Posted by: Lurking Canuck at March 19, 2013 12:50 PM (BrQrN)

At least we look cool going up!

Gabes right. This shit has always been there, its just that winning has a way of papering over problems. Losing brings the knives out.

On immigration, lets not forget the last guy that signed amnesty was a certain ex-gov from California.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 19, 2013 12:52 PM (9Bj8R)

The hate is good. It keeps me warm.

Instead of all these circular firing squads, maybe the GOP should look at what unites us and start working out from there.

So what is that? Liberty?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at March 19, 2013 12:56 PM (jZUEZ)

Absolutely. Too bad the sequel sucked donkey dick. And what in the fuck happened to Sean Patrick Flanery's face???

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 19, 2013 12:58 PM (XkotV)

AKA Life

"Maybe a little inclusiveness won't hurt."

IOW, "just the tip".

Yeah, that always works out real well.  After about the seventeenth time, it hardly hurts at all.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at March 19, 2013 12:59 PM (jZUEZ)

It's watchable. But compared to the first one, it's just fucking terrible. The first was gritty and hard and edgy and all that. The second was very much a Hollywood production.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 19, 2013 12:57 PM (yCvxi)

It google pulls up a Breitbart story.  At first I was was stunned, then I realized he's probably just trying to waffle so no one accuses him of anything.

"Take seriously" could also mean "we promise not to laugh directly at you." (i.e. just being polite.)

"Amnesty will be the death of the GOP and the death of the republic soon afterwards. "

I hate to break it to you, but it's already dead. 

No, I didn't much enjoy realizing it either. 

The RINOP is long-dead, and even conservative "intellectuals" are now seeing that; funny it is, that their vision was so long clouded
 
We have a UniParty, one that should be prosecuted under RICO ... oh wait ! my bad .... the DOJ is part of the scam
 
I see that Savior-the-Young Rand Paul is now co-opted for "comprehensive Immigration lay-down" ... big surprise

Open Borders ?  si !   es muy bueno !
 
Look at pics of nominee Thomas Perez ... see the face of Islam channeled through southern Iberia during MujOutreach in the 1200s and 1300s .... here in New LaRazaville, and the southwest of Amerikwa the devolved construct known as "HIGHspanic culture" is basically MuzzLite ... doubt that ? ... consider these few points ...
 
attitude toward intellectual endeavor?
attitude toward women?
respect for the Law?
respect for private property?
response of their fragile male ego model to being 'dissed" ?
default behavior to violence, si o no ?
 
the 'Kwa is toast ... even with the emergence of a Third Party. Weasels like this POS will still be infection within the corpus. Steyn is absolutely correct -demographics will be our destiny and downfall. Final thanks to Teddy the Hut for the Immigration Reform Act. Drunken, liberal, shanty-Irish catholic white guilt : the Gift that keeps on Giving
 
Prepare Accordingly. When, not if ... when the SHTF, it's gonna be like gravity. Step off the cliff, and it's instantly fully operative, inescapable, and active all the way down to the splash
 
we're all Cypriots, tovarisches

Posted by: EC at March 19, 2013 01:03 PM (GQ8sn)

Yup.

Posted by: L, elle at March 19, 2013 01:02 PM (0PiQ4)

_____________

It's not 5% of the population. You make the assumption that no straight people care about SSM. You're wrong. Very wrong.

To Paraphrase... its the SPENDING stupid.

The Social Cons are picking fights with the Libertarians...  the old Guard Repubs with the TEA party folks...

The ONE thing that can hold the coalition together, is the issue of smaller Government, but that is the ONE issue that Repubs have sucked at (yes the Dems suck worse, but who started DHS, EPA....)

Those in Washington are unwilling to do anything meaningful about spending... so they argue over lesser issues...

Posted by: BCochran1981 at March 19, 2013 01:04 PM (da5Wo)

Yeah, it was ok.  Surprised to see Willem Dafoe again.

"Ding dong motherfucker!!!!"

"An astonishing 81 percent of 18-29 year-olds support gay marriage. Even 51 percent of Republicans that age support gay marriage. Maybe a little inclusiveness won't hurt."

Hey!  Great idea!  Not only will you continue to get RINO votes but you'll lock in the CINO (Catholic... you know the rest)!

<sarc off>

You do know that orthodox, OBEDIANT Catholics won't vote for your CINO/RINO's...?

never mind.... I figured out there is no help from the Repub's as they sell themselves out as whores just as the dems do.

Posted by: Catmman at March 19, 2013 01:00 PM (C8XlI)

Maryland says 'Hi'.

But... I actually thought that would not have passed if there was a robust effort to appose it in TV ads.  The measure was almost unopposed last fall.  Meanwhile we had wall-to-wall for and against Casino ads.

An astonishing 81 percent of 18-29 year-olds support gay marriage. Even 51 percent of Republicans that age support gay marriage. Maybe a little inclusiveness won't hurt.

Again, this is mainly driven  by the generational *whatever* about marriage.

Hey, why  don't we use it to welcome the Left's newfound appreciation of  marriage and urge them to reconsider their "opposition to Straight Marriage," a stance that has done more to grow  government and trash schools than any other.  

It's not 5% of the population. You make the assumption that no straight people care about SSM. You're wrong. Very wrong.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 19, 2013 01:04 PM (HDgX3)

But at a time of true national emergency... when they are spending us into oblivion, is this the TIME to fight this battle???

Whether Gays can marry or not will not destroy the Republic... Debt will.... yet some are willing to destroy any coherent Democrat opposition, so they can have a piece of paper saying Married, vice Domestic Partnership.

I personaly do not care about Gay Marriage.... but I do care that it is destroying the Fiscal Con Coalition.

Posted by: Jollyroger at March 19, 2013 12:51 PM (t06LC)

And he did it based on promises form the Democrats in congress that they would provide for border control.  It was supposed to be a one shot deal.  Fix the ones here and then don't allow any more.  This is the major rule we will not go to that well again.

After Reagan saw how they screwed him in the deal he said he regretting agreeing to it.  Now a bunch of RINOs are making the same BS promises that the Democrats made then.  FUCK them.

As to Immigration?  Rand Paul just lost my support.

To get less of somthing, you punish it.... to get more you reward it....

I have no problem with a Guest Worker program... but a path to citizenship is a step too far.

Posted by: Jollyroger at March 19, 2013 12:55 PM (t06LC)

Booze. Guns. Hot women/men, depending on preference.

It's not 5% of the population. You make the assumption that no straight people care about SSM. You're wrong. Very wrong.

Yeah, they care about it. They hate it with a passion. It is one of the only things that inner-city blacks, Hispanics, and most of the Republican party actually agree on.

Pretty much all politics can now be summed up with a Ashley Judd rape analogy. The politicians forced us to accept the tip for the last twenty years, now they are saying it's unrealistic to pull out and we're just going to have to take the shaft too.

Posted by: Serious Cat at March 19, 2013 01:06 PM (UypUQ)

______________

Washington passed it last year as well. 54% to 46%

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 19, 2013 01:09 PM (QXlbZ)

THANKYOU!  who gives a shit about who's diddling who?  And for you nutjobs going to church in a trailer park, ProTip:  it's not for you to judge.  Kinda says that in the bible.

I'm a god-fearing (oh... believe me... I fear him. He can bring the hate) man.  But ya'll gettin' tied up in knots over some dude smoking some pole are missing the point that your pastor is diddling half the congregation (been there, seen the movie, bought popcorn.  It's why I don't do "church") when the rest of the world is collapsing around you. 

Prioritize mfers!  Prioritize!  If you can't? then stfu and stfd.

Posted by: joncelli at March 19, 2013 01:09 PM (RD7QR)

Yeah.... Like smaller Government... which everyone BUT the Washington GOP wants.... oh..... crap...

