Today on Blogcritics
Home » Gay Marriage is OK in Massachusetts

Gay Marriage is OK in Massachusetts

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Well gay marriages have been legal in Massachusetts for a year now and for some reason society has not collapsed.

This hot button issue. which many credit as leading the Republicans to victory in 2004 elections, has lost some steam since it was used to whip Christian Conservatives into a holy frenzy of frothy rabid goodness that led 11 states to pass anti-gay legislation.

It looks like it may be turning around, at least in one state. The Massachusetts Legislature just voted 157-39 against the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and overturn the court ruling in the state.

How could this happen – wasn’t gay marriage a threat to the very fabric of our society? Wasn’t it the slap in the face of traditional marriage that would make all heterosexual marriages null and void? I guess none of that happened.

So how do you account for this seemingly 180-degree turn in the attitude toward gay marriage in Massachusetts? Let’s hear from one of the co-sponsors of the proposed amendment. “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry,” said state Sen. Brian Lees, a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. “This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today.”

Well what do you know about that? Adam and Steve got married and nothing bad happened to anyone.

I guess I would like it if this event somehow opened people’s eyes to the fact that all the gay marriage doomsayers were manipulating people and not actually threatened. Or that two people getting married regardless of their orientation is a fine thing and not in any way dangerous or confusing for society. But I suspect it will just be business as usual, combined with looks of disgust at the Massachusetts liberals and their hell-bound married gay pals.

But then it is the belief of Christian Conservatives always to err on the side of dogma and stupidity, which is why Ahhnold will probably be the mook that he is and veto the same-sex marriage bill that passed the legislature in his state. Way to be progressive buddy.

However I do think the defeat of the amendment in Massachusetts WILL have an effect. Hopefully Massachussetts’ example, combined with the much more forward-thinking Canadians’ support of gay marriage, will show that society is not in danger because two people love each other and might just loosen some of the fire and brimstone rhetoric being spewed by the people of very little brain.

Kudos to Massachusetts – I’m proud of all of you, now hopefully for your next trick you can chuck that poo-head governor of yours and send him on his way.

This article originally appeared on The Rudicus Report.
Ed/Pub:NB

Powered by

About Rudicus

  • Realist

    “Kudos to Massachusetts – I’m proud of all of you, now hopefully for your next trick you can chuck that poo-head governor of yours and send him on his way.”

    Just the way the the Massachusetts court decision sent John Kerry on his way?

    That is what got the vote out for Bush.

    BTW, did Bush ever thank the court?

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    No, he was far too busy thanking Ohio for rigging another election win for him.

  • Jamo

    The reason gay marriage is a problem for me is that it gives special rights to homosexuals that I as a straight man don’t have.

    Allowing gays to marry opens the floodgates for people to believe that they should be allowed to marry whomever they want which is wrong. It’s a snowball effect which will eventually have an impact on the very fabric of society if it escapes the boundaries of Mass. and now California.

  • Jamo

    And the election rigging comment, Rudicus, has run it’s course. It’s time to accept that your boy lost and think to the future — this is one of the biggest problems with liberal thinking and particularly the democratic party.

  • Dr. Kurt

    Whaaat? What special rights are denied to us straight men? I married whomever I wanted to, unfortunately… perhaps mariage should not be a civil act at all, with none of the 1000 plus special rights that accompany it. It amounts to that which conservatives claim to hate, social engineering.

  • Jamo

    You married a woman because, yes, you wanted to but also because the law says that people must marry a person of the opposite sex who is not a relative. As long as the person you want to marry falls within those guidelines then yes, you can marry whomever you want.

    If we allow homosexuals to marry whom they want then we have to let heterosexuals marry whom they want. Do you really want a bunch of people who are married to their siblings having kids?

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    And what problem would that be? The problem with lying, cheating and stealing? Yeah those darn liberal values really are cumbersome. How exactly does the truth run it’s course? The memory of not one but two stolen elections – not sour grapes, but literal theft, as in the same kind that spur regime changes in third world countries – does not go away. Are you suggesting that there is a time limit for complaining? There is no statue of limitations on complaining about corruption, and no time limit on holding people accountable for cheating. George Bush is a pretender to the throne and now after he’s successfully botched every single one of his agenda items, people are finally starting to see what happens when you put an unqualified moron in office just because he is a gay hating redneck christian like the people who voted for him.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Jamo,

    Now you’re just being ridiculous.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Ah, the old bait and switch: let two guys marry and next thing you know you’ll be able to marry your mother. Bullshit. Can I get any clearer than that?

  • Bill B

    >If we allow homosexuals to marry whom they want then we have to let heterosexuals marry whom they want. Do you really want a bunch of people who are married to their siblings having kids?<

    Huh?

    If allowing non-related men and women to marry has not “snow-balled” into condoning/allowing incestuous marriage, why would allowing non-related same sex folks to marry bring that end about?

    Why would extending the right of marriage to non-related same sex couples necessitate allowing opposite sex relatives to marry?

    Am I missing something here? Where’s the incestuous gay marriage lobby pushing for this right?

    Pretty bizarre logic.

    Of course I do believe it is already legal in some/many? states to marry certain distant relatives. I could be wrong.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Well Silas as you well know from listening to Evangelical Christian Conservative homosexuality is only a gateway orientation into pedophilia and bestiality – so why they want the pretense of marriage is beyond me.

  • Taylor Skinner

    First off, comparing Homosexual marriage to pedophillic marriage is fallicious in its own argument.

    It’s completly legal to marry someone who’s thirteen or what-not, you just need to wait five years. If you truly love the child for the sake of love, you can wait.

    Homosexuals on the other hand, cannot wait. “Justice too long delayed is justice denied.” There’s not logical basis to deny homoseuxlas the right to marry. If you say that they cannot marry because it will lead to worse things, then you stop those worse things when THEY come–don’t stop gay marriage.

    Another fallicious syllogisim I’ve heard is the connection between gay marriage and animal-human marriage.

    When the day comes that a dog can conciously and willfully sign a marriage liscence–being able to note his parental grandmothers madian name form memory–and vocally say “I do” at the altar, then I say let them marry. Considering some animals (such as parrots) can only do half of the criteria, I doubt that it’ll be any time soon.

    The last common connection I see I between incest and gay marriage. Come one, there’s no logical evidence that allowing gays to marry will force us to allow related persons to marry. Incest kowingly causes harm to the children they produce and there are many reasons to disallow related persons marriage–medical or psychological or otherwise.

    One thing I also often hear is “wait.” America isn’t “ready,” or some other scapegoat reason. Dosen’t this sound familiar. In the words of the great Martin Luther King Jr.: “For years now I have heard the word ‘wait.’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This ‘wait’ has almost always meant ‘never.’…I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segragation to say ‘wait.'”

    Sounds familiar.

    He also said: “It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills,” wich I believe is a common mistake of we Americans. We often tend to assume if we wait it out it’ll just go away. Not so.

    In the long-run, gay marriage is bennificial to many–homoseuxlas, families and friends of homosexuals, and their children–and harmful to none. Denying husbands or wives the right to marry is denying their children–adopted or otherwise–similar rights. So if you’re not going to do it for us, the homosexual community, think of the children.

  • Taylor Skinner

    Two other good quotes by MLK Jr. I came across: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indrectly.”

    “History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.”

  • practical joe

    “History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.”

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity; off to the guillotine with those Christians!

  • DLR

    Jamo is just trolling. Please don’t feed the troll.

  • Jamo

    Silas — It isn’t the ol bait and switch, it’s a very real and possible consequence that needs to be considered. Tell me what is stopping this next step? What will be stopping someone from going to his or her government and saying, “Hey, the gays can marry who they want, why can’t I marry my sister, aunt, mother (brother, uncle, dad) etc.” There are a lot of sick twisted freaks out there whether you want to admit it or not and I don’t think it’s ridiculous to be concerned with them. I’mn not ready to see this country turn into an anything goes do whatever you want kind of place.

    Rudicus, believing that the last two elections were stolen is representative of the kind of negative thinking that epitomizes your party. No election was stolen and no amount of fradulent moveon.org research can prove to any rational-thinking person that you are correct. Kerry lost because he had absolutely nothing holding his campaign together save for an overwhelming hatred of George Bush.

  • RedTard

    I personally believe that cultural issues have hurt marriage more than liberal initiatives but I can understand how some would attribute the erosion of the family to our meddling with long held traditions.

    Many fear that allowing gay marriage will do at least as much damage to families as no-fault divorce appeared to do. I know it doesn’t give much comfort to gays who feel they have been slighted, but many in opposition to your marriage are not rabidly homophobic, they’re honestly worried about the future of the family.

  • Bill B

    >Many fear that allowing gay marriage will do at least as much damage to families as no-fault divorce appeared to do.< As far as the damage that no-fault divorce has done-

    What about staying in a hopeless marriage "for the sake of the kids".

    I realize you're trying to say divorce is too easy, and that the family structure suffers from it, but can you honestly say that kids growing up in a household with parents who have no love for one another and quite possibly cheat and are at each others throats is a more nurturing family environment?

    >I know it doesn’t give much comfort to gays who feel they have been slighted, but many in opposition to your marriage are not rabidly homophobic, they’re honestly worried about the future of the family.<

    If the prospect of gay marriage is such a threat to the heterosexual family unit, than the family is in much more trouble than you think.

    Exactly how would homosexuals being allowed to follow their inclinations and have their relationships recognized by the state threaten heterosexual marriage? The comparison of divorce and homosexual marriage is apples and oranges.

    If you’re concerned about the survival of the family, support legislation that supports families. Child care, health care, raising the minimum wage, paying a living wage to name a few.

    You’re wasting your energy and discriminating against a group of people based on your fears of what might happen. Gays can’t marry now and fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. Newsflash: It’s not because gays can marry. They can’t.

  • practical joe

    “The Massachusetts Legislature just voted 157-39 against the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and overturn the court ruling in the state.

    How could this happen ?”

    Here’s one possibility.

    Shortly after John F. Kennedy became president, another John Kennedy in Massachusetts ran for the office of Massachusetts Secretary of State.

    The new guy had not a modicum of experience, but no matter — he was elected by a landslide.

    The fact is that the people of Massachusetts do not have not a modicum of sense when it comes to politics.

    In every election cycle, they re-elect the same crooks to their legislature.

    Why they sometimes elect governors with common sense remains a mystery.

  • Red State

    “No, he was far too busy thanking Ohio for rigging another election win for him.”

    Keep drinking the kool-aid Rudicus.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Many fear that allowing gay marriage will do at least as much damage to families as no-fault divorce appeared to do.

    What about fault-assigned divorce?

    In all seriousness, ANY kind of divorce, whether no-fault or not, does the worst possible damage to the family in the present AND the future. Far more than gay marriage does. If anyone wants to seriously convince me that they’re worried about the sanctity of marriage and the integrity of the family, they’ll have to lobby as hard to criminalize divorce as they are to criminalize gay marriage.

    I’m serious. If you’re okay with divorce being legal in this country, then you’re okay with the deterioration of the family structure. So that excuse won’t wash for opposing gay marriage.

  • steve

    If homosexuals can marry…I should be able to have two wives. Lets throw out marriage rules all together

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    I have a question.

    Is anyone here who is opposed to same-sex marriage who is not a Christian or a member of another faith that claims homosexuality is sinful and/or wrong?

    If so, can you explain your position and reasoning?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Lets throw out marriage rules all together

    “‘Til death do you part.”

    “What God has joined let no man put asunder.”

    As long as divorce is legal, marriage rules are optional anyway. So why will legalizing gay marriage change that?

  • steve

    I am for Civil Unions, against Gay Marriage. Marriage usually involves procreation, or adoption. I believe that it would be psychologically damaging to grow up in a Parent A/Parent B household. A child needs a balanced, stable home recieving input from a mother and a father

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    I believe that it would be psychologically damaging to grow up in a Parent A/Parent B household.

    Is that conjecture or do you have evidence to back up that belief?

  • steve

    I am not going to waste my time pulling up statistics or referring you to literature that I’ve been exposed to. You would say that the information is false, that I have weak sources, etc…you name it. Thats what all the liberals do.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Perhaps. On the other hand, refusing to pull up statistics or refer me to literature is going to cause me to say that you have NO information or sources, etc.

    So why not chance it with the stats and literature?

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Then why don’t you supply some evidence that is not false from sources that aren’t weak?

    I can’t speak for what all liberals do, but I for one refuse to take things on faith, anecdotal evidence from spurious sources out outright nonsense – that’s just not good reasoning, it has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism.

  • steve

    I go to school up in Massachusetts. In my political science classes, we debate about these issues all the time. out of a class of 29, there are two conservatives. I bring factual information to class, but they condemn the truth every time. they have all been brainwashed by the nutty pinko professors we have here.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    I bring factual information to class, but they condemn the truth every time.

    …Therefore, the solution is, don’t bother presenting facts?

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Based on that I would ask you how you know you or your information are correct or valid. Don’t you find it odd that out of a class of 29, only the conservatives would find your evidence at all compelling?

    Based on statistics – what do you think the odds are of your information or “facts” not being sound vs. the odds of your entire class being brainwashed by a nutty pinko professor?

    Since were pointing fingers, I would suggest that conservatives suffer from never analyzing their own “facts” and assuming them to be true on faith.

    Again that suggests a lack of critical thought vs. a political ideology.

  • steve

    it is tried and true that when you present factual information to liberals, they will condemn it no matter what. I am at the point where I refuse to give sources because no one would bother reading into them anyways. You should have been there for the class I called pro-choice activists murderers. what fun that was!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    it is tried and true that when you present factual information to liberals, they will condemn it no matter what.

    It is also apparent from this conversation that when you ask conservatives to provide factual information for their claims, they will refuse to do so no matter what.

  • steve

    It is all about time conservation, Michael. Besides..I have all of my sources bookmarked on my computer at home. I am sitting in the library in between classes as we speak.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    it is tried and true that when you present factual information to liberals, they will condemn it no matter what….You should have been there for the class I called pro-choice activists murderers. what fun that was!

    Would calling pro-choice activists murderers be typical of the types of “facts” you use in presenting your case?

  • ClubhouseCancer

    [edited]

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    I think we can end this lack of discussion right here since steve has just shown his true colors – he’s a Christian Conservative agitator not a philosopher or a debator.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    The reason gay marriage is a problem for me is that it gives special rights to homosexuals that I as a straight man don’t have.

    Really? I don’t think anyone is calling for a law specifying that only gay people can marry someone of the same sex. As in MA, there would be no “test” to prove your sexual orientation one way or the other.

    If, as you claim, we all have the same rights right now in the other 49 states — to marry someone of the opposite sex — then all “gay marriage” would do is give all of us, including straight men, an ADDITIONAL right to marry someone of the same sex.

    What’s the problem?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Please do provide them when you have the opportunity, Steve. I promise, I WILL read them.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Marriage as I see it: A contract declaring a legal union between two individuals into a domestic entity.
    Such a contract would confer rights upon the couple including (as listed by Religious Tolerance.org):

    • joint parenting;
    • joint adoption;
    • joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
    • status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
    • joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
    • dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
    • immigration and residency for partners from other countries;inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
    • joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
    • inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
    • benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
    • spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
    • veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
    • joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
    • wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
    • bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
    • decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
    • crime victims’ recovery benefits;
    • loss of consortium tort benefits;
    • domestic violence protection orders;
    • judicial protections and evidentiary immunity

    I don’t see the homogenization of the definition of marriage as such a crime against nature. Marriage is a legal contract in the eyes of the state. Everything beyond that does not come under the jurisdiction of government. How difficult is this to comprehend? The rights listed above are pretty much straightforward and common sense. They are not unreasonable for any couple to enjoy in a domestic partnership. For government to exclude same sex couples from these basic human rights is the larger crime against nature.
    Right wingers scream so much about the ‘sanctity of marriage’ yet do we hear them discuss the terrible divorce rate in our society? In the last 50 years the sanctity of marriage has become a joke as more couples choose to split up rather than work at saving the union. It’s so much easier to take the issue of ‘same sex marriage’ and blow it up into such proportions that we ignore the real issues surrounding the state of matrimony in our society today.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Silas, the list you make is, to me, the heart of the issue. What I want to know is, what will the legal difference be between marriage and civil union? Nobody’s ever explained this to me.

    Would marriage and civil union be essentially the same thing, but with different names? Or would partners in a civil union be able to file joint tax returns, claim each other as next-of-kin, assert spousal privilege in legal cases, etc.?

    I don’t know.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Well, Michael, in civil terms marriage and civil unions should essentially be the same thing. The way a religion defines a marriage does not necessarily carry over to the state. Unless laws are specifically written which allow non-traditional unions to have all the rights accorded to them that traditional ones enjoy we have a problem.

    I can’t see how anyone could oppose affording the rights I listed above to same sex couples. As long as laws are written which suppress the right of an individual to leave his/her proerrty to a domestic partner there is no equality under civil law. The core of this debate lies in the fact that ultra rightists always use the “queer card” when they feel that they are losing ground. Gays are an easy target especially when one needs a group to demonize.

  • Please don’t drive down the old dirt road

    I have a question.
    Ridicus wrote:

    Is anyone here who is opposed to same-sex marriage who is not a Christian or a member of another faith that claims homosexuality is sinful and/or wrong?

    If so, can you explain your position and reasoning?

    Sure, I would be happy to.

    If states grant the same rights to homosexual couples that married couples enjoy, it would increase health care rates for heterosexual workers while lowering them for homosexual couples. By adding homosexual couples to the insurance pools, costs would rise. Also costs would increase because of the number of ‘first-timer’ (homosexuals that did not have any insurance coverage before). Both situations would have the effect of increasing costs for heterosexual workers. So you see it is very simple. Adam Smith predicted that every consumer would act in their own self interest. If we can rely upon his wisdom, then it is easy to understand why homosexuals would vote for lower health insurance rates and heterosexuals would not be so inclined.

    The case against gay marriage is rational and justified.

    You asked…I just thought you would like to know.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    I’m not sure I can go along with your rationale here – although I appreciate your comment. Most companies offer domestic partner healthcare coverage already and have done for years, so I’m not sure how much of a hit the insurance comapanies would really take. Likewise, I would guesstimate that the good majority of these folks are already covered as singles, so again I don;t think there would be an aggregate increase in healthcare costs or ranks of any significant magnitude.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Is anyone here who is opposed to same-sex marriage who is not a Christian or a member of another faith that claims homosexuality is sinful and/or wrong?”

    I do not belong to a church and I am not religious. I do believe there is God and Jesus died for our sins. And I believe Gay Marriage is wrong. I say you can be gay all you want as long as you stay away from women, because there is a great chance you can spread HIV among straight people. When they do that it boils my blood.

    Gay Marriage is not right. Gays have the same rights as I do. We can’t be giving them special rights.

    Also, since Massachusetts legalizes Gay Marriage this means that you people can leave California alone. We don’t want it here, so leave us alone!!!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    …and there goes any credibility that Anthony Grande ever had when talking about morality or, you know, basic human decency.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    You see Ridicus, insurance companies have already determined that homosexual couples are DIFFERENT.

    That comes from a false distinction. Insurance companies classify homosexual couples as DIFFERENT because they are not legally married. If they were legally permitted to be married, they wouldn’t BE different under insurance company policy.

    (Although I parenthetically, since insurance companies undertake just about the sleaziest business practice under the sun, I wouldn’t put it past them to keep gay couples marked as “different” anyway.)

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    You’re not considering the fact that unmarried heterosexual couples also get DP insurance, though. So if all the heterosexual couples who have DP insurance get married, will that also increase insurance rates for heterosexual couples?

    And this:

    It’s pretty easy to understand why heterosexuals are against same sex marriage….it just ain’t in their best economic best interest to do so.

    Well, I’m heterosexual and I’m not against same sex marriage, for one thing.

    For another, this reminds me of an argument I’m having on another blog entry. Are you really willing to continue the oppression of gay people and denial of their civil rights, as long as it doesn’t affect you personally?

    Well, then your implication in Comment 44 is correct. You’re not opposed to same-sex marriage because of your morality.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    How do I loose my credibility in morality???

    I basically said that gays can be gay all they want as long as gay men don’t bring women in the picture, because if there is a good chance that woman will become infected with HIV or AIDS and bring it to men like me.

    I don’t care if we benefit economically from Gay Marriage, it will still be morally wrong and I will still stand against it.

    Straights don’t have anymore rights than gays do. That is a fact. I am a man and I can’t marry another man either. I can’t marry my cousin who I am in love with, so I can’t marry who I love either.

    If we legalize Gay Marriage then we will be giving special rights to certain people who are already equal. When we gave women the right to vote we were giving people a right that most people already had. We are not witholding any rights from Homosexuals.

    That’s Right

  • http://eacblog.blogspot.com The Evil Atheist

    Okay, dude, the AIDS thing…doesn’t make sense. The idea that AIDS is restricted to gay men, and women who have sex with gay men…what the?!

    Laws against you marrying your cousin are mainly out of concern for the welfare of children you may have, i.e. genetic defectsd from recessive genes your family members possess. You might say children brought up by gay people will not be well-adjusted, but I know a kid with two dads he lives with, and he is straight and sociable and friendly.

    About gay marriage being morally wrong, where do you get that idea? I just want to know.

    And the election rigging comment, Rudicus, has run it’s course. It’s time to accept that your boy lost and think to the future — this is one of the biggest problems with liberal thinking and particularly the democratic party.

    Might want to take a look at this recent story.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    O.K. go to Avert.com. There I found that 57% of people in the U.S. with HIV or AIDS are gay men. Now gays only account for less than 5% of our population. So shouldn’t that mean that 5% of Americans with aids are gay???

    So since so many gays have aids I feel endangered if straight women are having sexual contact with them.

    Prove that the offspring of my cousin and I will be affected.

    That’s Right

  • KYS

    Anthony,
    Also from avert.org, here are the statistics on women with AIDS:

    Of the 88,815 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,

    63% were exposed through heterosexual contact
    35% were exposed through injection drug use.

    There are no statistics to validate your claim that homosexual men are infecting heterosexual women.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    first…the percentage is closer to around 10%…sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less

    this does not count the bi-sexuals or those with gender identity issues

    as for you and your cousin…if you are first cousins by blood, there are quite a few genetic reasons not to have offspring, as anyone that has raised animals or performed simple Mendelein experimentation can easily tell you…your high school biology class provided you with the info…take a look ar what re-inforcing a harmful recessive gene can do to a child and how much higher the risk for siblings over cousins over those not related by blood

    hence the origin of the “moral” stricture against “incest”…it produced sick children…which was harmful to the “tribe” which wanted more healthy children so they could conquer that other “tribe” over there…

    similar to what the catholic church does not want it’s flock to utilize contraception….they want more catholics….

    simple enough?

    Excelsior!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Anthony:

    Yeah…um…

    1) Gay men don’t have sexual contact with straight women. They’re gay.

    2) I don’t understand your math. A little over half the people with AIDS are gay men. That tends to mean that almost half the people with AIDS are not gay men. So maybe you’d better feel endangered from straight people, too….they’re doing a GREAT job spreading AIDS among straights all by themselves. Especially women who are willing to have sex with men who don’t like women.

    3) If you allow gay marriage, then gay people do not have the same rights as you do. After all, YOU will also have the right to marry a man if you want.

    If you do NOT allow gay marriage, the only way gays can exercise “the same rights as straight people do”–the right to get married–is to marry a woman. Which makes it a little harder for them to “stay away from women.”

    4) I went to Avert.com and got redirected to a data-processing outsourcing company.

    5) …Oh yeah, by the way. Since gay men aren’t interested in women, but straight women are interested in men, maybe it’s straight women who are chasing gay men, and not vice versa? Because the way you say that it certainly makes it sound like it’s all the men’s fault, and the straights seem to get off blame-free. It takes two to tango, buddy.

    6) You lose all moral credibility because you insist that gay marriage is wrong, but don’t give any justification for its being wrong. Except to blame gay people, by implication, for every case of AIDS, and to say that they would have “special rights” when same-sex marriage would also give YOU the right to marry someone of the same sex.

    Then you go into the “you people can leave California alone,” which sounds an awful lot like “Get all gay people out of California!” to me. So I’ve got nothing further to say to you than what I’ve said right here.

  • KYS

    Even if half those exposures were with bi-sexual men (doubtful) it still only accounts for as many infections as injection drug use…

  • KYS

    So stop blaming the homosexual community for the lack of personal responsibility on any one individual.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Gonzo, 66% of white males with HIV and AIDS got it by Homosexual contact. If you average out all the other races it is 57%.

    I don’t care if they are bisexual of just plain gay. Homosexual is Homosexual. Homosexual contact is Homosexual contact no mather how you decorate it.

    Me and my cousin come from a family of a clean gene pool. We have no family illnesses. Me and my cousin are actually half first cousins (My father and her father are half brothers). So we share only one fourth of the same clean blood. Many unhealthy blood between non kin marrying exists, but no one says anything about that. What is up with that??? It is discrimination I tell you!!!

    That’s Right

  • KYS

    Anthony, what about black males? You’re leaving out a huge chunk of the population here….why exclude them?

  • KYS

    Anthony’s favorite souce quotes the following statistics on race and AIDS:

    36% were white
    42% were black
    20% were Hispanic
    2% were of other race/ethnicity.

    So, 24% of the AIDS population is infected through homosexual contact…? Not impressive (feel free to correct my math). But also not informative or predictive. Get out of the GAY=AIDS mentality. It will never solve the problem.
    It also has no place in the Gay Marriage debate. Just a red herring.

  • Bennett

    Anthony, It’s only puppy love, mon petit bijoux!

    But at sixteen, you are really primed for this kind of thing. You and your cousin may find happiness in each other’s arms, and I hope you do. “To Hell” with what other people might think

    You WILL be happy with a child that is autistic.

    However, the odds are against it.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    I didn’t exclude them. I said the rest of of the races. If I offended anyone I am sorry I didn’t mean to.

    The far far majority of blacks with aids didn’t get it from Homosexual contact or needles or heterosexual contact. So it wouldn’t help my case if I said 12% of Blacks with HIV or AIDS got it from Homosexual contact.

  • Bennett

    “The far far majority of blacks with aids didn’t get it from Homosexual contact or needles or heterosexual contact.”

    What? How did the majority of “black” americans get aids?

    Gay?

    Got any proof or links?

  • http://eacblog.blogspot.com The Evil Atheist


    Me and my cousin come from a family of a clean gene pool. We have no family illnesses. Me and my cousin are actually half first cousins (My father and her father are half brothers). So we share only one fourth of the same clean blood. Many unhealthy blood between non kin marrying exists, but no one says anything about that. What is up with that??? It is discrimination I tell you!!!

    It is not discrimination. It is the most basic of genetics. The thing about recessive genes, you see, is that they are recessive. They can hide for generations and generations and generations, until you marry a family member with the same recessive gene, and through pure chance KABLAM! Severe, debilitating genetic defect.

  • Bennett

    Not hetero?

    Not gay?

    Not drugs?

    Not blood transfusions?

    What? From monkeys?

    What are you saying?

  • KYS

    As a seriously off-topic side note, how are some of you able to format text for these comments? I can’t bold or italicize anything…..

  • practical joe

    Are homosexuals born that way — or is it attributable to environment”?

  • Bennett

    KYS – basic html.

    [edited]

  • practical joe

    Try holding down the control key at the same time as B (bold), I (italics) or U (underline)

  • Bennett

    Wrong. As always.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    Ant G sez…
    * So it wouldn’t help my case if I said 12% of Blacks with HIV or AIDS got it from Homosexual contact.*

    and there is another reason you have less than stellar credibility…

    it is blatantly obvious that you continuously distort and “cook” what info you cite to suit your purposes, rather than deal with complete factual data to support your positions

    this quote is just another example…

    we all know what troll would tell you to do right about now…

    i will just state that you are factually incorrect as well as logically destitute in your line of argument as is proven by your own statements

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • practical joe

    Thank you professor gonzo for your treatise on economics and the free market.

    I agree that it was not concerned with such, instead, it was concerned with the right of the individual and business entities including to make whatever it was concerned with including to make whatever proclivity to place trust to get others to follow in the ethical judgment of the corporate entities involved and it was not concerned with such to spend their cash how they choose, or to correct…via their own spending habits whatever they could to make up the difference, to spend their cash or to impact the right of the individual and their ability that they would just buy and how they choose whatever they could to make up the difference then it would be up to the individual since there is no thought of needed supplies but if, let us say, BP’s suppliers do not own any American gas stations the only exception there would be for whatever reasons to instead, make statements they wish to and if the Saudi’s own supply runs low and ran lower than the demand placed on them, I am certain they would buy the country of Venezuela and not depend on the Russian suppliers whom they dislike that I am aware of. My main point is that individuals like the Russians have to decide if they should stop buying BP…and so on, to say differently goes against the basis of capitalism.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    What does the discussion of AIDS have to do with the right to marry? People with AIDS can walk down the aisle, so where did the discussion go completely astray from the topic?

    In one corner, we have one thread where two, maybe three people are seeing the end of the world and in the other corner we have an entire state where full marriage equality maybe isn’t such a bad idea.

    Maybe there’s hope for us humans yet!

  • practical joe

    “In one corner, we have one thread where two, maybe three people are seeing the end of the world and in the other corner we have an entire state where full marriage equality maybe isn’t such a bad idea.”

    Ho! Ho!

    Two, maybe three people against?

    An entire state for it?

    No just five extreme left-wing liberals on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (four were against) who are far out of the mainstream — even in a liberal state AND a bought-and-paid-for bunch of political hacks (the Massachusetts Legislature) who voted AGAINST letting the PEOPLE vote on the matter in a referendum.

    I wouldn’t crow too loudly about denying the peoples’ right to vote.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    according to the post, which I was referring to, it sounds like it’s not just 5 judges, who voted the same way conservative judges in California did (for gay marriage), but according to the post, it’s beginning to sound like the entire state. Sorry if that bugs you.

  • http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm Anthony Grande

    Gonzo, you say I am making all this up???

    Here Gonzo, it is all here.

    The Evil Atheist, can you refer me to a site that gives the same info about “kissing cousins” that have given me. This is important to me. I have looked and haven’t found any. I have found some that contradict you and say good blood makes good kids, ecspecially since we are half cousins.

    Those who say cousins and counsins is a sin, read Genesis, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Nut, David, Hagar, Joseph, Benjamin, Jacob, Esau and so on, married there cousins. It was a sign of honor.

    And no Roger not ALL married there cousins but a lot did.

    Bennett, I thought we were ignoring each other.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I wouldn’t crow too loudly about denying the peoples’ right to vote.

    Bubble bursting time.

    Newsflash: More than half the people in Massachusetts said they DIDN’T want to vote on this issue. And that was back in February. By now, I’m sure it’s more than that, as gay marriage has been shown to have had no ill effects on the so-called sanctity of marriage.

    From the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, which requires you to be a paid subscriber to access its archives:

    This article ran on 200502
    Poll: Don’t vote on gay marriage

    By Dan Tuohy
    Staff writer

    Lawmakers will debate a gay marriage ban again this year, but a new poll finds a majority of Massachusetts residents oppose having the constitutional amendment tacked on their election ballot next year. [emphasis mine]

    The poll found 52 percent of respondents do not want to see the amendment on the ballot. Bay State pollster Russell K. Mayer, the director of the Center for Public Opinion Research at Merrimack College, said the response suggests a greater degree of acceptance for gay marriage.

    “We have it. It’s been happening. The sky is not falling,” Mayer said.

    The Bay State Poll is produced by the Center for Public Opinion Research in collaboration with the Eagle-Tribune Publishing Co.

    The Bay State Poll found that newer residents and Republicans were more eager to see the issue on the ballot. About 53 percent of those from the Northeast region oppose it. The Catholic vote was nearly split, the Jewish vote was 88.5 percent opposed, and people describing themselves as atheist or agnostic were 71.4 percent opposed.

    Senate and House leaders, along with Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, have named education, health care and jobs as their top priorities for 2005. They are in synch with their constituents’ concerns, according to the poll. The most important state problems, in order of rank, were education (15.8 percent), jobs (12 percent), and taxes (11.3 percent). Gay marriage came in at the low end of that scale, at 1.2 percent. The Big Dig and transportation were cited by 6 percent, up from about 2 percent in the past, Mayer said.

    Sorry, but the people of Massachusetts aren’t really all that upset about gay marriage, nor are they anxious to vote on it.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Well, folks, we’re considering getting married at this point before it goes to referendum (if it even does). I’ll be sure to post a big article here just to share the glorious news with ya’ll.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Excellent — go for it! Looks like you have time to plan a big wedding, too, since there will apparently be no referendum in 2006.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Congratulations Silas, it’s something you deserve and long overdue.

  • diana hartman

    I believe that it would be psychologically damaging to grow up in a Parent A/Parent B household. A child needs a balanced, stable home recieving input from a mother and a father.

    so where’s your proposal to outlaw single parent households regardless of how they got that way? and outlawing households where there are no biological/adoptive female/male parents but rather relatives of the same gender?

