Obama's pandering is really making me sick! Allows anti-gay activist to speak

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.


As I recall, the Civil War was fought over just these principles, and came to a different conclusion re: the primacy and limitations of state government.



phew! way to trot out slavery. what's next? Nazis? we're used to bestiality and incest, but this is certainly ratcheting up the hysteria.

still, it might be more appropriate than you think.

Jumping the broom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
phew! way to trot out slavery. what's next? Nazis? we're used to bestiality and incest, but this is certainly ratcheting up the hysteria.

Quote me one post where I've resorted to such hysteria. Go ahead. I'll wait. In the meantime, the point I made stands undisputed.
 
Quote me one post where I've resorted to such hysteria. Go ahead. I'll wait. In the meantime, the point I made stands undisputed.



it's this one Nathan:

As I recall, the Civil War was fought over just these principles, and came to a different conclusion re: the primacy and limitations of state government.

how vague! how utterly foreign to the topic of marriage equality! in fact, the only parallel i could see would be if, somehow, after being granted freedom, the citizens of the US held a big vote on whether or not a freed slave was a full citizen and should be grated full rights. after all, the civil war was fought so that states could determine which of their citizens were deserving of all rights, and which of their citizens were deserving of only some rights, because the Civil War underscored the fundamental understanding that some citizens are better than others and thusly deserving of more rights than others. or, better, that we need to literally strip away rights given to a specific minority in order to make sure we know that we're better than they are.

i await the next wild, sloppy historical "parallel" you attempt to make as you try to turn this into some vague issue about "democracy" or "the right of the people to denigrate other people by voting about it."
 
Fascists masturbating authoritarians, I especially like this essay
Shame on You, Rick Warren
Still more reasons to boot the huckster of Saddleback from the inauguration.
By Christopher Hitchens

It seems to have been agreed by every single media outlet that only one group has the right to challenge Obama's promotion of "Pastor" Rick Warren, and that group is the constituency of politically organized homosexuals. But why should that be? Last week, I pointed out that Warren maintains that heaven is closed to Jews and that his main theological mentor was a crackpot "end-of-days" ranter. Why is this not to count against him as well? Do we need our presidential invocation to be given by a bigmouth clerical businessman who is, furthermore, a religious sectarian? Let me add a little more to the mix. In November 2006, Warren made a trip to Syria and was granted an audience with the human toothbrush who has inherited control of that country and all its citizens. Bashar Assad, the dictator of Syria, is also a religious sectarian—his power base is confined to the Alawite sect—and in the intervals of murdering his critics in Lebanon, he does not expect to receive very many distinguished American or European guests. Of late, the most eminent I can think of have been David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and George Galloway of Britain's so-called Respect Party, and I believe only Galloway—an old fan of Baathism in all its forms—got an audience with the Grand Toothbrush himself.

Whatever time Warren managed to get with the dear bristled leader was not wasted—you should check out the hilarious parody of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza that accidentally results from the official photograph—and whatever hospitality he received from the Syrian authorities did not go unreturned. "Syria," he told his viewers back home by video, is "a moderate country, and the official government rule and position is to not allow extremism of any kind." This is a highly original way to describe a regime that is joined at the hip with the Iranian theocracy, that is the patron of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and that is the official and unabashed host of the fugitive Hamas leadership whose military wing directs massacre operations from Damascus itself. (One might also add that the Syrian Baath Party's veteran defense minister,* Mustafa Tlas, published a book under his own name that accused Jews of using the blood of non-Jewish children for the making of those ever-menacing Passover matzos. I suppose it depends how you define extremism.)

According to an undenied report from the Syrian state news agency, SANA, Warren followed his Assad meeting with another get-together, this time with a mufti. The resulting press communiqué read like this:
The Mufti called for conveying the real image of Syria, national unity and its call to spread peace, amity and justice to the American people which the US has distorted their image throughout the world. Pastor Warren expressed admiration of Syria and the coexistence he saw between Muslims and Christians, stressing that he will convey this image to his church and country.
(As one who has spent time in Syria, I can confirm that the official translations are indeed of that abysmal level. But Warren cannot wriggle out in this fashion, because most of the worst of what he said was recorded and transmitted in his own voice.) Our good pastor also found the time to tell his captive audience—if I may use such an unoriginal phrase in a literal way—that 80 percent of his countrymen opposed the administration's policy in Iraq. Assume yourself, dear reader, to be one of that possible 80 percent. Did you ever ask to be spoken for by Warren, who was a guest of a regime that sponsors al-Qaida infiltrators in Iraq, or to see him denounce the administration in front of an audience of Syrians that had no choice but to listen to whatever it was told? For shame.

