1

pst...close the tag, Ace.

2 Oops.  Teh barrel.

3 Das barrel.

4

I for one, welcome our new italican overlords.

5 I don't agree with Rush.

6 I miss being centered.

7 What's the problem with Italics? You guys prejudiced against Italics?

8 Which movie is this a review of?

9 The reason the issue may be lost is because blacks evolved on the issue, right after Obama did.

10 This blogs quirks and errors is what gives it so much character

Sometimes those characters go haywire

11 Which movie is this a review of? Posted by: Ncj at March 29, 2013 06:10 PM (dr6XJ) 'Deliverance" I think

12
I'm pretty sure this has been mooted at Jeff Goldstein's blog, the one about the wisdom of protein.

13 Agh, I can't read all the italics.

14 11. 'Golf clap'

15 Ah HAH, this blog is slanted to the right !!!

16 What a slanted take on the issue.

17 Give 'em whatever they want if they'll just shut the fuck up.

18 Rush Limbaugh = RINO!

19

20 Come on folks, it's italics. It's not like the plastic surgeon put the nipple back on off center

21 17 Give 'em whatever they want if they'll just shut the fuck up.

Posted by: BignJames at March 29, 2013 06:12 PM (H9MGI)

Until they decide it's something else they want......

22 Good points.  Unfortunately my weekly stockpile of outrage ran out on Wednesday.

23 For me, homosexuality is either a choice or a mental disorder. It's neither a political movement nor a protected class which, like other protected classes, is to be used as a weapon to destroy our society as it was founded. Marriage is a contract, not a civil right. It's definition is the union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and the furthering of the aforementioned society. I have nothing against homosexuals. But do not use your choice or disorder to force the rest of society to bend to your will or the will of the political force that is behind you, i.e. the statists. Sorry, that's how I feel.

24 This also seems to fall into the other topic about Republicans and Conservatives giving up way too easily on issues. We only lose when we concede the field. Limbaugh is, in essence, doing this very thing. He is conceding the field of battle to the libs. This is something at which the R's in congress excel. If George Washington had run the Revolutionary War this way, we'd all be Brits... or German.

25 The gay marriage issue is lost because we have 5 liberals on the court.

26 For quite a few years now, Focus on the Family's radio broadcasts in Canada have been censored. If the regularly-scheduled broadcast for the US is related to homosexuality it can't be run in Canada. FoTF broadcasts a rerun for Canadian listeners instead. Ministers who dare preach against homosexuality and who are found out have been hauled in front of human rights tribunals. This is what the U.S. can look forward to.

27 Moron Movie Review Request Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down: Zero Dark Thirty Redbox sent me a coupon.

28 Oh no. Teh Gay again. I'm starting to miss 10,000 word essays on comic book hero movies. Anyway, can someone remake "Love Story," starring Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson?

29 But do not use your choice or disorder to force the rest of society to bend to your will or the will of the political force that is behind you, i.e. the statists.


Um.... that's what we do.  I thought that was understood.

30 arghhhh   pep = Libs

31 Anyway the deliberate corruption of language is important - precisely because normal people don't think about language, like fish don't think about water.

When I drop in on a forum and I see cant words like "marriage equality", "privilege", "environmental awareness" - I feel like I am being shut out. I feel literally like I can't even talk to these people.

That's the whole point.

So the appeal to emotions is one facet, but the deliberate skewing of language is a powerful weapon they have that they use to accomplish this.

32 I think the reason for the gay marriage issue being lost (if it is lost) is multivariable. For one thing, gays have the right allies. They work in the media disproportionately, and they know a lot of people in the media. And there's a weirdly-strong alliance of urban liberal women and gays. ______________ Feminism and the myth of women having it all, is what sent us down the road to now.

33 Sorry, that's how I feel.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 29, 2013 06:14 PM (tqLft)

Can we interest you in being a famous case study?

34 I have to agree with Ace. People's need to feel good about themselves is why the gay marriage issue has shifted to the in favor of category.

35 If our "side" offered some way to generally bless gay coupling as None of the State's, or Society's, Business, while still keeping marriage a traditional man-and-woman affair, we might have won.
==========
That is such an awesome idea!!

We could call this unicorn something non-offensive to traditional marriage proponents while letting it be perfectly descriptive of what it allows.

I propose we call this chimera "civil unions."

Ah, what could have been if only we'd been willing to give them all the legal rights under the law that marriage entails without calling it marriage . . . .

36 Sometimes those characters go haywire Let's put M-5 in charge of Pixy.

37 >>>For me, homosexuality is either a choice or a mental disorder. It's neither a political movement nor a protected class which, like other protected classes, is to be used as a weapon to destroy our society as it was founded. Without trying to get too personal, and without wishing to ask the question directly -- some guys really like beejers. This, you might know, was officially a type of sodomy until heterosexuals got wise and made heterosexual sodomy a-ok in the lawbooks. It's also considered a sin. And yet some of us really like it. Mental disorder, then?

38

All is not lost.

 

We are losing the debate because we have FUCKING IDIOTS running things.

 

What is marriage??  Etymology matters.  That's why it's such 1984 shit.  Can they redefine the language to make themselves feel better??

 

Second, opponents are taking all the wrong questions.  If you're for gay marriage or civil unions THEN YOU HAVE TO BE FOR POLYGAMY.

 

There is not one argument advanced in favor of gay civil unions that does not apply with equal force to polygamists.  Not fucking one.  And polygamists even have freedom of religion on their side.

 

Argue it out.  You will find I'm exactly correct.

39 Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 29, 2013 06:14 PM (tqLft) --------------------------------------------------------- Very well put. I agree with you 100%

40 >>>Until they decide it's something else they want...... I wish I could say this is an empty concern or that you're just fearmongering, but the general pattern here just seems to be "Gin up the next political campaign and find the next alleged crisis."

41 We should call it benign discrimination, liberals love that shit.

42 Ace, this relates to the earlier language thread. Just a few short years ago the "extremists" on the pro-gay marriage side would say "extreme" things that, in the short term, perhaps hurt their position. As the gay rights agenda unfurled, the extremists kept pushing for more and more From decriminalization to gay adoption to gay marriage. When they were just pushing for decriminalization it didn't necessarily help the cause to say, yeah and we should be able to get married and adopt kids, too. But the hard-core did say stuff like that. The hard-core never accepted, always pushed for more, more , more. And it worked. The only similarly "extreme" group on the right is the NRA. And it's no coincidence they've been the most successful right-wing group in America the last several decades. No compromise. Always demand more. The debate is about restrictive gun laws? Demand open carry. Debate is about too many guns? Demand more guns. Demand open carry on college campuses. NRA and gun activists always demand more. And fight every restriction. Same with gay rights. "Extreme" positions hurt in the short run, but help in the long run.

43

>>>It's Number 2 that most people who are supporting gay marriage are really interested in.<<<

 

I asked a gay man about this, and he told me, "Honey, that's how you know you've been to heaven. And it showers off as easily as that girly-goo."

 

True story, you guys.

44 Rush is probably right on this. The entire origin of the dilemma is the intrusiveness of the government at state and federal levels using marital status as a mechanism of doling out goodies, in other words, social engineering on the basis of marital status, which, like many policies, had merit. Families, procreation, etc. being used as a reason to give tax credits, benefits, retirement, health care (a proxy for wages since WWII).

As soon as they started doing that (I am thinking more than 100 years ago by now) then the inevitable outcome is that you can have lawsuits on the basis of discrimination according to marital status.

The solution would be to get the government out of the business of social engineering altogether. Fat chance of that. That is all they do, as far as I can tell.

45
The latest VAWA gave gays special recognition for the govt to force your recognition.

Which this is really about, not gay marriage, but gay benefits.  Rent seeking.   Special recognition to gain govt benefits or law court advantage in any number of areas.

46 Marriage was or is an institution that was a female benefit because she is not equal. Now a gay man wants those "balancing extras" without any of the physical downsides.

47 Alternatively, this iteration of civilization has been handed over to Satan for destruction, and this is merely a symptom. Like the infant holocaust.

Although the proximate cause will probably be seen as the institutionalized theft in the government and financial system.

48 It's also considered a sin. And yet some of us really like it. Mental disorder, then? Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:16 PM (LCRYB) And straight buttsecks. Don't forget the buttsecks.

49 I asked a gay manabout this, and he told me, "Honey, that's how you know you've been to heaven. And it showers off as easily as that girly-goo."

True story, you guys.

Posted by: spongeworthy

***

 

And the infection from getting it where it doesn't belong? Is that heaven like too? Ick.

50 GOP this is your big chance...

go ahead and cave...happily.

You let Churches get destroyed for these deviant bastard Soho San Fran shocktroops vanity and I am done with you forever.

51 I wish I could say this is an empty concern or that you're just fearmongering, but the general pattern here just seems to be "Gin up the next political campaign and find the next alleged crisis."

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:18 PM (LCRYB)

It will all culminate in requiring churches, specifically Catholic churches, to perform gay marriages. 

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong but you just watch.

52 We will have polygamy. It's inevitable. Opposition will be framed as bigotry to Islam. Truth is women don't mind polygamy. It's the loser males who get (or rather don't get) fucked. Loser women become 2nd or 3rd wives, but they still get a place at the table.

53 23 - JJ, I agree with you and you summed up my feelings nicely.

24 - brian, if you think Limbaugh conceded the field what would you call the conservative blogs (hotgas & even here) "all gay all the time" posting to be doing?  Lately there's cause as the SC is discussing Prop 8, but the "all gay all the time" has been going on since before the election.

The problem with this issue is that it should be way, way, way down on the give-a-shit meter but it's about the only thing donks can win on right now, and as ever, the stupid party continues to let the donks decide which issues we're going to talk about.   

54 Hmmmmm.....who considers BJs a sin exactly?

55 Rush is right 99.6% of the time.
That little .4% can be a real niggler though.

56

http://tinyurl.com/crm8pts  .

 

Apropos of this being Good Friday, Lawrence Auster, conservative writer and blogger - View from the Right, died today of cancer.

57 Marriage is a contract, not a civil right. Exactly. A Rite. A Ritual. A religious ceremony. NOT, a fucking civil right. The whole kerfuffle is the destruction of Christianity. It always was. Once this is ruled on in their favor, the attacks on the Church commences with a vengeance. Cry Lawfare, and let slip the scumbag ambulance chasers.

58 Oh and Ace we *did* have the middle of the road comrpomise back in '94....the radical gays and Clinton killed it after we won the house.

59 Jeebus.. it's not that complicated..  WOMEN.. moderate women.. they think guys marrying is OK.  Why?  Because they love romantic shit. 

It's like.. "Awww.. look at how loving those guys are.. isn't it sweet?"

And, let's be honest.. gays are non-threatening, in the main.. So, when conservatives go all apeshit about teh gays marrying, most women go..  "Why are they being so mean??"

And gay women??  Ever look at "Ellen's" ratings?  Ellen took over the suburban straight mom audience from Oprah, fer chrissakes.

It's over, Ace.. it's fucking over.. Pandora's box has been opened, so to speak, and it is over.

60 I've said the same thing for a while now.  In most cases, the attitude is not pro-gay-marriage; it is "I really don't care so why not?"  Recent polls showing that more than 50% support GM only partially tell the story.  Most of those people are the "I don't cares."  For only a small number is the issue a line in the sand.


The only thing that has prolonged the battle is the in-your-face tactics used by the GM advocates. Human nature says that when someone demands something, the other person will resist.

61 But we lost it on wording, partly when they started to phrase it as "marriage equality."

62 So, are we still allowed to think a dude who wants to cut off his own dick is crazy? Or is that official a thought-crime now?

63 I don't think Rush is right in his specific diagnosis, but he is right on the general one - what screwed us on this issue was communication. People railed against 'the gays' and 'homosexuals' instead of against LGBT groups specifically. They treated a class of individuals as a lobby, and to imagine how suicidal (and wrong) that is - imagine if conservatives railed against 'women' or 'young women' or 'single women' instead of NARAL or Planned Parenthood. They treated 'gay marriage' as a unique threat to traditional marriage, rather than the latest in a series of abuses of marriage. They relied on 'gay conversion therapy' as the public response to conservative gays, rather than promoting a life of celibacy, or even promoting the idea to gays that their relationships should not be equivalent to 'marriage' even on its own terms (see France for more about this.) The issue can be turned around, but it's going to be harder to do, it's going to take longer, and it's going to require socons acknowledging their past fuckups (and I'm one of those who screwed up on this issue in the distant past) in order to have more success in the future.

64 25 Vic,

You misspelled SIX Vic

65 I thought one of the commandments said BJs were OK but "beware the San Franciscans".

66 >>>The only similarly "extreme" group on the right is the NRA. And it's no coincidence they've been the most successful right-wing group in America the last several decades. No compromise. Always demand more. The debate is about restrictive gun laws? Demand open carry. Debate is about too many guns? Demand more guns. Demand open carry on college campuses. ... you know that's true, and no, I don't know how to square it with my frequent Concerns about "extremist rhetoric." I suppose I might say this: It works sometimes or it works until it doesn't. Who knows, a more supple and savvy gay marriage opposition might have defeated it. Bear in mind, the *anti-gay-marriage* side wasn't flexible, either. So you had two inflexible groups both pursuing their agendas; one inflexible group one, one lost. I don't believe you can just say the one won because of its inflexibility and persistence. the other side had those attributes, but lost.

67 Straight up, I bet you'd the anti-gay-marriage side of things would still win, politically, but only if it were unconnected to the poison pawn. If our "side" offered some way to generally bless gay coupling as None of the State's, or Society's, Business, while still keeping marriage a traditional man-and-woman affair, we might have won. That is, if we offered a middle path, sans gay marriage itself, the public would take that compromise. _____________________ I thought that was --civil unions.

68 It used to be that you couldn't buy beer on Sundays.

69 If they've won it's in large part because they've been prepping the battlespace for decades in the media and entertainment and in schools. They normalized it long before demanding it. And the MSM helpfully shielded us from the more radical elements of the movement, like the Folson Street Fair and Anti-Prop 8 Mormon-targeting types.

70 To gay men reading this blog:

1. Go to your television set right now.
2. Put on Fox News
3. Observe the epic gorgeousness of Shannon Bream
4. Put on MSNBC. 
5. Observe Chris Matthews.  Vomit if you must.
6. Compare the two
7. Answer this question:   What the hell am I thinking?

71 I wish I could say this is an empty concern or that you're just fearmongering...

The whole of the Democrat grievance coalition is like the Palis -- no deal, even the one they agreed to yesterday as settling everything, is ever good enough.

E.V.E.R.

72 Bear in mind, the *anti-gay-marriage* side wasn't flexible, either. So you had two inflexible groups both pursuing their agendas; one inflexible group one, one lost. I don't believe you can just say the one won because of its inflexibility and persistence. the other side had those attributes, but lost.

Posted by: ace

***

 

The anti-GM side doesn't have the media clout the pro-GM side has. Were it more equal it would be interesting to see how it would have turned out.

73 59 Chi-Town jerry,

I'll need the memo on the fascism the gays used on Chick-Fil-a and in cali against the Mormons being "totally non threatening"....

if that is the new "calm" they will not find me wanting

74 I thought one of the commandments said BJs were OK but "beware the San Franciscans". "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's amyl nitrate."

75 It used to be that you couldn't buy beer on Sundays.

Posted by: sTevo at March 29, 2013 06:26 PM (VMcEw)

Still can't here.

76 >>>Bear in mind, the *anti-gay-marriage* side wasn't flexible, either. So you had two inflexible groups both pursuing their agendas; one inflexible group one, one lost. I don't believe you can just say the one won because of its inflexibility and persistence. the other side had those attributes, but lost. Wasn't 'Civil Unions' the big compromise back in the mid-00s? Whatever happened to that?

