Blogcritics Comments on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:28:52 EST

No worries MR. B, I was referring to a case in Georgia where the police raided the wrong house during a search warrant for drug dealers, and found to guys "getting it on" with each other. Rather than admit they were wrong the cops arrested them for sodomy and both men were put on trial for it. I'm not sure, but after national attention, the charges were dropped.

Comment by Baritone on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:27:36 EST

Jet, I suppose I didn't phrase it correctly when I wrote - "But in the case of the good old US of A, the documents which define the basis of law here neither support nor allow such restrictions on people's private lives." I am well aware that "morality" has long been legislated in this country. That being the state of affairs throughout the land does not make it either right, or even legal. In that light I should have stated that the basis of law should have neither support nor should it allow... yada, yada, yada. Ruvy, don't forget that married couples in the U.S. generally pay MORE taxes than singles - "the marriage tax penalty" as it's knowd as. In one sense gays could be seen as being patriotic in wanting their "marriages" officially recognized by the state in order to be able to support the government more through increased taxes. That argument by itself should carry the day. The fallacy of most arguments against gays, lesbians and same sex marriages is the presumption such relationships are, as Franco was wont to say, "unnatural" and immoral - that they are inherently harmful to society. The "unnatural" argument is based on the presumption that the primary function of "marriage" is the propagation of the species. While the survival of the human species may have been a problem in other times, we don't seem to be having any difficulty with that issue at present. There are quite enough of us, thank you very much! Under that scenario, our weird uncles and frost bitten maiden aunts should be equally castigated for not putting seed and egg to proper use. Hell, the Chinese and Indians ought to encourage same sex unions. Certainly, throughout much of the west and several other parts of the world, intercourse is only rarely practiced in order to procreate. Minus that intent, why should it matter where and with whom one touches tinkles? It's all religious, puritan nonsense. Nor is there any evidence that the presence of gays and lesbians in society is in any way harmful to it. While I've no doubt that there are gays and lesbians who are slackers and worse, that just means that their number includes the same kinds of people found in other segments of society. There is no evidence that their social disfunction is in any way connected with their sexuality. The overwhelming majority of gays whom I know or have known are well educated, gainfully employed and active within their communities. Whether or not people around them are aware of their sexuality is usually immaterial. They are known, liked and seamlessly integrated into society. The only problem, if any, that may arise is when some knuckle dragging asshole decides to make an issue of it for whatever reason. "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Also remember the oft used phrase: "If it feels good, do it." Words to live by. B-tone

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:41:17 EST

Leaving my opinions on Jewish Law out of the equation - only considering the civil law in the United States and other countries - there is no real reason that gays should be discriminated against. But they are, even more so than in Israel or Europe. Part of the reason that "gay marriage" is such a hot-button issue in America is simply that marriage itself there is laden with tax and other privileges. In Israel, there is no such larding of rights for married couples. In addition, in Israel, there is universal health insurance, a semi-public semi-private system that is far more effective than anything the US or Canada have. So there is no issue of gays not getting health insurance. So in Israel, gays can shack up without benefit of clergy, and it makes no difference. There is discrimination and hostility against gay people - especially if their organizations go out of the way to help Arabs or try to dismantle the settlement of Judea and Samaria (and yes, they do just such things - their sources of funding, the Ford Foundation, insure that they will), and especially if they try to hold public gatherings in Jerusalem.

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:13:07 EST

Mr. B's apparently never noticed the Georgia law system... (:-)

Comment by Baritone on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:48:23 EST

If Israelis choose to live with the mythology of being "chosen" or living in a "holy" land, that is, I suppose, their right. In a nation such as the U.S. which was established as a secular, constitutional democracy (or democratic republic, if you prefer) the government has no business legislating moral codes that are reflective of any particular religion's dogma. Nor is it the role of government to define and maintain rules or guidelines for personal behaviour beyond the protection of the rights and well being of the population at large. Ruvy and David have made their respective cases as to why homosexual behaviour should not be countenanced within Israel's borders. Obviously, I think it's all bogus as it is all based on centuries old, convoluted religious mythology. I don't know what gays and lesbians in Israel have to say about all this, if anything. That, I suppose, is their battle, their cross to bear (hee,hee.) But in the case of the good old US of A, the documents which define the basis of law here neither support nor allow such restrictions on people's private lives. B-tone

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:41:32 EST

Until polygamy is legal, it's a question. Just say question. You and your "words."

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:39:08 EST

Jordan is that a proposal or a qreery, uh querie... uh........... oh never mind.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:29:59 EST

You're not married, are you?