And a shame, too, that on Inauguration Day we may also have to stand still—out of respect rather than fear, it is true—and listen to a man who is either a half-witted dupe, a hopeless naif, a cynical tourist who does favors for the powerful, a religious nut bag, a cowardly liar, or perhaps some unappetizing combination of all five. I personally think that the all-five answer is the correct one, because you cannot just find yourself in Syria, smirking into the face of the local despot and being treated like a treasured guest. The thing has to be arranged, and these things take time. So what was the motive? Listen again to Warren's driveling broadcast for the folks back home at the megachurch:

In fact, you know Saul of Tarsus—Saul was a Syrian. St. Paul, on the road to Damascus, had his conversion experience, and so Christians have been here the longest, and they get along with the Muslims, and the Muslims get along with them. There's a lot less tension than in other places.

I can absolutely see what Warren hoped to get out of this sordid little trip, the evidence of which he vainly tried to conceal when it threatened to become embarrassing. He wanted to be on video for his open-mouthed followers as he posed "on the road to Damascus." And he didn't care what deals he had to make, with Baath and Toothbrush Central Command, in order to bring off such a fundraising coup. But now it's the sandals of Obama that are being exploited by the same tub-thumper, and one has not merely a right but a duty to object to having as an inaugural auxiliary a man who is a pushover for anti-Semitism, Islamic sectarianism, "rapture" theology, fascist dictatorship, 10th-rate media trade-offs, and last-minute panicky self-censorship all at the same time. Is there nobody in the Obama camp who can see that this is not just a gay issue? And is there no gay figure who can say that Warren is objectionable for reasons that have more to do with decency, democracy, and the Constitution? The televised, Bible-bashing entrepreneur is perhaps the single most unattractive and embarrassing phenomenon that modern American culture has ever produced. It would be nice if we could begin a new era in the absence of this racket and these racketeers, and if enough people can find their voices, we still may be able to do so.
Still more reasons to boot Rick Warren from the inauguration. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

I quite like the concept of a secularist front; the only problem is that the atheists will invariable antagonise the liberal Christians and the secular humanists will be to politically correct.

I feel that the appeal to tradition which some posters have advanced is a piss poor justification, even if America was founded on biblical principles that doesn't make it alright to have religious ideas guide policy, or to give a stamp of approval.
 
Hey, I think we all know that the SA was riddled with fags, and the third reich was really about creating a national leather bar.



to be fair, the homoeroticism on display in "Triumph of the Will," especially in the beginning when the young soldiers are splashing and washing each other at the trough, is really something to see.
 
how vague! how utterly foreign to the topic of marriage equality!...

i await the next wild, sloppy historical "parallel" you attempt to make

News flash Irvine: the article I commented on was about the issue of federalism and states' rights, and declared states' rights to be supreme. This is a direct line of thought that runs back 160 years, as any good student of history would know. The historical parallels are present; sorry if highlighting them is a problem for you. Despite your loud, vocal protests to the contrary, the issue of marriage equality raises some pretty significant issues that are inherent to the principles on which our country was founded -- both pro and con. Would you have us ignore them?
 
News flash Irvine: the article I commented on was about the issue of federalism and states' rights, and declared states' rights to be supreme. This is a direct line of thought that runs back 160 years, as any good student of history would know. The historical parallels are present; sorry if highlighting them is a problem for you. Despite your loud, vocal protests to the contrary, the issue of marriage equality raises some pretty significant issues that are inherent to the principles on which our country was founded -- both pro and con. Would you have us ignore them?



i see nathan.

after posts and posts and posts of "5,000 years" and "biology" and "natural" law and other nonsense stuff like that -- stuff that was, of course, used to justify, say, slavery or stoning your wife to death -- you seem to think that this is really an issue about states rights or democracy? we have DOMA -- what happens in California need not affect Navada. cultural issues have a long, long history of falling under federalism (you know, like Loving vs. Virginia). any good student of history would know that.

what's a problem to me is that it's another smokescreen now being trotted out to disguise a refusal to countenance gay people and their relationships as equal. it's like with the Second Amendment. so many arguments are trotted out -- why not just be honest and say that one likes guns? likewise, let's drop the pretense and just come out and say that you think that there's something wrong with gay people and they do not deserve to be treated equally under the law.

what's much more of a threat to our democracy is that our courts affirmed an inherent right, and then the "people" of California were allowed to strip that right away from a specific, targeted, easily identified, historically despised minority.

again, nathan, i await your answer to the question: what specific rights must gay couples be denied?
 
