LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Kuwaiti Cleric: 'Death is Too Good for Homosexuals'

Video | Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:19:05 pm PST

Kuwait’s Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi must be a lot of fun at parties. (Courtesy of MEMRI TV.)

Click picture to play video. Requires Windows Media Player; Mac users should install Flip4Mac.

Following are excerpts from an interview with Kuwaiti Islamist Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi, which aired on Al-Rai TV on December 10, 2007:

Moderator: Doctors and professionals recommend that people should relax. Modern experiments and studies have proven that the best method or relaxation is massage. No reasonable person would deny this, but some people, who abuse this profession, have done it a great disservice, by turning it from a form of mental and physical relaxation into an immoral and homosexual act, which might lead to the contraction of various STDs. What are the secret acts performed behind closed doors? How can we protect our children from such homosexual and foreign acts? What role should the security forces and religious clerics play in the battle against this phenomenon? How can the owners of massage parlors and health centers possibly agree to the turning of their parlors into dens of prostitution and abomination?
[...]
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: There are private parts that no one is allowed to see – both in the case of men and of women. One must adhere to this from the perspective of Islamic law. Unfortunately, I’ve been told that some people show up in their “birthday suits,” and the massage commences. This is forbidden in Islamic law, and should be legally prohibited. Such acts should not be done in Islamic societies.
[...]
Unfortunately, 85-90% of what happens in these parlors is homosexual. Very few are the people who adhere to the religious and legal requirements. The basic problem is the foreign workers. Most foreign workers who serve as masseurs are, unfortunately, either “third gender” or sexually perverse and morally deviant.
[...]
Most of these parlors are full of homosexuals. The people working there are also homosexuals, I’m sad to say.
[...]
Any Kuwaiti who goes to one of these parlors, and sees these homosexuals or encounters very sinful and deviant acts should file a complaint with the security agencies. These people should be held accountable.
Moderator: If everyone acted this way, we could really eradicate this phenomenon.
[...]
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: A man is not allowed to expose the area between his navel and his knees. Nobody is allowed to see his private parts. Someone who goes to these parlors and exposes this part of his body is, undoubtedly, committing a crime both in terms of the shari’a and the law, and he should be punished for this. The same goes for women. I don’t know if there are massage parlors for women...
Moderator: Yes, there are.
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: Then the catastrophe is even greater, because just like there is a “third gender,” there might be a “fourth gender” as well... Imagine that a woman gets undressed, and in walks a butch masseuse, who gets on with it – this might cause many moral problems.
[...]
Below my office, there is a parlor – not a massage parlor – not a massage parlor, but a hair salon. I saw some of the owners when I was driving by – they looked really weird. You couldn’t tell whether they were men or women. In addition, what they do there is also perverse. They put up their hair in a very peculiar and queer way...
Moderator: Spiky... spiky...
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: What is it called?
Moderator: Spiky.
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: Spiky is one example.
[...]
Article 203 of the Penal Code says: “Whoever founds an establishment for iniquity or prostitution, or who assists in any way in its foundation or management, will be sentenced to life imprisonment, and if he does it again – he will be sentenced to death.” This is stated in the man-made law. Religious law supports this, because this constitutes “spreading corruption in the land.”
Moderator: True.
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: When a person commits an abominable act, like homosexuality, for example, or lesbianism, in the case of women’s parlors – this constitutes “spreading corruption in the land,” and should be punished by death.
[...]
Moderator: Other than life imprisonment and the death sentence, what can be done?
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: According to Islamic law, a homosexual should be thrown from a tall building.
Moderator: What would you do with them?
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: To be honest, death is too good for them. They should be gathered in a public place, where they would be flogged and tortured, so the truth about these people is made clear and they serve as a lesson to others, because they are an epidemic plaguing society.

Advertisement

814 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Dasher  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:19:49pm

Tolerance ...

2 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:20:17pm

How many tall buildings did they have back in old Mohammad's time?

3 baconeatingkaffir  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:21:02pm

Aaah, more from the "religion of pieces"

4 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:21:22pm

re: #1 Dasher

Tolerance ...

5 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:21:51pm

So, don't kill them then....

6 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:21:57pm

Weird, the text of my message disappeared.

7 davinvalkri  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:22:14pm

And homosexuals are complaining about laws over here? Do you see anyone respectable calling for homosexuals to be defenestrated and killed around these parts? They oughta be calling for invasion or something. Wow.

8 baconeatingkaffir  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:22:21pm

Hey.. Michael Jackson became a Muslim recently. Wonder what they think of Pedophiles?

9 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:22:36pm

It is not universally agreed among Ulema that they should be thrown from a high place. Others believe that they should have a wall pushed over onto them.

10 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:22:53pm
because just like there is a “third gender,” there might be a “fourth gender” as well

It a Zionist conspiracy!

11 JammieWearingFool  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:23:22pm

Is it just me or does that dude look like some sort of primate?

12 baconeatingkaffir  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:23:23pm

People who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones however people who live in the Ulema can bury victims and then throw stones.

13 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:23:40pm

Hooray for Prop 8!
/

14 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:24:54pm

re: #11 JammieWearingFool

Is it just me or does that dude look like some sort of primate?

Hmmmmm, what do you think....

15 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:25:09pm

re: #12 baconeatingkaffir

People who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones however people who live in the Ulema can bury victims and then throw stones.

The Ummah (not to be confused with Thurman)

16 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:25:09pm

Is it wrong that I'm laughing myself silly?

17 davinvalkri  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:25:26pm

"...because just like there is a “third gender,” there might be a “fourth gender” as well..."

Pffffft...LOL. Why are they taken so seriously?!

18 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:25:31pm

re: #14 jcm

Hmmmmm, what do you think....

Bad, JCM, very bad......

19 Bill Dalasio  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:27:15pm

re: #8 baconeatingkaffir

Hey.. Michael Jackson became a Muslim recently. Wonder what they think of Pedophiles?

Just following the Prophet's example.

20 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:27:29pm

Spiky... spiky...

21 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:27:44pm

I thought there were no gays in the muslim world?

22 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:27:47pm
because this constitutes “spreading corruption in the land.”

So vague it's scary.

23 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:28:21pm

re: #18 jcm

Bad, JCM, very bad......

It takes one to nose one.
(-:

24 politicalinsomniac  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:28:42pm

Well, yes - this guy wants to throw homosexuals off tall buildings.

But what I really want to know is - where does he stand on Prop 8?

25 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:28:47pm
They should be gathered in a public place, where they would be flogged and tortured,

Well, now that's a sobering thought.

26 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:29:10pm

Phelps would be right at home.

27 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:29:18pm

re: #23 pre-Boomer Marine brat

MWAH!

28 tradewind  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:29:24pm

re: #11 JammieWearingFool

Dude, he is some sort of primate.
Just saying.
But I know what you mean.

29 Wisenheimer  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:29:59pm
Most of these parlors are full of homosexuals. The people working there are also homosexuals, I’m sad to say.

And they know this how...?

30 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:30:07pm

re: #15 Moe Katz

The Ummah (not to be confused with Thurman)

(DAMN! It's too early in the thread to start punning!)

31 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:30:30pm
A man is not allowed to expose the area between his navel and his knees.

Now, that's just strange.

32 Bill Dalasio  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:30:43pm
Moderator: Spiky... spiky...
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: What is it called?
Moderator: Spiky.
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: Spiky is one example.

The horrors of spiky hair! Ahhhh!

33 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:30:47pm

It's...

Can you guess?

34 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:30:56pm

re: #23 pre-Boomer Marine brat

It takes one to nose one.
(-:

Eye resemble that remark!

35 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:31:31pm

re: #29 Wisenheimer

And they know this how...?

He's in "the closet", no doubt! Perhaps his boyfriend cheated on him and this is his revenge?

36 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:31:34pm

Well it sure looks like the Jets are gonna upset Tennessee. Go Jets. 27-6

37 pre-Boomer's SockPuppy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:32:42pm

re: #27 goddessoftheclassroom

MWAH!

YIKES!

38 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:33:00pm

re: #32 Bill Dalasio

The horrors of spiky hair! Ahhhh!

A fatwah on mousse?

39 davinvalkri  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:33:19pm

re: #32 Bill Dalasio

No love for the Simpsons in Kuwait, apparently.

And any anime characters who take a wrong flight at Tokyo and end up there will probably be stoned within ten seconds of getting off the plane. Hell some of them have spiky hair AND are canonically homosexual! The horror! Ha ha ha...

40 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:33:27pm

re: #31 MandyManners

Now, that's just strange.

When you repress people enough, it's expected that they would give way to "deviancy".

41 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:33:57pm

re: #36 Nevergiveup

Well it sure looks like the Jets are gonna upset Tennessee. Go Jets. 27-6

In WA we had the 1st Crapple Cup (sometimes called the 101st Apple Cup)

The 101st Apple Cup was as good as bad football gets: Earnest as it was inept, taut as it was sloppy, inexplicable as it was obvious, and as ecstatic for one side as it was agonizing for the other.
42 Arbalest  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:34:23pm

"Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: To be honest, death is too good for them. They should be gathered in a public place, where they would be flogged and tortured, so the truth about these people is made clear and they serve as a lesson to others, because they are an epidemic plaguing society."

So Al-'Inzi is calling for Folsom Street and Dore Alley Fairs to be instituted in Kuwait? Freaky.

I bet if we investigate Al-"Inzi's past, we'll find a few items that brand him a hypocrite.

43 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:34:34pm

re: #40 Sharmuta

When you repress people enough, it's expected that they would give way to "deviancy".

Are men forbiden from wearing swim trunks in Kuwait?

44 Truck Monkey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:34:48pm

re: #14 jcm

Hmmmmm, what do you think....

The Penis Nosed Gibbon I believe.

45 Paul  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:34:49pm
There are private parts that no one is allowed to see.

So if you show off your private parts you deserve corporal punishment.

46 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:35:01pm
In addition, what they do there is also perverse. They put up their hair in a very peculiar and queer way...
Moderator: Spiky... spiky...
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: What is it called?
Moderator: Spiky.
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: Spiky is one example.

Spiky hair is perverse?

Good grief.

47 JammieWearingFool  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:35:16pm

re: #14 jcm

Hmmmmm, what do you think....

That's the guy!

48 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:35:31pm

So many episodes of season 1 of "24" to watch, so few hours in the day. Later...

49 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:35:42pm

re: #29 Wisenheimer

And they know this how...?

good point.

50 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:35:46pm

re: #34 jcm

Eye resemble that remark!

Eye ear that!

51 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:35:51pm

re: #44 Truck Monkey

The Penis Nosed Gibbon I believe.

I know that's what the Mullah is, what's the monkey's name?
/

52 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:35:57pm

Kuwait, where "gay" means "happy", and "getting stoned" does not mean bong hits!

53 JammieWearingFool  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:36:44pm

re: #36 Nevergiveup

Well it sure looks like the Jets are gonna upset Tennessee. Go Jets. 27-6

Well, I picked the Titans to win (Jets to cover), but I can't complain. Jets look really good. NY-NY Super Bowl talk will really heat up now.

54 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:37:02pm

re: #45 Paul

So if you show off your private parts you deserve corporal punishment.

Well some people just shouldn't even consider showing off theirs?

55 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:37:06pm

re: #50 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Eye ear that!

Off the top of my head, ey've had enough and will not tolerate anymore by the hair of my chinny chin chin!

56 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:37:28pm

re: #43 MandyManners

Are men forbiden from wearing swim trunks in Kuwait?

Like with most things islam, I bet there's a loophole. They like to cherry pick to justify whatever it is they're trying to justify at that moment.

57 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:37:29pm

re: #45 Paul

So if you show off your private parts you deserve corporal punishment.

In general, it's a major offense.

58 sbvft contributor  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:37:49pm

re: #33 Jimmah

It's...

Can you guess?

Written & composed by Paul Schaffer. WHo knew?

59 Wisenheimer  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:37:52pm
They put up their hair in a very peculiar and queer way...

HAIR RAYS!

60 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:37:54pm

re: #53 JammieWearingFool

Will your Giants be nice to the "MIGHTY" Cardinals today? We actually get to watch the home games on TV now, looking forward to it!

61 Maui Girl  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:38:02pm

I guess gays shouldn't complain so much about living in a Judeo-Christian founded country.

62 gop_patriot  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:38:08pm

re: #16 MandyManners

Is it wrong that I'm laughing myself silly?

Oh, good, glad I'm not the only one. These people are sick idiots, but the part about it being wrong for a man to show anything between his navel and his knees, and this:

Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: Then the catastrophe is even greater, because just like there is a “third gender,” there might be a “fourth gender” as well... Imagine that a woman gets undressed, and in walks a butch masseuse, who gets on with it – this might cause many moral problems.

just cracked me up.

But the last part just made me ill. What violent and hideous people these "men" are! /spit

63 Spiny Norman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:38:28pm

Funny, the anti-Prop 8 protestors have a thing for Mormons but haven't bothered any mosques...

64 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:38:41pm

That is harsh.

65 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:39:23pm

re: #55 jcm

Off the top of my head, ey've had enough and will not tolerate anymore by the hair of my chinny chin chin!

You're saying you didn't need it?
Well, at least you didn't need me!
WHEW!

66 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:39:26pm
Imagine that a woman gets undressed, and in walks a butch masseuse, who gets on with it – this might cause many moral problems.

Not to mention bandwith problems for the live feed...

67 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:39:34pm

re: #63 Spiny Norman

Funny, the anti-Prop 8 protestors have a thing for Mormons but haven't bothered any mosques...

Mormon's haven't chopped off any heads or blown up any planes or buildings lately...

68 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:39:55pm

re: #56 Sharmuta

Like with most things islam, I bet there's a loophole. They like to cherry pick to justify whatever it is they're trying to justify at that moment.

And, it always comes out in favor of men.

69 Maui Girl  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:40:10pm

re: #8 baconeatingkaffir

Mo was a pedofile. That's okay in their book.

70 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:40:14pm

re: #66 experiencedtraveller

Not to mention bandwith problems for the live feed...

And the $39.99 per month....not that I would know about that sort of thing.

71 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:40:16pm

re: #57 pre-Boomer Marine brat

In general, it's a major offense.

That was a a private comment.

72 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:40:31pm

re: #68 MandyManners

And, it always comes out in favor of men.

Of course!

73 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:40:44pm

re: #62 gop_patriot

just cracked me up.

But the last part just made me ill. What violent and hideous people these "men" are! /spit

Makes me glad I live in America.

74 sbvft contributor  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:40:56pm

re: #63 Spiny Norman

Funny, the anti-Prop 8 protestors have a thing for Mormons but haven't bothered any mosques...

They also haven't had any rallies protesting the vote in South Central. Gee - why is that?

75 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:40:57pm

re: #68 MandyManners

And, it always comes out in favor of men.

Well even a broke clock is right 2 tiimes a day?
/ducking

76 gymnast  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:40:57pm

Cut the guy some slack, after all he seems to be about as well grounded as the average HufPo or Kos intellectual.

77 Spiny Norman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:41:14pm

re: #62 gop_patriot

Oh, good, glad I'm not the only one. These people are sick idiots, but the part about it being wrong for a man to show anything between his navel and his knees, and this:

Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: Then the catastrophe is even greater, because just like there is a “third gender,” there might be a “fourth gender” as well... Imagine that a woman gets undressed, and in walks a butch masseuse, who gets on with it – this might cause many moral problems.

just cracked me up.

I'll bet he wants to watch.

Dr. Sa'd, is there anything else you'd like to discuss?

/freud

78 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:41:18pm

re: #13 Killgore Trout

Hooray for Prop 8!
/

I feel myself sometimes perfectly willing to support or oppose whatever it takes for the sheer pleasure of spitting in the eye of people like these clowns.

79 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:41:50pm

re: #71 jcm

That was a a private comment.

I thought it was pretty general.

80 sadhu  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:42:09pm

re: #11 JammieWearingFool

Is it just me or does that dude look like some sort of primate?

first time on two feet

81 Christene  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:42:29pm

So back in the day when someone wrote islamic law, just how many tall buildings could they have had? How about a tall pyramid?
On a side note, can this guy walk the streets of S.F proclaiming this? That would so be the movie of the week. : o )
*just saying*

82 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:42:34pm

I say we deploy Code Pink and the Prop 8 protesters over there asap. We could all sit back and watch this guys head explode.

83 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:43:07pm

re: #79 MandyManners

I thought it was pretty general.

Seems we have a major disagreement.

84 MohawkDaddy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:43:37pm

Huh? Would that rule have applied to Arafat?

85 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:43:43pm

re: #82 Desert Dog

I say we deploy Code Pink and the Prop 8 protesters over there asap. We could all sit back and watch this guys head explode.

Air drop him into Folsom street.........

86 7WTC-BALLER  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:44:08pm

Testing out my avatar uplaod skills.

87 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:44:19pm

re: #84 MohawkDaddy

Huh? Would that rule have applied to Arafat?

Arafat play Tiger and Hyena, completely different thing and not applicable.

88 gop_patriot  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:44:30pm

re: #77 Spiny Norman

I'll bet he wants to watch.

Dr. Sa'd, is there anything else you'd like to discuss?

/freud

Exactly!

89 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:44:34pm

re: #83 jcm

Seems we have a major disagreement.

Oh no PUNS! GROAN

90 Wisenheimer  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:44:57pm

So, it's just a coincidence that minarettes are so... phallic?

91 WitchDoctor  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:45:14pm

re: #41 jcm

COUGARS RULE! MUHAHAHA! (ok, they suck, but at least they beat up the dawgs) HUCK THE FUSKIES!

Done now, just savoring a rare Coug win.

Actual on-topic thought: just imagine the percentage of leftie blogs that would be certain we agree with this freak from Kuwait. Sad.

92 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:45:26pm

re: #84 MohawkDaddy

Huh? Would that rule have applied to Arafat?

Well he was definitely someone who should never show his privates to anyone with sight.

93 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:45:51pm

re: #86 7WTC-BALLER

Testing out my avatar uplaod skills.

Welcome, your nic has me curious.
You worked at Moody's in WTC7 on 9/11?

94 Spiny Norman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:46:06pm

re: #67 Desert Dog

Mormon's haven't chopped off any heads or blown up any planes or buildings lately...

There is that...

re: #74 sbvft contributor

They also haven't had any rallies protesting the vote in South Central. Gee - why is that?

Or Oakland. Well, now, that must be a bit of a puzzle for them: while a majority of blacks and Hispanics voted in favor of Prop 8, they are also fellow "oppressed" minorities and the protestors can't be seen as possibly racist, now can they?

95 Miss Trixie  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:46:12pm

I'm so sick of these 4th century primates and their stupid inbred terror/shame about sexuality.

96 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:46:16pm

re: #13 Killgore Trout

Hooray for Prop 8!
/

/just like 29 other States, voting rules

97 Wisenheimer  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:46:33pm

Oops, minarets.

98 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:47:23pm

re: #90 Wisenheimer

So, it's just a coincidence that minarettes are so... phallic?

The domes look like giant boobs.

99 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:48:08pm

Whenever a religion is tied up within a myriad of (for emphasis, capital-L) Laws, it is ripe for disaster. Such has happened to Islam. You get self-righteous twits like this one, zillions of them.

100 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:48:28pm

re: #91 WitchDoctor

COUGARS RULE! MUHAHAHA! (ok, they suck, but at least they beat up the dawgs) HUCK THE FUSKIES!

Done now, just savoring a rare Coug win.

Actual on-topic thought: just imagine the percentage of leftie blogs that would be certain we agree with this freak from Kuwait. Sad.

WA sports are an embarrassment this year. College football? 2 wins between two teams, both wins are the Cougars to add insult to injury. Baseball? 101.... loses, Pro football, don't ask. Basketball.... wait our basketball team moved to Oklahoma!

101 Daisy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:48:49pm

"Unfortunately, I’ve been told that some people show up in their “birthday suits,” and the massage commences. "

It always fascinates me how they manage to hear this stuff "secondhand".

102 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:49:37pm
103 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:50:38pm

re: #101 Daisy

"Unfortunately, I’ve been told that some people show up in their “birthday suits,” and the massage commences. "

It always fascinates me how they manage to hear this stuff "secondhand".

It's only secondhand of they are left handed?

104 Spiny Norman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:51:12pm

re: #101 Daisy

"Unfortunately, I’ve been told that some people show up in their “birthday suits,” and the massage commences. "

It always fascinates me how they manage to hear this stuff "secondhand".

Um, yeah, his dear friend told him about it...

105 Paul  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:51:13pm

Why do I get the impression that Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi is only lightly tethered to planet Earth? The disturbing thing is this loon is on TV, babbling incoherently, while thousands of Muslims are watching and nodding in agreement.

106 twincitiesgirl  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:52:07pm

I think the guy in the sheet is protesting a little too vehemently--makes me wonder why. The part about the hairstyles was hilarious--spiky hair is evil? Who knew?

When my oldest daughter was 4 she gave my son age 2, a very spiky, punky hair cut. I opened her bedroom door early one morning and there he was seated in the big bird chair, towel draped around his shoulders, his blue eyes wide with the wonder of it all.

Needless to say we put the crayola scissors out of reach after that nightmare. Unfortunately, not before she had managed to cut her own hair to chin length on two sides--the back was still very long. I cried over that one.

107 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:52:35pm

re: #105 Paul

Why do I get the impression that Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi is only lightly tethered to planet Earth? The disturbing thing is this loon is on TV, babbling incoherently, while thousands of Muslims are watching and nodding in agreement.

It's kinda like listening to our State Department?

108 Opinionated  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:53:21pm

"Progressives" and Mideast Arab/Islamics would seem to have nothing in common- if both didn't hate Israel.

109 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:54:04pm

LGF post, August 23, 2007:
“When a crow flies over Kandahar, he only flaps one wing. With the other wing he covers his tail.”

Holiness abounds in Islam. They must be so certain that Allah is pleased.

110 Opilio  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:54:09pm
Whoever founds an establishment for iniquity or prostitution, or who assists in any way in its foundation or management, will be sentenced to life imprisonment, and if he does it again – he will be sentenced to death.”

How exactly do you do it again, if you're in prison for life?

Do the Kuwaitis have revolving doors on their prisons too?

111 Wisenheimer  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:54:44pm

re: #98 MandyManners

The domes look like giant boobs.

Ha! I'm thinking of the scene in Naked Gun when Frank can't get his mind off of Jane.

112 Spiny Norman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:55:00pm

re: #105 Paul

Why do I get the impression that Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi is only lightly tethered to planet Earth? The disturbing thing is this loon is on TV, babbling incoherently, while thousands of Muslims are watching and nodding in agreement.

We have our Fred Phelps, but when he shows up on the TV, millions of us yell at him, telling him to just shut the f*ck up already.

113 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:55:20pm

re: #105 Paul

Why do I get the impression that Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi is only lightly tethered to planet Earth? The disturbing thing is this loon is on TV, babbling incoherently, while thousands of Muslims are watching and nodding in agreement.

A peek into Mo's mind.

114 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:55:28pm

I would guess that homosexuality is very common in the muslim world, especially the Arab world. Young men cannot have any contact with young ladies. They have to do something with all those hormones. Repressing the unrepressible rarely works. Keep living in that 7th Century Fantasyland, Achmed.....but you have millions of "that kind" in your midst. Better get used to it! You cannot stone and kill them all

115 Opinionated  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:55:50pm

I'm not going to read the entire lengthy rant.

I'm waiting for something shorter to read- like a sentence or two listing who they don't want to murder.

116 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:55:51pm

I wouldn't recommend unnecessary loitering on sidewalks in front of tall buildings in Kuwait.

117 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:56:14pm

So what do you do about homophobia among Muslim immigrants in western societies? What kind of solutions are non-fascist?

118 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:56:14pm

re: #108 Opinionated

"Progressives" and Mideast Arab/Islamics would seem to have nothing in common- if both didn't hate Israel.

They have a core value in common.

They hate individual liberty. Both want to control the individual from a central source. The Islamists the control is religion/social, the leftists it's economic/social. Hence the reluctance on the left to see the Islamist as a clear enemy.

119 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:56:29pm

re: #83 jcm

Seems kinda petty to me.

;-)

120 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:56:31pm

re: #111 Wisenheimer

Ha! I'm thinking of the scene in Naked Gun when Frank can't get his mind off of Jane.

Boobs everywhere?

121 Wisenheimer  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:56:42pm

re: #114 Desert Dog

I would guess that homosexuality is very common in the muslim world, especially the Arab world.

It is. Especially around Ramadan.

122 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:57:20pm

re: #119 pink freud

Seems kinda petty to me.

;-)

Is that your chief complaint?

123 Spiny Norman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:57:38pm

re: #114 Desert Dog

I would guess that homosexuality is very common in the muslim world, especially the Arab world. Young men cannot have any contact with young ladies. They have to do something with all those hormones. Repressing the unrepressible rarely works. Keep living in that 7th Century Fantasyland, Achmed.....but you have millions of "that kind" in your midst. Better get used to it! You cannot stone and kill them all

It isn't so much the pitching Dr. Sa'd has a problem with, I suspect, but the catching.

124 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:57:52pm

re: #114 Desert Dog

I would guess that homosexuality is very common in the muslim world...

See the video linked to via my #109 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Mullah Omar tried to stop it.
Heh.

125 Bill Dalasio  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:58:21pm

re: #105 Paul

Why do I get the impression that Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi is only lightly tethered to planet Earth? The disturbing thing is this loon is on TV, babbling incoherently, while thousands of Muslims are watching and nodding in agreement.

Hmmm...so, you're saying he's light on his loafers?

126 Ozymandias  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:58:36pm

my guess is he's got a little fear of heights himself.

127 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:58:55pm

re: #119 pink freud

Seems kinda petty to me.

;-)

Chief(ly), I have to maintain my position.

128 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:59:51pm

re: #122 MandyManners

Is that your chief complaint?

It does contain a colonel of truth.

129 sadhu  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 12:59:58pm

Whenever a left-leaning woman or gay friend starts ranting about oil and the Jews, I remind them of how homosexuals and women are treated in the muslim world. Stops em dead in their tracks every time. Hypocrites. They should be protesting in the streets everyday against this shit.

130 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:00:10pm

re: #127 jcm

Chief(ly), I have to maintain my position.

This is hardly turning out First Class.

131 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:00:35pm

re: #128 pink freud

It does contain a colonel of truth.

you guys are running out of ranks

132 Steffan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:01:07pm

re: #94 Spiny Norman

Or Oakland. Well, now, that must be a bit of a puzzle for them: while a majority of blacks and Hispanics voted in favor of Prop 8, they are also fellow "oppressed" minorities and the protestors can't be seen as possibly racist, now can they?

The train's already left on that track -- the protesters were yelling nasty racist epithets at a pair of black gays who happened to carrying a "No On 8" sign.

It didn't matter. They were The Enemy.

OT: Obama seems to have thrown the nutroots under the bus.

Barack Obama isn't even President yet, and he's already angering some of his most devoted followers on the party's left wing. This is the mark of what could be a very successful presidency.

This guy is certainly optimistic, isn't he? I wonder where I can get whatever he's smoking....

"With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head," wrote David Sirota on the popular liberal blog OpenLeft, decrying the serial betrayals of Obama and the congressional Democratic majority. The Democratic Party, he wrote, has "faced no real retribution" for its manifold heresies, something that Sirota believes he and his band of angry bloggers must change. "We better understand why this happened," he fumed.

Allow me to provide an answer. You don't matter.

That the Netroots - the fabled bloggers who, in 2004, carried Howard Dean from being an unknown governor of a small state to a Democratic presidential front-runner - are not the potent political force that the media portrays was confirmed this past week when Senate Democrats resisted their "demand" that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman be punished for endorsing John McCain for President (Lieberman was reelected as an independent in 2006 and caucuses with the Democrats). Ever since Nov. 4, when Democrats increased their majority beyond the point that Lieberman's allegiance was necessary for them to maintain control over the Senate, punishing Lieberman has been the primary goal of liberal bloggers. For weeks, they pounded their keyboards, huffed and puffed on their Internet radio shows and called on their readers to flood the offices of Democratic senators with phone calls and e-mails demanding that Lieberman be stripped of his chairmanship over the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Yet on Tuesday, Democrats voted an overwhelming 42-to-13 to let Lieberman keep that chairmanship.

"He wasn't sanctioned," seethed Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos. "And Senate Democrats trying to make that claim are dishonestly trying to cover up the extent of their betrayal of the American people's vote for change."

Awwww. My heart fair bleeds for them.... /heh

Go read the whole thing.

133 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:01:07pm

re: #122 MandyManners

Is that your chief complaint?

Stand by, we will marshal our arguments.

134 kcladderman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:01:10pm

re: #131 Desert Dog

you guys are running out of ranks

Lets hope it doesn't get to seaman.

135 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:01:23pm

re: #128 pink freud

It does contain a colonel of truth.

Oooooooooh. You're good.

136 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:01:29pm

re: #131 Desert Dog

you guys are running out of ranks

I thought we were getting VERY rank.

137 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:01:52pm

re: #127 jcm

Chief(ly), I have to maintain my position.

Well, you are the specialist.

138 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:03:26pm

re: #134 kcladderman

Lets hope it doesn't get to seaman.

I warrant that we've about hit bottom.

139 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:03:58pm

re: #138 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I warrant that we've about hit bottom.

Dang! i was looking for a way to swab that one in.

140 Wisenheimer  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:04:06pm

All of these puns are deserving of corporal punishment.

141 Cognito  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:04:13pm

re: #137 pink freud

Well, you are the specialist.

I think this thread is supposed to be about Islam and homosexuality. So I'm going to have to ask you guys to take your discussion to the rear.

142 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:04:27pm

re: #138 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I warrant that we've about hit bottom.

Bilge rats would know when that happens.....

143 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:04:31pm

re: #140 Wisenheimer
Who wants to go first?

144 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:04:42pm

re: #133 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Stand by, we will marshal our arguments.

I'll hafta' muster my crack troops.

145 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:04:45pm

re: #117 Moe Katz

So what do you do about homophobia among Muslim immigrants in western societies? What kind of solutions are non-fascist?

There's only so much that can be done to combat bigotry on a personal basis, but what can be done is enforcing the law. We do have discrimination laws already on the books.

146 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:05:00pm

re: #141 Cognito

I think this thread is supposed to be about Islam and homosexuality. So I'm going to have to ask you guys to take your discussion to the rear.