    If states grant the same rights to homosexual couples that married couples enjoy, it would increase health care rates for heterosexual workers while lowering them for homosexual couples.

    where’s that study?
    my rates go up because i sneezed and didn’t file a claim or fell down and did file a claim or didn’t get sick at all ever…hell, i don’t even know why they go up other than because insurance is a racket designed to take in as much money as possible while keeping expenses at a minimum which is to say those who pay the premiums are seen as an expense just like staples and post-it notes…long gone is the notion that premium payers are clients or customers that are to be served by the company they pay to serve them…
    if rates really went up because homosexuals married, i’d at least have a reason, albeit stupid, but a reason no less…as it is, i don’t get it…
    i wonder what other expense would go up as a result of homosexuals marrying…

    By adding homosexual couples to the insurance pools, costs would rise.

    didn’t you already assert that? i think homosexuals not being allowed to marry has affected your memory…

    Also costs would increase because of the number of ‘first-timer’ (homosexuals that did not have any insurance coverage before).

    and heterosexual first-timers would not have the same effect?

    Both situations would have the effect of increasing costs for heterosexual workers.

    but adding heterosexual first timers is okay, yes?…

    So you see it is very simple. Adam Smith predicted that every consumer would act in their own self interest. If we can rely upon his wisdom, then it is easy to understand why homosexuals would vote for lower health insurance rates and heterosexuals would not be so inclined.

    i’m straight…i would vote for lower health insurance rates…

    I say you can be gay all you want as long as you stay away from women, because there is a great chance you can spread HIV among straight people. When they do that it boils my blood.

    ewwwey on the blood thing…

    so if gays agree to stay away from women, what then is the reason why gays shouldn’t marry?
    and do gay women have to stay away from women? if so, why? if not, why not?

    Gay Marriage is not right. Gays have the same rights as I do.

    outside of mass., gay people do not have the same rights as you do…you have the right to marry someone of your orientation…gay people do not have this same right…

    We can’t be giving them special rights.

    what special right are they asking for?

    Straights don’t have anymore rights than gays do. That is a fact.

    no, that is a lie…refer to the response to the last time you asserted this…

    I am a man and I can’t marry another man either. I can’t marry my cousin who I am in love with, so I can’t marry who I love either.

    but you can marry someone of your orientation who is not your cousin…gays cannot marry someone of their orientation regardless…

    you also have the right to talk to your congressman/woman about this right you want that you don’t have to marry whoever you want…i for one don’t want it legal to marry one’s cousin because if we allow that, people will want to marry their cars and possibly their homes…

    If we legalize Gay Marriage then we will be giving special rights to certain people who are already equal.

    refer to the response to the last time you asserted this…

    When we gave women the right to vote we were giving people a right that most people already had.

    okay…
    if we give gays the right to marry we would be giving people a right that most people already have…

    We are not witholding any rights from Homosexuals.

    refer to the response to the last time you asserted this…

    Prove that the offspring of my cousin and I will be affected.

    i think eddie izzard said it best when he commented “First rule of genetics: spread the genes apart! But the royals are just obsessed with it — ‘Are you a royal family? Are you a royal member? Well, then you can marry me ‘cause you’re same gene pool, and our IQs will go down the toilet.’ Fantastic! That’s why there’s no crazy royals, they’re all kind of, ‘Hello! Hello, what do you do? You’re a plumber! What on Earth is that?’ ”

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    A child needs a balanced, stable home recieving input from a mother and a father.

    There’s nothing whatsoever that a female parent can give a child that a male parent can’t. Gender divisions in our culture exist, yes, but they’re artificial, and easily bridged if the person in question makes a point of doing so. Male parents can be nurturing and dry kids’ tears and bake them cookies. Female parents can play football, teach their kid how to build stuff, give an example of someone who loves their work. Male parents can buy tampons for their pubescent daughter. Female parents can explain wet dreams to their pubescent sons. There’s nothing biologically blocking these parents from doing everything they need to do.

    Does a young child need to learn femininity or masculinity? Only to the extent of expectations society will lay on them, and those traits can be taught by anyone, godmother, friend, mother or father, etc.

    Some people are clearly still married to outdated ideas about gender identity. Welcome to the 21st century. Men and women can be anything they want to be.

  • gonzo marx

    Ant G….

    what i spoke with you about did not involve “belief”..it involved your blatant attempts to present your case with incomplete data..knowingly so…as well as your self admitted propensity to chose said data to skew the results towards the cause of your argument and to deliberately leave out data you are AWARE OF that woudl show your fallacious claims are factually incorrect….

    that help?

    Excelsior!

  • steve

    To get back on subject; anyone who has the ideology that to commit sodomy is perfectly fine…they should not be allowed to raise children. They have no logic.

    Have all of the Unions your little hearts desire…but NO kids involved…deal?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Anyone who has the ideology that to commit sodomy is perfectly fine…they should not be allowed to raise children. They have no logic.

    I’m sorry, perhaps I missed a post here somewhere…what exactly does sodomy have to do with raising children? Since you say “they have no logic,” I presume there’s a logical connection between sodomy and raising children?

  • diana hartman

    To get back on subject; anyone who has the ideology that to commit sodomy is perfectly fine…they should not be allowed to raise children. They have no logic.

    the subject is the right to marry someone of your choosing and of your orientation…

    there are heterosexuals who commit sodomy and raise children and they’ve not been barred from marriage or raising children as a result…

  • diana hartman

    i don’t know that you really “commit” sodomy as if it were a crime…we don’t “commit” sex, we have it…when between two consenting adults, the details aren’t subject to the criminalizing judgement of others…if it were, what homophobic heterosexual is going to volunteer for that lookout post?
    and if a homophobic heterosexual did volunteer (or even receive pay), me thinks thou doth protest too much…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Sodomy is legal in this country. Sodomy is committed by heterosexuals and homosexuals, married and unmarried. It is the person who puts consentual sodomy on the level of predatory abuse or murder who is out of step with the mainstream.

    Denying marriage as a means of preventing child rearing is ridiculous, there are an estimated 4-6 million children in America today being raised by one or more gay parents. We can’t get married now, but that hasn’t stopped us from having our families anyway. The families are now here and are good examples of the discrimination gay people face.

  • http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm Anthony Grande

    “There’s nothing whatsoever that a female parent can give a child that a male parent can’t.”

    Yeah that is true about the physical part, but the mother is SUPERIOR in razing children. Also a hug from your mother is not the same as a hug from your dad. And there is something else that is there that I can’t explain, it is somewhat spiritual.

    Diane, your entire argument is this “orientation” thing. You are refering that a gay is born gay and is automatically attracted to the same sex.

    This is just not true. There is no gay gene. Gays are created by society, not hereditarily. If this was true that there is a gene then this gene would just die out eventually, becasue gays in ancient times could not reproduce. And I’ll bet that 95% of gays have straight parents.

    So the fact is that homosexuals have all the same rights as me.

    Silas, I am afraid once it is repealed that your marriage will no longer be recongized.

    That’s Right

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    This site needs more gay marriage posts cowbell.

  • diana hartman

    Diane, your entire argument is this “orientation” thing. You are refering that a gay is born gay and is automatically attracted to the same sex.
    This is just not true. There is no gay gene. Gays are created by society, not hereditarily. If this was true that there is a gene then this gene would just die out eventually, becasue gays in ancient times could not reproduce. And I’ll bet that 95% of gays have straight parents.

    anchony,
    with your ever so slight concession of a gay gene, you suggest this gene would’ve died out due to a lack of reproduction…this begs the question: who would’ve procreated those gay people whose gene would’ve died out?

  • http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PG03J01 Anthony Grande

    Diana, there is no gay gene. It would have died when the first generation died.

    What I am saying is that there is no such gene and that gays are gay by choice. So their natural orientation is the opposite sex; therefore, no rights are with held from anybody in this country except the unborn who are murdered by the millions, but that is another subject.

    That’s Right

  • http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PG03J01 Anthony Grande

    To my fellow Californians, some great words and advice from the Family Research Council:

    “In 2000, with the passage of Proposition 22 by over sixty percent, the citizens of California voted to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Despite this significant margin of victory marriage is still under attack in the Golden State. The war against marriage escalated last year when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom illegally started to distribute marriage licenses to homosexual couples. This was followed early this year by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer declaring Proposition 22 unconstitutional and marriage is further threatened by legislation in the California State Assembly that would allow for same-sex “marriage.” It is becoming clear that California voters are being ignored by their legislators and overruled by activist judges. An amendment to the California State Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman is needed. For more information on what California citizens can do to protect marriage please visit this link.”

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    AG, I don’t see any advice there — perhaps you left out soething you intended to include?

  • http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PG03J01 Anthony Grande

    DrPat, go to the website I listed and you will see pamphlets you can get to fight Gay Marriage.

    A.W.M.G.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Then perhaps you can save some typing next time, and simply write:

    To my fellow Californians, some great words and advice from the Family Research Council: please visit this link.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    DrPat, stop insulting me just because my common sense beliefs contradict your own.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Do they?

    (Are they…?)

  • Bennett

    The big problem is that your “common sense beliefs” are ignorant uninformed hogwash.

    When you spout that stuff about “gay genes” you let everyone know that you are totally ignorant about the science of genetics. (genes don’t die out after one generation of non-reinforcement)

    You really shoud try to limit your blatherings to subjects that you know something about.

    What that might be has yet to be determined.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Hey DrPat, do you hear someone???

  • KYS

    Anthony’s claim that the mother is superior in raising children needs some clarification. Statistics? Articles? Something more than subjective assertion?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    some great words and advice from the Family Research Council

    It should be noted that the Southern Povery Law Center, which monitors hate groups, lists the Family Research Council as getting it’s data primarily from biased Family Research Institute which is classified as a hate group, so any information from them is guaranteed to be biased.

    A good example of their bias would be this:

    It is becoming clear that California voters are being ignored by their legislators and overruled by activist judges.

    It should be noted that the ruling came from a conservative judge who was put on the bench by conservative President Reagan.

    See the bias in action.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    time to cash a Reality Check here…

    according to comment #95 above, the “Family Research council” sez…
    *”In 2000, with the passage of Proposition 22 by over sixty percent, the citizens of California voted *

    and now time for the Reality to clearly expose the oft used bold faced propagandist Lie that “60% of the population voted against…”

    what you have are 60% of the voters who SHOWED up for that election voting on this Issue…

    now…in California approximately 60% of the population are registered voters, and that election had slightly more than a 50% turn out

    this means that somewhere less than 35% of the TOTAL POPULATION of California actually voted for Prop 22

    clearly no real type of “majority” no matter what anyone wants to say

    glad to be of help

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Steve, this is no hate site, it is a fact site.

    Just because the Judge was appointed by Reagan doesn’t mean he is not an activist who ignores the voters.

    What is you desire to bring this to Conservatism v. Liberalism??? It isn’t supposed to be that way. It is the voters against the overly strong government.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Gonzo, people who don’t get off their ass and vote shouldn’t have any say in this. Obviously they don’t care. So the majority who CARES voted over 60% to ban Gay Marriage from the Golden State.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Just because the Judge was appointed by Reagan doesn’t mean he is not an activist who ignores the voters.

    The accusation of ‘liberal activist judges’ is the entire premise of the conservative assault against the American Judicials System.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Anthony’s claim that the mother is superior in raising children needs some clarification. Statistics? Articles? Something more than subjective assertion?

    weeelll, i think i’m better at mothering than my husband is and he’s probably better at fathering than i am, and i think i’m better at parenting overall, but i’d rather have him around because even though he is not so great at parenting, he can fix damn near anything and he’s not a bad cook…
    but i digress…

    anthony, thank you for the name correction…attention to particular details is important…
    if you don’t believe that genetics determines orientation then there’s nothing either of us can do for the other…

    i would ask though, all statistics, studies, etc aside, what personally upsets you so about gay people?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Steve, Where was the word “liberal” at in that excerpt.

    Also, that site you gave about hate organizations should be ON the list of hate organizations. It is cleary Anti-Conservative. You are notorious for giving non credible sites.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Diana, thank you for being a reasonable person. You are the only one that hasn’t shown hostility towards me. I respect you for that.

    We are going to have to agree to disagree about orientation.

    But nothing about being gay concerns me exept AIDS which I am extremely afraid of. But if you want to be gay, go ahead, just don’t come back to the otherside when your needs aren’t fulfilled.

    Gay Marriage and Gay Unions bother me because I worry about children. I am worried that it will bring up a generation of unmothered people. This would create a terrible society.

    I have said before on Blogcritics.org that I would openly support Gay Marriage if I knew kids will no way be involved.

  • KYS

    “weeelll, i think i’m better at mothering than my husband is and he’s probably better at fathering than i am, and i think i’m better at parenting overall, but i’d rather have him around because even though he is not so great at parenting, he can fix damn near anything and he’s not a bad cook…”

    Do you believe that the mother is inherently better at “parenting” than the father?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    99% of the time, yes. There will always be a couple of the Andrea Yates

  • DrForman

    One homosexual’s story as related in a private session:

    “As someone who self-identified as gay for 14 years, I, too, struggled mightily with this issue. Like many homosexuals, I knew that I had not consciously “chosen” my feelings of attraction to the same sex. In the ’80s, I remember having long conversations with my gay friends pondering the origins of our homosexuality. We concluded there were reasons we experienced homosexual feelings – we were trying to somehow bond with the same sex because we had poor relationships with our fathers, had been rejected by same-sex peers, had domineering mothers, had been sexually molested, or some combination thereof.”

    Conclusion:

    What homosexuals need is not marriage — but a way to sort out mental problems.

    Mental problems can comprise frustration, anger, bitterness, shame, guilt, arrogance, envy, jealousy, greed, fear, suspicious nature, inferiority complex, melancholy, mental instability, escapism or other similar tendencies, communication apprehension, poor will power, low grasping, absentmindedness, dodging reality, etc.

    That is what needs to be addressed.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    note to the gentle Readers from yer humble Narrator…

    in my time here on BC, i personally have found Steve S about 1000000000000000000 times more credible than Master Grande…this also includes referenced material

    take it for what it is worth

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    In the words of a Doctor.

    Amen

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Comment 116 was for 114 (Marxist had to jump in the way)

    How do you figure Steve S is a 10000000000000000000000000000000 times more credible than me???

    Is it because you share commen beliefs???

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    no..it is because of how each of you choose to present your arguments

    such as leaving out inconvenient facts, which you, Ant G , admitted to

    such as presenting a cohesive train of thought to accentuate the positive side of the discussion, whcih Steve does constantly

    such as denying equal Rights, making false claims, or saying who can and cannot decide…such as what Ant G does

    such as factual Accuracy, which Steve adheres to, or clearly states when it is his own experience or opinion

    such as affirmation rather than hate

    such as compassion rather than fear

    you make a good point in that Steve and i share a few common Ideals

    we both believe that ALL americans are Equal under the Law…even those in any particular minority

    oh yes..and we don’t get french benefits

    Excelsior!

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Do you believe that the mother is inherently better at “parenting” than the father?

    no…i’ve seen too much good and bad in both to say one is better by virtue of gender…

  • KYS

    Thanks Diana, just wanted to make sure we didn’t provide Ant any fodder…

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “we both believe that ALL americans are Equal under the Law…even those in any particular minority”

    Me three, gays have every right that I have. I can’t marry a man and I am in love with my cousin so I can’t marry who I am in love with.

    Steve doesn’t give factual ACCURACY, he gives us biass websites that you and him try to pass as facts.

    The thing is Gonzo is that you aren’t wrong, but you suppress important factors. Like I say only certain people have a say, when I really said the ones who get off their ass and vote are the ones that have a say in this. And the equal rights thing that I have discussed many times.

  • Bennett

    Gonzo – you forgot to mention that Steve is a mature, tax-paying adult. With enough life experience to make his comments ring true.

    Not so our petit teenage bonbon.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    and exactly how can i “supress” what you have posted on this website?

    really..you should choose your words with a bit more care, because you keep getting it wrong on so many levels…it really doesn’t help your case

    as for outside websites..you will notice, that except for news articles i NEVER post links…instead i speak of a source..and i ALWAYS tell you to look it up for yourself and make up your own mind

    that’s what it is there for

    as far as you and your cousin..please cite the California law that states you cannot marry her?

    i am curious..since you two are NOT related by blood, according to your “story”…amd you keep harping on it in an obsessive compulsive manner…exactly what law stops you from going to the Justice of the Peace…or Vegas for that matter, and getting married?

    and you may claim that you are for equal Rights, but you still argue against letting some folks have them even when it can not possibly detract from your own..or harm you in any way possible

    and THAT is why you and i will be on opposite sides in many areas…add to it that you appear to make up your mind on an Issue before ever actually hearing what said Issue is..or thinking about it…

    but the Kommisars like that in a good young bundist type…i would hope that you grow into learing to utilize Reason rather than Dogma to aid in your decisions…

    i can Dream…can’t i?

    Excelsior!

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Diana, thank you for being a reasonable person. You are the only one that hasn’t shown hostility towards me. I respect you for that.

    We are going to have to agree to disagree about orientation.

    But nothing about being gay concerns me exept AIDS which I am extremely afraid of. But if you want to be gay, go ahead, just don’t come back to the otherside when your needs aren’t fulfilled.

    Gay Marriage and Gay Unions bother me because I worry about children. I am worried that it will bring up a generation of unmothered people. This would create a terrible society.

    I have said before on Blogcritics.org that I would openly support Gay Marriage if I knew kids will no way be involved.

    i used to be afraid of aids, and then i researched it…i found out what it is, how it’s contracted, how it’s prevented, etc…
    i’m not afraid of it anymore because i know how to prevent myself from getting it…additionally, i’ve educated my children so that, hopefully, they don’t get it…

    as a mother of three and a staunch advocate of children’s rights (which is funny because, as a child, i didn’t like children much), i hear your concerns about children: how they’re raised, how they’re treated, etc…

    of all the people that brought harm into my young life and the lives of my children, none were gay…they were white, black, male, female, old, not so old, rich, poor, religious, not religious, alcoholic, left-handed, blue-eyed…i’ve been liked, loved, and cherished by different people who bear the same description…this isn’t to say a gay person can’t or wouldn’t hurt a child, it is to say that there is no particular prerequisite for hurting a child…there is also no prerequisite for caring for a child…

    you know, sometimes we dislike most in others that which we dislike most in ourselves…i’m not necessarily suggesting you are gay…i am suggesting that somewhere in your life is the presence of harm and that for some reason, homosexuality is meshed with that harm…
    as adults we have the capacity and the responsibility to ourselves to unmesh childhood associations that have brought us into so much conflict…

    it concerns me that you would willingly bring yourself into this discussion where the conflict is established and clearly against your assertions, against your beliefs…
    it begs the question: who are you trying most to convince?

    you have such fervor and energy, it pangs me to see you spending it trying to prevent a harm that doesn’t exist…
    gay people don’t harm children, bad people harm children — and unfortunately, bad comes in so many forms it can’t be profiled…

    for the record anthony, i avoid men over the age of 65 at all costs…i know it’s irrational and phobic, and i know not all men over the age of 65 are predators; i still avoid them…the difference between you and i in this is that i know why i personally avoid them, and i wouldn’t lobby for a squelching of rights of all men over the age of 65 based only on my experiences and the stories that fed my fears…

  • SeniorGuy

    “for the record anthony, i avoid men over the age of 65 at all costs…i know it’s irrational and phobic, and i know not all men over the age of 65 are predators; i still avoid them”

    A man over 65 is the same man he was under 65.

    Diana admits she is “irrational and phobic“. So why should her judgment be accepted on other matters?

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    good point Bennett…

    as for diana…since she Recognizes the patterns and effects of her “phobia” she is light years ahead of those in denial of theirs

    this makes her Judgements a step above many

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • Bennett

    SeniorGuy – “A man over 65 is the same man he was under 65.”

    I agree!

    I think that thirty is when most folks have really defined their character. Before that, you’re still “coming of age”.

    Under twenty, still wet behind the ears.

  • RogerMDillion

    “gays are gay by choice.”

    So then you are straight by choice. How did you come to that decision? Did you try being gay one weekend and said to yourself, “Nope, that’s not for me.”

    Sorry, but the unborn have no rights. Neither do the deceased.

    “Under twenty, still wet behind the ears.”

    And 16 is what, Bennett, he asked lobbing a softball?

  • steve

    I think DrForeman hit the nail on the head. We should attempt to heal people before we go off and marry them

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    excellent point on the healing..so we shoudl start with those that make up the 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples first?

    how about this Idea…the Land of the Free and all…why not just stay the fuck out of why someone likes what they like, and allow them to like it as long as it causes no harm to others?

    sounds like a nice conservative “value” doesn’t it?

    with that in mind..can someone show how allowing these folks to get married hurts anyone?

    you have a years history in the state of Mass to find your examples…how has allowing these folks to get married hurt anyone?…how has it eroded marriage?…..how has it harmed society?

    just curious…to me it appears that nothing has changed except that a few more folks have been able to try and find a little happiness, and have been able to enter into a certani social contract to protect and define the rights and responsibilities of their legally recognized relationship

    Excelsior!

  • RogerMDillion

    “What homosexuals need is not marriage — but a way to sort out mental problems.”

    This coming from a guy named Dr. For Man. That’s hysterical.

    “We should attempt to heal people before we go off and marry them”

    Then how about we start with the straight people?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Thanks Gonzo and Bennett for your comments.

    Anthony, you attempt to discredit me by saying my linking to the Southern Poverty Law Center was to a biased source. It is a non-partisan non-profit that does not dabble in politics. All it does is track hate groups, from the left or the right. The Family Research Council is tracked. So are leftist hate groups.

    As for the Doctor and steve wanting to heal:

    Heal what? There is no law broken, there is no disorder per the medical community, there is nothing to heal. There is nothing to fix. The ONLY piece of ammunition you have against diversity is the Bible. That is it and that is all. There is no more ammo in your arsenal. So the only type of healing you could be recommending is forced biblical repentenance. And you wonder why this ideology is tracked as hate.

  • http://www.cuddleinternational.org/petition/nvsign.html Anthony Grande

    “since you two are NOT related by blood,”

    One example of how you twist my words around. We ONLY share one fourth of the same blood, because our fathers were half brothers, not full brothers.

    “So then you are straight by choice.”

    No by nature, boys got something girls don’t and girls got something boys don’t. They intertwine.

    “Sorry, but the unborn have no rights”

    A Nazi saying: Jews have no rights, lets just exterminate them at will.

    I am fighting a war on so many fronts and my enemies or throwing insults about my age at me. Sorry for having an opinion.

    The Doctor is 100% rite. Homosexuals are homosexuals because something went wrong in there life. We need to help people with problems like these.

    Steve S, my site is only on there because it is a conservative site. I didn’t see MoveOn.org on there or any pro-death(abortion) sites on there. You have a notorious history of producing biassed sites.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I didn’t see MoveOn.org on there or any pro-death(abortion) sites on there.

    being a pro-choice group does not qualify as a hate group. MoveOn is anti-war, that does not qualify as a hate group. It appears you do not know what qualifies.

    You have a notorious history of producing biassed sites.

    and people can see the example you provide here.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Homosexuals are homosexuals because something went wrong in there life. We need to help people with problems like these.

    anthony, what do you think might have gone wrong, and what would be your suggestions for helping people?

    before you answer, please do bear in mind that many studies have been done about child sex abuse, child physical abuse, dominant mothers, passive fathers, orphaned children, and children of divorce, and none have found a connection between these conditions and homosexuality…per child sex abuse alone, if it caused one to be gay, over half of the female population would be gay and it isn’t…
    there have been numerous connections made between these conditions and adult violence, poverty, and in many cases a recreation of the childhood itself (boy child of dominant mother marrying dominant woman, etc)…

    if a connection has been found i would be most interested in that source…

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    many studies have been done about child sex abuse, child physical abuse, dominant mothers, passive fathers, orphaned children, and children of divorce, and none have found a connection between these conditions and homosexuality…

    I’ll go you one further, Diana.

    There have been several studies in which homosexual and heterosexual populations, in which no member of either group had ever previously sought therapy or treatment, were given very thorough psychological examinations, had profiles drawn up from the results, and then had the profiles analyzed by psychological experts who were not told which were gay and which were straight, but were asked to pick out which profiles were of gay subjects.

    The result? The experts, in every study, were completely unable to distinguish between the straights and the gays.

    In fact, the conclusion of the most famous and referenced study (by Evelyn Hooker) was that exactly the same number of gays and straights in the study were “perfectly well-adjusted, normally functioning human beings.”

    In other words, the only thing that says the homosexuality is not a mental problem, is science.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    …”perfectly well-adjusted, normally functioning human beings.”

    where in the world did they find so many well-adusted normally functioning people?

    i gotta get some new friends…

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    ANTHONY’S PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE:

    * Males are born with certain parts and females are born with certain parts and these parts fit together like a puzzle so we can reproduce. No Accident.

    * Fifty-One percent of humans are Female, Forty-Nine percent of humans are Male. If you take in consideration that Females tend live a little longer than Males than it would be 50-50. Hence, one woman for every man. No Accident

    * Five percent of Americans go against the first two priciples, Fify-Seven percent of Americans with AIDS or HIV got AIDS or HIV by going against the first two principles. No Accident.

    * Anyone that goes against the first two principles need help and support from their peers, not special rights.

  • Bennett

    Damn, what joke book ARE you reading?

    Please keep proving my point that:

    teenager + computer does not equal intelligent comments.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Homosexuals are the smokescreen for conservatives in their effort to hide their complete failure in American society. Gays are great targets because most mainstreamers are too afraid of their own sexuality to be even associated with a faggot. Sorry, folks, marriage is a right for ANY couple and it has no business being codified by civil law. The more ultra right wingers fight the issue the more determined I am to fight back. The right for two people to form a civil union is a concept that should be embraced by true conservatives. Their complete refusal to understand that point is just another indication that they are completely clueless as to what conservative principles actually entail. Those who fight parity for couples, regardless of gender, are the liberals in this case. Think about it. So, sweet rightists, YOU are the liberals and I will not have you shoving your liberal agenda down my throat. That’s reserved for other things…

    …like sustenance.

  • practical joe

    “There have been several studies in which homosexual and heterosexual populations, in which no member of either group had ever previously sought therapy or treatment, were given very thorough psychological examinations, had profiles drawn up from the results, and then had the profiles analyzed by psychological experts who were not told which were gay and which were straight, but were asked to pick out which profiles were of gay subjects”

    1. “The subjects were given very thorough psychological examinations.”

    What is a “very thorough psychological examination”?

    What questions were asked?

    If no questions were asked regarding “sexual preference“ or “sexual orientation“, what was asked?

    In a “thorough psychological examination” to determine whether heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same “normal” tendencies, how do you avoid addressing matters such as “sexual preference“ or “sexual orientation“?

    How were the “homosexual and heterosexual populations” selected to ensure validity?

    It is well known that the results of such “examinations” can be skewed if the subjects have a biased intent.

    2. “Neither group had ever previously sought therapy or treatment.”

    How was this “fact” verified?

    Did the groups have prior knowledge of the objective of the study?

    Did either group have an interest in controlling the results?

    3. “The profiles were analyzed by psychological experts who were not told which were gay and which were straight.”

    Were the “psychological experts” out to prove that homosexuals are normal?

    4. The result? “The experts, in every study, were completely unable to distinguish between the straights and the gays.”

    This is hard to believe — unless the questions were so innocuous that men, women, children and goats would have come out looking alike.

    Conclusion:

    This “test” and its “results” do not pass even a rudimentary “smell” test.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Nice to have you here Joe. We am extremely outnumbered but can take em’.
    They are throwing the same old stuff at us.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    until the answers to about half the questions in comment #141 are discovered, the conclusion of 141 is baseless and fallacious …by definition

    thanks for playing, please try again

    Excelsior!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Outnumbered? Problem is most people don’t really care about the issue but those on the extreme right have made it out to be much more than it should. Gays are an easy target. They are the females of 100 years ago. Women were an easy target and treated as chattel until they smartened up and realized that paternalistic, territorial males are akin to the snake in the Garden of Eden. Women have been the scapegoats of society’s ills since St. Paul showed his true colors in his disdain for females. Like it or not, ultra rightists, Catholic priests are not the problem. Your church was created on a foundation poured by self loathing, sexually abivalent men who were completely gynophobic.

    As George Carlin states in his latest book, “Christians must be sick in the head. Only someone who hates himself could possibly think of the pleasures of masturbation as self-abuse.” How true that simple quote is. My Roman Catholic upbringing taught me that homosexuality was evil; that noctural emissions were unnatural; and that masturbation would lead me down a road of sexual depravity. Guess what? The Christian Church is entirely respsonsible for the societal ills mankind has endured since 110 AD. It’s time we revolted — not only against the political systems — but against the organized religions that would have us believe such total nonsense. The fundamentalist Muslims have it right on one count: Fundamentalist Christians are evil.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Silas, this isn’t about religion. Why are you bringing it to religion??? What is your definition of “ultra” rightest??? Someone against Gay Marriage???

    Women were oppressed. They didn’t have rights like the men had (right to vote). Gays today have ALL the rights the straights have. They are not oppressed.

    Refer to ANTHONY’S PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE at comment #138 for reasons why Gay Marriage shouldn’t exitst and why I am against it.

  • practical joe

    “thanks for playing, please try again”

    gonzo like to declare victory — and then crawl back under the bridge with troll.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Off subject for a second, a note about Religion: If it wasn’t for organized Religion we wouldn’t have values to be messed up in the first place.

    O.K. back to the subject: One Man, One Woman

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    What is a “very thorough psychological examination”?

    In the Hooker study (the first and most influential) Rorschach tests, the “what’s going on in this picture” tests, questions about the subjects’ dreams, handwriting analysis, word association, histories of their childhood and their professional lives, among others.

    If no questions were asked regarding “sexual preference“ or “sexual orientation“, what was asked?

    I didn’t say that there were no questions asked about “sexual preference” or “sexual orientation.” I said that the answers to those questions were not given to the psychologists who judged the subjects.

    How was this “fact” verified?

    The subjects presented their medical histories.

    Did the groups have prior knowledge of the objective of the study?

    No. They weren’t even notified after the examination.

    Were the “psychological experts” out to prove that homosexuals are normal?

    Actually, the “psychological experts” believed that homosexuals WERE NOT normal. They were experts in that they claimed to have expertise in “homosexual pathology.”

    This is hard to believe — unless the questions were so innocuous that men, women, children and goats would have come out looking alike.

    How is it hard to believe? Because you don’t want to believe it? Or because you’ve read the study yourself and can point to the specific things in it that make it hard to believe? Or because you have some piece of information that contradicts it? If so, please do share.

    Conclusion:

    This “test” and its “results” do not pass even a rudimentary “smell” test.

    But as Gonzo pointed out, you gave the “smell” test, then declared that the study had failed the test before you even got the answers. That kinda means that your conclusion fails to pass even the most rudimentary “smell” test, since it’s not based on anything.

    You know, Practical Joe, you CAN read the study yourself. It’s by Evelyn Hooker, called “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual”. It was published in the March 1957 issue of Journal of Projective
    Techniques
    . It’s probably at your local library, and I practically guarantee it’s can be found in the Psychology Department at your local university.

  • KYS

    That’s just absurd. Religion brought us the Inquisition and the Crusades. Some great values there, huh?

  • steve

    I am sorry. anyone who thinks that putting a penis into an anal sphinctor is a logical thing to do, needs to get checked out. if you think that THIS is NORMAL…then you are unfit to raise children

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Steve, is there any other kind of sphincter?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Yeah, actually, there is, Suss. (May I call you Suss?) There’s a vaginal sphincter.

  • practical joe

    “Problem is most people don’t really care about the issue but those on the extreme right have made it out to be much more than it should.”

    Ha…

    What happened after the lib-ee-ral Massachusetts court took it into their hands to overrule what has been established for thousands of years?

    A majority of voters in this country rose up to defeat John Kerry and his lib-ee-ral constituents — including eliminating Democrats in both the House and the Senate.

    And if that doesn’t impress you, consider the number of states that have passed constitutional amendments and laws guaranteeing that marriage will be only between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

    And if “most people don’t really care about the issue “ includes Democrats, how much longer will it take before these Democrats wake up to the fact that they have associated themselves with a bunch of losers.

  • practical joe

    “Yeah, actually, there is, Suss. (May I call you Suss?) There’s a vaginal sphincter.”

    There is also another one, Sussie. (May I call you Sussie-Wussie?) There’s an anal sphincter — it fits into the anus of a sheep or a goat.

    For big ones — you probably can get one for a horse.

  • practical joe

    “My Roman Catholic upbringing taught me that homosexuality was evil… and that masturbation would lead me down a road of sexual depravity.”

    Looks like it happened.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    I stand corrected with my cheeks firmly clenched.

    There’s also another kind of sphincter I had not thought of previously: the type thatsayswhat

  • practical joe

    “The Christian Church is entirely responsible for the societal ills mankind has endured since 110 AD.”

    And I always thought it was 109 AD.

  • practical joe

    “The fundamentalist Muslims have it right on one count: Fundamentalist Christians are evil.”

    I didn’t know that Muslims supported homosexual marriage.

    When did that start?

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Oh BTW, many men have come before you and referred to me as Suss. Given this, I’ll allow it.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Re comment 156:

    What?

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    It’s a hat tip to “Wayne’s World.”

    Leave it to a Wayne’s World quote to suck the air out of a gay marriage shoutfest. You can thank me later.

  • RogerMDillion

    “anyone who thinks that putting a penis into an anal sphinctor is a logical thing to do, needs to get checked out. if you think that THIS is NORMAL…then you are unfit to raise children”

    so are you going to make straight couples you have had anal sex give up their children? how are you going to test for that?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    If you put it in any inanimate object then you only get the children on the weekends and two holidays a year.