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 19, 2013 01:07 PM (6zgse)

Yeah, but that's where Romney went wrong. "Self-deportation" sounds either too much like "forced deportation" or sounds like weasel words.  The word "Deport" is a forcible act.  People don't force things on themselves they don't want.

Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2013 01:13 PM (AR+tO)

*pops popcorn*

Rebuttal Gabe?

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 19, 2013 01:11 PM (/ZHx6)

________________

Maryland is 30% black and it passed SSM in a state ballot. Try again.

THANKYOU! who gives a shit about who's diddling who? And for you nutjobs going to church in a trailer park, ProTip: it's not for you to judge. Kinda says that in the bible.

Where, exactly? There is a fair bit about stoning folks who engage in certain activities.

I'm a god-fearing (oh... believe me... I fear him. He can bring the hate) man. But ya'll gettin' tied up in knots over some dude smoking some pole are missing the point that your pastor is diddling half the congregation (been there, seen the movie, bought popcorn. It's why I don't do "church") when the rest of the world is collapsing around you.

Maybe you should find a church that actually teaches the Bible. That might help.

Maryland is 30% black and it passed SSM in a state ballot. Try again.

NC and CA.

Posted by: Tex Lovera at March 19, 2013 01:16 PM (wtvvX)

The bus boys won't be able to hide their capital gains from taxation anymore.

Posted by: WalrusRex at March 19, 2013 01:18 PM (XUKZU)

  I saw that. After the last election I was pretty sure that Florida is a lost cause... This just confirms it...

Posted by: imp at March 19, 2013 01:17 PM (oGrkY)

Hells bells.... I'm all for tieing the LEGAL immigration rate, to the unemployment rate...

High Unemployment? less immigrants.... close to 5%? (full employment).... open the gates a bit.

"It's not 5% of the population. You make the assumption that no straight people care about SSM. You're wrong. Very wrong."

Only half wrong.  The majority of that 5% ghey number and their apologists don't particularly care about marriage at all.  Not in any positive societal or religious manner anyway.  What they really care about rubbing else's nose in it.

It's not particualrly different than the progtard "concern" for poor, oppressed black folk.  They don't really give a shit about  any real improvement in their lives.  They care about buying their vote as cheaply as possible and keeping them on the plantation.   Principle and morality be damned.

The problem with an incompatible coalition is that it can't stand "on principle".  I vote for Liberty, a la upthread, which means I'm for gay marriage. It's no threat to traditional marriage.  (I ruined my traditional marriage the old-fashioned way, with a hot blonde from northern Italy). 

As long as the GOP pushes away people it thinks are icky, whether because they're gay or have accents, it will always be the Stupid Party.  We need to get the social freedom people from the left away from their ridiculous Marxism, and we need to get the fiscal conservatives on the right away from their ridiculous prejudices.

Neither of which will ever happen.

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 19, 2013 01:18 PM (/ZHx6)

You presume too much.  I've seen them all.  From the big, glorious 20,000 person churches to the back of a mobile home.  Same story, every time. 

Funny thing about the bible:  you just have to read it.  I don't need some nitwit explaining to me what I already figured out.

Like trying to decide to use tuna helper or hamburger helper with my sawdust --

flame war!

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 19, 2013 01:21 PM (sbV1u)

Fixed

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at March 19, 2013 01:18 PM (wR+pz)

Uh.... you do realize that as soon as you are here, you get benefits.... and there IS a minimum Social Secuity payout even if you have not worked?

Yeah..... great idea... open the gates to all the old folks in the world, so they can come here for Social Security, and Medicare.... that they never paid into...

Posted by: DangerGirl at March 19, 2013 01:22 PM (pUAXu)

Done and done.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 19, 2013 01:17 PM (6zgse)

thank you.

Posted by: Jaws at March 19, 2013 01:22 PM (4I3Uo)

____________

Do you know any gay people? Serious question. Because comments like this lend me to believe that you don't. I mentioned this a few days ago. Friend of mine on Facebook said her sister got married to her partner. She got a ton of comments. All positive. All congratulatory. Most along the lines of "it's about damn time". My friend was happy for her sister. She wasn't rubbing anyone's nose it and neither were any of the comments I read.

If the choice is between losing elections and abandoning morality, then I say we should lose elections.

Posted by: Sock Test at March 19, 2013 01:24 PM (wR+pz)

You've put your email addy in the URL box.

Why surrender on gay marriage, attack. Drive a wedge between the white liberals and the working AA on this. Screw the young, after they get older, have a few kids, they will come around.  Why surrender on immigration, attack. Again drive a wedge between the Dims voting blocs, why are we tolerating illegal aliens with 25% black unemployment? Let La Raza explain that to black America, they must not want those jobs.

But you  lose  moderate, suburban, possible GOP voters doing that. Wedges are nice  but you have  to have a voter majority when you're done.

Posted by: BSR at March 19, 2013 01:22 PM (CBCxo)

I agree that it was clear what people were voting for, but there was not effort by the opposition side to make it "okay" to vote against it.  I believe a TV ad campaign saying that while "Not that there's nothing wrong with that... marriage is a special case" would have  made many wobbly voters not feel like bigots by voting against.  The opposition was MIA.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 19, 2013 01:23 PM (sbV1u)

Sure. Thanks. But can we make it 12 oz of Jack and 20 of High-Capacity Assault Soda?

Funny thing about the bible: you just have to read it. I don't need some nitwit explaining to me what I already figured out.

Yet, oddly, you bring up the whole "the Bible says it isn't for you to judge" stuff, which usually indicates that the person claiming that hasn't actually read it.

In addition, your characterization of churches sounds more like a Hollywood stereotype than anything I have ever seen.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 19, 2013 01:25 PM (HDgX3)

And why?  because to say anything different brings the hate....

The Gays have effectivly squashed any discourse outside of their pre approved meme.

Posted by: MJ at March 19, 2013 01:27 PM (vl5mg)

And not doing so is the perfect recipe to... what has actually been happening for the past however many years.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 19, 2013 01:25 PM (3Mkrp) 

A little respect if you please.

Posted by: tangonine at March 19, 2013 01:27 PM (x3YFz)

I love the folks who take ONE line... and base a philosophy on it... while basicly ignoring the rest of the book....

My comment to them is usualy... if you wish to pull one line out of the Bible... my Sword Collection is Jesus Approved... (based on his last conversation with his disciples... ie.... sell your cloak, buy a sword).

my Sword Collection is Jesus Approved... (based on his last conversation with his disciples... ie.... sell your cloak, buy a sword).

Posted by: MikeTheMoose DOOMCASTER! at March 19, 2013 01:31 PM (0q2P7)

Sooo... the Book God gave us, to give us his way.... is so complex that a simple person cannot read and understand it?

This suddenly enters the realm of the moslems who say the book must only be read in the origional language... so it can be interpreted by the Imams....

Immigration

Option 1 - We won't deport you, but if you are here illegally, you can't work and you get no benefits.

Option 2 - You're here, you have proof of employment and aren't using a stolen/fake SSN, you can stay and continue to work. You can apply for a permanent work permit but you can never become a citizen unless you leave the country and come in through the front door. Work permit only allows you to work and confers no other benefits. No family immigration, no welfare, etc.

Gay marriage

Gays can already get married in many locations. If states want to offer up a package of legal contracts for inheritance, visitation, etc, whatever. However, any legal construct which equivocates gay marriage with heterosexual marriage will infringe upon the religious liberty of a large set of citizens and cannot stand.

I will stand up for these beliefs, even if I stand alone.

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 19, 2013 01:28 PM (/ZHx6)

to quote (and I do NOT like the guy) Samuel L. Jackson:  "you know what happens when you make assumptions?  You make an ass out of you, and umption."