Comment by bliffle on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:25:57 EST

The problem with "Gay Marriage" is not the Gay part but rather the Marriage part. Over the eons of human social development the people who have always been acknowledged as "married" have used the power of their numbers to create special treatments and benefits for humans of their exalted standing (as they see it) and penalties for lesser folk. Various tax schemes, 5th amendment rights, etc., attest to this. Having created this privileged state, which they intended only for themselves, they now find that other people, many of whom they openly despise, want to get in on the gravy. Well, what did they expect? If we could remove all the special treatments for marriage then everyone would lose interest in the "Gay Marriage" issue, gays, marrieds, philosophers, ethicists, moralists, political whores, etc. The subject would simply be boring.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:01:42 EST

The heart of compromise, Jet - agreeing to disagree. That I can do. Consider it done.

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:43:49 EST

To quote Linus van Pelt, "There are three things you never discuss with a friend-Politics, Religion, and the Great Pumpkin." I'll stick to that, because I value you as a friend Ruvy... We'll just have to "agree to disagree..."

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:43:51 EST

Chris is right about David ben-Ariel: he is out of here as a writer, but not as a commenter. I will not argue with David's views simply because he has taken a difficult spiritual path, but there is much there that I disagree with. The first point is the point I made in comment #398 on this article, a point that is worth repeating here. [There are two kinds of homosexuals - the biological and the psychological (or nurtured). The nurtured ones are the ones that you always hear about being "cured". The biological ones are the ones that go in to be cured, but come back through the process unchanged because "Satan" got to them. I realize this all too well. That's why I have the attitudes I do, Jet. In other words, for all that I may quote the Bible about homosexual behavior, I very strongly believe that at the end of the day, G-d will not condemn people for following their natural desires - desires that He instilled after all - but that He has standards for holiness that do not include homosexual behavior. This is the big reason that I always point out that Chapter 18 of Leviticus applies to making a people holy so that they may serve as spiritual guides for the rest of mankind, and prescribing these standards for those who are not meant to fulfill this role just isn't fair. In order to understand me, you must realize that we Jews claim three covenants with the Almighty: A People Covenant - G-d chose the Children of Israel to be spiritual guides for mankind; A Land Covenant - G-d gifted us with the Land of Israel as a base, a Land that is Holy; A Torah Covenant - G-d gave the Children of Israel a Torah in oder to make themselves as holy as the Land they are to inhabit. You, and many (but not all) of the homosexuals writing here, are not Children of Israel. So you are bound by the Seven Laws of Noah. These laws are very different and somewhat looser (in some respects) than those in Chapter 18 of Leviticus, though many rabbis attempt to interpret them just as strictly. I disagree with them. By pushing homosexuality outside of the pale for Children of Noah (like you), they help to create the very exploitative culture within the homosexual world they deplore. That's wrong.] David ben-Ariel argues that he is a Child of Israel because he is part of a group of people who he claims to be descended from Israelite tribes who now comprise the British-Israelite family of nations. The messiah has to determine this; it's part of his job description. And since I'm not the messiah, I'm not going to call David a liar. As a putative Israelite, he is subject to the laws of the Torah, the same ones I'm subject to. So far, so good. If he returns to Israel and does not indulge in the homosexual desires he wishes to here, there is no problem at all. But then he messes the whole thing up by dragging Jesus into the picture. Jesus was just another Jew who got nailed up on a cross, like hundreds of thousands of other Jews who suffered under Roman rule here, like millions who died under the Roman holocaust of my people two millennia ago. Now to answer Jet's objections (yet one more time) about the relevance of the Torah. He writes, Those laws have been handed down now through many faiths, but they're not as necessary as they were then. Who is he to decide this? He argues, Those who ruled the land were the most numerous of that land. The Israelites knew that the only way to gain and regain the land of Israel was to outnumber those that would deny it to them. To that end, laws were passed that forbade any kind of sex that didn't produce children and as many children as possible, even if it meant having and approving more than one wife, outlawing masturbation, and yes homosexuality. Wrong. Numerical superiority was not as much of an issue as weapons superiority and faith in following the Law handed down at Sinai. Both issues make themselves known in the Book of Judges, the Book of Samuel, and the Book of Kings, which all deal with how the ancient Israelites, my ancestors, gained and lost this land. In addition, Jet writes, fundamentalist Jews, Fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims still insist that every word is sacred and unchangeable. I will not attempt to speak of Christians or Moslems, but first of all there is no such an animal as a fundamentalist Jew. The term "fundamentalist" is a Christian term best applied to Christians alone. While every single letter, let alone word, of the Torah is sacred and unchangeable, the Law gets interpreted, and interpretations do change over the millennia. In addition, our sages have observed that portions of the Torah hide the plain facts, the chief and most important example being the story of Creation. So Jet's reading of all this is skewed by the fact that he attempts to impose Christian standards on a culture he does not really know, in spite of his theological bent and education. Finally, Jet knows nothing of the scribal tradition of the Jewish people. There was no Kinko's or Sir Speedy's to run to when Moses got the Law from G-d, so a scribal tradition was set up to make sure that true copies would be made of that law. There are about 305,000 letters in the Torah. There are three versions of the Torah extant among the Jewish people in the modern world. The three versions differ from each other by nine letter level differences!! In other words that is the entire difference between the Torah written in Bordeaux by a s�fer sta"m a registered scribe, and a Torah written in Yemen or one written in Thessaloniki. Of the 305,000 letters, there are only nine letters differing all tolled! That is a .00002950819672131147540983606557377% difference!! That is how effective the Jewish scribal tradition is in keeping the accuracy in copying the law for over 106 generations! In short, that is why I feel assured that the Law I saw read from the scroll in Ma'alé Levon� last Sabbath morn was the law received by Moses 106 generations back. If you go back to Comment #398, you'll see that i do not condemn homosexuality at all; I only note that its practice has negative effects on a people that is supposed to be holy, and therefore it should not be practiced here under a messianic state.