  • steve

    anyone who thinks THAT is normal should be loaded up on meds

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I would think doping people up would result in an increase in some putting it in inanimate objects.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    There are fun uses for inanimate objects.

    Anyone who buys one of these things is unfit to raise children. Let’s get the sales figures, shall we, and see how many people we’re talking about here.

    Aw, screw it. It’s probably easier to count the people who haven’t bought one.

  • 1Potato

    I have some gay male friends who are conservative. They have no interest in gay parades or otherwise flaunting their homosexuality. And they are not interested in a gay political agenda.

    They acknowlege they are different. They don’t ask soceity to give them special treatment for it. In fact, they kind of like America the way it is, Mom and Dad and apple pie, and they want those values preserved (they seem to like their parents). Not all gays want to push their “agenda”.

  • El Bicho

    oh, bhw, my crush goes stronger. heh heh

  • RogerMDillion

    “They don’t ask soceity to give them special treatment for it. In fact, they kind of like America the way it is,”

    Sounds exactly like what gays would tell their conservative friends. I would like to hear what they tell their gay friends. What exactly is the apple pie value?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    LOL, bhw. Millions of American husbands love the string of pearls!

    I didn’t know that Muslims supported homosexual marriage.

    I didn’t say they did, pracjoe. Read my statement. What I said, and I’m firmly entrenched in this mode is “The fundamentalist Muslims have it right on one count: Fundamentalist Christians are evil.”

    I am sorry. anyone who thinks that putting a penis into an anal sphinctor is a logical thing to do, needs to get checked out. if you think that THIS is NORMAL…then you are unfit to raise children

    Hmmm. Tell that to the millions of heterosexual women who like anal sex, especially during pregnancy. Tell that to the American heterosexual men who are turned on by stimulation of their prostate gland via the rectum. Many wives do deliver on that little ditty. Does performing sex in anything than the missioanry position disqualify a heterosexual couple for having children? If so, we better open up a couple of million new abortion clinics so you fundies can exterminate these spawns of heathens.

    And if that doesn’t impress you, consider the number of states that have passed constitutional amendments and laws guaranteeing that marriage will be only between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

    Consider the average IQ and SAT scores of the voters in those states. It’s unconstitutional to propose and pass amendments that violate the Constitution to begin with. You can’t legislate hate by referendum or Congressional action.

    And if “most people don’t really care about the issue … includes Democrats, how much longer will it take before these Democrats wake up to the fact that they have associated themselves with a bunch of losers.

    Your fear shines through, dude. This isn’t about a religious or civil philosophy with you. There’s sufficient evidence shown here that you have a pathological hatred for homosexuals that borders the danger zone. If there were any physical attacks or murders of homosexual men in your area, I’d be the first to ask local law enforcement to check your whereabouts.

    “My Roman Catholic upbringing taught me that homosexuality was evil… and that masturbation would lead me down a road of sexual depravity…”
    Looks like it happened.

    I notice that you left out nocturnal emissions from what you quoted, pracjoe. There’s another tell-tale sign of the perspective from whence you come. Christianity is a breeder of hate and despair. It’s a massive cult, not a religion. It’s mass mind control in the spirit of Sun Yung Moon and Charles Manson. Those who use the Cross to impose hate and despair upon mankind have taken Christ’s sacrifice and thrown it away like dirty water. You’re no better than the corrupt power mongers in Christ’s time who sentenced him to the Cross.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Re 161:

    I know, Suss. I got it. I was saying “what?” by way of cheerfully identifying myself as a sphincter.

  • practical joe

    “Tell that to the millions of heterosexual women who like anal sex…”

    I can’t.

    Whenever I call — the so-called — “millions” — who are talking to you — they are unavailable to take my call.

    I will have to wait until you hang up.

    What other groups of “millions” do you contact to get your unsubstantiated comments?

    Any woman who tells you that she likes it up her ass is either a drunk, a slut, or a whore.

    But, what other kind would you know?

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    These homosexual marriage threads always seem to concentrate on man on man marriage.

    What about woman on woman?

    How do A.G. and P.J feel about two women gettin’ hitched?

    Is that also O.K. as long as they stear clear of that evil anal sex thing?

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    I don’t even get my own jokes. That’s a new low.

  • practical joe

    “Those who use the Cross to impose hate and despair upon mankind have taken Christ’s sacrifice and thrown it away like dirty water…”

    And those who try to use the Cross to impose “homosexual marriage” upon mankind have taken Christ’s sacrifice and thrown it away like a dirty condom.

  • gonzo marx

    to comment # 146…
    i never “declared victory” , merely made my point and showed the logical fallacy inherent in your comment…then told you to try again

    since then, the Study in question has been cited fully, the Answers to your Question shave been given…but rather than deal with the data, you choose to skip over it and continue on with this statement in comment # 172…
    *Any woman who tells you that she likes it up her ass is either a drunk, a slut, or a whore.

    But, what other kind would you know?*

    now, that IS a direct insult to quite a few women as well as to the person you are addressing…and i would like to know on what factual basis you are making this hideous assumption and faulty characterization?

    once again, it just adds more proof to the assertation that your arguments are logically flawed as well as being genreally hateful towards that which you personally disapprove…you seem quite capable of voicing your disapproval..which is your right, of course…yet do not seem anywhere near as capable of explaining nor giving a factual basis for such positions…

    and thus you continue to add nothing to the discourse save intolerance towards others and hate

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • practical joe

    “What about woman on woman?”

    What do they use for a penis?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I have some gay male friends who are conservative. They have no interest in gay parades or otherwise flaunting their homosexuality. And they are not interested in a gay political agenda.

    We haven’t been to a pride parade in many, many years, but we don’t see the parades as ‘flaunting’ but rather as ‘celebrating’. The difference is that celebrating is a rejoicing of the self, whereas flaunting would mean that the parades were created specificially to upset you and that is just stupid. Pride parades are about celebrating the self in an intolerant world. And like all parades, they include an exaggeration of character.

    They acknowlege they are different. They don’t ask society to give them special treatment for it.

    I acknowledge that I am different and that society treats me differently because of it, but I want to be treated equally. That isn’t special treatment, that is equal treatment.

    In fact, they kind of like America the way it is, Mom and Dad and apple pie, and they want those values preserved (they seem to like their parents).

    I love Mom, Dad and apple pie too and I want those values preserved. The difference is that I am intelligent enough to know that my marriage does nothing to those values. Should I get married, then you are STILL capable of creating a household consisting of mom, dad and an apple pie. So those values are clearly still preserved.

    Not all gays want to push their “agenda”.

    This is true! Not all gays believe in equality, many of us suffer from low self-esteem and internalized inner hate brought about by living in such an intolerant society.

    There are many gay conservatives who DO feel that what they have is inferior to what you have. We can see examples like Andrew Sullivan who places (or placed?) ads for online anonymous unsafe sexual encounters. Or Congressman Schrock of Georgia who is married and votes anti-gay all the time, but was caught calling gay phone sex lines for his own gratification, or Gannon, the conservative gay writer who was a male whore when he wasn’t a mouthpiece for the President (in other words, a whore for society when he wasn’t a whore for the administration), of course these people are going to value their random sexual hookups as less than a mom/dad/apple pie scenario. As well they should.

    Keep in mind, it’s a free country and they are consenting adults, so they’re free to have all the sex they want, I don’t care, except for the fact that they actively work to promote an environment hostile to themselves and others, when they aren’t engaging in hypocritical behavior.

    Whether you are a gay conservative or a gay liberal, if you value monogamy and/or raising children, and other’traditional’ values in a household, then you will always prioritize that at the top of the list. I’m not a single issue voter, I appreciate tax cuts, I want to overhaul many government programs, I believe in the right to bear arms, all that good stuff, but I won’t put any of that stuff on the same level as my family. Not now, not ever.

    Believing my family is the most important thing in the world to me is not an ‘agenda’. Believing my family is just as good as the family next door is not an ‘agenda’.

    If anything a gay family household is better than many households that are created ‘by accident’, because those families can be created before one is ready to have one. But there are no accidents with us and there are no abortions as each and every gay family that is created consists of a long journey through the legal and/or medical realm. We’ve got family planning down to an art form. We’ve worked hard to create our families and that wouldn’t have been possible with the strongest feelings for good old family values.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    last sentence should read:

    …wouldn’t have been possible without the strongest feelings….

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    And those who try to use the Cross to impose “homosexual marriage” upon mankind have taken Christ’s sacrifice and thrown it away like a dirty condom.

    Dude, I’m not imposing a damn thing. Marriage is marriage – gay, straight or convenience. It’s a partnership between TWO people, period. Those in religious life who try to impose the belief that marriage is an institution created by God are the ones making the imposition. But can we expect anything different? They keep saying that Man is made in ‘God’s image’ — therein lies the biggest joke of all.

  • practical joe

    “They keep saying that Man is made in ‘God’s image’ — therein lies the biggest joke of all.”

    No Joke.

    Man is made with Free Will –you know — the ability to distinguish Right from Wrong.

    Or perhaps — you don’t know.

  • gonzo marx

    that woudl be the ability to Choose, not neccesarily the ability to distinguish

    one is about Perception and Judgement…the other is about Will

    try harder…

    Excelsior!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Or perhaps — you don’t know.

    Oh, I know, pracjoe. I know only too well that closed mindedness and prejudice are enemies of humanity. I’ve done my best to understand where the opposition comes from and it’s been a waste of time. You people expect me to conform to YOUR beliefs. Sorry, dude, I’m not doing it. And because I am not does not give you license to continue to terrorize our side of the aisle. Those in your mindset are repsonsible for more crimes against humanity than a Sodomite like me. Somehow, I take a bit of comfort in that enlightenment.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Any woman who tells you that she likes it up her ass is either a drunk, a slut, or a whore.

    Ya, okay.

    All I know is that if God made man and woman, he made all of them, including their asses. And he made those an erogenous zone. Why would God make it feel all tingly and orgasmic back there if he didn’t want us to play with it?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    end italics

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Oral sex, anal sex, masturbation. All three are considered sodomy by Christian standards. Unless it is intercourse between a man and woman in the missionary position for the explicit purpose of reproduction, thou shalt have no sex. Next thing you know they’ll be saying that a clitorus is a figment of a woman’s imagination.

  • practical joe

    “that woudl be the ability to Choose, not neccesarily the ability to distinguish…”

    Man’s Free Will — makes no sense to Choose without being able to Distinguish.

    Unless you are an imbecile.

    And imbeciles are not responsible for their actions.

  • practical joe

    “Next thing you know they’ll be saying that a clitorus is a figment of a woman’s imagination…”

    Next thing you know Silas will be saying that a clitorus is something to be eaten with or without a condiment such as a relish, vinegar, or spice.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    The erotic applications of honey are well documented throughout history, pracjoe. They make a nice garnish for the little pleasure prong. Oops, I’m queer and I knew about that. What’s your excuse?

  • practical joe

    “Why would God make it feel all tingly and orgasmic back there if he didn’t want us to play with it?”

    Why would God make poisonous mushrooms?

    Answer: To see if we would so foolish as to eat them.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Considering the consequences of eating something poisonous, I have to say that’s a most cruel God of yours.

  • practical joe

    “All I know is that if God made man and woman, he made all of them, including their asses. And he made those an erogenous zone.”

    Your ass may be an erogenous zone to you but I never liked taking an enema.

    Anyone who likes to take an enema is beyond queer.

  • practical joe

    “Considering the consequences of eating something poisonous, I have to say that’s a most cruel God of yours.”

    “My God” — or “Our God”.

    If “Our God” didn’t do it — who did?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Practical Joe, you are telling us WHY God created a poisonous mushroom. YOU don’t know why anymore than anybody else, but since YOU have the answer, then it is YOUR God. Not mine.

    And all the more opportunity for commenters to better understand why separation of church and state is my number one issue. I should be free from having to live under YOUR interpretation of God.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Why would God make poisonous mushrooms?

    Answer: To see if we would so foolish as to eat them.

    mmmmmm….NO. The poison in some mushrooms has a role in our ecology, killing off certain trees or plants and making way for new ones.

    If God made man in his image, then God’s tushy must feel good when someone or something stimulates it, too. Therefore, I submit that God takes it up the ass.

  • ClubhouseCancer

    Proctological Joe:

    I have never in my life read comments as perverted as yours. You are apparently so positively obsessed with sex acts that you bring them up no matter what the topic at hand. It’s quite offensive, and it makes normal folks in the discussion take your arguments a lot less seriously.

    You don’t see the other side constantly talking about anal sex.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Comment 55, I know it was posted a while ago but somehow I missed it, so I will answer now:

    “I don’t understand your math. A little over half the people with AIDS are gay men. That tends to mean that almost half the people with AIDS are not gay men. ”

    It is proportional Michael, gays only make up 5% or our population, but they make up 57% of people with HIV or AIDS. Straights make up 95% of our population but only make up about 15% of AIDS victims. The rest is needle sharing.

    “I went to Avert.com and got redirected to a data-processing outsourcing company.”

    It is actually this link

    “Then you go into the “you people can leave California alone,” which sounds an awful lot like “Get all gay people out of California!” to me.”

    No, it means that the people of California don’t want gay marriage so leave us alone. I never said “Get all gay people out of California”.

    _____

    “All I know is that if God made man and woman, he made all of them, including their asses.”

    Yeah for a different reason.

  • practical joe

    “You don’t see the other side constantly talking about anal sex.”

    That’s why I bring it up.

    Isn’t that what caused AIDS to spread in the first place?

    Isn’t that what is still causing it to spread among homosexuals?

    The anus was intended for another purpose.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    no practicaljoe, anal sex is not what caused AIDS to spread in the first place. Unprotected sex with an infected person is.

    There is a difference, it can be seen to overlap, but there is a difference and it’s an important distinction to make.

    If two people practice anal sex in their relationship and they are both negative, then no, anal sex does not lead to AIDS. See the difference? Everybody else does.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “anal sex is not what caused AIDS to spread in the first place. Unprotected sex with an infected person is.”

    No, but it makes it easier to get AIDS.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    “You don’t see the other side constantly talking about anal sex.”

    Why bother? It’s the preoccupation of your ilk.

    That’s why I bring it up.

    Life for a gay male does not revolve around anal sex. And, frankly, it’s none of your business as to what two people do in the bedroom. I wouldn’t ask what you do with whatever woman is desperate enough to be in a relationship with you. It’s just none of my business.

    Isn’t that what caused AIDS to spread in the first place?

    Um, no. Your preoccupation clearly shows that you refuse to believe that there is another way of transmitting the virus. You blame it on homosexuals and anal sex. Dude, blame it on men, period. The incidence of HIV among lesbians is the lowest of all groups. I guess gay women ARE God’s chosen people after all; hence, the straight Fundamentalist Right male’s preoccupation with the Daughters of Sappho.

    Isn’t that what is still causing it to spread among homosexuals?

    Get a grip, Louise.

    The anus was intended for another purpose.

    Yeah, in your case, for supplying the American Southwest with Natural Gas.

  • practical joe

    “If two people practice anal sex in their relationship and they are both negative, then no, anal sex does not lead to AIDS. See the difference? Everybody else does.”

    IF “they are both NEGATIVE”…

    How did any become POSITIVE in the first place?

    Proponents of homosexual perversions have their heads in the sand.

    Or is the ass?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “The incidence of HIV among lesbians is the lowest of all groups. I guess gay women ARE God’s chosen people after all;”

    Scientifically how can women get AIDS from contact with another woman???

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    practicaljoe, it’s widely believed within the medical community that it originated from the SIV virus in Africa. They speculate a person got it from an animal and then the transmission to humans began.

    It is transmitted by infected blood. Therefore anal sex with an infected person will always be a high risk activity because of the probability of tissue tearing.

    Not all gay people have anal sex. Gay families are not defined by anal sex. Topics about homosexuality don’t always have to include discussions on anal sex, practicaljoe. Homosexuality is about an attraction to the same gender and that can manifest itself in many ways, anal sex is probably one of the less frequent ways.

    Since 95% of America is straight, it would be safe to assume that just by the numbers, there are far more heterosexual sodomites than gay sodomites. So how can you justify punishing a small percentage for the actions of a majority anyway?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Steve, is it really worth our time to try and reason with these people? The more noise they make, the more time we spend refuting them. That takes away from more important things we could be doing — like advocating selective breeding.

  • gonzo marx

    Ant G sez…
    *Scientifically how can women get AIDS from contact with another woman???*

    a number of ways…blood transfusion, cunnilingus during or just after menstruation…each getting smal cuts on their hands after pruning the roses and holding hands afterwards while the blood is still flowing…hell, a nice scab sandwich and a glass of pus will do it…

    hope that helps…

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “So how can you justify punishing a small percentage for the actions of a majority anyway?”

    Because the small minority makes up the majority in AIDS.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “That takes away from more important things we could be doing — like advocating selective breeding.”

    If selective breeding did exist, I thinke gays would most likely be the first ones to be excluded.

    But that’s just my opinion.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    “So how can you justify punishing a small percentage

    Because the small minority makes up the majority in AIDS.

    but Anthony, it is illegal to discriminate based on HIV status. You can’t justify that in a court of law, you cannot justify that in the court of public opinion. You can only justify that in your own mind, so then do not be surprised when the response of the majority is the label of bigotry and homophobia.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Steve, is it really worth our time to try and reason with these people?

    I doubt I could change a person’s mind, over the course of a small amount of time, and via online comments, especially when their ideology is most likely instilled over a lifetime. So any of these specific people, per se, I don’t expect to see any change. However by continually discussing marriage, monogamy, HIV, AIDS, gay men, poisonous mushrooms, apple pie and sphincters, and whatever for long enough, eventually it will sink in with people.

    When the first individuals realized the world wasn’t flat, it took some time to convince the rest. But you gotta put one foot in front of the other and begin the process if you ever want to see it’s end.

    At the very worst, I’m just wasting my time.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    So how can you justify punishing a small percentage

    Because the small minority makes up the majority in AIDS.

    um, Anthony, as an additional, second thought: You are justifying ‘punishing’ gay people from getting married because of AIDS, however, currently HIV positive people can get married. Health has never been a factor in marriage before. Do you see how weak that argument is?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “However by continually discussing marriage, monogamy, HIV, AIDS, gay men, poisonous mushrooms, apple pie and sphincters, and whatever for long enough, eventually it will sink in with people.”

    Very very very very TRUE, this is the same tactic Hitler used to get to power and also the same tactic Hitler used to get public opinion against Judaism. The problem is that Hitler didn’t reveal his plan, he just did it and it worked.

    So you don’t care what we think. You just want to cram it into our minds so you can have your way and overlook our beliefs.

    “Anthony, it is illegal to discriminate based on HIV status. ”

    In court it is illegal to discriminate based on anything. But here in the real world you and needle shareing guys are the cause of the spreading modern day plague. If you like it or not I will not overlook this fact. This is enough reason to not give any special rights.

    Back in the days of the Black Plague, the one that wipped out a third of the population, people didn’t give special rights to the rats that were spreading it, and we corontined everyone that had it so it would stop spreading.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    In court it is illegal to discriminate based on anything.

    which is why courts keep giving us marriage.

    You are entitled to your prejudice, however at the end of the day, it comes down to you being able to have your prejudices BUT me being free from having to live under them. You can compare me to a rat, makes no difference, but when you try to use that as reasoning for anything legislative or societal, I always win. In other words, you can think of me as a rat, Anthony, but you cannot treat me as one. That’s called justice.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Scientifically how can women get AIDS from contact with another woman???

    Jebus. This is what happens when the religous freaks take over the sex education programs in our public schools.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    another point of educating Ant G…

    rats did NOT spread the plague…the fleas on the rats did

    and we still don’t get french benefits…

    Excelsior!

  • KYS

    I haven’t seen a sraight answer (no pun intended) from Ant or Prac in response to the lesbian question. How do you guys feel about lesbians?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “rats did NOT spread the plague…the fleas on the rats did”

    No, this is wrong. The fleas, like the monkey screwer, were the cause of it but the rats carried the fleas world wide. They spread it.

    “How do you guys feel about lesbians?”

    I do not support Gay Marriage for anyone.

    Lesbians do not cause any physical harm like spreading AIDS, but they do raise children which (less than gay men) causes mental harm on the children.

    As for the lesbians in magazines, I take the position of any straight man.

    “In court it is illegal to discriminate based on anything.

    which is why courts keep giving us marriage.”

    No, because they keep going before activist judges who want to be the one with their names in history and that they don’t care what the people think.

    I wasn’t calling or comparing you to rats, I was comparing you to the rats who spread the plague.

    But it is interesting how I also compared you to Hitler but you only argued against the rat comparison.

    “but when you try to use that as reasoning for anything legislative or societal, I always win.”

    You have never won. Remember the Minutemen site??? You haven’t won on Gay Marriage issues either. That is why Gay Marriage is STILL illegal.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    As for the lesbians in magazines, I take the position of any straight man.

    If AG and Prac are representative of the typical American heterosexual male I thank God, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Vishnu, and every other Deity known to mankind since the first ape became man that I am NOT a heterosexual male.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    First of all Silas, thank you for my daily dose of insult.

    Second, I don’t think you understood my position on lesbians in magazines. It is obvious that you are not straight.

  • KYS

    Ok, Ant, so, marriage issues aside, you are ok with lesbians because they provide you with sexual stimulation. But you are clearly not ok with any male homosexual activity. You’ve seen more than enough evidence on this thread to show you that AIDS is no longer a homosexual phenomenon. So, do you see the hypocrisy?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    But it is interesting how I also compared you to Hitler but you only argued against the rat comparison.

    And how did I argue against the rat comparison? By saying ‘you can think of me, whatever you want..’?

    You haven’t won on Gay Marriage issues either. That is why Gay Marriage is STILL illegal.

    In Hawaii, we won the right to marry, so you all modified the state constitution. In Massacheusetts, we won the right to marry. In California, we won the right to marry, which is why it went before the legislature in the first place. We win ALL THE TIME. But you all are such sore losers, you have to alter the foundations of America to continue your bigotry.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Not an insult, Anthony, it’s a fact. Frankly I have banged my head against the wall for the last time trying to reason with you. I’m eternally grateful to you for one thing; however, and that is that I realize how great of a job we did in raising our sons. These two young men will never harbor the hate and darkness that emanates from you. They have grown up in an unusual situation and they don’t bear any resentment towards us or towards society. They are living, breathing examples that children can grow and be nurtured in an alternative family and still retain character, morality, patriotism and love. There are other parents here both gay and straight who have also raised phenomenal kids who will be beacons of light and hope as America and the rest of the world travels through amazing times. It will be young people like these who will rise up in the generations to come and return this nation to the status it has sorely lacked for far too long. Perhaps that sounds poetic. Perhaps a bit idealistic. But, Anthony, like it or not, it’s the truth. Kindness and tolerance will always win over intolerance and oppression. That, my boy, you can take to the bank.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Lesbians do not cause any physical harm like spreading AIDS, but they do raise children which (less than gay men) causes mental harm on the children.

    lesbians can spread aids because anyone can spread aids under a variety of conditions…anal sex is just one way to spread lots of things…uh, yea…
    i’ve never seen the study or studies that denounce gay parenting as resulting in mental harm of children…
    where would one go to get that data, and do they list the specific mental conditions said to be created by gay parents?

    As for the lesbians in magazines, I take the position of any straight man.

    anthony, are you seriously suggesting that you view this kind of material?
    holy crap, for all the things you’ve said and for all the insults that have been heaped upon you, i sincerely hoped that you were not the kind of young person who would align himself with the overtly hypocritical behavior that is denouncing that which you then turn right around and purchase for pleasure…

    i feel so let down…so many of the young men of today are fast proving to be no better than so many men from the generation before them, touting the ridiculous notion that as long as it’s being produced it’s okay to partake even as a high and mighty stance is taken against it…

    i wonder, anthony, if you heard that whooshing sound as any credibility you had just went out the window…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Anthony believes that if two women love each other, it’s a harmful environment to raise children but okay for his sexual desires.

    So sexual orientation, is competely reduced to the sex act and any acknowledgement of emotion/feelings or love is deemed harmful. This is right in line with the conservatives I mentioned earlier, Gannon, Sullivan, et. al. who seem to prefer promiscuity.

    Too bad Anthony and Practicaljoe can’t see that the conservative treatment of homosexuality increases promiscuity and self-destructive behavior.

    And this clearly shows that some people have a fundamental block towards understanding the difference between the emotion of love and a physical act. That’s sad.

  • KYS

    Rock on, Silas. Kindness is free, blind hatred has dire costs.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “you are ok with lesbians because they provide you with sexual stimulation.”

    I do not support lesbians. The girls in the magazines and films are paid actors. There is a big difference.

    “You’ve seen more than enough evidence on this thread to show you that AIDS is no longer a homosexual phenomenon.”

    I haven’t seen any evidence. I have provided evidence to the contrary:

    Gays only make up 5% of the American population, but make up 57% of the American population with AIDS or HIV. Straights make up 95% of the population, but they only make up 15% of the infected people.

    You ignore my info, but take the info of my enemy as fact. See the hypocrisy???

  • KYS

    Ant,
    In comment 53 I countered this mantra of yours with the following statistics from YOUR coveted source, avert.org:

    Anthony,
    Also from avert.org, here are the statistics on women with AIDS:

    Of the 88,815 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,

    63% were exposed through heterosexual contact
    35% were exposed through injection drug use.

    There are no statistics to validate your claim that homosexual men are infecting heterosexual women.

    Isn’t is just as possible that the people infecting straight men are hetero women? You are thinking with your hatred. GAY MEN DON’T HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN. Now PLEASE stop quoting that statistic. It’s lame and does not logically bring you to your favored conclusion no matter how often you repeat it.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Of the 88,815 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,

    63% were exposed through heterosexual contact
    35% were exposed through injection drug use.”

    This just shows that woman are a minority when it comes to AIDS, because 57% of ALL people with AIDs got it from heterosexual contact.

    Also it shows that 2% got it from homosexual contact. That is 2% too many. I wonder of those 2%, how many went and had sex with a straight man??? Probabally most of them. And probabally most of them had multiple men. I could be one of those men.

    But throw this “gays infect women” aside for a second: Gays only make up 5% of our population, but make up 57% of the population when it comes to AIDS. This should be a good enough to help gays with there mental problem. It is physically hurting them.

  • KYS

    Ok Ant,
    Your head is already in the sand. Keep your genetalia there too, and you won’t get aids.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Until there is a semblance of tolerance and security within the gay community statistics don’t mean diddly squat. As long as there are fears of ostracization or discrimination, humans will lie in surveys for self preservation’s sake. If scientists say that 4 – 6% of the population is exclusively gay based upon samples taken, I would venture to guess that the actual percentage could be doubled. People lie to insulate themselves from “shame”. It’s sad, but it’s a fact. It’s human nature. I have always maintained that close psychological examination of the majority of males with a pathological fear or hatred of homosexuality is based in their own sexual ambivalence which they refuse to deal with. Both sides can quote all the stats they want, it still doesn’t account for the lies.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Fine Silas, lets double the 5% to 10%. So it is 10% or gays that make up our population and make up 57% of the Aids population. Still doesn’t help your case.

    About your lying thing, our side doesn’t need to lie about the facts, the facts are on our side.

  • KYS

    Silas,

    Couldn’t agree more. Tell me I have a 1% chance of getting cancer, and that stat means absolutely nothing when I actually get it. People use statistics to quell their fears; if I’m not queer I won’t get AIDS. It’s silly and dangerous.

    By the way, meant to congratulate you on your impending marriage. Kudos!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Pathological straights actually believe that everyone in their demographic tell the truth! That assumption is steeped in an alternate reality which only exists in the far reaches the fantasy world.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Thanks, KYS. The melting snows of winter will give rise to the marvel of a new life come Spring.

  • KYS

    Great term: pathalogical straights; Head in the sand, follow the ‘right path’ type of people who cannot come to grips with the fact that bad things happen no matter what your orientation, choices, pleasures, lifestyle, mistakes, successes or failures. Wouldn’t it be great to be united in our “human race”? Yikes, my five-year-old self is emerging.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Somehow I wish our collective five-year old self would emerge! We become so jaded as we enter puberty and adulthood. There’s something to be said for wide-eyed innocence and daring to dream. The world isn’t such a bad place. It becomes this way by the choices we make. Basic respect of human dinity and self-expression breed peaceful coexistence. Failure to maintain something so simple is what leads us into violent confrontation and division.

  • KYS

    More than that, our society views death as vile, or a punishment. Off the subject, I know..but I feel that so much of this hatred comes from the disgust we associate with death. Our culture has taken our ill and elderly and swept them under the proverbial rug. I think the fear of AIDS fuels so many fears, and I think it might have to do with our reluctance to accept death as a part of life….

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Oh that’s so true, KYS. Too many in the world today look at death in its finality without looking at the whole picture. A life well lived should be celebrated at the time of death. It seems to me that Christians are the most guilty of mishandling the issue of death. They try to make Christ the Savior who has delivered us all from “death.” In reality our perspective on death is more warped today than it was previous to His walk on earth. The Ancients had a far better attitude toward death.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Yes KYS my head WAS in the sand when I answered comment 227. Let me answer it again:

    “Of the 88,815 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,

    63% were exposed through heterosexual contact
    35% were exposed through injection drug use.”

    Of course it is 63% heterosexual contact, because when a gay guy has sex with a straight girl it is heterosexual. If it is male-female it is heterosexual, no matter what.

    “GAY MEN DON’T HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN.”

    Now you can’t sit there and tell me that there has NEVER been any cases of gay men having sex with straight women. You know that is not true.

    “I think the fear of AIDS fuels so many fears, and I think it might have to do with our reluctance to accept death as a part of life….”

    I don’t accept unnecesary avoidable death. We shouldn’t accept death at a young age just because some gays should be able to do what they want.

    If you live your life respectiing yourself and others and making sure society has benefited from your existance than you shouldn’t worry about death. I sure don’t. When my time comes it comes, I know I will be going to a great place doing greater things. The problem is that not everyone feels the same as me.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “But you all are such sore losers, you have to alter the foundations of America to continue your bigotry”

    No you are the sore loser. We voted fair and square but you guys went right around it and then got shut down by our reinforcenments and then you call us sore losers.

    Diana Hartman, I assure you that I am different. I do not purchase or go out of my way to view any such material. I agree it is degrading to women, but you got to remember it is women doing it. You should organize protests against them.

    I was simply implying that the girls in magazines are different then so called lesbians. I was also simply stating that I am a normal straight man.

  • 1Potato

    “”They don’t ask soceity to give them special treatment for it. In fact, they kind of like America the way it is,”

    “Sounds exactly like what gays would tell their conservative friends. I would like to hear what they tell their gay friends. What exactly is the apple pie value?””

    No, I have two gay friends who are most definitely of the activist type. I am just pointing out that there are conservative gays out there.

    What is apple pie? One of my gay friends is Italian and comes from a traditional Italian family. He likes families with a Mom and a Dad, kids running about, traditional Italian-American values. Mom cooking the spaghetti sauce while Dad fixes something in the house. He views his gayness as kind of an anomaly, a genetic quirk. He wants to be left alone and to leave traditional families alone.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    1Potato,

    You are lying

  • RogerMDillion

    “We voted”

    16-year-olds do not vote.

  • 1Potato

    I am not lying. The guy still lives with his family. It doesn’t seem they know he is gay, I am sure they suspect or know but they don’t talk about it.

    He likes his family household. Traditional Ma and Pa setting. It’s a big house, he is in his 40’s and lives upstairs, has a job, etc. He doesn’t want to get married or even settle down wit a man, he is the “run around” type. He has his lifestyle but loves his family, culture, and traditions. Just because he feels his sex life doesn’t fit in to his families tradions, in all other ways his is the nice Italian boy and does fit in. He does not want to cram his “differences” down their throats, since all else goes smoothly.

    Now I am sure he is in the minority. My other gay conservative friend has a different attitude; he is a strict Catholic and thinks being gay (or at least living that lifestyle) is a sin. He is in a religious based group (forget the name) that tries to bring gays out of that lifestyle and back to “straightness”, I guess through prayer, psychology, etc. The first guy didn’t think hie gayness was a sin, or maybe he does, but anyway he is not trying to convert out of it like the second guy. He just doesn’t want to promote it draw attention to it outside his gay friends and certainly the second guy doesn’t.

    There are some conservative gays, did you not know that? In fact they have a whole group in Congress, the Log Cabin Republicans I believe they are called.

    Don’t accuse me of lying, by the way, unless you know that I am. How the hell do you know what my friends believe?

  • Bennett

    “I was also simply stating that I am a normal straight man.”

    16 year old boys do not vote, becauce they are not men yet.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    1Potato, I know there is such thing as gay conservatives, because the Log Cabin Republicans formally anounced that they were going to vote Kerry in 04.

    I was saying you were a liar because there is no such thing as gay Italians.

    You say your freind is 40, unmarried and lives with his mom??? Dude, he isn’t gay, he is just a loser.

  • Bennett

    Anthony – here you go little buddy

    May your inner dreams come true!

    You do speak Italian, right?

  • 1Potato

    Trust me Anthony, you are going to be just like him. Just like him.

    Just kidding.