77 "Extreme" positions hurt in the short run, but help in the long run.

Most people are weak and just want the noise to go away so they can get back to getting along with everyone (regardless of whether that's possible).

78 Auster was everything the Left says about us - a racialist, a traditionalist, a devout Christian, even a mocker of "darwinism".

And he was a more lucid and honest proponent of those views, really of any Right views, than anyone in the GOP today and for that matter most Right bloggers.

79 All this gay talk makes my butt hurt.  Seriously  you guys.

80 67 tasker,

yeah it was...I love how the Gabe Malorization of the "narrative" now has it that NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE was offered.

Fine I get it, yup my ass was so homophobic I was working to try to fix this in 1990...

81 Gaaaaabe, where are you? Time to be queer-pounded by your buddies.

82 Still can't here.
Posted by: Vic
---
Then your state is likely to be one of the last to cave on this issue.

83 I'm personally in the "don't care" camp. But I don't get why people aren't allowed to find gay sex gross. Don't gay dudes find the vajajay gross?

84 52. Who in the hell would want multiple wives?!!! Hell, a guy can only take so much ragging

85 Posted by: sven10077
.............
not as a group.. but personally.  As a group they are as threatening as any other libtard group.. moreso because libtards in general run these hate campaigns.

But I was talking about a gay couple as viewed by straight women.

86 Most people of faith remember their vows before God much better than the visit to the county clerk's office.  I'm in the favor of civil unions for everyone camp, because it would let people take care of some important domestic business and also get the government away from having any wedge to mess with my church.   The argument put forth in the comments here that the insistence on "marriage" is to further the gov's goal to make everybody feel real good about themselves makes sense and makes me a little ill. 

87 If the DOMA is struck down, don't the states still have the right to determine who's punished with marriage?

88 you kinda have to back up a claim if you're gonna say something's a mental disorder. like how would it be effectively treated then, for instance.

Not everything abnormal can be treated, though. Down's Syndrome can't be treated, just mitigated. So he doesn't have to prescribe any treatment just to make his case.

(And no, I'm not saying that being homosexual is as debilitating as Down's, or debilitating at all.)

89 77 >>>Bear in mind, the *anti-gay-marriage* side wasn't flexible, either. So you had two inflexible groups both pursuing their agendas; one inflexible group one, one lost. I don't believe you can just say the one won because of its inflexibility and persistence. the other side had those attributes, but lost.

Wasn't 'Civil Unions' the big compromise back in the mid-00s? Whatever happened to that?
========
Shut up, hater! That's what.

90 Most people are weak and just want the noise to go away so they can get back to getting along with everyone (regardless of whether that's possible). Posted by: Methos at March 29, 2013 06:27 PM (hO9ad) All of history laughs contemptuously.

91 Don't gay dudes find the vajajay gross? Hell, even mine grosses me out.

92 It's not that "extreme" positions help or hurt. It really is a lot about messaging. It wasn't LGBT groups merely taking a no-compromise position that helped them. It was making it personal, again and again and again. You're not talking about people who calmly and reasonably advanced their (extreme) case and persuaded people through force of argument. You're talking about people who would sob hysterically and get animated and emotional whenever the issue came up. Are people still really under the impression that arguments - logical, persuasive, reasoning arguments - drive these debates and determine their results? Or that the nuances of actual positions drive results? People react to getting worked up, outrage, and passion. Probably moreso nowadays, since voting is now encouraged among the most ignorant people.

93 you kinda have to back up a claim if you're gonna say something's a mental disorder. like how would it be effectively treated then, for instance. Posted by: JDP at March 29, 2013 06:26 PM (60GaT) Denise Milani. Desert Island. Assemble carefully.

94 Perhaps it is lost because it is something that cannot be won, that is the argument against gay marriage doesn't convince.

95 Interesting that the conservatives never conserve jackshit. Knuckleheads pulled kicking & screaming into the future. Always. Why don't you take out some other hobby, ace? Next up: Amnesty. What a bunch of bitches. You have no principles.

96 Then your state is likely to be one of the last to cave on this issue.

Posted by: sTevo at March 29, 2013 06:29 PM (VMcEw)

They made it a local option.  All of the major cities and beaches have done away with the Sunday prohibition. A few counties open sales up after 1 pm.

My county has a total ban.  We have a church on every city block.  There will never be Sunday sales here.

97 "Civil Unions" were born out of a failure to understand the problem, or rather to understand that the stated problem wasn't the actual problem.

98 "Gay Marriage" is lost? Hell! The COUNTRY is LOST! This bitch is going to crash. Oil revenues have postponed it a little further, but the free shit army just continuous to grow and it will reach a breaking point. Then things will change quickly. "Gay Marriage" is just a symptom of what happens when a country has already lost it's fucking mind.

99 ::::you kinda have to back up a claim if you're gonna say something's a mental disorder. like how would it be effectively treated then, for instance.:::: How would autism be effectively treated? Antisocial Personality Disorder? Psychopathy?

100 The best thing we can do is to try and discourage as many people as possible from voting. We should put as many barriers up as possible to voting. The young, the stupid, and the ignorant make the world a worse place when they vote. Their opinions are harmful and should be ignored.

101 One of the reasons that it was lost is that the left lied about what the stakes were, specifically about what "legalize" means. And those on the right, like Allah and Gabe (and Ace??), not only went along with the lie, but perpetuated the lie.

102

And straight buttsecks.
Don't forget the buttsecks.

 

Damn, CAC beat me to the anal.

 

 

Uhhhh...wait...

103 >>> Hmmmmm.....who considers BJs a sin exactly? Non procrative deviant sex? Well the bible considers them a sin. The Bible straight up says "onanism" is a sin, spilling seed in the dirt; I don't think there's a part that says "But a chick's boobs are a-okay." The "do not spill your seed in the dirt" is a general commandment about anything except vaginal release. But the point is that the majority tends not to view as sinful those things it enjoys. We tend to give ourselves a pass on that stuff. But we do tend to find the kinks of the minority sinful. About three months ago the NYT had this confessional article about a couple who was into "Cuckolding." Dude liked seeing his wife get it put to her by other dudes. Wife liked it too. I almost put it on the site as a general "Ha-ha, look at these weirdoes" thing. Now, I do think they're weirdoes. But I didn't put it up because I thought, "Who cares? So I think it's weird. But who cares what I think? Why do I have to weigh in on it? I think it's weird, but who's askin'? " I am keenly aware lately of the unity-building power of, but fundamental meanness of, ritual mockery of an outsider--partly because we're so often on the receiving end of this treatment. But it has made me much more sensitive to engaging in this sort of thing myself. And I'm not sure what to do because this is so much of politics.

104 derp derp derpy derp derp

At least he's quit raping Andrew Breitbart's corpse, so that's a relief

105 Maryland had civil unions before it had "marriage equality".

Under the law, I have no idea what the practical difference is.

If its the same damn thing, why not get rid of "marriage" as a term in state law and just go with "domestic partnership" , limited to two, unrelated, adults?  Head off the other side at the pass, so to speak.

106 66 Ace,

Okay...

I was screwed up...never mind.

107 Can't imagine the asshole socking Ace will last long. That's breaking a pretty cardinal rule on the site, no?

108 How would autism be effectively treated? Antisocial Personality Disorder? Psychopathy?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 29, 2013 06:32 PM (8FQ6f)

 

By having them read your blog?  If not effectively treated at least they  would be highly amused.

109 Blah blah. Rush wins.

110 21 17
Give 'em whatever they want if they'll just shut the fuck up.

Posted by: BignJames at March 29, 2013 06:12 PM (H9MGI)

Until they decide it's something else they want......

Posted by: Tami at March 29, 2013 06:14 PM (X6akg)

If you are a parent, you've surely read the "If You Give a Moose a Muffin"/ "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" series of children's books. It occurs to me that these are as much a part of the Dems' playbook as Cloward-Piven.

111 "OK but changes like no-fault divorce were resisted at the time. it won out and the opposition in the political realm dissipated. pretty natural." It doesn't really matter. Highlighting problems with modern marriage, period, would have changed this from an 'attack on gays getting married' to a broader issue. Singling out gays was a mistake. "as for "promoting a life of celibacy" -- yeaaaah somehow i think that'd be received only marginally better than "conversion therapy"" The big difference is that conversion therapy was a largely unsuccessful fringe treatment, certainly in the eyes of many. "Celibacy", even if it's not fucking popular, is at least *realistic* in comparison. You don't pretend that you've 'cured the gay' or whatever. It allows you to focus on the real problem with same-sex attraction, from both a secular and a religious standpoint - it's the behavior that matters, not the inclination.

112 69 - How do you treat Narcissism which is a mental disease or at least was in the last DSM?

113 You mention gay marriage and ergie shows up with a boner, a boner even his mom laughs at, on the other hand, his father seems to like it(a little too muck if you ask me).

114 Vic,

"the issue" = the Holy Matrimony of fudge packers.

115 100 Mero,

correct...it was "you know compromise" whereby they would have had every secular legal protection know to married couples but not had the same "religious title" to you know "protect Churches' like who could see the GLAAD gang ramping up to sue the shit out of everyone?

well I mean besides Mr Magoo and Daredevil?

116 >>>ne of the reasons that it was lost is that the left lied about what the stakes were, specifically about what "legalize" means. And those on the right, like Allah and Gabe (and Ace??), not only went along with the lie, but perpetuated the lie. that's exactly what happened. I'm glad someone said it.

117 It was about control of the language. The moment it became the conventional wisdom that opposing gay marriage was the "anti-civil rights" position, it was done. The first thing people think of when hey hear of someone's civil rights being violated, is "Hey, that's unconstitutional, illegal, wrong!!!!". The Left, and the ROR's, effectively criminalized an opinion without ever passing a law.

118 The gay marriage issue is lost because we have 5 liberals on the court. Posted by: Vic at March 29, 2013 06:14 PM (53z96) Years ago I saw one witty remark concerning the lawsuit against prop 8. " Why don't we just save a lot of time and simply ask Kennedy what he think? "

119

you know that's true, and no, I don't know how to square it with my frequent Concerns about "extremist rhetoric."

In any negotiation you always ask for more than you expect to get.  Public policy debates are no different.  The problem is that the Republican party is very bad at this, because it requires you to be a bit of an asshole and they don't like to be called meanies by the press. 

Take the budget debate.  Barack Obama starts out by making outrageous demands.  He wants to move the country's spending 10 paces to the left.  Boehner responds with something reasonable, say 2 paces to the right, hoping that the media will report about how the GOP is trying to accommodate the Democrats but is continually rebuffed.  Instead the media and the Dems whine about how far apart they are and condemn the GOP for not accommodating them.  RINOs and opportunists start cutting deals, and then we end up with an agreement that is 2 paces to the left.

Winner: the Democrats and the Left.

120 117 Erg's mother died before he was born.

121 Hell, even mine grosses me out.

Posted by: Lena Dunham at March 29, 2013 06:30 PM (j3uk1)

 

I think Lena Dunham may just have blown my Shannon Bream argument.  I know Dunham isn't quite as gross as she is in "Girls" (I hope you didn't see the episode where she spent most of it in a yellow mesh shirt, flabby tits and nipples jiggling like jello) but...  she might be enough to reconsider the whole thing.

122 Damn, CAC beat me to the anal. Uhhhh...wait... Posted by: Lurking Canuck at March 29, 2013 06:32 PM (vN7SY) As always. And I see Erg came in here

123 Shit. That was 115. I'm way too tired.

124 Dems and the Left have purposefully chosen to go for a more extreme in-your-face style. And it works. The Joe Lieberman style was rejected for the Howard Dean style. Attack, insult, mock, ridicule, curse, attack. Repeat until victorious.

125 I don't think it's lost necessarily. Chief Justice Roberts can still find that marriage and it's definition is transitive like a tax. Marriage can mean one thing when you are looking at it from the state's perspective and another thing from the federal perspective.

126 The best thing we can do is to try and discourage as many people as possible from voting.
We should put as many barriers up as possible to voting.

Yeah, but that just wouldn't be fair.

The only truly fair systems are (formal) monarchy and timarchy - maybe plutocracy if it's a citystate. And even those have to be hedged by laws that the monarch or the veterans or the big merchants promise to follow.

(Sparta being a mix of dual monarchy and timarchy.)

127
I don't know if the majority of people seeking gay marriage are part of this or just have their own fish to fry, but marxist/commie theory includes destruction of the traditional family so that state takes that position.

128 *its* definition is transitive like a tax

129 Non procrative deviant sex? Well the bible considers them a sin. The Bible straight up says "onanism" is a sin, spilling seed in the dirt; I don't think there's a part that says "But a chick's boobs are a-okay." The "do not spill your seed in the dirt" is a general commandment about anything except vaginal release. But the point is that the majority tends not to view as sinful those things it enjoys. We tend to give ourselves a pass on that stuff. But we do tend to find the kinks of the minority sinful. About three months ago the NYT had this confessional article about a couple who was into "Cuckolding." Dude liked seeing his wife get it put to her by other dudes. Wife liked it too. I almost put it on the site as a general "Ha-ha, look at these weirdoes" thing. Now, I do think they're weirdoes. But I didn't put it up because I thought, "Who cares? So I think it's weird. But who cares what I think? Why do I have to weigh in on it? I think it's weird, but who's askin'? " I am keenly aware lately of the unity-building power of, but fundamental meanness of, ritual mockery of an outsider--partly because we're so often on the receiving end of this treatment. But it has made me much more sensitive to engaging in this sort of thing myself. And I'm not sure what to do because this is so much of politics. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:32 PM (LCRYB) Yeah but you missed the part where getting a swedish was ok in Song of Songs.

130 Most people are weak and just want the noise to go away so they can get back to getting along with everyone (regardless of whether that's possible).

Posted by: Methos at March 29, 2013 06:27 PM (hO9ad)

All of history laughs contemptuously.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 29, 2013 06:30 PM (bxiXv)

Kindly note my use of the tense "are" and word "want".

131 Finally the truth cums out, it's ace's fault.

132 Sorry if this is offensive, but what reason does the government have for promoting buttsecks, exactly? I understand the government's abiding interest in the nuclear family, but how does that extend to lesbians or gay men shacking up? And what is the government's interest in not hurting the poor feelings of your average gay couple?


None. That is the point. So, let's make the point. Loud and clear. This isn't about anyone's feelings, it is about the proper role of government.


It doesn't have to go any farther than that.

133 Mental disorder, then? Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:16 PM (LCRYB) You oversimplify. Sex is biologically engineered for Reproduction. When the software selects for an nonviable mate, it's because the program is corrupted.

134 130 I don't know if the majority of people seeking gay marriage are part of this or just have their own fish to fry, but marxist/commie theory includes destruction of the traditional family so that state takes that position. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 29, 2013 06:37 PM (IY7Ir) ________________ Exactly. I might be neutral on gay marriage or unsure of the result but I am opposed to there screw it all anarchist in hiding as libertarian allies.

135 "The moment it became the conventional wisdom that opposing gay marriage was the "anti-civil rights" position, it was done. " Well, a large part of the problem is social conservatives - many of them - killed themselves with language. I've repeatedly seen Socons say things like "I'm anti-gay rights" or "I'm anti-gay" or "I'm pro-discrimination" on this topic. There's no way to make that sound 'good'.