I'm a vet, a rancher, a husband, a father, a cowboy and God's man, not necessarily in that order.

Not too bright, are you?

Then in the very next breath, they feel the need to tell people who they can or can't marry

Should I be able to marry my cats?

I'm a vet, a rancher, a husband, a father, a cowboy and God's man, not necessarily in that order

I thought you were a physics professor.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 19, 2013 01:36 PM (yCvxi)

__________

Full disclosure some important context is the fact that Gabrial Malor is himself gay...  I'm just saying.  Know who you're listening to.

I agree with the Paul solution... get government out of marriage.  Look, nothing is stopping gays from getting married now, even in Texas.  Gays can go to a gay church and have a gay wedding ceremony.  And then for protection of property they can sign a contract that says whatever they want it to say.  Gay marriage is about politics and redefining our culture from the top down. 

Posted by: John Boehner at March 19, 2013 01:37 PM (QXlbZ)

The US confiscates through inflation. This is a hard concept.

Posted by: tangonine at March 19, 2013 01:34 PM (x3YFz)

You left out physics professor.

Of course I know gay people. They are a majority of the population. At least that what Hollywood tells me.

Actually, I don't know if I know any gay people. And that's the way it should be.

Didn't somebdy post a stat yesterday that Romney won young whites by a pretty good margin? SSM didn't seem to come into play.

Posted by: MJ at March 19, 2013 01:33 PM (vl5mg)

Romney was much more than a bad salesman. In many cases, he had positions that were much closer to Obama's than not. In other cases, he did an extremely poor job of not only refuting Obama's position but failed to make the case for his position.

Anyone who listens to Reagan's A Time For Choosing speech from 64 can understand the difference between the way our current "leaders" speak and the way Reagan spoke, especially the line about it not being about right and left but about right and wrong. Our side does a piss-poor job of explaining why the left is wrong.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose DOOMCASTER! at March 19, 2013 01:37 PM (0q2P7)

It's anecdotal, but in my anecdotal experience it's like 90% of the pastors are diddling someone in the congregation.  Anecdotal.  Maybe I got to view the worst of it. 

I'm not a fan of organized religion, and I'm pretty sure the good book doesn't advocate it in any way shape or form so I'm going to stand pat.

Your card, speedy.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose DOOMCASTER! at March 19, 2013 01:37 PM (0q2P7)

___________

Just like some gay activists are assholes, therefore all gays are assholes.

279Moo Moo sums it for the Libertarians - it comes down to getting stoned.

...and being 'liked' on Facebook.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 19, 2013 01:37 PM (3Mkrp)

A coup?!?!?!

Sergeant at Arms Bannion! Drinks are on me at the meetup if you'll....take care of this little issue.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 19, 2013 01:40 PM (EWKEr)

___________

Not sure I get your question.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 19, 2013 01:41 PM (yCvxi)

__________

I see you understand social media as well as Romney's team. Let's ignore what people say on facebook, twitter, etc. Those aren't "real" people right?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 19, 2013 01:39 PM (nZvGM)

I left out "sexy beast"

"Do you know any gay people? "

I do.   Mostly because  my profession is gay-overrepresented (artsy). 

Rough math:  20% are earnest about the SSM issue - older lesbians, mostly.

The  majority are younger gay males who are ruled by their dicks even more than young straight males.  They don't care about settling down, but they do care about making life dramatic and uncomfortable for those who dare to disagree with "the narrative".    

The small remainder are older males who are married to women.  I shit you not.

Related:  I'd not put too much stock in FB comments.   Polite>Honesty for most folks.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at March 19, 2013 01:40 PM (UrENZ)

As a small L libertarian..... uh.... no....

And this is the exact attitude that is splitting the coalition.

I'm pretty sure the good book doesn't advocate it in any way shape or form so I'm going to stand pat.

How do you reconcile that position with, well, pretty much everything Paul wrote concerning the assembly, picking church officers, teachers, etc?

Posted by: Jaws at March 19, 2013 01:43 PM (4I3Uo)

Hmmm.... are there any Staticstics on how prevalent Gay marriage is, in the States where it is legal?

ie.... what percentage of Gays are even bothering to marry?  Wonder if its even lower than the Hetero population.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 19, 2013 01:41 PM (6zgse)

growing up:  Mormon

Later?:  Southern Baptist

Now there's some fun

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Ampersand Whisperer at March 19, 2013 01:44 PM (fMiHM)

_________

But you can force your morality on them.

Posted by: Fritz at March 19, 2013 01:07 PM (UzPAd)

For Da Big Guy, the buffet is an appetizer.

OT: I have an idea for BD Saints 3

The brothers have recuperated enough to be in the general populace, but Romeo is still bedridden. Strangley enough, no one is trying to kill them. In fact, people seem afraid of them.

One junkie looking to make a name for himself tries to kill Romeo after tricking the guards into leaving. Junkie ends up dead, but not by Romeo's hands.

It is then the brothers meet the men who protected Romeo and by extension, them. The men are The Brotherhood. All are men rightfully convicted who found God in prison. They are feared, essentially control the prison, and have the blessings of the warden.

They have one mission. To carry out the word of God by freeing the Saints.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 19, 2013 01:44 PM (Kpn/z)

There is no city in America, where I cannot find Prostitutes, Gambling, or drugs.... easily....

Posted by: Jean at March 19, 2013 01:43 PM (DZ9ke)

________

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 19, 2013 01:44 PM (/ZHx6)

one thing I'm not is proud.  Let me dig into the book.  I may be wrong, ain't like it hasn't happened before.  But I'll marry up Paul's words to Christ's and see what fleshes out.

It's really amazing how many in our party can't distill a problem down to get to the bottom line.

Under no circumstances, under no election results regardless of what fantasy candidate wins, will 15 million illegal aliens go home.

It's time for the deniers to understand that.

The question that is coming up is:

Will the people already here end up as voting citizens or as permanent resident aliens?

Take your pick and get behind one of those choices. 

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 19, 2013 01:46 PM (ZPrif)

Hmmm.... interesting.... guess I'll have to tell my kids about this... but then, as a Libertarian, I'm anti abortion... do take showers... run a company (gotta go right now as a matter of fact....) and volunteered last election even in the Lost State of California...

Interesting that some are so willing to paint with a broad brush.... this rant sounds.... dare I say it.... almost Racist in tone?

Posted by: WalrusRex at March 19, 2013 01:47 PM (XUKZU)

um.

I haven't considered it.

Just a side note.

336 -

Depends on the NBC's ratings, doesn't it? 

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 19, 2013 01:44 PM (/ZHx6)

And there's also "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will buid my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" Matthew 16:18 (your translation will obviously vary, but the gist is always the same).

Of course moo moo is a troll, but given that he's hijacked a Gabe thread about immigration and gay marriage, I can't say I care. 

Posted by: zsasz at March 19, 2013 01:45 PM (MMC8r)

__________

80% of the under 30 crowd supports SSM. An under 30 friend of mine's sister got married and all her friends were happy for her.

2 +2 = ??

And murdering our wives. Let's face it. We've all
considered it. Why should we be repressed because three thousand years
ago some imaginary Sky God said, "Thou shalt not kill?"


Posted by: WalrusRex

***

Actually, the correct translation is thou shall not MURDER.

Killing in self defense is perfectly ok.

Republicans never take their run defense off the field and Democrats throw for the endzone on every play.


Infuriating.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 19, 2013 01:04 PM (yCvxi)

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 19, 2013 01:12 PM (6zgse)

Exactly.  Give me a candidate who'll tell Tingles to his face on national TV that he's a drunken, Obama-fellating hack or would tell Feinswine "I know you're not a sixth-grader, because they understand the Constitution, you senile scrunt" and I'll follow them through hell with a gas can.

