather than attacks just to please your so called "many fans".

The problem is that some people just cannot accept others who are different from them in either opinions and/or sexual orientation. Its very sad because they will never take time to listen...just attack...very sad..

JOM "Taking the high road...because someone has to do it."

Thank God my country solved this issue more than two years ago!

Jordan,

Should an apartment owner be forced to rent his "private property" to a homesexual (or other so called protected class) couple?

JOM "Somebody has to be rational in here"

An apartment owner has the right to rent his property to whomever he wishes. Please explain how this is relevant, as you're talking about the rights in business versus basic human rights.

They are one and the same...can the goverment force an indivual to accept something that they find morally offensive?

JOM "Now that the issues are being debated the vermin flee the discussion"

You can't be serious jom. In Columbus there's a section called German Village. It was close to being a slum 25 years ago. Then the property owners began leasing almost exclusively to the large gay population.

With two incomes not dependant on supporting wives and children, the couples began fixing up the houses, sprucing up the lawns and 25 years later the place is a tourist attraction and the rents are astronomical!!!

Gay couples are notorius for wanting to live in nice homes.

Know why?

The landlords let them move in, fix up and improve their properties, then suddenly they "discovered" they were renting to those immoral faggot couples and evicted them on christian principles.

You and your animals and "special rights" arguments disgust me.

So you would support government amendments that would make it illegal to cook certain types of food in one's home? Or to listen to certain types of music because the sound may be offensive to somebody within earshot? Surely you would support book-burning, Gestapo-style film censorship, and other tactics to keep the state morally pure as well.

What you don't seem to realize (at least I hope you don't realize this) is the slippery slope that your logic of "morally reprehensible legal intervention" is on.

You, in your individual life, apartment owner or not, have the right to accept or reject parts of society (while still obeying the law, of course) that you choose to morally reject or support. The key here is "in your individual life." So while you can deny homosexual the access to your basement suite (bad pun), your telephone during an emergency, or your assistance during times of trouble, you cannot deny them basic human rights UNDER THE LAW. You can deny them the graciousness of your own personal choices, but you cannot fabricate behaviour of the entire society that matches your own attitude.

JOM.

I find Republicans, Rap musicians, most lawyers and everyone who works at motor vehicles morally offensive, but I accept them. It's actually kind of liberating to just accept people for who they are.

I will never accept anyone who works at the DMV. I'd push my own mother down the stairs if she worked there.

And yet we allow them to marry...and bear little dmv worker children.

When I heard about this yesterday I thought what are these guys so afraid of?? Then it dawned on me. Themselves :) Check out our trailer on gay marriage produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Geez -could you have picked music that was a little less gay?

JOMSM "Just One More Staw Man."

and you had to go with the lavender/fuschia gay color? See, it's not really the sex that gets these folks all fired up, it's this color. No straight, God-fearing American wants to be subjected to this color...or Streisand...or Cher.

Really, gay people would be a lot less threatening with a nice light blue and some Springsteen.

Response

Jet - I find it reporehensible that you describe every Gay and a hard working civic minded person and all Christians as hateful demons. On one hand you play the role of the poor victim while spewing your hatred and bigotry.

Jordan - as a staunch property rights advocate I cannot accept the government telling me what to do with MY property...just a basic right.

JOM

"reprehensible"

JOM "On the straight and narrow"

Streisand....now thats reprehensible....rumor has is that someone in here...was Babs for holloween...
JOM - "Streisand - an ugly fucking bitch"

JOM, I think your comprehension skills are significantly lacking. Nobody is telling you what to do with YOUR property.

Actually, Streisand was kinda cute in Funny Girl.

The government forces ladlords to rent to anyone who applies and can pay the rent..so the government is telling people who to rent to..


JOM

Okay, what is your point?

i believe is point is that if fags can marry, he'll have to rent an apartment to them and then after that happens, what's to keep the niggers and wetbacks out?

Maybe he's my landlord......

Lets set the record straight...

niggers - yes
wetbacks - no


JOM....

And as my flu subsides enough to allow me to do something productive and meaningful, I take my leave of blogcritics secure in the knowledge that all is wrong with the world.

JOM: Sooo, you're one of those landlords, are you?

As long as a tenant can pay and abides by the terms of the lease, why should you care what color they are or who they live with?

For your edification and delight (and perhaps just to annoy you), why don't you take a look at this little video that we show to our clients?

BTW, I'm in it, so you have my permission to throw popcorn at the screen at the appropriate moment. I leave it to you to guess when that is.

I think I know which one is you, Doc, but it's illegal under federal law for me to publish it here.

Trick question, Clav. They're ALL me!

Or at least they would've been if they'd edited it that way... They had all of us read the entire script.

