I won't call you that but that's how that post came across.
Maybe you won't, but I will.
I won't call you that but that's how that post came across.
"She never meets him until the actual moment when they say 'I do,'" a source close to the project told The Reporter. "It's like the big scene that comes after an entire season of The Bachelor, only this is in every episode."
FOX supports the SANCTITY of marriage:
GO Fox
Go conservatives
Yes but if you were honest about the sanctity of marriage, and not just the definition of the word this would outrage you.
I think it's grasping for straws to say that this show is a reflection of the hypocritical nature of conservatives on the issue of marriage.
my point was that if they were truly trying to protect the sanctity of marriage why aren't they speaking out against other things beyond two women getting married? Why aren't they trying to change divorce laws, or attack shows like this?
But spending millions on Prop h8te isn't like swatting at flies?Trying to change divorce laws -- or change Fox programming -- is like swatting at flies. My wife and I however regularly counsel couples who are going through incredibly difficult times. It seems to be more constructive.
Not everyone has to resort to histrionics to try to make a positive change.
But spending millions on Prop h8te isn't like swatting at flies?
The church could have actually saved lives with that $$$. I'm sure Jesus is proud.
Right, TV doesn't care about their ratings...Fox doesn't give a rip about what I watch or don't watch, so I'm not going to waste my time.
I'm sure Jesus has much to say to both sides.
Right, TV doesn't care about their ratings...
Yes, but one side commits their sins while evoking his name.
Gays decry Obama's stand on gay marriage case
By LINDA DEUTSCH and LISA LEFF – 1 day ago
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Gay rights groups expressed dismay with the Obama administration Friday over its championing of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law the president pledged to try to repeal while on the campaign trail.
The government filed a motion late Thursday to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the 1996 federal act. The law prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and other federal rights of marriage.
U.S. Department of Justice lawyers argued that the act — known informally as DOMA — is constitutional and contended that awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.
"The president made very explicit and emphatic campaign promises that he opposes DOMA and would provide leadership calling on Congress to repeal it," said Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "This brief is not consistent with that promise."
Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Friday that the department is abiding by its standard practice of defending existing law and that the filing doesn't mean Obama has changed his mind about wanting to see gay couples win federal recognition.
"Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system," Schmaler said.
More than four months into his first term, Obama has been under growing pressure from gay rights activists who supported his candidacy to move forward on repealing DOMA and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobbying group based in Washington, called on Obama to reassure his supporters by sending Congress a bill to lift the federal marriage law.
"The Administration apparently determined that it had a duty to defend DOMA in the courts. The President has just as strong a duty to put his principles into action," Solmonese said in a statement.
In the papers, Justice Department lawyers said federal court was not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by Hammer and Smelt, who got married in California last year during the five-month window in which the state sanctioned same-sex unions.
Lambda Legal's Pizer said the government's stance in some ways marks an improvement from Justice Department positions taken on the Defense of Marriage Act when George W. Bush was president.
The brief acknowledges that gay couples who tie the knot in the six states where same-sex marriages are permitted are legally married and does not cite the oft-used argument that children fare better in households headed by a married man and woman, Pizer said.
At the same time, it repeated several arguments made under Bush, including the argument that a union between a man and a woman is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage."
The Obama administration will have more opportunities in coming weeks to weigh in on the subject. Another challenge to DOMA brought on behalf of married couples in Massachusetts and a lawsuit seeking to overturn California's gay marriage ban under the U.S. Constitution are making their way through the courts.
where's the outrage!?
where's the outrage!?
....In practice, homophobia seems to mean any actions or words that displease certain homosexuals. Not your average, everyday garden-variety gays, but the denizens of the organized gay lobby. There is, in fact, a specialized organization, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), that has taken upon itself the role of guardian and monitor of the gay community's image. The recipient of big money from the Hollywood Left, and boasting a network in virtually every major city in the country, GLAAD's hypersensitive antennae scan the skies for signs of homophobia in the media. In regular alerts to its members, and in the pages of gay newspapers from coast to coast, GLAAD publishes the addresses and phone numbers of transgressors, and urges its supporters to complain.