The MFM will never give the GOP a fair shake, so why treat them with any respect?  Talk to them and the Dems like the anti-American, ought-to-be-grateful-we're-not-shooting-you swine they are.

"Will the people already here end up as voting citizens or as permanent resident aliens?"

What difference does it make? u wanna talk about the 8 million that crossed the border over the last 20 years or the 40 million kids they produced (read: votes democrat). It's over. Too many people are getting teh free shit. Let it burn.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 19, 2013 01:49 PM (yCvxi)

Welcome friend. Here's your complimentary tshirt and beer koozie.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 19, 2013 01:45 PM (HDgX3)

Not for me, skippy. A nation that can't even make infanticide illegal, is not one worth defending.

For so-cons troll = someone who doesn't think a book written 2000 years ago should guide how I live my life today.

It would help you case if you weren't reflexively contrary and could show some ideas of right and wrong based on something other than your own convenience.

Posted by: imp at March 19, 2013 01:51 PM (oGrkY)

Again, you presume too much.  With all respect, I tell you that I have a greek and hebrew literal translation within arms reach as I type this.  My father was catholic (mom was mormon... go figure). 

I've read the good book cover to cover only once, and as time passes it fades.  I'll admit I need to read more.  I'd like to consider myself a scholar, but I'm not very good at it.  What your words do are motivate me to get back to that more than I have over the years.

Your derision, however, is noted.  And I don't take kindly to it.

Troll = contrarian nitwit who has nothing to do all day but  put his fat finger in the wind, see which way it is blowing, and start bloviating in the other direction. 

No, this one is old.  He's been around before, I just don't care enough to remember under which nics. 

Except one:

Random. 

"Hmmm.... are there any Staticstics on how prevalent Gay marriage is, in the States where it is legal?"

AFAIK, there have been proportionally very few (if very well publicized) SS weddings in those places.  They're generally not beating down the door to tie the knot.   I don't have any stats on it, but I do doubt that many florists and wedding photogs are getting rich on it. 

Hey--let's not discuss what eleven million more persons would do to the cost of Obamacare.

Or anything economic--MATH IS HARD.  Or how we're currently set up to decisively lose the next war we fight.  Nah, let's talk about the critical issues of the day.

An astonishing 100% of the people in my house think this stupid navel gazing is just as unserious as anything the Dems are currently proposing.

When you can't add and subtract at a fifth grade level, distinguish basic moral principles (hey gay marriage is fine and slaughtering the unborn is also fine--square the circle on that one, Gabe), or make a stand on the installation of demonstrable idiots in the two most important national security positions--you deserve the deluge.

"Maybe once they are gone..."

Posted by: imp at March 19, 2013 01:53 PM (oGrkY)

And people wonder why we're called the "stupid party".

What's marriage?

Seriously.

What's the difference between "marriage" and "living together"?  Because for all the crash and thunder of the pro-SSM lobby, I don't see any real difference between "marriage" as defined by the pro-SSM lobby and "living together".

Yes, I have my own definition of marriage.  But evidently it isn't the same one used by a lot of people.  Because my own definition means that by marriage definitionally cannot include two people of the same sex.  Passing legislation to allow it is just as absurd as passing legislation to turn the sky green.

When did sucking a dick become a civil right?

How does a sexual fetish gain that kind of traction? How can you fucking dare outlaw polygany when blowing  a load up another guy's ass is a basic human right?

413Hey--let's not discuss what eleven million more persons would do to the cost of Obamacare.

Compounding.

Posted by: Jaws at March 19, 2013 01:56 PM (4I3Uo)

__________

Then if this is the case, why are you so freaked out about it?

Oops.  Hate it when I screw up a rewrite of a post.

That should obviously read "... means that marriage definitionally..."

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at March 19, 2013 01:58 PM (ULkyQ)

______________

Babies born as sinners. Yeah makes sense.

@431 - Then if this is the case, why are you so freaked out about it?

---------------------------------

Possibly in part because of the message it sends to the culture at large about what marriage is.  Possibly in part because of the also very well publicized incidents in which a florist or location has been offered business in helping with a SSM, has declined said offered business, and been successfully sued in court as a result.

Posted by: imp at March 19, 2013 02:00 PM (oGrkY)

Admittely that was hyperbole on my part.  Just kind of venting about why I don't attend organized religious thingys.  Should have thought about it more before I posted it.  Apologies.  Your mileage may differ.

Posted by: Ed Anger at March 19, 2013 02:01 PM (tOkJB)

____________

Eddie,

You have it mixed up. You are the one who is dictating orders to the rest of us. We just want to live in peace. You're the one that wants to tell us what we can and can't do based on what your bible says. Nobody is saying you have to get married to another dude. You're the one telling a gay guy he can't get married to another dude.

See the difference?

442 -

Not just gay marriage.  Last week it  had a hard on for Third Party. 

Note, the GOP coalition has always been fractured on this issue, with the business and fiscal cons urging immigration reform of exactly the flavor Paul -- and Sen. Rubio, for that matter -- are urging. Paul's statement that he doesn't support eVerify or any other mechanism to allow businesses to ascertain the work eligibility of applicants has been favored by business leaders for decades.

The RNC's acknowledgement of this reality in its autopsy report is recognition of electoral fact: voters do not want to deport millions of people. The only fight left is to figure out how to treat them since they're staying.

It is not clear to me how one can claim to be a "fiscal con" and support amnesty.  The costs of amnesty will be significant.  the claim that somehow amnesty will result in a net gain for states and the federal gov't through taxes is delusional.

The second paragraph I quoted is the typical pro-amnesty straw man.  Nobody has ever run on deporting millions of people.  We simply argue - correctly - that we don't have to do anything will illegals.  they came here illegally, knowing they would be illegal and remain here "in the shadows".  That was their choice.  Are conservatives not about personal responsibility and consequences for one's own actions/choices?  Your formulation "we must do something with them" completely nulls that out.  We owe these people nothing.  All we have to do is figure out how to stop more people from coming in (amnesty would invite in millions upon millions more, which pro-amnesty fanatics completely ignore) and actually enforce the laws we do have so some of those already here chose to leave.

That's it.  We owe nothing more to these people.  They chose their current predicament.  It was an active choice by them.  I do not need to reward them for that choice. 

As a political matter is a total loser as well.  We will gain nothing from the hispanic population in terms of votes by pandering on amnesty (all evidence supports this), in fact will mint lots of new voters to vote for dems, and the GOP will end up losing votes, volunteers and money by supporting amnesty.

So, you have a terrible, terrible economic policy (amnesty) that is also not supported by any reason to pursue (we have no moral obligation) and is also -to top it off - a terrible, terrible political strategy for the GOP.

And yet, the "smart set" continue to claim - against all evidence - that this is what we have to do.

I honestly have yet to see an actual argument FOR amnesty.  I see lots of talk about "we have to do something" (again, why exactly?) and "Racism", but have not seen one rational, evidence based argument on why amnesty would be a) good for the country or b) good for the GOP.

The same people who told us we had to nominate Mitt because Mitt would win all those moderate votes are trying to sell amnesty.  Now, I'll admit that there wasn't anything much better than Mitt in the primaries, but the arguments that Mitt could win were wildly delusional.  I argued that than and heard the same type of nonsense from the same smart set that I now hear that we must pass amnesty.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 19, 2013 02:01 PM (HDgX3)

At least they are allowed to be born. Ever seen Silent Scream?

Posted by: Ook? at March 19, 2013 01:58 PM (OQpzc)

This has been my point for a long time now.  I just never said it in such delicate terms. 

Posted by: polynikes at March 19, 2013 02:05 PM (m2CN7)

LOL... rephrase that in 1600 terms and it'd be a lot funnier.