Careful Clavos, you wouldn't want the secretary to disavow any knowledge of your actions!

The black lady in the green sweater?

Not quite my shade of green...

What happened to the Brit accent, Doc?

(BTW, you handle that football well!) :>)

"As long as a tenant can pay and abides by the terms of the lease, why should you care what color they are or who they live with?"

Um...because its my property and I should have full control of who I rent to regardless of what others think...


JOM

#138:

So, if I own the property next door to yours and I want to rent it to the Disco Church of 24-Hour Garbage Burning & Swine Worship, I should have unlimited rights to do so, regardless of what others think, because it's my property, (and, of course, also because we have freedom of religion)?

There's no such thing as unlimited rights or freedoms, so you demand what doesn't exist.

You do have a comprehension problem, don;t you, JOM?

We've been over this. I refer you back to Liberal's comment #104.

Who made Liberal the arbitrator of what is acceptable and what isnt? This poor guy was born this way who are we to say he cannot find happiness?

JOM "Comprehension is his middle name?

Come to that, who made you the arbitrator?

At least Liberal's arguments have a redeeming factor that yours don't:

THEY MAKE SENSE.

I guess I'm not surprised that we somehow went from gay marriage to property law and animal sex, but I'm still wondering why it happened.

Jordan...thank you, thank you thank you!

You have seen the light! You so eloguently made the case (from gay marriage to property law and animal sex) demostrating how once we change the rules of normalcy everthing starts to rapidly slip and slide down the drain.

JOM "Grasshopper - now that you have witnessed the truth...what shall you do?

Learn how to close quotation marks?

Ah, the common paranoia.

People thought that years ago when they started to allow women to vote. People thought that the world would go to hell when slavery was abolished. This philosophy of fear and paranoia is hardly new and it's rarely logical because history hasn't borne this out.

The truth is that we're talking about an issue of basic human rights, not "normalcy vs. anomaly." You can mistakenly allow yourself the grave error of framing this debate in your own terms and adjusting the variables to meet your conveniences, but it all comes down to fear and paranoia. You demonstrate the atypical Christian conservative view that once posits that once homosexuals are allowed to marry, as they are in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa, all hell will break loose and suddenly all manner of perversion will start looking for the horror of all horrors, EQUAL RIGHTS!

I guess I continue to wonder how you, or anybody else, seems to confuse a preference (be it a sex preference, a food preference, a style preference) with basic equal rights. How are the two connected in your mind?

And who's the say that the rules of normalcy, of which there is no arbitrator but the court of public opinion, shouldn't be changed and altered? I'd argue that the wrong things have slipped down the drain and Christian conservatives simply let them fall. Where's the problem with extreme poverty? Where's the problem with unbridled and unregulated soulless capitalism? Where's the problem with war?

Is it because those terrible things are sinful that we're supposed to let them go? As a Christian, I can't possibly sit around and make a case against equal human rights for all people when I believe in God, Jesus Christ, and good ethical sense. I find the fact that anybody wastes their precious time making a case against human rights for other individuals to be absolutely deplorable and, yes, sinful.

jom: "My concerns are when race, sex and sexual orientation are used to provide preferential treatment to one group over another."

mhmm. so... you want to deny homosexual couples the same benefits and rights that you enjoy? or do you just want to keep your preferential treatment?

no gay couple is asking for rights you don't have. just the same ones. what is wrong with that?

and no, gay marriage is not going to lead to animal sex any more than lowering taxes will result in life on mars.

I've been watching this nonsense for quite some time, and while JOM is really making his one little brain cell pump iron and sweat, he just isn't cutting the mustard.

JOM - "providing enertainment based on idiocy."

P.S. So long as we're hauling the fags, niggers and wetbacks into the "conversation", we also need to drag in the Polaks, kikes, spics, wops, greaseballs, rag-heads, wogs, frogs, spooks, gooks, chinks, Japs, Russkies and injuns. Otherwise, they'll all feel offended for being left out....

Oh yeah, and I fergot the "turkey basters".

"Turkey basters"?

That's a new one on me. I can hazard a guess as to who it refers to, though...

Jordon-#143 -- February 21, 2008 @ 11:32AM --
I guess I'm not surprised that we somehow went from gay marriage to property law and animal sex, but I'm still wondering why it happened.

Jet-#51
Unfortunately the whole article winds up being hijacked by jom-which I believe is his entire purpuse. If he doesn't agree with the article's contents, he childishly makes it impossible for anyone to have an intelligent conversation in the comments section, thus attaining his goal.


this is getting too stupid to be real...

While I don't particularly mind my article being "hijacked," - I've been guilty of it as well in some instances - but I'd suggest the best way to handle such hijackers is to simply ignore them. This otion just came to be in a revelatory moment of brilliance. But, if someone makes what most take to be truly ignorant or offensive comments, the best tactic may be just to pretend they're not there.