Is that where the seamen are?

147 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:05:08pm

Given the topic of Charles' post, there was only one way for this thread to go ... downhill.

148 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:05:20pm

re: #146 pink freud

Is that where the seamen are?

Oh no I didn't!

149 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:06:08pm

re: #144 MandyManners

I'll hafta' muster my crack troops.

Did you just give us a WAVE?

150 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:06:22pm

re: #131 Desert Dog

you guys are running out of ranks

Aren't you all being a bit petty?

151 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:06:28pm

But remember, the Religious Right are a greater threat to Liberty than the Muslim radicals. Indeed, the Religious Right are the American Taliban. look at how they preach about exterminating homosexuals...

They don't? But I thought...

152 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:06:29pm

re: #145 Sharmuta

There's only so much that can be done to combat bigotry on a personal basis, but what can be done is enforcing the law. We do have discrimination laws already on the books.

Right. I haven't been following these threads too closely. Coming from you, I take it that's the party line here at the moment?

153 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:06:43pm

re: #52 Desert Dog

Kuwait, where "gay" means "happy", and "getting stoned" does not mean bong hits!

I've gotten stoned wth gay Kuwaitis.

/and they really don't like the wahabbis.

154 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:06:54pm

re: #149 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Did you just give us a WAVE?

How about a *WAC*?

155 Cognito  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:07:04pm

re: #146 pink freud

Is that where the seamen are?

No. It's where the grunts are.

156 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:07:47pm

re: #141 Cognito

I think this thread is supposed to be about Islam and homosexuality. So I'm going to have to ask you guys to take your discussion to the rear.

Hey, Mandy's in with us on this.
I feel safer.
(-:

157 Opinionated  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:07:59pm

I have a religious question for the Dr.

If a Homosexual commits a beautiful act of martyrdom killing thousands of Infidels in a suicide attack- Allah Akbar- what if he wants 72 male virgins for his reward, seeing females would be anything but a reward.

Would Allah refuse to reward the martyr for his good deed?

158 Spiny Norman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:08:17pm

re: #132 Steffan

OT: Obama seems to have thrown the nutroots under the bus.

Awwww. My heart fair bleeds for them.... /heh

Like nobody saw that coming.

Heh, indeed.

159 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:08:39pm

Monkey abuse.

/geez, would it kill you to give him a real Strat?

160 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:08:42pm

re: #152 Moe Katz

Interesting choice of words.

161 Crusty  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:08:56pm

It's a good thing there are no homosexuals in Iran like Ahmadinejad said or else they'd be in a lot of trouble.

162 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:09:10pm

re: #160 Sharmuta

Interesting choice of words.

I try :)

163 n in wi  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:09:19pm

Is this the butt of the joke,or the hole topic

164 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:09:45pm

re: #154 MandyManners

How about a *WAC*?

Sorry, Mandy, I'll have to *BAM* you for that.

(slang from my father's generation ... "Broad-*ss Marine")

165 Wisenheimer  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:10:03pm

re: #157 Opinionated

It is haram to ask such a question.

166 pat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:10:15pm

Apparently this is not considered extremist in the San Fransisco community.
[Link: www.zombietime.com...]

167 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:10:26pm

re: #157 Opinionated

I have a religious question for the Dr.

If a Homosexual commits a beautiful act of martyrdom killing thousands of Infidels in a suicide attack- Allah Akbar- what if he wants 72 male virgins for his reward, seeing females would be anything but a reward.

Would Allah refuse to reward the martyr for his good deed?

I am not a Dr., but my opinion is it does not really matter if the homicide bomber is gay or not, they will both end up in hell. They will be the devil's be-atch!

168 Spiny Norman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:10:27pm

re: #157 Opinionated

I have a religious question for the Dr.

If a Homosexual commits a beautiful act of martyrdom killing thousands of Infidels in a suicide attack- Allah Akbar- what if he wants 72 male virgins for his reward, seeing females would be anything but a reward.

Would Allah refuse to reward the martyr for his good deed?

Enturbulation! Enturbulation!

Bad Opinionated!

/scientology security team

169 shiplord kirel  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:10:33pm

Now we know why they're building all those luridly ostentatious skyscrapers in Dubai.....

170 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:11:04pm

re: #162 Moe Katz

If you say so.

171 Spiny Norman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:11:38pm

re: #166 pat

Apparently this is not considered extremist in the San Fransisco community.
[Link: www.zombietime.com...]

The QFP morons are the walking definition of "clueless".

172 Cognito  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:11:53pm

Interesting that, according to this cleric, homosexuals are to be tossed from a tall building.

What, then, is the punishment for tossing them from a short building?

We've got to maintain order, after all.

173 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:11:55pm

re: #157 Opinionated

I have a religious question for the Dr.

If a Homosexual commits a beautiful act of martyrdom killing thousands of Infidels in a suicide attack- Allah Akbar- what if he wants 72 male virgins for his reward, seeing females would be anything but a reward.

Would Allah refuse to reward the martyr for his good deed?

What a conundrum!

174 SFGoth  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:12:20pm

"People" who look like this atavistic zoo showpiece shouldn't be calling Jews the sons of apes.

175 Steffan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:12:31pm

re: #105 Paul

Why do I get the impression that Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi is only lightly tethered to planet Earth? The disturbing thing is this loon is on TV, babbling incoherently, while thousands of Muslims are watching and nodding in agreement.

That's why the Arab world is tertiary at best if you don't include their oil resources. The dictators and imams like to keep the proletariat as ignorant of the real world as possible, because an educated people would see through the BS they're flinging.

This may change in the next few years. Life in Iraq is improving exponentially, the Iranian people are increasingly unhappy with the mullahs, and AQ has been sidelined, perhaps permanently (we have yet to see what The One will do about the ME).

Were it not for the oil and our ties to Israel, I think we would likely leave them to stew in their own juices.

176 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:12:48pm

re: #164 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Sorry, Mandy, I'll have to *BAM* you for that.

(slang from my father's generation ... "Broad-*ss Marine")

I'v heard it's verboten in today's USMC.

177 Steffan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:14:13pm

re: #110 Opilio

Gotti didn't seem to that that many problems running his "business" from the Big House.

178 Outrider  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:14:59pm
“Whoever founds an establishment for iniquity or prostitution, or who assists in any way in its foundation or management, will be sentenced to life imprisonment, and if he does it again – he will be sentenced to death.”

They have establishments for iniquity or prostitution in their prisons? A person would think they could control what goes on behind bars-given the tight control they attempt to maintain on the streets.

179 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:15:13pm

re: #176 MandyManners

I'v heard it's verboten in today's USMC.

Oh, probably IS!

My Dad joined in '39, retired in '64. He wsn't a profane man, in any sense of the word, but his day was a whole different ... millennia!

180 Earl  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:15:19pm

re: #11 JammieWearingFool

You are correct. These mullah-chimpie-thingies inevitably have a simian look to them. Of course, what courses out of their mouths makes the Great Apes appear positively Socratic...

181 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:15:24pm

re: #172 Cognito

Interesting that, according to this cleric, homosexuals are to be tossed from a tall building.

What, then, is the punishment for tossing them from a short building?

We've got to maintain order, after all.

Isn't this supposed to be based on the Quran?

How could 'ole Mo' the Pedophile and his henchmen tossed people from tall buildings? Those weren't exactly common in 8th century Medina.

182 Shug  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:15:29pm

In this addition of Ask the Imam, we ask Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi an important marital question

Ask the Imam : Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi , what is the best way to help your wife reach orgasm?

Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi : This is not important

183 bosforus  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:16:45pm
so the truth about these people is made clear and they serve as a lesson to others

To what truth is he referring?

184 Outrider  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:17:04pm

re: #175 Steffan

That's why the Arab world is tertiary at best if you don't include their oil resources. The dictators and imams like to keep the proletariat as ignorant of the real world as possible, because an educated people would see through the BS they're flinging.

This may change in the next few years. Life in Iraq is improving exponentially, the Iranian people are increasingly unhappy with the mullahs, and AQ has been sidelined, perhaps permanently (we have yet to see what The One will do about the ME).

Were it not for the oil and our ties to Israel, I think we would likely leave them to stew in their own juices.

Someday, no one will need their oil. Then what will they have. Lots of sand. Nothing else.

185 Opinionated  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:17:16pm

re: #173 MandyManners

What a conundrum!

There are no conundrums in Islam. If you can't find the answer in the Koran- well, we will just have to throw you off a tall building.

186 shiplord kirel  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:17:54pm

re: #183 bosforus

To what truth is he referring?

To the truth that a large part of the world's population is batshit crazy, but he doesn't know that.

187 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:18:05pm

Thrown from a building? I find it funny that the left wing sees George Bush as more of a threat than these guys.

188 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:18:09pm

re: #182 Shug

In this addition of Ask the Imam, we ask Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi an important marital question

Ask the Imam : Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi , what is the best way to help your wife reach orgasm?

Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi : This is not important Excuse me (puzzled) but why would you ever want to try?

An alternate, more nuanced, response.

189 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:18:26pm

re: #178 Outrider

It helps when you condemn a sizable segment of the population to death. Once you've thrown dude off of a building, he tends not to cause problems in General Population.


By the way, has anybody mentioned Abu Ghraib yet? Torture! America is so much worse than these adherants to the Religion of Peace.

190 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:18:27pm

re: #186 shiplord kirel

52% to be exact.

191 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:19:16pm

Kuwait’s Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi must be a lot of fun at parties.

For starters - he's gay. But then, he's got some issues with that.

192 Shug  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:20:42pm

Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi , he who protests the Gay man too much, has the largest pink skeleton in his closet.

/The word according to Shug

193 Morganfrost  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:21:39pm

Hmmm.... the guy sure knows alot about what goes on at these gay massage parlors, doesn't he?

194 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:21:41pm

Is Jaunte still around?

In an earlier thread, he posted this site, the "Unity Anti-Fascist Forum".

So I go there, and to view it, one must register with an e-mail address (which I did), a user name (which I selected), and answer an email to verify that your e-mail address exists (which I did).

I have now been informed that my "request" has been denied, for reason "no chance".

And now I can't even pull the site up on my computer.

Really strange.

195 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:22:06pm

re: #192 Shug

Dr. Sa'd Al-'Inzi , he who protests the Gay man too much, has the largest pink skeleton in his closet.

/The word according to Shug

Or, the smallest.

196 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:23:07pm

re: #193 Morganfrost

Birds of a feather...

198 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:23:51pm

re: #194 reine.de.tout

Is Jaunte still around?

In an earlier thread, he posted this site, the "Unity Anti-Fascist Forum".

So I go there, and to view it, one must register with an e-mail address (which I did), a user name (which I selected), and answer an email to verify that your e-mail address exists (which I did).

I have now been informed that my "request" has been denied, for reason "no chance".

And now I can't even pull the site up on my computer.

Really strange.

I clicked and got this:

YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO VIEW THIS PAGE

Really friendly.

199 itellu3times  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:24:04pm
According to Islamic law, a homosexual should be thrown from a tall building ...

And they felt the need to build the World's Tallest Building in Dubai, so you know what that means
.
.
.
yes, size does matter!

200 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:24:38pm

re: #198 MandyManners

I clicked and got this:

YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO VIEW THIS PAGE

Really friendly.

yes. What are they hiding?

201 eaglewingz08  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:26:02pm

But his culture is more valid than our culture, right libs? I mean the whole premise of modern liberalism is that western values are infinitely inferior to the culture of non western non christian peoples. So by westerners forcing their gay equality upon people who don't believe it they are acting in an anti democratic and imperialist and hegemonic manner. But can you be anti US, and anti christian pro gay, pro feminist, but act in antidemocrat, imperialistic and hegemonic ways? That is the question.

202 itellu3times  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:26:14pm

re: #197 FrogMarch

Democrats say to Big Auto: "Put on a big phony show for us. But don't worry *wink wink* - we will bail you out anyway. We owe the UAW and we love anti-competitive out of date business models."

Yah sure, just paint the union label on those business jets, for a start.

203 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:28:01pm

re: #200 reine.de.tout

yes. What are they hiding?

Beats me.

204 eaglewingz08  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:28:28pm

Just another question, if you get sentenced to life imprisonment for prostitution, how are you able to become free to commit another such crime to get sentenced to death?

205 HoosierHoops  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:28:56pm

Good afternoon Lizards..It's less than 4 hours before the Colts play..
What is it with dogs? I've been playing outside with Winston for an hour..
I'm Bushed.. He is just warming up.
brat

206 bosforus  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:29:29pm

re: #194 reine.de.tout

Is Jaunte still around?

In an earlier thread, he posted this site, the "Unity Anti-Fascist Forum".

So I go there, and to view it, one must register with an e-mail address (which I did), a user name (which I selected), and answer an email to verify that your e-mail address exists (which I did).

I have now been informed that my "request" has been denied, for reason "no chance".

And now I can't even pull the site up on my computer.

Really strange.

Out of curiosity I did some checking of my own and got into the site through this link: [Link: unitywebring.com...]
Then I scrolled through some articles and found out about a leak of BNP members or donors and found they had leaked names, addresses, and email address which have since been loaded onto google maps so you can see where a local BNP member might be in your neighborhood.
BNP Near Me: [Link: www.bnpnearme.co.uk...]
Interesting.

207 green helmet guy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:30:51pm

"Queers for Palestine" should definitely open a Kuwaiti chapter.

208 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:31:56pm

re: #7 davinvalkri

And homosexuals are complaining about laws over here? Do you see anyone respectable calling for homosexuals to be defenestrated and killed around these parts? They oughta be calling for invasion or something. Wow.

The difference tends to be one of degree and not one of essence, unfortunately.

209 jamgarr  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:32:11pm

So, I guess "Prop 8 Kuwait" would fly?

210 jaunte  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:32:20pm

re: #194 reine.de.tout

Hi reine. I'm still here. I found that site through a web search; I don't know who runs it. This link still works for me:
[Link: www.unitywebring.com...]

211 Cognito  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:32:36pm

re: #198 MandyManners

I clicked and got this:

YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO VIEW THIS PAGE

Really friendly.

I've seen that sort of language from other, benign sites. "Forbidden page," and so forth. Isn't it something to do with a computer error?

212 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:32:41pm

re: #204 eaglewingz08

Just another question, if you get sentenced to life imprisonment for prostitution, how are you able to become free to commit another such crime to get sentenced to death?

That confused me, too.

213 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:32:43pm

re: #202 itellu3times

Yah sure, just paint the union label on those business jets, for a start.

What's funny too me about the whole corporate jet thing is this:

The CEO get's driven to the airport, he's most likely has a admin riding along shoving papers at him to read or sign, on the airplane there is also a lot of work going on. It's about time management. How many work hours does a CEO spend on the phone at home? How many of those "parties" are to schmooze a big customer or vendor.

I wonder if want the UAW would say if the employees were required to read training manuals on their commutes, take piece work home with them in the evenings, and host corporate events in their homes?

Compare to what the UAW wastes in non-productive paid work hours, a corporate jet is a mere pittance.

214 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:34:51pm

re: #206 bosforus

Out of curiosity I did some checking of my own and got into the site through this link: [Link: unitywebring.com...]
Then I scrolled through some articles and found out about a leak of BNP members or donors and found they had leaked names, addresses, and email address which have since been loaded onto google maps so you can see where a local BNP member might be in your neighborhood.
BNP Near Me: [Link: www.bnpnearme.co.uk...]
Interesting.

They're all over the place!

215 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:35:07pm

re: #213 jcm

Excellent points!

216 HoosierHoops  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:36:34pm

re: #211 Cognito

I've seen that sort of language from other, benign sites. "Forbidden page," and so forth. Isn't it something to do with a computer error?

Sometimes Cog it has to do with firewall rules..Blocking of IP's. Router tables
or server rules, Generally a 404 error means the site doesn't want you there..

217 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:37:02pm
218 jaunte  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:38:29pm

re: #206 bosforus

The heaviest BNP concentration I can find in that map shows 31 members in one post code in High Beach, Essex. Doesn't look like they're going to overwhelm the vote anywhere, yet.

219 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:38:33pm

re: #217 NYCHardhat

WTF?

Just following the footsteps of 'ole Mo.

220 n in wi  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:39:05pm

re: #213 jcm
Not to mention that the Senators berating them fly around on PUBLICLY funded jets,private or otherwise. A corporation has a least produced some thing that someone else made a voluntary exchange for. Not co-hearsed tax dollars.

221 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:39:27pm

re: #211 Cognito

I've seen that sort of language from other, benign sites. "Forbidden page," and so forth. Isn't it something to do with a computer error?

No.

222 Miss Trixie  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:39:32pm

I recall a post that Charles had once upon a time that had to do with muslim men having their portraits taken with assorted weapons, women's footwear and lots of makeup.

I've been searching but can't seem to find it.

Anyone? The hypocrisy is simply astonishing but then we knew that about islam didn't we?

223 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:40:02pm

re: #210 jaunte

Hi reine. I'm still here. I found that site through a web search; I don't know who runs it. This link still works for me:
[Link: www.unitywebring.com...]

Here's what I get when I click that link:

An Error Has Occurred!

Error: Banning Notification. Sorry, you are banned from using this forum!

I think I made the grave error of actually trying to "register" with my e-mail address, and now they have blocked me.

224 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:40:58pm

re: #220 n in wi

Not to mention that the Senators berating them fly around on PUBLICLY funded jets,private or otherwise. A corporation has a least produced some thing that someone else made a voluntary exchange for. Not co-hearsed tax dollars.

Question for the Senators; how many junkets have you gone on paid for by corporations and with transportation on corporate jets?

225 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:40:59pm

re: #217 NYCHardhat

WTF?

Secret coded messages are being embedded into child pornographic images, and paedophile websites are being exploited as a secure way of passing information between terrorists.

Good gravy.

226 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:41:02pm

re: #217 NYCHardhat

Barely saw the your link to catch the headline and closed it. Don't doubt it for a second.

227 jaunte  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:41:02pm

re: #223 reine.de.tout

They may be forbidding registration from sites not in the UK.

228 n in wi  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:41:09pm

re: #217 NYCHardhat
A link between Child porn and muslim terrorist. Sounds just like Mo' M.O.

229 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:42:04pm

re: #227 jaunte

They may be forbidding registration from sites not in the UK.

OK. maybe so. That would make a little bit of sense.

230 So?  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:42:27pm

re: #8 baconeatingkaffir

Hey.. Michael Jackson became a Muslim recently. Wonder what they think of Pedophiles?

As long as he bends over 5 times a day, everything is copasetic.

231 itellu3times  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:43:13pm

re: #213 jcm

What's funny too me about the whole corporate jet thing is this:

Well if you try to be *rational* about it, Wagoner is listed as getting $3.3m last year, if he wanted to charter a jet out of his own pocket for the trip, he could have. And if he came with a posse of six to twelve lawyers, flacks, and hairdressers, and the private jet carried them all at no extra cost, it might have cost less than flying them all first-class, certainly, and maybe less than flying them all coach. Especially if you treat the jet as a fixed expense and just look at fuel and variable costs.

No doubt they should have driven from Detroit in a caravan of six year old Aveos.

232 jaunte  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:43:44pm

re: #229 reine.de.tout

I'm guessing, but that would be a way of restricting their discussion to those most affected, without having to actively strain out the "outside agitators."

233 Shug  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:44:25pm

re: #8 baconeatingkaffir

Hey.. Michael Jackson became a Muslim recently. Wonder what they think of Pedophiles?

Let's just say, it is now forbidden to draw a cartoon of Jacko

234 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:44:57pm

re: #217 NYCHardhat

WTF?

YERRRRRY interesting (and no, I don't mean it like ...)

Here's a para from the article:
"It is not clear whether the terrorists were more interested in the material for personal gratification or were drawn to child porn networks as a secure means of sending messages. In one case fewer than a dozen images were found; in another, 40,000."

What's interesting is that they would pick this milieu as a communications channel in the first place. IMHO, someone was interested enough in the subject matter to know it existed.

/at a minimum

235 itellu3times  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:45:04pm

re: #233 Shug

Let's just say, it is now forbidden to draw a cartoon of Jacko

I can't wait to see him with a beard.

236 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:45:47pm

re: #231 itellu3times

No doubt they should have driven from Detroit in a caravan of six year old Aveos.

Could we find six running Vegas and Pintos in the country for the trip?

237 itellu3times  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:46:02pm

re: #217 NYCHardhat

WTF?

They were using camel porn, but the CIA kept intercepting the messages.

238 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:46:27pm

re: #234 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Exactly! Either way, they are batshit.

239 winston06  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:47:35pm

I am no fan of homosexuality but a painful death is good enough for this imbecile Kuwaiti moron

240 J.S.  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:47:35pm

OT
Did anyone catch the latest Doha Debates? The debate question was "This House believes that Gulf Arabs value profit over people". hmmm....I didn't catch who the "moderator" was...It was actually funny -- the "moderator" was some British dude...it was like some revival of colonial times...(I'm accustomed to having a "moderator" intervene to interrupt should a speaker speak too long, or perhaps call a time out -- but not to take sides...this "moderator" not only took sides, but lambasted some -- grilling them mercilessly...Painful to watch...) Anywho, given the stacked audience the outcome was a forgone conclusion -- 75 percent of the audience claimed, "Yeah, Gulf Arabs value profit over people" with 25 percent saying, "no." I don't know, the whole affair struck me as biazarre...most of the Yeah side was clamouring for "What has the Government done for me lately, huh? We're not getting enough free stuff, man." (thumbs down for both sides... that's my verdict.)

241 Outrider  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:48:13pm

re: #231 itellu3times

Well if you try to be *rational* about it, Wagoner is listed as getting $3.3m last year, if he wanted to charter a jet out of his own pocket for the trip, he could have. And if he came with a posse of six to twelve lawyers, flacks, and hairdressers, and the private jet carried them all at no extra cost, it might have cost less than flying them all first-class, certainly, and maybe less than flying them all coach. Especially if you treat the jet as a fixed expense and just look at fuel and variable costs.

No doubt they should have driven from Detroit in a caravan of six year old Aveos.

Given they were called to congress on the spur of the moment, those ticket prices would have been high... unless they managed to get standby. They would be traveling with some staff.

I iagine if one were to compare the costs of five people flying no-notice from Detroit to D.C. the cost of a charter or private jet is quite a bit cheaper than commercial. When you factor in they can still continue work on board the private jet, then fly back with out hotel costs and such?

I have no heartburn with their mode of travel.

When was the last time you saw union officials flying coach?

242 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:48:32pm

re: #208 Salamantis

The difference tends to be one of degree and not one of essence, unfortunately.

Salamantis --- how exactly are homosexuals being legally persecuted here?

243 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:48:36pm

re: #222 Miss Trixie

I recall a post that Charles had once upon a time that had to do with muslim men having their portraits taken with assorted weapons, women's footwear and lots of makeup.

I've been searching but can't seem to find it.

Anyone? The hypocrisy is simply astonishing but then we knew that about islam didn't we?


See the LGF post linked to in my #109 up-thread

Might that be it?

244 A Kiwi Infidel  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:49:31pm

re: #233 Shug

Let's just say, it is now forbidden to draw a cartoon of Jacko


Pre plastique or post plastique?

245 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:49:46pm

I haven't heard much in the way of answers to the problem of Islamic values being imported into western societies and the threat posed to gay people. Does everyone agree with Sharmuta that:

"There's only so much that can be done to combat bigotry on a personal basis, but what can be done is enforcing the law. We do have discrimination laws already on the books."?

Is that really all that can be done in a democratic society? Would you be reassured by this if you were gay and concerned about violence?

246 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:50:03pm

re: #234 pre-Boomer Marine brat

YERRRRRY interesting (and no, I don't mean it like ...)

Here's a para from the article:
"It is not clear whether the terrorists were more interested in the material for personal gratification or were drawn to child porn networks as a secure means of sending messages. In one case fewer than a dozen images were found; in another, 40,000."

What's interesting is that they would pick this milieu as a communications channel in the first place. IMHO, someone was interested enough in the subject matter to know it existed.

/at a minimum

Image steganography (embedding a encrypted message in an image) is certainly easy with computers. Unless you had the decode software or work at NSA the message is completely invisible.

247 ciaospirit  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:50:28pm

re: #197 FrogMarch

Democrats say to Big Auto: "Put on a big phony show for us. But don't worry *wink wink* - we will bail you out anyway. We owe the UAW and we love anti-competitive out of date business models."

And Obama the great (noncommital) leader. Make a decision? What? Are you kidding?

While Obama and top aides regularly pressed lawmakers last week to resolve the impasse, he did not advocate a specific solution, according to lawmakers.

On Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who has been working to help his state's main industry, called on Obama to become more engaged in the negotiations.

And where were the viable plans from Fannie/Freddie? Didn't require one because the Dems needed the crisis for the Obamunist to win.

With the survival of a major manufacturing at stake, a top adviser to President-elect Barack Obama warned the companies that there is little the government can do without a viable plan to retool and restructure.

248 pat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:50:42pm

re: #243 pre-Boomer Marine brat

The Afghanistan Taliban pics. Discovered after the invasion. Really creepy. Definitely Homoerotic.

249 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:51:24pm

I think the guy in the picture looks like a monkey.

250 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:51:49pm

re: #232 jaunte

I'm guessing, but that would be a way of restricting their discussion to those most affected, without having to actively strain out the "outside agitators."

Yes, that would indeed make sense.
But now I can't even see anything they've written about or linked to that might be helpful to my understanding of things. That's what I find odd - that when I got there from my computer, I am not allowed to even access the site.

251 Miss Trixie  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:52:09pm

re: #243 pre-Boomer Marine brat

That's it! Talk about creepy.

BTW - check my new avatar, guaranteed to erase tose creepy images ... :D

252 Confuzed  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:53:40pm

Can I assume there are no streakers at sporting events?

253 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:53:43pm

re: #204 eaglewingz08

Just another question, if you get sentenced to life imprisonment for prostitution, how are you able to become free to commit another such crime to get sentenced to death?

If they want you to go off the roof, can't they charge you with multiple counts? Then you've got a second conviction, right? I just bet if they want you off the roof, they're gonna get you off the roof.

254 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:53:47pm

re: #249 Ojoe

I think the guy in the picture looks like a monkey.


I think he looks like he got beat up alot in school for being a doofus

255 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:54:01pm

re: #246 jcm

Image steganography (embedding a encrypted message in an image) is certainly easy with computers. Unless you had the decode software or work at NSA the message is completely invisible.

Yes, but why not do it with LOLcats, for instance? My point was, why did they pick hardcore child p*rn in the first place? Occam's Razor says, it was picked by someone who was familiar with it. That makes a statement about character, not about technology.

256 jaunte  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:54:09pm

re: #250 reine.de.tout

I haven't tried to register. They have 9 links listed on their log-in page, which I'll post here if you like.

257 A Kiwi Infidel  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:54:24pm

re: #252 Confuzed

Can I assume there are no streakers at sporting events?


There may be, its just that they get shot before they make it to the other side.

258 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:55:28pm

re: #248 pat

The Afghanistan Taliban pics. Discovered after the invasion. Really creepy. Definitely Homoerotic.

I'd love to know the history (origin) of the crow-over-Kandahar saying!

259 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:55:50pm

re: #255 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Yes, but why not do it with LOLcats, for instance? My point was, why did they pick hardcore child p*rn in the first place? Occam's Razor says, it was picked by someone who was familiar with it. That makes a statement about character, not about technology.

Very true.....
Also wouldn't pr0n be more likely to catch the eyes of authorities?

If I'm going to send you secret coded messages I'd want to do it in as innocuous a way possible.

260 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:57:01pm

re: #251 Miss Trixie

That's it! Talk about creepy.

BTW - check my new avatar, guaranteed to erase tose creepy images ... :D

Very sweet!

261 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:57:53pm

re: #251 Miss Trixie

That's it! Talk about creepy.

BTW - check my new avatar, guaranteed to erase tose creepy images ... :D

That causes SEVERE STRESS -- trying to say awwwwww while cackling out loud! Good one! Kudos to rightymouse and to you!

262 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:58:00pm

Well, I'm of to do the week's grocery shopping. I'll be looking forward to reading any constructive suggestions that may be put forward, regardless of who they may be coming from :)

263 J.S.  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:58:04pm

re: #245 Moe Katz

I suspect that if the children are given a public school education, they'll be just like everyone else...they'll be acculturated...(the real problem is with self-imposed segregation, and education in Muslim-only schools, etc.) That's why I believe there needs to be an encouragement and financial support for public schools...as opposed to private religious schools...

264 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:58:29pm

Monkey monkey
Bo bunkey
Banana Fanana
Fo Funky
Me My Mo Monkey
Monkey !

265 FrogMarch  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:58:35pm

re: #202 itellu3times

Yah sure, just paint the union label on those business jets, for a start.

Upper management sucks - add the union bloat, sprinkle some BS government regulations - and presto - a company that can't build a car and make a profit.
/ I know - lets force that horrid combination on Honda and Toyota.


but of course if you make a profit - the democrat party labels you "evil and greedy". but if you don't make a profit - then the government will bail you out with tax payer money.

266 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 1:59:47pm

re: #242 Fearless Fred

Salamantis --- how exactly are homosexuals being legally persecuted here?

Their long term monogamous relationships are being discriminated against vis a vis heterosexual long term monogamous relationships, so long as there are not at least civil union laws on the books that allocate them rights to make medical decisions for their partners, to inherit from them, to enjoy employee spousal benefits, and to have the same tax breaks.

I have three gay cousins in my family - two male and one female. They are all politically conservative, are horrified and appalled at the San Fran type flaunting, hold down good long term jobs, contribute positively to the general communities in which they reside, and cohabit monogamously with long term partners. They are family, I love them, and wish them to have the same rights, freedoms, benefits, and opportunities as I and my fellow straight family members do.

267 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:00:34pm

re: #259 jcm

Very true.....
Also wouldn't pr0n be more likely to catch the eyes of authorities?

If I'm going to send you secret coded messages I'd want to do it in as innocuous a way possible.

Precisely. Who's going to be knee-jerk suspicious of ... say ... LOLcat images, for instance?

The choice of child pr0n was a rather ... er ... SIGNIFICANT Freudian slip.

268 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:01:01pm

re: #245 Moe Katz

I haven't heard much in the way of answers to the problem of Islamic values being imported into western societies and the threat posed . . .

...the threat posed to everyone -- not just gays. Yeah, Bush didn't do very well explaining any of that to us. Thank goodness for LGF.