136 (And no, I'm not saying that being homosexual is as debilitating as Down's, or debilitating at all.) Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at March 29, 2013 06:30 PM (QTHTd) My sister is high-functioning Downs, thank God. She is happy, well-adjusted, and is able to hold down a relatively simple job. She cannot, however, live independently of someone to take care of the more complex issues of everyday life (drive, bills, insurance, home ownership, etc.) The severely retarded are very debilitated.

137 OT (like we don't have enough gay to go around) http://is.gd/IBhSyt Another non-Russian, non-oligarch, non-billionaire, non-tax-evader speaks up... Ruined by the EMU and Cyprus deposit confiscation.

138 All I know is That wherever and whenever gay.marriage.has.been.put.to a popular vote it.has.failed Even in.the most liberal states like colorado. The citizens of the most liberal state in the union, california, even amended it constitution to preclude it. Gay marriage has not been lost because of language it lost because the elites desire it to be lost.

139 Argue it out. You will find I'm exactly correct. Posted by: Prescient11 at March 29, 2013 06:17 PM (tVTLU) Part of the problem is that we attempt reason on emotional people. Emotion is always a much stronger argument. People are just made that way.

140 Yeah but you missed the part where getting a swedish was ok in Song of Songs. *rushes off to Bible study*

141 >>>In any negotiation you always ask for more than you expect to get. Public policy debates are no different. nope,wrong. I know everyone has this model in mind but that model doesn't work. People walk away from ludicrous demands. further, there is another model of making demands that I think tracks more closely with political reality. In a type of mediation, each side puts down its demands, secretly. The mediator also secretly writes down his guess at a just settlement. Here's the twist: Whichever side is closest to the mediator's figure "wins" and gets what he put down on his sheet of paper. The mediator's guess is itself NOT honored and NOT the basis for the settlement; only one of the two party's bids can be. I think that's politics. Two sides make a demand, the public decides which of them is closest to fair, then gives the winning side everything it asked for.

142 Posted by: ace


By the time you get to Revelations in the Bible, it's pretty much anything goes. BJs, anal, hand holding, it's all legal.

143 The Bible straight up says "onanism" is a sin, spilling seed in the dirt.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:32 PM (LCRYB)
 
 
But isn't there a debate whether it was a sin because he spilled his seed, or a sin because he disobeyed God.

144

One of the reasons that it was lost is that the left lied about what the stakes were, specifically about what "legalize" means. And those on the right, like Allah and Gabe (and Ace??), not only went along with the lie, but perpetuated the lie.

This.  We allowed the assumption to be that everyone had a right to marry whomever they want until the government came along and banned all but one form.  The reality is that society has always had the ability for people to engage in any sort of marriage that they wished.  The government simply chose not to recognize them for its own purposes because it had no need or it created too many uncertainties in the law. 

In other words: the one man/one woman view of marriage is the small government way, because the government is only getting involved in those marriages which it absolutely has to: the ones where procreation is an issue.

145 Shelby Steele said on the Civil War series that the biggest cause of the Civil War was America's failure to do what we have had a great genius for: Compromise.

Anyway.

So, some of you said, "Ah, the churches will be fine, because they will be able to limit their ceremonies and facilities to only those members in good standing." Or some such shit like that.

Then we got to the businesses. And they're fucked. No two ways about it. Because once you accept that being queer is the same a being black, your ability to choose who you will and will not do business with is gone.

Well, back to the compromise thing: They had a compromise, the queers had a perfect compromise, it gave them all the rights but didn't insult or offend the religious.

And it wasn't good enough because it wasn't a tool to force the squares to celebrate and promote them as _better_ than everyone else; didn't quiet the voice in their head, that nagging unhappiness.

Well, you had your compromise and you should not expect what comes next to be better. Some people may find the notion that they must kowtow to an offense against God worth a bit of civil disobedience. Or more.

146 >>>Gay marriage has not been lost because of language it lost because the elites desire it to be lost. you know, that's true.

147 Rush has been pouting ever since the last election. Spends an inordinate amount of time on the "low information voter." He needs to snap out of it. We need him back in fighting mode. No more whining!

148 119 It was about control of the language. The moment it became the conventional wisdom that opposing gay marriage was the "anti-civil rights" position, it was done. The first thing people think of when hey hear of someone's civil rights being violated, is "Hey, that's unconstitutional, illegal, wrong!!!!". The Left, and the ROR's, effectively criminalized an opinion without ever passing a law. Posted by: Lincolntf at March 29, 2013 06:35 PM (ZshNr) __________________ Even if the arguments were bad I don't think that absolves the Supreme Court from considering their own arguments, or better arguments--does it?

149 I wish I could say this is an empty concern or that you're just fearmongering, but the general pattern here just seems to be "Gin up the next political campaign and find the next alleged crisis." Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:18 PM (LCRYB) They get marriage, they will try for something else next. My money is on their attempting to lower the age of consent, just as they did it in Britain.

150 Divorce killed marriage. Once divorce wasn't shameful, it was only a matter of time. Divorce may make some individual lives better, but it's poison to a society. The beginning of the end.

151 You oversimplify. Sex is biologically engineered for Reproduction. When the software selects for an nonviable mate, it's because the program is corrupted. Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 29, 2013 06:39 PM (bb5+k) A nonviable mate could be expanded to include infertile women, disabled women. And sticking with the reproduction-only sex is a great message for those who don't enjoy bj's 69 anal a swedish an old-fashioned a rub down happy endings and numerous other types of sexual gratification that over 90% of the population enjoys. That argument is older than time. The "procreation perservation" argument is a weak one, there are far better.

152

I think the reason for the gay marriage issue being lost (if it is lost) is multivariable. For one thing, gays have the right allies. They work in the media disproportionately, and they know a lot of people in the media. And there's a weirdly-strong alliance of urban liberal women and gays.

 

Will and Grace.  And that's all, folks.

153 It will all culminate in requiring churches, specifically Catholic churches, to perform gay marriages.

I still say, let the gays show the strength of their conviction.  Let them demand to be married in mosques.

154 26 For quite a few years now, Focus on the Family's radio broadcasts in Canada have been censored. If the regularly-scheduled broadcast for the US is related to homosexuality it can't be run in Canada. FoTF broadcasts a rerun for Canadian listeners instead. Ministers who dare preach against homosexuality and who are found out have been hauled in front of human rights tribunals. This is what the U.S. can look forward to. Posted by: I lurk, therefore I am, glad to have left DC at March 29, 2013 06:14 PM (k0CeE) See this is exactly what I dont want.. that slippery slope we all know will happen. Years ago I had a group of friends that included gay men. I have NEVER in my life met a more.. uh..... sex crazed group than gay men. A whole group of us went to Miami for a vacation. They had more sex with perfect strangers in 4 days than probably all of us here at ACE in our lifetimes...combined. They aint after marriage. Personally.. I think they want minority status.

155 >> The "do not spill your seed in the dirt" is a general commandment about anything except vaginal release.

Nitpick: opinions and interpretations vary greatly on this.  The Bible isn't as clear on this point as you think, although there have certainly been Christians who interpret it exactly as you're saying.

156 :::that's exactly what happened. I'm glad someone said it. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:35 PM (LCRYB)::: Stop being a whiny bitch. And stop accepting the left's false premises and perpetuating them. You usually are good about it, but on this issue, you've got your blinders on.

157 152 Diogenes Lamp,

They may try to go full tard on LGBT body image issues first...

who the fuck knows?

To be in on their secret meetings alone in front of the mirror in Media land...

158 Thing is, the  noise never stops no matter how much the right caves.

159 I just updated to note that.

160 *rushes off to Bible study* Posted by: the bearded UNIX god at March 29, 2013 06:40 PM (j3uk1) It's only permitted with bosoms a cubit across or larger though. Read the fine print.

161 Shelby Steele said on the Civil War series that the biggest cause of the Civil War was America's failure to do what we have had a great genius for: Compromise.
   

Actually, that was Shelby Foote (his three volume series on the war is a major commitment, but is the gold standard)
 
 but I'm sure Dr. Steele would agree.

162 "I think the reason for the gay marriage issue being lost (if it is lost) is multivariable. For one thing, gays have the right allies. They work in the media disproportionately, and they know a lot of people in the media. And there's a weirdly-strong alliance of urban liberal women and gays. For another thing, people want to think well of themselves. "Bullying" does not feel right to them. If they are given the choice between what feels like a bullying position and non-bullying one, they will choose the latter almost every time." Another two 'absolutely correct' observations in my view, Ace. Too many socons turned a blind eye to their looking like bullies. And the media issue is major. Worse, that media issue is pretty far reaching on topics beyond gay marriage. I wish I knew a way for conservatives to react to that. It's a tall order to say the least.

163 Who are these elites, and how do they work their sorcery without controlling the language? To the extent that they exist, that is pretty much all they do. That's why they're the "elites".

164 It will all culminate in requiring churches, specifically Catholic churches, to perform gay marriages. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong but you just watch. Posted by: Tami at March 29, 2013 06:21 PM (X6akg) The Military has already told the chaplains that they are not permitted to preach against homosexuality. They were told if they didn't like it, then they could get out of the armed forces.

165 Ace says "..it's a bit implausible that that this merely a choice. It may be a choice, but it's not a free one; obviously, I think, a person is oriented how they're oriented."

I reject that flatly and categorically. I genuinely dislike being vulgar or offensive, it is not in my character, but every now and then it is the most effective way to make a point. I have *never* had a serious person look me straight in the eye, and with a straight face say that they believe that a guy might be born with a genetic need to butt-fuck another guy.

166 What's I find most appalling about "us" losing the gay marriage issue is that it's distracting everybody from the real issues like the global totalitarianism taking over America issue.

Yes, I'm probably crazy.

167 Yeah but you missed the part where getting a swedish was ok in Song of Songs. Missed the part where the Catholic Church, at least, was OK with BJs too. Not sure about those Presbyterians though....

168

Ace,

 

Cuckolders are weird because it's against human nature.  Same shit happened on the Vikings episode.  Now are you really telling me some Viking warrior is going to let some priest come fuck his wife.

 

Really.  No deviants, it don't work that way.  Men are jealous, possessive and violent.  Always have been and always will be.

 

That's why they're weirdos.  Same thing with gheys.  It's against nature.  But whatever.

 

Rob Portman really really bothered me.  I was against ghey "marriage" until his kid was ghey???????????

 

Isn't this fucking clown supposed to represent ALL HIS CONSTITUENTS not just those that fucking sit at his kitchen table???

 

If that's all the intellectual effort expended on the issue, then no wonder we are getting our ass kicked.  We should be happy to talk about the gay "marriage" issue as it is a platform for everything we believe in.  EVERYTHING.

 

That is why the leftists are after it.  TURN THE FUCKING TABLES ON THEM:

1)  Limited government - pro

2)  Why do we have marriage?  producing children of a line in that relationship

3)  Are homos and heteros equal?  Answer no

4) history of ghey marriage?  There is none unless you count Nero and some weirdo dark age greek documents.  Not the best of supporters.

5)  If you open this door you absolutely open it to polygamy.  No sister wives.  Why??  Force the fucking issue and then you can really take it to them with their own logic.   It's all or nothing you fucksticks.

6)  Has humanity been this stupid all along?  Or perhaps a child benefits from having a mother and a father?  What about adoption, should homo couples be in line ahead of wanting, qualified hetero couples?

 

WE SHOULD OWN THIS ISSUE AND USE IT TO EXPLAIN AND STRENGTHEN MARRIAGE.

 

They want to destroy all notions of the nuclear family.  That is what is behind "the real movement."  And they use some nice, well meaning gheys that really want to be recognized as normal to do it.

 

Family, religion, economic freedom, the right to keep and bear arms, free speech and free press.  All stand the battlements against the enemy of statism.  And all must therefore be attacked.

 

Indeed.

169 I'm straight but I'm a #1 guy.  I think gays should be able to get married just like everyone else.

As for the language, yeah, that analysis is spot on.  Only really smart people think like that, which is not why Rush's statement may be correct.

170 We should put as many barriers up as possible to voting.

Bar don't need to be too high.  Just asking them to point out  say China, France, Russia or Canada on a map is gonna weed out a huge number of LIV's.

171 The Bible straight up says "onanism" is a sin, spilling seed in the dirt; I don't think there's a part that says "But a chick's boobs are a-okay." The "do not spill your seed in the dirt" is a general commandment about anything except vaginal release. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:32 PM (LCRYB) Despite some religious people taking that position, the Bible says fuck-all about masturbation. Onan got the Smite-O-Matic 3000 for disobeying a direct order to make babies. While the description is vague, coitus interruptus is a better guess. Especially since nobody else apparently got the lightning bolt for spanking the monkey.

172 >>>Stop being a whiny bitch. And stop accepting the left's false premises and perpetuating them. You usually are good about it, but on this issue, you've got your blinders on. dude you're such a tool. I don't agree with you. How do I "man up" by agreeing with a position I don't agree with? I do NOT agree with this bullshit that we need some kind of government censure against gays or All Is Lost. That's your trip, not mine. I think gays will continue being around 3-4% of the population, as they... almost always have been. You can have your own trip but don't try to tell me I have to get on your bandwagon. This Gayz Will Be the Death of Us All thing is something I don't believe in and never have believed.

173 Not sure about those Presbyterians though.... Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 06:45 PM (6Sldc) Lutherans are really big into "jewelry-making", so I hear.

174 I am for gay marriage as long as it's not between two wetbacks.

175 But isn't there a debate whether it was a sin because he spilled his seed, or a sin because he disobeyed God.

Wasn't that because the fellow in question was supposed to impregnate his brother's widow so as to provide an "heir?" I think the sin was disobedience, but perhaps motivated by greed (no heir means the brother gets the inheritance) or desire to continue diddling the sister in law. I don't recall those verses being real specific about his motivations.

176 The issue can be turned around, but it's going to be harder to do, it's going to take longer, and it's going to require socons acknowledging their past fuckups (and I'm one of those who screwed up on this issue in the distant past) in order to have more success in the future. Posted by: Crude at March 29, 2013 06:24 PM (N3XVc) It cannot be turned around until the current media system is wiped out and replaced.

177 It's only permitted with bosoms a cubit across or larger though. Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do to me in that fetching toga.

178 I don't think it's lost necessarily.

Chief Justice Roberts can still find that marriage and it's definition is transitive like a tax.

Marriage can mean one thing when you are looking at it from the state's perspective and another thing from the federal perspective.

Posted by: tasker at March 29, 2013 06:37 PM (r2PLg)

Its a JizyahTax.

179 106 >>> Hmmmmm.....who considers BJs a sin exactly?

Non procrative deviant sex? Well the bible considers them a sin. The Bible straight up says "onanism" is a sin, spilling seed in the dirt; I don't think there's a part that says "But a chick's boobs are a-okay." The "do not spill your seed in the dirt" is a general commandment about anything except vaginal release.

But the point is that the majority tends not to view as sinful those things it enjoys. We tend to give ourselves a pass on that stuff. But we do tend to find the kinks of the minority sinful.

About three months ago the NYT had this confessional article about a couple who was into "Cuckolding." Dude liked seeing his wife get it put to her by other dudes. Wife liked it too.

I almost put it on the site as a general "Ha-ha, look at these weirdoes" thing.

Now, I do think they're weirdoes. But I didn't put it up because I thought, "Who cares? So I think it's weird. But who cares what I think? Why do I have to weigh in on it? I think it's weird, but who's askin'? "

I am keenly aware lately of the unity-building power of, but fundamental meanness of, ritual mockery of an outsider--partly because we're so often on the receiving end of this treatment. But it has made me much more sensitive to engaging in this sort of thing myself.

And I'm not sure what to do because this is so much of politics.
Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:32 PM (LCRYB)

Onan's sin wasn't that he dumped his seed on the ground, but that he did that rather than have sex with his brother's wife (now his) and produce offspring which was the law he was under.  The kids would have been "his brother's" and not his by the law and he didn't want that. 