    By the way, do you like Italian sausage?

    Again, just kidding. I’m straight, I’m striaght! Take it easy.

  • 1Potato

    Help me! Blogcritics is turning me homo!

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Bennett, I don’t usually answer you, but I am really curious to what your website said or showed. For some reason my computer wouldn’t let me open it.

  • Bennett

    Must be those parental controls…

    It’s the Italian GayLib website.

    In Italian, about gay Italians.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    That’s funny I didn’t think I had parental controls [edited] oh wait never mind.

    Now if it is in Italian then how the hell would you know what it says??? Not too many people named Bennett speaking Italian.

    It could have been saying that there are no gays in Italy.

    You know I am just kidding, right??? Every culture has there share of gays, there just isn’t that much Italian ones.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    P.S. I bet you can’t found any gay websites in Sicilian.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Replace “find” with “found”.

  • Bennett

    [edited]

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Gli hotel che sono amichevoli agli omosessuali in Sicilia includono The hotels that are friendly to the homosexuals in Sicily include:

    Hotel D’Orange D’Alcantara
    Palmento di Gilferraro
    Hotel Villa Schuler
    Isoco Guest House

    Articolo grande sulla vita di gay in Sicilia. Indovino che una regina siciliana non � rara come precedentemente esatta. (Great article about the gay life in Sicily. I guess a Sicilian Queen isn’t uncommon as previously claimed.)

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    mambo italiano!

  • wahoo

    A man fell in love with another youth, and entreated Zeus to change him into the form of a woman. Zeus consented to his request and transformed him into a beautiful woman, so that the youth saw her and loved her, and took her home as his bride. Zeus wishing to discover if the man in his change into a woman had also altered his habits of life, placed a beautiful female prostitute in his house while his bride was out. The man, quite forgetting his present condition as a woman, started up from the bed and pursued the prostitute into the bedroom. Venus was much disappointed and then caused him to return to his former shape.

    Zeus had it right.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Anthony should check out the various sponsor links from gaylib.it – lots of dating options if he ever goes over there. I hear Italy produces the best ‘bears’, if that’s what he’s into. You know, the Bud Spencer types.

    Dave

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    We should call Kelly O’Donnell’s travel agency, R Family Vacations, and see if we can get her and Rosie to host a gay cruise in the Mediterranian which would stop in at Sicily as part of the itinierary. I can see it now, 300+ alternative families descending upon Palermo. “Mamma! Mamma! The finnochios have invaded Palermo! The men, they hold hands, the damn frocios!”

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    de-italicizing.

  • lilboyblue

    Welcome to The World’s Foremost Gay and Lesbian Hotels!

    Sorry — but none of these flea bag hovels make the grade:

    Hotel D’Orange D’Alcantara
    Palmento di Gilferraro
    Hotel Villa Schuler
    Isoco Guest House

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Signor Gavone (Bennet): [edited]

    The only laguage we share is English, but let’s not even use that. Capisce???

    Silas,

    Find me a site in Sicilian about Sicilians respecting homos. You can’t.

    And if 300 gay families invaded Palermo then there would be a massacre. It isn’t wise to introduce a species in an ecosystem that can’t handle it.

  • troll

    Anthony – I like your comments much more in a language that I don’t read – I can imagine that you are writing something constructive

    troll

  • Bennett

    I’m with you Troll. Not that AG is saying much more than you would expect from a young pup.

    Most of what he writes does not translate. So it appears that his Italian is on par with his English.

    I am soooooo hurt by it though!

    :-]

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Bennett, I didn’t you could translate any of my Castellamarese ( a Sicilian dialect) just like a how a could barely make out you your basic Italian (Toscano).

    [edited]

    So I answered in Castellamarese/Sicilian saying that what you said was false and [edited], you don’t know me.

    Also, I thought it was agreed before that we weren’t going to respond to each other anymore. Your the one that proposed it.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Bennett, you must have thought every Italian spoke the same language.

    I guess you don’t know much about the world as you thought.

  • practical joe

    Bennett know much about the world but [edited]

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    nice…back to the direct personal INsults are both Ant G and “practical” joe

    try and keep it about the Issue, folks?

    the main point of th eoriginal Post still remains…Mass has had gay marriage for a while..the world has not ended…the institution of marriage has not crumbled

    in fact, save for more folks being allowed to get married and be able to legally share all the benefits and responsibilities…there seems to have been no change

    even the GOP governor doesn’t seem to be able to find anything wrong with what has happened

    and no one has any basis for assertation that the marriages of others have been diminished one iota by allowing other folks to share in the bonds of civil matrimony

    therefore, no agrument against denying the Rights of same sex couples to get married under the eyes of secular Law has bee shown to be factually accurate…whereas proponents of it have been borne out by the facts to have been correct

    that’s called checkmate…

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Leccaculo, eh???

  • practical joe

    “Mass has had gay marriage for a while.. the world has not ended…the institution of marriage has not crumbled… that’s called checkmate…”

    No — that’s calling a win after the first half of the first inning.

    Don’t crow prematurely.

    That is characteristic of children and immature adults.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Gonzo that is no checkmate. This is a checkmate:

    Mass. now allows Gay Marriage and everyone is happy. California doesn’t, so if you are gay and want to get married GO TO MASSACHUSETTS!!! The people here spoke and we said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman!!!” It would be Fascism if we threw away the vote.

    Thank you, CHECK and MATE

  • KYS

    Ant, you clearly haven’t been to Pantelleria, Lipari or Stromboli recently. Nobody cares about eachother’s sexuality there.. so just give it up.
    All you want to do is hate.
    Che catso fai?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “nice…back to the direct personal INsults are both Ant G and “practical” joe”

    I hate this hypocrytical assumption. Me and Joe throw your arguments to ground and stomp on them and you guys call us names (self hating fags, underage, uneducated, full of hatred, ect.) so we are the ones we insult people personally??? Nope. Excluding comment#263, please point out where I have used personal insults. You can’t.

    CHECKMATE!!!!

  • KYS

    PS my Italian speech far outshines my spelling.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    wrong again, Ant G

    you see, there is a bit of Federal Law that clearly states if something is legal in one state, it has to be recognized, legally, by the rest as long as it does not violate the US Constitution…

    now, go and look it up…

    take a moment to consider what this means, and wait for it to be challenged and hit the SCOTUS

    this is called “zugwang” in chess…

    again…go and look it up

    the Rights of the individual > bigotry and prejudice

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • KYS

    Poor Ant, ten years from now with a few real issues under his belt, he may find that these windmills aren’t worth fighting, after all.

  • practical joe

    KYS says — “All you want to do is hate”

    Au contraire.

    No hate.

    The hate comes from the promulgators of perversions.

    All we want is to maintain an institution which has endured for thousands of years, and which a minority of extremist lib–e–e-ral radicals are now attempting to destabilize by introducing their perverted practices and expecting the vast majority to accept their perversions without comment or resistance.

    No hate here — just sorrow and pity for those who have lost their way.

  • KYS

    I find that hateful, to deny a significant subset of the population the right to be recognized like everybody else, especially when it does not AT ALL detract from your beliefs. You loose NOTHING by allowing gay marriage. If you believe it is against God’s will, leave that problem to be resolved between god and homosexuals. You seek to remove the FREE WILL your god has given mankind to serve your own interests. And the crux of the argument is the AIDS factor, which is so flimsy as to be laughable. That reeks of hatred to me.

  • practical joe

    “If you believe it is against God’s will, leave that problem to be resolved between god and homosexuals”

    And suppose I believe God has nothing to do with it — but it is against Natural Law which we must follow to maintain our civilization.

  • KYS

    If you believe in natural law, you must concede that homosexuality may be part of natural law, and that it will unfold as intended, without your intrusion.

  • practical joe

    wrong again, gonzo

    The Constitution allows states to ignore legal relationships in other staates by applying their own law. The Supreme Court recognizes and allows states to have conflicting policies regarding the same transaction or legal relationship.

    For example, if you sign a contract or get a driver’s license in one state, other states have no constitutional requirement to accept these transactions.

  • practical joe

    If you believe in natural law, you must concede that homosexuality is not part of natural law.

  • KYS

    Again, Joe, I challenge you to demonstrate where homosexuality infringes upon your rights as a heterosexual…..

  • KYS

    Joe, WRONG! Homosexuality has its place in many species!!! It hasn’t destroyed any of them.

  • KYS

    Regardless, you seem hell-bent on obliterating homosexuality. If not for religious reasons, then why? Please answer this question.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Gonzo, this law probabally doesn’t exist, but if it doesn’t really matter because Massachusetts will ban Gay Marriage also.

    And if it doesn’t, who is to say that Gay Marriage is Constitutional???

    I never was on the Chess Team so I don’t know and don’t want to know what zugwang means.

    CHECKMATE

    “you clearly haven’t been to Pantelleria, Lipari or Stromboli recently. Nobody cares about eachother’s sexuality there”

    Maybe that is because they are off the coast and not part of the 99.9% of the Roman Catholic Italian and Sicilian mainlands.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    we will see how SCOTUS decides…this Issue will come up before them in the next few years as more and more states sign on

    either way…and i will admit there being a possibility the Interpertation coudl go the way you suggest…more and more, the Issue is showing that the arguments against allowing folks to get married are being proven wrong

    each and every day that these people get married, and all the asertations made by detractors do NOT come to pass…just shows how wrong this insane “jim crowe” style discrimination is, and how the Rights of the Individual are greater than ignorance and prejudice against a minority

    and that simple fact is joyful to all Liberty loving Americans

    Excelsior!

  • KYS

    “CHECKMATE”, “THATS RIGHT”, Ant is emulating you, Gonzo. Isn’t that flattering? ;)

    Hey Joe! Check out this site: link

    Homosexuality exists in many species.

    Anthony, you may want to revisit your statistics on the culture of those islands. The majority are Roman Catholic, but the society is not bigoted. Have you been there? I have, so let’s not embarrass you by more discussion.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Comment 282, I thought so. Congratulations Gonzo on making up shit.

    KYS here:

    PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE:

    * Males are born with certain parts and females are born with certain parts and these parts fit together like a puzzle so we can reproduce. No Accident.

    * Fifty-One percent of humans are Female, Forty-Nine percent of humans are Male. If you take in consideration that Females tend live a little longer than Males than it would be 50-50. Hence, one woman for every man. No Accident

    * Only five percent of Americans go against the first two priciples, the majority (Fify-Seven percent) of Americans with AIDS or HIV got AIDS or HIV by going against the first two principles. No Accident.

    * Anyone that goes against the first two principles needs help and support from their peers, not special rights.

    * Genes are inheretied from parents, so since gays don’t reproduce how would a “gay gene” exist??? It doesn’t.

    * Humans aren’t special, we are just animals. So why don’t we see gays among lions or zebras or geese??? Because they don’t exist.

    * The only way a child can be born is by a male and a female. This is no accident, because it was intended that these same two male and female bring up this child.

    _____

    Gays have every right that every straight person has. I can’t marry another man either. Gay Marriage is not about Civil Rights, giving voting rights to women was civil rights, because men had voting rights therefore it would discrimination not to give voting rights to women.

  • practical joe

    KYS — “homosexual marriage” infringes on our entire civilization. If you can’t see that, you are blind to the role of the family on civilization. Unfortunately, it appears that you have your eyes closed and you have a long way to go before you wake up.

  • KYS

    See my previous comment regarding homosexuality in many species.

    As for your other arguments; blah, blah, blah. They’ve all been countered quite sufficiently in this thread.

    Your rights are not diminished by homosexual marriage. Your argument is moot.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    It’s not called “bigotry” it is called “common sense”.

    And thanks alot for expanding the width of this site with your little false webstite.

  • KYS

    Oh! National Geographic is not a credible site for you? Hm…head in the sand again, raggazzo?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Unfortunately, it appears that you have your eyes closed and you have a long way to go before you wake up.”

    No, his eyes are not closed. Liberals hate to see family values existing. Liberals have more power in a society where family values don’t exist.

    No, my arguments have not been proving wrong on this thread. People just pass them off as blah, blah, blah, just like you have, because you know it is the truth, I am right and that it hurts your argument if anyone acknowledges it.

    As for your site about “gay aniamls” it is exaggerated. Maybe a couple of monkeys found that it felt good to rub on eachother’s balls, but there are no same sex mates in the animal world. That is a fact.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    firstly..Ant G, you only wish i was “making shit up”…i am not

    you see, under Federal Law, a marriage in Mass is legal in California…even if the same folks could not, currently be married in Cali

    what has yet to be determined is what practical joe spoke of, which is if Cali would still have the legal state right to not sanction the same marriage if HELD WITHIN THE STATE ITSELF…

    let that sink in…

    that is what SCOTUS will be deciding eventually…kind of like Roe v Wade, but with marriages

    as for your “principles”…shwo your proof

    just because you liek to spam that little manifesto does NOT make it factual…as has been shown to you time and time again

    enjoy

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    No, National Geographic is a very credible site when it talks about the world. But it is not credible when it gets political.

  • KYS

    “People just pass them off as blah, blah, blah, just like you have, because you know it is the truth, I am right and that it hurts your argument if anyone acknowledges it.”

    The only one here with an argument is you, bambino, because you don’t live by the “live and let live” rule. You wan’t the world to believe what you believe, which is short-sighted and bigoted. Show me how homosexual marriage hurts you (and the AIDS argument doesn’t stand, because that behavior is what is is whether or not it relates to homosexual marriage). It may go against your “beliefs” but Jews don’t eat pork and married muslim women don’t show their hair. That doesn’t impede on your right to follow your bliss, does it? You haven’t done ONE THING to prove that gay marriage hurts you. So what’s your point here?

  • practical joe

    Gonzo — what are you blathering about here?

    “what has yet to be determined is what practical joe spoke of, which is if Cali would still have the legal state right to not sanction the same marriage if HELD WITHIN THE STATE ITSELF…”

    What state?

    When you post — make some sense…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    no

    i will continue to be as obscure as is possible, just to fuck with you

    {8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    still..it worked for me, a damn shame if it was nto clear enough for you

    but, contrary to your belief..it’s not about you

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Gonzo, you mean to tell me you need proof to see stuff like only a woman can give birth is true??? To see if men and woman have parts that fit together like a puzzle???

    You are the one that needs to show proof. You need to prove that that law you mentioned actually exists.

    ______

    KYS, answer one question:

    How come only a man and a woman can reproduce???

    I have more questions, but I just want to see if you can begin to answer this question.

  • KYS

    Here’s the deal: Anthony your arguments are impotent. Your logic is flawed. You cannot prove that your are damaged by gay marriage. Your religion does not give you any leverage because we, as a country, are obliged to leave religion out of the legal process. So WHAT, besides your narrow-minded view, stands in the way of gay marriage???

    “How come only a man and a woman can reproduce???”

    You’ve raised this question several times and it looks more and more stupid each time you bring it up. So I will counter with a question. Answer it if you are able…Is reproduction the ONLY reason for marriage?

  • practical joe

    Some homosexuals evidently believe that when two men “copulate”, the semen in the condom is the reproduction of their genetic codes.

    Of course they both have to use the same condom to have a co-mingling of their semen.

    And with that co-mingling, they say that’s their contribution to civilization and the continuation of the human race.

    UGH!

  • KYS

    Anthony, tell me what is political about the article linked? If you cannot objectively read information provided, you are destined [edited]

  • KYS

    Joe,

    WHAT? What the hell are you talking about?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “you don’t live by the “live and let live” rule.”

    If everyone lived by the “live and let live” rule then this world would fall apart.

    “Live and let live” is just another way of saying “anarchy”.

    “You haven’t done ONE THING to prove that gay marriage hurts you. So what’s your point here?”

    * Practical Joe’s very true words, ““homosexual marriage” infringes on our entire civilization. If you can’t see that, you are blind to the role of the family on civilization.”

    * Married people can adopt. Thus, not just hurting themeselves, but the lives of children.

    * Something went wrong in their lives to make them more vulnerable to homosexuality. These people need help, not special rights.

    * If gay marriage passes in California then we will be ignoring the voice of the voters who voted that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    *Gay Marriage will ultimately create much more tolerance towards gays which will attract more and more vulnerable people to homosexuality, thus advancing the risk of HIV and AIDS.

  • practical joe

    As gonzo says…

    “i will continue to be as obscure as is possible, just to fuck with you”

  • RogerMDillion

    “Males are born with certain parts and females are born with certain parts and these parts fit together like a puzzle so we can reproduce. No Accident.”

    Then explain hermaphrodites, which exist all throughout nature.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Is reproduction the ONLY reason for marriage?”

    No, but reproduction is the product of two people in love. It is the only outcome of two people in love. This is why only a man and woman are the only ones that can reproduce.

    You keep saying that I haven’t given you any reason for being against gay marriage. But I have given you many many reasons why I am against homosexuality. Gay Marriage will only promote homosexuality.

  • KYS

    Anthony, I’m well aware of your opinion, you just can’t stop quoting yourself. However, you still haven’t offered any substantial information to prove ANY of your arguments, or anything substantial to counter my arguments. I’m always willing to consider some one’s position, when backed by some credible sources or at least a sincere effort to address questions. But you can’t seem to prove your point at all, so I feel no need to argue it. Good luck and god speed.

    Anybody have any good brunch recipes? I’m thinking salmon is over-done…

  • practical joe

    “Then explain hermaphrodites, which exist all throughout nature”

    If homosexuals want to marry animals of other species, they ought to go there.

  • practical joe

    Justice O’Connor, stated that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is indeed a “legitimate state interest” and that “other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

    Listen to Sandra.

  • RogerMDillion

    hermphrodites exist in humans as well pj, but I’m well aware you have no idea what you are talking about.

  • practical joe

    “hermphrodites exist in humans as well pj, but I’m well aware you have no idea what you are talking about.”

    Well. Let’s see. One case of human hermaphroditism is the case of the gonadal hermaphrodite. In this case each gonad is an ovotestis – part ovary and part testis – or one is an ovary and the other a testis.

    Is that what RogerMDillion wants to marry?

    O.K. by me.

    You have my approval.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    well, thank GOD! Because we are all just constantly sitting around waiting on your approval.

  • practical joe

    The hour is late and I just wanted to make Roger happy.

    But that approval was only for two hermphrodites.

  • RogerMDillion

    Joe, you can continue on as [edited], who no one takes seriously other than AG, who continually lies by claiming that he is part of the group that has voted to ban gay marriage. I don’t approve, but only hope that evolution will speed up its process and take care of business.

  • practical joe

    Hillary is a good man?

    Have you been peeking?

  • RogerMDillion

    PIN HEAD, It’s filled with a punctuation error.

  • practical joe

    Roger says —

    �Joe, you can continue on as [edited]..�

    I need more information — I want you to be more specific.

    [edited]
    Now that you have your pick, go to it�

    Unlike you — I like to be precise.

  • practical joe

    Roger says —

    “PIN HEAD, It’s filled with a punctuation error.”

    Picky, Picky, Picky…

  • practical joe

    LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL!

    YES!

    Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man.

    LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL —

    That’s what we have!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    There will be no justice until there is parity. Thanks to the repression delivered by the Abrahamaic religions, labels have become an important part of humanity. Everything has a label: straight, gay, black, white, conservative, liberal, Christian, heathen. There was a time in man’s history where male bonding included a man laying with a man so to speak. It seemed as normal as sunrise and sunset. Then a few twisted minds poisoned the populace and created a cottage industry in anti-gay rhetoric and fag-bashing. Queers became synonymous with every ill faced by society. We’re the scapegoat and the smokescreen because were it not for demonizing gays, the fundamentalists would be impotent instead of important.

    As I research the religions that came out of Judaism, I am struck by the similarity of Islam and Christianity. Both religions were usurped from the Prophets by politicians who needed a mechanism to grab the imaginations of hopeless men and women. If the open-minded Christians and Muslims started digging the way I have, they may come to learn that Christians and Muslims share much more than not. The Qur’an, along with the New Testament, have been manipulated to suit the needs of political powerhouses. If mankind truly was made in God’s image, then can someone please explain to me why there are more stupid humans than not in this world?

  • practical joe

    When Silas can’t win on rational grounds, he drags in his harangue on religion and why there aren’t more [edited] humans like him.

    Again, the rational basis for deciding whether “homosexual marriage” is where this country should be going is expressed quite concisely by Justice O’Connor… “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is indeed a “legitimate state interest” and that “other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Those quotes from O’Connor aren’t exactly a ringing condemnation of gay marriage.

    Here’s what it comes down to for most sensible people. When choosing what rights to respect and what rights to deny, isn’t it always better to come down on the side of giving more rights and more freedom to more people, when those rights do no actual harm to any other people?

    And I defy you to prove that allowing gay folks to get married does actual harm to anyone. Show me EVIDENCE of the harmfulness of encouraging gay monogamy and commitment and I’ll change my position.

    Dave

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Dave,

    I seriously doubt they could even establish that allowing gay marriage actually damages the institution of marriage, much less resulting in an real damage to anything in society.

    I’ll be curious to see what these folks have to say.

  • practical joe

    Preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is indeed a “legitimate state interest”!

    Dave disagrees:

    �Those quotes from O’Connor aren’t exactly a ringing condemnation of gay marriage?

    I would not want to be on your side in a court battle.

    That �ringing condemnation� is loud and clear.

    [edited]

    Dave then claims to be speaking for most sensible people.

    Dave says, �Here�s what it comes down to for most sensible people.�

    Most �sensible people� is better indicated by the number of states which have passed laws against what Dave believes is �most sensible�.

    [edited]

    Dave says — �When choosing what rights to respect and what rights to deny, isn’t it always better to come down on the side of giving more rights and more freedom to more people, when those rights do no actual harm to any other people?�

    What Dave cannot see is that harm comes in many different ways and forms.

    �Homosexual marriage� would be like a localized cancer that eventually spreads and harms the entire body. That is the harm in opening this Pandora�s Box. The entire body is the family. Homosexuals cannot procreate, which is a basic function of the family. Marriage is not just diddling with genitals.

    �And I defy you to prove that allowing gay folks to get married does actual harm to anyone.�

    And I defy Dave to prove that allowing homosexuals to get �married� does NOT do actual harm to anyone.�

    �Show me EVIDENCE of the harmfulness of encouraging gay monogamy and commitment and I’ll change my position.�

    �Show me EVIDENCE of the LACK of harmfulness of encouraging gay monogamy and commitment and I’ll change my position.

    The burden of proof is on those who promulgate changing what has been in effect for thousands of years and which common sense dictates we do not change.

    Of course, common sense is not common to all.

    That is what Justice O�Connor was saying. She obviously has it.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>“Homosexual marriage” would be like a localized cancer that eventually spreads and harms the entire body. That is the harm in opening this Pandora’s Box. The entire body is the family. Homosexuals cannot procreate, which is a basic function of the family. Marriage is not just diddling with genitals.<<

    The fact that they cannot procreate doesn’t mean that they can’t raise kids. In fact, they can even raise their own biological kids in a same-sex relationship.

    As I said before, prove there’s harm to any individual or society here. You clearly can’t. All you can do is say there’s harm, without proof, and insist that I prove there isn’t harm.

    I don’t need to prove a lack of harm, because in the US our tradition is to grant people as much freedom and as many rights as possible so long as they are doing no harm to others.

    Dave

  • practical joe

    Dave has no proof for what he proposes.

    A man without an argument.
    [edited]

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    What do I need proof for? You want me to prove that freedom and protection of our rights is a good thing?

    I’d love to hear your argument against that position.

    Dave

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Dave,

    Don’t fall for Joe’s nonsense. You cannot prove a negative – i.e. Prove that God doesn’t exist or prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn’t create the universe.

    The argument is this:

    Same-sex Marriage is in some way harmful or detrimental to traditional marriage and/or harmful or detrimental to society.

    Thus the burden of proof is still upon the person making that statement.

    Citing God’s law or falcious comments like the spread of AIDS or that homosexuality is unnatural or any of the other supposed reasons that homophobes hide behind rather than embracing their bigotry and hate are NOT proofs. They are simply a combination of dogma, illogic and nonsense.

    Even in their reverse proofs like:

    “Show me EVIDENCE of the LACK of harmfulness of encouraging gay monogamy and commitment and I’ll change my position.”

    or

    “And I defy Dave to prove that allowing homosexuals to get “married” does NOT do actual harm to anyone.”

    The reduction of these statements still leaves us with having to prove that gay marriage does some harm to tradtional mariiage or society which it has not, thus the ball is still in Joe’s court.

    And if we’re going to be playing this game, I submit that the lack of any actual damage to traditional marriage or society as a result of same-sex marriage(other than christian conservatives getting their panties in a bunch) could be used to establish that allowing it is not in any way dangerous or detrimental.

  • practical joe

    Dave says:

    “What do I need proof for? You want me to prove that freedom and protection of our rights is a good thing? I’d love to hear your argument against that position.”

    What rights?

    “Homosexual marriage” is NOT a constitutional right.

    Go back and re-read what Justice O’Connor said.

    Stop dreaming that you have a right which does not exist in our Constitution.

    Article XIV.

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    We already have equal protection for marriage — any man can marry any woman; any woman can marry any man.

    That is equal protection under the law.

    If you want a right not in Article XIV, then go out and get an amendment to the Constitution.

    It’s that simple.

    You won’t get it any other way.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “Homosexual marriage” would be like a localized cancer that eventually spreads and harms the entire body. That is the harm in opening this Pandora’s Box. The entire body is the family. Homosexuals cannot procreate, which is a basic function of the family. Marriage is not just diddling with genitals.

    this is scary…if the ability to procreate were a lawful prerequisite for marriage or even a condition of continuing a marriage, there are a lot of heterosexuals who would not be allowed to get or stay married…
    is this what you’re advocating?

    and what of those heterosexual couples who made the decision not to procreate even though they could?

  • practical joe

    “What of those heterosexual couples who made the decision not to procreate even though they could? “

    We can’t force anyone to procreate, but the law provides the opportunity.

    Under the law, any man can marry any woman; any woman can marry any man.

    That is equal protection under the law.

  • RogerMDillion

    So by PJ’s reasoning, if there wasn’t the law, then there wouldn’t be an opportunity to procreate.

    [edited]

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    When Silas can’t win on rational grounds, he drags in his harangue on religion and why there aren’t more stupid humans like him.

    Problem is that I am telling the truth, PJ. Whether you like it or not, you have based your entire belief system on a foundation created by the slimiest of humans. Call me stupid, call me anything you want. I am right on this one and you, my friend, are the one who is grossly mistaken. The more you try and stifle those of us who long for justice and common sense, the harder we will fight to crush the poison that you spread. Hatred and bigotry are destined to lose, PJ, so regardless of the effort you make to delegate gays to the trash heap of society, we will prevail.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Marriage has undergone many changes during our history. There was even a time when society recognized a year long period before making the marriage contract final. [edited]

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    We can’t force anyone to procreate, but the law provides the opportunity.

    whatEVER…tell that to the pregnant child who has to stay pregnant because the only family she has is the father who molested her, threatened her out of telling anyone it was him, and didn’t give his consent to an abortion…

    and you didn’t address how the law would provide for those heterosexual couples who can’t procreate…

  • KYS

    Diana, they should be flogged. They are not worthy of the institution.

    Or perhaps they should service the pedophile priests who spout all this crap about the sanctity of marriage while molesting frightened little boys?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “There was even a time when society recognized a year long period before making the marriage contract final.”

    OH MY GOD!!! REALLY???

    I didn’t know this. With this piece of information I now change my position on Gay Marriage.

    Not

    Silas, please stop referring to religion. I haven’t once quoted the bible or anything else. I just give you common sense that you can’t argue against.

    KYS, the AIDS thing was never proven wrong. Gays make up under 5% of our population, but amazingly make up over 50% of AIDS victims.

    And don’t say that gay men don’t have sex with women, that is just not true. You can’t sit there and tell me that there are NO cases of gays crossing over once in a while and getting some long awaited you know what, or just to see what it is like.

    And you don’t even follow that “live and let live” shit you preach either. Because if you did then you wouldn’t be on this site arguing with me. You would let me do as I please (live).

    Also if you supported “live and let live” then that would mean you support legalizing marijuana, cocaine, heroin and everthing else.

    You must put SOCIETY before your activism.

    Roger, I will support any kind of hermaphrodite marriage. They are very very very rare though.

    “Diana, they should be flogged.”

    It is really funny to me how you liberals are the ones that resort to talk like this and us conservatives get the reputation for it. If you will go up and reread previous comments will find the same stuff from the same people.

  • KYS

    Anthony,

    You still have not proven that homosexual marriage causes harm to anybody. Come on now, sweetie, can’t you muster up some semblance of credibility?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Again:

    * Practical Joe’s very true words, ““homosexual marriage” infringes on our entire civilization. If you can’t see that, you are blind to the role of the family on civilization.”

    * Married people can adopt. Thus, not just hurting themeselves, but the lives of children.

    * Something went wrong in their lives to make them more vulnerable to homosexuality. These people need help, not special rights.

    * If gay marriage passes in California then we will be ignoring the voice of the voters who voted that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    *Gay Marriage will ultimately create much more tolerance towards gays which will attract more and more vulnerable people to homosexuality, thus advancing the risk of HIV and AIDS.

    Look whose talking about credibility, mister “live and let live”, (legalization of drugs and mog rule)

  • KYS

    Anthony,

    Each and every one of those points deserves the credibility of an OPINION. I truly support your right to believe in each of them.

    But you have not proved any of them, and so I repeat the challenge of Mr. Nalle,

    PROVE THEM.

    Convince us all with your superior intellect and education. Show us something that makes us rethink our position. Introduce something that remotely supports your argument.

    OR

    just give it up. Because your “opinion” rings hollow with the majority on this VERY public thread.

  • practical joe

    Homosexual marriage” is NOT a constitutional right.

    Stop dreaming that you have a right which does not exist in our Constitution.

    Get real.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    practical joe, it’s not that marriage is a right, it’s that there are benefits, privileges and the like bestowed upon marriage. ANd then some people, by being denied marriage, are denied access to those benefits/privileges and rights.

    Tell me, joe, how do you feel about this?

    Churches can have marriage. The government would then have a form to fill out, for everybody who wishes, that states they are in a civil union. Straight people and gay people fill this out. The government treats all the same.

    The church can then drool over the term marriage all it wants. And you all can sit there and grin at each other and say ‘mine, mine…all mine!!!!’

    How does that sound to you.

  • Morgan Talley

    For the “Natural Law” post; that argument only makes sense if Catholic Priests and Nuns get married and have kids, which makes much more sense considering the Catholic belief that marriage and procreation are paramount.

  • practical joe

    Get off the religion kick.

    This is about what is best for the country.

    Go picket a church if that makes you feel better.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    actually, joe, it won’t make me feel better. Equal treatment from the government is what will do it, and that is where we will end up. You and I both. Ta-da.

  • practical joe

    Pay attention now:

    “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is indeed a “legitimate state interest” and that “other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

    Does that ring a bell?

    Or are you all tone deaf?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Since when did 1 of 9 become your absolute Overlord?

    I am all for the preservation of the institution of marriage. I am for equal treatment for the government. I’m not tone deaf, but you are the one who can’t see the distinction.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    should read equal treatment from the government.

  • practical joe

    Do you understand what “traditional institution of marriage” means?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    From Wikipedia:

    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the invalidation of the Texas anti-sodomy statute, but not with Kennedy’s rationale. O’Connor disagreed with both the overturning of Bowers (she was in the Bowers majority) and with the court’s invocation of due process guarantees of liberty in this context. O’Connor instead preferred the equal protection argument which would still strike the law because it was directed against a group rather than an act, but would avoid the inclusion of sexuality under protected liberty.

    Do you see the parts I put in bold, joe? She is against something discriminatory directed AGAINST A GROUP, rather than an act.

    Now when it comes to marriage, she would be against discrimination AGAINST A GROUP rather than an act. And she and you don’t know when/if I’ve ever engaged in the act, so by her ruling, she would most likely come out in my favor.

    Wikipedia then goes on to say:

    Under this argument, O’Connor maintained that a sodomy law that was neutral both in effect and application might well be constitutional, but that there was little to fear because “democratic society” would not tolerate it for long.

    She did leave the door open for laws which distinguished between homosexuals and heterosexuals on the basis of legitimate state interest, but found that this was not such a law. In some ways, however, O’Connor’s opinion was broader than the majority’s, for as Justice Scalia noted in dissent it explicitly cast doubt on whether laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples could pass rational-basis scrutiny.

    So according to Scalia’s own dissent, he doubts whether O’Connor’s opinion would pass rational-based scrutiny.

    Hell, if even the farther right Scalia doubts O’Connor’s comments would pass muster in a court of law, then I’m all for you clinging onto them with all you got, bud. Go for it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    yes, joe, traditional would mean a bunch of wives and where you got cattle from daddy for em.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    KYS,

    Those ARE facts.

    “If gay marriage passes in California then we will be ignoring the voice of the voters who voted that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    This is a FACT. California is a very liberal state. We had a vote here recently and we voted over 60% that marriage is between a man and a woman. So if the majority of a liberal state is anti Gay Marriage, then we can assume the majority of the COUNTRY doesn’t want Gay Marriage. Power of the people. The people don’t want it, but you still try and throw it upon them. I am against Activist judges making that make decisions against the voters.

    “Gay Marriage will ultimately create much more tolerance towards gays which will attract more and more vulnerable people to homosexuality, thus advancing the risk of HIV and AIDS.”