Such groups as People for the American Way and other left-oriented "civil liberties" organizations pull in millions of dollars from liberals worried about the much-vaunted threat of the so-called Religious Right. This myth of neo-Puritan fundamentalists intent on ransacking America's libraries, and purging all traces of sexuality from public life, is central to the demonology of modern liberalism, the bogeyman at the center of their worst nightmare. How ironic, then, to contemplate the implications of an epistle from San Francisco's GLAAD that denounced the March-April 1994 issue of the Video Librarian for daring to recommend Gay Rights, Special Rights, a video distributed by the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). The following quote from the Video Librarian reviewer is GLAAD's idea of rampant homophobia:
"It would be easy to dismiss Gay Rights, Special Rights as another rabid, right-wing piece of propaganda, except for the serious and valid argument at its core: Should gays and lesbians be accorded minority group status and thereby gain civil rights protections?"
This attempt at a balanced discussion is considered so self-evidently homophobic that Al Kielwasser, local GLAAD guru, did not even bother to explain why he thought it was so. Readers were merely urged to "send much-needed feedback" to the publisher of the Video Librarian.
Clearly, the intent of GLAAD is to make sure that the nation's libraries are cleansed of material they consider potentially harmful. But why stop with such obviously partisan polemics as the TVC video? Why not extend the proscription of anything deemed anti-gay to the local library's current inventory of books? Just think: we could build a bonfire in which the works of Freud, and all the saints in heaven, would be consigned to the flames. It would be as good an excuse as any to torch the complete works of, say, Norman Podhoretz or Pat Buchanan - and even the books of some gay writers whose loyalty to the cause might be found wanting.
All expressions of the idea that homosexuality is in any sense a choice are immediately and vehemently protested by GLAAD as "homophobic," in spite of the considerable dissension on this subject not only among reputable scientists, but also among gays themselves. In the absence of any scientific proof for the gay determinist hypothesis, articles in the press suggesting another view would advance our knowledge of this area by at least carrying the discussion forward. But if the gay ayatollahs of GLAAD have anything to do with it, then those articles will never be published and there will be no discussion. As an example of their dogmatic hectoring, a June 1995 missive from GLAAD berated syndicated gossip columnist Liz Smith for referring to Chastity Bono's "sexual preference":
"Of course, most mainstream journalists have begun to use the more accurate terminology, 'sexual orientation.' 'Preference' carries the unfortunate implication that lesbians and gay men can be changed; it's a term that appeals to the homophobic imagination, in which evil queers prefer immorality over righteousness."
In it's perpetual attempts to intimidate editors, writers, publishers, and movie producers, GLAAD is representative of that curious anomaly of the new millennium: the illiberal liberal. The irony, and the great danger, is that GLAAD is endorsed and subsidized by alleged proponents of "free expression" and openness -- whose money is going to subsidize a new and politically correct version of the Library Police.
In 1980, GLAAD's campaign against the movie Cruising demonized this realistic drama as heterosexist propaganda dedicated to the proposition that, as gay film historian Vito Russo put it, "homosexuality is not only contagious but inescapably brutal." The militant movie mavens of GLAAD reached a crescendo of shrillness in the controversy over Basic Instinct, an elegant movie about a murderess with lesbian tendencies. GLAAD's moral and aesthetic standards are sub-moronic: if a gay character in a movie or television drama is portrayed in a less than flattering light, or even ambiguously, it is GLAAD's cue to get out the picket signs.
This campaign to sanitize homosexuality in the movies soon expanded to include an organized effort to inculcate GLAAD's view of the subject in public school textbooks. In California, GLAAD chapters were urged to attend meetings of the State Board of Education's ad hoc "Committee on Hate/Violence," which is, we are told, "an important platform of curriculum reform." The strategy is to piggyback onto the current campaign against racially-motivated "hate crimes" in the public schools: "Given the committee's focus, the public can demand the Board's attention to the role that textbooks can - and must - play in combating homophobia. After all, unless the Board of Education begins to spend tax dollars on books that include fair and accurate information about lesbians and gays, our schools will continue to teach a curriculum of hate and violence."
What could be clearer than this clarion call for state-subsidized gay propaganda aimed at children? As a parent put it at a meeting of the Queens (New York) School Board Distict 28, in reference to the imposition of New York City's infamous "Rainbow Curriculum": "Remember that the Children of the Rainbow [teacher's manual] specifically tells teachers that in all subjects they are to mention the gay and lesbian lifestyle. This means that in math, reading, and writing, our children will have to hear about this. And remember, this is the first grade." The whole process, he correctly concluded, amounts to "indoctrination."
These parents want to know why homosexuality must be discussed in the schools at all. Gay activists answer: because we are victims. Violence against homosexuals is endemic in this society, and it is the responsibility of the public schools to prevent this by promoting "tolerance."