180

It's only permitted with bosoms a cubit across or larger though. Read the fine print.

 

 

Word

181

Diogenes:

 

Yes, but we can use emotion too.  Just nail them with the polygamy argument.  Not only is it the same "freedom" "love" "religion" issues, they can have kids, and thus satisfy the basic requirement of marriage.

 

Ace,

 

Re your negotiation post, if you haven't already you really must check out the Harvard Negotiation project.  Some of the best negotiating skills I picked up were in that book.  One more I learned from a very very wealthy man.

 

Never, and I mean fucking never, make the first offer.

182 >>>Cuckolders are weird because it's against human nature. Same shit happened on the Vikings episode. Now are you really telling me some Viking warrior is going to let some priest come fuck his wife. Really. No deviants, it don't work that way. Men are jealous, possessive and violent. Always have been and always will be. That's why they're weirdos. Same thing with gheys. It's against nature. But whatever. ... yeah but so what? Like what does it matter? I don't get why it should matter. Plainly the cuckolding people are effed in the head. Disapproval will not unfuck their heads. What is the point of it except in-group flattery?

183

I'm late to the thread, and I've never seen Rush so late to a party.

 

We lost gay marriage quite some time ago.

 

Since this blog is sometimes referred to as a military blog, can anyone give me the odds on a member of Seal Team 6 being killed in a parachute  accident?

 

Cause that just  happened.

184 You know, when have groups like FOTF, and AFA, who are some of the largest political groups fighting against gay marriage, and who also say stuff like gays are perverts, gays are mentally ill, sodomy should go back to being illegal, c'mon, is it any real surprise that most people would be not persuaded whatsoever to join the fight against gay marriage? All that kind of language does is completely isolate and offend the people who are against gay marriage, but have no personal problems with gay people.

185 By the way. If you want to see an area where there is some successful cultural pushback against gay marriage - look at France. I'm surprised no one is mentioning their recent, huge anti-gay-marriage marches. Not only that, but the fact that this has affected public opinion of gay marriage and gay adoption there. Further, those marches came with some gays, even gay atheists, marching AGAINST gay marriage. They made sure not to make it an anti-gay issue. They made it a pro-traditional-family issue, and included gays in their cause.

186 Lutherans are really big into "jewelry-making", so I hear. Posted by: CAC at March 29, 2013 06:47 PM (IU44g) Ya know, this is information I needed like, TEN YEARS AGO!! Serious guys!

187 Half of winning is fake it till you make it. Here we are, the Supreme Court hasn't even ruled yet and we are all playing with the-- All is LOST! pre-trial balloon.

188 Motherfuckers like Fucking Bloomberg are fucking telegraphing it!*

*in boxing terms, not tech terms

189 174 SFGOth,

Gays can get married just like anyone else.....

They find a woman and they marry her or a man...the opposite of their private parts...

oh you mean we should undo shit that predates the written fucking word as rendered....

yeah that's a different issue.

190 We lost gay marriage quite some time ago. Jonah Goldberg declared the war lost at least six or eight years ago over at NRO.

191 you kinda have to back up a claim if you're gonna say something's a mental disorder. like how would it be effectively treated then, for instance. Posted by: JDP at March 29, 2013 06:26 PM (60GaT) I personally think Psychiatrists aren't successful at treating ANY mental disorders. They just drug people up until they don't exhibit the same symptoms, but cure? What? Are you kidding me? The fact that they can't treat it doesn't make it NOT a mental disorder. It just means that our medical people aren't able to treat it. Hell, we can't grow arms back either, but are you gonna suggest a loped off arm is normal because we can't fix it?

192 the public decides which of them is closest to fair

That's cute.

The public guesses which of them is already determined to have won so they won't wind up on the boot end when the winner is officially announced.

Nobody wants "fair." People want to put the boot on, or cheer it whichever way it stomps, or evade it.

Not one mind was changed about "gay marriage" between the first time we heard the phrase and today. A lot have started cheering the boot or have fled it in terror. "Fair" has not crossed a single mind.

Many mouths. No minds.

193 I'll post this, then read back through the comments. Giving gays everything but the word marriage has never been enough for gay activists. WA state did that and once it was law, they were right back trying to pass gay marriage. So now we are left will a bill that will only apply to people over 62 that are willing to sign up for that domestic partnership that just wasn't enough. This is about forcing churches to accept gays, forcing businesses to serve them or face lawsuits. And rest assured children will be indoctrinated in schools about the wonderfulness of the gay lifestyle.

194 Gays can get married just like anyone else.....

I love the "anyone can get married" fallacy.

195 188 Meremortal,

It depends what was the mission window they were practicing or was it a demonstration team thing?

196 The Military has already told the chaplains that they are not permitted to preach against homosexuality. They were told if they didn't like it, then they could get out of the armed forces.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 29, 2013 06:45 PM (bb5+k)

Now how in hell is that NOT against the so-called separation of church and state? Seems like the government is mandating what the religious folks can say and do?

197 ace, "Plainly the cuckolding people are effed in the head. Disapproval will not unfuck their heads. What is the point of it except in-group flattery? " What's the point of disapproval? Discouraging others. Making it established that it's fucked up, but also offering avenues for help and recovery. Don't you think someone like that really should be going to see a psychiatrist? Isn't that sort of person pretty much who psychiatrists were meant to help? I agree with you that, say... homosexual attraction is very likely to a large degree something a person is born with, etc. But you don't think all fetishes or sexual interests are like that, do you?

198 Daniel Greenfield has an excellent take at his blog, Sultan Knish, titled "The Deconstruction of Marriage" in which he argues that the left destroys institutions through constant war against definitions, borders and parameters.

199 Since this blog is sometimes referred to as a military blog, can anyone give me the odds on a member of Seal Team 6 being killed in a parachute accident? Cause that just happened. As a guy who sat on his share of Parachute Malfunction Review Boards, the odds are very good.

200 Since this blog is sometimes referred to as a military blog, can anyone give me the odds on a member of Seal Team 6 being killed in a parachute accident? Cause that just happened. Posted by: Meremortal at March 29, 2013 06:49 PM (1Y+hH) OMG. Ok.. where did I put that tin foil hat. This is getting creepy.

201 Lutherans are really big into "jewelry-making", so I hear. Posted by: CAC at March 29, 2013 06:47 PM (IU44g) Ya know, this is information I needed like, TEN YEARS AGO!! Serious guys! Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 06:49 PM (6Sldc) I'm going to stop before I go into awful territory.

202

Here is how the American Academy of Pediatrics, with  its  far lefty agenda, posits it (and it is indeed all about redefining the language)  {I am paraphrasing here}:

 

1. We desire that gays be allowed to marry, so we must make it a positive thing, "for the children"

 

2. We find some research about children raised by married couples compared to divorced couples and demonstrate by "science" that children do better emotionally, academically, etc if raised by a married couple.

 

3. We find some research that purports to show that children raised by single gay parents do better than those raised by hetero parents and praise it  because "science".  At the same time we find some other research that purports to show that children raised by gay parents do worse in certain ways, and discredit it because "prejudice". 

 

4. We make a blanket  statement  that if we declare something  that is not  marriage to be marriage, that will  automatically confer all the advantages seen in step #2 above where we demonstrated that marriage is beneficial "for the children".

 

5.  Therefore gays should be legally allowed to "get married".

 

QED

203 Destroy the Family, Destroy Religion, Destroy Nationalism, Destroy Responsibility, Destroy the Work Ethic, Destroy Discipline, Destroy Accountability, Destroy the Military, Destroy Dodge Ball, Destroy America. Yup seems to be working

204 For gay men there is growing evidence that sisters of gay men are more fertile and more feminine than the average women. So evolutionarily speaking, a gene can be selected for if it makes the female more reproductively fit even if it lowers reproductive fitness of the male.

205 Oops forgot to include the link:
http://tinyurl.com/c7wvw6v

206 Marriage can mean one thing when you are looking at it from the state's perspective and another thing from the federal perspective. Posted by: tasker at March 29, 2013 06:37 PM (r2PLg) Its a JizyahTax. Posted by: Chief Justice John Roberts at March 29, 2013 06:48 PM (UypUQ) _______________ Oh thank gawd I swallowed before I read that. Drinking milk--on ice!

207

I don't give a shit!

 

208 well apparently there's disagreement over whether masturbation or beejers are a sin. Okay. But whatever. Some religions do teach they're sins. Obviously (?) we don't want the government forcing a minority religious opinion as to the sexual kosherness of sex acts on us all. Hypothetical: the country suddenly becomes majority hard-core Catholic. Catholics DO teach that non-procreative sex is sinful, right? So in this hypothetical, the majority gung-ho catholic government makes all non-procreative sex either against the law or officially disapproved. I assume people wouldn't be cool with that.

209 #194: I believe in a God who can separate the wheat from the chaff. My right hand is going to hell, my left hand, not so much.

210 200 Ms radish,

anyone can get married Ms radish...

it usually boils down to "what are you willing to accept...?"

Not being a snarkass or trying to hurt you.

It is a lot like the original recipe for Rabbit stew...

Step 1-get a rabbit

211 If they've won it's in large part because they've been prepping the battlespace for decades in the media and entertainment and in schools. They normalized it long before demanding it. And the MSM helpfully shielded us from the more radical elements of the movement, like the Folson Street Fair and Anti-Prop 8 Mormon-targeting types. Posted by: Lizzy at March 29, 2013 06:26 PM (KqmXZ) The News and Entertainment industries have been running a continuous public relations campaign for homosexuality for decades now. They don't talk about the diseases, the suicides, the murders, the erratic behavior and the dissent into sub fetishes. They present it as happy and talented people just enjoying life who have to deal with all this horrible bigotry by those bible thumping red-necks. The TV show "Glee" is nothing but an hour long "Gay" propaganda broadcast every week.

212 >> Hell, we can't grow arms back either, but are you gonna suggest a loped off arm is normal because we can't fix it?

No, but do people talk about amputees the way they talk about gays?  The angry scorn heaped upon gays by some folks who think homosexuality is a mental disorder often shows a lack of compassion.  Normally, somebody with a mis-wired brain or similar disorder is the subject of compassion and pity.  If that's really what they think of gays, where's the mercy and love?  It rarely shows.

213 189 You know, when have groups like FOTF, and AFA, who are some of the largest political groups fighting against gay marriage, and who also say stuff like gays are perverts, gays are mentally ill, sodomy should go back to being illegal, c'mon, is it any real surprise that most people would be not persuaded whatsoever to join the fight against gay marriage? All that kind of language does is completely isolate and offend the people who are against gay marriage, but have no personal problems with gay people. Posted by: thatoneguy at March 29, 2013 06:49 PM (gfhZa) Honey, AFA to me is the Air Force Academy.

214 Next Week on " Totally Normal Urges!"

Uncle Bob sneaks into the boys shower and gets a HILARIOUS eyeful of soapy splashy naked kids , then teaches Timmy "The Tickle Game".

Kevin and Keith purchase a condo - when Keith "accidentally" calls it a "condom" . Watch as the whole thing devolves into a HILARIOUS oiled , hairy gay orgy !

Meanwhile , James tries to find a tall enough bucket to make a "Horseman Baby " then realizes looking at Fluffy's furry curves that maybe a "Dogman Baby" is easier to make after all!

HILARIOUS!





 

215 It used to be a custom in other societies to offer an honored guest your wife for the night. 

216 masturbation is a sin, serious you guys.   repent

Posted by: JDP at March 29, 2013 06:50 PM (60GaT)

  

Where's the scriptural proof for that?   I would think it would be a better way to handle "urges" than going to whores or picking up women in bars.

217 Can we have another ganja thread?  That's something I actually have a personal interest in. ;->

218 The latest craze : Dufnering http://tinyurl.com/cp8hzjk

219 Gay marriage has no more to do with homosexuality than global warming has to do with climate science. They are both techniques that the Marxist Left is using to break down traditional American society (and/or capitalism) so that it can be rebuilt along leftist lines. Anyone who supports these issues and takes them at face value is being a useful idiot.

220 Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO said gay marriage would win back in 2003. Not sure if Goldberg made a similar prediction.

221 205 Sean bannion,

The Jump Wing wearing Orth who helped me learn how to walk again joked witgh me on my 30 foot fall....

LANO

Low Altitude No Opening

222 The Bible straight up says "onanism" is a sin, spilling seed in the dirt.

There are at least two points here: whether Onan's specific decision not to procreate, ever, is the sin; or whether all sex should be for procreation.

The Bible's context makes clear that God told him to procreate. That's the basic failing of Onan.

Suppose Onan'd made a good faith effort on certain days to procreate, but at other times enjoyed a bit of fun with the lady. For God to condemn Onan for the latter, requires that God has no understanding of, nor sympathy with, the human condition. Christianity (at least) denies this; it holds as a basic tenet that God became Man and so has always loved and understood Man. I conclude that if Onan had done this, the Bible would have treated it as trivial and we wouldn't even know about this guy.

I'm often surprised that people who take a nuanced view of, say, Sodom (was the sin homosexuality, or was it hostility to strangers?) would make such an un-nuanced view of Onan . . .

223 >>>What's the point of disapproval? Discouraging others. Making it established that it's fucked up, but also offering avenues for help and recovery. Don't you think someone like that really should be going to see a psychiatrist? Isn't that sort of person pretty much who psychiatrists were meant to help? See, I don't believe this. I think this is what people tell themselves to justify it. I don't think it has any salutary effect. I think it Feels Good, maybe a Little Bit Too Good So You Suspect It May Be Wrong, so we self-justify by proposing Greater Goods we seek to achieve. But I don't buy it. Further, I really don't want everyone so into everyone else's business on such speculative, indirect pretexts.

224 in principle i can accept gay unions. however the activists keep on pushing the envelope and wont be happy until normal people are put into reeducation camps . Synagogues and churches will be forced to comply with thee perverts and school books will be rewritten to normalize perversions

225

"In-Group flattery"  Que??

 

Again, whatever.  On moral issues the best tact is to leave everyone the fuck alone until they come after the institutions.

 

they are doing it here.  Does 2+2=5?  Homo union and a hetero union ARE NOT EQUAL. 

 

And it's very simple to explain why.  The purpose of marriage is binding man to woman to produce children of said union. 

 

There can be no gay marriage just as if we decreed the sun set in the east, it wouldn't be so.

 

But my personal opinion would be that if a state wants to offer a civil union type law it's up to the state.  Hell, if they want to call it marriage, whatever.  But it's a state by state thing.

 

And unless we are willing to flush the purpose of a nuclear family down the toilet, and accept polygamy and all that comes with it, perhaps we had better think very carefully about this "marriage" concept.

 

Crude is exactly right.

226 Catholics DO teach that non-procreative sex is sinful, right? Sorta, kinda. They teach that sex outside of marriage is sinful. You don't have to have procreation in mind 24/7/365 when you go at it....it just has to be in a marriage.

227 Hypothetical: the country suddenly becomes majority hard-core Catholic. Catholics DO teach that non-procreative sex is sinful, right? So in this hypothetical, the majority gung-ho catholic government makes all non-procreative sex either against the law or officially disapproved.

I assume people wouldn't be cool with that.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:53 PM (LCRYB)

Odd hypothetical. I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church has never forced a single person in this country to do or not do anything.