Homosexual men, dare I say all men, may not exist in a few centuries, so this debate may be pointless
Mice created without fathers

Scientists have created two female mice without fertilising the eggs they grew from, the journal Nature says.
The eggs had two sets of chromosomes from two female mice, rather than one from the mother and one from the father as in a normal embryo.

The phenomenon, called parthenogenesis, never occurs naturally in mammals.

Some researchers say the procedures may be applied to stem cell research, but the scientists who carried out the work say it would not yet work in humans.

Mammal difference

Tomohiro Kono and colleagues switched off a key gene in the donor eggs which affected imprinting - a barrier to parthenogenesis in mammals.

"Insects can reproduce by parthenogenesis. Even chickens can be made to reproduce by parthenogenesis. I wanted to find out why mammals are different," Dr Kono, of Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan, told BBC News Online.

His team injected the genetic material from immature mouse eggs into mature eggs with their own set of chromosomes. They then "activated" the combined eggs, prompting them to start growing as embryos.

By blocking expression of a gene called H19 in the immature mouse eggs, the researchers increased the activity of another gene called Igf2.

Igf2 manufactures a protein responsible for regulating growth in the developing foetus.

These genes are said to be imprinted. Imprinting means that some genes are working in maternal DNA but switched off in paternal DNA, or vice versa. They are unequally expressed.

The genetic manipulation carried out by the researchers gave the genes a more paternal character.

Low efficiency

But as a result of this modification, just two out of 598 mice embryos made it to full term.

"The efficiency of this technique is rather low. So it's not a technique that can be readily adapted for practical purposes," Professor Azim Surani, an expert in imprinting at the University of Cambridge, UK, told BBC News Online.

One of the surviving mice was used for testing, while another, which the researchers named Kaguya after a Japanese fairy tale character, was allowed to grow into an adult.

"To me it is striking that a relatively simple genetic modification, where they took away the gene and its regulatory sequences, allowed these embryos to develop," Marisa Bartolomei, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, US, told BBC News Online.

Researchers were quick to head off suggestions that the technique could play a role in fertility treatment, at least for the moment. And it is not even known whether it would work in humans.

'Not necessary'

"This is a very complicated thing. So no, It is impossible to do this experiment in a human. And I don't want to do it," said Dr Kono.

However, some researchers said the procedures could - in theory - have applications in stem cell research.

Dr Bartolomei suggested that making embryos without the need for fertilisation might allow researchers to circumvent political and ethical obstacles to using stem cells.

"I would expect that just because it's parthenogenetic, the public wouldn't discriminate between that and the more traditional way of doing it," said Dr William Colledge, of the University of Cambridge.

Professor Surani commented: "Parthenogenetic stem cells were made many years ago. This latest procedure is a very complicated one and it's not necessary for stem cell research."
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Mice created without fathers

That is from four years ago, its a very real possibility that we could end up with a Herland.
 
after posts and posts and posts of "5,000 years" and "biology" and "natural" law and other nonsense stuff like that -- stuff that was, of course, used to justify, say, slavery or stoning your wife to death -- you seem to think that this is really an issue about states rights or democracy? we have DOMA -- what happens in California need not affect Navada. cultural issues have a long, long history of falling under federalism (you know, like Loving vs. Virginia). any good student of history would know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Strategy

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."

- Lee Atwater, Republican strategist and later National Committee Chairman under Reagan and Bush, Sr., in an "anonymous" interview in 1981 later revealed to be him posthumously in the 1990s
 
again, nathan, i await your answer to the question: what specific rights must gay couples be denied?

You should try reading, Irvine. In my post a couple weeks ago, when I posted the CA laws as applied to marriage and civil unions, I pointed out that the rights are exactly the same.

So the answer, at least in CA, is none. None rights.
 
You should try reading, Irvine. In my post a couple weeks ago, when I posted the CA laws as applied to marriage and civil unions, I pointed out that the rights are exactly the same.

So the answer, at least in CA, is none. None rights.



except that they're not.

Differences from Marriage

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.

Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.

California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.

Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.

There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships.