Christian fundamentalists and other advocates of traditional morality, in opposing social engineering projects such as New York City's "Rainbow Curriculum," declared that homosexuals were trying to recruit innocent young children into their ranks. But they needn't have worried. For the insipid and defensive propaganda of the tolerance brigade would only serve to repulse the very students who might be inclined toward homosexual behavior. What budding young homosexual would not sneer in derision upon being told he has to do a book report on Daddy's Roommate or Gloria Goes to Gay Pride? Such drivel would not recruit anyone, not even the likeliest candidates, and instead would have the opposite effect. Deprived of the aura of rebellion and the forbidden, the allure of homosexuality would practically vanish. Stripped of its otherness, homophilia would soon lose a good deal of its erotic charge, at least for a great many potential practitioners. The irony of the gay activist agenda in the schools is that its full implementation would eventually result in considerably fewer homosexuals. Perhaps GLAAD and the fundamentalists - who have more in common than is at first apparent - can get together on this one.
What a troubling article, must have been a bigot that wrote it.
What a troubling article, must have been a bigot that wrote it.
Who, pray tell, did write it? I see you've conveniently omitted the source.
Justin Raimondo
Raimondo is openly gay, but as a libertarian, he believes the government should refrain from adopting laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays. He believes gays have a right to discriminate against non-gays. He also is against gay marriage, both mocking the idea that gays should adopt a heterosexual model of sexual and emotional relationships, and noting that as a libertarian he opposes "State incursion into such private matters." He also has written that after years of persecution by the state gay rights activists want to "use the battering ram of government power" to actively intervene on behalf of homosexuals.
I should've figured. He's fairly unhinged.
Right. Now let's see Justin write a "libertarian" argument in favour of racial segregation.
Would he state that the government should refrain from adopting laws that would prohibit discrimination against blacks? Does he believe that blacks have a right to discriminate against non-blacks? Does he believe that everyone from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King, Jr. used the "battering ram of government power" to actively intervene on behalf of blacks?
Would he, as a "libertarian," support the repeal of the Reconstruction Amendments, which ended slavery and, at least in principle, guaranteed the equal rights of men of all races, but were only ratified because the North forced the former Confederate states to ratify them as a condition for readmission into the Union--that is, they were amendments that were not approved by popular sentiment, but only due to the strong arm of government?
Frankly, I make no secret that I despise him and everything he is tied with ideologically.
Now, I think it's safe to say the majority of US gays are in favour of legalised gay marriage. On the other hand, we have a minority of US gays who are against. The fact that the former are in the majority does not make their arguments right. That, as I understand it, is the broader narrative Raimondo is hinting at.
So, actually, from your point of view, you think my ironic comment in the other thread, implying that the writer of the quote I posted must be a bigot, is actually true. Raimondo is a bigot. This out gay man who has devoted his life to libertarianism and the anti-war cause is really a bigot. Ho hum. Interesting.
It's completely farcical when one looks at any number of countries where the "majority" sees fit to not only deny rights to its minorities, but to also abuse them, silence them, and sometimes even kill them. But hey...let's tell those people in Darfur that they are silly to demand equality, when we really should be telling them that they have the equal right to attack and kill their oppressors instead! But I guess that also throws a wrench into his hard-line anti-war stances.
The fact that he is a "bigot" can be surmised solely on the basis of what he writes, and his downright archetypal depiction of the gay rights movement as some kind of deviant menace fits the definition perfectly. I'm also pretty sure that some Jews might find his conspiracy theories about their involvement in the U.S. government rather anti-Semitic, as well.
The libertarian conservative anti-war movement isn't saying that we should tell the people in Darfur that they are silly to demand equality. What it is saying that we should politely tell them it is none of our business - which, frankly, it isn't. Underlying the mainstream media analysis of Darfur is the neocon/liberal idea that the US/West should be the world policeman, and underlying that is essentially imperialism and colonialism - even when well intentioned. It's the old Kipling thing of the white man's burden.
Are you in favour of an international military intervention in the Sudan? What form should it take? Let's hear what forces should be involved and what the mission objective is. Let's hear the plans for the new Sudanese government. Incidentally, a lot of these conflicts you refer to have their roots in Western colonialism and interventionism. So the solution is to be more Western colonialism and interventionism?
This isn't argument. It's just labelling someone you don't agree with.