228 The anti-GM side doesn't have the media clout the pro-GM side has. Were it more equal it would be interesting to see how it would have turned out. Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 06:27 PM (uhftQ) Every issue we are losing we are losing for exactly the same reason. The News and Entertainment industries (Media for short) Constantly bombard our position with hatred and bile, and constantly puff up the opposition position. Every loss we have had since before Reagan was caused by the fact that the Media put their thumb on the election scale, every single time. We should have been suing these bastards for illegal campaign contributions, but instead we try to be nice and get alone with them.

229 Honey, AFA to me is the Air Force Academy. Posted by: I lurk, therefore I am, Go Navy, Beat Army! at March 29, 2013 06:54 PM (k0CeE) Is it any wonder there is no dialogue?

230 We used to play "smear the queer" in grade school, eons ago. I doubt that playground game is tolerated these days.

231 Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO said gay marriage would win back in 2003. Not sure if Goldberg made a similar prediction. Roughly at about the same time, I think.

232 Sorta, kinda. They teach that sex outside of marriage is sinful.

You don't have to have procreation in mind 24/7/365 when you go at it....it just has to be in a marriage.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 06:56 PM (6Sldc)

Actually, yes, the Church does teach that non-procreative sex is a mortal sin. Doesn't matter what all you do to get there, but the final act has to be procreative, AND in a marriage. And it ain't about Onan, either. It comes from natural law.

Read Paul VI.

233 227 Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO said gay marriage would win back in 2003. Not sure if Goldberg made a similar prediction. next he will predict dog marriage

234 Low Altitude No Opening Which is still superior to a HANO jump. High Altitude No Opening.

235 We used to play "smear the queer" in grade school, eons ago. I doubt that playground game is tolerated these days.

Posted by: MoeRon at March 29, 2013 06:56 PM (xrGeT)

 

YES!  What a blast from the past.  We used to come in from lunch/recess bleeding, with ripped clothes.  Ah, good times.

236 Yep -- Smear the Queer is out. Smite the White, though, is perfectly acceptable. (Also known as the Knockout Game and Polar Bear Hunting.)

237 236 Honey, AFA to me is the Air Force Academy. Posted by: I lurk, therefore I am, Go Navy, Beat Army! at March 29, 2013 06:54 PM (k0CeE) Is it any wonder there is no dialogue? Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 29, 2013 06:56 PM (9Bj8R) Canoe U, all the way!

238 Obviously (?) we don't want the government forcing a minority religious opinion as to the sexual kosherness of sex acts on us all. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:53 PM (LCRYB) You are already in the business of drawing those lines. You don't get to move the line and then say nobody *else* should get to draw lines like that because it's inherently wrong. That's just nailing down the goalpost after you move it. Also, do you seriously, honestly believe that's as far as the goalpost is ever going to move? For reals?

239 The whole thing only has to do with less belef in God. That's literally the only issue.

240 the demographic that doesnt divorce in high numbers are the ones against gay marriage

241 Read Paul VI. Now you go read JP II

242 It depends what was the mission window they were practicing or was it a demonstration team thing?

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 06:51 PM (LRFds)

 

No details yet, just happened. Sounds like one killed, one injured. Going searching....

 

And Jumbo, yeah, it's creepy as hell. 

243 part of my thinking of this is that libertarianism is the best political posture of the politically weak. If you have the whip-hand, you don't have to worry about what the Majority might do to you -- you're the Majority. If you're the minority, you do have to worry about i,t ,and might want to begin imposing limits on what a the Majority may dictate. I told you I was worried that we'd lost it all this past election. And I am now worried we're a permanent minority. So, just as a matter of survival, I'm now wondering if it isn't in our best interests to not be so gung-ho about what a majority vote can impose on a disfavored minority.

244 241 Sean bannion,

and because I didn't offer it just mouthed it here...

thoughts and prayers to the man's suviviors and God bless you ST6 boys.

245 Sorry, but homosexual behavior is both deviant and an abomination, and people like    me will never accept it.  When they come to force   churches to perform    homosexual marriages, we will find out why the gun stores have been so busy.

246 well apparently there's disagreement over whether masturbation or beejers are a sin.

One might be on firmer ground making a distinction with fapping to visual aids under the "look lustfully at a woman and you've already committed adultery" bit.

247 Can we have another ganja thread? That's something I actually have a personal interest in. ;-> Posted by: SFGoth at March 29, 2013 06:55 PM (dZ756) SECONDED'D

248 The whole thing only has to do with less belef in God. That's literally the only issue. That's about 99.95% of it.

249

Especially since nobody else apparently got the lightning bolt for spanking the monkey

 

Damn, I knew I got the wrong.

250 We used to come in from lunch/recess bleeding, with ripped clothes. Ah, good times. Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 06:58 PM (HqXYa) Amen to that

251

Jumbo Shrimp @ 158

 

That's exactly right.  The number of  "gay marriages" themselves will be miniscule.  There will be little monogamy in male homosexual marriage.

 

The underlying purpose is not a civil rights issue for gay people (as surprisingly, the Left and the Elites lie again).  It is part of the concentric and determined attack on the culture of normal people.  It is to atomize our lives completely.  It is to make a Hobbesian wilderness of our private lives. Man against man, all against all.  With the government class and the ruling elites as the ultimate arbitors of everything.

Everything within the sphere of government. Nothing outside of it.

 

Of course most "legal scholars" argue FOR it, because it is good for business.  More litigation.  More power for them.  What a broken and tragic mess this will become.

252 I think the issue is lost because of the way the debate was framed, that gays are gay because of who they are, not what they do (I acknowledge that this is really complicated, and that being and doing are intertwined). We readily accept the idea that if someone _is_ something, then it follows that they do something according to their being. But what got lost is that there are moral issues once we get into doing things. It's not immoral to be black, or a woman, or from Sri Lanka. But it might be immoral to commit certain sex acts. Most folks agree that pedophiles are immoral and repugnant, so we wouldn't accept one defending himself by saying, "Well, this is how I am, so deal with it." We say, no, you are doing something immoral (and yes, I do get that raping a kid is different than adults having consensual sex, but both have moral implications). What's most interesting to me is that the folks who've bought into a very libertine view of human sexuality--that I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone--buy into this Hard Determinism that since one "is gay" that he must "be gay", that is, to have the ghey seks. It's a very odd thing for those promoting extreme freedom to be saying (without saying it out loud, of course) that they are slaves to their own desires, and thus, not free at all.

253 Jeesh! He meets Elton John and becomes a flamer!

254 >>>You are already in the business of drawing those lines. You don't get to move the line and then say nobody *else* should get to draw lines like that because it's inherently wrong. what does this mean ? I hope this isn't a semantic claim that getting OUT of people's business is functonally the same as getting INTO their business.

255 As a guy who sat on his share of Parachute Malfunction Review Boards, the odds are very good.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 06:52 PM (6Sldc)

 

See? They used a method everyone would think happens all the time!

 

Heh.

 

I'm with Jumbo Shrimp. Creepy. 

256

We also need to remember this:  God is a man baby.

 

I still maintain that this one man one woman concept was forced upon us by the dirty papists.

 

If you actually read every reference to adultery in the Bible, they all talk to screwing around with a married woman.  Yeah, that's off limits.

 

But a married man can keep adding the wifeys.  Hell, he can take a peasant virgin in the fields as long as he makes recompense with her father.

 

King Solomon had how many wives?  Indeed.  God is a man.  That's why conservatives always sound so stupid going AFTER people for their moral transgressions.  That never works out. 

 

Seriously ladies, how is sister wives not a good deal?  You have six best friends, dedicated babysitters, and you only have to service your husband once a week at most, unless your the hot sister wife...

257 we will find out why the gun stores have been so busy. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 29, 2013 07:00 PM (/i3Yt) Yes, let's shoot people. That's going to win over hearts and minds.

258 Perhaps it is lost because it is something that cannot be won, that is the argument against gay marriage doesn't convince. Posted by: Steve walsh at March 29, 2013 06:31 PM (tsJkx) The Argument against increasing the Debt doesn't convince, the Argument against murdering unborn doesn't convince, the argument against illegal immigration doesn't convince, and so on. None of our arguments will convince when you have the Media people constantly undermining them all day every day. If you can't communicate with the people, you can't win.

259 # 233: Sorta, kinda. They teach that sex outside of marriage is sinful. You don't have to have procreation in mind 24/7/365 when you go at it....it just has to be in a marriage. Correct. The rhythm method of birth control is officially sanctioned by the RCC - the practice of having intercourse with your spouse when she's not fertile. Doesn't work very well for women with irregular periods. www.mayoclinic.com/health/rhythm-method/MY01003

260 The whole point of this is to discount and devalue the traditional family. The cohabitation choices of 2% of the population isn't the issue. The motivation is to devalue the idea that your long-standing two parent male and female family is important, special, or any better than anything else. The motivation is to refuse to discriminate. No tradition or arrangement is any better than any other. It's multiculturalism applied to the single longest standing form of human relation, the family.

261 The troubling thing about all of this sturm and drang is that you know it will end up with the first gay couple suing a Catholic church in the USA for refusing to recognize their union.

Of course it will. I predict the floral arrangements are already being ordered.

262 The best thing we can do is to try and discourage as many people as possible from voting. We should put as many barriers up as possible to voting. The young, the stupid, and the ignorant make the world a worse place when they vote. Their opinions are harmful and should be ignored. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 29, 2013 06:32 PM (ZPrif) Not gonna happen. These people serve the interests of the Democrats, and they will never let them go.

263 Now you go read JP II

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 06:59 PM (6Sldc)

Sweetie, Humane Vitae is not negated by anything in Theology of the Body. Doin' it without finishing correctly is still against the rules. Mortal sin. Maybe you should read it again. And then ask your Bishop.

264 Rush reported today that Dr. Ben Carson has been asked by the graduating medical school class at John's Hopkins to not speak at their commencement.. because of his comments recently regarding gay marrriage. They think he equated gay people with bestiality, or NAMBLA. We are in serious trouble as a nation. We have raised this generation of intolerants. I am appalled that medical students have no more reading comprehension than this.

265

I know mine is a minority view but sexual orientation is not wholly a self-willed choice, but neither is it embedded in human DNA.  A few years ago a study of the brains of deceased homosexual men revealed that long-term homsexuals show a difference in the structure of the brain.  It cannot be known if that develops over time as no study is going to kill young or teen homosexuals and see if that difference is from the beginning. 

We are in serious trouble as a nation and a culture because we refuse to believe there is a spiritual dimension (universe) attendant to this physical universe.  The Bible is mis-interpreted as its great mystery is that it reveals a spiritual world by metaphor and analogy.  It is speaking in physical terms of a transcendent realm that controls and emanates into the physical world.  And human beings are the bridge (worm-hole) and connect between those two worlds.  All moral law is to protect us from hostile forces in that spiritual universe, not to restrict our "fun."

God is NOT a moral scold, He is trying to inform spiritually blinded creatures of the dangers present in that spiritual universe.  The changes to the brains of homosexuals happens over time as they present themselves to spiritual forces that tempt, then drive them to act outside of a Divine design for humanity.  We will find no sensible answers until we recognize we are not the orgin of thought or mind, it comes from elsewhere, but eventually the pipe conforms to the substance flowing through.

266 Correct. The rhythm method of birth control is officially sanctioned by the RCC - the practice of having intercourse with your spouse when she's not fertile There's a caveat there, you must always be open to the possibility of new life.

267 Ace, "See, I don't believe this. I think this is what people tell themselves to justify it. I don't think it has any salutary effect. I think it Feels Good, maybe a Little Bit Too Good So You Suspect It May Be Wrong, so we self-justify by proposing Greater Goods we seek to achieve. But I don't buy it. " I don't understand what you're objecting to here. Are you saying that some people love to mock and attack and insult people who are 'weird' because it feels good to do that, and they justify it on grounds similar to what I'm saying? Sure. I also think that sort of behavior should be discouraged itself. But I think there are grounds for legitimate concern for that sort of thing. There should be some social expectations of people's behavior, and concern for deviants. "Further, I really don't want everyone so into everyone else's business on such speculative, indirect pretexts. " Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying there should be no law against that? I agree. Now, are you saying that a husband-wife team who regularly go out and get a whole bunch of bikers to fuck the wife while the husband jacks off and watches... this shouldn't be held against them during the adoption proceedings?

268

Why is it that repubs/conservatives always have to worry about using the right language?  The left doesn't.  And certainly the homos don't.

 

As I  said in the last thread, the real problem is that the combined forces of the left have cowed the population.  When was the last time we could actually speak our mind in public (other than blogs) and not run the risk of a public shunning, or at worst, physical threats?

 

The MFM and the rest of their minions speak with impunity.  We can't.

269 Posted by: CAC at March 29, 2013 07:01 PM (IU44g)
-
Don't have to shoot them.  Just keep them off of church property.

270

Ace:  214:

 

That isn't hypothetical.  At least to the Mormons.  A guy got nailed with a felony rap for following his religion, because other Christians said it was bad.  Sup. Ct. case from 1894 I think called Reynolds v. U.S.

 

And having more than one wife is STILL A FUCKING CRIME.

 

Explain how that squares with the gheys argument.  I am dying to hear such a justification.

271 Hypothetical: the country suddenly becomes majority hard-core Catholic. Catholics DO teach that non-procreative sex is sinful, right? So in this hypothetical, the majority gung-ho catholic government makes all non-procreative sex either against the law or officially disapproved. ___________ How would they get around the enforcement problem? I'm not sure what this hypothetical is suppose to be analogous to.

272 When Michael Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzmichael show up and tell Father Flanagan that they demand to be married, I hope the good father points and says 'There's a mosque down the street, boys.'

273 Seriously ladies, how is sister wives not a good deal? You have six best friends, dedicated babysitters, and you only have to service your husband once a week at most, unless your the hot sister wife... Posted by: Prescient11 at March 29, 2013 07:01 PM (tVTLU) Wait until the cycles all get in sync.

274
It will all culminate in requiring churches, specifically Catholic churches, to perform gay marriages.


If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong but you just watch.

Posted by: Tami at March 29, 2013 06:21 PM (X6akg

Yeah, my lib, atheist sister a few months ago was all, "I can't wait until Christian pastors have to perform gay weddings.  And military chaplains, too."

Which ignited a brief war with us and our son, who was still in Afghanistan.  

I have no words anymore. 

275 Maybe you should read it again. And then ask your Bishop. I work at the Tribunal as a volunteer 3 times per month. I've actually had that conversation with him. And....try not to be a dick.

276 Here's a question that comes to mind after reading through the comments:

When has there  ever been an  unpopular  conservative issue that, over time, has percolated up to the level  of social awareness  that  liberals debate it as whether it should be law or not?

I can't think of anything. 

277 Well all I know when the next terrorist attack comes to America and kills thousands I will sure be G-D Damn glad that Al can marry Bill!

278 >>>I'm not sure what this hypothetical is suppose to be analogous to. it's supposed to be analogous to imposing a religious notion on others that they might not agree with, and asking, shoe on the other foot, does this sound good? It doesn't of course. No one, for example, wants to hear those stupid muzzeins in the morning except Muslims.

279 281 Jane D'oh,

No words needed.

Shrug...

if you don't make it they can't take it and I am not helping them detroy western civ anymore.

280 Yes, let's shoot people. That's going to win over hearts and minds.


Worked for us.

281

We used to play "smear the queer" in grade school, eons ago. I doubt that playground game is tolerated these days.

Posted by: MoeRon at March 29, 2013 06:56 PM (xrGeT)

================

 

 

Hell. They can't even play Dodgeball or Cops and Robbers.

282 #273: you are 100% correct. Now you may strike my knuckles with your ruler and make me write this week's catechism questions 10 times each.