On the other hand, should commenters have any desire to be taken seriously, or given fair consideration, it might behoove them to compose comments that are not so idiotic or offensive. I'm not suggesting that comments shouldn't be provactive or controversial, that's kinda what we're doing here, but one can put down one's thoughts without personal attacks or being otherwise so grossly offensive.

Just a thought.

B-tone

Just venting, running low on Cymbalta I guess...

:)

#147 - zingzing

zingzing sez.....mhmm. so... you want to deny homosexual couples the same benefits and rights that you enjoy? or do you just want to keep your preferential treatment?

Homosexuality, by its very physical constitution dose not enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals. And preferential treatment has nothing to do with it.

zingzing sez.....no gay couple is asking for rights you don't have. just the same ones. what is wrong with that?

Both of your two statements above are dangerous misleading fallacies.

If all the homosexual movement truly wanted were simply the same legal benefits and rights that marriage affords heterosexuals under the law, other then procreating their own blood children, then they would be willing to go after changing those laws to match marriage laws in another venue as say a civil union, but their not, they want more then that.

The homosexual movement is a vast network of organizations, pressure groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, activists pressure society to legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as same-sex "marriage," while relentlessly assailing those who disagree.

They want to force/change the laws of society to have the letter of the law state that their life style is equally healthy and normal as heterosexuals.

If the law states that then who has any legal right to dispute it. Just making an attempt to dispute it would get progressive lawyers all over your ass (no put intended) and file law suites against you in court under hate speech laws.

zingzing sez...and no, gay marriage is not going to lead to animal sex any more than lowering taxes will result in life on mars.

Alfred Kinsey accerted, "The forces which bring individuals of the same species together in sexual relations may sometimes serve to bring individuals of different species together in the same types of sexual relations." He was, of course, referring to bestiality and zoophilia.

In 1999, a group of researchers from the University of Alabama found a direct link between the chimpanzee virus called Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) and HIV.

HIV is a Gay Disease. Over 70 percent of the people in the United States living with HIV are gay. Homosexual behavior is both extremely dangerous "high-risk" and above all responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S.

Heterosexual sex provides pleasure, produces new life through the birth of newly created healthy cells.

Homosexual sex prvides pleasure, produces HIV/AIDS and death through the killing off of existing healthy cells.

One is positive, naturally regenerating, and safe and healthy for the overwhelming majority (95%)of people in the world.

The other is negative, naturally non-regenerating, and dangeriously unhealthy for the overwheming (4-7$ homosexuals in the world.

No amount of money, activism, spin-doctors, or special interest groups can dispute these facts.

I am not a gay basher. If you want to live that life style its yours to live. But do not try and make changes to tax payer public schools, laws that would effect privite schools, texts books, and the law books of civil socity in an attempt to force us all to except and believe that homosexuality is a completely natural, normal and healthy life stile just like heterosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

zingzing, you are so profoundly uninformed about the important issues and it shows in your responses to JOM and others in this thread. This naivity contributes to indangering others as well as parents with children and the onslaught children are under from the homosexual movement in pre-schoos and elementry schools acorss the nation promoting homosexuality as healty and normal.

The only thing stopping them are informed parents and they are stopping them dead in their tracks with the facts.

So if your intentionally portraying yourself as ignorant so as not not alarm anyone in being concerned, thus further the cause, I hope you get HIV.

If you're not intentional ignorant then let me add this.

If ever I felt the need to bash someone for their sexual misbehavior, it would have to be those like you who have their head up their ass.

The fallacy of Franco's assertions are too numerous to be believed. To go through all of his ridiculous arguments would take more energy than I have, and more than I think they deserve.

Suffice to say that Franco's understanding of relationships - whether hetero or homo - is stunted, and obviously the product of limited, uninformed thinking.

I will make the effort to state that HIV/AIDS is NOT a "homosexual disease." To suggest a link between homosexual sex and bestiality is offensive and mind numbingly ignorant.

You know, it's been pretty well established that any number of otherwise hetero sheepherders - many of them more than likely good christians, jews or muslims, have been known to have their way with their wooly charges. There is far more evidence of that than there is for ANY gay monkey fucking.

And, well, the remainder of Franco's so called "indisputable facts" hold about as much water as his HIV/AIDS assertions.

B-tone

Personal experience Franco...

A few years ago I had a lover who was in a car accident and wound up in intensive care. They wouldn't let me visit him despite repeated tries, and he died.

His parents barred from the funeral home and the burial even though we shared a love and life of nearly five years.

If he'd been my spouse I would legally be able to go. We'd been lovers fo