269 Miss Trixie  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:01:12pm

In 30 minutes my beloved Calgary Stampeders vie against the Montreal Alouettes to see who goes home with the Grey Cup and I'm so excited.

Be back after the game - time for some pre-game telly.

Go Stamps GO!

/crosses fingers and toes and eyes and heart for a monster victory

270 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:01:37pm

re: #263 J.S.

I suspect that if the children are given a public school education, they'll be just like everyone else...they'll be acculturated...(the real problem is with self-imposed segregation, and education in Muslim-only schools, etc.) That's why I believe there needs to be an encouragement and financial support for public schools...as opposed to private religious schools...

Wouldn't you run into opposition on that from conservatives who want LESS public education and leaving money in people's hands to develop their own educational institutions? Do you really think denominational schools can be discouraged in America?

271 RobCon  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:02:04pm

He's not a Mormon so who cares?

272 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:02:05pm

re: #267 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Precisely. Who's going to be knee-jerk suspicious of ... say ... LOLcat images, for instance?

The choice of child pr0n was a rather ... er ... SIGNIFICANT Freudian slip.

Another theory....
You and are up to something.... we get investigated.. they find pr0n.

Will that be enough to make the investigation stop there? Or would they dig farther?

273 J.S.  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:02:08pm

re: #269 Miss Trixie

What? Thirty minutes? I thought we had another hour..

274 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:03:16pm

re: #269 Miss Trixie

In 30 minutes my beloved Calgary Stampeders vie against the Montreal Alouettes to see who goes home with the Grey Cup and I'm so excited.

Be back after the game - time for some pre-game telly.

Go Stamps GO!

/crosses fingers and toes and eyes and heart for a monster victory


Don't usually watch hockey but the chance to see Montreal get their little hinies kicked is worth turing the tv on. Now if I can just remember where the tv is.

275 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:03:21pm

re: #266 Salamantis

rights to make medical decisions for their partners, to inherit from them, to enjoy employee spousal benefits, and to have the same tax breaks.

The first two are easily remedied: medical power of attorney and wills.

276 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:03:52pm

re: #272 jcm

Another theory....
You and are up to something.... we get investigated.. they find pr0n.

Will that be enough to make the investigation stop there? Or would they dig farther?

Hmmmmmm.

Might be over-thinking it. Also might be a very savvy cover.

Hmmmmmm.

277 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:04:47pm

re: #275 MandyManners

The first two are easily remedied: medical power of attorney and wills.

But why should they have to go through added hassles that straight couples don't? A civil ceremony should automatically confer all these privileges.

278 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:05:25pm

re: #277 Salamantis

But why should they have to go through added hassles that straight couples don't? A civil ceremony should automatically confer all these privileges.

It's a hassle to make a will? Good grief.

279 J.S.  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:05:36pm

re: #270 Moe Katz

I don't consider myself a "conservative." I'm more of an independent...I have more fear for the "voucher" crap (as an end run around public schools) in Canada, than I have in the States...

280 Dustyvet  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:05:43pm

If I where too post what I'm thinking regarding this ass hat, my message would get deleted, and my karma points would drop faster then the Stock Market...so, I'll shud up...:p

281 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:05:48pm

re: #275 MandyManners

The first two are easily remedied: medical power of attorney and wills.

Simple solution but the raving lib gays that want to shove their relationship in your face will not go for it. I have gay friends that are conservative they already have medical power of attorney and their family supports them

282 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:06:00pm

Should mosques be subject to supervision to prevent the incitement of violence toward gays? Is that discriminatory? Is that within acceptable democratic options?

283 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:06:05pm

re: #278 MandyManners

It's a hassle to make a will? Good grief.

Oops! And, a MPOA? You can do either off the Internet.

My own parents have wills.

284 debutaunt  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:06:20pm

re: #215 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Excellent points!

I understand that some insurance companies require company execs to only fly on company jets.

285 Truck Monkey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:06:54pm

re: #264 Ojoe

Monkey monkey
Bo bunkey
Banana Fanana
Fo Funky
Me My Mo Monkey
Monkey !

Thank you.

286 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:06:59pm

re: #281 Cathypop

Simple solution but the raving lib gays that want to shove their relationship in your face will not go for it. I have gay friends that are conservative they already have medical power of attorney and their family supports them

It's just common sense to have a will and an MPOA if you're not in a marriage.

287 Miss Trixie  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:07:02pm

re: #274 Cathypop

Don't usually watch hockey but the chance to see Montreal get their little hinies kicked is worth turing the tv on. Now if I can just remember where the tv is.

*pssssst*

Not hockey - Canadian football.

CFL


J.S. - Kickoff's at 5:30 unless that's been changed or I'm having a blonde moment ...

288 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:07:19pm

re: #276 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Hmmmmmm.

Might be over-thinking it. Also might be a very savvy cover.

Hmmmmmm.

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

289 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:07:25pm

re: #275 MandyManners

The first two are easily remedied: medical power of attorney and wills.

No, that's not enough.....we need to change our entire society, culture and history to accommodate a very vocal but very small group of people that want more than the rights you and I have.

/

290 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:07:51pm

re: #287 Miss Trixie

*pssssst*

Not hockey - Canadian football.

CFL


J.S. - Kickoff's at 5:30 unless that's been changed or I'm having a blonde moment ...

We are both having a blond moment.

291 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:07:57pm

re: #269 Miss Trixie

Imagine a QB who completed 42 of 63 passes, set a school record by throwing for 595 yards and seven touchdowns, his team scored 68 points and lost by 25 points.

292 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:08:33pm

re: #291 solomonpanting

Imagine a QB who completed 42 of 63 passes, set a school record by throwing for 595 yards and seven touchdowns, his team scored 68 points and lost by 25 points.

A defensive struggle, eh?

293 jiminycricket  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:08:42pm

"I saw some of the owners when I was driving by – they looked really weird"

And this simian looks normal?

294 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:08:52pm

re: #289 Desert Dog

No, that's not enough.....we need to change our entire society, culture and history to accommodate a very vocal but very small group of people that want more than the rights you and I have.

/

Why?

295 Dustyvet  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:09:03pm

re: #290 Cathypop

We are both having a blond moment.

Wiat till your over 60, then you can have Senior Moments...:)

296 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:09:34pm

re: #294 Cathypop

precisely, why?

297 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:09:38pm

re: #295 Dustyvet

Wiat till your over 60, then you can have Senior Moments...:)

Already having them at 52

298 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:09:38pm

re: #289 Desert Dog

No, that's not enough.....we need to change our entire society, culture and history to accommodate a very vocal but very small group of people that want more than the rights you and I have.

/

How do they have more rights than heterosexuals.?

299 boatguy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:09:40pm

re: #269 Miss Trixie

Miss Trixie is being linguistically racist by hoping the English speaking city wins,Montreal all the way. (That 20 bucks on the favourite speaks a lot too)

300 Dustyvet  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:09:46pm

re: #295 Dustyvet

Wiat till your over 60, then you can have Senior Moments...:)

Next Easter I get to hide my own eggs...:)

301 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:09:55pm

re: #277 Salamantis

But why should they have to go through added hassles that straight couples don't? A civil ceremony should automatically confer all these privileges.

I work with a man that lives with his girlfriend of 30 years. they have a son, they are for all intents and purposes married, and yet, the same hoops that you claim are a deterrent to gay folk are the hoops these two have to go through.

302 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:10:23pm

re: #300 Dustyvet

Next Easter I get to hide my own eggs...:)

The Easter after you can find them by smell......

303 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:10:36pm

In early US history, the state governments didn't get into recognizing marriages at all. They only began to do so when miscegenation laws were passed outlawing interracial marriage, and were a way of certifying that the people getting married were of the same race. That requirement, needless to say, no longer applies today. But in the interim, other rights and pirivileges have accrued to such state recognition, which, I believe, should equally apply to gay partners in civil unions.

Note that I say civil unions, and not marriages. I am quite okay with the term marriage being reserved for straight couples, so long as preferential legal treatment does not ensue.

304 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:10:50pm

re: #292 Desert Dog

A defensive struggle, eh?

A struggle not to laugh?

305 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:11:16pm

I think a lot of it boils down to whether you can have, in a democratic society, ANY kind of measure vis-a-vis Islam that is asymmetrical - that is, that is specifically aimed at Muslims and potentially discriminatory. The Dutch have rules about what Muslim clergy are allowed to preach at mosques. Is this beyond democratic boundaries?

306 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:11:33pm

re: #278 MandyManners

It's a hassle to make a will? Good grief.

More of a hassle than it is not to have to do so, and for the state to automatically consider you to be the inheritor of your spouse's assets upon their death.

307 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:11:44pm

re: #284 debutaunt

I understand that some insurance companies require company execs to only fly on company jets.

So I have heard too, and it would NOT surprise me.

Back in the '80s IIRC, Arrow Electronics (major wholesaler of electronic parts) lost nearly its entire top management in a fire at a meeting hall. The electronic trade journals had articles, later, regarding insurers beginning to set conditions like you mentioned.

308 Slumbering Behemoth  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:11:52pm

re: #10 Sharmuta

because just like there is a “third gender,” there might be a “fourth gender” as well

It a Zionist conspiracy!

So, wait. Does this mean that if I shake hands with someone who is Jewish, I could end up with extra "doo-dads"?
/

309 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:11:54pm

re: #303 Salamantis

In early US history, the state governments didn't get into recognizing marriages at all.

Got a link?

310 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:12:46pm

re: #284 debutaunt

I understand that some insurance companies require company execs to only fly on company jets.

Big Private Jet is Ripping Us OFF!

311 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:12:53pm

re: #306 Salamantis

More of a hassle than it is not to have to do so, and for the state to automatically consider you to be the inheritor of your spouse's assets upon their death.

Married couples STILL need wills. Dying intestate is a real bitch.

312 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:13:06pm

re: #298 MandyManners

How do they have more rights than heterosexuals.?


::Devisl advocate::

there is no law that clearly states that a business can not discriminate against a straight white man.

::Devils Advocate::

313 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:13:20pm

re: #301 stonemason

I work with a man that lives with his girlfriend of 30 years. they have a son, they are for all intents and purposes married, and yet, the same hoops that you claim are a deterrent to gay folk are the hoops these two have to go through.

Tell them to get a marriage certificate. I called Scott my husband for 28 years for heath benefit reasons. I will never get his social security benefits because we never got married.

314 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:13:25pm

re: #281 Cathypop

Simple solution but the raving lib gays that want to shove their relationship in your face will not go for it. I have gay friends that are conservative they already have medical power of attorney and their family supports them

People used to say the same thing about blacks and women - that they wanted to force themselves upon unwilling others - when they were campaigning for their own equal rights.

315 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:13:43pm

re: #286 MandyManners

It's just common sense to have a will and an MPOA if you're not in a marriage.

It is common sense to have wills even if you are married!

316 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:13:59pm

re: #266 Salamantis

Their long term monogamous relationships are being discriminated against vis a vis heterosexual long term monogamous relationships, so long as there are not at least civil union laws on the books that allocate them rights to make medical decisions for their partners, to inherit from them, to enjoy employee spousal benefits, and to have the same tax breaks.


But how is it "legal persecution" of homosexuals that we supported normal 'marriage' for all those ages and even now? I believe all over the country states are passing more and more civil union laws. Whats wrong with that? Seems like pretty quick progress to me. Seems kinda revolutionary to be honest. Here's (below) prominent and current conservative thinking on the matter ... (how's this legal persecution?). I'm sick of being told I'm living in such a terrible place filled with racism and bigotry. I'm not.

Rather than demonizing gay-marriage, conservatives should emphasize the availability of civil unions — and then ask: What exactly is not enough protection in such current contracts, and how can such legal statutes be improved to protect the legal rights of gay couples? Civil unions should be seen as an avant-garde institution for novel times, while traditional marriage is reserved as a retrograde stuffy institution for the hopelessly straight. ~~VDH
317 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:14:33pm

re: #312 stonemason

::Devisl advocate::

there is no law that clearly states that a business can not discriminate against a straight white man.

::Devils Advocate::

Only in Folsom Street.

318 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:14:49pm

Now I'm REALLY going grocery shopping. Constructive solutions, please.

319 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:15:13pm

re: #289 Desert Dog

No, that's not enough.....we need to change our entire society, culture and history to accommodate a very vocal but very small group of people that want more than the rights you and I have.

/

I don't want to see anyone have more rights; not women, and not men; not blacks, and not whites; not gays, and not straights. I want to see them all have equality of opportunity.

320 lifeofthemind  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:15:15pm

There better be a boob thread coming after this.

321 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:15:33pm

re: #315 Haverwilde

It is common sense to have wills even if you are married!

Yep. Intestacy sucks.

322 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:16:17pm

re: #288 jcm

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Now that I have divined how YOUR mind works, I would bring a shotgun to the poison party.

/*grin* ... and now it begins ...

323 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:16:24pm

bbiab

324 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:16:39pm

re: #313 Cathypop

We tell them all the time...she will not get his pension either. It is rather silly actually, she is more concerned with what people will say (inter-racial) than with the future. And they both are in their 50's.

325 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:16:44pm

re: #298 MandyManners

There are no laws preventing them from getting what Salamantis posted in an earlier thread. What the most militant of these folks want is a change in our laws that justifies their lifestyle.

They have the same rights as anyone else right now, so why is that not enough?

326 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:16:46pm

re: #305 Moe Katz

I think a lot of it boils down to whether you can have, in a democratic society, ANY kind of measure vis-a-vis Islam that is asymmetrical - that is, that is specifically aimed at Muslims and potentially discriminatory. The Dutch have rules about what Muslim clergy are allowed to preach at mosques. Is this beyond democratic boundaries?

The flip side of you question is that our society offers freedom of religion and tolerance to the practice of that religion. But that extension of that liberty is that the religion must also tolerate in return other religious and non-religious view points.

We don't have unfettered freedom, we in reality have liberty, which is, ideally self controlled freedom. Freedom plus responsibility. In this case the freedom comes with the responsibility, the requirement to accommodate within this society other faiths.

When a particular segment of society, irrespective if it's religious, political, or social decides it can violate the rest of society in pursuit of it's specific goals, then I would say use asymmetrical actions would be in order.

327 debutaunt  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:16:52pm

re: #307 pre-Boomer Marine brat

So I have heard too, and it would NOT surprise me.

Back in the '80s IIRC, Arrow Electronics (major wholesaler of electronic parts) lost nearly its entire top management in a fire at a meeting hall. The electronic trade journals had articles, later, regarding insurers beginning to set conditions like you mentioned.

My SIL can fly commercial, but not on the same plane as others from his company.

328 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:16:54pm

re: #295 Dustyvet

Wiat till your over 60, then you can have Senior Moments...:)

huhhhh?

329 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:17:00pm

re: #301 stonemason

I work with a man that lives with his girlfriend of 30 years. they have a son, they are for all intents and purposes married, and yet, the same hoops that you claim are a deterrent to gay folk are the hoops these two have to go through.

You mean they're not living in a common law marriage state, where such things are automatically conferred after a period of cohabitation (usually much less than 30 years)?

330 Alouette  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:17:04pm

re: #274 Cathypop

Don't usually watch hockey but the chance to see Montreal get their little hinies kicked is worth turing the tv on. Now if I can just remember where the tv is.

Ms. Trixie is talking about Canadian football.

331 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:17:11pm

re: #314 Salamantis

People used to say the same thing about blacks and women - that they wanted to force themselves upon unwilling others - when they were campaigning for their own equal rights.


Okay. So disagree with a lib gay and they scream racist. People are afraid to argue with them because they will make a scene. Blacks and womend campaigning for equal rights never did this.

332 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:18:06pm

re: #320 lifeofthemind

There better be a boob thread coming after this.

I agree

333 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:18:15pm

re: #297 Cathypop

Already having them at 52

You were "worried" about your karma the other day. Looks like you need more. I just up-dinged your comment.

(-:

334 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:18:38pm

re: #322 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I was looking at this one last night.

335 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:18:51pm

re: #309 MandyManners

Got a link?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

336 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:20:14pm

re: #316 Fearless Fred

But how is it "legal persecution" of homosexuals that we supported normal 'marriage' for all those ages and even now? I believe all over the country states are passing more and more civil union laws. Whats wrong with that? Seems like pretty quick progress to me. Seems kinda revolutionary to be honest. Here's (below) prominent and current conservative thinking on the matter ... (how's this legal persecution?). I'm sick of being told I'm living in such a terrible place filled with racism and bigotry. I'm not.

Yep. Thousands of years of civilization's current defintion, one generation calling for an upheavel, and the tradionalists are the radicals.
Another case of a situation being turned on its head.
BBL

337 Macker  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:20:59pm

re: #8 baconeatingkaffir

Just like Mo. He'll fit in just fine with them!

338 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:21:32pm

re: #316 Fearless Fred

But how is it "legal persecution" of homosexuals that we supported normal 'marriage' for all those ages and even now? I believe all over the country states are passing more and more civil union laws. Whats wrong with that? Seems like pretty quick progress to me. Seems kinda revolutionary to be honest. Here's (below) prominent and current conservative thinking on the matter ... (how's this legal persecution?). I'm sick of being told I'm living in such a terrible place filled with racism and bigotry. I'm not.

I have already said that I support the civil union alternative.

339 Big Wabbit  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:22:02pm

Didn't I see him in the Planet of the Apes?

340 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:22:07pm

re: #329 Salamantis


Pa used to be, I think there are still some laws, but, the point was that even with those laws they have hoops to jump through to get the rights that homosexual couples want conferred upon them without doing the requsite paperwork.
Not the greatest analogy, but, there is a point when people have to get up and do something for themselves. We have marriage for straights, civil unions for gays. We have mens and ladies rooms...will gay men soon demand to change in the ladies rooms?

341 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:22:14pm

Mashed sweet potatoes. Making them for the first time this Thanksgiving. I'm kinda scared.

342 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:22:38pm

re: #263 J.S.

I suspect that if the children are given a public school education, they'll be just like everyone else...they'll be acculturated...(the real problem is with self-imposed segregation, and education in Muslim-only schools, etc.) That's why I believe there needs to be an encouragement and financial support for public schools...as opposed to private religious schools...

The Islamowhackos can't teach the violence (here on our turf) -- only the hate. The violence we will stop. Ultimately it's they who will have to change, or die. You can't stop their hating with our retarded government monopoly schrool system. Hell -- the idiotic public schrool system is probably half the reason kids no NOTHING of the threat posed by Islamists now!

343 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:23:23pm

re: #341 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Mashed sweet potatoes. Making them for the first time this Thanksgiving. I'm kinda scared.


Just throw in some buttermilk.

344 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:23:26pm

re: #336 solomonpanting

Yep. Thousands of years of civilization's current defintion, one generation calling for an upheavel, and the tradionalists are the radicals.
Another case of a situation being turned on its head.
BBL

Hmmm, interesting. . .just wondering when marriage became a right? I would LOVE to have had the riht to marry. . .Hugh Jackman. . .Johnny Depp. . .is that the next step? Demand that I can marry who I chose. . .even if they do not want to marry me?

345 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:23:26pm
346 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:23:34pm

re: #336 solomonpanting

Thank you.

347 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:23:48pm

re: #341 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Mashed sweet potatoes. Making them for the first time this Thanksgiving. I'm kinda scared.

I'm no cook, but what's scary about that?

348 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:24:34pm

re: #325 Desert Dog

There are no laws preventing them from getting what Salamantis posted in an earlier thread. What the most militant of these folks want is a change in our laws that justifies their lifestyle.

They have the same rights as anyone else right now, so why is that not enough?

But gay couples have to go to time and expense that straight couples do not in order to get the same rights and benefits. A civil union law could remedy this deficiency, without conferring the status of marriage on gay couples.

349 debutaunt  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:24:42pm

re: #341 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Mashed sweet potatoes. Making them for the first time this Thanksgiving. I'm kinda scared.

You are raging out of control.

350 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:24:43pm

re: #340 stonemason

Pa used to be, I think there are still some laws, but, the point was that even with those laws they have hoops to jump through to get the rights that homosexual couples want conferred upon them without doing the requsite paperwork.
Not the greatest analogy, but, there is a point when people have to get up and do something for themselves. We have marriage for straights, civil unions for gays. We have mens and ladies rooms...will gay men soon demand to change in the ladies rooms?

We have gender safe bathrooms- cross dressers and the like can use them "without fear"

They used to call them family restrooms, but no one takes their kids in those rooms. . .

351 I heart the USA  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:25:22pm

re: #303 Salamantis

That requirement, needless to say, no longer applies today. But in the interim, other rights and pirivileges have accrued to such state recognition, which, I believe, should equally apply to gay partners in civil unions.

Note that I say civil unions, and not marriages. I am quite okay with the term marriage being reserved for straight couples, so long as preferential legal treatment does not ensue.

Calfornia already has domestic partnership laws covering the issues you have posted as being of concern to you. Those laws were not affected by the passage of 8, nor would they have been affected by its defeat. The only issue Prop 8 addressed was the definition of marriage.

352 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:26:00pm

re: #348 Salamantis

But gay couples have to go to time and expense that straight couples do not in order to get the same rights and benefits. A civil union law could remedy this deficiency, without conferring the status of marriage on gay couples.

Married couples STILL need wills. MPOA is easy to do with no expense other than paying the notary public, and many banks do it for free.

353 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:26:06pm

re: #349 debutaunt

You are raging out of control.

No just practicing good spudsmanship. . .

354 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:26:25pm

re: #256 jaunte

I haven't tried to register. They have 9 links listed on their log-in page, which I'll post here if you like.

I'll just do some googling on my own, but thanks!

355 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:26:40pm

re: #331 Cathypop

Okay. So disagree with a lib gay and they scream racist. People are afraid to argue with them because they will make a scene. Blacks and womend campaigning for equal rights never did this.

Of course they did.

I find it ironic and sad that this thread has morphed from one ridiculing Muslim anti-gay bigotry to one defending anti-gay discrimination here in the US.

356 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:26:42pm

re: #348 Salamantis


Nope...see my earlier post. Straight couples that choose not to marry (to avoid the time and expense, nto to mention the higher taxes) have EXACTLY the same problems that gay couples have. Most states take care of this in the way Mandy mentioned, with MPOA and Wills.

357 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:27:05pm

re: #351 I heart the USA

Calfornia already has domestic partnership laws covering the issues you have posted as being of concern to you. Those laws were not affected by the passage of 8, nor would they have been affected by its defeat. The only issue Prop 8 addressed was the definition of marriage.

So it is automatic, the partnerships, but it is not. . .I am not up on current CA law. . .

358 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:27:52pm

re: #353 DisturbedEma

No just practicing good spudsmanship. . .

FBV is a gentleman -- very unconfortable with the idea of being a masher.

359 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:28:09pm

re: #345 jcm

Serious mad driving skillz.....

HT Dustoff507


Very nice.

360 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:28:14pm

re: #355 Salamantis

Of course they did.

I find it ironic and sad that this thread has morphed from one ridiculing Muslim anti-gay bigotry to one defending anti-gay discrimination here in the US.

I thought it was a majority vote vs judicial mandate thing. . .

361 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:28:18pm

re: #336 solomonpanting

Yep. Thousands of years of civilization's current defintion, one generation calling for an upheavel, and the tradionalists are the radicals.
Another case of a situation being turned on its head.
BBL

People were enslaved and women were chattel for thousands of years, too; that didn't make it right - and it still isn't right, in the societies that continue to practice these heinous traditions.

362 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:28:46pm

re: #358 pre-Boomer Marine brat

FBV is a gentleman -- very unconfortable with the idea of being a masher.

are you saying fbv is small potatoes?

363 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:29:07pm

re: #348 Salamantis

I am hoping that is the route taken. I have nothing against gay people. I have gay friends and a few gay relatives.

364 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:29:55pm

re: #340 stonemason

Pa used to be, I think there are still some laws, but, the point was that even with those laws they have hoops to jump through to get the rights that homosexual couples want conferred upon them without doing the requsite paperwork.
Not the greatest analogy, but, there is a point when people have to get up and do something for themselves. We have marriage for straights, civil unions for gays. We have mens and ladies rooms...will gay men soon demand to change in the ladies rooms?

Most states do not have civil union laws. And the bathroom thing was raised to object to Jim Crow laws.

365 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:29:57pm

re: #282 Moe Katz

Should mosques be subject to supervision to prevent the incitement of violence toward gays? Is that discriminatory? Is that within acceptable democratic options?

First, you'd have to prove some incidents. Then, that specific mosque associated with the violent action against gays might - might, I say - be monitored.

I think you'd have to treat every single case by itself. Anything else would be discriminatory.

366 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:30:01pm

re: #358 pre-Boomer Marine brat

FBV is a gentleman -- very unconfortable with the idea of being a masher.

But he has no problem whipping them......

367 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:30:32pm

re: #362 DisturbedEma

are you saying fbv is small potatoes?

I wasn't going to go that far, not at first, but decided that he has to take his lumps.

368 J.S.  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:31:06pm

re: #341 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Up here in Canada, there are variations on the name "sweet potatoes" -- gotta know how you define "sweet potato" -- otherwise could mistake it for "yam" (dry, white flesh = yam; moist, yellow/orange flesh = sweet potato).

369 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:31:06pm

re: #355 Salamantis

Of course they did.

I find it ironic and sad that this thread has morphed from one ridiculing Muslim anti-gay bigotry to one defending anti-gay discrimination here in the US.


I am not anti-gay, I do not discriminate (except in my own bedroom), I am all for civil unions, but the rights are there NOW, they want special rights. I do not hold a parade screaming about the things I do in privacy, and most of the Gay and Lesbians I know do not attend those functions, they live and let live, as do I.

370 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:31:33pm

re: #366 jcm

But he has no problem whipping them......

We Have LIFTOFF!
The second pun-string in the thread!

371 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:31:55pm

re: #367 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I wasn't going to go that far, not at first, but decided that he has to take his lumps.

In the end, we all have to admit...
I yam, what I yam.

372 chalala  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:32:07pm

Being thrown from the top of the tallest bedouin tent into the sand doesn't seem very deadly, maybe they're turning soft? :)

373 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:32:51pm

re: #371 jcm

In the end, we all have to admit...
I yam, what I yam.

Eye could skin you for that.

374 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:33:15pm

re: #356 stonemason

Nope...see my earlier post. Straight couples that choose not to marry (to avoid the time and expense, nto to mention the higher taxes) have EXACTLY the same problems that gay couples have. Most states take care of this in the way Mandy mentioned, with MPOA and Wills.

But straight couples who do marry are automatically conferred rights, privileges and legal standing that gays cannot gain without much time, monety and effort, in states that lack gay civil union laws.

375 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:33:40pm

re: #348 Salamantis

But gay couples have to go to time and expense that straight couples do not in order to get the same rights and benefits. A civil union law could remedy this deficiency, without conferring the status of marriage on gay couples.

With all due respect- that is not really the case- the term marriage is deliberate. . .and neither of the 2 canidates for POTUS supported gay marriage. . .

Civil unions already exist in many forms- there is a very vocal position in tis movement- it is not just about the taxes- health care benefits, for one, which are allowed for spouses, and other tangible things, fiscal in nature. . .

If it was about civil recognition, it would be a moot point- legal remedies are already there. . .this is recognition for fiscal and ideological gain. . .which I really could not care less about. . .but I dislike the refusal of many to acknowledge that part of the "debate"

376 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:33:48pm

re: #303 Salamantis

I don't believe that actually is the case. Or, more accurately, it doesn't accord with my knowledge of marriage law, and the introduction of civil marriage.

377 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:34:00pm

re: #373 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Eye could skin you for that.

But tuber or not tuber: that is the question...

378 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:34:29pm

re: #367 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I wasn't going to go that far, not at first, but decided that he has to take his lumps.

The eyes have it then. . .

379 crimsonfisted  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:34:44pm

Dows any one know what this guy is a "doctor" of? For crying out loud, are they ALL doctors?

And if they have national health care too, well my mine boggles. Is this what we are going to get?
:)

380 Cognito  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:35:01pm

re: #341 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Mashed sweet potatoes. Making them for the first time this Thanksgiving. I'm kinda scared.

Tuber, or not tuber. That is the question.

381 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:35:10pm

re: #377 goddessoftheclassroom

But tuber or not tuber: that is the question...

I'll going to be ill!
No way I can root for that!

382 Cognito  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:35:28pm

re: #377 goddessoftheclassroom

But tuber or not tuber: that is the question...

Get out of my head.

Although there is, I've been told, plenty of room in here.

383 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:35:37pm

re: #380 Cognito

Tuber, or not tuber. That is the question.

Nah, nah, nah. nah, nah--I got there first!

/how old am I?

384 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:35:41pm

re: #355 Salamantis

I find it ironic and sad that this thread has morphed from one ridiculing Muslim anti-gay bigotry to one defending anti-gay discrimination here in the US.

Is this your attempt to hijack the thread and run your agenda? There was a thread on this subject on Friday. IIRC, no one was able to prove where the discrimination is actually taking place since marriage isn't a right, and in CA, where constitutionally the people are the ultimate authority, a legal vote amended the constitution to define the term 'marriage' on the same basis its been defined for thousands of years.

There is a huge fucking difference between a legal vote affirming the definition of marraige and some cleric pinhead advocating the public torture and murder of people because of their choice of sexual preference. In CA, if you want to change the definition, advance a proposition and win the vote. See how far that get's you with the islamofascists.

385 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:35:52pm

re: #355 Salamantis

Of course they did.

I find it ironic and sad that this thread has morphed from one ridiculing Muslim anti-gay bigotry to one defending anti-gay discrimination here in the US.

Who's defending it?

386 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:36:01pm

re: #378 DisturbedEma

The eyes have it then. . .

It's certainly a-peeling to me.

387 aboo-Hoo-Hoo  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:36:25pm

re: #307 pre-Boomer Marine brat

So I have heard too, and it would NOT surprise me.

Back in the '80s IIRC, Arrow Electronics (major wholesaler of electronic parts) lost nearly its entire top management in a fire at a meeting hall. The electronic trade journals had articles, later, regarding insurers beginning to set conditions like you mentioned.

It was Brown & Root, 1976, in Alaska. They lost 4 senior exec's, 2 survived.

388 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:36:28pm

re: #360 DisturbedEma

I thought it was a majority vote vs judicial mandate thing. . .