    FACT!!! Gays make up under 5% of our population, but make up over 50% of AIDS carriers. Now some people might say how does this affect me??? Gays don’t have sex with heterosexual women, so how would you be hurt??? My answer:

    If 5% of America’s 300,000,000 people are gay then there are 15,000,000 gays in the U.S. So none of those 15,000,000 AIDS magnets have never or ever will have had sexual contact with any of the 142,000,000 heterosexual women in the U.S.??? Buuuuuuuuuulllllllshhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiittttt

    “* Practical Joe’s very true words, ““homosexual marriage” infringes on our entire civilization. If you can’t see that, you are blind to the role of the family on civilization.”

    * Married people can adopt. Thus, not just hurting themeselves, but the lives of children.

    * Something went wrong in their lives to make them more vulnerable to homosexuality. These people need help, not special rights.’

    I guess these other points that I made can be classified as opinions, but they are very clear. It doesn’t take a mental giant to understand and believe them.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    It doesn’t take a mental giant to understand and believe them.

    Yet, surprisingly, you have to keep cutting and pasting them over and over because they don’t convince anybody.

    If gay marriage passes in California then we will be ignoring the voice of the voters

    The votes will be struck down because you cannot vote into place something that infringes upon the right of another. SOmething Anthony that you don’t seem to understand, but that completely negates your whole premise here.

    America can’t just ‘vote’ into place something where all people must be killed by the age of 30. Because it harms. And we have proven in a court of law, and standing before conservative judges put in place by conservative presidents, that prohibiting us from getting the benefits/rights and privileges of marriage is harmful. We’ve proved it, so voting doesn’t matter. It’s not mob rule in this country. So you can ramble on about votes all you want, it doesn’t matter.

    Gay Marriage will ultimately create much more tolerance towards gays which will attract more and more vulnerable people to homosexuality, thus advancing the risk of HIV and AIDS.”

    Surely you cannot be so [edited]. Marriage is MONOGAMY. Thus none of your obsessive fears are advanced.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Silas, please stop referring to religion. I haven’t once quoted the bible or anything else. I just give you common sense that you can’t argue against.

    Anthony, then from what position are you saying that ‘gay marriage’ is wrong if it is not religion? The primary detractors of marriage parity are fundamentalist religious zealots who have bought into a belief system based on fraud.

    And don’t say that gay men don’t have sex with women, that is just not true. You can’t sit there and tell me that there are NO cases of gays crossing over once in a while and getting some long awaited you know what, or just to see what it is like.

    Ah, to have such a simple mind. Gay men can most certainly ‘cross over’ for a dalliance or more. I prefer to look at it as taking the whole damn gender thing out of the equation. An attraction between TWO people, regardless of gender, shouldn’t be labeled with some finality. I am guilty of using the gay or straight label too often. Human sexuality is too complicated to delegate sexual attraction to two polar opposites. Life isn’t that black and white. Human emotions are a wonderful thing that grow and seek to experience all that Nature has to offer in its glory.

    And you don’t even follow that “live and let live” shit you preach either. Because if you did then you wouldn’t be on this site arguing with me. You would let me do as I please (live).

    I don’t think I’ve quite used that term, Anthony. I certainly don’t believe in ‘live and let live’. There are limitations. There have to be in order for a society to function. You can do anything you want, dude. If you want to malign anyone who deviates from your limited view of humanity then you must be man enough to face the debate. That is the Sicilian thing to do. And for the record I heartily support legalization of marijuana but not strictly for recreational drug purposes as you would presuppose. The plant, in and of itself, is an ecologically diverse plant which can be used in thousands of applications. Releasing the plant from the idiotic restrictions that have been placed on it by holier than thou douchebag politicians who would just as soon sell their mother’s soul than give up any power, is the right thing to do.

    PJ says, “Homosexual marriage” is NOT a constitutional right.”

    I’ll take it a step further. Marriage, in and of itself, is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution of these United States. Marriage is the union of two people in the formation of a domestic partnership. The fact that gender roles have been applied to the rules of marriage makes it completely unconstitutional. So long as this legislation of hatred is celebrated there will be those of us who will fight it tooth and nail. Marriage is not the property of any one political ideaolgy, nor is it the property of fundamentalist bigots.

    “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is indeed a “legitimate state interest” and that “other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

    O’Connor delivers a ruling you like and you’ll plaster it all over Broadway. O’Connor delivers a ruling you disagree with and you’re the first one to call for her stoning in the public square. Can’t have it both ways, sweetie. That’s too bisexual.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I’ve been gambling enough with the trust I have in my government to worry about throwing money away on unscrupulous casino operators.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “Diana, they should be flogged.”

    It is really funny to me how you liberals are the ones that resort to talk like this and us conservatives get the reputation for it. If you will go up and reread previous comments will find the same stuff from the same people.

    and yet no one who is not liberal resorted to anwering the question:
    how would the law provide for those heterosexual couples who can’t procreate?

  • http://www.dracutweblog.blogspot.com Mary K. Williams

    Silas says: “Christianity is a breeder of hate and despair. It’s a massive cult, not a religion. It’s mass mind control in the spirit of Sun Yung Moon and Charles Manson. Those who use the Cross to impose hate and despair upon mankind have taken Christ’s sacrifice and thrown it away like dirty water. You’re no better than the corrupt power mongers in Christ’s time who sentenced him to the Cross.”

    Silas: If I’m reading these comments correctly and I’ve had to skim a few, it seems as if you’re a proponent of gay marriage. If I read correctly – you are planning to marry soon yourself?

    Well – I too support the right to marry same sex, or opposite (not incest though) and I am a Christian. There are MANY Christians who support these rights, and of course, many who don’t. But please don’t make such generalities, it’s hurtful to those of us who DO support the right to marry in a same sex union

    btw, congrats on your upcoming marriage. : )

  • practical joe

    The proponents of “homosexual marriage” claim they want the benefits, privileges bestowed upon marriage. Also claimed is that allowing homosexuals to get “married” does NOT do harm to anyone.”

    But there is potential harm.

    Any children involved are reared in an unnatural environment.

    There is the strong possibility of HARM to any children who are reared in an environment where two adults of the same sex are the “parents”.

    It is incumbent upon those who advocate placing children in such an environment to PROVE that their position will not HARM the children.

    If it is so certain that no HARM will come to the CHILDREN, it should be a straightforward process to produce such proof.

    A statistically valid sample of cases should be put forward proving that children in such environments have grown to adulthood without harm. This is necesary to validate claims that no HARM will be done to children.

    I have seen no such proof.

    And don’t weasel out by claiming that heterosexual marriages are not “perfect”. The proof should distinguish between the different cases and not be based on denigrating what is not at issue here.

    The issue is what are the emotional and other effects of two homosexuals raising children to adulthood.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    practical joe, there are an estimated 4-6 million kids being raised by gay parents today, I’ve already discussed that with you previously.

    There is no correlation between marriage and child rearing. Straight people who are not married have children all the time. As do gay people.

    Banning marriage ‘for the sake of the children’ is off track, because people have kids anyway.

    A statistically valid sample of cases should be put forward proving that children in such environments have grown to adulthood without harm. This is necesary to validate claims that no HARM will be done to children.

    To produce children is a natural Right that cannot be taken away. And gay people are law abiding, tax paying citizens. Ergo, we don’t have to prove to anybody that we are fit to raise children.

  • practical joe

    “Ergo, we don’t have to prove to anybody that we are fit to raise children.”

    Ergo, that dodge proves your belief that you cannot prove fitness.

    The issue remains:

    Proof that there are no emotional and other effects of two homosexuals raising children to adulthood.

  • gonzo marx

    once again…some are attempting to force those they disagree with into proving a Negative

    poor Logic, by definition

    rather, those that claim to be “harmed” need to prove qualitativly, that THEY are “harmed” by acknowledging basic Rights for a minority

    just something to think about

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Ergo, that dodge proves your belief that you cannot prove fitness.

    No, it means that I don’t have to prove anything to you. I don’t have to prove whether I’m fit to be a parent, anymore than you do.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Any children involved are reared in an unnatural environment.

    seriously, that’s so retarded it can’t be explained without charts…

    you say this as if this were theoretically the only “unnatural” environment in which to raise children, curiously leaving without mention the myriad of current, legal, and proven-to-be-detrimental environments in which children are being raised by heterosexual parents (ie sexist and racist homes, homes that allow “silence of the lambs” to be viewed by 4 yr olds, etc)…
    and what of the illegal conduct of heterosexual parents perpetrated upon their children?

    there’s nothing natural (or illegal) about raising kids in an environment of religion or in a home where one or both of the parents wears a watch to keep time…both are manmade…
    if we can only raise kids in a “natural” environment then we must dispense with all manner of things including but not limited to grandparents or stepparents raising kids, books, college funds, microwave ovens, and “saved by the bell” dvds (the very latter of which should be dispensed with anyway)…
    we must also re-include anything we can confirm happens throughout the animal world like incest and killing — as who would deny these things are “natural”?
    for that matter, bring on the practice of females eating the heads off of their mates after or even during copulation because this, too, is “natural”…

    how is it somehow worse if a homosexual parent beats their kid? and how is it somehow not as wonderful if a homosexual parent loves their kid?

    and where the hell is the answer to the question: how would the law provide for those heterosexual couples who can’t procreate?

  • practical joe

    Fifty years ago, lib-ee – ee -rals told us that divorce would have no effect on children.

    Now — 70% of divorces are based on flimsy differences that are reconcilable.

    And now lib-ee – -rals tell us that �homosexual marriage� will have no effect on children.

    Lib-ee-ee-rals want us to believe that nothing perverse will happen.

    To the contrary, �homosexual marriage� will be at least as catastrophic to children — as the divorce mentality that the country was told fifty years ago would have no negative effect on children.

    Lesson — Don�t screw around with what we have. Screwing around with marriage can only hurt children.

    It�s bad enough that we have an epidemic of divorce.

    We don�t need an epidemic of homosexuality. (AIDS taught us that).

    The Following are Some of the Perverse Effects of Divorce on Children and Families

    “Only acts of war and the events of natural disasters are more harmful to a child’s psyche than the divorce process.” The Newsletter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, summer 1997.

    Social science research reveals that the effects of divorce not only impact a child into adulthood, but they also affect the next generation of children as well.

    Children from divorced families drop out of school at twice the rate of children from intact families.

    The single best predictor of teen suicide is parental divorce and living in a single parent household.

    Children of divorced parents are significantly more likely to become delinquent by age 15, regardless of when the divorce took place, than are children whose own parents are married.

    Comparing all family structures, drug use in children is lowest in the intact married family.

    Children whose parents divorce have lower rates of graduation from high school and college and also complete fewer college courses.

    Children from divorced homes performed more poorly in reading, spelling, and math and repeated a grade more frequently than did children from intact two-parent families.

    The college attendance rate is about 60 percent lower among children of divorced parents compared with children of intact families.

    Divorce has been found to be associated with a higher incidence of depression, withdrawal from friends and family; aggressive, impulsive, or hyperactive behavior; and either withdrawing from participation in the classroom or becoming disruptive.

    Adult children of divorced parents experience mental health problems significantly more often than do the adult children of intact families.

    Children younger than five years of age are found to be more vulnerable to the emotional conflicts occuring during the separation and divorce of their parents. Older children frequently withdraw from home life and seek intimacy away from home.

    If divorce occurs when the children are teenagers (12 to 15 years of age), they tend to react in two very different ways: by attempting to avoid growing up or by attempting to “speed through” adolescence.

    Teenagers also tend to experience increased aggression, loss of self-confidence, and loneliness. Boys are more likely to be depressed than girls.

    The child’s suffering does not reach its peak at the time of the divorce and then level off. Rather, the emotional effects of the parents’ divorce can be played and replayed throughout the next three decades of a child’s life. Divorced fathers are less likely to have a close relationship with their children; and the younger the children are at the time of the divorce, the more likely the father is to drift away from regular contact with the children.

    Following divorce, as many as 40 percent of parents are so stressed by the divorce that their child-rearing behavior suffers. They frequently change from rigid to permissive behavior and from emotionally distant to emotionally dependent.

    After divorce, children tend to become more emotionally distant from both the custodial and non-custodial parent.

    According to the National Survey of Families and Households, during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s about one in five divorced fathers had not seen their children in the past year, and less By adolescence (between the ages of 12 and 16), less than half of children living with their separated, divorced, or remarried mothers had seen their fathers at all in more than one year and only one in six saw their fathers as often as once a week.

    Boys, especially if they are living with their mothers, respond with more hostility to parental divorce than girls do, both immediately after the divorce and for a period of years thereafter. Girls often fare worse when living with adult men, either their father or a stepfather.

    Wallerstein found that 15 years after the divorce, only 10 percent of the children felt positive about it.

    As adults, children of divorced parents are half as likely to be close to their parents as are children of intact families.

    Divorce has been found to diminish the capacity of children to handle conflict. In their own marriages, children of divorced parents are more likely to be unhappy, to escalate conflicts, to reduce communication with their spouses, to argue, to shout when arguing, and to assault their spouses physically when they argue.

    Fear of peer rejection is twice as likely among adolescents of divorced parents.
    Children of divorced parents do more poorly in ratings by their parents and teachers on their peer relationships, hostility toward adults, anxiety, withdrawal, inattention, and aggression compared to children with intact families.

    Remarriages after divorce tend to be unstable, break up more often, and end more quickly than do first-time marriages. Remarriages are 50% more likely to divorce in the first five years compared to first marriages.

    Clinical depression rates overall were highest among divorced women, but divorced men showed the highest rates among those who had not been previously depressed. Depression was most acute among those divorced who did not have consistent conflict, and among those who were socially isolated.

    Women and children suffer most economically. Only half of the divorced men in America pay their full support consistently; one-quarter make partial, inconsistent payment, and one-quarter of them pay nothing.

    For years, many experts believed that the effects of divorce on children were hardest at the time of the breakup. However, many now agree that the most powerful impact from divorce occurs in the early 20’s. For these young people, this is the time when male and female relationships take center stage and the influence of their parents’ divorce crescendo.

    Some studies concerning the probability of divorce for children of divorced parents have found the risk to be more than twice the risk for children of intact families.

    Daughters of divorced parents tend to divorce more frequently than do the sons of divorced parents, with the risk as much as 87 percent higher during the earlier years of marriage for daughters of divorced parents than for those from intact marriages.

    When the parents of both spouses have divorced, the risk of divorce is increased by as much as 620 percent in the early years of marriage, which declines to 20 percent by the 11th year of marriage.

    Now of course, homosexuals will say that divorce proves that heterosexual marriages don�t work.

    Of course, that is a cop out — which is why I expect it to be the response.

    And considering the fact that homosexuals HAVE A PROPENSITY for multiple partners — their “divorce rate” should be astronomical.

    BUT — TO ALL YOU LIB-EE-EE-RALS FOR HELPING BRING ABOUT A DIVORCE CALAMITY:

    THE COUNTRY THANKS YOU.
    [edited]

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Proof that there are no emotional and other effects of two homosexuals raising children to adulthood.

    prove that there are no emotional and other effects of two heterosexuals raising children to adulthood…

    you can both prove and disprove this — and you will have proven nothing special or substantial in the effort to legislate marriage or parenting…

  • practical joe

    [edited]

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    so stop talking to yourself

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Now — 70% of divorces are based on flimsy differences that are reconcilable.

    says who? who is defining “reconcilable”?

    and with all those other gruesome divorce stats you quote, i wonder if legislating divorce and deadbeat parents should not be the focus of your energy rather than focusing your energy on whether or not gays raise kids…there are, after all, more kids of the former than the latter…
    i also wonder if you would advocate gays getting married but not being allowed to get divorced…

    Lib-ee-ee-rals want us to believe that nothing perverse will happen.

    i would like you to understand that nothing more perverse will happen than is already happening in heterosexual families…
    but your assertion keeps coming up just short of saying that you think it’s okay for a kid to be raised in a detrimental environment as long as it is within the confines of a heterosexual marriage…

  • practical joe

    “you think it’s okay for a kid to be raised in a detrimental environment as long as it is within the confines of a heterosexual marriage… ”

    NO.

    Pay attention [edited].

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    so the argument now is that because heterosexuals were allowed to divorce and they began to abuse the tactic, my equality must be denied.

    That’s opinion, and a pretty illogical one at that.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Take heart, Steve. Children raised in loving, nurturing homes that keep dialog open and honesty intact grow up to be model members of society. We don’t have to worry about our kids. They are well-rounded and open to see that love is not gender specific. It is a gift, that when it comes, is most precious. I’ve lost a lot of sleep over the years worrying about my own and how my ‘screw ups’ would ruin them emotionally. I wasted a lot of time. They’re good kids and have survived their teenage years remarkably well. Of course, there are issues. That occurs in any family. What I’ve learned from them is that it was our honesty and willingness to take whatever came our way which got them through the transition.

    One of my boys has taken a teenage girl under his wing who also comes from an alternative family. She’s had some tough times and has found that her peers are among the cruelest. He’s shown her that her mothers would do anything to insure her happiness and growth. He’s shown her that kids from ‘alternative families’ are just as blessed as those who are raised conventionally. And, he’s pointed out to her that her ‘mothers’ have been together for over 20 years and never were involved with anyone else. That makes her special because she is one of the few kids that do not come from a broken home. That point of view had an impact on me because I realized just how OK he was with the choices we’ve made.

    The bottom line, Steve, is that children need unconditional love, consistency and and honesty from their parents. Having a mom and dad; two moms or two dads aren’t as important as the environment in which they are raised. I am a solid proponent of two parents in a household; however, that doesn’t mean that conventional families are the only answer. We may not be the right people to fight the battle for ‘marriage equality’. Our kids know better than anyone what it’s like. They’re our best defense for the deregulation of marriage.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Strategies of Blogcritic liberals:

    * When all arguments fail, critisize their religion even if it has nothing to do with the subject. It always works. (Performed by our own Silas Kain)

    * Post arguments and if those arguments get thrown down stay silent for a while then come back and use them again. (Performed by our own Steve S)

    * Keep telling your opponent they have no reasons to do what they do and when the opponent gives you his or her reasons still deny they have no reasons, it makes them mad. Don’t worry about looking like an ass because the other liberals will back you up. (performed by our own KYS)

    * Don’t give arguments or reasons at all, just use personal attacks; and when your opponent comes back at you with a personal attack jump all over him and critisize him like there is no tomarrow saying “All he does is attack”. (Performed by no one’s Roger Dillon)

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “She’s had some tough times and has found that her peers are among the cruelest. He’s shown her that her mothers would do anything to insure her happiness and growth.”

    No matter what her mothers do for her she will still never be accepthed by society. That is not right to put a child in this situation. What happens at early ages alter what happens in the rest of your life. Now this girl is going to be hated and she will feel insecure for the rest of her life just because some lesbians want to make a point and raise a child. Not right.

    “Fifty years ago, lib-ee – ee -rals told us that divorce would have no effect on children.

    Now — 70% of divorces are based on flimsy differences that are reconcilable.

    And now lib-ee – -rals tell us that “homosexual marriage” will have no effect on children.”

    This and the rest of comment #367 are great points. I have never thought of it. It is just another reason why Gay Marriage shouldn’t exist.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Anthony and practial joe, an honest question here. What would you do if your child came up to you and confessed that he/she was gay?
    Now, let’s not beat around the bush, boys. Speak the truth. Search your hearts. Because what you write here will come back and haunt you someday. That, I will guarantee.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Silas, that is just the thing. My kids won’t be gay, because I will make sure they grow up in a positive environment with a loving father and a very loving mother. They will know right from wrong. They won’t have personal issues which means that they won’t vulnerable to the toils of society.

    My father is the father of five boys and a girl. He tells me the same thing I just told, you and guess what??? I am normal and straight, my little brother is normal and straight and my four older siblings are all married with children who will go through the same positive process.

    I am glad you asked

    “Because what you write here will come back and haunt you someday. That, I will guarantee.”

    That is the thing with you Silas, you just assume that your arguments always beat ares even though they never do.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Anthony, I love your naivety! Never say never. If your formula were steeped in fact I should have been John Wayne. And, insofar as the haunting comment, trust me. When you least expect it, the fates deliver a humbling message to you. As Mamma always says, Man plans, God laughs.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Post arguments and if those arguments get thrown down stay silent for a while then come back and use them again. (Performed by our own Steve S)

    LOL. Stay silent for awhile? It’s called living life.

    And no arguments of mine in relation to gay marriage, have been thrown down. Rather I am simply repeating what has already won in a court of law.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Now your making me laugh. You say that comment 377 was haunting???

    First off, if you believe that my kids will be gay then you can’t stick by your guns and say people are born gay. We all know that genes are inherited and in my family there are NO gays. So if my son comes up to me and says that he is gay than that would mean that homosexuality is a choice.

    And since homosexuality is a choice then we know that my kids aren’t going to be gay, because they aren’t going to be vulnerable to boys in pink.

    ” If your formula were steeped in fact I should have been John Wayne.”

    Are you saying that I got to prove that I have 5 straight siblings???

    ______

    I would say that vulnerability is the number one cause for kids turning gay. The fat ugly unpopular loner will all of a sudden become popular and be part of something when he turns gay.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Rather I am simply repeating what has already won in a court of law.”

    Just like what I say has been proven in the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, you sore loser.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    no matter what the “best” argument is, it doesn’t trump the reality of gay people existing, marrying in massachusetts, and raising children…

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    The fat ugly unpopular loner will all of a sudden become popular and be part of something when he turns gay.

    Dude, you’ve proven [edited]. Come back when you grow up and know what you’re talking about. [edited] It’s nature’s way of detoxifying the gene pool. So, with that being said, sweet innocent Anthony, my debate with you on this thread comes to a close. I have no need to continue in a dialog with you here.

    no matter what the “best” argument is, it doesn’t trump the reality of gay people existing, marrying in massachusetts, and raising children…

    Amen, diana. The reality is here.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Pay attention [edited]

    what prompted the namecalling?

    and if i might yet again ask for those who are apparently skirting the issue of procreation being an argument against gay marriage, how would the law provide for those heterosexual couples who can’t procreate?

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “My kids won’t be gay, because I will make sure they grow up in a positive environment with a loving father and a very loving mother. They will know right from wrong. They won’t have personal issues which means that they won’t vulnerable to the toils of society”

    So, I guess the connotation here is that gay people grow up in a negative environment with unloving parents, don’t know right from wrong and have “personal issues” that make them vulnerable to the “toils of society.”

    First off, how many people, gay or not, on the face of the Earth don’t have “personal issues” they have to deal with?

    Anthony, let me ask, and it may have already been asked…do you personally know any gay people?

  • http://www.dracutweblog.blogspot.com Mary K. Williams

    Anthony Says:
    “No matter what her mothers do for her she will still never be accepthed by society. That is not right to put a child in this situation. What happens at early ages alter what happens in the rest of your life. Now this girl is going to be hated and she will feel insecure for the rest of her life just because some lesbians want to make a point and raise a child. Not right”

    Anthony – they used to say that about kids from mixed race unions. I think Mariah Carey and Derek Jeter are pretty well accepted by society. (well maybe not by us Red Sox fans.lol)

    And the whole thing about “some lesbians want to make a point and raise a child” You really think all gays and lesbians are so callous and calculating? No more so than us heteros.

  • practical joe

    �So, I guess the connotation here is that gay people grow up in a negative environment with unloving parents��

    How about this:

    �I had a mother and a father. It was a loveless marriage and it would have been better for us children if they didn’t stay together ‘for the kids’.�

    [edited]

  • practical joe

    �So, I guess the connotation here is that gay people grow up in a negative environment with unloving parents��

    How about this:

    �I had a mother and a father. It was a loveless marriage and it would have been better for us children if they didn’t stay together ‘for the kids’.�

    [edited]

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Anthony – they used to say that about kids from mixed race unions. I think Mariah Carey and Derek Jeter are pretty well accepted by society.”

    In mixed race unions there is a MOTHER and a FATHER. Back in those days blacks were hated no matter what by whites and whites were hated no matter what by blacks. Of course a hydred of the two would be hated by both sides. By at least the mixed raced child had moral support from a father and a mother.

    “You really think all gays and lesbians are so callous and calculating? No more so than us heteros.”

    No, when heteros raise children it is natural and meant to be. It takes a man and a woman to have children, it is Human and Animal nature.

    “do you personally know any gay people?”

    Yes, the dorky fat kid that everyone made fun of in middle and elementary school turned out to be gay in High School. What were the odds of that happening??? The kid wasn’t exepted by anyone, but when he became gay he all of the sudden had freinds.

    I also know a lesbian who happens to be a BLACK white supremeist. (a self hating African American)

    Other than that I tend to stay away from people with uncurible mental issues.

    “Dude, you’ve proven [edited]. Come back when you grow up and know what you’re talking about. Are you sure that YOU are not that self-loathing fat kid who is on the outside looking in? [edited] It’s nature’s way of detoxifying the gene pool. So, with that being said, sweet innocent Anthony, my debate with you on this thread comes to a close. I have no need to continue in a dialog with you here.”

    Sounds like Silas has had enough of the truth. [edited] He just keeps calling me a fundalmentalist when he doesn’t have anything else against me.

    And it is people who like YOU that can’t even have kids. [edited]

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Lord, Lord, Lord. Thou dost test my patience. Homosexuals come from all households — Christian, Jew, Islam, Buddhist, Wiccan, Black, Red, Yellow and, yep, even some White ones! Damn! Being gay is as natural as the eye color we have. In most cases it’s a natural thing that has been demonized into being something that can be ‘cured’. We ain’t talking about, polio, boys and girls. The supposition that being 100% heterosexual with no deviation is what is what needs curing.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    comment 388 from practical joe is quoting me from awhile back. Apparently he’s keeping track of my words.

    For clarification: I knew I was ‘different’ by 2nd grade, I just had no concept of how. That I learned by 5th grade. AFTER that time, my mother found out my father was cheating BUT she stayed ‘for the kids’ for a little over 10 years.

    So no, that’s not how a homosexual is born.

    Explain why nature made it so YOU and STEVE can’t have kids.

    But I have had a kid. Nature made me quite capable of having children and I have done so.

    Now, Silas, if we go and have kids, I will need you to explain the situation to my hubby AND I want a whole new maternity wardrobe.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    O.K. Silas, you are way off.

    I never said homosexualaty was a disease. It is a mental problem. [edited]

    You continued to stretch the truth. You said:

    “Homosexuals come from all households — Christian, Jew, Islam, Buddhist, Wiccan, Black, Red, Yellow and, yep, even some White ones!”

    When did I say that there are no white people that are gay??? The majority of gays are white. You are twisting my words man, don’t do that. I said:

    “I also know a lesbian who happens to be a BLACK white supremeist. (a self hating African American)”

    Then you made it sound like I said that there are no white gays. You tried to make me look rascist. You have been twisting my words around like this since I came here. Please stop.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “I knew I was ‘different’ by 2nd grade, I just had no concept of how.”

    Yeah, you relized you were different in second grade when you were never picked for the dodgeball or four square teams. [edited]

    “Explain why nature made it so YOU and STEVE can’t have kids.

    But I have had a kid. Nature made me quite capable of having children and I have done so.”

    Now you are leaving out stuff. [edited]

  • practical joe

    �I knew I was ‘different’ by 2nd grade, I just had no concept of how. That I learned by 5th grade. AFTER that time, my mother found out my father was cheating BUT she stayed ‘for the kids’ for a little over 10 years.�

    Sorry, Steve, BUT�

    BEFORE that time — odds are that your father had been cheating on your mother for awhile. In any event, there probably was tension between them that kids pick up.

    [edited]

    Kids are quick to pick up on what is going on between parents. Kids don�t want to accept tension between parents and they suppress their feelings.

    [edited]

  • AnAussie

    I can’t say I’ve read all the comments here (I haven’t: that would just be too depressing). But one thing that comes across lound and clear is that many of the people who argue against gay marriage in this thread seem to be *extremely* concerned with procreation and the continuance of the species.

    Guys, I think that’ll happen whether we allow gay marriage or not. Keep your shirts on, ok? ;-)

  • practical joe

    “Keep your shirts on, ok?”

    It’s the pants that count.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Yeah, you relized you were different in second grade when you were never picked for the dodgeball or four square teams

    No that wasn’t it.

    And that is what you did, wasn’t it???

    No.

    Joe, actually no. My mother didn’t know for a long time, yes he had been cheating for years, but she had no clue until a drunk lover came over to our house. But that was AFTER I was in 5th grade. So no, you are wrong.

    It’s absolutely amazing how you and Anthony try and ‘fill in the blanks’. No, I didn’t suck at sports and I still don’t. No, my early childhood isn’t how you picture it at all (based on one sentence apparently). All wrong, all wrong.

    That’s not what happened and that’s not how I handled it. I have no judgements against open relationships and told my mom she should have had one, but she was too old-fashioned, although in her later years she did loosen up and experiment with my advice. That was when she was happiest. The Leave It To Beaver type scenario you all promote was stifling. What you don’t understand is that the divorce was a good thing, not a bad thing.

    And when they got divorced, they were both still in our lives, our home wasn’t disrupted in any way, actually we ended up getting double allowance, playing them off of each other.

  • practical joe

    Homosexuals are made — not born.

    What is made — can be unmade.

  • practical joe

    “The Leave It To Beaver type scenario you all promote was stifling.”

    That contradicts what you have said about your current “happy homosexual relationship”.

    What you have said about your “happy homosexual relationship” appears to be very much like the ‘Leave It To Beaver’ happy home that you denigrate — apparently just because it is not homosexual.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    What you have said about your “happy homosexual relationship” appears to be very much like the ‘Leave It To Beaver’ happy home that you denigrate

    My home is far from leave it to beaver. More like the Partridge Family meets Queer as Folk.

    That Leave it to Beaver situation works for many, but when people like you promote it as the ONLY way to go, that is when problems arise.

    And when did I ever say ‘happy homosexual relationship’? Yeah, it’s happy but I don’t believe I discuss my relationship that way with you. Another transferrence from you I guess.

    I wonder if 3% of the founding fathers were gay? Must be so.

    Since we talk about me so much, let’s turn the spotlight on you.

    Quote from Paul Newman:
    “I’m a supporter of gay rights. And not a closet supporter either. From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community. There are so many qualities that make up a human being… by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant.”

    Well, Paul, guess what practical joe can’t stop thinking about!

  • practical joe

    “what practical joe can’t stop thinking about”

    IS…

    The fact that there is a movement afoot to overturn what has been accepted and has worked for civilized societies for thousands of years…

    All for the sake of hedonism.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Marriage=hedonism.

    Gotcha.

  • practical joe

    “Homosexual Marriage” = Hedonism.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Joe, that makes no sense at all. How is monogamy more hedonistic than non-monogamy?

    Dave

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Practical Joe is dropping Zen koans of hate on us here.

    I think Dave has you there on your logic, Practical Joe. Are you a big Alan Keyes fan, Joe?

    He ranted about “selfish hedonism” a lot in his last race and said he would tell his daughter she was a “selfish hedonist if I had a gay daughter.” It turns out his daughter was already an outed lesbian at the time, that he knew it, and that he had disowned her and refused to pay her tuition not too long after the race was over.

    That is all.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Most people would say that Lumpy Rutherford was gay because he was fat and kindda dorky. I think Eddie Haskell and Wally Cleaver were the gay ones.

    Hey, Steve, want my charge card for that maternity wardrobe? The day may come when men can give birth! Won’t that be a hoot — we’ll be human seahorses! By the way I understand why my comments above were edited. I was a bit over the top. Sometimes I wish my father was Vulcan.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    wow, bhw and Dave, you both read this shit too?

    Joe, you know, if someone reads this thread and doesn’t know you, this is what they get:

    1) homosexuals are all about the sodomy. Man on man action, no women, and all anal.
    2) homosexuals are all about the pleasure and feeling good.

    You do the math.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Damn, based on that I’m like half gay, Steve.

    Dave

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Answer: Alan Keyes, Dick Cheney, & Phyllis Schlafly.

    Question: Name two fathers of lesbians as well as the mother of a gay man and the Conservative movement.

    pro totus licentia, maiestas & veneratio

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Steve S has somehow become a hilarious comedian in my time away from BlogCritics. Good stuff :)

    And based on Steve’s criteria, I’m 3/4 gay, minus the “man on man, no woman action” part.

    That is all.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Giving me a charge card is like giving a child household chemicals. It’s very dangerous!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Dave, your post about the redecoration of your bathroom clued me in that you were a closet hedonist.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Bob, I always thought you were a metrosexual. Am I off base?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    A man’s bathroom is his castle, Steve.

    Dave

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Even if gay people CHOOSE to be gay, so what?

    I think it’s a rhetorical trap that we supporters of gay rights have to argue that homosexuality is genetic and immutable as if it’s something aberrant to be ashamed of and apologize for. Being gay is not a mental problem nor a disease nor is it a genetic mutation.

    Sex between consenting adults doesn’t mean as much about our moral character as people insist that it does. If Steve and Silas want to have sex with a man tomorrow, that’s great. If they decide they’d rather have sex with a woman, that should be no different to you. Who cares? It doesn’t define their identity in its totality nor should it determine how you judge their character.

    The Paul Newman quote is great, by the way. Pretty smart stuff from an actor.