In addition to these differences specific to state law, should the Defense of Marriage Act be found unconstitutional or repealed, married persons in California might enjoy all the federal benefits of marriage, including Constitutionally-required recognition of their relationships as marriages in the rest of the United States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

In addition to these differences specific to the United States, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country, (e.g., Israel [4]), do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships performed in California.

Many supporters of same-sex marriage also argue that the use of the word marriage itself constitutes a significant social difference,[citation needed] and in the majority opinion of In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court agreed, suggesting an analogy with a hypothetical that branded interracial marriages "transracial unions."


but setting that aside ...

so all you care about is the name? that's it? after all this talk of 5,000 years, the talk of how only children can make a marriage real, the inalienable and timeless gender differences ... you've arrived at this? the last (intellectually serious) standing person in FYM opposed to marriage equality?

if so, i'm proud of you. you're demonstrating real growth.

so why deny the name?
 
so all you care about is the name? that's it? after all this talk of 5,000 years, the talk of how only children can make a marriage real, the inalienable and timeless gender differences ... you've arrived at this? the last (intellectually serious) standing person in FYM opposed to marriage equality?

if so, i'm proud of you. you're demonstrating real growth.

Because I think there are basic rights (visitation, property, etc) that can and should be expanded?

My previous arguments re the importance of marriage still stand. However, unlike some, I can accept conference of some fundamental rights without demanding that a society completely revamp its understanding of a time-tested and honored concept.

A rose by any other name.
 
Because I think there are basic rights (visitation, property, etc) that can and should be conferred regardless of who you're having sex with?


yes, that's all Memphis and i do -- have sex.


My previous arguments re the importance of marriage still apply. However, unlike some, I can accept conference of some fundamental rights without demanding that a society completely revamp its understanding of a time-tested and honored concept.

A rose by any other name...?



except that said time-tested and honored concept today would be quite foreign to people living even as little as 200 years ago, and that's due to the changing role of gender fostered by heterosexuals.

however, while it is true that what matters, practically, are rights -- and i'll note that you're careful with your language, the word "some" rights jumps out, as does the assertion that allowing homosexuls to marry somehow "completely revamps" something -- why, still, the resistance to the word?

is this not precisely separate but equal? like, the exact definition of separate but equal? like, blacks have their schools and drinking fountains, and so do whites, so what's the problem? if all the rights are as you want them to be, which, by your current position, has to be exactly the same, then why maintain a semantical wall of separation?

but i admire you for recognizing the need for equal treatment under the law and the admission that there is worth in a gay relationship that's worth protecting.

still, and i note this because i know how smart you are and how carefully you choose language, i do notice an omission of a few fundamental words. though you're revising your post as i revise mine, so i'll wait and see ... (and respond much later tonight because i've got to sign off momentarily).
 
is this not precisely separate but equal? like, the exact definition of separate but equal? like, blacks have their schools and drinking fountains, and so do whites, so what's the problem?

If we're going to raise the whole notion of separate but equal, we're going to find a history of racial prejudice and discrimination in terms of inferior socio-economic policies, inferior employment access, and inferior education access -- restriction of access at just about every level specifically designed to engender racial division. It is difficult to argue that the same kinds of discrimination are at work against gays today. I'm not saying that there isn't discrimination, and I am glad to endorse hate crimes legislation and policies of non-discrimination, but the separate but equal argument doesn't really hold up.

if all the rights are as you want them to be, which, by your current position, has to be exactly the same, then why maintain a semantical wall of separation?

The significance of gender in marriage is merely semantics?
 
I think from a position of state recognition the answer is yes.

The state isn't regulating the dynamics of couples and how well their marriage fits with some idealised gender norms, they aren't punishing stay at home dads or working mums, or prohibiting marriages with dominant women.

I think that by arguing that the definition of marriage is rooted in gender you are stepping beyond the question of the state recognising relationships.

A religious or cultural tradition may well argue that marriage is between a woman and a man (see, I'm upsetting gender perceptions with syntax) but that shouldn't excuse the state from discriminating against people who don't follow those traditions.

Just because you feel that marriage is a particular cultural tradition doesn't mean you get to impose that definition on everybody. Allowing gays to marry will not impact your tradition. The "redefinition" argument is the end of the line for opposition, it isn't explicitly homophobic and its arguing for a civil contract that should be indistinguishable from marriage, which leaves no real barrier to granting the rights and the title.

There ought to be gay marriage in quite a few US states within the next ten years, and hopefully a rollback of federal level discrimination.
 