The Bill of Rights was passed in order to prevent the minority from being oppressed by a tyranny of the majority. I think that all US citizens should enjoy equal rights, freedoms, opportunities, liberties, obligations and responsibilities, regardless of race, sex, religion, or gender orientation. None should enjoy any more than any others, and none should enjoy any less.

389 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:36:42pm

re: #381 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I'll going to be ill!
No way I can root for that!

(I'm trying to work something up with "Idaho," but it's too rude...)

390 lifeofthemind  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:36:49pm

"The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread" - Anatole France

There should be no special treatment. Any woman who places a male reproductive organ in the exit of the alimentary canal should face the same penalties as a man.

Honestly I know this is a serious issue and I think that the problem isn't with the homosexuals being denied access to services. Many members of the straight community have the sneaking suspicion, possibly because of the repeated hate filled speech that members of the homosexual lobby constantly thrust into their faces, that the real issue is the anger that some people have towards traditional institutions and their determination to tear those institutions down. If it was just that the Gay couple was just like everyone else and wanted or needed a piece of paper then few people would give a damn. Many people know in their bones that the issue is that zombie’s subjects in leather and religious garb want to destroy the very concepts of marriage and family life and religion that are deeply significant to millions of people. Given that we are under attack from real religious extremists it is revealing that members of the homosexual community aren't standing up and saying that this is the wrong time to be attacking traditional Western civilization.

391 Cognito  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:37:14pm

I'm all for mashed sweet potatoes. I demand them, even.

Matter of fact I'm something of a dictater.

392 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:37:30pm

re: #374 Salamantis

But straight couples who do marry are automatically conferred rights, privileges and legal standing that gays cannot gain without much time, monety and effort, in states that lack gay civil union laws.

Umm, hetero weddings cost money- and so do legal services like pre nups and wills and other things fiscal in nature. . .is it really because things are too hard?

I am guessing that someone whith an objection to this change will respond- but really, if it is just about rights, why is the current civil union thing ok? Is it because calling it marriage makes it "real"? If so. . .well, I guess it is not just apiece of paper after all. . .

393 bryantms  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:37:36pm

re: #391 Cognito

I see what you did there, nice!

394 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:37:49pm

re: #374 Salamantis

But straight couples who do marry are automatically conferred rights, privileges and legal standing that gays cannot gain without much time, monety and effort, in states that lack gay civil union laws.

AGAIN, it doesn't take a lot of time to draft a will and a MPOA, and boht can be done for free.

395 lifeofthemind  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:37:53pm

re: #353 DisturbedEma

No just practicing good spudsmanship. . .

Whatever happened to "Spuds?" Did he get a job?

396 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:37:59pm

re: #369 stonemason

I am not anti-gay, I do not discriminate (except in my own bedroom), I am all for civil unions, but the rights are there NOW, they want special rights. I do not hold a parade screaming about the things I do in privacy, and most of the Gay and Lesbians I know do not attend those functions, they live and let live, as do I.

Most states still do not have gay civil union laws. Until they all do, gays will have something legitimate about which to protest.

397 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:38:01pm

re: #381 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I'll going to be ill!
No way I can root for that!

Idaho if I can either

398 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:38:05pm

re: #374 Salamantis

time, money and effort,

Is exactly what a marriage is. So those straight couples that marry spend time, money, and effort, and get certain rights, Gay couples spend a few hours in a lawyers office and get the same rights, with out paying the higher federal income taxes.

The militant, in your face types ruin it for those that live and let live, they do want to change society, there is no argument there. The fact that they attacked churches in the past three weeks proves that. They want churches to change the basic tenets, to not only turn the other cheek but fully accept what many people see as a sin. When are the rights of those people going to be protected?

399 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:38:09pm

re: #387 aboo-Hoo-Hoo

It was Brown & Root, 1976, in Alaska. They lost 4 senior exec's, 2 survived.

Arrow too.

400 I heart the USA  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:38:37pm

re: #384 Athos

In CA, if you want to change the definition, advance a proposition and win the vote. See how far that get's you with the islamofascists.

It doesn't seem to be getting us that far with our judicial fascists here in the Golden State!

401 nyc redneck  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:38:49pm

that "area btw their navel and their knee."
lol

402 Daisy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:39:14pm

Someone better tell Ahmidinijhad that there are homosexuals in Islam. And that they appear to be showing up in their birthday suits in massage parlors in Kuwait. Who knew?

403 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:39:29pm

re: #390 lifeofthemind

"The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread" - Anatole France

There should be no special treatment. Any woman who places a male reproductive organ in the exit of the alimentary canal should face the same penalties as a man.

Honestly I know this is a serious issue and I think that the problem isn't with the homosexuals being denied access to services. Many members of the straight community have the sneaking suspicion, possibly because of the repeated hate filled speech that members of the homosexual lobby constantly thrust into their faces, that the real issue is the anger that some people have towards traditional institutions and their determination to tear those institutions down. If it was just that the Gay couple was just like everyone else and wanted or needed a piece of paper then few people would give a damn. Many people know in their bones that the issue is that zombie’s subjects in leather and religious garb want to destroy the very concepts of marriage and family life and religion that are deeply significant to millions of people. Given that we are under attack from real religious extremists it is revealing that members of the homosexual community aren't standing up and saying that this is the wrong time to be attacking traditional Western civilization.

Kinda reminds me of the White Man's Fear of the Ubersensual Mandingo tempting the virtue of white woman.

404 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:39:30pm

re: #389 goddessoftheclassroom

(I'm trying to work something up with "Idaho," but it's too rude...)

ewwwwwwwwww!
I've gotta comeback for that, but I DARE not use it!
ARRRGGGHHH!

405 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:40:14pm

re: #355 Salamantis

Of course they did.

I find it ironic and sad that this thread has morphed from one ridiculing Muslim anti-gay bigotry to one defending anti-gay discrimination here in the US.

I find it disturbing that any person with a religious or non-religious objection to calling same-sex partnerships by the legal term "marriage" are broadly painted as "bigots".

406 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:40:17pm

re: #384 Athos

In 1967 the Supreme court had this to say in a miscegnation case:

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State

Now if you couple that with discrimination based on sex in the other ammendment, you see there are potential rights to be found.

That said, I'm in favor of the states determining this first, and letting itself work out over the next few years. All said, within 30 years gay marriage will be legal in most states in the country by my prediction.

407 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:40:51pm

re: #390 lifeofthemind

Actually that is the MAJORITY of the opposition I see in people around me- that they believe that gays are bent on ending their right to be against the gay lifestyle for religious reasons. . .because theri religion makes them homophobic. . .

408 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:40:57pm

re: #338 Salamantis

Oh pumpkin ... now you're makin' me feel guilty! I just wanted to fight about the specific ... somethin' about legal persecution .. .. don't worry, I can't even remember now. My larger point is I'm SICK and FUCKING TIRED of people not realizing what a wonderful world WE Americans are creating! The ideas we are spreading and promoting (and mainly by example) are so exciting! It makes me so angry to be told I'm part of a racist and bigoted and homophobic society. I'm not. That's not the definition of my society. That's not what defines me, my community, my friends, my church, my history, my elected officials, my police department, my lizards, or even my enemies! The only people so far in my life that were bigoted and racist --- hmm, guess they weren't homophobic (except maybe for one whacky Muslim econ prof) --- were the liberal-left commie profs I experienced at colleges and universities. They were horribly bigoted. They were the most closed-minded smug asses I've ever met. But they don't represent me or my tribe or my nation.

409 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:41:10pm

re: #388 Salamantis


None should enjoy any more than any others, and none should enjoy any less

Too many laws on the books now that give 'preferential' treatment to too many classes for that ideal to ever be realized. Just starting with hate crimes, where the penalty for killing me is less than the penalty for killing a gay man.

410 lifeofthemind  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:41:11pm

re: #403 Salamantis

Kinda reminds me of the White Man's Fear of the Ubersensual Mandingo tempting the virtue of white woman.

Says more about your interests or concerns than mine.

411 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:41:22pm

re: #397 DisturbedEma

Idaho if I can either

M'gosh, goddess!
Ema came up with and Idaho pun that wasn't off-color!

*rimshot* Ema!

412 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:41:26pm

re: #392 DisturbedEma

Umm, hetero weddings cost money- and so do legal services like pre nups and wills and other things fiscal in nature. . .is it really because things are too hard?

I am guessing that someone whith an objection to this change will respond- but really, if it is just about rights, why is the current civil union thing ok? Is it because calling it marriage makes it "real"? If so. . .well, I guess it is not just apiece of paper after all. . .

re: #394 MandyManners

AGAIN, it doesn't take a lot of time to draft a will and a MPOA, and boht can be done for free.

I still cannot fathom why either of you would be opposed to civil union laws. You say that jumping through the hoops isn't that big of a deal, but it's a deal you don't have to deal with.

413 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:41:53pm

re: #402 Daisy

Someone better tell Ahmidinijhad that there are homosexuals in Islam. And that they appear to be showing up in their birthday suits in massage parlors in Kuwait. Who knew?

"There are no homosexuals in Iran" if they are in Kuwait, they certainly aren't in Iran. Must be that decadent western influence in Kuwait that turns them into homosexuals while they visit.

//

414 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:42:37pm

re: #411 pre-Boomer Marine brat

M'gosh, goddess!
Ema came up with and Idaho pun that wasn't off-color!

*rimshot* Ema!

Ho ho ho...

415 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:43:06pm

re: #405 reine.de.tout

I find it disturbing that any person with a religious or non-religious objection to calling same-sex partnerships by the legal term "marriage" are broadly painted as "bigots".

And by extention, their religion as well. . .because of how they interpret scripture

416 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:43:25pm

re: #329 Salamantis

You mean they're not living in a common law marriage state, where such things are automatically conferred after a period of cohabitation (usually much less than 30 years)?

California does not recognize common law marriage.

Conversely, there is no such thing an an "illegitimate" child in California law.

417 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:43:38pm

re: #405 reine.de.tout

I find it disturbing that any person with a religious or non-religious objection to calling same-sex partnerships by the legal term "marriage" are broadly painted as "bigots".

And, equated with Sa'd Al-'Inzi.

418 UberInfidel67  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:43:47pm

re: #255 pre-Boomer Marine brat Maybe they are sending out phony intel. Child porn is the quickest way to draw attention to yourself. You would have to be a total ass (I know, they are) to use a medium such as that to send messages. Decoys?

419 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:43:48pm

re: #398 stonemason

Is exactly what a marriage is. So those straight couples that marry spend time, money, and effort, and get certain rights, Gay couples spend a few hours in a lawyers office and get the same rights, with out paying the higher federal income taxes.

The militant, in your face types ruin it for those that live and let live, they do want to change society, there is no argument there. The fact that they attacked churches in the past three weeks proves that. They want churches to change the basic tenets, to not only turn the other cheek but fully accept what many people see as a sin. When are the rights of those people going to be protected?

Churches in the South asserted the same religious privileges vis a vis racist policies. But once again, I am not endorsing gay marriage, but gay civil unions, and cannot fathom your opposition to same.

420 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:43:50pm

re: #411 pre-Boomer Marine brat

M'gosh, goddess!
Ema came up with and Idaho pun that wasn't off-color!

*rimshot* Ema!

:).. .just my state of mind I guess. . .

421 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:44:20pm

re: #414 goddessoftheclassroom

Ho ho ho...

I did not hear that.

/three monkeys, hands on their heads, desperately trying to ignore the computer monitor

422 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:44:24pm

re: #404 pre-Boomer Marine brat

ewwwwwwwwww!
I've gotta comeback for that, but I DARE not use it!
ARRRGGGHHH!

Yukon, you know yukon!

423 Macker  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:44:34pm

re: #413 jcm

"There are no homosexuals in Iran" if they are in Kuwait, they certainly aren't in Iran. Must be that decadent western influence in Kuwait that turns them into homosexuals while they visit.

//

That's because this product sell like hotcakes in Iran....

424 Cognito  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:45:02pm

There once was a Fat Vegetarian
Who cooked for a totalitarian.
He mashed a sweet tater
For the starchy dictator
Who demanded at once that he carry on.

425 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:45:12pm

re: #405 reine.de.tout

I find it disturbing that any person with a religious or non-religious objection to calling same-sex partnerships by the legal term "marriage" are broadly painted as "bigots".

But I'm not doing that; I'm supporting gay civil unions, without invoking the baggage of the term 'marriage' concerning them.

426 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:45:14pm

re: #422 pink freud

Yukon, you know yukon!

Oh, well done!

427 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:45:17pm

re: #412 Salamantis

I still cannot fathom why either of you would be opposed to civil union laws. You say that jumping through the hoops isn't that big of a deal, but it's a deal you don't have to deal with.

Who says I'm opposed to civil unions? I'm just refuting your insistence that getting a will and an MPOA takes a lot of time, effort and money.

428 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:45:20pm

re: #418 UberInfidel67

Maybe they are sending out phony intel. Child porn is the quickest way to draw attention to yourself. You would have to be a total ass (I know, they are) to use a medium such as that to send messages. Decoys?

Not decoys according to that UK news article. Sounds more like stupidity.

429 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:45:31pm

re: #390 lifeofthemind

If it's fair to make the folsom st freak show the face of all gays, then it's fair to make Rushdoony "stone the gays" and Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps the face of traditional Christianity. All are cases of the extreme elements, and unfair charicatures to shove into the debate.

430 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:45:37pm

re: #426 goddessoftheclassroom

:-)

431 Wide Right  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:46:06pm

re: #345 jcm

Serious mad driving skillz.....

HT Dustoff507

Thanks for posting that incredible video. That was awesome!

432 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:46:20pm

re: #412 Salamantis

I still cannot fathom why either of you would be opposed to civil union laws. You say that jumping through the hoops isn't that big of a deal, but it's a deal you don't have to deal with.

First of all, you have no idea who I am and should not be making assumptions about my sexuality

Second, I was stating the question to you ABOUT why civil unions are not enough. . .my opinions have nothing to do with the question, I was looking for a reason why the term "marriage" is so important to the No on 8 people. . .

433 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:46:25pm

re: #405 reine.de.tout

Not bigots. Just wanting the language to have clear meaning. "It's not the same thing, don't use the same word." Who is stepping on whose toes here? I do not begrudge gays any right. But do not take a word that has an important, ancient meaning, and twist it. That offends some people very deeply. Get another word.

434 Daisy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:46:40pm

re: #413 jcm

"There are no homosexuals in Iran" if they are in Kuwait, they certainly aren't in Iran. Must be that decadent western influence in Kuwait that turns them into homosexuals while they visit.

//

Of course. That and the Zionists.

435 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:47:17pm

re: #355 Salamantis

Of course they did.

I find it ironic and sad that this thread has morphed from one ridiculing Muslim anti-gay bigotry to one defending anti-gay discrimination here in the US.

Do you mean defending legal discrimination! ? ? ? You really think/feel like? the thread represents that? Come on Sala ..... Please take it back .... come on ... say you're a little mixed up!

436 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:47:19pm

re: #408 Fearless Fred

Oh pumpkin ... now you're makin' me feel guilty! I just wanted to fight about the specific ... somethin' about legal persecution .. .. don't worry, I can't even remember now. My larger point is I'm SICK and FUCKING TIRED of people not realizing what a wonderful world WE Americans are creating! The ideas we are spreading and promoting (and mainly by example) are so exciting! It makes me so angry to be told I'm part of a racist and bigoted and homophobic society. I'm not. That's not the definition of my society. That's not what defines me, my community, my friends, my church, my history, my elected officials, my police department, my lizards, or even my enemies! The only people so far in my life that were bigoted and racist --- hmm, guess they weren't homophobic (except maybe for one whacky Muslim econ prof) --- were the liberal-left commie profs I experienced at colleges and universities. They were horribly bigoted. They were the most closed-minded smug asses I've ever met. But they don't represent me or my tribe or my nation.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. But neither should the good be the enemy of the better.

437 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:47:22pm

re: #422 pink freud

Yukon, you know yukon!

Now, that just fried my brain.

438 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:47:35pm

re: #425 Salamantis

But I'm not doing that; I'm supporting gay civil unions, without invoking the baggage of the term 'marriage' concerning them.

Um the proof is in the baggage. . .that is the issue, otherwise civil unions would be enough. . .

439 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:48:08pm

re: #429 Thanos

If it's fair to make the folsom st freak show the face of all gays, then it's fair to make Rushdoony "stone the gays" and Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps the face of traditional Christianity. All are cases of the extreme elements, and unfair charicatures to shove into the debate.

Phelps is not very Christ-like.

440 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:48:27pm

re: #420 DisturbedEma

:).. .just my state of mind I guess. . .

You are clean and pure as the driven snow, ... whereas goddess, who first alluded to the ... *slapping hand over my mouth*

/knowing goddess will take revenge for that one ... (-:

441 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:48:29pm

re: #409 stonemason

Too many laws on the books now that give 'preferential' treatment to too many classes for that ideal to ever be realized. Just starting with hate crimes, where the penalty for killing me is less than the penalty for killing a gay man.

I am all for the revocation of additional-penalty hate crimes laws. Being convicted of the crime should be enough.

442 Daisy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:48:34pm

re: #424 Cognito

Do you like your sweet potatoes mashed w/apple cider, cinnamon and butter ? I do. Yummy.

443 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:48:57pm

re: #412 Salamantis

No one here is objecting to civil unions/domestic partnerships.

444 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:49:14pm

re: #422 pink freud

Yukon, you know yukon!

heh ... not if I know what's good for me.

445 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:49:45pm

re: #409 stonemason

Too many laws on the books now that give 'preferential' treatment to too many classes for that ideal to ever be realized. Just starting with hate crimes, where the penalty for killing me is less than the penalty for killing a gay man.

Beautiful --- say it again and again!

446 J.S.  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:50:11pm

re: #442 Daisy

or how about Maple Syrup -- the Canadian connection, eh?

447 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:50:14pm

re: #441 Salamantis

Just starting with hate crimes, where the penalty for killing me is less than the penalty for killing a gay man.


That violates the equal protection clause doesn't it? It is unconstitutional, isn't it?

448 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:50:17pm

re: #439 MandyManners

Phelps is not very Christ-like.

And the Folsom st. freaks aren't representative of the average gay either.

449 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:50:33pm

re: #441 Salamantis

I am all for the revocation of additional-penalty hate crimes laws. Being convicted of the crime should be enough.

But that would make it illegal to storm a church and beat people up for their Christian beliefs. . .that would make everyone equal, and as the recent elections have shown, some issues are just more equal than others. . .

450 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:50:35pm

re: #419 Salamantis

You're putting words in people's mouths. Or, if you prefer, typing words their keyboards were never employed to put on a monitor.

451 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:50:48pm

re: #415 DisturbedEma

And by extention, their religion as well. . .because of how they interpret scripture

Just remember how Muslims interpret scripture vis a vis infidels generally, and Jews specifically. Is that okay now?

Racists, sexists, and homophobes are all varieties of bigots.

452 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:51:01pm

re: #425 Salamantis

But I'm not doing that; I'm supporting gay civil unions, without invoking the baggage of the term 'marriage' concerning them.

Point taken. And I would have no objection to supporting gay civil unions, where all of the legal work now necessary with wills, powers of attorney, medical decision-making forms, etc., is sort of taken care of by means of that process.

I'm still a little raw, I think, from a thread from a previous day where religious objections were characterized as "bigotry".

453 Wilderstad  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:51:30pm

If getting a will and an MPOA takes little time, thought and no money, and the couple sees it as a barrier, I then say that's THEIR problem.
Good heavens if you're that lackadaisical and unmotivated to protect your interests and the interests of the love of your life it says way more about your and their general state of apathy than anything about supposed discrimination.

454 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:51:32pm

re: #440 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You are clean and pure as the driven snow, ... whereas goddess, who first alluded to the ... *slapping hand over my mouth*

/knowing goddess will take revenge for that one ... (-:

I am a Packer fan, of course I am. . .:)

455 Daisy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:51:43pm

re: #446 J.S.

or how about Maple Syrup -- the Canadian connection, eh?

I've made them that way too ... plus nutmeg, eh :)

456 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:52:04pm

re: #419 Salamantis

I am in no way against civil unions and I apologize if I gave that impression. I am against a man and a man united being called Marriage. That is like calling those disgusting grey and black birds that spread filth everywhere as they migrate north and south every year a duck. Not the same, so not the same name.

But, once again, there are laws on the books now that were created for hetero couples to use that can be used by gay couples, this really is a moot issue to most of us straight people, it is the militant gays who march and scream and pull the Folsom street crap that pique the ire of some.

457 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:52:04pm

re: #451 Salamantis

Just remember how Muslims interpret scripture vis a vis infidels generally, and Jews specifically. Is that okay now?

Racists, sexists, and homophobes are all varieties of bigots.

Yep- because it is freedom. . .sucks when everyone has it huh?

458 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:52:10pm

re: #448 Thanos

And the Folsom st. freaks aren't representative of the average gay either.

Those folks really chap my sister's hide. She and her SO are slight moonbats but, they have a pretty conservative life-style.

459 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:52:24pm

re: #454 DisturbedEma

"I was as pure as the snow, but I drifted."

— Mae West.

460 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:52:27pm

re: #425 Salamantis

Oh, but that's the crux of the biscuit!

No one objects to civil unions. The insistence on injecting the word "marriage" is the problem, and it wasn't caused by the side that has a problem with it!

461 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:53:06pm

re: #456 stonemason

I am in no way against civil unions and I apologize if I gave that impression. I am against a man and a man united being called Marriage. That is like calling those disgusting grey and black birds that spread filth everywhere as they migrate north and south every year a duck. Not the same, so not the same name.

But, once again, there are laws on the books now that were created for hetero couples to use that can be used by gay couples, this really is a moot issue to most of us straight people, it is the militant gays who march and scream and pull the Folsom street crap that pique the ire of some.

I think the Elitist is the one who should apologize, for waning to discuss gay marriage without using the term marriage. . .

462 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:53:29pm

re: #460 Dianna

Ten thousand updings.

463 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:53:34pm

re: #427 MandyManners

Who says I'm opposed to civil unions? I'm just refuting your insistence that getting a will and an MPOA takes a lot of time, effort and money.

Should be an upbeat positive message .... VDH said it so well a few days ago ---

Rather than demonizing gay-marriage, conservatives should emphasize the availability of civil unions — and then ask: What exactly is not enough protection in such current contracts, and how can such legal statutes be improved to protect the legal rights of gay couples? Civil unions should be seen as an avant-garde institution for novel times, while traditional marriage is reserved as a retrograde stuffy institution for the hopelessly straight.
464 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:53:53pm

re: #451 Salamantis

Stop with the fucking moral equivalency.

On the other hand, don't stop. It speaks volumes about your anti-Christianity bigotry.

GAZE before I pitch a fucking fit.

465 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:53:59pm

OT: Since we are 400 + comments in, what's everyone's expectations for 24 : Redemption tonight? Another sucky season like last, or will the show improve?

466 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:54:10pm

re: #454 DisturbedEma

I am a Packer fan, of course I am. . .:)

Heh, I was a Cowboy fan during the time of the Ice Bowl.
/then they fired Landry
/then I fired the Cowboys

467 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:54:22pm

re: #432 DisturbedEma

First of all, you have no idea who I am and should not be making assumptions about my sexuality

Second, I was stating the question to you ABOUT why civil unions are not enough. . .my opinions have nothing to do with the question, I was looking for a reason why the term "marriage" is so important to the No on 8 people. . .

Civil unions would be enough for my gay cousins - or so they have told me.

468 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:54:48pm

re: #439 MandyManners

Well, most of the Folsom Street crowd wasn't the mainstream of gays, either. Or of heterosexuals, of whom there were a fair number, though not in zombie's photos.

469 UberInfidel67  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:54:57pm

re: #329 Salamantis
I don't remember if it varies state to state, but in Pennsylvania....everyone considered shacking up for 7 years to be common law. That is not entirely true though. You must live as husband and wife completely...using the husband's name, owning joint assets, etc. I have been shacking up for 17 years and DO NOT consider myself married. I have better protection OF and FROM the law in this way.

470 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:55:02pm

re: #440 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You are clean and pure as the driven snow, ... whereas goddess, who first alluded to the ... *slapping hand over my mouth*

/knowing goddess will take revenge for that one ... (-:

Bear this in mind...

471 pink freud  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:55:04pm

re: #459 Ojoe

Marriage is a fine institution, but I'm not ready for an institution.

--Mae West

/somehow seemed fitting

472 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:55:09pm

bbl

473 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:55:36pm

re: #452 reine.de.tout

Point taken. And I would have no objection to supporting gay civil unions, where all of the legal work now necessary with wills, powers of attorney, medical decision-making forms, etc., is sort of taken care of by means of that process.

I'm still a little raw, I think, from a thread from a previous day where religious objections were characterized as "bigotry".

It is specious to discuss this topic and dance around the term marriage. . .since that term is the crux of the issue. . .

Read this person's comments to me. . .everyone who takes a stand on something will be a bigot/racist for this person. . .

474 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:55:39pm

re: #459 Ojoe

"I was as pure as the snow, but I drifted."

— Mae West.

You've been keeping abreast, I see, and now you're pilling on.

475 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:55:58pm

re: #458 MandyManners

Those folks really chap my sister's hide. She and her SO are slight moonbats but, they have a pretty conservative life-style.

Speaking of chaps, I suffered some real culture shock the first time I went to SF from Alaska. There I was in the cab looking at the map, looked up to see where we were, and there was a fellow standing by the Folsom st. sign in pink panties and chaps.

476 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:56:14pm

re: #435 Fearless Fred

Do you mean defending legal discrimination! ? ? ? You really think/feel like? the thread represents that? Come on Sala ..... Please take it back .... come on ... say you're a little mixed up!

As long as straight couples can undergo a ceremony that automatically confers certain legal rights and privileges, and gay couples can't, then yes, we are indeed talking legal discrimination.

477 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:56:18pm

re: #474 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Someone did ask for a boob thread.

478 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:56:34pm

re: #460 Dianna

Oh, but that's the crux of the biscuit!

No one objects to civil unions. The insistence on injecting the word "marriage" is the problem, and it wasn't caused by the side that has a problem with it!

Precisely.

479 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:56:38pm

re: #460 Dianna

Oh, but that's the crux of the biscuit!

No one objects to civil unions. The insistence on injecting the word "marriage" is the problem, and it wasn't caused by the side that has a problem with it!

DING! By removing the term marriage, it is possible for this person to continue to call everyone a bigoted POS. . .and they win!

480 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:57:00pm

re: #477 Ojoe

Someone did ask for a boob thread.

And it was some of the gals, too!

481 lifeofthemind  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:57:10pm

Fact is that the medieval jerk who is the subject of this thread represents an anti-intellectual culture that if left to its own devices would be hard pressed to produce buildings over three stories tall. The early minarets could get up to six stories I suppose, which will do for tossing people in a pinch. Most of the achievements of Islamic civilization were the product of other creative civilizations, particularly the Persian and Greco-Egyptian, which were absorbed by the Muslims during their initial expansion. Even today as they obsess with building the world's tallest structures they do it with hired help. At its core pure Salafist or Wahabi style Islam is nihilist, distrusting all learning, science and creativity, it would destroy the towers of the Gulf states or Malaysia as monuments to godless vanity, They not only destroyed the statues of Buddha but the early Islamic monuments in Mecca and they are busy destroying the Jewish heritage on the Temple Mount.

482 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:57:23pm

re: #464 MandyManners

Stop with the fucking moral equivalency.

On the other hand, don't stop. It speaks volumes about your anti-Christianity bigotry.

GAZE before I pitch a fucking fit.

Thank you Mandy! Big upding!

483 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:57:50pm

re: #465 Thanos

OT: Since we are 400 + comments in, what's everyone's expectations for 24 : Redemption tonight? Another sucky season like last, or will the show improve?

Even when it's bad, 24 is wonderful escapism. The problem is that expectations are so high.

My favorite line of all time: Jack Bauer telling a whiny teenager, "The only reason you're still conscious is that I don't want to carry you." I might have to use that in my classes tomorrow...

484 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:57:51pm

re: #480 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Boobs are very pretty to all, I think.

485 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:58:03pm

re: #447 Ojoe

That violates the equal protection clause doesn't it? It is unconstitutional, isn't it?

Well yeah ---- and aren't about half our laws really unconstitutional? Milton Friedman used to point out that all these gazillion laws you absolutely cannot begin to follow - in any sense - you will begin to break --- and then you will soon begin a gradual loss of respect for them altogether.

486 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:58:06pm

re: #447 Ojoe

That violates the equal protection clause doesn't it? It is unconstitutional, isn't it?

You misquoted me; this is what I said:

I am all for the revocation of additional-penalty hate crimes laws. Being convicted of the crime should be enough.

487 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:58:08pm

I favor allowing gays to marry, but I"m in a very slim minority here.

488 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:58:12pm

re: #476 Salamantis

As long as straight couples can undergo a ceremony that automatically confers certain legal rights and privileges, and gay couples can't, then yes, we are indeed talking legal discrimination.

Civil unions do that. . .they even have a nice marriage license. . .court approved. . .and they do not call it marriage, but a civil union. . .better now?
I hope not, because that is not ALL there is right? Show me the BENEFITS. . .

489 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:58:58pm

re: #477 Ojoe

Someone did ask for a boob thread.

And I agreed

490 Tazzerman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:59:17pm

These are ALL lies cooked up by Cheney and those despicable Jews, disseminated by that treasonous Rove at the behest of the Evil Lord Bush in order to discredit the noble muslim peoples and lay the groundwork for yet another 100 years of war profiteering, all of which was foreseen by mohammed (Bees be upon him) in his motorcycle diaries.

Can't you see that this man is none other than that Jew Don Rickels wearing a fake beard and dressed to impersonate a faithful follower of the most holey pedophile, er, uh I mean holy prophet?

Silly people!

491 debutaunt  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:59:26pm

re: #462 Ojoe

Ten thousand updings.

Good grief - there was a huge karmic swing just then!

492 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:59:34pm

re: #486 Salamantis

Yes I agree, that should be enough. The added layer is the part that is unconstitutional.

493 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 2:59:55pm

re: #469 UberInfidel67

What horrified me about Pennsylvania marriage law is that it's a No Fault state. Even though my EH committed adultery and I'm truly the innocent party, it makes no difference to the settlement. Since I'm employed with a good income, I'm not even entitled to alimony.