    That is all.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    A little bit, Steve. And don’t forget “sodomite” too.

    But only for pretty girls, by choice. It’s not my genes that make me as fabulously hetero as I am, darlings. Although my genes and my charge card sure help me stay fabulous, if you know what I mean.

    That is all.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Geez, a guy makes the mistake of talking about shaving his body hair ONCE and everyone thinks he’s a metrosexual playboy. I’ll never live that down, will I? :)

    That is all.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Even if gay people CHOOSE to be gay, so what? <<

    Exactly. I always try to steer clear of the genetics vs. nature vs. choice issue. Not just because I’m not convinced that any single position is correct, but because IMO it shouldn’t matter at all. If someone’s gay that’s their business and the cause or the circumstances matter not one little bit.

    Dave

  • steve

    gay people should not be called gay.

    it is rather unfitting.

    They should be called handicapped.

    homosexuals prefer the same sex due to neurons misfiring.

    Their brains are not wired properly.

    It is a mental disease.

    that is all

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    cool, I’ll get the best parking spots.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Oh man, that’s funny.

    In a serious follow-up, straights who say they’ll tolerate gays as long as they’re not too in-your-face flamboyant aren’t helping much. I say gays shouldn’t bother you unless you have your own issues with sexuality and being radically gay or queer shouldn’t bother you. Sex isn’t that scary and language about privacy and closed doors implies that we should protect the right to be in the closet. I think the only consistent gesture is to welcome openly gay people and not necessarily associate a lot of the camp and performance of sex and gender associated with gay pride as saying anything definitive about morals or character based on sexuality. It’s possible to be straight and be in drag, for example. Not my thing, but hey.

    We’re all potentially gay or straight at any time and our preferences are a product of our socialization and circumstance.

    Another important insight from the gay rights movement has been that being queer isn’t necessarily about sex. It’s about an identity of liberation from sexual norms and discrimination, not about whom you have sex with. You don’t have to be gay or have gay sex to be queer and fight against homophobia. You might not even need to know any gays, although you probably do already whether you know they are or not.

    So I’m proud to say I’m queer. Are you?

    Feel free to quote me on that, homophobe right-wing infant types.

    That is all.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Bob A. Booey, I salute you! We’re all potentially gay or straight at any time and our preferences are a product of our socialization and circumstance. No truer words have ever been spoken on the subject in this debate. I have always believed that sexuality is far more complicated than we make it out to be. Just because I have a male partner at this stage in my life doesn’t necessarily make me exclusively gay. It’s the partner, not the gender. We’ve become too label conscious in our effort to be civilized.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Yes! I am proud to say that Babs is queer. As for me, I plan to marry a juicy smoked briskit and raise a little family of corn fritters.

    Dave

  • RogerMDillion

    Since when did the words “foolish” and “ignorant” become banned? Can I use any of these words: absurd, asinine, balmy, brainless, cockeyed, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, dotty, fatuous, harebrained, half-witted, insane, jerky, kooky, loony (also looney), lunatic, mad, nonsensical, nutty, preposterous, sappy, screwball, senseless, silly, simpleminded, stupid, unwise, wacky, weak-minded, witless, zany or dumb, idiotic, imbecilic, moronic; fallacious, illogical, invalid, irrational, unreasonable; farcical, laughable, ludicrous, ridiculous? How about benighted, dark, illiterate, nonliterate, simple, uneducated, uninstructed, unlearned, unlettered, unread, unschooled, untaught, untutored, lowbrow, uncultivated, uncultured; callow, green, inexperienced, innocent, naive (or naïve); unsophisticated; raw, untrained; brainless, dumb, idiotic, imbecilic, moronic, stupid, witless; foolish, senseless, silly or oblivious, unacquainted, unaware, unconscious, ungrounded, uninformed, unknowing, unmindful, unwitting, uneducated, unschooled, untaught; absent, absentminded, abstracted, heedless, inattentive?

  • RogerMDillion

    “Don’t give arguments or reasons at all,”

    Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true. I don’t have time to go back and find all the times I’ve corrected you, but how about when you said “no conservatives support drug legalization” or “no minority was ever a member of a Democratic administration”?

    Why don’t you try to stop claiming you were part of the group that voted against gay marriage before you start worrying about others?

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    comment 8 calls someone ridiculous (personal). How is that not as bad as saying someone’s comments are based in ignorance (not personal)? Or any different than comment 9 stating someone’s comments are bullshit?

    i’ts bad debate form to insult someone rather than some opinion or some idea
    we are not our ideas and opinions as these can change whereas our existence as a person cannot (death is the end of that person, not a change in that person)…
    an insult of an opinion or idea matters little without substantiation of some kind…

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Dave Nalle says: As for me, I plan to marry a juicy smoked briskit and raise a little family of corn fritters.

    Geesh, Dave, all of a sudden a platter of leg of lamb garnished with seasoned little round red potatoes causes my heart to go pitter patter. Next thing you know they’ll try to make gastronomical marriage unconstitutional.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Mmmm lamb. But instead of the little red potatoes, I’ll go for peeled potatoes roasted in the pan drippings with the lamb.

    Dave

  • practical joe

    ‘… our ideas and opinions… can change whereas our existence as a person cannot…”

    For once, I tend to agree with diana.

    Our existence does not change…

    At the beginning of our existence, our brains are not wired.

    After that, our environment takes over.

    Abnormalities creep in.

    Some become alcoholics.

    Some become pedophiles.

    Some become homosexuals.

    And some develop other mental aberrations…

    But to correct a mental problem, it has to be admitted.

    Time to start down the road — and admit it!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I eased on down the road and found out that I don’t have a mental problem at all!

  • RogerMDillion

    “it’s bad debate form to insult someone rather than some opinion or some idea…”

    Yes, diana, I know. I’m just trying to understand the apparent arbitrariness of a certain editor.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Roger, don’t you think the censorship has gotten out of of control a bit?

    Olsen, I know the editors are all good people, but some of what’s been edited lately is just silly. There shouldn’t be a ban on frank speech as long as it’s not using dirty words or attacking something about the character of the person it’s directed at. The comments are being scrubbed way too clean into nothing — I feel like we’re going to have a Disney-ized soccer mom version of BlogCritics soon. I worry that the new subjective comment policy is being applied in a somewhat arbitrary way.

    You girls are making me hungry :) I don’t eat red meat, but replace that lamb and brisket with some good beer-can chicken or some roasted quail or a good piece of fish and I’m set.

    Practical Joe: you’re really reaching for nothing now. Yeah, buddy, the more you say the word “pedophile” around the word “homosexual,” the more we’ll associate the two. Give it up. You’re out of your league.

    That is all.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    And Joe, what’s your background in mental health and psychiatry exactly?

    Which specific disorders do you think gays are afflicted by? Feel free to give a detailed etiology and some case studies of the extensive clinical work you’ve done with gay patients as well.

    That is all.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Swordfish. That’s the ticket. Blackened, grilled and served with a nice radicchio salad.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “Yes, the dorky fat kid that everyone made fun of in middle and elementary school turned out to be gay in High School. What were the odds of that happening??? The kid wasn’t exepted by anyone, but when he became gay he all of the sudden had freinds”

    Anthony, if you’re concerned that “fat, dorky” kids will turn gay because they are trying to gain acceptance and since you are very much against homosexuality, maybe the best you could do is befriend those social outcasts and try to prevent their inevitable descent into homosexuality. How’s that for strategy? I mean, you’re such a lovely person and all…who wouldn’t want to be your friend?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Roger, the editing is done if an editor stumbles across a violation or more likely if it is pointed out to them via email. It’s an imperfect science.

    Just stick with attacking the ideology and not the person and you should be fine. I don’t know what was deleted of yours, but in the grand scheme of things, there’s probably more important things you want to say to whoever, right?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Random thoughts:

    • Now that we have scientific proof that a conventional womb is not needed for the development of a fetus, the plot thickens.
    • I publicly apologized for my indiscretions (see comment 407) after I got edited in the last couple of days. My emotions were on overdrive after reading some of these mind expanding comments.
    • Good suggestion on befriending dorky, fat kids. I guess that we should open our arms and embrace them so that they will be encouraged to follow the path of heterosexual righteousness. It’s the least those who believe homosexuality is an illness can do.
    • Bob A. Booey gives us the word of the day “etiology”. He’s a smart fella.
    • …straights who say they’ll tolerate gays as long as they’re not too in-your-face flamboyant aren’t helping much…
      Oy, that’s a tough one. Blatant queens grate on my nerves. I guess it’s the drama factor, I’m not big on it. Besides, I think Funny Girl was one of the ten worst movies ever made.
    • That is all…

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Some become alcoholics.
    Some become pedophiles.
    Some become homosexuals.
    And some develop other mental aberrations…
    But to correct a mental problem, it has to be admitted.

    you’ll not likely win any conversions here…your assertion would be better taken up with the people who decide what is and is not included in the great book — the one that lists mental aberrations…

    i’d much rather hear how the contact went than a list of reasons why you wouldn’t contact them…

  • practical joe

    �I eased on down the road and found out that I don’t have a mental problem at all!�

    [edited]

    That�s what most alcoholics say before treatment.

    Alcoholics were born dry.

    Alcoholics have to learn to drink.

    Alcoholics have a choice.

    All they have to do is admit it — and get treatment.

    Homosexual males were born males.

    Homosexual females were born females.

    Homosexuals have to learn how to pervert their sexuality.

    Homosexuals, like alcoholics, have choice.

    All they have to do is admit it — and get treatment.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    No problem, PJ. I understand where you’re coming from. No need to debate any longer. Peace, dude.

    P.S. Notice I am saving the Editors from having to edit my post because, believe me, I have more expletives deleted running through my mind than Barry Goldwater at Nixon’s resignation.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    for the record, i don’t think alcoholism is a “disease” or a mental health issue…it’s a choice…what leads to it is the mental health issue and is not likely something was born with but rather an environmentally induced coping skill that served one well through childhood but that hamper the goings-on of adult living…

    pedophilia on the other hand is, i think, something one is born with, and this is why i think they should all be systematically destroyed…

  • practical joe

    Shout it out — Silas…

    Profanity is a device which makes ignorance audible.

  • practical joe

    diana:

    This study “clearly” shows what causes homosexuality:

    Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men

    “The testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and the estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) are candidate compounds for human pheromones. AND is detected primarily in male sweat, whereas EST has been found in female urine. In a previous positron emission tomography study, we found that smelling AND and EST activated regions covering sexually dimorphic nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, and that this activation was differentiated with respect to sex and compound. In the present study, the pattern of activation induced by AND and EST was compared among homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. In contrast to heterosexual men, and in congruence with heterosexual women, homosexual men displayed hypothalamic activation in response to AND. Maximal activation was observed in the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus, which, according to animal studies, is highly involved in sexual behavior. As opposed to putative pheromones, common odors were processed similarly in all three groups of subjects and engaged only the olfactory brain (amygdala, piriform, orbitofrontal, and insular cortex). These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.”

    It’s all about “odors”. Do you agree?

    And this study “clearly” shows what causes alcoholism:

    “Researchers have identified individual genes and gene networks that may play an important role in determining the behavioral responses to alcohol as well as possibly influencing drinking behavior. “Thus far, genes that appear to be responsive to alcohol include genes involved in the intracellular signaling process (which can alter how the neuron functions), neuropeptide signaling (which modulates nerve cell activity), and myelin structure (which is needed for communication between nerve cells). Gene expression profiling has also been used to identify chromosomes and chromosomal regions that influence alcohol drinking and response to alcohol.”

    Looks like this study puts AA out of business.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    this shows how uninformed people are.

    Alcoholism is not a disease, it is an addiction. There is a clear distinction between the two.

    These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.”

    It’s all about “odors”. Do you agree?

    Of course it is not all about odors. The study included heterosexuals and homosexuals. So is it all about odor for you? Is the smell of a woman the ONLY thing other than all-male sodomy that gets you going?

    What this study shows us is that sexual attraction IS most likely hardwired in the brain, one aspect of it has been found in the hypothalamus.

    Thanks for the evidence supporting being born gay.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    If it’s all about odors, explain the success of the straight and gay porn industry. Last I heard, DVD’s and mags didn’t have scratch and sniff parts.

  • practical joe

    Steve S says: “this shows how uninformed people are.”

    Yes, sorry to say.

    The study shows that alcoholism is caused by “individual genes and gene networks that may play an important role in determining the behavioral responses to alcohol as well as possibly influencing drinking behavior..”

    Translated: It’s in the genes.

    But Steve can’t see it.

    This shows how uninformed people can be — even after being shown the evidence.

    (That’s why it’s scary to go before a jury).

    What this study shows us is that sexual attraction can be influenced by what enters the nose.. (this keeps the perfume industry going)… BUT the brain is still wired to the genitals.

    Of course homosexuality is not all about odors.

    But what the odors do suggest is a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.

    Translated: It’s NOT in the genes.

    The simple antidote for homosexual men is for the female partner to spray on a little AND pheromone perfume.

    That will take care of the hypothalamus problem.

    Care to try it, boys?

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Practical Joe, if gay sex is like booze and being gay is a treatable addiction then what does that say about someone who’s so obsessed with what you regard as so addictively pleasurable in the behavior of others?

    [edited] What’s the big deal?

    That is all.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    It’s all about “odors”. Do you agree?

    agree with what? that there’s some proof that homosexuality is hard-wired into the brain?
    okay, i agree…

    Translated: It’s NOT in the genes.

    oooooh, so heterosexuals don’t have the same physiological response to odor?
    ah, but they do
    and according to your translation, that would mean heterosexuality isn’t in the genes either…
    huh…

    Researchers have identified individual genes and gene networks that may play an important role in determining the behavioral responses to alcohol as well as possibly influencing drinking behavior

    “may” play…not “do” play…and even if it is “do”, this research explains what happens to the brain of someone after they’ve made the choice to drink…it does not address that there was a choice not to drink and that the person made the choice to drink…if this is “proof” that alcoholism isn’t someone’s own damn fault by virtue of the brain’s reaction to alcohol without regard for the choice they made to drink, then we must rewrite the drunk driving laws to accomodate those poor saps sitting in prison who killed/maimed someone else while under the influence — after all, it wasn’t their fault the way their brain reacted…
    and the devil made me do it…
    and i raped her because shewas wearing those skimpy clothes in my presence…
    and i killed him because he pissed me off…
    and what else can i passive-aggressively pin on someone else by shifting the focus from what i did to the harm i suffered…
    boo hoo…

    Last I heard, DVD’s and mags didn’t have scratch and sniff parts.

    well, they do, for sweets and perfumes, but if you can market this dubious technology to sell porn (and greeting cards, etc), you’ll be rich beyond your wildest dreams…

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    What about putatively hetero Internet guys who stink and have body odor? Are they still straight if their natural scent and cheap Axe body odor spray scares away the ladies? Are they entomophiles if they attract flies because of their rank stench? Does that make them perverts because their sexual scent attracts insects buzzing around their smelly, sloblike bodies?

    Just a question.

    That is all.

  • practical joe

    Hey guys —

    Take a bath with your girlfriend — put the “right perfume” on her, and then… BAM!

    You probably won’t need any porn.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Is BAM the sound when she deflates in the tub, Practical Joe?

    This is a documented true story from several Playmates, but Hugh Hefner puts on exclusively gay porn during his sessions with the Playmate girlfriends where all the Playmates watch and cheer him on.

    That is all.

  • practical joe

    Diana:

    Thanks.

    Your link was helpful…

    ah, but they do …

    “Isolated on a remote island for several weeks, a scientist notes that his beard sprouts at a pathetic rate. Back in the company of women, his whisker growth returns to a gallop.”

    So this shows that the more men are around women, the more the brain responds to it.

    And conversely, the more men are around men, , the more the brain responds to it.

    So — you see — you weren’t born that way.

    You just have been in the wrong company!

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    Lets get away from all this genetic shit. It doesn’t matter.
    What two adult human beings choose to do with each other behind closed doors is nobody’s buisness but their own.
    Maybe we should amend the constitution to ban dying your hair green, since it was a choice and not genetic.

    I want to know something PJ and AG.
    You talk about how kids raised by homosexual parents are being put in harms way. Their guardians are unnatural so society will abuse them.
    Well what if society became more enlightened or tolerant and didn’t care about what someones parents sexual orientation was.
    Maybe if “normal” parents tought their kids that being gay is O.K. then the kids of gay parents wouldn’t have to worry about so much abuse.

    I realize there will always be people who will never accept that people are gay and its O.K. to be that way. But soon you will be in the minority and all the gay parents will have to worry a lot less about their kids taking cheep shots from the few kids whoose parents are hateful bigots.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    All the signs and common sense of NATURE say that humans or any animal is not meant to be with the same sex.

    ————–
    You guys are way out of control with the editing.

    ————–
    [edited] What’s the big deal?”

    What is the big deal? Do I really got to explain my 15 main reasons again?
    ————–

    How come no one edits the other side when they talk about me inapproprietly.
    ————–

    Silas, a baby can DANGEROUSLY survive outside the fetus. And even if that find a way around the problem good luck trying to get another man pregnant because NATURE didn’t give males eggs.

    Is mother nature a homophobe that is full of hate also???

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Maybe if “normal” parents tought their kids that being gay is O.K. then the kids of gay parents wouldn’t have to worry about so much abuse.”

    Being gay is o.k. only if you are in a childless everlasting relationship only involving 2 people.

    But in reality gays are the cause of the rapid spread of HIV and AIDS, they are immoral, they are people with a mental problem that needs to be treated for their own benefit. I am not comfortable with kids being brought up by people with brain problems.

    The reason we talk about genetics Druxxx, is that these people keep saying that gays are born gay and they can’t help it so they must be aloud to get married and we don’t let them say this because it is not true.

  • practical joe

    MOTHER NATURE IS A HOMOPHOBE!

    Great one AG!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    But what the odors do suggest is a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.
    Translated: It’s NOT in the genes.

    If the hypothalamus reacts to odors, it was most likely genetically programmed to do so. Our body parts have their purposes within the DNA. Mess with the DNA and watch the body part not function. So it IS in the genes.

    And I said that alcoholism was an addiction, which it is, and of course how a body handles an addiction (the severity of it, or if it is addictive at all), is also in the genes.

    Practical Joe, by reducing the sex drive to nothing more than a bath, a naked body and an Emeril-type bam totally negates the primary sex organ which is the brain. And by that, I’m not talking about the hypothalamus, but I’m talking about the soul. The heart of a person.

    Good luck proving that isn’t genetic.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Practical Joe, I honestly think that it should be me and you writing these blogs instead of these one sided commies.

    We come up with some of the funniest and most creative stuff.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Wait, I take that “commie” reference back. Even communists understand that gay marriage is dangerous for society.

  • practical joe

    Druxxx says:

    “What two adult human beings choose to do with each other behind closed doors is nobody’s business but their own.”

    I couldn’t agree more!

    So — take your business behind your closed doors AND keep it out of our faces!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    We come up with some of the funniest and most creative stuff

    could that be rewritten as ‘even we don’t believe the tripe we type?’

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    my ‘business’ has always been behind closed doors practical joe. But if you thought for a minute, you’d know that. It’s you who has continually brought the topic around to homosexual sex. The ‘business’ has always been behind closed doors. The family will not live there though.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “my ‘business’ has always been behind closed doors practical joe.”

    No it is not behind close doors. I know your gay, Gonzo knows your gay, Joe knows your gay and everyone else knows your gay so it is not behind closed doors.

    Does [your daughter] know your gay???

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    If ‘knowing I’m gay’ is not keeping it behind closed doors, then if people know you are straight, then you are shoving it in their face too. So I will quit when you do.

    nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

    My daughter knows she has two dads. She is too young to go beyond that right now.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Anthony, by your definition, reserving an entire section of a newspaper, calling it the wedding announcement section and putting your picture there, announcing to the world your getting ready to mate…that’s pretty in your face, isn’t it?

  • practical joe

    Steve

    I see your problem —

    You have wedding announcement envy!

  • 1Potato

    AG, you seem like fun! Do you want to meet at the mall? We can both wear our baseball caps backwards so we recognize each other.

    Don’t tell your parents. Parents are so uncool. Don’t worry, I have lots of money for the games and candy too.

    I’ve got cool stuff in my van, dragon balzee, everything! I’ll be wearing a scooby-doo mask just for fun, and putting on a funny fake voice. But when we get in the van you can try on my mask and we can turn on the radio really really loud and do whatever we want! Don’t tell the stupid FBI about this, they are sooo lame! This is just for the cool people like us!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    not at all joe, I’m not the one with a problem with public displays of affection. You two are, apparently. So I’m pointing out blatant examples to you. We can all stop together, until then we can shuddup about it.

  • RogerMDillion

    “Roger, the editing is …an imperfect science.”

    Yes, I know that’s why I’m calling them to task

    “in the grand scheme of things, there’s probably more important things you want to say to whoever, right?”

    Are you joking? You think this spinning around and around is important. You are never going to convince to each other, yet you keep on making the same statements over and over. If your argument didn’t work the first 20 times, it’s not going to work the next 20. You all have that in common.

  • practical joe

    Steve S says:

    “My daughter knows she has two dads. She is too young to go beyond that right now.”

    Back when I was young…

    If I was told I had “two dads” — I would have left home.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Anthony, by your definition, reserving an entire section of a newspaper, calling it the wedding announcement section and putting your picture there, announcing to the world your getting ready to mate…that’s pretty in your face, isn’t it?”

    Well you see Steve, straights are NARTURAL!!! Gays do not naturally exist.

    ———-

    What are you going to say when [your daughter] comes home and asks, “Why don’t I have a mommy like Sara and Nicole?”

    ———-

    [edited]

  • KYS

    Anthony,
    Can you please clarify something in an earlier post?

    What is the definition of CLEAN BLOOD?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    You are referring to when I was talking about my cousin and I. People saying that it was dangerous for cousins to reproduce because family diseases could infect our offspring. I responded to this by saying my family has clean blood, which means we are free of harmfull diseases that haunt other families.

    The thing in my family is Thalasemia. It is something that 80% of Italians get and is not harmfull.

    ———-

    Nice try trying to make me look like a racist though.

  • KYS

    I wasn’t TRYING to make you look racist, but I admit I was wondering.

    What IS your opinion on inter-racial marriage?

  • KYS

    By the way, “thalassemia” is not always harmless….see this link.

    link

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>If I was told I had “two dads” — I would have left home.<<

    You were already that bigoted and intolerant at the age of 3? I hope not.

    More likely you’d learn to accept it and grow up to be a sensible person.

    Dave

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “What IS your opinion on inter-racial marriage?”

    Are you serious??? Who do you think I am??? Of course I am all for inter-racial marriage. What does this have to do with anything??? Are you calling me a clansman???

    For your information I am related to Frederick Douglas!!! My family on my mothers Tennessee side were abolitionists long before the Civil War. Many of them were tared and feathered!!!

    “By the way, “thalassemia” is not always harmless….see this link.”

    It depends on what variation you got.

  • KYS

    >>Are you serious??? Who do you think I am???< <

    I don't know who you are, that's why I asked. Thanks for answering.

    >>It depends on what variation you got.<<

    Of course it does. But don’t call it harmless; that’s misleading.

  • KYS

    Damn, I need an HTML course…

  • practical joe

    Dave:

    Back when I was young…

    If I was told I had “two dads” — I certainly would have left home.

    But I said young — I didn’t say three.

    I would have been unwilling to be a guinea pig in a homosexual experiment.

    If you like being a guinea pig in a homosexual experiment — that’s O.K. by me.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    oh there’s a punch line here waiting to happen. …

    Oh OK, you talked me into it.

    If you don’t want to be the guinea pig in a “homosexual experiment,” what about the hamster?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Brilliant, Temple! OK, folks, time to close this thread down. Nothing better than comment 482 will ever be said here. Of this there can be no doubt.

  • KYS

    LOL

    By the way, tar and feathers? That’s so gay…

    j/k

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Your sarcasm is biting** Victor. :-)

    Steve S is going to kill me for it, too. Sorry Steve. It was furball waiting to be hit out of the park.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    … Just like that hamster.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “I would have been unwilling to be a guinea pig in a homosexual experiment.”

    Brilliant. I couldn’t think of a way to explain it, but you did it for me.

    Victor, what are you babling about???

  • practical joe

    DO NOT ANSWER FOOLS OR YOU WILL BE LIKE THEM.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Your feigned innocence is touching, Anthony. Completely unconvincing, of course, but touching nonetheless.

    Temple, sorry if my rocket-propelled sarcasm caught you with its red-hot exhaust propellants, but surely you must realize you were not the target.

  • practical joe

    O.K. children — Kindergarten class is over now.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Hmm… Nope. Still not funnier than 482.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Surely I do. ;-)

    – temple

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    And don’t call me Shirley – Temple.

    Because it’s been done.

    Call me swizzlestick.

    (I sound like I’ve been drinking, no? Lack of sleep mates. Lack of sleep.)

    [edited]

  • practical joe

    Now I know why they are called queer.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    My parenting skills are no more an experiment than anybodies parenting skills, in that it’s all experimentation the first time around, finding what works.

    So many full grown adults today have been raised by one or more gay parents, there’s nothing to be ‘gleaned’ from this ‘new thing’ that joe has discovered. It’s not new. Gay parenting has been around for thousands of years.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Who wants to volunteer to teach the difference between “your” and “you’re” to Anthony Camilla Grande? How old are you again, Anthony, by the way?

    And how old are you, Practical Joe?

    You two should team up, for blogs and for life.

    That is all.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    They do seem like kindred spirits, do they not? Castor and Pollux. Laurel and Hardy. Lucy and Desi. Adam and Steve.

    Eventus stultorum magister

  • RogerMDillion

    Do NOT slur the names of Laurel and Hardy.

  • RogerMDillion

    And to the unknown editor who removed my uses of the words “ignorant” and “fool”, you must have missed the meeting regarding what’s inappropriate. Let me quote the executive editor:

    [edited]

    Now just to recap so I’m clear; someone can be called ridiculous, someone can be told that their statements are bullshit, someone can be imagined having gay sex, all of which I have no trouble with, but you can’t say someone’s opinion is based in ignorance.

    I know you have a thankless job, and I’m sure its much more of a headache than it’s worth, but I hope you can understand my confusion with the hypersensitvity displayed in regarding to the censoring that is taking place.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Sorry, Roger. I have an active imagination.

    The editing, which I did not do (and I am nolonger Exec. EDitor and I sympathize with not being able to catch up)is I think meant to take away person attacks.

    I was merely [edited].

    We are still fine-tuning the comments policy, but there is a new one in place if you would care to click “Official Comment Policy” above.

    Cheers.

  • RogerMDillion

    Temple, I have no problem with your comments, so no apolgies necessary. Sometimes things can be scrubbed to clean.

    Who is your replacement?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Sigh.

    I’ve explained this before, but apparently it hasn’t sunk in.

    These threads are not tracked on a minute-by-minute basis. The editors [mostly me] check in periodically, and preferably daily, but that’s not always possible, as it wasn’t for me yesterday. We look for html links that need fixing, duplicate comments, spam, and comments that violate the comments policy. When we see violations, we edit them.

    Individual words are not banned. The way commenters USE those words are. We don’t catch all the violations, but we do our best. On a thread where people are being particularly nasty to each other, we have less tolerance for comments that are close to the violation line.

    Now all of you just please stop whining that your supposed god-given right to insult each other and take a verbal dump on SOMEONE ELSE’S WEBSITE is being infringed.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I should mention that my last comment was not specifically directed at RogerMDillion, but at all the complainers.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    BHW, darling :)

    Thank you for your hard, thankless work.

    And thank you for erring on the side of open debate and free speech where possible. I realize it’s hard work for you to have the pressure of a subjective comment policy and I sympathize with that. I’m sure I’d have pretty intense personal reactions to some conversations too.

    That is all.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I’m with BABs, bhw. You’ve discharged your editorial duties well. You’ve been fair for the most part and that’s all any of us can ask for. Getting ‘edited’ kind of causes the writer to cool down the intensity of the rhetoric — at least this writer, anyway.

  • practical joe

    RE: Comment 495

    Bob asks:

    �And how old are you, Practical Joe?�

    Old enough to [edited].

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Temple says: If you don’t want to be the guinea pig in a “homosexual experiment,” what about the hamster?

    Um, dude? Why is the gerbil always left behind? Nobody loves the gerbils anymore. I hate Richard Gere for maligning them.

  • practical joe

    If we can�t get two guinea pig in a “homosexual experiment,” how about [edited]

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Guinea pigs can’t be gay, PJ. We only allow creatures to be gay if their appendages meet certain minimum length requirements. Oh Lord, I really want to go there, but I won’t.

  • practical joe

    [edited]

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Booey and Silas, thank you. Honestly.

  • practical joe

    We do know Silas really wants to go there.

    He said so.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “My parenting skills are no more an experiment than anybodies parenting skills,”

    Oh, so gay families or not more of an experiment than the role of the mom and dad for the last HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    “So many full grown adults today have been raised by one or more gay parents,”

    Yeah and don’t you notice that society has taken a turned for the worst in the last 20 years???

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Hundred Thousand years, AG? Don’t you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old? Or, aren’t you supposed to?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Scott, thank you for the stereotype.

    Now it is my turn:

    [edited]

    ———-

    Who knows how long a day is to God. Maybe when they said 7 days they meant to say 7 billion years. We do not know.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    514 comments and same sex couples still have the right to marry in Massachusetts. Some day they will have that right in all 50 states. All the rhetoric from both sides of the issue won’t defeat it. Two people, regardless of sex, have the right to create a union and declare a domestic partnership. That is what marriage is in its simplest civil form. Each person declares the other to be their partner and accord all the rights thereto. Is that so hard to understand? When you come right down to it, is that such a horrible thing?

    And, for the record, anyone else who criticizes the children of alternative parents is attacking my kids and I consider it a personal attack. I’ll stack my kids up against any conventionally raised child any time, any where. They’re not spoiled, they’re respectful and they have a keen sense of self awareness and respect for the country in which they live. Love, honesty and respect will reign over ignorance, bigotry and fear in every situation. And that ain’t gay, it’s fact!

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “514 comments and same sex couples still have the right to marry in Massachusetts.”

    Like I said before, GREAT!!! If you are in California and want to be married to the same sex then pack up and move to Massachusetts. But the thing is Massachusetts will also repeal it, so gays will just have to leave the country.

    “Some day they will have that right in all 50 states.”

    What right??? They already have the right to marry.

    And if Gay Marriage is passed in all 50 states then you will be going over the heads of the far majority of Americans who do not want it. I bet that there is not a single start where the majority of the people want Gay Marriage in their state.

    “When you come right down to it, is that such a horrible thing?”

    Go back and reread all the comments. You will have your answer.

    And your kids are not good kids, they got moral issues.

  • practical joe

    Kids raised in a [edited] �EXPERIMENTAL� group�

    How do they behave —

    Before they are free�

    �They’re not spoiled, they’re respectful and they have a keen sense of self awareness and respect for the country in which they live.�

    So are kids raised in other �experimental�[edited] environments.

    Ever hear of a kid who was not �respectful, etc.� in a communist country?

    Or any other heavily controlled �experimental� environment?

  • practical joe

    Perverted:

    Deviating from what is considered right and correct.

  • AnAussie

    “Perverted:
    Deviating from what is considered right and correct.”

    practical joe, what a post!

    “Considered right and correct” by who?

    I take it you’re referring to prevailing societal opinons — the majority rules. So, by your definition, what you consider “perversion” now could just as easily become the norm if the the majority decided to support it. Which, judging by the swing we’ve seen *toward* support for same-sex marriage, looks like it may only be a matter of time.

    Perhaps you’re saying “perversion” is a deviation from what the law, or the government, considers “right and correct” … in which case the adjective could be used to describe *you* in a country like Canada or the Netherlands.

    My tip: leave the dictionary out of it. Logic really isn’t supporting your cause, mate.

  • practical joe

    “Perverted:

    “Deviating from what is considered right and correct.”

    “Considered right and correct” by who?

    By the vast majority of the people involved.

    That is why the Massachusetts legislature voted against letting the people vote on the issue.

    The majority is supposed to rule.

    But the Massachusetts lobbyist $$$ won out over the people.

    In all states where it is put to a vote by the people, “same-sex marriage“ is voted down as a perversion.

    “So, by your definition, what you consider “perversion” now could just as easily become the norm if the majority decided to support it.”

    But there is no sign of that happening.

    “Perhaps you’re saying “perversion” is a deviation from what the law, or the government, considers “right and correct”“

    No — “perversion” is a deviation from what the PEOPLE consider “right and correct.”

    My tip: try using the dictionary. It won’t hurt — except it might not support your cause, buddy?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    But the Massachusetts lobbyist $$$ won out over the people.

    You have no idea what you’re talking about. The MA legistlature voted the way it did because they are starting to figure out that gay marriage hasn’t harmed a single person in this state, least of all harmed the “sanctity of marriage.” They said it themselves, and polls of the public have shown that MA voters thought this issue was damn near irrelevant for the legislature to deal with this year.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Anthony, you go on and on about ‘the people have spoken’.

    Here’s some people speaking:

    The largest Protestant denomination in Maine is telling voters to reject a ballot initiative that would void legal protections for gays and lesbians. The Maine Conference United Church of Christ overwhelmingly passed the resolution at its annual meeting. The UCC has more than 23,000 members in Maine. source.