Posted by: polynikes at March 19, 2013 02:05 PM (m2CN7)

___________

And you wonder why Republicans lose 80-20% among young voters. Unfucking real.

  Stealing and perjury were also immoral, last time I checked, and no one is advocating for there not to be laws against them.

Ehem.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 19, 2013 02:07 PM (GFM2b)

_________________

Marriage isn't for everyone. It never was for everyone. But society imposed it upon people. And the result was miserable people married to people they didn't love (or even like). Today both sexes are allowed to make that decision and not do what society expects. Same goes for having kids.

Posted by: toby928© sips the sweet tea of despair at March 19, 2013 02:10 PM (QupBk)

_______________

In your personal life, live your life according to what the bible says. I would never interfere with your right to do so (as long as your actions don't harm anyone else). But your right to live according to what the bible says ends where my right to live without caring what the bible says begins.

Posted by: BSR at March 19, 2013 02:06 PM (CBCxo)

I don't hate gay people.  In the course of my travels around the Sun I've met and befriended, worked for, supervised a lot of folks who were gay/lesbian.  Didn't mean a thing to me, I judged them based on their character.  Some were good, some weren't, same as anyone else. 

Brother in law is gay.  He's a smart guy, but he lets his gayness define him.  He votes democrat because all gay guys vote democrat.  Hasn't learned to think for himself yet.  I like the kid.  He means well, he's just immature.

At the end of the day I've got enough to deal with without getting tied up in knots over what someone else does with someone else.  And if that's the place where you want to plant your flag, well, I'm not going to be there to fight with you.  You're on your own.  Hell, I won't even help them bury you because it's a stupid fight.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 19, 2013 01:46 PM (ZPrif)


If ranking  on  an  EOJ scale of 1 to  10  I  will give that a 9.2.  

I'm 25, as conservative is the day is long. Opposing gay m. is bigotry. Plain and simple.

If you want the government to stop people from being married, then you are not a limited gov conservative and you are trying to impose your religious views on others.

Most of the younger crowd, that is as far as they go. They will never look at the GOP, they will never see what it really represents until it drops its opposition for anyone to marry anyone. The GOP will win virtually no one my age braket an lower, and they wont change as they grow older either. The party will be dead.

They have to drop this issue, I'm tierd of holding my nose as I vote. This issue is not important. What is important is the economy and my freedom.

Stop trying to take freedom away from others, you will only lose yours in return as democrats keep winning and keep growing the state.

And stop acting as if so cons come out to vote. If they did, then we would have won the election. You do the slightest thing wrong, they refuse to vote. If Romney was a traditional christian, he would have won.

@483 - To an extent the entire thing hinges on the premise that we cannot be saved by ourselves alone, (due to Original Sin and our resulting imperfection) we require Jesus. Baptism at Birth (which really doesn't happen much anymore, more like Baptism at 3-6 months) is a way of pointing out that we are saved by Jesus from that very moment however. It seems to me it hangs around as it does, as a way of reminding that by ourselves (i.e. w/o Jesus) there is no saving. (The "anonymous Christian" Theory is an entirely different branch of thought before anyone fires up that debate.)

So no Baby's aren't "sinners" however innocent they are, they are still stuck with man's imperfection though.

-------------------------

There is, needless to say, still some disagreement over this within parts of the Christian community.  While the vast majority of Christian denominations (to the best of my knowledge) baptize babies, there are also those who wait until the child is older.  The Baptists (12 years old, I think?  Might depend on the specific Baptist organization that the congregation is a part of.) and Latter-Day Saints (8 years old) are probably the two best known groups that wait.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose DOOMCASTER! at March 19, 2013 02:14 PM (0q2P7)

___________

I agree with you. Government should be out of the marriage business, period. Gay, straight, whatever. You want to get "married" get "married". But the govt should have nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 19, 2013 02:15 PM (bcLhD)

Why can't 40 year old Steve boink 15  year old Trevor in the privacy of his own home?

"Then if this is the case, why are you so freaked out about it?"

I'm not freaked out at all about it.  I'm just puttin' some effin truth to these holier than thou PC assertions about SSM.  This charade ain't about "marriage", this ain't about "rights", this  ain't about  "equality".  This is about politics.  Team D vs. Team R.   Gays are by and large on Team D and they say what they need to say to benefit the team.  My experience tells me they don't give a shit about getting hitched.

Team D is and has always been free to outright lie about the reasons and motivations for their stances on everything.  Team R has always taken Team D at face value and like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown...well, you know the rest.  This issue is no different.

No.  Personally I could give a rat's ass who you want to fuck, who you legally want to share half your shit with, and with whom you want to  be contractually bound forever  until death.   Your personal preference should be enough to decide on the first.  The government should deal with the second, and your church should allow for the last by it's own rules.  Don't like those rules?  Go shop for a new church.  But it isn't the government's place to interject itself between me, my spouse, the church, and the God I happen to serve.  It's no more their place than it is the church's place to interject itself into any legal agreement administered by the government.

Posted by: imp at March 19, 2013 02:18 PM (oGrkY)

and North Korea has nukes, my friend Glen died in Benghazi and you people are worried about... what?  Again?

Masters were allowed to 'kill' their slaves.  Husbands were allowed to 'kill' their wives.

It was societal morality that brought an end to those practices.

Posted by: Stone at March 19, 2013 02:16 PM (4sMhD)

__________

TROLL!!!!!!

TROLL!!!!!!

TROLLL!!!!

J/k

Add 10 years to your age and that's me in a nutshell as well. I don't know what circles the people posting here run in where they don't see what you and I see. You can argue all day long whether SSM is a good or bad thing. But it's irrelevant. Every 4 years there will be more people who support SSM than those who don't. Every 4 years, the party that is vehemently opposed to SSM will lose more votes than it gains on this issue. The party is dead unless it makes a 180 change.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 19, 2013 02:19 PM (bcLhD)

Age of  legal consent is just a moral construct.   You have pwned yourself.

Posted by: Stone at March 19, 2013 02:16 PM (4sMhD)

Do you believe a brother and sister should be able to marry? 

Posted by: toby928© sips the sweet tea of despair at March 19, 2013 02:23 PM (QupBk)

_____________________

Nobody's saying you can't argue for your policy preferences based on the bible.

Seriously, shit like this just stinks of 'gay panic.' "They're coming to analsex our kids!"
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 19, 2013 02:19 PM (bcLhD)

And you can stick your new way to call someone a homophobe up your  ass.  No pun intended.

"You want to get "married" get "married". But the govt should have nothing to do with it."

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 19, 2013 02:17 PM (HDgX3)

Here is where I disagree with you. 

I say if you want to get married, the government should certify that marriage.  It should hold a list of legal benefits and responsiblities of one person making a committment to another.

It doesn't make any difference to me if the two people are the same sex or not, and I don't believe it should make a difference to the government, state or federal either.

As far as marriage and religion, I don't believe any law should (or could) be enacted that would compel a church to "marry" two people if that was against their teachings. 

Most of all, I don't believe SSM matters, affects the vast majority of people or is anything I care about.  However, I do have a knee-jerk reaction to any group seeking hyphenated special status or religious people trying to impose their ideas on others.

By contrast, none of that happens if Steve wants to boink Trevor in the privacy of their own home.

-----------------------------

So...  what part of Steve boinking Trevor in the privacy of their own home requires a marriage license?

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 19, 2013 02:26 PM (bcLhD)

________________________

The only way to make SSM a non issue is to accept it.