494 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:00:02pm

re: #450 Dianna

You're putting words in people's mouths. Or, if you prefer, typing words their keyboards were never employed to put on a monitor.

When I reply, I am quoting the very words to which I am replying. I didn't put those words there; the people to whom I am replying did.

495 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:00:03pm

re: #488 DisturbedEma

Civil unions do that. . .they even have a nice marriage license. . .court approved. . .and they do not call it marriage, but a civil union. . .better now?
I hope not, because that is not ALL there is right? Show me the BENEFITS. . .

"marriage" of course. . .:0

496 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:00:11pm

re: #470 goddessoftheclassroom

Bear this in mind...

OH, th' PAIN!
OUCH OW!
SO glad I wasn't eating supper!
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMWAH!

497 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:00:26pm

re: #491 debutaunt

LOL, like:

"I felt a disturbance in the force."

Who said that, Obi-wan?

498 lifeofthemind  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:00:37pm

re: #477 Ojoe

Someone did ask for a boob thread.

That was the one that is commonly refered to by myself with the perpendicular pronoun.

499 yochanan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:00:48pm

problem i have is when they try to force the issue one example were a for profit bus. is forced to run a gay dating service such as e-harmony is being forced to do.

and if gay marriage were legal might they force people to accept that too?

the Torah says a marrage is between a man and a woman and not between two men AND FRANKLY I WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE CHANGE EVEN IF THE LAW TRYS TO FORCE ME TOO. now i don't personally believe marrage should be the job of the gov't for anyone as each group has different beliefs on what marrage is and who it should be for.

500 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:01:29pm

re: #406 Thanos

You are quoting Justice Marshall's opinion from Loving v Virginia where the Due Process Clause is extended to include marriage as right in the SCOTUS overturning of the Virginia law preventing interracial marriages. Yet, even with this, there are still legal restrictions on marriage in every state of the union, and on a federal level (DOMA). The existence of these, therefore, make it still a stretch to see where the right exists to redefine gender out of the definition of marriage or extend a superset of rights to persons based solely on their sexual preference. Perhaps the argument needs to be to America as to how something like preventing interracial marriages is the same as preventing the use of the marriage by a same sex couple?

I will agree with you that this is fundamentally an issues for each state to define on their own - and that definition should be done in this case (as opposed to Jim Crow / racial discrimination - which is this is not) from the will of the people not by the judiciary. The same with an effort at the Federal level to reverse DOMA via legislation in Congress.

So far, the majority of people in this country do not see sexual preference as entitling one to a superset of rights or to invalidate the existing definition of the term 'marriage' as being between one male and one female. One's preference does not appear to be on par with a right that one should not be discriminated on because of race.

I do think that most of the states will likely enact CA style civil union / partnership laws within the next decade or so - and I heartedly advocate that effort - the sooner the better. While same sex couples can get many of the same advantages and responsibilities as hetero couples via a power of attorney (as some lesbian friends of our did in NJ) - they are entitled to have their union recognized at the state level as it is here in CA. Whether that ultimately will lead to the redefinition of the word marriage - I don't know. The argument calling for and justifying that redefinition appears to have been lacking in many states.

Ultimately, if the state defines a legal partnership of a same sex couple as a civil union and that of a heterosexual couple as a civil marriage, and they have the same rights and responsibilities -where is the real issue? Are those joined via civil union arrested if they define themselves as married?

501 Daisy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:01:54pm

re: #475 Thanos

Speaking of chaps, I suffered some real culture shock the first time I went to SF from Alaska. There I was in the cab looking at the map, looked up to see where we were, and there was a fellow standing by the Folsom st. sign in pink panties and chaps.

Have you seen this? [Link: www.theonion.com...]

502 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:02:06pm

re: #499 yochanan

problem i have is when they try to force the issue one example were a for profit bus. is forced to run a gay dating service such as e-harmony is being forced to do.

and if gay marriage were legal might they force people to accept that too?

the Torah says a marrage is between a man and a woman and not between two men AND FRANKLY I WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE CHANGE EVEN IF THE LAW TRYS TO FORCE ME TOO. now i don't personally believe marrage should be the job of the gov't for anyone as each group has different beliefs on what marrage is and who it should be for.

I agree with you, but the government's registration of marriages is important to protect against bigamy.

503 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:03:20pm

re: #451 Salamantis

Just remember how Muslims interpret scripture vis a vis infidels generally, and Jews specifically. Is that okay now?

Racists, sexists, and homophobes are all varieties of bigots.

A religious objection to the activities of homosexuality is not the same as homophobic bigotry, which would call for the death or stoning of homosexuals. I know many many many religious which accept homosexuals with open arms; the "objection" is to homosexual behavior and activity.

504 Tazzerman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:03:23pm

re: #481 lifeofthemind

Fact is that the medieval jerk who is the subject of this thread represents an anti-intellectual culture that if left to its own devices would be hard pressed to produce buildings over three stories tall. The early minarets could get up to six stories I suppose, which will do for tossing people in a pinch. Most of the achievements of Islamic civilization were the product of other creative civilizations, particularly the Persian and Greco-Egyptian, which were absorbed by the Muslims during their initial expansion. Even today as they obsess with building the world's tallest structures they do it with hired help. At its core pure Salafist or Wahabi style Islam is nihilist, distrusting all learning, science and creativity, it would destroy the towers of the Gulf states or Malaysia as monuments to godless vanity, They not only destroyed the statues of Buddha but the early Islamic monuments in Mecca and they are busy destroying the Jewish heritage on the Temple Mount.


Well said! islam = a return to the dark ages.

505 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:03:37pm

re: #499 yochanan

They are not being forced to, they rolled over for the shakedown.

506 TaeJohnDo  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:03:40pm

re: #140 Wisenheimer

All of these puns are deserving of corporal punishment.

Got in late and it loks like i missed all the puns.

I guess you could say I am a little behind on this thread....

507 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:03:46pm

re: #453 Wilderstad

If getting a will and an MPOA takes little time, thought and no money, and the couple sees it as a barrier, I then say that's THEIR problem.
Good heavens if you're that lackadaisical and unmotivated to protect your interests and the interests of the love of your life it says way more about your and their general state of apathy than anything about supposed discrimination.

In that case, there should be nothing wrong with revoking automatic medical decision rights, inheritance rights, employee spousal benefits, and tax breaks, for straight couples who engage in heterosexual marriage. After all, if it's not that big of a deal for gay couples to jump through those hoops, it shpuldn't be that big of a deal for straight couples to have to do so too...

508 flynmudd  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:04:42pm

re: #406 Thanos

Never in Texas.

509 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:05:02pm

re: #462 Ojoe

Ten thousand updings.

Thanks, Ojoe.

510 TaeJohnDo  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:05:28pm

re: #506 TaeJohnDo

Got in late and it loks like i missed all the puns.

I guess you could say I am a little behind on this thread....

It also looks like I can't type today. My hands must be out of whack.

511 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:05:30pm

re: #503 reine.de.tout

A religious objection to the activities of homosexuality is not the same as homophobic bigotry, which would call for the death or stoning of homosexuals. I know many many many religious which accept homosexuals with open arms; the "objection" is to homosexual behavior and activity.

Precisely!

512 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:05:46pm

re: #457 DisturbedEma

Yep- because it is freedom. . .sucks when everyone has it huh?

So Muslims should be allowed to murder specific groups because of their religion now? Murder is the ultimate discrimination.

513 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:05:51pm

re: #509 Dianna

You are welcome.

514 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:06:21pm

re: #465 Thanos

Sorry, I've never watched the show, so I can't say.

515 I heart the USA  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:06:22pm

re: #447 Ojoe

That violates the equal protection clause doesn't it? It is unconstitutional, isn't it?

You would think so. Isn't that why, although usually helpful to the prosecution, establishing motive for a murder is not a legal requirement? Isn't the reason for the crime irrelevant? If we are all equally protected, the crime itself should be all that is relevent.

516 lifeofthemind  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:06:34pm

re: #429 Thanos

If it's fair to make the folsom st freak show the face of all gays, then it's fair to make Rushdoony "stone the gays" and Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps the face of traditional Christianity. All are cases of the extreme elements, and unfair charicatures to shove into the debate.


Agreed, straights should and do condemn ignorant thugs like Phelps. All minorities have a problem with public perception of their least attractive elements and an urge to stand together when attacked. Jews did a decent job of separating themselves from Meyer Lansky. Muslims in general do a terrible job of separating their public image from their extremists and gays need to do a better job at rejecting the fringe that trails behind them.

517 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:06:50pm

re: #500 Athos

I could easily invert your argument and simply state that current laws do favor sexual preference for heterosexuals. So could any wise attorney. Is the group with the special rights the heterosexuals and not the gays?

518 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:06:56pm

re: #506 TaeJohnDo

Got in late and it loks like i missed all the puns.

I guess you could say I am a little behind on this thread....

Yeah, we had a great time.
The puns have now gone quiet, though.

519 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:07:07pm
520 Daisy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:07:17pm

re: #464 MandyManners

Stop with the fucking moral equivalency.

On the other hand, don't stop. It speaks volumes about your anti-Christianity bigotry.

GAZE before I pitch a fucking fit.

Posted this link upstream.I mean, give me a break - I never named myself "straight" (aka 'boring') I'm tolerant, and I'm getting sick of being pushed around. This is funny, but also gives one pause: [Link: www.theonion.com...]

521 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:07:45pm

re: #519 jcm

A halo and crepuscular rays.


Very nice. Thanks

522 notutopia  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:07:50pm

a third gender,” there might be a “fourth gender” as well...

What happens when they go to the masseuse that is a fifth gender?
; )

523 J.S.  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:07:54pm

re: #465 Thanos

heh? 24 -- what is that, exactly? the cfl has done the kick-off...i'm outta here...

524 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:08:15pm

re: #507 Salamantis

In that case, there should be nothing wrong with revoking automatic medical decision rights, inheritance rights, employee spousal benefits, and tax breaks, for straight couples who engage in heterosexual marriage. After all, if it's not that big of a deal for gay couples to jump through those hoops, it shouldn't be that big of a deal for straight couples to have to do so too...

When the couple fills out the paper work for the marriage license they are JUMPING THROUGH THE HOOPS. If the couple decides not to marry, they have to do EXACTLY the same thing a gay coupe does. Where is the problem? Is it with the word? Please...answer that. because if it is not with the word, there is no discussion.

MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman, civil unions can be defined any way you like them to be.

525 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:08:16pm

re: #464 MandyManners

Stop with the fucking moral equivalency.

On the other hand, don't stop. It speaks volumes about your anti-Christianity bigotry.

GAZE before I pitch a fucking fit.

Is it then anti-Muslim bigotry to not think that they should have the right to murder Jews and other infidels just because their scriptures endorse such rights?

526 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:08:20pm

re: #515 I heart the USA

If we are all equally protected, the crime itself should be all that is relevent.


That would be "too simple".

Sigh.

BBL

527 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:08:23pm

re: #508 flynmudd

Never in Texas.

Why don't you do a survey of people under the age of 35 on how they feel about gay marriage, and then get back to me on that "never".

528 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:08:24pm

re: #494 Salamantis

When I reply, I am quoting the very words to which I am replying. I didn't put those words there; the people to whom I am replying did.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. You are saying that the people with whom you are debating are opposed to civil unions/domestic partnerships (that's the California term, and I know a number of heterosexual registrees); they each have said that they are not.

529 yochanan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:08:51pm

re: #487 Thanos

frankly i don't care what they do as long as I am not forced to accept or agree with it. since i think they will try to force me to accept it then i oppose it.

it would like i tried to force the jewish idea of marrage and divorce on gentiles.

530 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:10:00pm

re: #460 Dianna

It is about forcing society to approve of their lifestyle choice. Freedom of concience isn't an allowed when the results aren't what the Left thinks they should be. They are somewhat schitzoid on the issue, as Democrats aren't castigated as intollerant even though their stand on the issue is almost exactly the same as the Republican stand.

531 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:10:23pm

re: #519 jcm

A halo and crepuscular rays.

Over SEATTLE?!?!
C'mon, that halo's GOTTA be photoshopped!

/I know YOU don't live inside Seattle ... I can weasel out ... (-:

BTW, gorgeous photo

532 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:10:31pm

re: #516 lifeofthemind

Agreed, straights should and do condemn ignorant thugs like Phelps. All minorities have a problem with public perception of their least attractive elements and an urge to stand together when attacked. Jews did a decent job of separating themselves from Meyer Lansky. Muslims in general do a terrible job of separating their public image from their extremists and gays need to do a better job at rejecting the fringe that trails behind them.

Exactly the "act up" crowd, the idiots attacking churches, etc are all doing grave harm to the cause they expouse. (pun intended.)

533 yochanan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:10:57pm

re: #505 Thanos

same thing

534 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:11:07pm

re: #487 Thanos

I favor allowing gays to marry, but I"m in a very slim minority here.

I don't actually so much have an opinion as I do have a perspective that's informed by history and anthropology. From where I'm sitting, those who wish to have gay unions called "marriage" have to make their case to those who object.

So far, they have not done so, in the opinion of those opposed.

I regard using an activist judiciary as a terrible mistake.

So far, my neutrality remains unswayed in either direction.

535 Daisy  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:11:15pm

re: #519 jcm

A halo and crepuscular rays.

Lovely and peaceful. Thank you.

536 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:11:29pm

re: #523 J.S.

heh? 24 -- what is that, exactly? the cfl has done the kick-off...i'm outta here...

You know, Jack Bauer.... terrorists etc.

537 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:11:32pm

re: #488 DisturbedEma

Civil unions do that. . .they even have a nice marriage license. . .court approved. . .and they do not call it marriage, but a civil union. . .better now?
I hope not, because that is not ALL there is right? Show me the BENEFITS. . .

And this exists in all 50 states? No, it doesn't.

538 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:12:49pm

re: #533 yochanan

same thing

Not really, I think they had an opportunity here to set some bounds by opposing this in court, and quailed out. They should have fought.

539 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:13:07pm
540 jcm  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:13:21pm

re: #531 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Over SEATTLE?!?!
C'mon, that halo's GOTTA be photoshopped!

/I know YOU don't live inside Seattle ... I can weasel out ... (-:

BTW, gorgeous photo

If they find out I'm leaking State secrets I'm in deep kimchi.

541 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:13:27pm

re: #534 Dianna

I don't actually so much have an opinion as I do have a perspective that's informed by history and anthropology. From where I'm sitting, those who wish to have gay unions called "marriage" have to make their case to those who object.

So far, they have not done so, in the opinion of those opposed.

I regard using an activist judiciary as a terrible mistake.

So far, my neutrality remains unswayed in either direction.

I do have an opinion rather than simply a perspective, but I must say I thoroughly appreciate your neutrality and your logical approach to this.

542 lostlakehiker  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:14:20pm

Is this guy an extremist? Does Kuwait have such freedom of speech that views running counter to the prevailing winds may be aired? On TV?

Or is he, from within his society, mainstream? His views conform to the letter of Kuwait law, and he asserts that they are in conformity with the letter of Islam. Who challenges him on this? Not the interviewer. Not anyone over there, it would seem.

All the same, it seems that practice deviates [heh] from teaching at least as much in Kuwait as it did in Victorian England.

543 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:14:56pm

re: #499 yochanan

problem i have is when they try to force the issue one example were a for profit bus. is forced to run a gay dating service such as e-harmony is being forced to do.

and if gay marriage were legal might they force people to accept that too?

the Torah says a marrage is between a man and a woman and not between two men AND FRANKLY I WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE CHANGE EVEN IF THE LAW TRYS TO FORCE ME TOO. now i don't personally believe marrage should be the job of the gov't for anyone as each group has different beliefs on what marrage is and who it should be for.

Don't approve of gay civil unions? Don't enter into one. But don't legally mandate that others who desire to enter into them cannot. In our constitutional democracy, people should be free to choose life paths that others would not choose. Only in theorcracies and totalitarianisms are all actions either mandated or forbidden.

544 flynmudd  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:15:43pm

re: #527 Thanos

Ever been here? There is enough testosterone in this state to choke a horse. Besides that, this state is still part of the Bible belt and is the only state that can still secede. They are already threatening if Obama tries to take their guns.

545 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:16:56pm

re: #503 reine.de.tout

A religious objection to the activities of homosexuality is not the same as homophobic bigotry, which would call for the death or stoning of homosexuals. I know many many many religious which accept homosexuals with open arms; the "objection" is to homosexual behavior and activity.

Many US racists didn't want to murder blacks; they just didn't wanna share schools, restaruarnts, drinking fountains or bathrooms with them.

546 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:17:01pm

re: #517 Thanos

The thing is Thanos, many attorney's have tried, and unless they find a group of judges willing to create a right - a right to redefine a word - they have been unsuccessful in all states except MA, CT, and until Election Day, CA.

There is no preference extended to heterosoexuals in CA over homosexuals. Both have a process with which, in the eyes of the State they can assume all the advantages and responsibilities of a legal union. The only difference is what it is called. Is the word the special right? No. It's a word with an established legal definition. When heterosexual couples form a union - and otherwise conform to the legal requirements for the union - it's a marriage in the eyes of CA today. When homosexual couples form a union - and otherwise conform to the legal requirements for the union - it's a civil union in the eyes of CA today. Both have the same responsibilities in terms of access and in terms of the dissolution of the union.

Where, in CA, the special rights come in, was in the CA's Supreme Court ruling which Prop 8 reversed which established homosexuals as a protected class. This takes a minority and rather than ensure that it is the equal of the majority, rises to a level above the majority in the eyes of the law.

Again, the issue is in the use of the term marriage and redefining it from the traditional definition to one that is gender less. Why is that needed on a legal basis? Are the gay couple who are in a civil union down the street from me subject to arrest if they define themselves as married? No, they are not. They seek a redefinition of a word and all I ask is why. Otherwise, we are not all that far apart in our views.

547 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:17:39pm

re: #507 Salamantis

In that case, there should be nothing wrong with revoking automatic medical decision rights, inheritance rights, employee spousal benefits, and tax breaks, for straight couples who engage in heterosexual marriage. After all, if it's not that big of a deal for gay couples to jump through those hoops, it shpuldn't be that big of a deal for straight couples to have to do so too...

Unfortunately, the rewards conferred by a marriage license are there for a reason. Namely, the protection of children and the preservation of property. A marriage presumes, even if no children result, a certain set of choices and sacrifices. There's a long history, and a net social benefit to the existence of spousal benefits.

Most gay couples are not going to produce children. Most gay couples will not have one partner staying home with the children, and losing months or even years of earnings thereby. In fact, what spousal benefits a gay couple might need - say, shared health insurance - are frequently offered to registered domestic partners, at least in the state of California.

548 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:18:00pm

I gotta go do some work. It is obvious that although many Christians are accepting of civil unions while not approving of them, the other side, inculding Salamantis can not see past the fact that some see this as a sin. Some also see Adultery as a sin, and now, as GOTC tells us, that has been legislated to be a-okay. Some see alcahol as a sin, now legal, some see Abortion as a sin, leagal in all 50 states.

So, do not tell me that there has not been a constant attack on religion and that this gay 'marriage' thing isn't another attack. Civil unions are fine, leave it at that.

549 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:18:08pm

re: #540 jcm

If they find out I'm leaking State secrets I'm in deep kimchi.

Hmmmmm ... maybe someone painted The One's portrait on a downtown skyscraper. Maybe THAT's where the halo is coming from.

/I was abjectly, stupidly, bitter and clingy ... I'm SOOOO sorry!

550 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:18:21pm

re: #543 Salamantis

Don't approve of gay civil unions? Don't enter into one. But don't legally mandate that others who desire to enter into them cannot. . . .

I did not know that people were legally prohibited from entering into contracts regarding their relationship with one another.

551 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:19:26pm

re: #545 Salamantis

Many US racists didn't want to murder blacks; they just didn't wanna share schools, restaruarnts, drinking fountains or bathrooms with them.

Maybe you missed the part where I said many religions gladly accept homosexuals?

552 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:20:29pm

re: #544 flynmudd

Ever been here? There is enough testosterone in this state to choke a horse. Besides that, this state is still part of the Bible belt and is the only state that can still secede. They are already threatening if Obama tries to take their guns.

What's testosterone have to do with it? My Dad's from Texas, he supports gay marriage. Three tours in Nam, and he was ashore at the Bay of Pigs invasion so you can guess what branch he's in, and also figure out if he has testosterone enough for you.

553 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:20:57pm

re: #543 Salamantis

Don't approve of gay civil unions? Don't enter into one. But don't legally mandate that others who desire to enter into them cannot. In our constitutional democracy, people should be free to choose life paths that others would not choose. Only in theorcracies and totalitarianisms are all actions either mandated or forbidden.

You are, again, misquoting, and twisting Yochanon's point.

554 flynmudd  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:21:20pm

re: #503 reine.de.tout

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

555 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:22:11pm

re: #545 Salamantis

Many US racists didn't want to murder blacks; they just didn't wanna share schools, restaruarnts, drinking fountains or bathrooms with them.

And secondly, after saying earlier this was not what you did, you once again seem to be characterizing religious objections to certain behaviors as "bigotry".

Most religions frown on murder - so, if murderers are "punished" by not being accepted into society, they people doing the frowning are "bigots"?

By that definition, all religious people are, then, "bigots".

556 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:22:20pm

re: #524 stonemason

When the couple fills out the paper work for the marriage license they are JUMPING THROUGH THE HOOPS. If the couple decides not to marry, they have to do EXACTLY the same thing a gay coupe does. Where is the problem? Is it with the word? Please...answer that. because if it is not with the word, there is no discussion.

MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman, civil unions can be defined any way you like them to be.

Couples that fill out gay civil union permits should have the same hassle - no more and no lees - that couples that fill out marriage licenses. And receive the same legal rights and privileges once the ceremony is conducted.

557 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:22:32pm

re: #554 flynmudd

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Yes, but Sala can't figure it out.

558 yochanan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:22:56pm

re: #543 Salamantis

i reply what i believe in. what my religion believes in, frankly if you want to have relations with .... that is none of my bus as long as i am not forced to accept it. the Torah comes before liberalism to me. the Torah comes before the gov't. according to the Torah a jewish marrage is between a man and a woman. it is not a marrage without meeting religous legal conditions. I will not call it a marrage.

should i try to force gentiles to accept the jewish concept of marrage and divorce?

559 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:23:37pm

re: #545 Salamantis

Do you really think you're being fair? It seems to me that you are accusing people of things they neither have said, nor believe.

You believe, clearly, that you are drawing out the implications of their statements, but I think you're actually being quite unfair, and even more unkind.

Please think about this.

560 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:23:50pm

re: #543 Salamantis

Don't approve of gay civil unions? Don't enter into one. But don't legally mandate that others who desire to enter into them cannot.

Even in states without civil unions, an executed power of attorney will provide gay couples with the ability to represent the other partner in any and all legal matters (including health decisions) if one of the partners become disabled. These are not difficult or costly to obtain. Once done, the couple is also not prevented from throwing a party to celebrate their legal partnership even if that State doesn't recognize civil unions. There is fundamentally no legal mandate preventing someone from entering into a partnership. The only difference is the process and which term is used.

561 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:24:13pm

re: #528 Dianna

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. You are saying that the people with whom you are debating are opposed to civil unions/domestic partnerships (that's the California term, and I know a number of heterosexual registrees); they each have said that they are not.

They only clarified that afterwards. Go back and check.

562 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:25:25pm

re: #460 Dianna

Oh, but that's the crux of the biscuit!

No one objects to civil unions. The insistence on injecting the word "marriage" is the problem, and it wasn't caused by the side that has a problem with it!

We were talking of that yesterday I think. You took off without an answer to the same point you made then.

The bottom line is that Civil Union and Marriage are not equivalent in law and never will be unless the law allows it.

Try Google.

563 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:25:42pm

re: #546 Athos

What if they move to a different state? What if they face a tax lien (see federal code definition of marriage) etc. etc. etc.

There are two hundred plus years of legal precendent backing the state licensed institution of marriage, and a civil union is not the same.

Again I will re-iterate that when rights are defined by exclusionary language (sex) then there is a special protected group that enjoys those rights, and one that does not. That makes them special rights.

564 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:26:21pm

re: #530 Iron Fist

It is about forcing society to approve of their lifestyle choice. Freedom of concience isn't an allowed when the results aren't what the Left thinks they should be. They are somewhat schitzoid on the issue, as Democrats aren't castigated as intollerant even though their stand on the issue is almost exactly the same as the Republican stand.

In this case, gays should have the same freedom to act on their consciences and enter into civil unions that some straights exercise to disapprove of homosexuality.

565 flynmudd  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:26:28pm

re: #552 Thanos

It will never happen in Texas. They will try to pass something in Austin like they always do, but it won't work. The majority is still traditional. Age has nothing to do with it either. I know quite a lot of people both under the age of 35 and over the age of 35 down here and believe me, even the democrats are conservatives.

566 Pawn of the Oppressor  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:27:07pm

Funny this, coming from a guy who's part of a society where buttsex with another dude is frequently the only way to get any satisfaction at all.

Somebody should send him zombie's Up Your Alley essay and tell him it's a collection of photos from an Obama election day party. Maybe we can "shape the narrative" for fun.

567 MellyMel  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:27:56pm

re: #487 Thanos

You and me both apparently. I am usually in total agreement with most of what people say here and I UPDING for it a lot, but personally, I think the treatment and total (in some cases) MISREPRESENTATION of Salamantis's comments were unwarranted and frankly, showed the bad side of conservatism.

Sorry all, but to me, he wasn't really saying anything nutty. Just that all people deserve the same rights -- regardless of sexual orientation. I am okay with that arguement.

/And there goes my karma -- but so be it.

568 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:27:58pm

re: #560 Athos

And the vast majority of homosexulas don't want "marriage" enough to actually go to the effort of availing themselves of what the law does allow. I've become convinced that "marriage" isn't what they really want. It's all about sticking a thumb in the eyes of straights.

569 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:28:11pm

re: #565 flynmudd

It will never happen in Texas. They will try to pass something in Austin like they always do, but it won't work. The majority is still traditional. Age has nothing to do with it either. I know quite a lot of people both under the age of 35 and over the age of 35 down here and believe me, even the democrats are conservatives.

Never is a long time and the demographics don't favor your statement.

570 n in wi  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:28:36pm

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "
IMHO, I would take this to be a promotion of pro-creation. Not a mandate, rather a promotion to ensure the creation of the next generation of Americans.
We are not bound by tribal allegiances or blood-lines. What binds us is our culture.
Some traditional institutes of that culture are worth preserving.
That is why tax breaks are given for marriage and having children.
Pro-Marriage does not equal anti-gay.

571 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:29:42pm

re: #561 Salamantis

They only clarified that afterwards. Go back and check.

Wow is that disingenuous, I had to point it out as I was accused of something I NEVER said (typed).

572 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:30:44pm

re: #561 Salamantis

They only clarified that afterwards. Go back and check.

Only because you moved the goalposts. It never occurred to them - given how many debates have thrashed out this subject - that they had to defend themselves from a rather simplistic and unfair charge.

The very few people on LGF who really don't like this subject at all don't tend to debate it. I have met very few actual bigots, and I find it disturbing that you - who are usually pretty reasonable, if a bit pedantic - feel this need (and I can only describe it as a need) to accuse people of bigotry, and draw unwarranted analogies with racism, and - I hope innocently and by mistake - accuse them of racism, in not very thinly veiled terms.

573 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:30:46pm

re: #547 Dianna

Unfortunately, the rewards conferred by a marriage license are there for a reason. Namely, the protection of children and the preservation of property. A marriage presumes, even if no children result, a certain set of choices and sacrifices. There's a long history, and a net social benefit to the existence of spousal benefits.

Most gay couples are not going to produce children. Most gay couples will not have one partner staying home with the children, and losing months or even years of earnings thereby. In fact, what spousal benefits a gay couple might need - say, shared health insurance - are frequently offered to registered domestic partners, at least in the state of California.

If you don't think that gay households don't include children, you haven't been paying attention. Also, if the presence of children is the bright line, then infertile straight couples should have to adopt to gain benefits.

574 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:31:02pm

re: #568 Iron Fist

No doubt that is true, but it is not an argument for Prop 8.

575 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:33:39pm

re: #548 stonemason

I gotta go do some work. It is obvious that although many Christians are accepting of civil unions while not approving of them, the other side, inculding Salamantis can not see past the fact that some see this as a sin. Some also see Adultery as a sin, and now, as GOTC tells us, that has been legislated to be a-okay. Some see alcahol as a sin, now legal, some see Abortion as a sin, leagal in all 50 states.

So, do not tell me that there has not been a constant attack on religion and that this gay 'marriage' thing isn't another attack. Civil unions are fine, leave it at that.

It is not an attack upon religion to forbid the selfsame discriminations against others that religions wish their members to practice. Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.

576 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:34:12pm

re: #570 n in wi

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "
IMHO, I would take this to be a promotion of pro-creation. Not a mandate, rather a promotion to ensure the creation of the next generation of Americans.
We are not bound by tribal allegiances or blood-lines. What binds us is our culture.
Some traditional institutes of that culture are worth preserving.
That is why tax breaks are given for marriage and having children.
Pro-Marriage does not equal anti-gay.

Shouldn't the children of gays be afforded the protections afforded those from families with married parents? Is it pro-family to exclude the children of gay parents from the protections inherent in a married family?

577 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:34:34pm

re: #550 reine.de.tout

I did not know that people were legally prohibited from entering into contracts regarding their relationship with one another.

Most states do not have gay civil union laws.

578 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:35:05pm

As P.J. O'Rourke observed, if you let gays get married, soon they'll be having children, going to church, boycotting HBO, advocating school vouchers and voting Republican!

579 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:35:12pm

re: #562 Naso Tang

We were talking of that yesterday I think. You took off without an answer to the same point you made then.

The bottom line is that Civil Union and Marriage are not equivalent in law and never will be unless the law allows it.

Try Google.

I'm sorry, was I around yesterday?

I was writing. I go anti-social and forget to sign off. If I vanish abruptly again, that's probably why. This is a break to refresh my brain.

Back to the topic:

Civil Union and marriage will eventually end up being fairly equivalent. I believe that most people who presently register as domestic partners are aware that they will not receive certain kinds of survivor benefits (though any children a couple has will, so far as I know); and that has always seemed quite fair to me.