If we're going to raise the whole notion of separate but equal, we're going to find a history of racial prejudice and discrimination in terms of inferior socio-economic policies, inferior employment access, and inferior education access -- restriction of access at just about every level specifically designed to engender racial division. It is difficult to argue that the same kinds of discrimination are at work against gays today. I'm not saying that there isn't discrimination, and I am glad to endorse hate crimes legislation and policies of non-discrimination, but the separate but equal argument doesn't really hold up.


you can be fired for being gay in many states. name me a state where you can be fired for being black. gays are still beaten and murdered for being gay. we don't even need to get into the history of "sodomy" (just the term is offensive, and inaccurate) laws. it is legal to refuse gay tenants in many states. what is opposition to gay partnerships -- be it marriage or otherwise -- than something designed to engender division (and, thusly, conferred superior status) between sexual orientations?

also, the perceived notion that gays are successful and affluent is due, in part, to the fact that it's much easier to come out when you are successful and affluent and, generally speaking, gay whites face much less cultural prejudice than their black and hispanic brothers and sisters.

so, no, it is quite easy that there are many kinds of discrimination at work against gays today. just look at the law that was passed a few years ago in VA.



The significance of gender in marriage is merely semantics?


gender is incidental to the relationship. it might be primary and central to the individuals at stake -- a gay person could only have a legitimate marriage to one of the same sex, a straight person could only have a legitimate marriage to one of the opposite sex -- but in terms of what couples can and cannot do, and what couples are deserving of legal status and protection, and which one's aren't, then, yes, gender is not nor should it be a barrier.

what's the difference between myself and Memphis and Martha and Steve?

the question remains.
 
Gay America Prepares To Party at Obama Inauguration - FOXNews.com Transition Tracker

Unprecedented inaugural celebrations for President-elect Barack Obama by gay activist groups, social organizations and ordinary citizens suggests many view Obama's election as a signal of a forthcoming sea change for the gay rights movement in America.

The Rev. Gene Robinson, a gay Episcopal bishop, will say a prayer at an inaugural event at the Lincoln Monument on Sunday; a gay and lesbian marching band will take its place in the official presidential parade; and a slew of gay parties and inaugural balls will be held in the nation's capital before and after Obama takes the oath of office.

But the gay-themed events have some conservative critics expressing concerns that while the celebration may be gay-friendly, it won't be family-friendly.

Jennifer Giroux, founder and president of Women Influencing the Nation, a group that focuses on restoring traditional family values, said, “I think (the) inauguration should be kept away from that. Christians may love the individual, but they are offended by the gay lifestyle. It’s unhealthy — spiritually, emotionally and physically.

"It’s not a day where a group that feels like it has some payback coming should be putting its decadent lifestyle on display.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, an organization that describes itself as "devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda," is worried less about what happens in public and more about what may go on behind closed doors.

“I think most Americans would be put off if they knew what went on at these parties," LaBarbera said. "Every special interest group has a ball of some sort, but this is not just any special interest group. More than half the country considers their behavior immoral.”

But the organizers of next week's gay events are not overly concerned with whatever negative responses their groups incur.

"We hope any protesters along the route, for whatever issue, would challenge themselves to rise above their personal concerns and help celebrate this new era for America," says Robb Blackwell, vice president of the Lesbian and Gay Band Association, which will participate in the inauguration parade.

"Our participation in the parade is a positive action; any negative reactions are entirely beyond our control as an organization. At least we know they'll be entertained by our dazzling musicianship."

Likewise, Kirsten Burgard, of The People's Inaugural "Gayla," which will be held at the Historical Society of Washington D.C., says her group is not expecting any backlash. "As a matter of fact, one of our musical acts is a Christian inspirational hip-hop group," she said.

Though Obama has said very little about gay issues and has said he does not support gay marriage, there is overwhelming optimism among gays that his presidency will reverse what many of them consider the intolerance of a Republican administration.

"We're looking for an uplift in attitude," says Bill Capello, general manager of the DC Eagle, a gay bar located a block away from the convention center where several events will take place.

"It already seems to be more upbeat, friendlier. We believe Obama will be a friend to gay America. We don't see him vetoing any measures that come across his desk. He may not be on the fringe of gay activism, but we expect him to be an ally."

Said Blackwell: "I believe LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Americans, like all Americans, are looking forward to a president who will bring positive change to this country. That's why we've chosen ‘Brand New Day’ as one of the pieces we'll be playing in the Inaugural Parade, to reinforce our view that this inauguration is ushering in an entirely new era for all Americans."