That's the only way. And no one is "imposing" anything on you. You are saying Steve and Gary can't get married because you don't think they should. That is you imposing your will on them.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 19, 2013 02:29 PM (6zgse)

_______

How in the world is anyone forcing you to be involved with it? In my state of WA, SSM is legal right now. My life has not changed one bit in the past 4 months since it became legal. If I had been on the moon during 2012 and didn't know anything about the ballot measure, I would never have known SSM were legal. It's that removed from my day to day life.

"Folks, you have to rack and stack the priorities. Gay marriage ranks somewhere between mandatory dog licensing and vanity license plates."

Just because we're burning pixels on this thread today does not mean the issues are not prioritized in most  commenter's minds.  We burned  pixels on some other shit yesterday and will probably go 1000 posts on Ace's bathroom habits tomorrow.

>>>Are you OK with polygamy being legalized?

I can't imagine someone being able to afford more than one wife, but if they can, I don't see a big deal in allowing it.

Posted by: Jon at March 19, 2013 02:26 PM (jr5Bn)

______________

And look at the predictable responses to your post. It's so fucking pathetic.

It's stupid shit like this that makes me often embarrassed to say I am a Republican/conservative since the very first thing people think is "must hate gays!!"

Posted by: rickb223

***

Does she make furtive movements?

Or try the South Park defense?

When the end came, it came so quickly. And relatively quietly.

Hey, if the liberaltarians are happy with unfettered illegal immigration and gay marriage, might as well just keep letting the Dems win elections - who needs a liberaltarianised GOP?

Face it, people - you can have one or the other, but not both.  You can either save the country, or you can have open immigration and gay marriage.  The latter are not compatible with a free and prosperous America, regardless of how much college students and fiscon businessmen types might like to think they are.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at March 19, 2013 02:35 PM (6zgse)

________________

What do you mean, like if you own a photography business, you will be forced to take pictures of gay weddings? I really don't understand how you personally will be forced to participate in a gay wedding.

Posted by: Jaws at March 19, 2013 02:33 PM (4I3Uo)

valid point.  Press on.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 19, 2013 02:39 PM (sGtp+)

you should probably read the whole thread.  I'm not going to retype it for you.  Thanks for the trite comment, though.  Really?  reap/sow?  ffs.

"They will require that children PARTICIPATE. There is an experiment conducted by German Socialists in the late 1960s. I can probably find the links for it if you really want. They won't just teach it to children, they will practice it on children."

That's just it, and that's the problem with those supporting gay marriage.  It WILL NOT STOP at that.  It will be forced on you, you will be forced to allow them to teach it to your kids, you will be prosecuted and have your kids taken away if you countermand it at home, your church will be forced to accept it, your church will be muzzled from criticising it.

Let's face it - the gay agenda is not about freedom, and it NEVER HAS BEEN.  It is about control - controlling you, and controlling me. 

@585 What do you mean, like if you own a photography business, you will be forced to take pictures of gay weddings? I really don't understand how you personally will be forced to participate in a gay wedding.

--------------------------------------

Haven't you been paying attention to the news?  Lawsuits against photographers that declined to photograph SSMs have already been won by the plaintiffs.  If your business is taking photographs, and you turn down the opportunity to photograph a SSM, then you'll lose when the anti-discrimination lawsuit hits the courts.  It's already happened.

"The Republicans would not have to be for an huge blanket amnesty if we had been more friendly to minorities in the past."

That's a false reading of history and a red herring.  Republicans have never been UNfriendly to minorities.  Indeed, Republicans are why black people can vote without paying poll taxes and Jim Crow laws getting in the way.

What supposedly makes Republicans (well, really, conservatives) appear to be "unfriendly to minorities" is because large majorities of minority groups want free cheese from the government, and conservatives don't want to give it to them.  That's sort of an impasse, is it not?  The GOP can spend however many millions on "minority outreach" they want, but until their "minority outreach" includes "lets take what rich people have so we can give you a bunch of free stuff," it won't do a bit of good for them, electorally.

Posted by: Danny at March 19, 2013 02:51 PM (ddO/k)

the point is:  wtf are K-12 even doing addressing this horseshit?  Our nation ranks 25/30 in math, science, and problem solving and we're worried about gay people?

What.  in the metric fuck.  Are. We doing?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 19, 2013 02:11 PM (HDgX3)

Yea, look how our kids turned out when the parent's "happiness" and ability to expand their horizons took a front seat to actual parenting.

"But what I see is that Romney got over 60% of the white 18-29 demo. So clearly "gay marriage" is not a dealbreaker for young people. Instead, it's looking like our treasonous elite's 30 year process of turning the country into Brazil is the cause of Republicans' woes."

That's exactly it.  Nothing is ever set in stone.  People like Jeff B who tell you "it's swinging over, and NEVER coming back" are usually the people who are wishcasting more than giving you accurate information.

Let's face it - gay marriage is an issue that exists within the realm of decadence and prosperity.  Have you ever wondered why gays tend to be people who are, or who grew up in, well-to-do families and white collar regions of the country?  It's not because of the scary rednecks who might beat them up in the hick parts of the country, its because decadence, prosperity, and a loosening of traditional mores always go hand in hand.  It did for Rome, it did for Greece, it has for pretty much every other major civilization in history, so there's no reason to think we're different or special.

Of course, the flipside is that the more the Democrats prosper electorally, the more the chocks get put in the way of the drive toward gay marriage.  As this country becomes less prosperous, as more and more people have to focus on simply making ends meet instead of throwing darts at a board to see who they're shanking that evening, gay marriage is going to become less and less of an issue of importance for this vaunted 18-29 crowd.

Posted by: tangonine at March 19, 2013 02:55 PM (x3YFz)

_________

Getting a little OT, but those rankings are suspect, IMO. In the US, everyone takes these tests. The shittiest inner city schools and the top elite private schools. But in many other countries, the shitty schools don't take the tests. In much of the world high school isn't universal. There are multiple tiers...college bound tier, technical school bound tier, babysit them until they're 18 tier, etc. And only the top tiers take the tests. 

I do agree though that this stuff should be out of schools and the 3 Rs should be the focus of education. Not how many mommies Johny has.

"It is a fallacy to believe that the two issues are separate in the first place. Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were not only contemporaries, but very close personal friends. Their philosophies are synergistic because economics is non separable from social dynamics."

This.

Anyone who tells you that social and economic issues have nothing to do with each other is either a dishonest scoundrel or an idiot of nuclear ground-shaking proportions.

"You really are beyond redemption, aren't you?"

No, he just already sees how it's headed in places like Canada and New Mexico.

"God, I hope so."

Poor Jeff B.  "Can't you people just get with the program already?"

BTW, calling gay marriage "marriage equality" is a misnomer. 

Gays already have marital equality.  They can marry the exact same group of people that straights can.

Just because gays can't marry "who they want" is irrelevant.  After all, there are people who want to marry people who are already married, but we don't let them.  Is that "forcing our will" upon them, and if so, does that really matter? 

"Hey, DiogenesLamp, do you mind if I shake your hand, and also dork you in the squeakhole? What? Well too bad because the queers revoked the rape laws in all fifty states bwahahahahahaha."

Thanks for demonstrating that you've no argument against Diogenes' Lamp.

I mean, we already knew that, but thanks for demonstrating it so amply.

"Haha I see what you did there Titus you sneaky son of a gun you! Totally ignored Jeff's request to explain how gay marriage will lead to us being forced to suck dick. Well played sir"

Well, he:

1) Didn't address his question to me, and

2) Wasn't addressing an argument that I've made

So why exactly do you think I should have "explained" that?

What Priebus said was that the party wouldn't kick out candidates who stray from that position. He also said the party wouldn't kick out those who believe they're defending marriage. The RNC's statement is inclusive, rather than exclusionary.