I suspect that pensions, for instance, will take account of civil unions in the next few years, and probably without a lawsuit.

Remember, I'm not advocating anything. I'm neutral.

580 flynmudd  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:35:43pm

re: #569 Thanos

How red was the election map in Texas November 4, 2008? The blacks in Houston voted for Obama because he's black. That's where you will find the blue counties. Texas still has 100,000 people that never left after Katrina. Guess they like it here better.

581 gman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:36:08pm
Below my office, there is a parlor – not a massage parlor – not a massage parlor, but a hair salon. I saw some of the owners when I was driving by – they looked really weird. You couldn’t tell whether they were men or women. In addition, what they do there is also perverse. They put up their hair in a very peculiar and queer way...

Right about now, if I was below Dr. Sa'd's office I would be getting the f@$k out of Dodge. That asshole just outed them on television because their hair was spiky.

582 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:36:12pm

re: #578 Fearless Fred

As P.J. O'Rourke observed, if you let gays get married, soon they'll be having children, going to church, boycotting HBO, advocating school vouchers and voting Republican!


And the Log Cabin Republicans might be a larger faction within the party.

583 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:36:16pm

re: #564 Salamantis

In this case, gays should have the same freedom to act on their consciences and enter into civil unions that some straights exercise to disapprove of homosexuality.

And where does Iron Fist say he has any objection to that?

584 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:36:56pm

Gay Couple Feels Pressured To Marry
[Link: www.theonion.com...]

585 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:37:28pm
Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.

And that says it all, in my opinion. For the benifit of all, I should change my beliefs.

Sorry, not gonna happen. I will not force you, or anyone for that matter, to worship with me on Sunday, and I expect the SAME respect from others.

So, I have pointed out how the legal equalities are there, you have chosen to ignore those equalites and keep harping on the issue.

Once again, is it the word that is the sticking point? 'Cause if it is, there is no way you are going to make that Goose a Duck.

586 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:38:00pm

re: #575 Salamantis

It is not an attack upon religion to forbid the selfsame discriminations against others that religions wish their members to practice. Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.

Well. And so we have it.
For "the benefit of all concerned", including religious folks and in spite of their religious objections to same sex "marriage", it must be legalized religious forced to accept it.

587 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:38:12pm

re: #555 reine.de.tout

And secondly, after saying earlier this was not what you did, you once again seem to be characterizing religious objections to certain behaviors as "bigotry".

Most religions frown on murder - so, if murderers are "punished" by not being accepted into society, they people doing the frowning are "bigots"?

By that definition, all religious people are, then, "bigots".

Both heterosexuality and homosexuality involve sexual practices, but sexual orientation, like race and gender, is not about what people do so much as it is about who they are. And discriminating against gays as a group is indeed bigotry, regardless of whether it is religious or secular.

588 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:38:28pm

re: #573 Salamantis

If you don't think that gay households don't include children, you haven't been paying attention. Also, if the presence of children is the bright line, then infertile straight couples should have to adopt to gain benefits.

You know where I live, right? The Bay Area? I work in San Francisco?

I know a great deal more than you are giving me credit for.

No, the presence of children isn't the bright line. The history of the institution is what it is, and spousal benefits are based on the history and the statistics.

Social benefit doesn't have a thing to with individual cases.

589 MellyMel  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:38:43pm

re: #563 Thanos

1000 updings if I could give them!

590 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:39:03pm

re: #580 flynmudd

How red was the election map in Texas November 4, 2008? The blacks in Houston voted for Obama because he's black. That's where you will find the blue counties. Texas still has 100,000 people that never left after Katrina. Guess they like it here better.

I'm about as conservative as they come on pretty much every issue except social ones, I'm even pro-life. There's plenty of R's like me. There are also plenty of those in blue counties that would vote against gay marriage.

591 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:39:16pm

re: #572 Dianna

Only because you moved the goalposts. It never occurred to them - given how many debates have thrashed out this subject - that they had to defend themselves from a rather simplistic and unfair charge.

The very few people on LGF who really don't like this subject at all don't tend to debate it. I have met very few actual bigots, and I find it disturbing that you - who are usually pretty reasonable, if a bit pedantic - feel this need (and I can only describe it as a need) to accuse people of bigotry, and draw unwarranted analogies with racism, and - I hope innocently and by mistake - accuse them of racism, in not very thinly veiled terms.

Salamantis --- come on buddy! .... you've got to stop! Coooome toooo youuur seeennses !

592 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:39:27pm

re: #577 Salamantis

Most states do not have gay civil union laws.

The question was - do states have laws prohibiting people from making contratual arrangements? That's what you asserted.
Quoting from your #543:

But don't legally mandate that others who desire to enter into them cannot.
593 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:39:27pm

re: #554 flynmudd

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I reject the notion that it is a sin for gays to engage in homosexual sex.

594 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:40:01pm

re: #576 Thanos

Shouldn't the children of gays be afforded the protections afforded those from families with married parents? Is it pro-family to exclude the children of gay parents from the protections inherent in a married family?


I am not a Lawyer, but my wife has adopted my boys so I have been through the process. The children of Adoptive parents automatically assume the exact rights as if the parents bore those children.

595 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:41:36pm

re: #560 Athos

Even in states without civil unions, an executed power of attorney will provide gay couples with the ability to represent the other partner in any and all legal matters (including health decisions) if one of the partners become disabled. These are not difficult or costly to obtain. Once done, the couple is also not prevented from throwing a party to celebrate their legal partnership even if that State doesn't recognize civil unions. There is fundamentally no legal mandate preventing someone from entering into a partnership. The only difference is the process and which term is used.

And the facts that gay couples have to jump through legal hoops that straight couples don't.

596 flynmudd  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:42:38pm

re: #593 Salamantis

To each his own. I guess we will just agree to disagree on this subject until the end of time. Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the total percentage of gays versus straights in this country. Have any clue or a link that would tell me?

597 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:42:49pm

re: #593 Salamantis

I reject the notion that it is a sin for gays to engage in homosexual sex.


Which is your right, but it is not your right to object to my notion that it is a sin.

598 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:43:05pm

re: #594 stonemason

I am not a Lawyer, but my wife has adopted my boys so I have been through the process. The children of Adoptive parents automatically assume the exact rights as if the parents bore those children.

When you adopt you can be turned down, correct?

599 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:43:25pm

re: #559 Dianna

Do you really think you're being fair? It seems to me that you are accusing people of things they neither have said, nor believe.

You believe, clearly, that you are drawing out the implications of their statements, but I think you're actually being quite unfair, and even more unkind.

Please think about this.

I have thought about it. I disagree. Instead, I see some folks who do not wish to admit to anti-gay bigotry, but still want anti-gay discrimination to perdure.

600 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:43:41pm

re: #564 Salamantis

In many states they do have the option of entering into civil unions. In all states they have options short of "marriage" to obtain 90+% of the benifits of "marriage", but they aren't, for the most part, availing themselves of those options. What they are interested in is having three judges telling the rest of the country how they must view a gay relationship.

This is legislating morality from the bench. This isn't going to do anything except cause a backlash to the extent that gay mariage will never be accepted, or even be legal. If you want to change the definition of something that has been established cultural norms for 2000 years, you should try to change the law through the legislative process, and, even more importantly, by persuading the main stream populace that a change should be made.

I don't see any effort being made on that front, just the demand that it be changed now and we should get over it.

Good luck with that.

601 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:43:44pm

re: #585 stonemason

hmmm, they do interesting things in science these days .... aren't all things possible ? .. .. .. ..... . do we really really have to have/believe in standards? Wow ---- and are there really absolute truths in this world? Dunno ..... that's heavy. Betcha we can find a way around that.

602 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:45:06pm

re: #595 Salamantis

And the facts that gay couples have to jump through legal hoops that straight couples don't.

Please...stop that. Both Mandy and I have shown you how that is not true but you refuse to acknowledge it. A couple that is to be married goes to the courthouse, fills out paperwork, sees a lawyer, then gets married.

A gay couple sees a lawyer and fills out paper work...where is the discrimination?

603 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:45:10pm

re: #579 Dianna

Civil Union and marriage will eventually end up being fairly equivalent.

Perhaps, if the word Marriage is to be excluded for gays due to religious sensibilities, then suits can be filed to fill the gaps in civil unions, but would not that continue to offend many of the religious? Death by a thousand cuts, and all that.

I believe that most people who presently register as domestic partners are aware that they will not receive certain kinds of survivor benefits (though any children a couple has will, so far as I know); and that has always seemed quite fair to me.

being aware does not mean being satisfied. Civil rights are not about fair compromise.

I suspect that pensions, for instance, will take account of civil unions in the next few years, and probably without a lawsuit.

What pensions? That is probably a right of any private organization, but hardly the same as a national, or state, law.

Remember, I'm not advocating anything. I'm neutral.

You are advocating that the status quo is good enough, and fair. If everyone thought so we would not be having this discussion.

604 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:46:01pm

re: #597 stonemason

Which is your right, but it is not your right to object to my notion that it is a sin.

As long as you don't try to use such a notion in order to justify perpetuating discriminatory legal treatment. Because then it's not just you any more; it's what you are endeavoring to do to others who do not share your religious values, and furthermore, who should have the right not to share your religious values without legally suffering for it.

605 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:46:40pm

re: #576 Thanos

Shouldn't the children of gays be afforded the protections afforded those from families with married parents? Is it pro-family to exclude the children of gay parents from the protections inherent in a married family?

When gays can reproduce without some kind of technological intervention, we can open that can of worms. Seriously.

606 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:46:42pm

re: #602 stonemason

Please...stop that. Both Mandy and I have shown you how that is not true but you refuse to acknowledge it. A couple that is to be married goes to the courthouse, fills out paperwork, sees a lawyer, then gets married.

A gay couple sees a lawyer and fills out paper work...where is the discrimination?

When they cross a state line, or when they come across a federal law that has to do with marriage.

607 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:47:22pm

re: #598 Thanos

When you adopt you can be turned down, correct?


Yes, but that is dying out quickly as people come to their senses and recognize that sexuality is not a very good parenting barometer. Not all gay people are Folsom street idiots and not all straight people are good parents...see my above post, I know of what I speak.

608 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:48:04pm

re: #605 Dianna

When gays can reproduce without some kind of technological intervention, we can open that can of worms. Seriously.

I wish I could agree, gays have children now. I am profamily in all ways, not just for heteros. Children of gays deserve a two parent family where they can have it.

609 yochanan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:48:08pm

breeder

610 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:48:47pm

re: #605 Dianna

When gays can reproduce without some kind of technological intervention, we can open that can of worms. Seriously.

What do you have against technology? (I know there was a more fun reply somewhere, but it escapes me)

611 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:49:30pm

re: #591 Fearless Fred

Salamantis --- come on buddy! .... you've got to stop! Coooome toooo youuur seeennses !

What the hell?

612 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:49:49pm

re: #568 Iron Fist

And the vast majority of homosexulas don't want "marriage" enough to actually go to the effort of availing themselves of what the law does allow. I've become convinced that "marriage" isn't what they really want. It's all about sticking a thumb in the eyes of straights.

What you think they "really want" is not the issue; legal discrimination is.

613 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:49:56pm

re: #596 flynmudd

To each his own. I guess we will just agree to disagree on this subject until the end of time. Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the total percentage of gays versus straights in this country. Have any clue or a link that would tell me?

Hah --- that's always a fun one. No push-polling in those studies!
///

PS Seriously -- there are more lesbians than any other type?-hehe people in my neighborhood. They've kind of converted me even. Yep -- here we are all lesbianas.

Federico

614 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:51:35pm

re: #599 Salamantis

I have thought about it. I disagree. Instead, I see some folks who do not wish to admit to anti-gay bigotry, but still want anti-gay discrimination to perdure.

I do not think you are correct. I think you are sailing happily past the point people are trying to make.

It doesn't matter what I think, clearly.

615 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:51:38pm

re: #574 Naso Tang

No, but the attempt to use the courts to force society to change its basic building blocks to be "fair" to a minority of a minority is sufficient reason to amend the State Constitution. It was enough of a sufficient reason that the People of CAlifornia chose to do exactly that.

BTW, why aren't gays making this more of an issue to the Democratic Party? The Party stance on "marriage" is, at least publicly, virtually indistingushible from the Republican Party. Where are the marching hoards protesting Barrack Obama for his position on gay "marriage"?

This whole issue has only cropped up over the course of the Bush Administration. It has the appearance of being a manufactured issue to beat the Republicans over the head with.

That's even stronger reason to pass Prop. 8.

616 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:51:41pm

re: #613 Fearless Fred

Hah --- that's always a fun one. No push-polling in those studies!
///

PS Seriously -- there are more lesbians than any other type?-hehe people in my neighborhood. They've kind of converted me even. Yep -- here we are all lesbianas.

Federico

It's only 1-2 percent of population, that's held steady through most of known history, no matter how liberal or illiberal the society they are in is.

617 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:52:03pm

re: #604 Salamantis

As long as you don't try to use such a notion in order to justify perpetuating discriminatory legal treatment. Because then it's not just you any more; it's what you are endeavoring to do to others who do not share your religious values, and furthermore, who should have the right not to share your religious values without legally suffering for it.


Okay...you do not get it. I do not oppose gay civil unions, I do not oppose homosexual sex in someone elses bedroom. I am not discriminating against anyone at all in any freakin' way.

I am asking you to understand that your all or nothing style of forcing homosexual sex is not a sin is more destructive than my acceptance of the sinner. You seem to not be able to accept my 'type' of person.

618 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:52:13pm

re: #595 Salamantis

And the facts that gay couples have to jump through legal hoops that straight couples don't.

And on some issues, I have to jump through hoops that others do not. That in itself does not make it a violation of someone's rights. Gee, one group has a legal hassle living in a certain state - and that hassle means getting a power of attorney to ensure that they can access the ICU if their partner is admitted - well, if I wasn't married, and just living my girlfriend, I would need the same power of attorney to gain access.

Sorry, that is the most specious of your arguments. Jumping through legal hoops is something that everyone has to deal with. They are not denied the right to try to jump through those hoops.

619 yochanan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:52:17pm

re: #604 Salamantis

well the left has offen imprisoned people for haveing those religious views.
i am not going to change even if you have the state and all its laws tell me i have to change.

620 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:52:29pm

re: #572 Dianna

Only because you moved the goalposts. It never occurred to them - given how many debates have thrashed out this subject - that they had to defend themselves from a rather simplistic and unfair charge.

The very few people on LGF who really don't like this subject at all don't tend to debate it. I have met very few actual bigots, and I find it disturbing that you - who are usually pretty reasonable, if a bit pedantic - feel this need (and I can only describe it as a need) to accuse people of bigotry, and draw unwarranted analogies with racism, and - I hope innocently and by mistake - accuse them of racism, in not very thinly veiled terms.

You are incorrect. Homophobia is not the same thing as racism, or even sexism is. It is its own particular brand of bigotry, and apparently the only one left that is okay for some to publicly embrace.

621 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:53:05pm

re: #610 Naso Tang

What do you have against technology? (I know there was a more fun reply somewhere, but it escapes me)

Not a thing!

Given my way, reproduction would be completely removed from the female body, and we'd have a lot more sensible discussions about parenting because of it.

Not that I can't see the huge objections and difficulties that would lead to, as well....

622 yochanan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:54:23pm

frankly when gays come into a church or shul and create problems they are bigoted too. BREEDER is a bigoted term used by gays to show there hate towards the rest of us.

623 stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:55:08pm

re: #606 Thanos

When they cross a state line, or when they come across a federal law that has to do with marriage.


Okay, once again, not a lawyer, but you seem to be saying that a Medical Power of Attorny can not cross state lines? Nor a will?
Those are the things I am talking about, paperwork that affords the gay couple many of the same rights as a married couple and ALL of the rights of a non-married straight couple.
This is really about marriage though, because I never hear of straight domestic partners attacking churches demading the same rights as married couples.

624 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:56:10pm

re: #583 Dianna

And where does Iron Fist say he has any objection to that?

He stated that he believed that the issue wasn't about equal rights so much as forcing others to approve of gay lifestyle choices. But to personally approve of something and to legally allow it are two different things.

625 yochanan  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:56:29pm

in new york city there are more anti semitic hate crimes than crimes against gays.

anti semitism will be around long after this issue is settled.

626 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:56:45pm

re: #614 Dianna

I do not think you are correct. I think you are sailing happily past the point people are trying to make.

It doesn't matter what I think, clearly.

Well, actually, to some folks, it does.

627 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:57:32pm

re: #608 Thanos

I wish I could agree, gays have children now. I am profamily in all ways, not just for heteros. Children of gays deserve a two parent family where they can have it.

In all too many cases, the children of gays are actually the product of a broken home. Which is another can of worms.

Adopted children of gay couples, in my experience, are wanted and loved. I don't quite see how calling the partnership a civil union rather than a marriage makes any difference. The problem is that the word has certain traditional implications, and history - for good or ill - has a weight I'm not prepared to ignore.

628 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:58:11pm

re: #585 stonemason

And that says it all, in my opinion. For the benifit of all, I should change my beliefs.

Sorry, not gonna happen. I will not force you, or anyone for that matter, to worship with me on Sunday, and I expect the SAME respect from others.

So, I have pointed out how the legal equalities are there, you have chosen to ignore those equalites and keep harping on the issue.

Once again, is it the word that is the sticking point? 'Cause if it is, there is no way you are going to make that Goose a Duck.

I have already said that 'm not hung up on the word, and neither are my gay cousins, who would be fine with civil unions. You are free to continue to disapprove of gays, but your disapproval should not be legislated.

629 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:58:27pm

re: #620 Salamantis

You are incorrect. Homophobia is not the same thing as racism, or even sexism is. It is its own particular brand of bigotry, and apparently the only one left that is okay for some to publicly embrace.

Quite ineligible for you to say that, since you are equating all of them!

630 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 3:59:45pm

re: #586 reine.de.tout

Well. And so we have it.
For "the benefit of all concerned", including religious folks and in spite of their religious objections to same sex "marriage", it must be legalized religious forced to accept it.

DAMMIT, reine, what part of 'I'm okay with civil unions' do you have trouble reading?

631 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:00:19pm

re: #624 Salamantis

He stated that he believed that the issue wasn't about equal rights so much as forcing others to approve of gay lifestyle choices. But to personally approve of something and to legally allow it are two different things.

And he has a point. It's one you've managed to avoid, but it's actually quite an important one.

This isn't about bigotry or tolerance. It's about talking about a contentious issue without insisting that the other side is on the side of the demons.

632 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:02:02pm

re: #615 Iron Fist

No, but the attempt to use the courts to force society to change its basic building blocks to be "fair" to a minority of a minority is sufficient reason to amend the State Constitution. It was enough of a sufficient reason that the People of CAlifornia chose to do exactly that.


Regardless of the issue, I tend to think that anything in a constitution should be related to defining rights of everyone, not denying them to some. The latter is well taken care of by laws. As to "The People", it was a small majority dictating a restriction of rights on others. That's the system, but not IMHO one of its most admirable aspects.

BTW, why aren't gays making this more of an issue to the Democratic Party? The Party stance on "marriage" is, at least publicly, virtually indistingushible from the Republican Party. Where are the marching hoards protesting Barrack Obama for his position on gay "marriage"?

:shrug: Demonstrating is messy at best. Some 5% of the population (?) are gay and less are off work enough to demonstrate, and I have other things to do too, although I put my 5 cents worth here.


This whole issue has only cropped up over the course of the Bush Administration. It has the appearance of being a manufactured issue to beat the Republicans over the head with.

Coincidence or conspiracy? The religious right has been given momentum by Bush, but as a whole I think it is just coincidence. It's the American way to test limits.

That's even stronger reason to pass Prop. 8.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. Each to his own.

633 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:02:16pm

re: #629 Dianna

Quite ineligible for you to say that, since you are equating all of them!

They are similar in that they are all variants of bigotry, but they are different in that they are differing variants. Plenty of people who harbor one do not harbor the rest. So your claim that I was accusing people who are prejudiced against gays of racism doesn't fly.

634 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:02:50pm

re: #606 Thanos

When they cross a state line, or when they come across a federal law that has to do with marriage.

And I earlier indicated that I supported every state enacting a civil union provision as exists in California and that people work with their representatives to address DOMA - and to do so through the processes established via the State and Federal Constitution (People / Legislation) as opposed by judicial fiat.

But one can also walk down that same slippery slope argument by applying any other restriction related around marriage - be it age or relationship or even other efforts to re-define the word to not only include support for same-sex partners but also multiple partners or other variation.

As you noted, the same precedent you can argue on the inverse can also be used to expand the definition of marriage to eliminate any restriction whatsoever.

635 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:03:56pm

re: #591 Fearless Fred

Salamantis --- come on buddy! .... you've got to stop! Coooome toooo youuur seeennses !

If coming to my senses meansd embracing anti-gay discrimination, it'll never happen.

636 I heart the USA  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:05:03pm

re: #595 Salamantis

And the facts that gay couples have to jump through legal hoops that straight couples don't.

I had to obtain a durable power of attorney to handle the financial, medical, and property affairs of my elderly mom. Picked up the form at Office Max for a couple of bucks, spent a good 5 minutes filling it out, then had it notorized (free for me but $10-$20 per sig normally).

Perhaps I should be allowed to enter into a civil union with my mom to avoid having to jump through any more onerous "legal hoops."

637 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:05:56pm

re: #592 reine.de.tout

My argument was, and is, that gay couples shouldn't have to jump through additional legal hoops to get to the same place that straights get to simply by marrying.

638 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:07:30pm

re: #620 Salamantis

You are incorrect. Homophobia is not the same thing as racism, or even sexism is. It is its own particular brand of bigotry, and apparently the only one left that is okay for some to publicly embrace.

re: #611 Dianna

I'm mainly concerned with what I was earlier calling 'legal persecution', because of something you said. It sounds kind of now like you might be for changing peoples minds and opinions and attitudes with legislation, or some legal action -- police force. I have (well, I should have) the right to discriminate all I want in my private affairs as long as I am not harming others. What's wrong with that? If I'm hiring a new girl to greet people at the entrance to my strip club, why can't I hire a hot sexy female Christian straight person? It's none of your business if I don't want a man, or a lesbian, or a big fat girl, or whatever. The current law is wrong. It's ridiculous. For the same reasons, you'll have a hard time changing everyone's opinions about homosexuality to exactly the same as your own by legal means. I've already got way more big brother than I am willing to accept! Note: by not contracting with the fat girl, or the gay guy, or whomever I chose to not hire --- I have done them NO HARM. I have simply chosen not to do business with them for my own personal reasons!

639 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:07:33pm

re: #623 stonemason

Okay, once again, not a lawyer, but you seem to be saying that a Medical Power of Attorny can not cross state lines? Nor a will?
Those are the things I am talking about, paperwork that affords the gay couple many of the same rights as a married couple and ALL of the rights of a non-married straight couple.
This is really about marriage though, because I never hear of straight domestic partners attacking churches demading the same rights as married couples.

Federal code specifies marriage as being between a man and a woman, so it comes into play in many things, including taxes, pensions, liens, citizenship, etc. etc. etc. I know everyone is telling you that civil union + the right paperwork is equal, but it truly isn't.

640 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:07:45pm

re: #637 Salamantis

My argument was, and is, that gay couples shouldn't have to jump through additional legal hoops to get to the same place that straights get to simply by marrying.

Come on now. 'Simply Marrying' ain't simple. It is far easier to complete a DPOA than it is to get married.

641 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:08:01pm

re: #636 I heart the USA

I had to obtain a durable power of attorney to handle the financial, medical, and property affairs of my elderly mom. Picked up the form at Office Max for a couple of bucks, spent a good 5 minutes filling it out, then had it notorized (free for me but $10-$20 per sig normally).

Perhaps I should be allowed to enter into a civil union with my mom to avoid having to jump through any more onerous "legal hoops."

I had to do the same with my mother. I was lucky that she wasn't diagnosed with Alzheimer's until a few weeks later, because that would have made the process quite legally onerous.

642 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:08:03pm

re: #630 Salamantis

DAMMIT, reine, what part of 'I'm okay with civil unions' do you have trouble reading?

And what part of "religious objection to to certain homosexual behaviors" (or actually, certain behaviors whether homosexual or heterosexual) is not the same as bigotry" do you not understand?

Your 575:

It is not an attack upon religion to forbid the selfsame discriminations against others that religions wish their members to practice. Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.

Sala - that's a scary statement.

643 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:08:28pm

re: #633 Salamantis

They are similar in that they are all variants of bigotry, but they are different in that they are differing variants. Plenty of people who harbor one do not harbor the rest. So your claim that I was accusing people who are prejudiced against gays of racism doesn't fly.

I suggest you re-read a number of your replies to rein.du.tout, then.

You keep saying that people are opposed to civil unions. They are not. You firmly ignore the problem people have with the word "marriage" being applied to civil unions.

You also treat people's objections far too lightly, and dismiss them as if there is only your view. This is not the case. Try to apply some understanding and empathy; a traditional understanding of what marriage means and should mean is not instantly bigotry.

644 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:08:32pm

re: #624 Salamantis

It is simply a fact that the vast majority of gays don't take advantage of the legal options that they already have. they don't want marriage, per se. They just want the Courts to redefine what constitutes "marriage" from the definition from what it has been basically since the beginning of history.

Again, it is more about forcing the straights to approve of their lifestyle, not just permit it. When you can show me that the majority of gays want to me married, have done everything in their power to become as though they were married, and still there is an issue get back with me.

Right now that is simply not the case. Right now they are pushing for a Court decision to force society to change the legal definition of marriage. The Courts are not where the gays efforts should be. If you want society to change, then work to change society. No one is saying that they can't do that. It is simply the case that they do not.

645 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:09:35pm

re: #623 stonemason

Okay, once again, not a lawyer, but you seem to be saying that a Medical Power of Attorny can not cross state lines? Nor a will?
Those are the things I am talking about, paperwork that affords the gay couple many of the same rights as a married couple and ALL of the rights of a non-married straight couple.
This is really about marriage though, because I never hear of straight domestic partners attacking churches demading the same rights as married couples.

Hilarious! Its not a right.

646 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:10:42pm

re: #640 Haverwilde

Come on now. 'Simply Marrying' ain't simple. It is far easier to complete a DPOA than it is to get married.

You mean for inheritance, and medical decision, and employee spousal benefits, and tax status, and all those other things that automatically happen when one gets married? I don't think so.

Which is why civil union laws should be on the books that do the same things for gay couples that marriages do for straight couples.

Who here disagrees with such civil union (not marriage) laws?

647 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:10:55pm

re: #638 Fearless Fred

Oh, no! You completely misunderstand me!

I don't like judicial activism; I think it is a very dangerous thing to rely upon.

I believe in persuasion. That means talking, and setting examples, and convincing the doubtful of one's position.

It does not mean general coercion!

648 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:12:07pm

re: #642 reine.de.tout

Sala - that's a scary statement.

Yeah...it is really scary to people who wish to disappreove of others, and to do something about it legally unhindered.

649 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:13:11pm

re: #646 Salamantis

Who here disagrees with such civil union (not marriage) laws?

Not me!

650 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:13:34pm

re: #644 Iron Fist

It is simply a fact that the vast majority of gays don't take advantage of the legal options that they already have. they don't want marriage, per se. They just want the Courts to redefine what constitutes "marriage" from the definition from what it has been basically since the beginning of history.

Again, it is more about forcing the straights to approve of their lifestyle, not just permit it.

That comments goes a little too far. It may well be true for some, but there is a large group who honestly would like to get married. Personally
I wish the 'state' would only deal with civil unions. Let the churches 'marry' people. The state does a better job on contract law, then they do on domestic situations.

651 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:14:04pm

re: #646 Salamantis

You mean for inheritance, and medical decision, and employee spousal benefits, and tax status, and all those other things that automatically happen when one gets married? I don't think so.

Which is why civil union laws should be on the books that do the same things for gay couples that marriages do for straight couples.

Who here disagrees with such civil union (not marriage) laws?

I have no objection to civil union laws.
I object strenuously to "marriage" for these arrangements.
I have no objection to people entering into contractual arrangements where "civil unions" do not exist. In fact, this only makes sense for all concerned - the individual people, any children or other family members involved - but a union of two people of the same-sex is not and cannot be, in my mind, "marriage".

And no one's religion should be "forced" by the government to accept homosexual behavior "for the benefit of all concerned".

652 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:14:33pm

re: #637 Salamantis

My argument was, and is, that gay couples shouldn't have to jump through additional legal hoops to get to the same place that straights get to simply by marrying.

Sala please! Come on ... so it's a little tough. It's weird. It's two people of the same sex. Shouldn't it be a tad confusing? What if was something else just a tiny bit different from 'real' marriage? ... a third partner ..... two kids .... WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE?

653 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:14:49pm

re: #602 stonemason

Please...stop that. Both Mandy and I have shown you how that is not true but you refuse to acknowledge it. A couple that is to be married goes to the courthouse, fills out paperwork, sees a lawyer, then gets married.

A gay couple sees a lawyer and fills out paper work...where is the discrimination?

A whole lot more paperwork for a whole lot more things that are automatically granted by marriage.

654 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:15:01pm

re: #647 Dianna

Trying to coerce society to change one of the fundamental institutions that it is built upon relying on judicial activism is going to fail. It will take the issue from "I don't care what they do" to "Hell, no I don't approve of it!" A backlash on the issue shouldn't be surprising. It was pretty much guaranteed when the decision to try to use the Courts to mandate social change.

655 Dianna  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:15:01pm

This time, I shall be polite about it:

I must leave. I'm sorry if I'm leaving something unanswered.

I have not had a shower, and I promised my Male I'd stop around four.

It's now 4:15, and I'm still sitting here!

656 Dirk Diggler  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:15:04pm
"Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: To be honest, death is too good for them. They should be gathered in a public place, where they would be flogged and tortured, so the truth about these people is made clear and they serve as a lesson to others, because they are an epidemic plaguing society."

COEXIST!

657 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:15:26pm

re: #648 Salamantis

Yeah...it is really scary to people who wish to disappreove of others, and to do something about it legally unhindered.

Well, that is not a fair or accurate assessment of me.

658 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:15:46pm

re: #644 Iron Fist

If you want society to change, then work to change society. No one is saying that they can't do that. It is simply the case that they do not.

How does one change society if not by changing laws in the process?