283 Correct. The rhythm method of birth control is officially sanctioned by the RCC - the practice of having intercourse with your spouse when she's not fertile. Doesn't work very well for women with irregular periods. www.mayoclinic.com/health/rhythm-method/MY01003 Posted by: MoeRon at March 29, 2013 07:01 PM (xrGeT) When my little brother was a teenager he happened to be reading an article in the paper about alternative methods of birth control. My mom came into the room and said, "That's how you happened."

284 Rush reported today that Dr. Ben Carson has been asked by the graduating medical school class at John's Hopkins to not speak at their commencement.. because of his comments recently regarding gay marrriage. They think he equated gay people with bestiality, or NAMBLA.

So. That's not allowed? Not legal? What exactly is his sin?

Holding a contrary opinion ?

285 how is sister wives not a good deal? You have six best friends,

No; you will have six other kitties in a small sack. MROWR! *hiss*

286 sow the wind and reap the whirlwind

287 283 marmo,

You would be correct since 1860 sir.

288 There is no real argument against polygamy or gay marriage other than the belief that god has condemned it. Once you no longer believe in god then there is not logical reason to oppose either.

289 Ace, You're an ace writer (see what I did there?) and I'm loath to give you advice but as (ahem) a writing teacher of 35 years (and a damn good one, I might add), here's a tip: avoid "I think." Just state it. We all know what's coming is what you think. By always beginning with "I think" you weaken your writing. Seriously, this is a huge tip in making your writing stronger.

290 There is no real argument against polygamy or gay marriage other than the belief that god has condemned it.

Even polygamists can claim Biblical sanction . . .

291 296 Flatbush Joe,

I am wondering why I can't marry my toaster as a sister wife and force DoD to cover its warranty under Tricare...?

Why not it makes only slighly less sense than the gay marriage argument structurally.

292 Soona:
>> Why is it that repubs/conservatives always have to worry about using the right language? The left doesn't.

I disagree.  The left worries a lot about using the right language.  While we work on policy, they work on messaging, and over the decades, they've become fantastically good at it.

293 "Once you no longer believe in god then there is not logical reason to oppose either." Sure there is. There's plenty of pragmatic, secular grounds for opposition to both.

294 The entire concept of "Liberty" (how quaint, I know) is to avoid top-down, one size fits all type of governance and laws.

We are failing that for about the last 150 years or so.

295

There is no real argument against polygamy or gay marriage other than the belief that god has condemned it.

Bullshit.  There are plenty of reasons to oppose gay marriage and polygamy that don't require referring back to God.

296

Flatbush Joe:

 

Well, I would just as a cultural tradition, that marriage is the way humans have always raised children into this world.  That's the purpose of marriage.

 

Marriage is not just about two fucking people in love.  It's a union between man and woman to beget children of that union.

 

Gheys can never, ever do that.  Thus there is no such thing as ghey marriage.  It cannot exist.

 

Civil unions.  Solemn vows to each other.  Whatever.  But, by definition, marriage is out for them.  Blame nature, Gaia, whatever the fuck.

 

However, for the polygamist, marriage is still in play!!

 

I lurk:  I never said it was good for the hubbie!!!  hahahahaha.

297 The opposition to polygamy was pretty much entirely due to religious sensibilities. Which have fallen by the wayside. Which is why polygamy will be legal in America by 2025.

298 "I disagree. The left worries a lot about using the right language. While we work on policy, they work on messaging, and over the decades, they've become fantastically good at it." Agreed. And I've run into too many socons who will use stupidly "this will just turn everyone off" language, and when called on it, they just get the urge to do it even more because they think that's 'brave' of them. Not, you know, goddamn stupid. I think conservatives generally - not just socons - spend too much time trying to present themselves as being more conservative than each other, or attacking people for their liberal stupidity, rather than trying to actually persuade.

299 301 Crude,

Oh silly ABC news and NBC both assured me that the Gays are not gaming the system and th4e actuarial tables will be fine....

one question will the gays HAVE to go get their Ashley Judd on at divorce court if they split up and only one wants it like we hetero breeder assholes do or is divorce optional?

300 O/T This is tragic.  Member of SEAL Team 6 dies in parachute training accident.

How many Navy SEALs have died under Commander Barky's watch now?


http://tinyurl.com/cmqhzpv

301 They aint after marriage. Personally.. I think they want minority status. A couple of statistics. Remember that very old study by a gay marketing group that said gays had far more purchasing power than straights? Well the gay activists realized how unhelpful it was, they came up with a different study purporting to show how just the opposite was true. You should read the writeups on it -- just Google "gay incomes higher" or something. The statistical gymnastics are astounding. Well, just this January, Prudential did a study. Plain and simple, gay household income has a $11,000 higher median than the national average of $50,000. That's it. Now THAT'S the kind of discrimination I want to get in on! Yes, true, if you're gay your life has all sorts of complications and you have to deal with all sorts of crap from unpleasant people. God knows the rest of us don't. Life is lollipops and gumdrop forests for everybody else. There's also been a study done in Canada now that they're 10 years into gay marriage. 0.8% of marriages are same-sex. And I bet that number goes down after all the symbolic marriages fall off the statistical table. But...they still have legal precedent. And I think all those hip urban women are going to find out real quick that "marriage equity" isn't so great when their ex-husband has as much chance at custody and her chances of alimony are almost nil. Because marriage is to protect women. But I'm still waiting for young gay men to discover that signing up for Selective Service isn't an empty gesture anymore.

302 Hum? Maybe I should buy stock in the company that makes KY Jelly?

303 The Bible is quite clear that   when the government orders you to do something that contradicts your faith, you obey your faith, not the government.

304 part of my thinking of this is that libertarianism is the best political posture of the politically weak. _________________ It's also the white flag of those that cannot be persuasive, and or those that do not want to be responsible for the harsh realities of history. That's often why it is proposed by college professors still looking to get lucky with 20 year olds.

305 For quite a few years now, Focus on the Family's radio broadcasts in Canada have been censored. If the regularly-scheduled broadcast for the US is related to homosexuality it can't be run in Canada. FoTF broadcasts a rerun for Canadian listeners instead. Ministers who dare preach against homosexuality and who are found out have been hauled in front of human rights tribunals. This is what the U.S. can look forward to. Posted by: I lurk, therefore I am, glad to have left DC at March 29, 2013 06:14 PM (k0CeE) This goes far beyond sexual orientation. It is about abolishing "gender stereotypes" and forcing the artificial notion that there is no difference between men and women aside from the presense of lack of a few organs. They frame it as "gender discrimination" and thus bash anyone who sees a difference between men and women as "disrciminators." The problem is that "discrimination has become a loaded word. practically everyone differentiates between men and women. The problem is that the left has gotten around this by declaring one's sex and gender to be two different things, and than declaring that the differences between the sexes are largely all a difference between genders and that genders are an evil social construct. Examples here http://tinyurl.com/chx7hs6 and here: http://tinyurl.com/a2vg2bj Children are already going to be punished in many schools far refusing to call boys girls and visa versa. Examples here: http://tinyurl.com/dykj68k and here: http://tinyurl.com/cfb4cdk

306 Polygamy is already largely decriminalized today. As long as one of your wives isn't 14, the authorities will leave you alone.

307 I will say this much. If it's truly the case that, in the near term, the 'fight against gay marriage is lost'.. then maybe the smart thing to do is take ace's advice about libertarianism. If a state is going to pass a pro-gay marriage law, maybe the proper response is to make sure that law is also pro-polygamy, and pro-any-other-union.

308 ace,

asking for ludicrous things only works if the other party *can't* back away for some reason.

For instance, this doesn't work in haggling; the seller of the thing can just find another buyer.

But it may work in the context of congress.

309 How many Navy SEALs have died under Commander Barky's watch now? While I'm sure there's an extra special place in Hell for TFG, this is firmly in the category of "shit happens".

310 "The Bible is quite clear that when the government orders you to do something that contradicts your faith, you obey your faith, not the government."

Is there a verse for that? All I can recall is the "render unto Ceasar that which belongs to Ceasar" one.

311 A nonviable mate could be expanded to include infertile women, disabled women. And sticking with the reproduction-only sex is a great message for those who don't enjoy bj's 69 anal a swedish an old-fashioned a rub down happy endings and numerous other types of sexual gratification that over 90% of the population enjoys. That argument is older than time. The "procreation perservation" argument is a weak one, there are far better. Posted by: CAC at March 29, 2013 06:42 PM (IU44g) In human evolution, the presumption is that the woman is fertile. It is not normally known before the fact that a woman may not be fertile. As far as what people "enjoy", it is irrelevant to the interests of the community or the state. Reproduction is absolutely essential to the survival of any community or government, and in most of human history made the difference between dominance and slavery. Those with the most bodies won. (Usually.) There is a REASON why the Catholics are so insistent on Reproduction. It is the source of power for any large group.

312 You're an ace writer (see what I did there?) and I'm loath to give you advice but as (ahem) a writing teacher of 35 years (and a damn good one, I might add), here's a tip: avoid "I think." Just state it. We all know what's coming is what you think. By always beginning with "I think" you weaken your writing.

Seriously, this is a huge tip in making your writing stronger.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at March 29, 2013 07:09 PM (deaac)

 

*******

 

Therefore, I am.

 

 

/Descartes

313 It's only permitted with bosoms a cubit across or larger though. Read the fine print. So, cubit < DD? Ok. I'm good with that.

314 How many polygamists live in America today? Hundreds? Thousands? More? Obama's father was a polygamist. Or was it just a bigamist?

315 Words are pretty important actually. We used to use the term "illegal aliens." This was harmful to the lefts goals. So they started using the term "undocumented aliens". Then "undocumented immigrants". Then "undocumented Americans." Which of course is much more favorable to their side. But this is key...we acquiesced to their word attack. Nobody on the right uses the term "illegal alien" anymore. We ceded all of that rhetorical ground of our own accord. Shame on us.

316 gay and marriage are separate terms. Nowhere in history is there a recognition of "gay marriage" as a legitimate term.

The Narcissistic Mutual Masturbation Club got funding from the Left Wing Whackos and henceforth "clouds" will be referred to as " salad tongs" and "corn" will be called "donkey teeth".

NAMBLA is furiously scribbling notes.

Red. State. Secession. 

317 How do lesbians do it? I always wondered.

318 "Once you no longer believe in god then there is not logical reason to oppose either."

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


I would think that historical (even contemporary) evidence would contradict that.  All through history, even in non-Judeo/Christian countries, gay marriage has not been enshrined into either law or custom.  Even today, how many countries in the world recognize gay marriage?  Historically, there has never been widespread acceptance of the family unit as being between same-gendered couples, whatever the religious system or lack there-of.

319 >>>But I think there are grounds for legitimate concern for that sort of thing. There should be some social expectations of people's behavior, and concern for deviants. Ehhhhh... not really. I mean, if you want me to agree they're weird, I'll say so. I do think weirdos are weird. (Just not the weird shit I'm into.) But I don't think that we're actually doing something constructive by collectively issuing our disapproval. I don't see how that actually helps us or "society." Apart from some catharsis. You know there are a lot of bent people with bent kinks. It, seriously, has always been thus. I don't know what effect scolding or group condemnation has -- I suspect none at all, or something close to that. I mean... Obviously I support stating that sexual values are good. (Maybe that's not obvious.) Mostly because of children. Not so much for adults. As adults, the tree is already bent. So I don't see what good there is in trying to get a bent adult tree to straighten up. It's not going to happen. (Apart from the small number who give up the "darkness" and find God, but this is almost equal to the new crop of the fallen.) It may feel good, but I don't know what actual effect it has in the greater world, as opposed to the inner world of feeling.

320 320 navybrat

in context that *is* the one...

321

MaxMBJ:

And you shouldn't have to give that advice to an attorney!!  hahahaha.

 

Ace:

 

Your caveat sent up huge warning signs.  HUGH.  Not only has the ghey marriage thing failed big time, except in most blue states where it is safe to stab a 5 day old baby in the heart, that's how leftist they are.

 

Most social conservatives ARE NATURAL DEMOCRATS.  Cast them aside, and the GOP is truly and totally fucked.

 

Think long and hard on that.  You can take it to the fucking bank.  GOP wins the South with 40% minority populations, mostly black.  Socons walk and the GOP is truly dead as a party. 

 

That's why the limited government play is what unites us all.  We keep our convictions but don't play "church lady" to the rest of the country.  We fight on social issues, but only the real ones that matter.  Ghey marriage is one such issue.  But there are answers that are entirely consistent with what we should be striving for.

 

It's possible to FLIP THE ISSUE BACK ON THE LEFTIES.  Why not do it?

322

Regarding infertility:

Up until very recently there really was no way to tell if a person was infertile or not unless it was an obvious deformity such as castration.  Even today if you were to demand that every couple prove fertility before marriage it would require enormous resources and an obscene level of government intrusion into people's private lives.  And there would still be a level of uncertainty.  One can say that government interest in marriage is primarily about procreation and at the same time allow for infertile couples to marry on the basis of small government.

323 Thing is, the noise never stops no matter how much the right caves. Posted by: USS Diversity at March 29, 2013 06:44 PM (+bZOu) THIS!

324 It doesn't of course. No one, for example, wants to hear those stupid muzzeins in the morning except Muslims. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 07:07 PM (LCRYB) _______________________ Liam Neeson said while shooting a film in Turkey that at first he hated it and then he got all in to it--and stuff. *Meghan McCain voice* (Yes he became like 3 degrees less hot after that.)

325 @272... wow. I had to read that twice. very interesting.

326 RE: odd sexual acts

It goes without saying, "The marriage bed is undefiled." There are standards which a person learns and practices if they desire to, about what acts should be performed in that context. I know that Roman Catholics have been very strict on this (as often are Grandmothers.)

In short, what a rightfully married man and woman do in the confines of the bridal chamber is their bizness, as long as it's just them.

327 The word "gay" was itself absconded by the Left.
I can remember when the word meant an entirely different thing. It meant joyous, innocent, carefree, etc.

328 321 Diogenes Lamp,

I do wish people would read more Heinlein...

329 Here's what I think happened. 1) There are a lot of people who are fine with gays but "sort of" against gay marriage 2) The Liberal Hate Train of Sanctimony started rolling and calling anybody who wasn't enthusiastically in favor of gay marriage "bigots" and comparing them to slave owners 3) The people in the first group, who didn't care that much to begin with just gave up and shrugged their shoulders and said "fine, whatever" and switched from passive opposition to passive support

330 Religion, Darwin, take your pick.

331

294 sow the wind and reap the whirlwind

 

"Tearing down taboos"

The Left has been taking pride in doing this.

 

But they are running out of 'taboos' to tear down.

And they are creating their own new 'taboos'.

 

Can we tear down their new taboos, like they've torn down ours?

....'Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind'.

 

332 Is there a verse for that? All I can recall is the "render unto Ceasar that which belongs to Ceasar" one.

Posted by: navybrat at March 29, 2013 07:14 PM (SWuSg)

-

Acts Chapter 5

333

Is there a verse for that? All I can recall is the "render unto Ceasar that which belongs to Ceasar" one.

 

"and to God what is God's."

334 Another two 'absolutely correct' observations in my view, Ace. Too many socons turned a blind eye to their looking like bullies. And the media issue is major. Worse, that media issue is pretty far reaching on topics beyond gay marriage. I wish I knew a way for conservatives to react to that. It's a tall order to say the least. Posted by: Crude at March 29, 2013 06:45 PM (N3XVc) The Media issue is the elephant in the room. No other issue is larger than the fact that we have an uphill battle matching the propaganda ability of Liberal Democrat media.

335 RDBREWER,

The Neal Tyson Theodolphus Skip DiGrassi link is busted.