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:06:29 EST

...Small comfort

Comment by Christopher Rose on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:46:33 EST

I think DBA is out of BC as a writer but not a commenter.

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:48:36 EST

Last time I did that I fell asleep and wound up with a waffle pattern on the side of my face...

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:43:38 EST

Dave is trying to break it to you gently, Jet, but neither he nor anyone else knows how the pricuses/caumaries work. They gradually evolved like that over time and now no-one can explain how they got that way. Having accepted the challenge, Dave is now slumped over his keyboard, weeping and thumping the desk with his fist. But that's what you get for living in Texas. ;-)

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:31:18 EST

I've been watching CNN all night and I still can't figure it out. The GOP is barely understandable, but it looks like the Democrats vote in a primary and then caucus. Apparently you can vote and caucus, but you can't caucus unless you vote. Gads

Comment by Dave Nalle on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:05:42 EST

Jet, do you not value your sanity? I just got back from my precinct convention (conventions for the GOP, caucuses for the Dems). Give me some time to recover and I might write something. Dave

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 01:47:46 EST

Dave, are you going to write an article on how the Texas primaries work?

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 01:23:19 EST

I wouldn't know since I'm new to the comments editing game, but apparently not...

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 00:58:25 EST

I did too... lot of good that did...

Comment by Dave Nalle on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Wed, 5 Mar 2008 00:30:26 EST

I thought DBA had been banned from BC... Dave

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:29:20 EST

Ben-Arial the term recovering homosexual is a lie-I've seen your website, it's like refering to a used car as pre-owned or a fetus "unborn" Your attempt at distracting and bending the truth until it screams is obvious and irresponsible. I hope Franco isn't your ex-lover

Comment by zingzing on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:52:33 EST