The opponents however change the constitution as a way to prevent anyone from doing what you suggest.

659 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:17:43pm

re: #646 Salamantis

Who here disagrees with such civil union (not marriage) laws?

Me. Civil union doesn't carry weight at the federal level and doesn't have 200+ years of jurisprudence backing it. It's not the same, no matter what you would like to believe. Marriage also carries responsibilities, and people forget about those. What about divorce and child support if that gay couple has a child? What about tax liens? There are numerous other responsibilities that go with marriage, if gays want the freedom to marry then they need to shoulder the burdens of responsibility as well, and civil unions don't put those protections and responsibilities in place.

660 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:18:27pm

re: #646 Salamantis

You mean for inheritance, and medical decision, and employee spousal benefits, and tax status, and all those other things that automatically happen when one gets married? I don't think so.

Medical decisions: use the DPOA, inheritance: you need a will; employee spousal benefits and tax status: is rank discrimination and both of them ought to be drastically changed so that is doesn't discriminate against singles.

661 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:18:30pm

re: #647 Dianna

Then we are one ... in opinion.

662 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:20:10pm

re: #654 Iron Fist

Trying to coerce society to change one of the fundamental institutions that it is built upon relying on judicial activism is going to fail. It will take the issue from "I don't care what they do" to "Hell, no I don't approve of it!" A backlash on the issue shouldn't be surprising. It was pretty much guaranteed when the decision to try to use the Courts to mandate social change.

Yep, that backlash was formed by extreme elements on both sides. Newsome in SF, the Republicans with the marriage ammendment (something previously proposed by dems to institute miscegnation laws btw.)

663 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:20:18pm

re: #653 Salamantis

Why should the Courts interfere with civil society's morals and statdards when the people you claim to be in favor of don't avail themselves of what legal remedies already exist?

They don't want marriage. They just want society to be forced to change how marriage is defined.

664 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:20:59pm

re: #639 Thanos

I agree with that at the Federal level because of DOMA. Partners in a civil union cannot collect spousal Social Security benefits or file as married a Federal Income Tax return. 1996's DOMA, signed into law by President Clinton established that difference by officially defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Even the traditionally very liberal / progressive 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld DOMA as not being unconstitutional under the US Constitution. The plaintiffs in this case were found to have not been damaged / injured by the federal definition of marriage.

There have been bills introduced in 2006 (HR 5152) to extend Social Security benefits, but it seems as if the Dems aren't in that much of a hurry to address that limitation. A similar bill was introduced by the same representative in 2004 - but none was introduced in the current Congress. Why? Perhaps someone should ask Rep. Jerrold Nadler - particularly since the Democrats controlled the House in the current Congress.

665 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:21:18pm

re: #617 stonemason

Okay...you do not get it. I do not oppose gay civil unions, I do not oppose homosexual sex in someone elses bedroom. I am not discriminating against anyone at all in any freakin' way.

I am asking you to understand that your all or nothing style of forcing homosexual sex is not a sin is more destructive than my acceptance of the sinner. You seem to not be able to accept my 'type' of person.

I already said that you do, and should, have the right to consider homosexual acts to be sinful, as long as you don't codify your religious belief into civil or criminal law. So where is what you are saying any different than what i am saying, except for the 'homosexuality is a sin' part?

666 LGoPs  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:22:52pm

re: #7 davinvalkri

And homosexuals are complaining about laws over here? Do you see anyone respectable calling for homosexuals to be defenestrated and killed around these parts? They oughta be calling for invasion or something. Wow.

Our liberal elites see us as more of a threat than these guys........makes me scratch my head at their ignorance

667 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:22:54pm

re: #618 Athos

And on some issues, I have to jump through hoops that others do not. That in itself does not make it a violation of someone's rights. Gee, one group has a legal hassle living in a certain state - and that hassle means getting a power of attorney to ensure that they can access the ICU if their partner is admitted - well, if I wasn't married, and just living my girlfriend, I would need the same power of attorney to gain access.

Sorry, that is the most specious of your arguments. Jumping through legal hoops is something that everyone has to deal with. They are not denied the right to try to jump through those hoops.

But if you chose to get married, that would not be a problem. Gay couples should have the right to enter into civil unions where it becomes a nonproblem, too.

668 LGoPs  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:24:02pm

Oops....comment 666....can't leave it at that

669 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:24:43pm

re: #619 yochanan

well the left has offen imprisoned people for haveing those religious views.
i am not going to change even if you have the state and all its laws tell me i have to change.

You don't have to change; you just don't get to force others to live as you wish to. No one's gonna force you into a gay civil union against your will.

670 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:25:08pm

re: #650 Haverwilde

That comments goes a little too far. It may well be true for some, but there is a large group who honestly would like to get married. Personally
I wish the 'state' would only deal with civil unions. Let the churches 'marry' people. The state does a better job on contract law, then they do on domestic situations.

Haverwilde -- Iron Fist is absolutely right.
I would only add that, from my knowledge of my many homosexual friends here in South Austinistan, there's also a huge activist push for the money side of things ..... like getting your 'spouses' benefits. That's very big around here.

671 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:26:06pm

re: #622 yochanan

frankly when gays come into a church or shul and create problems they are bigoted too. BREEDER is a bigoted term used by gays to show there hate towards the rest of us.

Yeah, it's an offensive term. Just like FAGGOT is.

672 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:26:48pm

re: #667 Salamantis

But if you chose to get married, that would not be a problem. Gay couples should have the right to enter into civil unions where it becomes a nonproblem, too.

the right ? . . . there's that word again.

673 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:27:02pm

re: #664 Athos

Now you see where this is going. It's the history of the Republican party to stand for liberty, and not for special rights. This is an issue that could cleave the democrats.

674 Serotonin  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:28:08pm

There are two issues here: morality and intolerance. There should be no leniency in the DEFINITION of marriage - one man plus one woman. This is not intolerance but a basic understanding of functional units. One only need be meticulously inductive to understand that society would NOT exist if same sex marriage was the norm. It helps if you believe in God and the sanctity of a man and woman uniting. I think part of the difficulty in discussing marriage amongst "intellectuals" is when one does not believe in God but believes in heterosexual marriage. Believing in God requires that one believe God created man for woman and vice versa. Anything short of this belief allows one to choose their own definition of marriage based on a time variable and evolution of societal norms and this position is always a "moving target."

What does qualify as intolerance is threatening violence to people who have moral challenges and struggle with homosexual tendencies. Everyone has moral challenges but this doesn't mean we should legalize them to gain broad acceptance of them within the society. This is where Americans are blessed - loosely speaking, we use the backdrop of Christianity in our approach to governance. This doesn't mean we are all Christians, but it allows for a "philosophy" to guide our purpose. A Christian-Judeo philosophy allows for a moral framework and broad leeway in accepting behaviors (ie, concept of grace) without the intolerance of some non-Christian societies. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good idea to "mix" religion and politics, but it's inevitable that our Christian heritage has set in motion the fundamentals of our country's system of governance. If you don’t like living in a country that has been built on Christian philosophy then go live in a country where Socialist, Communist, Buddhist, Muslim or some other philosophy is dominant.

If two same sex people want their own institution, DEFINE it and call it garriage or some sort of term.

675 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:29:51pm

re: #629 Dianna

Quite ineligible for you to say that, since you are equating all of them!

Nope; I clearly said that they were different variants of bigotry. Check out the adjective 'different'. So racists can be not sexist and not homophobic, and sexists can be not racist and not homophobic, and homophobes can be not sexist and not racist. But in all of the three outlined cases, some sort of bigotry or other is embraced, just a different type in each case.

676 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:29:52pm

re: #659 Thanos

What about divorce and child support if that gay couple has a child?

Under CA's civil union laws, the termination of a civil union requires the same processes, responsibilities, and accountabilities as the termination of a marriage. Unless the civil union partners go through this process then like married couples who don't divorce, they are also legally prohibited from entering into another civil union until the existing partnership is terminated.

No, your point is valid given the inability to extend civil union laws outside of states that have them to states that don't have them and at the Federal level. Both of these items are parts of DOMA. DOMA is the limiting factor here. But where are the legislative efforts in the current Congress to address this concern? Fundamentally, that is where the change has to come from - not the courts.

677 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:30:56pm

re: #672 Fearless Fred

the right ? . . . there's that word again.

Yep. I'm a firm believer in equal rights, regardless of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. And you're not?

678 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:31:01pm

re: #674 Serotonin

Do you think we ought to re-institute the anti-sodomy laws because these are just "moral challenges?"

679 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:31:35pm

re: #635 Salamantis

If coming to my senses meansd embracing anti-gay discrimination, it'll never happen.

hah hahaha .... no seriously . . . . I've posted this 97 times the last hour ... and you're still saying that?

Rather than demonizing gay-marriage, conservatives should emphasize the availability of civil unions — and then ask: What exactly is not enough protection in such current contracts, and how can such legal statutes be improved to protect the legal rights of gay couples? Civil unions should be seen as an avant-garde institution for novel times, while traditional marriage is reserved as a retrograde stuffy institution for the hopelessly straight.
680 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:32:41pm

re: #674 Serotonin

are you gagdad bob?

681 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:33:30pm

re: #676 Athos

I understand that people think it's the same, and the intent is to make it the same, but let's face it there just isn't a lot of case law and precedent for child custody and support cases with civil unions as there are with marriage. Marriage has 200+ years of it.

682 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:33:37pm

re: #631 Dianna

And he has a point. It's one you've managed to avoid, but it's actually quite an important one.

This isn't about bigotry or tolerance. It's about talking about a contentious issue without insisting that the other side is on the side of the demons.

It is indeed about prejudice; the kind that illegitimately superglues the most heinous and egregious behaviors of an extremist minority of a group on all or most members of the group.

683 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:34:16pm

re: #673 Thanos

No, it couldn't cleave the Democrats. Gays are perfectly fine with politicians who are opposed to gay marriage as long as they have a "D" after their name. This is being used as an issue to split the Republicans away from the conservative base. The Democrat position on gay marriage is almost indistinguishable from the Republican position.

But it is the Republicans that are being pushed to change their position. The reason, I suspect, is that the gay marriage issue is a loser with voters no matter who espouses it. So much the better if you can convince the Republicans to change their position to one that is a political loser.

684 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:36:34pm

re: #674 Serotonin

That comes close to perfect .... love love love it. But you're about to be bombed for it. You can't say those things now days.

685 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:36:36pm

re: #667 Salamantis

But if you chose to get married, that would not be a problem. Gay couples should have the right to enter into civil unions where it becomes a nonproblem, too.

And I have not said at one point that they should be prevented from civil unions.....just with the redefinition of the word marriage and with the enactment of change via judicial fiat as opposed by the constitutional methods of legislation / voice of the people.

Fundamentally, marriage remains defined as between one man and one woman. If I was unable to get married, ie - not of age, or wanting to marry my first cousin in a state that prohibits that, would I be discriminated against in the same basis as a homosexual couple? Here in CA, I wouldn't even have the civil union option.

So, are you working your State and Federal representatives to make these changes - or are you waiting for the courts to do it?

686 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:37:08pm

re: #674 Serotonin

Hey, welcome to the group, like your nic. Hope you don't suffer from indole-nce, if you know what amine.

687 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:37:19pm

re: #638 Fearless Fred

re: #611 Dianna

I'm mainly concerned with what I was earlier calling 'legal persecution', because of something you said. It sounds kind of now like you might be for changing peoples minds and opinions and attitudes with legislation, or some legal action -- police force. I have (well, I should have) the right to discriminate all I want in my private affairs as long as I am not harming others. What's wrong with that? If I'm hiring a new girl to greet people at the entrance to my strip club, why can't I hire a hot sexy female Christian straight person? It's none of your business if I don't want a man, or a lesbian, or a big fat girl, or whatever. The current law is wrong. It's ridiculous. For the same reasons, you'll have a hard time changing everyone's opinions about homosexuality to exactly the same as your own by legal means. I've already got way more big brother than I am willing to accept! Note: by not contracting with the fat girl, or the gay guy, or whomever I chose to not hire --- I have done them NO HARM. I have simply chosen not to do business with them for my own personal reasons!

Or if you don't wanna hire the more qualified black person because of his complexion? It's not the same kind of discrimination, but it is indeed discrimination.

688 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:38:51pm

re: #683 Iron Fist

I hear you, but long term opposition is a political loser. Someone posted the demographics on it in the last thread we had on this, to younger generations this isn't a big deal, and the older socons in our party are not going to be here forever. In the grand scheme of things opposing it is bad long term strategy, for little short term gain, as it's going to be legalized within the next thirty years or so, one way or the other. There are certainly more important things for the R's to spend their time on, but a lot of money, resource, and effort that could have been spent getting real R"s elected went to gay opposition instead. It's counterproductive.

689 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:39:28pm

re: #642 reine.de.tout

And what part of "religious objection to to certain homosexual behaviors" (or actually, certain behaviors whether homosexual or heterosexual) is not the same as bigotry" do you not understand?

So you have religious objections to oral and anal sex, whether they are straight or gay?

690 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:42:11pm

re: #643 Dianna

I suggest you re-read a number of your replies to rein.du.tout, then.

You keep saying that people are opposed to civil unions. They are not. You firmly ignore the problem people have with the word "marriage" being applied to civil unions.

You also treat people's objections far too lightly, and dismiss them as if there is only your view. This is not the case. Try to apply some understanding and empathy; a traditional understanding of what marriage means and should mean is not instantly bigotry.

You seem to think that I am demanding gay marriage. I am not. Gay civil unions would correct the discrimination just fine. And if even gay civil unions steps on some people's emotional toes, tough.

691 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:43:55pm

Yep, it's me that's supporting gay marriage, but only feebly. I could be convinced to stop if someone comes up with a reasonable counter argument, nobody has so far.

692 I heart the USA  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:44:43pm

re: #687 Salamantis

Or if you don't wanna hire the more qualified black person because of his complexion? It's not the same kind of discrimination, but it is indeed discrimination.

Or if you don't want to hire the more qualified white person because of his complexion? It's not the same kind of discrimination...Oh, wait, that isn't discrimination!//

693 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:44:59pm

re: #689 Salamantis

So you have religious objections to oral and anal sex, whether they are straight or gay?

Do you have the slightest idea of how to talk to a lady?

694 Marlin925  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:45:21pm

Ahem, "Dr." Sa'd Al-'Inzi , I hate to break this to you, but us infidels who have been to various crapistans have found most of you to be queerer than a 3 dollar bill.

695 Thanos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:46:15pm

Well I have to go, the dogs need their run before 24 comes on.

696 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:47:34pm

re: #651 reine.de.tout

I have no objection to civil union laws.
I object strenuously to "marriage" for these arrangements.
I have no objection to people entering into contractual arrangements where "civil unions" do not exist. In fact, this only makes sense for all concerned - the individual people, any children or other family members involved - but a union of two people of the same-sex is not and cannot be, in my mind, "marriage".

And no one's religion should be "forced" by the government to accept homosexual behavior "for the benefit of all concerned".

Religions or churches aren't being forced to accept jack shit by the passage of civil union laws. No church or religion can be forced to perform a ceremony against its will. Nor can they be forced to accept parishioners that they would prefer not to accept.

697 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:47:53pm

re: #689 Salamantis

So you have religious objections to oral and anal sex, whether they are straight or gay?

What specifically does this have to do with things? Doesn't a person have the individual right and freedom to decide what actions and behavior they personally condone, accept, want to practice, and do not want to condone, or practice? Why is this even something that is subject to public discourse with the requirement that the one conforms totally to the viewpoint of another.

If someone opposes those actions in principle but doesn't physically work to prevent someone else in the privacy of their bedroom from doing those actions - how is the first a bigot or is it any less an act of bigotry to force the first person to accept those acts in public as a 'right'?

Like it or not, morality does get legislated. Over time, and with evolving positions including cogent and rational arguments, morality based legislation may change. But in this society, while the minority has some protections, they still cannot dictate to the majority. That is the fundamental basis of the US Constitution.

698 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:48:28pm

re: #690 Salamantis

You seem to think that I am demanding gay marriage. I am not. Gay civil unions would correct the discrimination just fine. And if even gay civil unions steps on some people's emotional toes, tough.

I'm a Born Again Christian and I am all for gay civil unions, the problem is, and perhaps you haven't figured this out yet, that the Homosexual community doesn't want civil unions and they don't want marriage.

What they are seeking is the uncategorical admission from Christianity that homosexuality is a perfectly natural state of nature and totally undeserving of the designation of a sinful act considered to be an abomination before God.

699 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:49:30pm

re: #696 Salamantis

Religions or churches aren't being forced to accept jack shit by the passage of civil union laws. No church or religion can be forced to perform a ceremony against its will. Nor can they be forced to accept parishioners that they would prefer not to accept.

Try selling that BS to EHarmony...........

700 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:50:02pm

re: #652 Fearless Fred

Sala please! Come on ... so it's a little tough. It's weird. It's two people of the same sex. Shouldn't it be a tad confusing? What if was something else just a tiny bit different from 'real' marriage? ... a third partner ..... two kids .... WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE?

Can you fing READ? I have said eleventy-twelve umpteen times that I am supporting gay CIVIL UNIONS, and yet people insist on cramming the words gay MARRIAGE in my mouth!

701 pingjockey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:51:59pm

Some legal eagle correct me if I'm wrong. Can't gays get civil unions now? And isn't there legal paperwork that would make your same sex partner your next of kin?

702 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:53:12pm

re: #660 Haverwilde

Medical decisions: use the DPOA, inheritance: you need a will; employee spousal benefits and tax status: is rank discrimination and both of them ought to be drastically changed so that is doesn't discriminate against singles.

So why not just pass civil union laws instead, that do all this automatically?

703 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:54:12pm

re: #696 Salamantis

No church or religion can be forced to perform a ceremony against its will.

Actually, the superset of rights assigned by the CA Supreme Court by defining homosexuality as a protected class, did provide the framework that any church or religion that refused to conduct a gay marriage ceremony would be capable of being litigated for discrimination. So, the choice for a church would have been a) refuse to do same-sex ceremonies and risk the litigation, b) eliminate all marriage / union ceremonies to avoid the risk of ligitation, c) conduct all marriage / union ceremonies invalidating their own doctrine and beliefs if those stood against same-sex marriage.

704 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:55:12pm

re: #677 Salamantis

Yep. I'm a firm believer in equal rights, regardless of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. And you're not?

Yes I am -- under God (not your nanny-state, commie-laws). Therefor I wish my government to allow me my God-given freedom to associate with and contract with whomever I please for whatever reason I please. I will discriminate against whomever I wish for whatever reason I please. You apparently have a very narrow and legalistic and negative understanding of the word discriminate. I don't. I do not tolerate bigots in my private life, to the extent that I can avoid them. Those equal rights though that you're asking me whether I believe in .... they came from God. You feel like you don't have one or another of those rights because you've rejected God. Puts you at a disadvantage now because you resort to the notion that somehow your rights will come to you through big daddy government ... the nanny-state .... whatever you want to call it. Not me. They are the enemy in these matters these days. Government is doing much more to erode my basic God-given rights in its efforts to buy constituencies with handing out harmful 'special rights' to more and more groups.

705 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:55:25pm

re: #701 pingjockey

Some legal eagle correct me if I'm wrong. Can't gays get civil unions now? And isn't there legal paperwork that would make your same sex partner your next of kin?

Not in most states. Most states do not have either gay marriage or gay civil union laws on the books.

And yes, you could adopt each other, but it's a lot more trouble than having such things done automatically upon entering into a civil union.

706 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:56:38pm

re: #702 Salamantis

So why not just pass civil union laws instead, that do all this automatically?

Because the homosexual community doesn't want civil unions, they want Christianity to say homosexuality is perfectly acceptable to God.

707 gman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:58:14pm

re: #698 doriangrey

I'm a Born Again Christian and I am all for gay civil unions, the problem is, and perhaps you haven't figured this out yet, that the Homosexual community doesn't want civil unions and they don't want marriage.

What they are seeking is the uncategorical admission from Christianity that homosexuality is a perfectly natural state of nature and totally undeserving of the designation of a sinful act considered to be an abomination before God.

Are you talking about a gay world conspiracy against christianity?

708 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:58:48pm

re: #702 Salamantis

So why not just pass civil union laws instead, that do all this automatically?

You must have missed my other comment. I want the state out of the 'marriage' business all together. That should be a church matter. There should only be civil unions. Let contract law rule.

I might add that I see no problem if you want six men and 8 women to form a union. (Throw in a goat, and might have a problem.) Frankly it would have a side benefit, of requiring anyone considering a civil union to be legally an adult.

709 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:59:27pm

re: #704 Fearless Fred

Yes I am -- under God (not your nanny-state, commie-laws). Therefor I wish my government to allow me my God-given freedom to associate with and contract with whomever I please for whatever reason I please. I will discriminate against whomever I wish for whatever reason I please. You apparently have a very narrow and legalistic and negative understanding of the word discriminate. I don't. I do not tolerate bigots in my private life, to the extent that I can avoid them. Those equal rights though that you're asking me whether I believe in .... they came from God. You feel like you don't have one or another of those rights because you've rejected God. Puts you at a disadvantage now because you resort to the notion that somehow your rights will come to you through big daddy government ... the nanny-state .... whatever you want to call it. Not me. They are the enemy in these matters these days. Government is doing much more to erode my basic God-given rights in its efforts to buy constituencies with handing out harmful 'special rights' to more and more groups.

You make my point for me. Whether or not US citizens believes that their rights are deifically endowed, they are guaranteed by our government via our constitution and laws, and may be expanded or contracted by our government simply by amending the constitution or by passing or repealing laws.

710 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:59:44pm

re: #701 pingjockey

Some legal eagle correct me if I'm wrong. Can't gays get civil unions now? And isn't there legal paperwork that would make your same sex partner your next of kin?

Depends on the State that they live in. There are also limitations at the Federal level because of DOMA which does not extend Federal benefits to same sex couples even if they live in a State with civil unions. DOMA also eliminates the reciprocal recognition of civil unions - States are not required to recognize civil unions established in other States.

One can get a power of attorney even in a State without civil unions to get some of the medical and financial access / rights that would be limited because those States don't recognize a civil union -but the key on this is 'some'.

711 pingjockey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 4:59:47pm

re: #705 Salamantis
Thanks. I thought a civil union could be performed by a judge on two people of legal age regarless of same sex or not.

712 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:00:27pm

re: #689 Salamantis

So you have religious objections to oral and anal sex, whether they are straight or gay?

Oh, fer. . . it doesn't matter what my particular objections are, or what my particular "sins" have been. My personal little particular opinions or objections are a small part of the picture.

You seem to have indicated that legally, certain religions should now be forced by civil law to accept what they have not accepted at any time in history.

The issue for me isn't whether or not any particular person is or is not a homosexual, or is or is not religious, or whatever.

The issue for me is that there is a group that seems to now wish to force, by law, churches and religions to accept that which has been preached against for eons.

Which is why I found your #575 so scary:
Your 575:

It is not an attack upon religion to forbid the selfsame discriminations against others that religions wish their members to practice. Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.

713 pingjockey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:02:08pm

re: #710 Athos
See, I knew if I asked I'd get intelligent answers. That's two, you and Salamantis. Answered my question quite cogently.

714 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:02:16pm

re: #663 Iron Fist

Why should the Courts interfere with civil society's morals and statdards when the people you claim to be in favor of don't avail themselves of what legal remedies already exist?

They don't want marriage. They just want society to be forced to change how marriage is defined.

No, my gay cousins, who do not flaunt around the streets in assless chaps, simply want their long-term monogamous commitments to their partners to be acknowledged by the state, that they are couples, with couples rights and benefits.

715 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:02:35pm

re: #696 Salamantis

Religions or churches aren't being forced to accept jack shit by the passage of civil union laws. No church or religion can be forced to perform a ceremony against its will. Nor can they be forced to accept parishioners that they would prefer not to accept.

And so, why is it that Catholic Charities adoption services have been forced to close in Massachusetts?

716 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:03:43pm

re: #688 Thanos

as it's going to be legalized within the next thirty years or so, one way or the other


I'd say that it is not a foregone conclusion that gay marriage will be legally recognized in this country. And I'd say that the more in-your-face about it the gays get, the less likely it becomes. You may not get a Federal Marriage Amendment, but you will get it on the State level. That's not a prediction, that is what is happening now.

717 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:03:46pm

re: #693 Moe Katz

Do you have the slightest idea of how to talk to a lady?

A gentleman! Wonderful to see.
So few left these days, it seems . . .

718 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:05:47pm

re: #690 Salamantis

You seem to think that I am demanding gay marriage. I am not. Gay civil unions would correct the discrimination just fine. And if even gay civil unions steps on some people's emotional toes, tough.

As long as you mean legal discrimination. Like - in the law ... by government. If you're trying to 'correct' private discrimination by legal means, forget it. We've had enough of that. Those days are - thankfully - coming to an end. I'd say you have a better chance going back to the baptists and trying to influence them --- seriously --- that would be brave and noble and heroic. But if you're gonna try and change me with government again ... watch out.
I'll sick Saracuda on ya!//

719 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:06:59pm

re: #700 Salamantis

I have pink eye tonight. ?

720 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:07:06pm

re: #707 gman

Are you talking about a gay world conspiracy against christianity?

ROTFLMAO...... No, the Homosexual community doesn't want to destroy Christianity, they just want to have Christianity in general repudiate 2000 years of Christian theology regarding homosexuality.

721 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:07:37pm

re: #685 Athos

And I have not said at one point that they should be prevented from civil unions.....just with the redefinition of the word marriage and with the enactment of change via judicial fiat as opposed by the constitutional methods of legislation / voice of the people.

Fundamentally, marriage remains defined as between one man and one woman. If I was unable to get married, ie - not of age, or wanting to marry my first cousin in a state that prohibits that, would I be discriminated against in the same basis as a homosexual couple? Here in CA, I wouldn't even have the civil union option.

So, are you working your State and Federal representatives to make these changes - or are you waiting for the courts to do it?

Once again, I am not advocating gay marriage. I am supporting gay civil unions. And I am straight - just not narrow.

722 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:09:31pm

re: #692 I heart the USA

Or if you don't want to hire the more qualified white person because of his complexion? It's not the same kind of discrimination...Oh, wait, that isn't discrimination!//

It's discrimination in either case. I supported the Alan Bakke case against racial quotas in university admission for the same reason.

723 Athos  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:11:08pm

re: #721 Salamantis

So, are you working your State and Federal representatives to make these changes - or are you waiting for the courts to do it?

724 I heart the USA  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:14:24pm

re: #651 reine.de.tout

I have no objection to civil union laws.
I object strenuously to "marriage" for these arrangements.
I have no objection to people entering into contractual arrangements where "civil unions" do not exist. In fact, this only makes sense for all concerned - the individual people, any children or other family members involved - but a union of two people of the same-sex is not and cannot be, in my mind, "marriage".

And no one's religion should be "forced" by the government to accept homosexual behavior "for the benefit of all concerned".

re: #696 Salamantis

Religions or churches aren't being forced to accept jack shit by the passage of civil union laws. No church or religion can be forced to perform a ceremony against its will. Nor can they be forced to accept parishioners that they would prefer not to accept.

How in the HELL did you infer that by what reine wrote?! I have never before seen anyone so determined to ignore the clearly stated content of posts and inject his own inferences that have no logical relation to what was actually posted.

725 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:15:53pm

re: #698 doriangrey

I'm a Born Again Christian and I am all for gay civil unions, the problem is, and perhaps you haven't figured this out yet, that the Homosexual community doesn't want civil unions and they don't want marriage.

What they are seeking is the uncategorical admission from Christianity that homosexuality is a perfectly natural state of nature and totally undeserving of the designation of a sinful act considered to be an abomination before God.

Well, there is a genetic component to the predisposition to homosexuality, and there is a much higher incidence of homosexuality among the children of women who underwent elevated stress during critical periods in fetal gestation. This stress provokes hormonal bath changes that cause the developing brain to mature differently. This is a solid physiological difference. The difference between gay brains and straight brains of either sex can be detected via MRI.

So, you can attribute it to God or to Nature, but it IS natural. Just like it is in animals, where it is also found.

726 gman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:17:14pm

re: #715 reine.de.tout

And so, why is it that Catholic Charities adoption services have been forced to close in Massachusetts?

Massachusetts permits gay adoptions. The Catholic Charities adoption service falls under state supervision and therefore state regulation because of the nature of their work.

727 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:17:37pm

re: #723 Athos

So, are you working your State and Federal representatives to make these changes - or are you waiting for the courts to do it?

Neither. My gay cousins might be lobbying THEIR representatives, but they're not out marching about it. I'm simply presenting and defending my stance on the issue, just like everybody else here is.

728 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:18:49pm

re: #725 Salamantis

Well, there is a genetic component to the predisposition to homosexuality, and there is a much higher incidence of homosexuality among the children of women who underwent elevated stress during critical periods in fetal gestation. This stress provokes hormonal bath changes that cause the developing brain to mature differently. This is a solid physiological difference. The difference between gay brains and straight brains of either sex can be detected via MRI.

So, you can attribute it to God or to Nature, but it IS natural. Just like it is in animals, where it is also found.

No there isn't, that theory has been totally debunked by science. I will repeat this just in case you are having difficulty understanding it. There is absolutly zero scientific evidence supporting the Gay gene.

729 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:18:58pm

re: #699 doriangrey

Try selling that BS to EHarmony...........

They're a public business, not a private religious institution...and lawyers maintain that they didn't legally have to acquiesce; they just wanted to avoid the hassles.

730 gman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:19:46pm

re: #720 doriangrey

ROTFLMAO...... No, the Homosexual community doesn't want to destroy Christianity, they just want to have Christianity in general repudiate 2000 years of Christian theology regarding homosexuality.

Do you really think that the gay community as a whole wants to change your religion? Aren't you just talking about select groups?

731 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:20:27pm

re: #728 doriangrey

No there isn't, that theory has been totally debunked by science. I will repeat this just in case you are having difficulty understanding it. There is absolutly zero scientific evidence supporting the Gay gene.

[Link: www.boston.com...]

732 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:28:17pm

re: #715 reine.de.tout

And so, why is it that Catholic Charities adoption services have been forced to close in Massachusetts?

Perhaps the distinction is that adoption services are not a "Catholic" thing. It is a regulated secular social service that has to follow a secular law. In this case Catholics want to pick and choose what parts of the law they like. They have not been forced to close, they have simply decided that they don't want to follow secular law in this case.