Well, that sounds nice...until you consider how "demographics-happy" the leadership has become. They've got it into their heads that they have to capitulate on immigration for Hispanics and on GM to secure the "yute" vote. Let's bracket for a moment how perspectives can change with age, and the general tendency is to get more conservative as one gets older.

The fact is, they're convinced that social conservative issues are a net drag on the party. This despite, for [Vague Generic Diety Concept Calculated Not To Offend Younger Voters]'s sake, nominating Mitt Romney as a standard-bearer and running a purely economic issues campaign while Obama threw social issues red meat to his base and won. They've got Akin/Mourdock on the brain (despite the fact they run squishes who get flattened, too), and the only prescription is Moar Leftward Movement!

The significant part of Priebus' statement isn't that they'll let pro-GM candidates run. It's that they'll keep pro-TM candidates, too. But if you don't read the latter as provisional and subject to poll-tested revision, you're an idiot.

The days of social conservatives in the GOP are numbered.

"And it's occurrence just happens to coincide with the financial and social collapse of the nation. But like I said, that's just a COINCIDENCE. "

Probably at this point, total collapse is about all we can hope for. 

But the pro-gay marriage folks who also argue that we should "let it collapse" are basically asking for a set of circumstances in which gay marriage will probably not only go back to being illegal, but being gay itself probably will, as well. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 19, 2013 03:04 PM (bcLhD)

Your retorts are becoming weaker and weaker.   I can see the frustration in your responses  because you  can't understand how people can disagree with your superior intellect and razor sharp arguments. 

"His argument is so retarded and frothingly paranoid that it's fit only for mockery."

Actually YOU are so retarded that you're only fit for mockery. 

Seriously, where did you get your brain, from a box of Cap'n Crunch?

"I look forward to Jeff B's shock when churches that won't perform gay weddings can't get zoning approval."

Or lose tax-exempt status. No, they won't force anyone to marry gays. They'll just tax the crap out of you for your lack of enlightenment. Given how bankrupt we are, it's a pretty obvious target.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 19, 2013 03:16 PM (bcLhD)

Well I don't know about the violent relationships, but when you just make a "marriage" about two or more people with a strong emotional attachment to each other, that can be any relationship. It could be two twins living together.

Even in the most homoerotic societies that ever were, none of them equated the relationship between two men with that between a man and a women.

"Your retorts are becoming weaker and weaker. I can see the frustration in your responses because you can't understand how people can disagree with your superior intellect and razor sharp arguments. "

The only thing razor-sharp about Jeff B. was the zipper that he got his wing-wang caught in when it got cut off.

"Cultural significance is not something you can give your spouse.

It can only come from third parties."

Exactly.  That's why Canada already outlaws speech critical of homosexuality and gay marriage.  That's why you can be hauled up in front of a "human rights tribunal" for quoting the wrong Bible verse in Canada.  That's why photographers and others involved in wedding planning have already been successfully sued for refusing to serve gay "weddings," in New Mexico and elsewhere.

Let's face it - when you can't say what you like, even if other people may get offended, you are not free.  When you can't voluntarily assemble as a group without fear of harassment from the government because you hold to the wrong doctrine, you aren't free.  When you can't voluntarily decide who you will or will not provide a service to for whatever reason that is your own, you are not free.

Saying that the imposition of the gay agenda makes significant portions of the rest of the population less free is not "paranoia," it is empirically demonstrated fact. 

" Shall I quote? "

Question - were you actually able to demonstrate that DL's argument from Germany in the late 1960s is false?  I don't necessarily agree with all that he's been saying, but the fact of the matter is, you haven't actually refuted his assertion - including one that contains enough information to be factually falsifiable.

"You want to engage me on the substance of what I wrote? Because if you can't, then you're acknowledging that my argument is either correct or at least beyond your ability to refute.

I shall restate: please explain to me the connection between allowing gay marriage and radically undoing the fundamental principles of all criminal and tort law against assault and battery. Explain how you see legislation being passed making it legal to attack and rape people. "

If you'll note, I've never made that argument, and in fact, don't agree with it.

That does not mean I have to blanket disagree with *everything* DL has said, however.

Here's a dollar, go find a thrift shop and buy a used logic textbook.

"Oh yeah. That is crazy. Of course if two teenagers want to fuck each other, they'd be arrested for statutory rape. There's no way the school would encourage them to explore their feelings and tell them it's natural and normal and explain the use of prophylactics."

What's doubly ironic is that while Jeff B. and others on this thread are working themselves in a tizzy against Diogenes' Lamp because he asserted that the German government in the 1960s was "encouraging" experimentation, Roland Huntford observed that the Swedish government was basically doing the same thing in the same time period in his book, The New Totalitarians.  While it obviously wasn't the "HE SAID THEY"RE FORCING THEM TO ANALLY RAPE PEOPLE!!!!!" garbage that Jeff B. is trying to distract attention to, Huntford did note that students in Swedish public schools were being "strongly encouraged" to experiemtn in promiscuity, both heterosexual and homosexual, and that there was strong social and official pressure to conform against those students who didn't.

"Who the fuck cares?"

I do, for one, since you're completely mischaracterising what DL *actually* said, meaning you're lying for effect.  I find it interesting that you have to fish for red herring instead of actually answering an argument that can be addressed factually.

Snark all you want, you're still a brain dead chimpanzee.

"Let's face it - when you can't say what you like, even if other people may get offended, you are not free. When you can't voluntarily assemble as a group without fear of harassment from the government because you hold to the wrong doctrine, you aren't free. When you can't voluntarily decide who you will or will not provide a service to for whatever reason that is your own, you are not free.

Saying that the imposition of the gay agenda makes significant portions of the rest of the population less free is not "paranoia," it is empirically demonstrated fact."

Game. Set. Match. The fact that GM has walked hand-in-hand with an expanding state and a shrinking civil society is entirely lost on pro-GM conservatives.

But at least they won't be embarrassed by associating with socons, so they have that going for them.

"And this is how I can tell little Jeffery has ran out of rebuttals. "

But he likes your butt.  I can tell by the way he's eyeing you.

"Teens love to dork each other. It has always been the case. Health class crap matters 0."

Taxpayer-funded bureaucrats engaging in social engineering matters "crap"?

Well, then. Ipse dixit.

"This has exactly 0 to do with legalization of gay marriage."

You really ARE an idiot, aren't you?


The whole point is that gay marriage is part of an agenda which enforces  itself using the power of the state.  That much is inarguable, as you have shown.

Tell me JeffB why you are defending the practicce of homosexuality so  adamantly?  Does  homosexuality  have  a   special   status  among  sexual abnormatilities or desires.  If so, why?  Why should it be  accepted as more normal  than beastiality, necrophilia, pedophilla, etc?

"Damn. Jeff B. Is sucking ass"

FIFY.

Posted by: Jon at March 19, 2013 03:46 PM (jr5Bn)

Look Jeff B has finally got a fan at AOS. 

"He's talking about legalization of rape, either de facto, de jure or both. "

Which still has nothing to do with the factuality or lack thereof of his argument from German schools. 

Do you want me to spell it out in cheerios for you, so you'll understand?

"A school system, where attendance is mandatory, that encourages sexual activity between students, with instruction on technique, is a school system that teaches children to participate. "

Watch it Chris, the next thing you know, you'll be arguing that BEAR GAYS ARE COMING TO ANALLY RAPE PEOPLE!!!11!!!eleventy11!

701-You can blame the taxpayer funded bureacrats all you want. Not to be an asshole, one of my best friends in the Corps, whom I vist frequently, came from a small Southern town where there definitely were no taxpayer funded bureacrats handing out condoms. Where Bible thumping was the norm. Shocker, he knocked up a lovely young lady (thankfully this isn't sarcasm) 5 years his senior with two kids. On one of my visits, she had to explain to him what a yeast infection is. So yes, even in God fearing towns teen boink each other. We can either turn a blind eye to it or educate our kids in the schools about sex. Religious parents who are too uncomfortable to talk frankly with their kids about sex are a bigger reason for unsafe teen boinking than evil gov buearacrats.