336 Also, what acts you enjoy - I can bet most guys would enjoy being with more than one woman.

This basically means that all of us, and not just the gays, have some discipline to learn, doesn't it?

337

Never a part of this debate is what will it do to the minds and emotions of kids raised by homosexuals?  We know scientifically that sexual child abuse has a good chance of producing psychopaths, or emotionally damaged people.

And are we so certain that trashing sexual role models is going to be a good thing for a generation raised under this newly discovered popular morality?  We are about to find out in 30 years or so, if we survive all the other crap coming upon us because we do not follow any semblance of Biblical morality.  How many of you have known cheerful and happy gays?

National Debt anyone?  Utter political corruption.  Our nation is falling apart and THIS is what we find important?

338 Gay Divorcee, starring Fred Astaire, 1936ish.

339 >>>You're an ace writer (see what I did there?) and I'm loath to give you advice but as (ahem) a writing teacher of 35 years (and a damn good one, I might add), here's a tip: avoid "I think." I don't think so. I use I think to mark tentativeness. if it sounds tentative, it's supposed to. One isn't convinced of everything that drifts through one's transom.

340 343 grey Fox,

we had a good chat here on an ONT about the context of that passage....

it was mocking Caesar

341 But I don't think that we're actually doing something constructive by collectively issuing our disapproval. I don't see how that actually helps us or "society." ____________ We also don't have to say that two gay guys need the same advantages of marriage. Unlike traditional marriage they are not going to have unplanned children when they can barely afford it--at a greater cost to one of the partners.

342 Rush said this yesterday.

Why is everything on this site a day (or more) late?  Reading Ace is like reading Time Magazine with fewer dick jokes.

343 Most social conservatives ARE NATURAL DEMOCRATS.

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



I keep hearing this.


It keeps being not true.

344 The answer to the Media issue is simple, even though we don't do it. Cut them off. Starve the beast. But that would mean missing out on Game of Thrones and TMZ and the NBA playoffs, so we don't do it. We dig our own grave, complaining the whole time.

345 But I don't think that we're actually doing something constructive by collectively issuing our disapproval. I don't see how that actually helps us or "society On a pragmatic level, I take your point. You're probably right. On a more idealistic level, I'd say that lowering the bar of what constitutes right behavior by society's opinion only gets you more and more deviance. Whatever you subsidize, you will get more of. The subsidy here being the tacit approval of society.

346 154 the infertile argument is weak, something can be ordered toward something/have it as a major aspect while having exceptions. that's different from saying "marriage wasn't really about procreation in the first place" Posted by: JDP at March 29, 2013 06:46 PM (60GaT) It is NOT weak. It controls the destiny of nations. Look at Russian and European fertility, and tell me what's going to happen in about 30 years. The Liberals are the party of death. The Conservatives are the party of life.

347 #327: pour some tuna juice on Astroturf and lick it. That'll be a good learning moment for you about "how lesbos do it".

348 This presupposes the gay part of the equation would have settled for some middling path, which they wouldn't. The civil union option has always been out there. Gays can get the papers drawn up to take care of the rest, if they wanted. But that's not what they wanted. They want the issue redefined so they can have the full backing and blessing of the government to take on any and all who they feel 'discriminate' against them, namely the church. But hey, whatevs. I didn't read the whole thread, shame on me, so sorry if I'm chewing over the same ground here.

349 346 RiverC,

it means that without the moral battle inherent ordinarily in the human condition primarily in adherence to the doctrine of a faith that we are barely a half head ahead of the apes....

I do so enjoy secular humanists who ignore the implications of our animal status...

350 I believe RoyalOil@#35 is correct.  It's the language more than the behavior to most people, including "non-intellectuals." 

I think even those who are opposed, for whatever reason, to the behavior  are prone (maybe a bad word to use -- see what I mean?) to let other people be and do as they will, so long as there is no injury to others.  But don't rub that behavior in someone else's face.

I am tired, more than anything else, of language and symbols being appropriated by fiat.  "Gay" is no longer happy, "marriage" is no longer the traditional definition.  Hell, some folks threw a shitfit when gunmakers brought out pink pistols.  Somehow this was insulting to breast cancer people.  Can't carry a red bandana, can't carry a blue bandana.  And if you do use a bandana, of any color, for a snotrag you'd best be careful that it doesn't hang out of your back pocket. Don't wear the wrong ball cap. 

Fuck that noise.

351 what does this mean ? I hope this isn't a semantic claim that getting OUT of people's business is functonally the same as getting INTO their business. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 07:01 PM (LCRYB) If you want to get OUT of people's business, get your fat grubbies *entirely* out of marriage, which I've been saying for over twenty fucking years. This shilly-shallying around the edges shit is just grievance-mongering, and that shit will *never* end. Why do I bother, people just shove me into a fucking category regardless of what I say and then comment on *that*.

352 I don't give a shit about gay marriage, but I will not tolerate the marriage equality bullshit. Want equality? You've already got it crybabies, go marry someone of the opposite gender.


That said, when I was younger, I was far more supportive of it. As I've gotten older and watched how these gay activists conduct themselves, I'm adamantly against it. Out of spite, mostly. The libs realize that most of the yutes who love them some gay marriage will also eventually grow up, right? (the ones who don't become libs, of course)

353 @272 and this theory is based on what?

354 jehu, Nice post. I'm with you on most all of it. As for humanity being the "worm hole" connecting the two great realms (spiritual and physical), I'd add that it was Christ who made that wormhole exist. Jacob's ladder is the metaphor. He was the ladder coming down from heaven to connect God and man.

355

Sean Bannion, Sven, Jane:

 

Still no real details. One Seal killed, one in stable condition in the hospital. Night training in Mantana, Arizona.

 

Got entangled perhaps.

356 Debates like this are why I now worship the Sun, praise be upon Him.

357 It doesn't help the anti-side every time a soccon (politician or not) gets "outed" for being deviant -- not necessarily gay, but you know, sex out of marriage (or sex in marriage but with another woman), caught at Bondage a Go Go wearing chaps and spanking some chick, etc.

358 Foghorn, Jehu's theory is based on Jesus' words: you search the scriptures but won't recognize me ... Which is what the scripture ( read Old Testament) is about. John 5:39

359 The greatest trick Obama + the Media ever pulled was to convince Americans that the economy + eternal war on terrorism didn't matter as much as social issues. . .


The media should be all doooooom all the time, put Monty to shame, and yet because of Obama all that gets talked about is gay marriage, women's rights, and RACISM. Clever girl.

360 It has absolutely nothing to do with disapproval of gays. It's an eligibility issue. They're not eligible to marriage because as a group they can't procreate. That's like saying that social security is about disapproval of young people.

361 #355 this.

People were tricked on this one, because if homosexuality is inborn, how can encouraging homosexuality increase it?

This is of course the key conceit and important idea behind making it seem this way.

Some of it is inborn, but everyone has inborn flaws, period. Many heterosexual men have sex drives that are unhealthy; some are addiction-prone, so on and so on.

The behavior is still separate from the condition to varying degrees, and the key problem is that in the 'coming out' thing they got people to wrap their entire identity around their homosexuality.

We must continue to fight this madness, if only by disconnecting from the Media-University-Government-Industry complex or whatever it is now.

362 ace, "Ehhhhh... not really. I mean, if you want me to agree they're weird, I'll say so. I do think weirdos are weird. (Just not the weird shit I'm into.) But I don't think that we're actually doing something constructive by collectively issuing our disapproval. I don't see how that actually helps us or "society." Apart from some catharsis. You know there are a lot of bent people with bent kinks. It, seriously, has always been thus. I don't know what effect scolding or group condemnation has -- I suspect none at all, or something close to that. " And here I disagree. The problem isn't 'having a kink' - it's acting on it, or justifying it. To read what you're writing, you're saying that social standards and culture have no effect on people's behavior, or on how they deal with their desires. I think that's prima facie wrong. It's akin to saying that how a child is raised has absolutely no effect on how they will live their life, what attitudes they will have, etc. Again, I don't endorse diving into a person's private life unwarranted, digging around and looking for the weirdos, etc. I think most people have their own sins or failings. I think they should be encouraged to get over them or control them, not mocked and banished or what have you for being less than perfect. But I think it's just obviously wrong to take the attitude that, say, 'cultural disapproval of behavior X has no effect on the frequency of behavior X or how people with inclination to behavior X handle themselves'.

363 This is just more of the Long March through the Institutions, in my humble o. The churches being the last ones standing.

364 365 meremortal,

Night shit is hard shit....

Damn I wanted to be a paratrooper and grab my Ranger tab before I was classified an 11H on my X-ray contract....

I can't even imagine how much hairy night makes the jumps.

Thank God we have men who know and God keep the fallen.

365 When we have reached the point that doctors are not considering children who survive abortion as people at all, let alone worth saving, it is all over, anyway. When they decide that it is up to the sedated mother to decide whether the doctor should kill a living child, we're in a world we should not be. (see Planned Parenthood rep in Florida video). Not to mention that the MASH joke about the guy trying to get out of the Army by dressing in drag isn't funny anymore. Get ready. It is already here. Sorry. It is a day to grieve.

366 Jerry, I think that's about right, with one addition: the passive-opposition to passive-acceptance group doesn't like seeing all the Judging, and think that's a bit Not Quite Our Class Dear, and so defines itself against it. Note that that last thing is big. You know, 90% of politics is that. It's not convincing people rationally, with reason and argument. If you can convince someone a position is taken by those he considers his class/social inferiors, you are 90% of the way to convincing him to your side. The media does this for the left, of course, the associating of conservative positions with Lower Class thinking. Of course religious people tend to be more wealthy and of higher status but they don't mention that. (Or when forced to mention it, as with the Tea Party, they paint "wealthier" as plutocratic.) Still I think most political people are so focused on Argument and Reason that they overlook that 90% of these decisions are made in the gut for non-rational reasons, and they're made chiefly according to self-flattery. People want to associate themselves with the Better Group and distance themselves from the Lesser Group. Putting the most attractive, heroic face on a group position is the surest route to victory.

367 You can have your own trip but don't try to tell me I have to get on your bandwagon. This Gayz Will Be the Death of Us All thing is something I don't believe in and never have believed. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:47 PM (LCRYB) Sometimes I am impressed by your brilliance, and sometimes I am impressed by your naivete. The picture is bigger than you seem to realize. All I can suggest is that you study homosexuality and the history of it more closely. (Cambridge club? John Maynard Keynes? Bradly Manning? Serial Killers? ) There is a REASON why the entire city of Benjamin was razed to the ground, and why it's population was utterly slaughtered. The Bible is as much of a History book as it is a religious book.

368

272: "God is NOT a moral scold, He is trying to inform spiritually blinded creatures of the dangers present in that spiritual universe."

 

 

"Try" does not apply when it comes to God. 

369 Also, Iam I *really* just that unclear? For serious? Because I can start using smaller words. Maybe.

370 367 That's like saying every homosexual gets caught acting like Michael Jackson-- fucking stupid.

371

Yes, how did they co-opt "gay"?  It was used regularly in W. Churchill's letters.

 

We should have stuck with homo, it sounds funny and technical at the same time.

 

Happy Good Friday everyone.  And remember, as Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world, the reason that you know it's the one true religion is that, in the history of the world, no religion has initially spread as Christianity did, with its followers persecuted, tortured, and martyred in every possible fashion.

 

It did not matter.  Saul/Paul was imprisoned how many times?  Peter crucified upside down? 

 

And yet we worry about small political matters.  We are not yet being thrown in prison for having our opinions.  We are not meant to be on this Earth to just eat, shit, and die.  We are to spread the word about Christ and leave this world a little for the better for our children.

 

If we know ourselves, and know our enemy, then we are ready for the fight.

 

Frankly, the GOP is well behind on both fronts, and we need to get our act together.  I'm taking the first step this weekend and volunteering for a local GOP group.  I plan to have a fantastic GOTV operational with volunteers I know and trust come 2014.  If every one of you is not doing the same, you are not doing your fucking duty as an American.  Pick up the phone, get on the web, and find your people....

 

AND BEGIN.

372 The Media issue is the elephant in the room. No other issue is larger than the fact that we have an uphill battle matching the propaganda ability of Liberal Democrat media. Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 29, 2013 07:18 PM (bb5+k) I agree there. I would think it would be easier to respond to nowadays, given the slow death of traditional media and the rise of the internet. But there has to be an emphasis on conservative entertainment. Not just news, but entertainment.

373 I say we wait a few days. Later.

374 Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 07:26 PM (LCRYB)

I think Twain called it 'corn pone opinions'

375 Okay, SFGOTH, I reread what you said. My brain moved the 'every.' Apologies.

376 Still no real details. One Seal killed, one in stable condition in the hospital. Night training in Mantana, Arizona. Could be mid-air collision I remember a case a while back with the Army's parachute team where two jumpers collided with each other in mid-air so violently that it amputated one guy's leg just due to the collision and the other guy died. It was also out in Arizona.

377

So I don't see what good there is in trying to get a bent adult tree to straighten up. It's not going to happen. (Apart from the small number who give up the "darkness" and find God, but this is almost equal to the new crop of the fallen.)

Most scolding isn't about completely eliminating behavior.  It's about encouraging people to keep such behavior discreet.  I don't particularly care if Bob and Sue are swingers who have a long standing relationship with Tom and Jane.  I do care that they don't broadcast their lifestyle in public.  Go around acting as a pair of normal monogamous couples who happen to spend a lot of time together with the blinds closed. 

It's the same reason that we don't let children watch porn.  We as adults can understand what is fantasy and why the things that we see on film would be dangerous in real life.  Behavior by adults that we find deviant can still be understood to be an acceptance of certain risks because as adults we have the experience and maturity to make those choices.  For a child, the experience and maturity isn't there.  The danger is that they'll be exposed to the fantasy and treat it as reality.  To some extent we're already seeing this happen to a generation of young men and women who've been bombarded with messages promoting sexual liberation.  The result is a generation of young women who have no self esteem and no idea what a real relationship is, and a generation of young men who have no initiative to go out and achieve anything with their lives.  Why work and become your own man when you can play video games all day and still get laid?

378 Louisville and Oregon both seem to be pressing full court from the get go. I hope they are in good shape

379 ace -

Another reason for the approval of marriage equality is that it is easier for LGBT people to come out now, and it is much harder to be against LGBT equality when it affects someone you love and isn't abstract.

380

Good try, Ace, and passionately reasonable, but this seems like an impossible issue to "win" because it is so tied to sex and morality; both are main issues used by leftists to destroy the middle-class family (and, therefore, "western" civilization).  Yes, in this case, Rush is wrong.  Gays and lesbians should have been welcomed into the middle-class family and its values instead of being demonized.  A good education, hard work, development of technology for a better life, commitment to family and the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity for all -- this is (was?) America and it is (was?) a promise for all Americans, not just a privileged group -- in this case heterosexuals. 

 

The history of the United States is the history of more and more Americans being welcomed into prosperity and the good life over the generations, until a minority used this inclusiveness for the victim-rights industry. 

 

Ever since the last ridiculous primary season when so-called "conservatives" proved how small and unprincipled they were -- flavor of the month -- I have given up.  "They" appear to have similar desires to enforce their own morality on society as do the leftists, even if maybe not quite as homicidal.  They cite the Bible, yet their authoritarianism was showing, definitely not quite as lethal as that of marxists, fascists, islamists, but there never the less.

 

What should have happened "from the beginning"?  As Ace said, separate out heterosexual Marriage from homosexual Civil Unions with equal rights and privileges and responsibilites (backed by law).  Let those who are willing to commit to another human being for life and love be supported and let children of those unions be protected.  Let religious organizations choose who to marry, but the government must marry each couple who asks and who agrees to the rights, privileges, and responsibilities -- including "until death do us part".