But not everyone shares their enthusiasm. LaBarbera’s group hopes to disrupt the Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend, held annually on Martin Luther King weekend for men with an interest in motorcycles and leather, by releasing details about the group’s plans.

"They keep their hotel location top-secret because they don’t want conservatives to find out. But we know it, and we’re going to try to get it stopped," he said. "This is the most vile event, and it’s being held at a swanky hotel where conferences regularly occur. Groups coming in after MAL won’t know what went on there before they got there.”

Other groups that oppose the gay rights movement said they do not plan to use the inauguration as a chance to demonstrate, and that they hope the week’s festivities go smoothly.

"I hope that everyone at the inauguration — on both sides — has manners and shows respect. Isn’t that what we’re taught to do?” Christian Coalition president Roberta Combs said.

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said, "The Christian community embraces the idea of openness and tolerance, and believes that all should be welcome at the inauguration."

But there is some lingering resentment toward the gay community for its reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 in California, when demonstrators protested outside some houses of worship. "We would never choose the route of bigotry or hatred," Mahoney said, "as the gay community did when they lost Prop 8, by defacing and vandalizing churches and places of worship, and attacked people of faith because they did not share their beliefs.

"For all their cries of inclusion and openness, there are few groups out there more intolerant and hateful than the gay community."

James T. Harris, a Christian conservative radio host who famously told John McCain to “go after” Barack Obama at a rally in Wisconsin, said he thinks the inauguration will provide a chance for conservatives to showcase their tolerance.

“The gayer inauguration, the better," Harris said. "I hope that all of San Francisco turns out, and turns the inauguration into a gay pride festival. Then liberals can see how open and tolerant conservatives are.

"Let America see liberalism in all of its self-absorbed lunacy. Then maybe America will only have to tolerate four years of the madness.”
 
Chemistry, biology, and thousands of years of human sociological and cultural development are incidental?

Huh.



to the legal rights that are conferred upon a relationship between people that has legal status, absolutely.

i'm sure that gender is central to your relationship, nathan, just as it is central to mine. however, the gender differences in our respective relationships are absolutely incidental to the fact that each relationship is deserving of legal status and protection.

so we're back to the "thousands of years of ..." nonsense, i see. don't you think, nathan, that the relationship you have with your wife has much more in common with my relationship with Memphis than it has with male/female marriages in the 17th century? i think you're getting quite myopic to think that what you have with your wife -- a relationship based on love, choice, and equality -- would be at all recognizable to people living even 100 years ago.

the fact remains that all your "thousands of years of ..." has always changed, and will continue to change, over the next thousand years, and the fact remains that there's no requirement for marriage that a straight couple can meet that a gay couple can't.

whether you like it or not, we're not different at all, nathan. heterosexuality is exactly the same as homosexuality. yes, there's a difference, but that difference is no more different than the difference that lies between all relationships. so you can have a biological child that's 50% you and 50% your wife and i can't? that's incidental to marriage. biological children, and children altogether, are incidental to marriage. there is no requirement that says one must have children. a marriage might indeed be the "best" place for a child to be raised, but that does not mean, 1) it is the *only* place for a child to be raised, or, 2) a marriage isn't a marriage unless a biological child is produced. further, many gay couples have children, and how they go about having children is exactly the same as how many straight people have children.

again, gender is inconsequential to the quality and worth of the relationship. there are horrible gay relationships just as there are horrible straight relationships. but the point is that those horrible straight people have options that a gay couple is denied based upon a difference that is not only involuntary and harmless but also incidental to the actual criteria at hand.
 


I love it that you can be so smug while being so obtuse to the fact that a thousand years ago the definition of marriage was completely different than what you want now. And that's all you are fighting for, a definition of a word, a word that you obviously don't realize has already changed definition again and again...
 
Gay America Prepares To Party at Obama Inauguration - FOXNews.com Transition Tracker

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, an organization that describes itself as "devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda," is worried less about what happens in public and more about what may go on behind closed doors.



omg, i checked out this guy's website, and it's amazing. in that he's totally and completely obsessed with gay sex and describes it in detail to point out how "immoral" or whatever it is. it makes me wonder if he'd describe heterosexual sex parties with the same disgusted-yet-turned-on fervor that he does with whatever private groups who are in town for MLA may or may not be doing.

he's so screamingly transparent, it's hilarious. i think he masturbates as he writes about all the sin.
 
Back
Top Bottom