"The issue of gay marriage is no longer an issue of gay marriage per se but fixing what the federal government has screwed up. The gay lifestyle is not my cup of tea but if somebody else wants to live that way and doesn't bother me they should have the right to do as they please as I have the right to do as I please."

Those are two completely different things, however.

Gays can still be free to do their thing all they like, without a complete redefinition of a millennia-old institution, especially one mandated from on high by the force of government at the behest of an extremely small minority. 

Trying to link "gay marriage" with whether people can legally be gay or not is as disingenuous as when people try to link illegal immigration with legal immigration.

"You remember when America was up in arms over health class instructors demonstrating condom use with a banana? You know how much it affected the rate of teenagers hooking up? ZERO."

More ipse dixits. Not true. Otherwise, leftists wouldn't have hissy fits about abstinence education. They recognize something you don't, sadly. More to the point, "free condoms" was a really good campaign issue for the current administration. It helps to start it early.

 

"High school kids don't listen to adults either way. Until you understand that, you won't get it."

Also untrue. Manifestly so. Your notion that teens ignore authority figures is something from another planet. They take their cues from them--and if the adults give a green light, they're happy to listen.

But I will admit your comments help me understand how leftist bureaucrats get so much traction--they have the de facto blessing of conservatives like yourself who shruggingly give them free reign.

"Wait, the dude you're defending actually said that."

Actually, he didn't.  What he argued was that there may come a point where people are, indeed, required to accede to and participate in approval of homosexuality, or even homosexuality itself.  Sort of like already happened in Sweden in the 1960s, and sort of like what DL suggested also happened in Germany in the same time period.

He didn't say that bear gays were going to come and anally rape people.  That was simply simple-minded exaggeration for effect on the part of Jeff B.

Reading for information doesn't seem to be your strong point.

Chris Balz-Apparently gay deviants aren't the only ones capable of rape and other forms of initiation (see:Stuebenville rape case). Rape is rape, my smart gay friends tell their gay friends the same advice I tell my heterosexual nieces in high school: while I don't condone partying, if you must go to one, refrain from going ones with piggish men, and if you can't avoid that, for the sake of your safety DO NOT drink to the point of needing someone to hold your hair. It is both unsexy and dangerous.

You assuming that people can't possibly be born gays and that only evil Satan worshippers make them gay is why people my age think that some conservatives are nuts. Sad thing is, as entitiled and as silly as many of these kids are, they're right. 

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 19, 2013 03:49 PM (EWKEr)

And don't forget the libs are pushing to teach it in kindergarden if they're not already. Why do 5 year olds need to be taught about sex? Well except to report the teacher who'll be molesting them by the time they graduate. The fact that so many are willing to give up freedom to facilitate what was not that long ago a criminal mental illness is just further proof the culture war was lost.

"Kids don't listen to you. They don't listen to them. When are you going to get it?"

You know, it's funny, you keep saying that, but I can think of dozens of teenagers and early twenty-somethings just within my own personal sphere who were either raised in my own local church or in local churches that hold to the same standards, who do and did listen to what they're parents and other authority figures told them about pre-marital sex, and don't/didn't do it until they were married.

Guess it all depends on how much you're really willing to invest to teach kids to do right.

Posted by: Danny at March 19, 2013 03:59 PM (bpuow)

In your community are you known as a drama queen.  Or is that something only gays can call each other?  I get confused on the rules since they are changing constantly.

"IT WAS RAPE."

And I'm talking about his German school argument - and have been throughout.  Which you'd know if you could read past a second grade level.

"You can blame the taxpayer funded bureacrats all you want. Not to be an asshole, one of my best friends in the Corps, whom I vist frequently, came from a small Southern town where there definitely were no taxpayer funded bureacrats handing out condoms. Where Bible thumping was the norm. Shocker, he knocked up a lovely young lady (thankfully this isn'tsarcasm) 5 years his senior with two kids. Onone of my visits, she had to explain to him what a yeast infection is. So yes,even in God fearing towns teen boink each other. We can either turn a blind eye to it or educate our kids in the schools about sex. Religious parents who are too uncomfortable to talk frankly with their kids about sex are a bigger reason for unsafe teen boinking than evil gov buearacrats."

No shit? Religious kids fuck outside the bonds of marriage? The fact you float that like it's some revelation to me is condescending as all hell, thank you kindly.

So the solution is taxpayer money re-educating the ignorant rural Godbags so they don't embarrass the rest of us so much? Really, that's the problem I have with a lot of this thread. It's the alleged hard-headed imagined social realism trying to hit social conservatives with some knowledge. If you can't see the difference between (a) the State screwing up something with taxpayer money, trying to reengineer behavior according to progressive norms and (b) uptight folk from Footloose/American Gothic occasionally botching it, I don't know what to say.

"There's only so much disingenuous, dissembling crock you can pull in a thread. You're nearing your limit."

Oh no, my friend, I've still got a hollow leg full of the stuff.

737 Polynikes-Your woman doesn't think I'm gay

and hey if calling bullshit on certain people thinking that gay marriage is the DOOM of us all makes me a drama queen, I shudder to think what it makes you and your amigos: ignorant as fuck.  Worse, a net drain on what little ability we have to influence people to have a smaller government that protects the people.

"Recall what your high school was like. It's not the authority changing the culture. It's the culture changing the authority."

In part, I agree--but it's not a closed system. Authority can, does and is changing the culture. Which produces the next generation of authorities. Lather, rinse, repeat.

744 Steve the Lovely Butt Pirate

What scares me is your belief in an ominpotent state. Seriously I know liberals who have less awe of the power of the state than you. Gays don't fuck because the government says its okay, they fuck because they were born that way. Now that gays can come out without literally being killed ot imprisoned, voila! A lot more people are open about being gay. And the gay rights movements, which at one point had to defend itself agaisnt bigots like the Save the Children campaign, is now much more sucessful.

As a libertarian I want private schools and less public schools. I want parents to talk about sex with their kids on their very own and set a good example for their kids. (Unlike Bill). But educating kids about sex in the schools as part of health or biology class is in no way an unreasonable proposition. Many religious folks make sex a forbidden fruit, just like our society makes drinking a forbidden fruit. And why I am entrusted with operating high tech taxpayer funded fueling equipement in combat zones, but not with buying a fucking smirnoff.    

"This thread isn't about whether we should implement prog sex ed or abstinence education. It has nothing to do with use of taxpayer money."

It has everything to do with what the State legitimizes and enforces. GM isn't a matter of a little more paperwork down at the County Clerk's office. It means a bigger state and less freedom--everywhere it goes.

And it's GLSEN, DL. Founded by our former "Safe Schools Czar," Mr. Jennings. Quite the reading list, that.

"744 Steve the Lovely Butt Pirate"

Really? Why go there?

765-Since were using pulp fiction quotes...

Jules I'm ON the motherfucker!

773-Okay really dude. One of the founders of National Review was gay and you're trying to push that bullshit?

Log Cabin Republicans and GOPround (a little ambivalnet on the latter) are hardly socialists. Jeez, at least make arguments that are unfounded assertions

I'd like to suggest a simple solution.  I would be in support of all goverment marraige licenses to be switched over to civil union licenses.  Marraiges would only be from a religious instituition.  You might have to do both to be legal, but it takes the issue and completely changes everything.  Now instead of gay rights to marraige, you do what the left always does - take it away from everyone, including all forms of government.

If you tie this to taking it out of the tax code, you effectively spike a lot of guns.