omg--i wander off for a couple weeks and i miss all the fun. thought this thread had died, i did. first, let me say that franco, you are a nut. *cracks fingers* *gets a fresh beer* oh, fun: franco: "Homosexuality, by its very physical constitution dose not enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals. And preferential treatment has nothing to do with it." in the current state of things, heterosexual couples do have more preferential treatment, as homosexual couples do not enjoy the same rights and benefits. that's what it has to do with it. and you show me the "physical constitution" of a homosexual relationship and i'll show you the physical constitution of a heterosexual one. it's the RELATIONSHIP that's important here. love, trust, etc. not sex. franco: "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." they want the same rights and benefits. i don't really care about the name, but they do, so equality is equality. marriage=marriage. don't get hung up on the name, it's just a tactic that's sickening. it's just some malarkey. franco: "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." oh, imagine that. a group of people that don't want to be bad and different. they don't want to change the way laws affect you, just the way laws affect them. "customs, morals and mentalities" change from group to group and are not up for grabs here. this is about the law. it's about what rights people have. it's about benefits. it's not about changing bigotry. that's not what the law does. franco: "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." how? because you'll have to recognize all the fags of being equal to you in every way? they ARE equal. they're human. just because you believe one thing does not mean that that's the way it is. franco: "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." it is. their lifestyle does not harm you. their lifestyle does not give you a disease. their lifestyle is their own, not yours, so don't worry about it. sheesh. grow up. franco: "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 pun intended) and file law suites against you in court under hate speech laws." no, you have no play in a homosexual's life. do you even talk to homosexuals? so who cares? what are you gonna do? walk up to a homosexual and say, "are you married? oh you are! i'm takin you to court!" franco: "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." he goes on: "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." kinsey wasn't exactly right on everything. nice try there on linking homosexuality and bestiality. i'm actually pretty sure that it's all the guys who can't get a woman to fuck them who go after the sheep. what the hell connects fucking an animal and anal sex? eh? were they all fucking the monkeys in the ass? or were they female monkeys? eh? jesus! you're such a homophobe! (doesn't that theory link the supposed monkey sex to a trans-continental highway being built across africa? what, a bunch of burly gay men building a highway couldn't find another man to fuck? it's probably all shit anyway.) franco: "Homosexual behavior is both extremely dangerous "high-risk" and above all responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S." yes, homosexual sex does have a higher ability to spread the AIDS virus. it's true. something about those particular mucous membranes. gay men shouldn't have sex without condoms. that doesn't mean an anal-play happy heterosexual couple needn't use a condom. a girl and a guy doing it in the butt have just as high a chance as guy-on-guy buttfucking. of course, the lesbians are better off, so... you know... it's got nothing to do with being homosexual. so it's not a same sex thing. it's a butt thing. franco: "Heterosexual sex provides pleasure, produces new life through the birth of newly created healthy cells." yay! biology! wonderful thing, eh? keeps the species going. we all know that screwing someone in the butt or licking on their twat ain't going to produce a child. next! franco: "Homosexual sex prvides pleasure, produces HIV/AIDS and death through the killing off of existing healthy cells." yes, homosexual sex kills existing healthy cells. wait, ain't that cancer? homosexual sex produces AIDS? the act itself? wow. well, there's your answer. i'm glad heterosexual sex never produced AIDS. or else we'd be in trouble. and all the fags would have died! tra-lala-lala! welcome to franco's world, where buttsex killed the fags and all the good heterosexual fucking produced happiness! franco: "One is positive, naturally regenerating, and safe and healthy for the overwhelming majority (95%)of people in the world." yeah. nice stat. heterosexual love is a wonderful thing. i agree. i enjoy it regularly. but also, heterosexual sex does have it's problems. watch a soap or something. franco: "The other is negative, naturally non-regenerating, and dangeriously unhealthy for the overwheming (4-7$ homosexuals in the world." good one. 4-7%? why not 5%? you seemed so sure before... there are dangers with homosexual sex, no one is denying that. but those dangers are taken care of in the same way that any sexual dangers are taken care of. you must admit that they are equal in that way? franco: "No amount of money, activism, spin-doctors, or special interest groups can dispute these facts." simple words will do. also, a nice check-up in REALITY would work. you are a homophobe, franco. you dislike a certain people based on one certain difference they have from you. welcome to bigotry, bitch. franco: "I am not a gay basher." yeah you are. what are you doing? you're saying they are unnatural, disease-ridden, immoral people. [Personal attack deleted] franco: "If you want to live that life style its yours to live." i'm straight. lots of straight people aren't as fucked up as you. franco: "But do not try and make changes to tax payer public schools," cuz the fags don't pay taxes. franco: "laws that would effect privite schools," private schools? who brought up private schools? franco: "texts books," i don't recall text books really having much to say about this issue. franco: "and the law books of civil socity" equality. that's all that's asked. you believe in equality, don't you? unless you do, you're a bigot. make your choice. franco: "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." no one's trying to change your opinion. just the law. you can be a gay-bashing bigot all you want. i'm not gonna say someone should strip your rights as a human. [Personal attack deleted] franco: "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." paranoid? we have come for your children! we will turn them all gay and fuck them until they turn into adults or animals, then we will fuck them again until the have AIDS! and all the parents we will slaughter with our gay blades! or our penises! bwa-ha-ha-ha. [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted] "The only thing stopping them are informed parents and they are stopping them dead in their tracks with the facts." i think that's drugs you are referring to. being gay isn't really a choice. if it was, why else (sans masochism) would millions and millions of people choose to put up with people like you? "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." you know that there's a christian hell for such sentiments, right? "do unto others?" ring a bell? oh, so i hope you get AIDS, but not really... you're a piece of work. how much time do you spend hating and wishing death on others? (oh yeah, i'm not gay, as i've said before, i just believe in equality and fair treatment for all humans.) (except bigots. [Personal attack deleted]) "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." my sexual misbehavior has been profoundly heterosexual in nature. i have certainly misbehaved. so, i'm not even gay, and just because i defend the right of another to be who they are, you want to bash me? what the hell does that tell you? you make me sick, bigot. you're on the losing side of history though, so whatever.

Comment by Baritone on Indiana Gay Marriage Ban - Update

Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:45:01 EST

David, As you say: "...you either believe God will give you grace under pressure and that the Bible is the Word of God or you don't. I don't. The fact remains, though, that many, likely the majority of gays and lesbians are christians or believers of one sort or another. Also, I would assume that most would strongly disagree with both you and Ruvy. B-tone