    And in Tucson Az, only 33% support a constutional ban on marriage. That means 66%, a far majority, are against any changes to the constitution.

    Listen, Anthony, can you hear it? The people are speaking.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Alright look, I and the rest of AMERICA don’t want our kids to grow up in a society that YOU small ELITE think is right. Us people ALWAYS overwhelmingly vote against Gay Marriage. It hurts our society when the GOVERNMENT decides FOR US and tells us that we are too STUPID to make choices on our OWN. This is not a society that means something. I and the rest of AMERICANS want our kids and grand kids to grow up in a society that MEANS SOMETHING!!!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Meaning something being meaning intolerance and forced religion and no diversity? What fun.

    Dave

  • practical joe

    “You have no idea what you’re talking about.”

    PERSONAL SLUR!!!

    EDITOR!

    EDITOR!

    EDITOR!

    Where are you?

  • practical joe

    “MA voters thought this issue was damn near irrelevant for the legislature to deal with this year“

    Yeah — so why not let the people speak for themselves?

    IN THE VOTING BOOTHS!

    And did anyone expect the MA legislature to admit that lobbyists control their votes?

  • practical joe

    “The largest Protestant denomination in Maine is telling voters to reject a ballot initiative that would void legal protections for gays and lesbians. The Maine Conference United Church of Christ overwhelmingly passed the resolution at its annual meeting.”

    Pastoral Letter to the Members, Friends, and Churches of the Maine Conference, United Church of Christ.

    “It is probable that the Maine Christian Civic League will utilize the actions of our General Synod to further their crusade to overturn the civil rights legislation in place in Maine to ensure the rights of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

    Please remember that the legislation they are attacking in Augusta is CIVIL RIGHTS legislation and has NOTHING to do with Same-gender marriage issues.”

    “Finally, those gathered in Atlanta were very much aware that throughout the United Church of Christ there are good and compassionate people of faith who with integrity do not agree on this issue.”

    Not quite a ringing endorsement of “homosexual marriage”, is it?

  • RogerMDillion

    Another day and no one has changed their mind yet, eh? Keep on wasting server space.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Meaning something being meaning intolerance and forced religion and no diversity?”

    Look whose talking!!! You libs are being intolerant to the VOTERS!!! This in why we broke away from England!!!

    You Libs are forcing gay marriage on us!!! We don’t want it!!! We proved that!!! But you still incist that it happens!!!

  • steve

    Q: What is the best way to explain GAY sex to a child; should they walk in on you?
    A: Johnny, this is a normal thing to do. When you are older, you will understand. This is how you show love to someone.

    Ok Daddy #1, I will show other boys that they are friends by doing this to them tooooo!!!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Look whose talking!!! You libs are being intolerant to the VOTERS!!! This in why we broke away from England!!!< <

    No, we broke away from England because we didn't like paying taxes to a foreign power which gave us no voice in government.

    >>You Libs are forcing gay marriage on us!!! We don’t want it!!! We proved that!!! But you still incist that it happens!!!<<

    We are? We’re forcing YOU to marry someone of the same gender?

    Wrong. No one is being forced to engage in anything. All we’re talking about here is extending the same basic rights to everyone regardless of what they do in private – which we have no business even knowing about in the firtst place.

    Dave

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Yeah — so why not let the people speak for themselves?

    They did. When polled, the people said they didn’t want the legislature to go through the hoops necessary to create the opportunity to vote. They felt that the state had far more pressing issues that the legislature needs to spend its time on.

    And did anyone expect the MA legislature to admit that lobbyists control their votes?

    We expect that they listen to the voters, who have registered a big ho-hum on the subject of gay marriage.

    Unfortunately, a few zealots won’t listen. Rather than let the subject go, a few will continue to try to get different referenda passed. The minority in MA will continue to try to impose their religion on the rest of us, sadly.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    This isn’t much fun. Anthony’s only 17, folks. He should still know better, but that might explain some of the statements made here.

    That is all.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Alright look, I and the rest of AMERICA don’t want our kids to grow up in a society that YOU small ELITE think is right. Us people ALWAYS overwhelmingly vote against DESEGREGATION. It hurts our society when the GOVERNMENT decides FOR US and tells us that we are too STUPID to make choices on our OWN. This is not a society that means something. I and the rest of AMERICANS want our kids and grand kids to grow up in a society that MEANS SOMETHING!!!

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Vote against segregation, right?

  • steve

    bhw, if this is the case…then we must prevent gay marriage as well as gay families. why do they deserve equal marriage rights as NORMAL americans?

    it is not the majority’s fault or responsibility that homosexuals have a mental disorder making them gay. why should they be rewarded this RIGHT?

    dont even start with equal protection either…that was created to protect the rights of newly released SLAVES…people with no FREEDOM….not for people who decide to practice SODOMY!

    protect AMERICAN MORAL FIBER.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Vote against segregation, right?

    Oh crap, yes.

    Dammit.

  • AnAussie

    “why do they deserve equal marriage rights as NORMAL americans?”

    …um, a right is a right. It is something to which we, as a human beings, are …entitled.

    “why should they be rewarded this RIGHT?”

    An egalitarian society cannot be achieved if you legislate in favour of certain elements of that society, and/or deny those same rights to other elements of society.

  • Luke

    “An egalitarian society cannot be achieved if you legislate in favour of certain elements of that society, and/or deny those same rights to other elements of society.”

    Men and women can only marry each other, this right applies to everyone, it’s no one elses problem if i wish to marry a fire hydrant instead of a woman, because if my perversion causes me to be sexually attracted to inanimate objects, quite possibly same sex inanimate objects, why should that become the governments problem? Is it the governments job to provide special rights to perverts so that they can marry each other, and in fact change the meaning of the word marry so as to mean the union of pervert and object of sexually perverse desire (regardless of age, gender, specie, or whether it’s a plant, animal, or mineral)

  • practical joe

    Will two brothers be able to marry in our new perverted egalitarian society?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Since practical joe and other visitors to this site are continually going on about how bad homosexuality is to society, I think they should provide links proving their ideology.

    Like this:
    Societies worse off ‘when they have God on their side’

    saying that we all have the right to marry members of the opposite sex is bogus. YOU all have the right to marry and create a family with someone you love. I will have that right too someday.

  • practical joe

    Will I be able to marry my sister in our new perverted egalitarian society?

    Can we then marry our brother as well?

    That would REALLY be egalitarian!

    We can call it P.E.F..V — Perverted Egalitarian Family Values!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    who knows practical joe? If you are able to marry your sister or not, is of no concern to me and my family, nor does it affect my family in any way, so I would only be showing myself to be an intolerant bigot if I was concerned about your marriage.

  • practical joe

    Hey Steve:

    Just go off and get “married” somewhere.

    Take your boyfriend somewhere and have a celebration!

    That’s your right.

    What’s stopping you?

    I don’t care what you do personally.

    Just don’t say that the rest of us have to recognize what you do.

    Don’t demand that all of society has to change to suit a perverted view of marriage.

    Society has a right to say “bullshit” to perversions.

    We do it all the time.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    all of society doesn’t have to change, in order for my family to get equality, joe. You still don’t get it.

    Nobody changes. Nothing changes. Heterosexuals can still get married. YOu can still disapprove of me. Nothing changes.

    And quit telling me how to live my life.

  • practical joe

    And all of society doesn’t have to change, in order for a polygamist family to get equality, steve. You still don’t get it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    that’s true joe! That’s why I am indifferent as to polygamy. It’s not up to me to define another’s family.

  • http://blurbing.com Mark Adams

    Let me chime in here (everyone else has). Homosexual marriage is wrong and immoral. Society is affected in an adverse way when state governments allow homosexuals to marry. Did the world collapse? Come on, no one is saying sky is falling. But, giving special rights to gays is wrong. It ignores moral rights and opens the door to other behaviors, such as polygamy. Not for it. Hope for federal action.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Society is affected in an adverse way when state governments allow homosexuals to marry.

    I guess because you can’t prove that, is why courts keep saying you can’t use that as a reason to discriminate.

    The rest is subjective opinion, and nobody is convinced that what is a given right to you, is a special right to me.

  • http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/ Teri

    Equal means equal. Love this post. Great job Rudicus.

    Teri
    Feminist4Fathers

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    It just dawned on me. Why is anyone giving credence to this “allow homosexuals to marry” line? Not for anything but the laws of this land cannot infringe upon a human being’s right to be true to his/her sexuality. The government cannot dictate what I am allowed to do in my personal business. The gay community only gives fuel to the fire of the hate mongers by demanding that we “allow” to be married. Hogwash. Gays across this land should march into their respective clerk’s offices and file for a marriage license. The more licenses refused the better because it sets up the class action suit process. Those who feel they can dictate every aspect of my life because of my sexuality can kiss my American butt. I don’t object to their sexuality because it doesn’t matter who they sleep with. Being a productive, responsible member of society isn’t governed by gender or genitalia. It is demonstrated by the way you interact with your fellow citizens and human beings in general. In a country where the rule of law is supreme, the first rule of law should be that no one should have the right to infringe upon an individual’s rights. I am entitled to life. I am entitled to liberty so long as I live within the confines of the rule of law. I am entitled to the pursuit of happiness and if creating a union with a member of the same sex satisfies that pursuit, who cares? No law should be written which supercedes these three riding principles. Once you give credence to the laws that restrict what you can do under your own roof, it isn’t long before other rights are eroded from the American landscape. This isn’t only a queer issue, folks. This gets right to the heart of what America stands for.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Welcome to the Left, Silas, welcome to the Left.

  • nugget

    I hate to say it people. After reading through this entire thread, I think Silas and Steve are right.

    That is, as far as gay marraige is concerned. I am a christian, and personally believe that “being gay” is unnatural and giving in to a weakness of the flesh. This doesn’t mean I don’t befriend gay people. I have a few gay friends. I’ve known some that I could accuse of them being trendy and NOT gay because they were sexually promiscuous anyways. I’ve known others who truly loved one another and were physically attracted to the same sex. I won’t deny their legitimacy as honest people. They’re not trying to mutineer the moral fabrics of america.

    Conservatives and christians: Give Caesar what is Caesar’s. A court ruling like this does NOT have a direct effect on YOUR personal life. Pray for them earnestly if you feel you need to. But don’t argue on a message board about it. JESUS would NOT have done that. Do you think he would have?

  • practical joe

    Nugget:

    What would Jesus do?

    Matthew 19:3-6

    “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Mt 23:27-28

    “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

    Any clues?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    That which was written 1,900+ years ago has been translated and manipulated over time. There are those historians who contend that there were major revisions made during the Dark Ages. Almost all Bible Manuscripts were kept in obscure manasteries where monks painstakingly reproduced the Good Book by hand. I’d like to take a passage of Matthew as a case in point:

    Matthew 8:5-13
    When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, ‘Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.’ And he said to him, ‘I will come and cure him.’ The centurion answered, ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, “Go,” and he goes, and to another, “Come,” and he comes, and to my slave, “Do this,” and the slave does it.’ When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, ‘Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ And to the centurion Jesus said, ‘Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.’ And the servant was healed in that hour.

    The gay community has taken this passage to cite that Jesus didn’t have a problem with homosexuality. Conservatives on the other hand use passages like those cited above by PJ. My point here is that any passage of the Bible can be twisted to fit the sentiment that the person citing it wants to express. Passages in the Bible are like a horoscope — filled with generalities that apply to much but could mean very little. Experts in the ancient languages have diligently scoured the oldest writings which were in Greek to capture the real heart of the passages. The “slave” mentioned in my passage was actually something much different in the Greek translation. The centurion, according to actual Greek writings, asks Christ to cure his pais. The word was mistranslated into slave when in fact a pais was a young male kept by an older male for sex. Those who wish to refute this cannot. What is written in Greek is the original word from which all translations come.

    Look, it’s pointless for me to try and debate the rights, wrongs, ins and outs of homosexuality to those who are steadfast in their faith. I have a profound respect for people who live their faith and exercise it by the actions they make. Using religion to suppress and control is immoral and should be civilly illegal. If you, by virtue of your faith, believe that my lifestyle is wrong then by all means — pray for my soul. Just don’t try and convert me into something that is completely opposite of what is in my heart and soul. I don’t want your approval, but I do expect a modicum of respect. I’ve prayed more often than not for people who don’t believe as I do. I wish no one harm; instead I wish for you those guarantees that Jefferson spoke of: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We all share this land. It’s not ours to keep. While we maintain our tenancy on Earth we should live our lives the best way we know. We should be allowed the freedom to make informed decisions for ourselves and our families. If we all have a mutual respect for life and preserve the liberty for all then the pursuit of happiness naturally follows its course. Every generation is supposed to leave this place a bit better than it was received. Somehow we’ve lost that sense of responsibility.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    thank you nugget. That’s why I keep on, keepin on.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    anybody can debate scripture all they want, I try and avoid it because it has nothing to do with our government.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Very true, Steve. That’s why I stated that to debate on religious grounds is pointless. I have my civil hat on and that means all responsible adults are entitled pursue their happiness so long as it does not subjugate (thanks, ZZ, good word) the rights of another individual. Two adults who decide to make a union have that right. That’s a fact. Government cannot legislate that right and in enforcing laws to that effect they are in complete violation of the Constitution. Homosexuality, in and of itself, is not a civil issue. It is, however, a religious issue and should be debated in that forum while keeping it completely out of the civic arena. We’ve allowed ourselves to accept the notion that religious objection to homosexuality carries over into civil law. It does not. I reject that concept. Let’s not complicate the debate with all these damn “he said, she said” crap. It’s a moot point. As American citizens we have an obligation to live under the rule of law. And in discharging that obligation we have a duty to insure that those laws which violate basic human rights are repealed. And while that repeal is in the process, we should challenge those ‘laws’ at every turn.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “…then we must prevent gay marriage as well as gay families. why do they deserve equal marriage rights as NORMAL americans?” by Steve (not the gay one)

    Steve, gays DO have equal marriage rights as the rest of us. We both are ONLY allowed to marry the opposite sex. What gays and the MINORITY elite are asking for is SPECIAL rights.

    “Nobody changes. Nothing changes. Heterosexuals can still get married. YOu can still disapprove of me. Nothing changes.”

    Yes society changes. Right now children school books have gay material and parents have been putting a stop to it. Now if gay marriage passes these parents are going to start losing their arguments and homosexuality as we know it will become morally right. Our kids will start reading and learning about how it is a good, normanl and o.k. to be gay. The MAJOR MAJORITY of us Americans do not want our kids to grow up in a society like this.

    Steve S, P.J. is right, go off to Holland or Spain, learn Dutch, be apart of their ALTERNATIVE society. Don’t make our society like theirs, us Americans don’t want it. We proved it.

    “If you are able to marry your sister or not, is of no concern to me…”

    This is the problem Steve, we have to think about society, not yourself, will be affected.

    Comment 534 by bhw, why are you stealing my comment??? I agree with you, but was that necessary???

    Look at Silas, he is going on about his religious bullshit again.

  • nugget

    practical joe,

    I don’t think you understand my context of “WWJD”.

    You quoted Jesus. Jesus did not command people to rebuke. That was HIS job. savy?

    You spin and be a literalist all you want.

    Also, I said I disagreed with the lifestyle. I disagree because of my life experiences and instincts concerning homosexuality. I will not USE the Bible to aid in some online slugfest to see whose rhetoric trumps whose.

    You seem “out to be right” rather than spreading the good word. If you disagree, read back through this thread. Quoting scripture does no good for you right now.

    Also, Jesus was all about sinners. He came to save them for pete’s sake. He ate with tax collectors and invited prostitutes into his home. He didn’t have political discussions of the moral implications of ANYthing in the government. That’s your shtick. Quick making excuses for your irresponsible use of morality as a trump card.

  • nugget

    “quit”

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Look at Silas, he is going on about his religious bullshit again.

    Read again, sir. I was making a case in point. I won’t debate the issue any longer on religious grounds because it’s pointless. I will, however, debate the civil aspect of the debate. Marriage laws on the books today are unconstitutional, period. What a Church recognizes does not translate into civil recognition. Two individuals of sound mind who choose to form a domestic union have that right. The government does reserve the right to insure that those who are related by blood are ineligible for domestic union (marriage) status. That’s just common sense. The gay community has got to stop begging for the right to marry. We have that right because the laws specifically denying us that right are unconstitutional. Tomorrow civil unions are legal in Connecticut. I contend that they’ve been legal all along.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Jesus was all about sinners. He came to save them for pete’s sake”

    I have done everything I could to keep this unreligious but you have provoked me nugget. He came here to save us from our sins, but he didn’t come here saying “Sin all you want!!! God doesn’t care!!! Kill your neighbor!!! Screw your sister!!! Screw another man!!!”, Jesus would have helped gays get away from their mental issues. I believe that he did do that, it just isn’t recorded in the Bible, we can’t put everything he does in the Bible because the Bible would be a million pages.

    I am not a member of a church, but I do believe Jesus came here to show us the right path. If we follow it, GREAT!!! If we don’t, TOO BAD!!!

  • nugget

    “I won’t debate the issue any longer on religious grounds because it’s pointless.”

    Silas: This is not true. The very cordon in your way bases its entire platform and brute strength on religious teachings. If you want to win legality for homosexuals across the board, you’ll need to argue in every facet.

    Furthermore, christian homosexuals are some of the most powerful voices in this political tug-of-war.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “I was making a case in point. I won’t debate the issue any longer on religious grounds because it’s pointless.”

    Great, I just hope you are telling the truth.

  • nugget

    anthony: think outside the box bud.

    I am not saying “screw your sister. sleep with another man.”

    I am pointing out practical joe’s very impractical solution to the gay “problem.”

    is that difficult to understand?

  • nugget

    and anthony, I’ll propose the same idea to you as I did practical joe…

    how much are you “helping” gays with their mental issues right now?

    By your logic, hmm, Jesus, if in the flesh today, would sign on to blogcritics.org and ARGUE about the vile immorality that is homosexuality and how WRONG it is to accept gay marraige. I doubt it.

    And THINK about this one. I’m not on “their” side. (whatever that means)

  • practical joe

    “Jesus was all about sinners. He came to save them for pete’s sake.”

    Saving didn’t include condoning immorality.

    “He ate with tax collectors and invited prostitutes into his home.

    But only the ones who repented.

    “He didn’t have political discussions of the moral implications of ANYthing in the government.”

    At the time the pharisees and scribes were the “government” as far as Jews were concerned.

    ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs…’

    “That’s your shtick.”

    Sorry Nuggie — but you were the one that brought the name of Jesus into it.

    “Quick making excuses for your irresponsible use of morality as a trump card.”

    No excuses. No irresponsibility. It’s all in your mind.

    You said you are a “christian”?

    Re 3:16 – “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.”

  • nugget

    “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.”

    haha! How did I know this was coming?

    practical joe, what you grossly fail to understand, is that the battle of good and evil was not won by all the seemingly righteous people on one side of the line versus all the seemingly unrepentant on the other.

    It’s not some deathmatch with the last man standing. It’s much more complicated and you seem to refuse to believe that I am not SUPPORTING the immoral act of homosexuality.

    Believe what you want. I am not luke warm in my faith.

    What i have pointed out in this thread, quite accurately, is that you are arguing only because you have a bone to pick and you think God’s got your back. I think you are silly and do more harm than good. Read what I posted to Anthony. You guys are just as pigheaded as everyone you point the finger at.

    Also, Jesus rebuked the CHURCH and the PHARISEES when he came. He hated the administration and the corruption of the keepers of the LAW.

    If you ask me, you and anthony sound alot more like pharisees than jesus.

  • nugget

    “At the time the pharisees and scribes were the “government” as far as Jews were concerned.”

    This is not true. They were the authorities of the church. They were not the government. Are you crazy? Rome was the government.

    The pharisees and scribes = the priests, christian theologians, preachers, and anyone else with spiritual authority in the church.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “I am not saying “screw your sister. sleep with another man.”‘

    When did I say you did??? Your are not be fair with me. You said Jesus was all about sinners and I said he didn’t promote sin, he corrected sin.

    “how much are you “helping” gays with their mental issues right now?”

    I am not trying to help gays, I am saving me society and country. I just said Jesus would have surrounded himself with gays and taught them that is not right.

    “Jesus, if in the flesh today, would sign on to blogcritics.org and ARGUE about the vile immorality that is homosexuality and how WRONG it is to accept gay marraige. I doubt it.”

    That is the last thing Jesus would do. He wouldn’t tell us not to support gay marriage, he would tell the gays that they are going against what is meant to be. He would then say what you do is your business, but you don’t have to impose it on society though.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Jesus rebuked the CHURCH and the PHARISEES when he came.”

    Now this is the difference between me and liberals. If I made this comment a liberal would jump all over me saying “You uneducated ignorant idiot, Churches didn’t exist in the time of Jeseu”, but what I say to nugget is that churches didn’t exist in the time of Jesus, but I know what you mean.

  • nugget

    anthony. You’re missing alot of things here.

    Let me go through them one by one. Slowly.

    First, you implied that when I said “jesus was all about sinners” that, by implication, I meant jesus wanted sinners to sin more. e.g. “screw your sister.”

    “You said Jesus was all about sinners and I said he didn’t promote sin, he corrected sin.”

    You misunderstood. When I said all about sinners, I meant “all about saving sinners.” Are we clear on this?

    Second: you said,

    ” am not trying to help gays, I am saving me society and country. I just said Jesus would have surrounded himself with gays and taught them that is not right.”

    And I’m saying that I don’t think Jesus would be trying to save his country and society. Jesus would be doing what you mentioned in your latter statement. Now, logic says we should follow the example of JESUS right? Not some politician. Quit trying to save your country.

    Thirdly, in your last quotation of my post, that sentence “I doubt it.”, meant I DOUBT jesus would do that. Thus, we’re in agreement.

    get it?

  • nugget

    “Now this is the difference between me and liberals. If I made this comment a liberal would jump all over me saying “You uneducated ignorant idiot, Churches didn’t exist in the time of Jeseu”, but what I say to nugget is that churches didn’t exist in the time of Jesus, but I know what you mean.”

    haha. Ironically, you displayed that you would do exactly what liberals would do. You just did it!

    also, don’t insult my intelligence. I know a great deal about the history of that time and don’t think I need to clarify my definition of “church” to a fellow believer. Don’t pretend like I do not know the difference to show off to the liberals that your fair and understanding.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    O.K. we agree that Jesus corrected sin.

    So are you saying Jesus would correct homosexuality???

    “Now, logic says we should follow the example of JESUS right? Not some politician. Quit trying to save your country.”

    Yes this would be a better place if we all followed the example of Jesus, we probabally wouldn’t have a drug problem, we wouldn’t have an AIDS problem because we would practice abstinence, people wouldn’t kill each other, there would be no abortions, the Iraq war wouldn’t have happened because people like Saddam wouldn’t exist.

    I am not following Politicians by the way, I am following myself and what I and most of Americans believe. I think Jesus would say THAT is a good thing, you agree???

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Ohh… wait, don’t try and save my country??? I didn’t see that part.

    Explain your reasoning. Do you want us to let all political boundaries go and live in tribes like the days of Jesus???
    Times have changed dear.

  • nugget

    “Yes this would be a better place if we all followed the example of Jesus, we probabally wouldn’t have a drug problem, we wouldn’t have an AIDS problem because we would practice abstinence, people wouldn’t kill each other, there would be no abortions, the Iraq war wouldn’t have happened because people like Saddam wouldn’t exist.”

    Don’t be naive, anthony. There were murderers, rapists, drugs, and dirty politicians in Jesus’ day too. Jesus didn’t rid the world of sin. He offered himself as a sacrifice FOR the sins of people so they could be SAVED from them. This didn’t mean all murderers and rapists ceased their actions. Jesus nor Paul nor any other of his disciples gave a rats ASS about the policies of government. They were not nationalistic in nature. They didn’t give a shit about the empire of Rome. They cared about PEOPLE. Not STATES or COUNTRIES or some other silly faction that you might dignify to be a moral whole.

  • nugget

    “I am not following Politicians by the way, I am following myself and what I and most of Americans believe. I think Jesus would say THAT is a good thing, you agree???”

    No I would not agree. You’re speaking in terms of idealism. “most of Americans would agree” Who cares? Worry about the people around you…in your neighborhood, your own family, not “most Americans.” That’s an idealistic trap.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    If you want to win legality for homosexuals across the board, you’ll need to argue in every facet.

    I understand what you are saying, nugget. But, doesn’t the injection of the religious views on homosexuality negate the separation from civil law? We can debate the Biblical aspects all we want but there are so many differing opinions on what the translation from the original Greek transcripts mean that it becomes suspect. The same thing goes for the Qur’an. It’s been twisted to meet the requirements of the time it was presented. Those who inherited Islam from Mohammed (s.a.w.) crafted schisms that exist even today. Christians and Islams have been so ensconced in their own system of beliefs that they’ve failed to understand and appreciate other cultures and religions. 33% of the world is Christian while 21% is Islam. There are plenty of differences between the two major religions. I just can’t believe that the Christian, Islam or Jewish God is so closed minded that He/She would exact fire and brimstone on the ‘non-believers’ who have lived upstanding lives. But that debate belongs outside the realm of the sexuality debate insofar as civil law is concerned.

  • Luke

    “saying that we all have the right to marry members of the opposite sex is bogus. YOU all have the right to marry and create a family with someone you love. I will have that right too someday.”

    Love is inconsequencial, gold diggers marry rich old dudes they don’t love all the time, it’s no ones problem but your own if you love teh cock. Men can’t marry each other, get over it, life isn’t fair, and life isn’t suppose to accomodate your perversions in anyway that you want. Next on the agenda after gay marriage, NAMBLA wants the right for men to marry prepubescent boys.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    NAMBLA is a sick unit and to try and put them on me is a flagrant personal insult. [self editing what I want to say here] Love is far from inconsequencial. In those marriages where love is the driving force, there must be no distinction between the TWO people with regard to gender. If two people wish to legalize their partnership, they have that right. Government interference in that right is unconstitutional. If we are to have a nation of civil laws that fails to recognize this simple point, then I think it may be time to remove all advantages to being ‘married’ across the board. Married people enjoy tax breaks and other advantages over those couples who choose to live together. That is discriminatory and unconstitutional. I would invite all those straight couples who resent the fact that ‘married’ folks get all the breaks to join those in the gay community who are just exercising what is their right under the Constitution.

  • Luke

    If all you want is tax breaks then you should start your own gay version of marriage, perhaps called gaymiage, but two men getting jiggy with it can never be called a real marriage, that’s defying the definition of the word, so create your own word for whatever it is you’re doing.

  • Bennett

    Get a room Luke. You and your “jiggy”, your NAMBLA, and “defying the definition of the word” are so very out of touch with reality.

  • practical joe

    Let’s get one thing straight:

    There is nothing in the Constitution that states “homosexual marriage” is a “right”.

    Article X.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    IT’S UP TO THE PEOPLE!

    You want a “right” not found in the Constitution?

    Put it before the voters!

  • practical joe

    IT’S CALLED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMEMT.

  • nugget

    practical joe, it seems what I posted to you went in one ear and out the other. Have fun in these pointless debates being on fire for God.

    silas kain said:

    “I understand what you are saying, nugget. But, doesn’t the injection of the religious views on homosexuality negate the separation from civil law? We can debate the Biblical aspects all we want but there are so many differing opinions on what the translation from the original Greek transcripts mean that it becomes suspect.”

    Yes, injection of religious views negate any and all State laws, but lets not pretend that it doesn’t happen. I think you are confusing how things “should” be with how they actually are. Religious peoples will be forever faithful to their beliefs, NOT their government. So, knowing this, you must be willing to argue in these religious contexts if anything is going to be done. You’re trying to argue in terms of how you view objectivity in the US Judiciary, and that just doesn’t float in the real world.

  • nugget

    sorry for the double post.

  • Luke

    maybe it’s out of touch with reality, but i always thought marriage was something between a man and woman, and a fimaly was something that men and women had, and that children required a mother and father, why is it so wrong for things to make sense like that?
    Then these gay couples come along and want to get married and have kids, don’t make no fuckin’ sense, why would the government go out of it’s way to create such abnormality? It used to be that consenting adults should be allowed to have anal sex in the privacy of their home, sure, that makes sense, i’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t do in private, you can have a fecalfelia scat porn fest for all i care, but it’s never enough, you’ve gotta demand all this other stupid bullshit, you’re a freak, so start acting like it, stay out of the public eye, pretend not to exist, like the good ol’ days

  • Luke

    maybe it’s out of touch with reality, but i always thought marriage was something between a man and woman, and a fimaly was something that men and women had, and that children required a mother and father, why is it so wrong for things to make sense like that?
    Then these gay couples come along and want to get married and have kids, don’t make no fuckin’ sense, why would the government go out of it’s way to create such abnormality? It used to be that consenting adults should be allowed to have anal sex in the privacy of their home, sure, that makes sense, i’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t do in private, you can have a fecalfelia scat porn fest for all i care, but it’s never enough, you’ve gotta demand all this other stupid bullshit, you’re a freak, so start acting like it, stay out of the public eye, pretend not to exist, like the good ol’ days

  • Luke

    maybe it’s out of touch with reality, but i always thought marriage was something between a man and woman, and a fimaly was something that men and women had, and that children required a mother and father, why is it so wrong for things to make sense like that?
    Then these gay couples come along and want to get married and have kids, don’t make no fuckin’ sense, why would the government go out of it’s way to create such abnormality? It used to be that consenting adults should be allowed to have anal sex in the privacy of their home, sure, that makes sense, i’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t do in private, you can have a fecalfelia scat porn fest for all i care, but it’s never enough, you’ve gotta demand all this other stupid bullshit, you’re a freak, so start acting like it, stay out of the public eye, pretend not to exist, like the good ol’ days

  • practical joe

    Nuggie — you say — “practical joe, it seems what I posted to you went in one ear and out the other. Have fun in these pointless debates being on fire for God.”

    “in one ear and out the other” — is what ignorant people like to say to others when they have no real position to support.

    “have fun”, is what juveniles like to say to other juveniles.

    “being on fire for God” is just an inane statement which serves no useful purpose.

    _

    Since nuggie brought up WWJHD — the following is for nuggie (and other… “christians”)…

    Any clues from what Jesus taught regarding “homosexual marriage“?

    Of course, there is Civil law and there is Moral law.

    But the basis for most of our Civil law is the Moral law, which the country tried to follow up to the mid-1960’s.

    Since then — our country has been slipping into a pit.

    Matthew 15:14

    “And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

    Matthew 15:19

    “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.”

    See any more clues, nuggie?

  • Luke

    yes, the fuckin’ thing finally posted, nice.

  • Bennett

    People once thought that blacks should “stay out of the public eye, pretend not to exist, like the good ol’ days”

    Times, they are a changin’

    Get used to it. This is supposed to be a “free” country.

    i.e. Freedom. Equality. Pursuit of happiness.

    You mind your family, let others mind their own.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    OK, nugget, I get your point. I guess it is a bit naive of me to believe that I can attempt to keep religion out of the civil discourse.

    Now on to our Constitution…

    • Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision about associating our civil laws to “natural law,” nor is the word “God” located anywhere within the document.
    • Aticle IV, Clause 1.Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    • Ammendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Again, if the divide over the “rights” of gays is that deep, then I propose the complete abolition of a distinction between individuals and married people for the purpose of taxation. I also propose that any and all laws relating to the rights of survivorship be recodified to allow equality among the sexes. That keeps marriage out of it. Give me a clear and equal playing field with regard to taxation, rights of survivorship and all the other 1,300 rights accorded to the privileged married and I will shut down my fight for “gay marriage”. Until such time as that occurs, I maintain that all marriages – gay, straight, arranged or shotgun are unconstitutional. Stick that in your bong and puff it.

  • practical joe

    “People once thought that blacks should “stay out of the public eye, pretend not to exist, like the good ol’ days”“

    Please. Let’s not confuse blacks with homosexuals.

    Blacks were maligned far too long after a Constitutional Amendment had been passed to protect them.

    There are three Amendments which were passed to provide blacks and women equal rights.

    The INTENT of these Amendments is to protect blacks and women.

    Amen.

    There has been no Constitutional Amendment passed which provides homosexuals “equal rights” — much less the right to “marry”.

    Article XIV.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Article XV.

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    Article XIX.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Homosexuals already have their rights guaranteed. Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Doesn’t anybody get it? Every heterosexual who infringes on a homosexual’s right to exist is in violation of the Constitution. Can I make it any clearer than that? We should be marching down the streets of every state capitol and in Washington making it very clear that we HAVE THE RIGHTS and demand a redress of grievances. Any and all laws which outlaw homosexuality are unconstitutional. If the heterosexual community wants to push it, then let’s push back and prosecute every women who performs oral sex on her husband. Hell, let’s start with Monica Lewinsky. We know the conservamentalists would love that. If a person wants to malign me on religious grounds that is one thing. But to deny me my civil rights is in violation of the very heart of our constitution. It’s time to play hardball. You want to eradicate the gays? Then get ready to live life in the missionary position.

  • caligula

    I loved to screw my sister…

    I would have screwed a brother but I didn’t have one,,,

    I made up for it by having giant orgies and invited all my male friends.

    The only sour note was those damn Christians who said what I was doing was wrong…

    So I fed them to the lions and that silenced them.

    Problem solved.

    (Or so I thought).