The same applies to abortion services, and family planning.

733 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:29:27pm

re: #712 reine.de.tout

Oh, fer. . . it doesn't matter what my particular objections are, or what my particular "sins" have been. My personal little particular opinions or objections are a small part of the picture.

You seem to have indicated that legally, certain religions should now be forced by civil law to accept what they have not accepted at any time in history.

The issue for me isn't whether or not any particular person is or is not a homosexual, or is or is not religious, or whatever.

The issue for me is that there is a group that seems to now wish to force, by law, churches and religions to accept that which has been preached against for eons.

Which is why I found your #575 so scary:
Your 575:

It is not an attack upon religion to forbid the selfsame discriminations against others that religions wish their members to practice. Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.

Do you or your church have any particular strictions in mind that you would like to enforce regarding gays that antidiscrimination laws would interfere with?

Remember that womens' equality was preached against for eons, too - and still is, in some denominations that don't allow women to join their clergy.

734 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:29:45pm

re: #730 gman

Do you really think that the gay community as a whole wants to change your religion? Aren't you just talking about select groups?

Nope and nope. They dont want to change my religion, they just dont want to be considered sinners. The struggle for gay marriage is unique to societies with predominantly Judaeo-Christian heritages.

735 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:32:06pm

re: #728 doriangrey

No there isn't, that theory has been totally debunked by science. I will repeat this just in case you are having difficulty understanding it. There is absolutly zero scientific evidence supporting the Gay gene.

I do believe you are wrong, although to call it a gay "gene" is also wrong, but that there is a biological disposition, meaning from birth and probably genetically influenced, is undeniable.

736 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:33:26pm

re: #716 Iron Fist

I'd say that it is not a foregone conclusion that gay marriage will be legally recognized in this country. And I'd say that the more in-your-face about it the gays get, the less likely it becomes. You may not get a Federal Marriage Amendment, but you will get it on the State level. That's not a prediction, that is what is happening now.

Yeah, right, suuuure...if y'all gays try to work towards your equal rights, you'll cause a backlash that'll keep you from ever getting 'em, but if you just quietly camp out in your closets like good little queers, we'll give them to you unasked eventually...

Who's buying this Brooklyn Bridge?

737 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:35:36pm

re: #731 Salamantis

[Link: www.boston.com...]

That a man so well versed in the scientific method could so easily succumb to this gibberish is a frighting thought Sal. No Genetic component to homosexuality.

738 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:36:02pm

re: #718 Fearless Fred

As long as you mean legal discrimination. Like - in the law ... by government. If you're trying to 'correct' private discrimination by legal means, forget it. We've had enough of that. Those days are - thankfully - coming to an end. I'd say you have a better chance going back to the baptists and trying to influence them --- seriously --- that would be brave and noble and heroic. But if you're gonna try and change me with government again ... watch out.
I'll sick Saracuda on ya!//

I am only speaking of legal discrimination. And sarahcuda would be standing right beside me; as Alaska's governor, she vetoed a bill that would have stripped employee spousal benefits from the partners of gay workers.

739 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:38:28pm

re: #737 doriangrey

That a man so well versed in the scientific method could so easily succumb to this gibberish is a frighting thought Sal. No Genetic component to homosexuality.

You provide a link to a site that proudly proclaims that it is in the business of "Exposing the Myth of Evolution"?

HaHaHoHoHeeHeeHee!

740 Stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:40:19pm

re: #689 Salamantis

So you have religious objections to oral and anal sex, whether they are straight or gay?

They are sins, as is bigamy, polyandry, pedophilia, necrophilia, and various other sexual peccadillo's. I am glad you brought this up.

If allow civil unions for man/man, what is to stop the man/woman/woman groups from suing for equality?

How about the man/child groups, or the man/sheep groups?


Hey, my post made as much sense as yours!

741 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:42:57pm

re: #737 doriangrey

That a man so well versed in the scientific method could so easily succumb to this gibberish is a frighting thought Sal. No Genetic component to homosexuality.

That you would take this link at face value and as science is also gibberish.

As the data began to pour in, they allowed scientists to construct gene maps—using actual sequences from the Human Genome Project. And yet, neither the map for the X nor the Y chromosome contains any “gay gene.”

Nobody knows what a gay gene would look like, nor does anyone know what a gene for flat feet looks like. I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

Aside from that, only 3 or 4 people's genes have been mapped in full so far, and I suspect none of them were gay. That question is still to be investigated, but as with most human characteristics there is unlikely to a single gene explanation.

742 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:45:10pm

re: #736 Salamantis

If you keep trying to shove gay marriage down the throats of voters you will have more Prop. 8 type laws/amendments pass. That is not a prediction, that is what is happening now.

I'm very interested that you don't seem to mind when, say, Barrack Obama is against gay marriage, but you do have a problem if the Republicans say the very same thing. Why aren't you giving Barrack Obama holy hell over his position on gay marriage?

It couldn't be that you have partisan interests in pushing the Republicans into a position that will lose them votes, could it? You can't? win this issue at the ballot box. Not at this time, and not for the foreseeable future. You calling people bigots may make you feel better, but it does nothing to advance the cause you say you support.

743 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:47:31pm

re: #740 Stonemason

They are sins, as is bigamy, polyandry, pedophilia, necrophilia, and various other sexual peccadillo's. I am glad you brought this up.

If allow civil unions for man/man, what is to stop the man/woman/woman groups from suing for equality?

How about the man/child groups, or the man/sheep groups?


Hey, my post made as much sense as yours!

I think you're going to find some big-time opposition to outlawing straight oral sex. Do you really classify blow jobs and eating out in the same category with group marriage, pedosex and corpse-fucking? And how many other people will?

All that has to be done is to define civil unions as between two people. That language keeps the polyfidelitous thing from being legalized, whether its polygamous or polyandrous.

744 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:48:19pm

re: #739 Salamantis

You provide a link to a site that proudly proclaims that it is in the business of "Exposing the Myth of Evolution"?

HaHaHoHoHeeHeeHee!

Maybe you should have applied some of those analytical skills of your before posting that.

The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins). This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website.

Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.

The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side”—dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:
1. The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system—as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies—finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science
2. The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data

The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.

This site is one answer to such unreasonable—and unscientific—practices...

745 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:49:04pm

re: #717 reine.de.tout

A gentleman! Wonderful to see.
So few left these days, it seems . . .

One of the things I admire most about Southerners ... but I'll never equal those who were raised in the culture. Can you imagine Andy Griffith using those words in mixed company?

746 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:49:34pm

re: #742 Iron Fist

If you keep trying to shove gay marriage down the throats of voters you will have more Prop. 8 type laws/amendments pass. That is not a prediction, that is what is happening now.

I'm very interested that you don't seem to mind when, say, Barrack Obama is against gay marriage, but you do have a problem if the Republicans say the very same thing. Why aren't you giving Barrack Obama holy hell over his position on gay marriage?

It couldn't be that you have partisan interests in pushing the Republicans into a position that will lose them votes, could it? You can't? win this issue at the ballot box. Not at this time, and not for the foreseeable future. You calling people bigots may make you feel better, but it does nothing to advance the cause you say you support.

You, too, seem to type much better than you can read. I have repeatedly said that I support gay civil unions rather than gay marriage.

747 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:51:21pm

re: #733 Salamantis

Do you or your church have any particular strictions in mind that you would like to enforce regarding gays that antidiscrimination laws would interfere with?

Remember that womens' equality was preached against for eons, too - and still is, in some denominations that don't allow women to join their clergy.

My original objection that began this conversation was that those who have faith-based objections to something are automatically labelled by you as "bigots".

That is the "striction" I have expressed that I have issues with in this thread.
I don't know why you keep jumping around to different topics that haven't been discussed and have no bearing on the question that we were originally talking about, which is the context in which my answers should be taken.

There are no anti-discrimination laws that I or my church have any problems with. None. Zip. Zilch.Nada.

The objection I have is to your stated aim that perhaps religions, for the "good of all concerned", should be forced by laws (that do not yet currently exist) to celebrate that which the religion holds to be inappropriate.

Your 575 again:
It is not an attack upon religion to forbid the selfsame discriminations against others that religions wish their members to practice. Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.

748 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:51:24pm

re: #742 Iron Fist

If you keep trying to shove gay marriage down the throats of voters you will have more Prop. 8 type laws/amendments pass.

In Florida I think the majority (for 8 equivalent) won by about 5 or 6 percent also. The ease with which you accept that 5 or 6 percent of the population can dictate fundamentals to very nearly half of the population is troubling. Winning a case on law is one thing, because then one has the opportunity to continue the debate and change minds one way or the other.

Changing the constitution seems to me to be sleaze politics designed to kill communication as much as possible.

749 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:51:32pm

Of course, Salamantis is a native Southerner, too. So perhaps I overgeneralize.

750 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:52:07pm

re: #744 doriangrey

yeah, right, shuuuure...you can find the same kinda disingenuous bullshit spiel on the Disco Institute site, the Creation on the Web site, and the Answers in Genesis site.

751 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:52:42pm

Let's let Salamantis's downding stand on my #745. It says a whole lot about him.

752 Stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:53:37pm

re: #743 Salamantis

Wow...I re-read and re-read my post. I can not find anything that even closely points to outlawing oral sex, or that would merit the absolutely off-color response from you. I consider many things sins, most of them are not illegal. Sin and law are two different things, and shall remain that way. I sure do wish you would stop inferring, contrary to EVERYTHING i have written that I am a bigot or a homophobe as I am not.

Your argument is poor, oh, and intercourse per os is illegal in Pennsylvania, look it up, it is still in the code.

As for stopping at one man one man...go to the NAM#% site, I won't name it, I won't link it. They DO NOT want it to stop at man/man do they?

Like I said, I have no problems with civil unions, I have no problems with 90 percent of the gay population as I have no problem with 90 percent of the straight population, but stop inferring I am something I am not to make yourself feel better somehow.

753 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:54:19pm

re: #744 doriangrey

Good grief! Did a lawyer write that?

754 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:54:26pm

re: #745 Moe Katz

One of the things I admire most about Southerners ... but I'll never equal those who were raised in the culture. Can you imagine Andy Griffith using those words in mixed company?

You are doing a great job.

I can't imagine Andy Griffith using those words in mixed company. Also, the whole thing was completely outside the context of the original post of Sala's that I tood umbrage with, that is, a person with religious objection to something is automatically labelled a "bigot".

Such idiocy.

755 I heart the USA  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:55:37pm

re: #722 Salamantis

It's discrimination in either case. I supported the Alan Bakke case against racial quotas in university admission for the same reason.

And all that resulted from Bakke's win was institutions getting creative in establishing quotas by calling them something else. As in the 2 cases involving the U of Michigan in 2003, SCOTUS held that the desire to maintain a "diverse" student body was NOT the same as quotas and therefore not discriminatory. Of course, to obtain that "diverse" student body one must factor in the race of the applicant, and that means racial discrimination and quotas, even if not specifically enumerated. They just put lipstick on the pig and figured we're too stupid to realize it's still a pig.

756 gman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:55:49pm

re: #734 doriangrey

Nope and nope. They dont want to change my religion, they just dont want to be considered sinners. The struggle for gay marriage is unique to societies with predominantly Judaeo-Christian heritages.

But if your religion had to admit that gays are not sinners wouldn't that mean that you're religion would have to accommodate that admission? In effect, changing your religion?

757 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:56:03pm

re: #747 reine.de.tout

My original objection that began this conversation was that those who have faith-based objections to something are automatically labelled by you as "bigots".

That is the "striction" I have expressed that I have issues with in this thread.
I don't know why you keep jumping around to different topics that haven't been discussed and have no bearing on the question that we were originally talking about, which is the context in which my answers should be taken.

There are no anti-discrimination laws that I or my church have any problems with. None. Zip. Zilch.Nada.

The objection I have is to your stated aim that perhaps religions, for the "good of all concerned", should be forced by laws (that do not yet currently exist) to celebrate that which the religion holds to be inappropriate.

Your 575 again:
It is not an attack upon religion to forbid the selfsame discriminations against others that religions wish their members to practice. Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.

Well, IS nondiscrimination an attack on your religion? What discriminations does your religion wish its members to practice, and against what groups? If none, against no one, then I fail to perceive the presence of any attack.

758 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:56:37pm

re: #750 Salamantis

yeah, right, shuuuure...you can find the same kinda disingenuous bullshit spiel on the Disco Institute site, the Creation on the Web site, and the Answers in Genesis site.

Yes because obviously being Christian clearly is an indication of an inability to be either intellectually honest or comprehend the basic tenants of scientific methodology.

759 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 5:58:46pm

re: #756 gman

But if your religion had to admit that gays are not sinners wouldn't that mean that you're religion would have to accommodate that admission? In effect, changing your religion?

No more than admitting that slavery was wrong did.

760 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:02:53pm

re: #752 Stonemason

Wow...I re-read and re-read my post. I can not find anything that even closely points to outlawing oral sex, or that would merit the absolutely off-color response from you. I consider many things sins, most of them are not illegal. Sin and law are two different things, and shall remain that way. I sure do wish you would stop inferring, contrary to EVERYTHING i have written that I am a bigot or a homophobe as I am not.

Your argument is poor, oh, and intercourse per os is illegal in Pennsylvania, look it up, it is still in the code.

By os, I trust you mean oral sex. "Oral sex and 'anal sex' were the terms that so scandalized poor prurient Moe. And yes, that law should be repealed.

As for stopping at one man one man...go to the NAM#% site, I won't name it, I won't link it. They DO NOT want it to stop at man/man do they?

NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, are indeed sick and twisted pedos. But the lion's share of pedophilia occurs between members of the opposite sex, some religions' clergy notwithstanding.

Like I said, I have no problems with civil unions, I have no problems with 90 percent of the gay population as I have no problem with 90 percent of the straight population, but stop inferring I am something I am not to make yourself feel better somehow.

If you have no problem with gay civil unions, then we are on the same legal page, and that's what matters.

761 gman  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:03:16pm

re: #759 doriangrey

No more than admitting that slavery was wrong did.

So, then where is the pressure to make an admission that gays are not sinners? If you say that it won't change your religion in any shape or form, then why worry about what gays think about your religion?

762 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:04:09pm

re: #758 doriangrey

Yes because obviously being Christian clearly is an indication of an inability to be either intellectually honest or comprehend the basic tenants of scientific methodology.

Being an anti-evolution biblical literalist creationist means precisely that.

763 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:06:41pm

re: #761 gman

So, then where is the pressure to make an admission that gays are not sinners? If you say that it won't change your religion in any shape or form, then why worry about what gays think about your religion?

I couldn't care less what they think of my religion, but then again I'm not the one demanding to be absolved either. As I told Sal right from the beginning I fully support gay civil unions, its the homosexual community that does not want civil unions.

764 Stonemason  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:07:29pm

re: #760 Salamantis

We are not on the same page as long as you continue to infer that those that feel Homosexuality is a sin should have to change.

I agree that the lions share of pedophillia occurs inter-sex, however, those disgusting should-be-dead idiots do not, as the gay group does, lobby for the legalization of adult/child sex.

Re-read the post, I have no problem with the words oral or sex, I have problems with the rest of it, it was a classless attempt to divert from the actual argument which is that many people feel that homosexuality is a sin and should not be subject to:

Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.
765 Iron Fist  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:11:32pm

re: #748 Naso Tang

It's those damn voters thinking that they can influence public policy again. Seriously, do you believe that a minority of the voters should be able to force their social mores on the majority even though they lost the election?

Why bother having elections at all? Just appoint some judges and let them rule by decree. Of course, that is only if you agree with their decision. If you disagree with their decision, what then?

Bluntly, the Courts are supposed to be co-equal with the Legislature and the Executive. The Courts are not supposed to be setting policy let alone redefining social institutions to suit the whim of a vocal minority. Once the Courts were brought into this, it became almost a foregone conclusion that Constitutions would be amended before the people would allow this decision to be forced on them.

Gay marriage is way outside of community standards for almost any community in the US. That is simply the fact. That is why you don't have any of the leadership of either party supporting it. The Democrats are not going to vote for gay marriage, either. The fact that most of the people that support gay marriage do not condemn the Democrats for their position is very curious. If you really believe in the issue, then I'd think that the Democrats are usually the more pro-gay rights party. Yet on this issue they are of the same opinion as the Republicans. There aren't many issues that bring together as many on both sides of the aisle as gay marriage does.

766 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:11:44pm

re: #757 Salamantis

Well, IS nondiscrimination an attack on your religion? What discriminations does your religion wish its members to practice, and against what groups? If none, against no one, then I fail to perceive the presence of any attack.

What Stonemason said:
re: #764 Stonemason

. . . I have problems with the rest of it, it was a classless attempt to divert from the actual argument which is that many people feel that homosexuality is a sin and should not be subject to:

Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.


767 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:15:29pm

re: #764 Stonemason

We are not on the same page as long as you continue to infer that those that feel Homosexuality is a sin should have to change.

I agree that the lions share of pedophillia occurs inter-sex, however, those disgusting should-be-dead idiots do not, as the gay group does, lobby for the legalization of adult/child sex.

Re-read the post, I have no problem with the words oral or sex, I have problems with the rest of it, it was a classless attempt to divert from the actual argument which is that many people feel that homosexuality is a sin and should not be subject to:

Or if it is, it is a necessary one, for the benefit of all concerned.

I never said that those who view homosexuality as a sin should have to change their beliefs; I merely said that they should not be able to engage in publicly discriminatory actions in the general populace. They should be free to continue to discriminate inside their churches.

NAMBLA doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting their agenda passed, and we both know it. And that's a GOOD thing. Children are not capable of giving the legal consent to sex that adults can; they lack the adult capacity to do so.

768 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:16:47pm

re: #734 doriangrey

Nope and nope. They dont want to change my religion, they just dont want to be considered sinners. The struggle for gay marriage is unique to societies with predominantly Judaeo-Christian heritages.

The struggle for Women's rights, and other rights, is not so much unique as more advanced in Judaeo-Christian heritages.

769 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:17:34pm

re: #732 Naso Tang

Perhaps the distinction is that adoption services are not a "Catholic" thing. It is a regulated secular social service that has to follow a secular law. In this case Catholics want to pick and choose what parts of the law they like. They have not been forced to close, they have simply decided that they don't want to follow secular law in this case.

The same applies to abortion services, and family planning.

I've come to the conclusion, Naso, that you engage me purely to toy with me, because I do not have sufficient theological training and knowledge to answer you in depth, and you find it amusing.

Yes, they have indeed been forced to close, by having secular law that violates the doctrine of the church forced on them. That is exactly what happened.

And this shall be my last response to you. Please find someone else.

770 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:22:27pm

re: #765 Iron Fist

No, I accept our system, but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of it. As I said earlier, I find it offensive that any constitutional amendment limits anyone's rights and I don't think that should be a principle of any constitution.

This issue is no more controversial than women's rights once were, across party boundaries; and we could throw in things like slavery, or prohibition which also had fundamental and religious social aspects at the time. Probably others too that I can't think of now.

Times change. C'est La Vie.

771 I heart the USA  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:23:01pm

re: #735 Naso Tang

I do believe you are wrong, although to call it a gay "gene" is also wrong, but that there is a biological disposition, meaning from birth and probably genetically influenced, is undeniable.

Anything not scientifically proven is deniable; likelihood doesn't equal proof in science. This is why we still refer to the Theory of Evolution as a theory. As compelling, even overwhelming as the evidence for it is, it is not proven by scientific standards.

My own personal belief is that homosexuality is innate, but then I come up against this personal anecdote: My youngest son is gay and is dating a young man who is a twin. An identical twin. And yes, you guessed it, his twin brother is straight. Two young men born of one egg and one sperm, so biologically identical. OTOH, in an intact family twins, unlike other siblings, are raised in the identical family environment, so doesn't that argue against a social cause for the homosexuality such as an absent father, domineering mother, etc. ? There is simply not enough known to say with any certainty what the cause or causes of homosexuality are.

772 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:23:08pm

re: #744 doriangrey

Your use of the anti-evolution site and the bovine scat is ridiculous.
The information they try to pedal is so flawed as to be laughable. The belief in the literal meaning of the Genesis story is not only bad science, it is bad theology. My old Baptist theology professors would be rolling over in their graves over this nonsense.
There are legitimate ongoing exploration into the source of homosexuality in humans. Some major strides have been made, but no theory answers all the questions.

773 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:25:18pm

The bottom line to 'homosexual marriage' is the belief in God. For religiously speaking: Leviticus / Genesis / Romans...all do a number on 'same sex' relations. Therefore those who interpret the 'Bible' as the definitive bottom line aren't inclined to go against there belief.

If we are a 'secular' / serparation of church and state society, then there is no legal possible way to keep the definition of 'marriage' away from same sex couples. Only an attempt in an appeal to 'history' would be the only ammo for the argument. Continuation of the 'species', family unit, stability. Even then 'family unit' / 'stability' are arguments that same sex advocates can use also.

Continuation of the 'species' is the only argument lost to same sex advocates to a point, but even then 'technology', adoption, and others serve to counter that argument. 'History' isn't that great an argument as 'homosexuality' isn't anything 'new'...it has been around since close to the dawn of time.

I can see both sides. Personally, though the institution of same sex marriages will be weaponized to sue churches, I don't see any legal way, even though they currently have ALL the rights, privileges, and opportunities afforded those with the word 'marriage', to deny them even use of that word, regardless the future consequences. In my finite opinion.

It is also in my opinion, that law suits against churches is the only goal. Using all weapons necessary to force 'religion', the one's who are most adamant against them, to have to accept them, in their quest for validation.

My 2 cents.

774 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:28:09pm

re: #769 reine.de.tout

I've come to the conclusion, Naso, that you engage me purely to toy with me, because I do not have sufficient theological training and knowledge to answer you in depth, and you find it amusing.

Yes, they have indeed been forced to close, by having secular law that violates the doctrine of the church forced on them. That is exactly what happened.

And this shall be my last response to you. Please find someone else.

I'm sorry to hear you say that. I have tried to show respect for your beliefs while also disagreeing with your application of them, as opposed to your right to hold them.

If I appeared amused, it is in your imagination. I earlier expressed understanding of certain laws that your faith could not comply with, and I still do so, but it is my position is that we have a secular society and we should bend our personal beliefs to accommodate that. You have no right to demand the opposite.

775 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:28:51pm

re: #767 Salamantis

I never said that those who view homosexuality as a sin should have to change their beliefs; I merely said that they should not be able to engage in publicly discriminatory actions in the general populace. They should be free to continue to discriminate inside their churches.

NAMBLA doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting their agenda passed, and we both know it. And that's a GOOD thing. Children are not capable of giving the legal consent to sex that adults can; they lack the adult capacity to do so.

Tell that to the Islamists whose money AND religion do all possible to emulate the life of Mohammed. 6 year old Aisha? No prob... 4 wives? No problem. The 'left' plus 'Islam' has the potential to make that slippery slope move in ways that no one dares think through all the way...

776 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:32:27pm

re: #775 Oh no...Sand People!

Tell that to the Islamists whose money AND religion do all possible to emulate the life of Mohammed. 6 year old Aisha? No prob... 4 wives? No problem. The 'left' plus 'Islam' has the potential to make that slippery slope move in ways that no one dares think through all the way...

A country that forced the Mormons to relinquish polygamy a century ago is not going to allow the Muslims to reinstate it. And the leftists will not push hard for it, considering that they aren't the Mormons' best friends.

777 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:33:49pm

re: #774 Naso Tang

... I earlier expressed understanding of certain laws that your faith could not comply with, and I still do so, but it is my position is that we have a secular society and we should bend our personal beliefs to accommodate that. You have no right to demand the opposite.

If one insists that others must "bend" personal beliefs, then there is no respect for that person. If one is willing to "bend" deeply-held beliefs, and perform abortions when there are religious objections to that activity - well, then , there isn't much point in having any beliefs to begin with.

778 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:37:10pm

re: #771 I heart the USA

Anything not scientifically proven is deniable; likelihood doesn't equal proof in science. This is why we still refer to the Theory of Evolution as a theory. As compelling, even overwhelming as the evidence for it is, it is not proven by scientific standards.

You almost lost me when you show that you don't understand the meaning of Scientific Theory. That is one argument that has been exhausted here long ago, and I simply suggest that you look up the meanings in a dictionary.

As to the differences between twins, there is no question that this is not as simple as "one little gene" somewhere. There can be plenty of differences between twins and there can be plenty of differences between gays and there can be people who are just plain obsessed with sex and don't care what form it takes. We don't know exactly why people differ, but we do know that some have an innate preference for their own sex and also that they have had it since their earliest memories without being taught and it is that aspect that is being discussed when talking of genes.

No doubt some people fall outside that category, but my personal opinion is that most true gay people have always had that disposition.

779 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:39:57pm

re: #776 Salamantis

A country that forced the Mormons to relinquish polygamy a century ago is not going to allow the Muslims to reinstate it. And the leftists will not push hard for it, considering that they aren't the Mormons' best friends.

Even the 'polygamy' thing is just a matter of time before it is back on the table. In a purely 'secular' society publicly, whose opinion is right? UK, Germany, Canada, Africa, Middle East, Malaysia, Philippines, and the U.S. still turns a pretty 'blind eye' to it, most recent FLDS Texas occurance notwithstanding. Hook the homosexual agenda to the Islamist agenda and you have a recipe for anything.

780 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:42:01pm

re: #777 reine.de.tout

If one insists that others must "bend" personal beliefs, then there is no respect for that person. If one is willing to "bend" deeply-held beliefs, and perform abortions when there are religious objections to that activity - well, then , there isn't much point in having any beliefs to begin with.

Those who do not embrace homosexuality are under no requirement to enter into gay civil unions, but they should not prevent others from exercizing their own differing convictions and desires, and doing so. Likewise, those who are opposed to abortion are not required to obtain them, but it is the private business of each woman whether or not she chooses to carry her pregnancy to term, up until fetal viability.

781 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:43:45pm

re: #777 reine.de.tout

If one insists that others must "bend" personal beliefs, then there is no respect for that person. If one is willing to "bend" deeply-held beliefs, and perform abortions when there are religious objections to that activity - well, then , there isn't much point in having any beliefs to begin with.

I agree. I do not say that those who believe it is wrong need to perform abortions. I do not say that those who do not think gays should be allowed to adopt should facilitate such adoptions and I do not think that pharmacists who don't believe in birth control should be forced to distribute such materials, for example.

But I do think they need look for ways to make a living, or serve others, in other ways if that is a requirement of a particular job and the law of the land.

Coming back to the adoption issue, I earlier said that I suspect that there would be a way for Catholic organizations to provide such services to Catholics only. Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression that they are instead saying that if they can't have it their way, it's no way.

782 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:43:55pm

re: #780 Salamantis

Those who do not embrace homosexuality are under no requirement to enter into gay civil unions, but they should not prevent others from exercizing their own differing convictions and desires, and doing so. Likewise, those who are opposed to abortion are not required to obtain them, but it is the private business of each woman whether or not she chooses to carry her pregnancy to term, up until fetal viability.

My post was in response to Naso who did indeed seem to insist just that:...

I earlier expressed understanding of certain laws that your faith could not comply with, and I still do so, but it is my position is that we have a secular society and we should bend our personal beliefs to accommodate that. You have no right to demand the opposite.
783 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:45:14pm

re: #779 Oh no...Sand People!

Even the 'polygamy' thing is just a matter of time before it is back on the table. In a purely 'secular' society publicly, whose opinion is right? UK, Germany, Canada, Africa, Middle East, Malaysia, Philippines, and the U.S. still turns a pretty 'blind eye' to it, most recent FLDS Texas occurance notwithstanding. Hook the homosexual agenda to the Islamist agenda and you have a recipe for anything.

Umm...the homosexual agenda is to gain equal rights with heterosexuals, while the Islamist agenda is to kill homosexuals. It's kinda hard to see any real hook-up materializing between them.

784 I heart the USA  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:46:46pm

re: #767 Salamantis

NAMBLA doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting their agenda passed, and we both know it. And that's a GOOD thing. Children are not capable of giving the legal consent to sex that adults can; they lack the adult capacity to do so.

They are not capable of giving legal consent only because laws have decreed it such. Just like many states have laws that decree that minor females do have the 'adult capacity' to decide to have an abortion, and therefore grant them the legal right to do so. In the case of California, they may do so without parental notification.

785 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:47:32pm

re: #777 reine.de.tout

If one insists that others must "bend" personal beliefs, then there is no respect for that person. If one is willing to "bend" deeply-held beliefs, and perform abortions when there are religious objections to that activity - well, then , there isn't much point in having any beliefs to begin with.

I should have said "bend the application of our personal beliefs", meaning when it affects others.

Sorry for the poor language.

786 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:49:25pm

re: #782 reine.de.tout

I believe that Naso Tang was saying that the religious have no right to bend secular society to accommodate their personal beliefs. The ongoing Biblical literalist attempts to legislatively mandate the teaching of creationism in public school science classes is a case in point.

787 Naso Tang  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:53:08pm

re: #784 I heart the USA

They are not capable of giving legal consent only because laws have decreed it such. Just like many states have laws that decree that minor females do have the 'adult capacity' to decide to have an abortion, and therefore grant them the legal right to do so. In the case of California, they may do so without parental notification.

The issue of parental notification is a difficult one, but the reason it is opposed by some is simply that in very many cases the parents are the last people who should be consulted about what is best for a "child". The other side chooses to ignore such facts of life and simply play the game of making it as difficult a process as possible, and damn the consequences to the woman.

788 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Nov 23, 2008 6:55:23pm

re: #783 Salamantis

Umm...the homosexual agenda is to gain equal rights with heterosexuals, while the Islamist agenda is to kill homosexuals. It's kinda hard to see any real hook-up materializing between them.


You think it will stop there? Heh. The left doesn't. They will team up with anyone to push what they 'feel' is right.

Why the 'Islam' love fest on college camp'i'? Why when Achmedinejad at Columbia University full on said that Iran is 'homosexual free', NO ONE batted an eye? Why the rights afforded to 'Islam' and not many other groups? Why the 'acquiescence' to Islam in most things?

No. Mark my words they will end up 'working' together to push their own causes. Then once Islam has no use for them...then the beheadings or building toss offs will start. It may be 100 years down the road...but it will happen.

789 Oh no...Sand P