    Damn — it’s hot down here.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Sorry, Calli. You can’t be in Hell. You weren’t Christian to begin with. I’ll light a candle for you in front of the Oracle at the Temple tomorrow. Praise Jupiter.

  • caligula

    Nero also says it’s hot as hell down here…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Silas, I’ve said for so long that my big issue was separation of church and state. I don’t know if you’ve read that of me. But now you would see why.

    There are quotes here of me burning in hell. That’s fine, think that, write that, I don’t give a shit. But all the bible quotes in the world, cannot justify, in a court of law, the denial of benefits/rights and privileges to me, that others take for granted.

    There’s a clear difference, but one side is constantly fusing the two. (morality/church with state/government recognition of relationships)

    You can absolutely keep religion out of the civil discourse. You can, and you need to. And that is what some people can’t handle. Too bad.

    Poor Rudicus has received almost 600 emails from this post. But it’s something that needs to be talked about, it needs to be worked out and resolved, so thank you for providing the opportunity.

  • caligula

    I took the wives of Roman senators and screwed them. Then I criticized their sexual abilities in front of them and their husbands.

    I married a well-known prostitute.

    I declared myself to be a god.

    I spoke with Jupiter frequently.

    I said over and over — ‘let them hate me as long as they fear me‘.

    But there was one thing I never did…

    I never married a man.

    That would have been going too far.

    I wonder if my little sister Drucilla still loves me…

    Right now I really need a cold drink…

  • Torquemada

    Morality is the best of all devices for leading man by the nose.

  • nugget

    practical joe said,

    “Of course, there is Civil law and there is Moral law.

    But the basis for most of our Civil law is the Moral law, which the country tried to follow up to the mid-1960’s.

    Since then — our country has been slipping into a pit.

    Matthew 15:14

    “And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

    Matthew 15:19

    “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.”

    See any more clues, nuggie?”

    What’s odd to me joe, is that you think that I disagree with you about any of that. I don’t.

    The fault I am trying desparately to point out to you is that you fall under the same “idealistic” category as the non-christians you so vehemently oppose. YOUR winning team is right “America”. MY winning team is all christians, not some political state, country, or constitution. Don’t you understand? Your GOD is the political right. My God is the omnipotent omniscient justice. The creator of logic and time. That is the nature of my faith and should be the nature of yours. You seem too worried about appearances and how it might look if you LOVED the people you disagreed with.

  • polyman

    This [edited] has his head up his [edited.]

    Morality is the SECOND best of all devices for leading a man by the nose. The best device is a sensuous woman — or two — or three.

    Another man doesn’t even make the charts.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Rudicus does deserve accolades for starting this discourse. It sure has incited a wide array of emotions. I agree that we must be entitled to those benefits/rights that others take for granted. However, I am wondering if we are approaching this from the wrong angle? Is there fair and equitable distribution of taxation? Are single people, regardless of orientation, discriminated against in such a way that it borders on a penalty? Is it a fact that couples, regardless of orientation, are being discriminated against for failure to “register” their marriage? Where’s the right to privacy in this regard? By denying same sex couples their right to form a union; is the government infringing upon a basic human right? This has nothing to do with polygamy, inter-family marriage, etc. There should be no refutation of the right for TWO people to form a domestic union with all the rights thereto. All couples, regardless of registration status, must be afforded equal rights and protection under the law. Until such time as this comes to pass then the following benefits are a danger to the majority of Americans:

    • Tax benefits including family partnership laws.
    • Exemption of estate and gift taxes. The right to create life trusts that are currently limited to married (registered) couples.
    • Survivor’s government benefits.
    • Employment benefits including medical coverage, time off for family care, survivor’s benefits and the right to survivor’s pension benefits.
    • Inclusion as a member of the immediate family in medical matters; right to make life or death decisions; equal access to the patient at all times.
    • The right to making after death decisions including autopsy, disposal of remains or burial.
    • Equitable division of property in the event of a dissolution of the union; provisions for child support for children in joint custody.
    • Having the right to live in neighborhoods zoned for “families only”.
    • The right to family rates for all insurances and the right thereto for access to any and all benefits or discounts offered to married (registered) couples.
    • Having the right to sue a third party in wrongful death and loss of intimacy suits.
    • Having the right to file domestic violence protection orders.

    That just scratches the surface, folks. Now, you tell me, who among you feels that the above list is unreasonable in any way? We’re making a big deal over a word that conventional couples don’t have respect for these days. If marriage was so damn important to the die hard gay haters, why is the divorce rate so high? This is another classic example of the duplicity we suffer in this country. Impeding same sex couples from their civilly guaranteed rights isn’t going to cause the dissolution of the American family or anarchy in the streets. If anything it will foster more healthy, monogamous relationships which can only flourish and benefit every community.

    If we can’t all get along, then divide the country into racial/orientation districts. Let’s see. Asian community can have the 3 Pacific States, Alaska and Hawaii. Blacks can have the mid and South Atlantic States (NJ, PA, DE, VA, MD, NC, SC, GA, and FL) including Washington, D.C. The Hispanic community can have the Gulf States and lower Southwest (AL, MS, TX, AZ, NM, OK, LA, AK, and TN). We’ll make NV, CO, UT, NE, KS, and MO the property of the Native Americans. The White, Christian Right community can have ID, MT, WY, SD, ND, MN, IA. The free trade zone can be WI, MI, IL, IN, OH, WV and KY. And, finally, all gays from every race will comprise New York and New England (ME, NH, VT, CT, RI, and MA). There, will that make things better?

  • nugget

    silas: I really think you’re taking this too seriously. Practical joe and anthony have little credibility even in the conservative christian community (much less anywhere else). Don’t heed their words. They are ignoble and only care about winning a rhetorical deathmatch. I think you and anyone else has a right to gay marraige whether I agree (in my twilight introspective hours) or not. Realize that it is people like me that have power. Not them.

  • nugget

    interesting comment polyman. Very (and typically) humanistic of you. Join the new masses. you fit right in. Why don’t you smoke some soma while you’re at it. Relax. ya know?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Morality is only moral when it is voluntary.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Thanks, nugget. Advice is taken and thank you for the respect. Back at you!

  • polyman

    Thank you for the respect.

    Now go back in the closet.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Don’t be naive, anthony. There were murderers, rapists, drugs, and dirty politicians in Jesus’ day too. Jesus didn’t rid the world of sin.”

    You didn’t read my comment right. I said if all people FOLLOWED the teachings of Jesus we would have no Aids because we would practice abstinence, no abortions, no war in Iraq because tyrants like Saddam wouldn’t exist, ect. I didn’t say if we lived like they lived in the days of Jesus.

    “You’re speaking in terms of idealism. “most of Americans would agree” Who cares? Worry about the people around you…in your neighborhood, your own family, not “most Americans.””

    My family has enough and we don’t have moral problems, it is the rest of my fellow Americans who need help. If everyone followed that idea you give this country would fall apart.

    “People once thought that blacks should “stay out of the public eye, pretend not to exist, like the good ol’ days”

    Rights were witheld from blacks. Blacks couldn’t vote, they couldn’t go to the good schools, they had to sit on the back of the bus, and even at one time they had no rights at all and belonged to another human being.

    Comparing gays and blacks is sick. Gays have every single god forsacken right that I have. Blacks at one time did not. Thanks to civil rights everyone in this country has EQUAL rights, except babies who get killed by the millions. Lets start passing laws for unborn babies instead of GAy Marriage.

    Comment 598, 600 and 602: (laughing)

    Steve S, you will probabally not burn in hell for being gay, but you will burn in hell for bringing a little girl in the situation.

  • Luke

    “Homosexuals already have their rights guaranteed. Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Doesn’t anybody get it? Every heterosexual who infringes on a homosexual’s right to exist is in violation of the Constitution. Can I make it any clearer than that? We should be marching down the streets of every state capitol and in Washington making it very clear that we HAVE THE RIGHTS and demand a redress of grievances. Any and all laws which outlaw homosexuality are unconstitutional. If the heterosexual community wants to push it, then let’s push back and prosecute every women who performs oral sex on her husband. Hell, let’s start with Monica Lewinsky. We know the conservamentalists would love that. If a person wants to malign me on religious grounds that is one thing. But to deny me my civil rights is in violation of the very heart of our constitution. It’s time to play hardball. You want to eradicate the gays? Then get ready to live life in the missionary position.”

    By all means, get sodomized as much as you like, the law can’t tell you what to do with your anus, and trying to stop women from giving head? That’s gotta be the dumbest fuckin’ thing I ever heard, the politicians who would try to stop women from giving them head must be gay, Bill Clinton must be the first non-gay politician.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Do you view women as property and second class citizens, Luke? That’s certainly the impression I get from what you say above. Whether you realize it or not, sodomy isn’t just anal sex. Sodomy is every sex act that is outside the realm of the missionary position. In other words, unless it’s coitus, it is illegal in some states.

    Currently 10 states have laws on the books which make sodomy for heterosexuals and homosexuals illegal: ID, UT, MI, LA, MS, AL, FL, SC, NC and VA. 4 states outlaw homosexual sodomy: TX, OK, KS and MO. In LAWRENCE ET AL. v. TEXAS, the Supreme Court makes it very clear that:

    Liberty protects the person from unwarranted govern-ment intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a domi-nant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes free-dom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.

    I would think that all sides of the issue could at least agree to this point. You mistakenly think that I want to “stop women from giving head.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of my female friends have come to me for advice, but we’ll save that for another day. What I am trying to do, Luke, is make a simple point. If the right is going to get to the point where our rights inside our domiciles is compromised, then we have a moral obligation to fight back. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose.

  • practical joe

    “What’s good for the gander is good for the goose.”

    I didn’t know geese were homosexual.

  • KYS

    “Blacks were maligned far too long after a Constitutional Amendment had been passed to protect them.”

    You’re missing an important point here:

    Blacks were maligned far too long BEFORE a Constitutional Amendment had been passed to protect them.

    Change is the only constant. So we need to choose a direction; towards tolerance or bigotry.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    It looks like that this is dead, so I will make the last comment here:

    People who support Gay Marriage are just people who are trying to make a blow for civil rights without thinking about the consequences.

    Gay Rights are not civil rights. Gays are not oppressed in this country. Gays have get more respect than most straight people. The situation with blacks 70 years ago was much different. People hated blacks. Blacks were denied of much things. Gays are not denied anything. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex as long as they are not related, just like any straight person.

    I am a member of the Young Democrats and I know that marriage will and should remain between one man and one woman.

    Thank You

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    You really think it means anything at all to make the last comment, Anthony? You really think it makes your prejudices any more reasonable, your arguments any more persuasive, your predictions any more accurate than anyone else’s? How pathetic!

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    As for answering comment 617 I want everyone scroll up and read comment 487.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Ya got me there, Anthony. I answered you.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    I take the 487 again

  • http:/victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    You’re answering, so it applies to you too.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    I-I-I yeah I take the 4 to the 7 to the motherf***ing 8!!!

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    You’re living in your own private Idaho, Auntie.

  • practical joe

    Anthony — It’s obvious why they are called queer for more than one reason.

    The idiotic responses give them away.

  • nugget

    this has gotten embarrassing for both sides of the “civil” debate.

    Hey Joe, have you converted the evil doers yet?

    silas, have you silenced the dissents?

    I’m amazed at the amount of posts of ineffectuality in such a large dose. Good going guys.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Speak for yourself you [edited]

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “Gay Rights are not civil rights. Gays are not oppressed in this country. Gays have get more respect than most straight people”

    And this is the absolute, batshit crazy, proof is in the pudding truth that Anthony Grande has no idea what in the hell he’s even talking about. But it’s fun to laugh at him. This conversation is ending starting right now.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Scott

    The situation with blacks 70 years ago was much different. People hated blacks. Blacks were denied of much things. Gays are not denied anything. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex as long as they are not related, just like any straight person.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    nugget, if you recall, I got your message loud and clear and ceased the pontification root (see comment 609). Perhaps I take this whole debate too seriously. On the other hand I think I recognize that supression of equality for the gay community in matters of civil law can only lead to further erosion of civil rights. I’ll never silence the dissents – nor do I want to. Debate is healthy for a free society. What I do object to is the lack of respect — that needs major improvement. And with that, I bid this thread a fond adieu.

    P.S. At the risk of inciting a conflagration I just have a reminder. Civil unions are now recognized in the great state of Connecticut. Three down; 47 to go. Can’t wait to see all the spinning heads ala The Exorcist!

  • Bill B

    Anthony,

    Your simplistic rational in 628 betrays your immaturity.

    Heterosexuals, by virtue of current law and their particular affinity or attraction can marry whomever they love.

    Conversely homosexuals can not. This is what homosexuals are being denied; To be with the one they love and choose to be with, with all the accompanying privileges currently enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.

    I have a hard time believing that you can not, or refuse to accept this obvious injustice. Alright, maybe I don’t.

    Due to basic fairness, common sense and what may very well be construed as a violation of equal protection, homosexuals will eventually have the same rights as heterosexuals. It’s simply a matter of time.

    Call it marriage, civil union or whatever, it will happen because it’s the right thing to do.

    You can howl at the moon all you want.

    It won’t stop the always evolving human sense of compassion and fairness.

  • Bill B

    Yea, I know but I didn’t do it. I swear! I’m barely html literate as it is. It wasn’t italics in the preview, just the few bold phrases, that I did do. I didn’t make anything italics. I’m curious as to how this one will post.

  • Bill B

    OK. This is ridiculous. How the hell am I in default italics, yet it doesn’t preview that way?

  • chickenplucker

    We have italics because some jackass thinks it helps make his argument.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    It was my mistake a few comments back. And, for that, I apologize. I accept the distinction of jackass. Somehow it makes me more human.

  • Bill B

    So it’s not my browser. Thought I had a bug.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ alienboy

    Silas – it was indeed your mistake; you didn’t close the italic tag properly by omitting the /.

    If you are going to put in fancy code, please be very careful out there, or in here!

  • practical joe

    Bill B:

    “Heterosexuals, by virtue of current law and their particular affinity or attraction can marry whomever they love.”

    “Homosexuals cannot.”

    “Love”?

    Try finding “love” in the Constitution.

    Don’t bother taking this case to court…

    You want REAL love?

    Get yourself a dog.

  • practical joe

    Silas:

    “At the risk of inciting a conflagration”

    Hardly.

    Some people have delusions…

  • Bill B

    Practical Joe

    The clock is ticking… tick.. tock.. tick.. tock…

    Just a matter of time.

    Although not quick enough for some, and at all will be too quick for others.. such as yourself.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Bill B, read the following carefully

    Gay Marriage will never permantely exist in the United States of America for these simple reasons:

    1) The major major majority of Americans do not want it. A revolution (like the French revolution) could brake out and the angry majority might behead the evil legislasures who don’t care about what the people think.

    2)There are many different things we cannot marry. I am in love with my cousin and by law we cannot get married, you cannot marry your mom, you cannot marry your sister, you cannot marry an animal not of the human species, you cannot marry a dead person (you can in France), and last you cannot marry a nonliving object like, a frisby, a house, a mailbox, ect.

    3) Gays do not naturally exist, so love between gays does not naturally exist. See comment 290, Priciples of Human Nature.

    4) And like Joe said, “Good luck finding love in the constitution.” Love does not exist according to the constitution.

  • Liberal

    Hey Anthony,

    Hospital visitation rights.
    Survivorship benefits.
    Not being forced to testify against a partner.

    These are special rights given to straight people who choose to enter into a specific contract that are denied to gay people.

    How can you say that “gays aren’t denied anything”? That’s patently false.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I admitted my mistake, alienboy. I realized when it was too late that I had forgotten the “/” switch. I’m usually more careful than that. Since I’ve already apologized for it, perhaps we can just let it go.

  • Bill B

    Anthony,

    >1) The major major majority of Americans do not want it. A revolution (like the French revolution) could brake out and the angry majority might behead the evil legislasures who don’t care about what the people think.< Why not the major, major, major? To me that would be more impressive than the major, major.

    But to the point, would you be for killing all left handed people if the major, major majority of Americans were for that?

    >2)There are many different things we cannot marry. I am in love with my cousin and by law we cannot get married, you cannot marry your mom, you cannot marry your sister, you cannot marry an animal not of the human species, you cannot marry a dead person (you can in France), and last you cannot marry a nonliving object like, a frisby, a house, a mailbox, ect.< Surely you jest. No one is advocating this in the case of homosexual marriage. The same incest laws would apply. Jeez.

    >3) Gays do not naturally exist, so love between gays does not naturally exist. See comment 290, Priciples of Human Nature.< The Great Anthony has spoken and bestowed upon us the divine guidlines for what is right and natural!

    Thanks! Ahem...but..a...no thanks.

    >4) And like Joe said, “Good luck finding love in the constitution.” Love does not exist according to the constitution.<

    It’s not there for heterosexuals either I presume.

    Whenever you put your fingers to the keyboard you confirm the first line in 630.

  • Bill B

    This thread has got to be breaking records here at BC for reponses. Anybody know for sure?

  • Eric Olsen

    for intractable incivility? maybe, not even top 10 for volume

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Intractable incivility? That’s a great phrase, Eric. I really like it. Now, where can I apply it?

  • practical joe

    Yes — Special rights are given to heterosexual couples who choose to enter into a marriage contract.

    The reason for this has been obvious for the past several thousand years. Now we have a radical hedonist group trying to get special rights for what has been considered a perversion for all of recorded history.

    What should be obvious to all is not obvious to a blind hedonist.

    For the past several thousand years, married men and women have provided successive generations of human beings.

    If that had not been the case, there never would have been special rights given to those who create children.

    The continuation of the human species was made possible because married couples made it happen.

    The fact that a child is conditioned by nature to need both a mother and a father is lost on blind hedonists.

    Homosexuals aren’t denied anything.

    All they have to do is follow civilized rules that have been in place for thousands of years.

  • practical joe

    Silas says:

    “Intractable incivility? That’s a great phrase, Eric. I really like it. Now, where can I apply it?”

    Silas — You have been applying it since September 19 – right here.

  • Liberal

    “Gay Marriage will never permantely exist …The major major majority of Americans do not want it.”

    Support for marriage rights for gays is inversely proportional to age. In an October, ’04 Gallup poll, 53% of respondents aged 18-29 favored allowing gay marriage. Simple demographics

    http://people-press.org/reports/images/197-14.gif

    say that even if you are correct now, you won’t be for long. The only “major major majority” opposed to gay marriage is senior citizens.

    “2)There are many different things we cannot marry.”

    That’s somewhat telling, don’t you think? We’re talking about people, Anthony. Living, breathing, thinking human beings. People like Hans Christain Anderson, W.H Auden, Rock Hudson, Maurice Ravel, James Dean – J. Edgar Hoover for God’s sake!!!!

    “3) Gays do not naturally exist, so love between gays does not naturally exist.”

    About 1 in 2000 children are born with some from of gender ambiguity. Nature can’t always make up its mind about a person’s gender. If it can’t pretermine gender identity, how can you be so sure that it pretermines sexual preference?

    Do you actually know any gay people? Have you never, once in your life been able to identify a gay person merely by looking?

    Those of us who do know that gays are born not made, gay.

  • practical joe

    “Those of us who do know that gays are born not made, gay.”

    And those of us who know otherwise, know that others do not.

  • practical joe

    Support for marriage rights for homosexuals is inversely proportional to age.

    Support for liberalism is inversely proportional to age.

    Don’t let this confuse you.

    Those between 18-29 follow their crowd, those over 30 follow their brain.

    Corroboration:

    Those opposed to “homosexual marriage” are senior citizens.

  • practical joe

    Liberal says:

    “We’re talking about people, Anthony. Living, breathing, thinking human beings…”

    Living?

    Yes.

    Breathing?

    Yes.

    Thinking?

    No.

  • practical joe

    “Have you never, once in your life been able to identify a gay person merely by looking?”

    No.

    Let’s keep it that way.

  • Bill B

    To Eric Olson

    >for intractable incivility? maybe,< I don't doubt that.

    >not even top 10 for volume<

    I’m a little curious as to what topics round out the top ten. That’s not a request, mind you.

  • Bennett

    “trying to get special rights for what has been considered a perversion for all of recorded history.”

    So much for your knowledge of history, again.

    Ancient Greek history would be the obvious place for you to start doing research into this “perversion”.

    But you won’t. It’s too much fun “makin’ stuff up”.

  • Eric Olsen

    1) it’s “Olsen”
    2) th etop 10 is here

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Cool top 10 list. Interesting that the #1 spot is a music related article. Makes me think of that great Cass Elliott classic, Make Your Own Kind of Music. Anybody got a ham sandwich?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “But to the point, would you be for killing all left handed people if the major, major majority of Americans were for that?”

    Is that the best you could do??? The majority doesn’t and never will want something like that. When the majority calls for a violent act like that then we can go against the majority.

    “Surely you jest. No one is advocating this in the case of homosexual marriage. The same incest laws would apply. Jeez.”

    Yes you are, you are calling for a man to marry a man. That might is well be inscest. How can you say a man can marry a man, but I can’t marry my love, mi cousina??? OH THE INJUSTICE!!!

    “The Great Anthony has spoken and bestowed upon us the divine guidlines for what is right and natural!”

    No, the visable, the obvious, and the common sense has bestowed upon us the divine guidlines for what is right and natural.

    “>4) And like Joe said, “Good luck finding love in the constitution.” Love does not exist according to the constitution.<

    It’s not there for heterosexuals either I presume.”

    No, it doesn’t need to be written in the constitution for heterosexuals, it is already written in nature. And for you Bible freaks, it is also written in the Bible.

    “Ancient Greek history would be the obvious place for you to start doing research into this “perversion”.”

    The society of Ancient Greece sucked. They fought constant wars against each other. They got destroyed by a small city state, Macedonia, by Alexander’s uncle.

    “In an October, ’04 Gallup poll, 53% of respondents aged 18-29 favored allowing gay marriage. Simple demographics”

    Wrong, do not trust polls over actual votes.

    “Do you actually know any gay people? Have you never, once in your life been able to identify a gay person merely by looking?

    Those of us who do know that gays are born not made, gay.”

    Yes, I do know gays and all the ones I know have mental or physical issues.

    I know a girl who is Black, but is a member of a white supremisist gang (she hates her race) and happens to believe she is gay.

    I know a couple more who are both small in stature and have no and never did have any athletic capabilities or any attraction. One committed suicide last year. And they both claim or claimed to be gay. I heard they were gay together.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Support for liberalism is inversely proportional to age.

    Don’t let this confuse you.

    Those between 18-29 follow their crowd, those over 30 follow their brain.” by Practical Joe

    This is true. Forty years ago Winston Churchhill said:

    “To be under 20 and a conservative is to have no heart, but to be a liberal and over 40 is to have no BRAIN.”

    Now who on BG will say that Winston wasn’t a great and smart man and leader???

    I once go thrown out of a classroom for telling me liberal teacher that.

  • Bill B

    Eric Olsen

    sorry about that

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “I once go thrown out of a classroom for telling me liberal teacher that.”

    I am going to start rereading my stuff before I post it.

    It should read:

    I once got thrown at of my English class for repeating that quote to my 55 year old liberal teacher.

  • Bennett

    “The society of Ancient Greece sucked. They fought constant wars against each other. They got destroyed by a small city state, Macedonia, by Alexander’s uncle.”

    And that relates to their acceptance of homosexuality in what way?

    They did accept it, as have many other cultures throughout the world down through the ages. So your statement that is has been “considered a perversion for all of recorded history” is 100% wrong. Again.

    I really worked with my son to help him develop a vocabulary that encompassed more than the word “sucks” to express feelings that are better described by dozens of more accurate words. He got the point, will you?

    “Sucks” doesn’t say very much, other than being a clear indicator of adolescent immaturity.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Wow, Bennett actually has a son!!! And plus he doesn’t say “sucks” to express feelings. And oh yeah I almost forgot, Bennett knows Basic Italian.

    Please, a round of applause for Bennett:

    (crickets churping)

    I was just saying that you shouldn’t use Ancient Greece to help your cause.

    First off, I doubt they even allowed Gay Marriage. This is something the Liberal Hollywood made up.

    Second, there society really and truly did suck. You know they executed their greatest philosopher, Socrates, because he questioned the Gods and the government.

    Third, if they did allow Gay Marriage then maybe that is the reason they fought against eachother and couldn’t fight off neighboring countries.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Oh yeah correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Ancient Greece accept slavery also???

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “They did accept it, as have many other cultures throughout the world down through the ages. So your statement that is has been “considered a perversion for all of recorded history” is 100% wrong. Again”

    Yeah, and we accept it too. But we don’t accept Gay Marriage and nearly did any other civilization since the begining of time.

  • Luke

    in response to Silas Kain post 611:

    “Do you view women as property and second class citizens, Luke? That’s certainly the impression I get from what you say above. Whether you realize it or not, sodomy isn’t just anal sex. Sodomy is every sex act that is outside the realm of the missionary position. In other words, unless it’s coitus, it is illegal in some states.”

    It shouldn’t need to be said, but that sir, is FUCKING STUPID, if the government can make decisions about what you can and can’t do with your own body, then why don’t they just make it illegal to masturbate, or make it illegal to poop more than twice a day, or make it illegal for you to pee in the shower.
    I don’t see women as second class citizens.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Or why won’t they just legalize prostitution???

    A woman’s body is a woman’s body, why does the government have a say in what we can and can’t do with our bodies???

    Because some of the stuff we do with our bodies is dangerous. Sodomy is dangerous, you can get AIDS a lot easier. Prostitution is dangerous, a woman that is infected can spread AIDS to multiple men this way.

    “So your statement that is has been “considered a perversion for all of recorded history” is 100% wrong. Again.”

    Again??? Where have my facts been wrong???

  • practical joe

    After reading what Bennett writes, I am about to change my mind.

    I am beginning to believe that homosexuality is inherent at birth.

    But it used to be called stupidity.

  • Bennett

    Oh, and you’re gay too?

  • Luke

    Where I live prostitution IS legal, and we don’t have a rampant aids epidemic, partly because the industry is regulated, and just about 100% of prostitutes insist on using condoms, and have to get tested regularly.

    and so what if it’s dangerous, a womans body is still a womans body like you said, people can smoke, people can drink alcohol, you can’t take away peoples basic human rights just because something is bad for you. For fucks sake, you’ve got orifice a, b and c, the law can tell you that you’re allowed to put your dick inside orifice a, but you’re not allowed to put your dick in orifice b or c, that is god damn absurd.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Luke, I think I know you now:

    You support abortion

    You support legalizing marijuan, cocaine, heroin, ect.

    You support Gay Marriage

    You support Sodomy

    You support just about anything the government says you can’t.

    People like you need to take a moment and think:

    Think about how this stuff effects society in general. Morals are what have kept our society running since the dawn of civilization.

    Thank God people like you have no power in this great country.

  • Luke

    That’s not what I think at all,

    In special cases I support abortion, otherwise, if you don’t want kids don’t get pregnant.

    Legalize marijuana, because it occurs naturally, god created it, so it must be good, I don’t smoke the stuff thoe, coz it makes me puke, for the other stuff, start a govt program to give addicts their fix, to kill the market for it, it’ll become valueless.

    I don’t support gay marraige,

    I support doing whatever the hell you feal like doing, if that happens to be sodomy, then good on ya, horray for sodomy, but if it’s between two dudes, do it, but don’t tell anyone, especially me, because I don’t want to know.

    I support people doing what they want, when it doesn’t negitively effect me, just keep it private.

    Having said that, I don’t really feal strongly for or against, because I’m not gay, I can’t really get excited about rights that won’t effect me whether I have them or not, if I have the right to marry a man, that’s all well and good, but I don’t plan on marrying any men.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “In special cases I support abortion, otherwise, if you don’t want kids don’t get pregnant.”

    Only thing we agree on. At least you don’t support murder.

    “I support people doing what they want, when it doesn’t negitively effect me, just keep it private.”

    Fine with me, but demanding us to allow gays to get married against our will is not keeping it private.

    As for the other things, I know it doesn’t effect you directly but it effects the society your kids and grand kids will be growing up in. If we legalize drugs, then there is a good chance your kids will become hooked on drugs.

  • Bennett

    “Having said that, I don’t really feal strongly for or against, because I’m not gay, I can’t really get excited about rights that won’t effect me whether I have them or not, if I have the right to marry a man, that’s all well and good, but I don’t plan on marrying any men.”

    That was well done, Luke. Damn, is your name really “Earl”?

    It’s a great show btw, Tuesday at 8:00.

  • Luke

    that’s what i’ve been saying, you guys just riled me up about prohibiting sodomy, i should be allowed to fuck as much ass as i want, but dudes marrying eachother, shit don’t make no sense.

    about drugs thoe, people will do drugs no matter what, i’m saying, set up a govt program so that addicts can come and get their fix, then they don’t need to do crime to get enough money to buy the stuff, and when the market for the stuff is gone, people will stop importing it, and then there’ll be less addicts in the long run, because the addicts can’t bring the stuff home with them, and the govt funded programs will try to encourage them to quit.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Luke, normal people will also come and get their first fix, it is legal now, what will stop them???

    The fact that it is illegal stops people from actually doing it as kids.

  • Luke

    to get registered they have to take a drug test to prove they’re addicts or something

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    There would be ways around this. Like bying some chronic on the street and then going a week later to get registered.

    Even if the system worked and only drug addicts got their fix then we would be releasing known drug addicts back into our society after they get their fix.

    We have not lost the drug war. You have no idea how many kids haven’t done drugs because of the risk or getting caught. There is no study that can show you this.

  • Luke

    meh, the only way to stop the supply is to stop the demand, I’ve heard all these bullshit politicians blaming everything on columbia etc, but if you’re dirt poor, and a rich stupid country is begging you for drugs, the money from which you can use to put your children through school, you might find it hard to say “no, i’m not going to grow coca so that you rich stupid assholes can piss thousands of dollars away on getting wasted” and then the American govt. goes and blows up your farm and kills your whole family, america begs for drugs and then kills you when you give it to them, in my view the supply will only stop when the demand stops.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    I say we invade Colombia and blow up all the cocaine farms. And disperse the guerilla outfits protectiing them. Then we invade Bolivia if Bolivia doesn’t give in to our demands and take care of its drug problem. Other countries will fall into line.

    That will stop your supplier. We could literally make it a war on drugs.

    Hey maybe even the U.N. will help us.

  • Luke

    Yours demands are stupid / mixed signals, GIVE US DRUGS! WE’LL PAY YOU DONT GIVE US DRUGS! WE’LL KILL YOU! I doubt any columbians are rich enough to indulge in drugs, and if you kill everyone, some other poor country will become happy because that’s less competition for their product.

    The people who actually grow the coca get very little for it, the American farmers get paid more to not grow wheat, if they’re already paying people to not grow wheat, why not pay people to not grow coca, it would be such a tiny amount of money, a lot cheaper than firing missiles which costs 100,000$ each to build, but that would be setting a nasty precedent wouldn’t it, if it’s important to keep it all under wraps, pay columbian American spies to go in and buy the coca from the farmers and then emediately destroy it.
    With the amount of money you spend fighting drugs, you could literally pay every country that produces it a lot less money than you’re spending now, to simply stop producing it.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    No little country will get happy because they will be next.

    You see the U.S. would go in there and declare Colombia a coco free country. All the farmers will have to stop. The ones who don’t will be arrested. Without the farmers the Drug Lords will disban and probabally go to Bolivia. We next get Bolivia in line, either through government demands or by force. The drug lords will not be accepted in any other country because the other government will not want to be invaded by Americans.

    This is a issue I think needs to be answered, but this is a Gay Marriage thread and we are both Anti-Gay Marriage so lets stop destroying eachother. We can do that on a different site.

  • Please don’t drive down the old dirt road

    Last word on the subject….States should not grant homosexual couples the same righs as married couples because it would increase the health insurance rates for heterosexual workers. You see, insurers use actuarial tables to determine expected costs. They, (not I) believe that costs are higher for homosexuals (I’ll let you figure out why) and that is why they typically charge more for Domestic Partner insurance. By blending dp insurance with spouse insurance, it would cause spouse insurance to rise while it would lower dp insurance rates. Itis easy to understand why homos want lower insurance rates..what isn’t so clear is why any hetero would want to pay more for their insurance.

    The real question to be answered is…How much would you be willing to pay for homos to be granted the same rights as married couples? When you frame the issue up correctly, it is easy to understand why democrats, republicans and everyone in between does not support homosexual marriage.

    And who ever said that God enjoys taking in the ass….The church makes it clear…Love the sinner but hate the sin. It means that we are to tolerate the pedophile and the homosexual but we must never condone the sin of anal sex.

  • Please don’t drive down the old dirt road

    I tried to comment on the silly comment policy but I could not….is this another test of tolerance?

  • Luke

    “The last common connection I see I between incest and gay marriage. Come one, there’s no logical evidence that allowing gays to marry will force us to allow related persons to marry. Incest kowingly causes harm to the children they produce and there are many reasons to disallow related persons marriage–medical or psychological or otherwise.”

    yes but 2 men can’t get pregnant, so therefore you can let two brothers marry each other, then it’s just a matter of time untill brothers and sisters start complaining that men can marry their brothers but brother and sister can’t marry eachother. Maybe if they get their tubes tied and get pregnant with man juice they bought at the local man juice bank, then marrying your sister would be alright.