 

Keep religious arguments private.  Keep the sex private and personal and committed and keep morality out of it.  Virtue is its own reward and promiscuity has plenty of the "wages of sin" to endure.  (The family should be able to protect its children from the lechery of those who would destroy it.) 

 

America is a political idea of freedom and equality of opportunity, not a religious idea.  Men and women from many religious persuasions, even if mostly Christian, and from no religious persuasion, came together to form a more perfect union.  Yes, western religious ideas were a significant part of the foundation, but only part of them.  These western religious ideas also included plenty of exclusive homicidal beliefs and actions toward "others" over the centuries.  We cannot be America and hate, or limit, or exclude those who are homosexual.  Real Civil Unions it should be. 

 

Is it too late?  If so, can we learn from this "failure" and not fail on the many other areas where we (this country) are being pushed to the wall in order to destroy both prosperity and prinicples -- and the middle class family.

381 Ace, I'm going to teach you a phrase that my asshole former boss used 30 times a day. Problem is, he was right: 'Perception is everything'.

382 Is there a verse for that? All I can recall is the "render unto Ceasar that which belongs to Ceasar" one.

That's a common misconception. That passage clearly indicates that thhose posing the question were attempting to be clever by backing Jesus into a corner. Acknowledge that paying tribute to Caesar is worship of a false idol and lose the faithful. Acknowledge the duty to obey God first and gain the ire of the earthly authorities (likely leading to imprisonment and death). He pointed to Caesar's image on a coin and said one should "render to Caesar what is of Caesar and to God what is of God."

They walked away thinking he had thread the needle and supported paying taxes.

I rather think the Creator of the universe choose to be more creative than the peons challenging Him. If one remember the second half of the statement "render unto God what is of God" the question becomes what belongs to Caesar and not to God that it should go to Caesar.

That would be nothing.

Now were a government not to be in conflict with God then there is no need to make the distinction.

383 Thank God we have men who know and God keep the fallen.

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 07:25 PM (LRFds)

 

 

Indeed.

384 Diogenes: Yes, but we can use emotion too. Just nail them with the polygamy argument. Not only is it the same "freedom" "love" "religion" issues, they can have kids, and thus satisfy the basic requirement of marriage. Posted by: Prescient11 at March 29, 2013 06:49 PM (tVTLU) That is not a strong enough argument to overcome the media propaganda war currently being conducted against Conservative America. Firstly, the people won't hear your argument because the media won't cover it. Secondly, once it's done and people start to notice "polygamy" the media will say "Ooooppps!" "Oh well, I guess we'll just have to live with that."

385 Next stop Public schools. I hear if you stimulate the prostate you blow like a top. Health class will be a scream.

386 Colorado Alex

Messages of sexual liberation? Just go out and say it - Porn.

387 Actually, yes, the Church does teach that non-procreative sex is a mortal sin. Doesn't matter what all you do to get there, but the final act has to be procreative, AND in a marriage. And it ain't about Onan, either. It comes from natural law. Read Paul VI. WHOA! Going back to St Thomas Aquinas: he reasoned that due to the fact of nature that a woman cannot become pregnant every time she copulates, sex (between a married man & woman) may actually be for another reason besides procreation. BUT: the sex act between a married man & woman is , according to Church teaching ( I am relying on John A. Hardon , S.J. " The Catholic Cathechism" : twofold God-given purpose: for the generation of children and as an expression of true mutual love between the spouses." "The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life -- and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12). So, while the PRIMARY reason for the married ( and it is ONLY condoned by the Church for married heterosexual couples) sex act is procreation, there is a UNITIVE reason for it as well, based on natural law. Each couple must be open to having children/submitting to God's will for their family; the propagation of which which is the prime reason for marriage. No one ever has to go to confession for having sex for pleasure with their spouse. But hey, don't believe me, go ask a priest.

388 >>>And here I disagree. The problem isn't 'having a kink' - it's acting on it, or justifying it. To read what you're writing, you're saying that social standards and culture have no effect on people's behavior, or on how they deal with their desires. I think that's prima facie wrong. It's akin to saying that how a child is raised has absolutely no effect on how they will live their life, what attitudes they will have, etc. I hate to deal in cliches but the Victorian Era was one of high repression and high transmission of proper standards and it was a paradise for hookers and opium. So no, empirically, I don't think this makes much difference. Let's say I don't want to say "zero difference" so I'll concede maybe some marginal effect like 5%. Here's what I think: I think free people given responsibility and the adult power to choose for themselves will tend to make the best ethical and moral decisions, as a group. I think infantilizing people tends to make them more infantile and makes them ethically and morally corruptible. I think I do believe that. I'm not sure, since it seems idealistic, but I think I am coming to believe that.

389 Still no real details. One Seal killed, one in stable condition in the hospital. Night training in Mantana, Arizona. Could be mid-air collision I remember a case a while back with the Army's parachute team where two jumpers collided with each other in mid-air so violently that it amputated one guy's leg just due to the collision and the other guy died. It was also out in Arizona. Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 07:28 PM (6Sldc) And that shit heel out in St. Louis probably would not want to even give him Honors at his Funeral because he did not die in Combat? I hate Liberals

390 DiogenesLamp:
>> Cambridge club? John Maynard Keynes? Bradly Manning? Serial Killers?

This is mighty unpersuasive to anybody who actually has a gay friend or relative.

391 shit! That wasn't supposed to say Sandra Fluke..it was a stupid pun from two weeks ago!

392 Bullshit. There are plenty of reasons to oppose gay marriage and polygamy that don't require referring back to God. Posted by: Colorado Alex at March 29, 2013 07:11 PM (lr3d7) Of course there are plenty of reasons. But the left has declared that it must be because of religious bigotry. Even if an atheist were to give completely secular answers, they will still say that the objection is religious and thus illegal. I've seen it happen. They don't care about reality, they care about blaming the boogie-man for their problems.

393 On the plus side, if it matters: I do think one issue in which the GOP happens to be on the "right" side of history is abortion. Science is on their side, as we learn more and more about fetal development. Plus, if science ever advances to where you can tell if a baby will be predisposed to be gay, you BET the gay activists will do a 180 and become pro-life fast, call the abortion of gay children a mini holocaust, whatever it takes. Which, of course, will put a wedge between them and the modern elite liberal feminist women, oh noes. . . 


Of course, soon the GOP will concede on that to, to attract younger women to the party or whatever. Oh what a world. . .

394 Hey Ace.... Everytime you complete a paragraph, God curb stomps a hobo puppy.

395 393 Methos,

Caesar *is* God's....

ALL is God's end of story.

396

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 07:28 PM (6Sldc)

 

 

Wow.

397 #393

i.e.

'Let Caesar keep his dirty Mammon.'

398 DiogenesLamp do more harm to his cause than good.

(The tribe of Benjamin? lolwut?)

399 Like what does it matter? I don't get why it should matter. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 06:49 PM (LCRYB) Economics and social policy are interrelated. Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were very good friends and their philosophies dovetail synergistically by design. Look up "Tytler Cycle" Also "Kyklos."

400

Oh, and fuck the "scientists" and fuck evolution.

 

Many of you people blindly believe this bullshit even though these are the same clowns that brought you "global warming" and "eugenics."

 

Awesome...

 

Coming to a theatre near you, gheys are better parents than heteros.  Bank on it.

 

 

Mama Winger:  I was raised Southern Baptist in the South.  Just watch and see what happens when the GOP goes all ghey.  Do you think these people have to worry about the tax rates on FUCKING CAPITAL GAINS???

They'll go back to their dem roots.

401 365
Sean Bannion, Sven, Jane:

Still no real details. One Seal killed, one in stable condition in the hospital. Night training in Mantana, Arizona.

Got entangled perhaps.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 29, 2013 07:23 PM (1Y+hH

I guess I'm still adjusting my tinfoil hat after the 25 SEALs killed in the helicopter in A-stan. 

402 >>>Another reason for the approval of marriage equality is that it is easier for LGBT people to come out now, and it is much harder to be against LGBT equality when it affects someone you love and isn't abstract. right, yes, big part.

403 @391
Yes, in this case, Rush is wrong. Gays and lesbians should have been welcomed into the middle-class family andits values instead of being demonized.

utter bullshit

They were as welcome as anyone else.

Hint : The people that I work with do not know for certain what or who  my sex life involves.

Identity Politics : How does that work?

404 To someone upthread--instead of simply stating your hypothesis and/or belief why don't you flesh it out more with what you think the benefits of your proposition might be. Then when you fully commit to it, you might get sliced and diced like a banana in a blender.

405 /old sock off

406 413 ace,

yeah Ace...I'm an alien from Planet Malthus 36 and I need citizenship...

let's change society

407 Now how in hell is that NOT against the so-called separation of church and state? Seems like the government is mandating what the religious folks can say and do? Posted by: tcn at March 29, 2013 06:51 PM (VLG62) Get used to it. We are heading to a burning time.

408

Caveat:   Mama Winger:

 

What I meant to say is that enough of a % of current socon GOP voters will go back to dem. that all will be lost in the South.

409 I actually detest your proposal more. If gays truly value marriage that is one thing but your belle idea is simply lazy.

410 I do think one issue in which the GOP happens to be on the "right" side of history is abortion

On this one, I am less sure.

Sure, people will tell the pollsters that they want less abortions, but - especially if they're working class and don't have the capital to move to, say, Boulder - they will secretly support moves to limit the flash mobs of tomorrow.

411

Messages of sexual liberation? Just go out and say it - Porn.

I did mention porn.  It's not just porn, however, but an entire philosophy which encourages hedonism and rejects any form of self-restraint (unless you're curious about that kind of thing, in which case I know a guy...).  Pornography is only one aspect of it, although admittedly a very prominent aspect.

412

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 29, 2013 07:33 PM (lVPtV)

>>>>>>>    >>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>>          >>>>>>>>        >>>>>> >>>

 

I understand completely.

 

 

413 Could be mid-air collision I remember a case a while back with the Army's parachute team where two jumpers collided with each other in mid-air so violently that it amputated one guy's leg just due to the collision and the other guy died.

It was also out in Arizona.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 07:28 PM (6Sldc)

 

When I was in the 82nd, paratroopers on static line jumps would occasionally slam into each other before chutes fully deployed.  It never happened to me, thankfully, but slamming against each other wasn't the really bad part. The really bad part was getting your chute entangled with the other guy's at 800 ft.or less, without much time to do much of anything. That's a bad day.

414 I don't know about the issue.   LBJ struck a crippling blow to marriage with how he structured his "Great society" welfare to take away incentive to marry for people on the edge of being eligible for government help.   Marriage has been sliding downhill ever since. 

I am for civil unions for gays.  I do sympathize with the: hospitals can deny visitation and an estranged parent or sibling ends up being the decided of medical decisions in case of one partner being incapacitated arguments. 

  I do NOT want churches to be forced to participate in any gay marriage.   However it may be or it may soon be in the best interest of churches to just say "eff off" to the feds and forget about the 'tax breaks' anyway.     

Or perhaps churches will have to announce they are out of the marriage business, when the left moves to lawsuits for refusing to marry gay couples as the latest weapon against the churches  Tell all couples that they need to work with a judge or "state" sanctioned entity to be legally married in the eyes of the state.      Churches can quietly institute some kind of blessing of the union for what is now called "traditional marriage".    

415 I'm off. I know it will take you too long.

416 #399

Boundaries. Everyone needs 'em.

How would you feel walking across land where there were no boundaries but if you happened on someone's 'turf' you might get shot?

(That's how I feel like in most places in most cities, by the way.)

The more mature you are the better you are at understanding the boundaries, but they need to still exist because there is always a next generation. (this is similar to why 'whole word' doesn't work - end before the beginning.) Because there are real consequences which you may not know where you cross the line exactly, boundaries at the very least need to exist. The culture provides boundaries, while the law creates walls.

417 414 1990 conservatives,

MY NOT BAKING THEM A CAKE AND THROWING A PARADE BECAUSE THEY HAD TO TELL ME THEIR SEX LIFE WAS DEATH CAMPS!

Yeah seriously I love how they are totally ignoring this was hammered out in the 90s and only killed by Bill Clinton and GLAAD handers because they shat themselves when they lost the house for the first time in 54 years....

whatever...

anyone want about 500 pounds of history books and shit I have?

It's all useless because I have found as I age history is very fluid and changes a lot.

418 Less than 40 years ago, being gay was considered a metal disorder. Now-a-days, disagreeing with homosexuality, or even recognizing that there are differences between men and women is considered a treatable mental disorder. As noted above: Examples here: http://tinyurl.com/dykj68k and here: http://tinyurl.com/cfb4cdk

419 "Seems like the government is mandating what the religious folks can say and do?"

Already happening. Catholic hospitals are already required to dispense contraceptives. If they want Federal funds.

AND THAT right there, ladies and gents is the whole issue. You want the money, you dance to our music. Top down, one size fits all. No exceptions.

420 Pope washes feet of young Muslim woman prisoner in unprecedented twist... This shit doesn't work for me.

421

I guess I'm still adjusting my tinfoil hat after the 25 SEALs killed in the helicopter in A-stan.

Jesus H Fucking Christ, that?  It was a lucky shot, nothing more.  And the son of a bitch who did it was wasted soon after.  It's war.  The enemy gets a say.

422 I agree with you that, say... homosexual attraction is very likely to a large degree something a person is born with, etc. But you don't think all fetishes or sexual interests are like that, do you? Posted by: Crude at March 29, 2013 06:51 PM (N3XVc) There is a JAMA study which says that 40% of adult homosexuals admit to having been molested as children. If the "they are born with it" theory is correct, why such a large overlap with molestations? "Chaz" Bono was repeatedly molested for years by the Lesbian baby sitter with whom her mother left her. Yeah, she's decided she's a "guy." Sure she did.

423 Constant lurker, rare poster. Re: gay marriage...opposition is opposing on the emotionally losing issue of "fairness." Where I have a problem is with the churches. If gay marriage is federally sanctified, then the immediate next step is to mandate that ALL religious institutions MUST perform same sex marriages. You know the lawsuits will flood in. This makes government intimately involved in religious doctrin. THIS is the issue, non?

424 Oregon is toast

425 Now how in hell is that NOT against the so-called separation of church and state? Seems like the government is mandating what the religious folks can say and do?

Posted by: tcn at March 29, 2013 06:51 PM (VLG62)

-----------


My son still preaches what he wants, teaches what he wants, and prays with his men as he wants.  No one has tried to stop him.  Yet.  However, he is expecting it to get worse.

They did say something to the Catholic priest he worked alongside on his last tour.  The Catholic priest laughed and did as he pleased.  (He hates the Big O - with a somewhat un-Christianlike hate)

426 ace, "I hate to deal in cliches but the Victorian Era was one of high repression and high transmission of proper standards and it was a paradise for hookers and opium. " Are you referring to a statistic I'm unaware of here? The Victorian Era had a variety of issues at work - economic, the m/f population imbalance, and otherwise. Also, I'm willing to bet if there was an uptick in men nailing prostitutes, you're going to find that the 'high repression' was only in a certain area of society, and absolutely not present in another area. "So no, empirically, I don't think this makes much difference. Let's say I don't want to say "zero difference" so I'll concede maybe some marginal effect like 5%. " I don't think you're going to be able to settle this purely from an empirical standpoint. "Here's what I think: I think free people given responsibility and the adult power to choose for themselves will tend to make the best ethical and moral decisions, as a group. I think infantilizing people tends to make them more infantile and makes them ethically and morally corruptible. I think I do believe that. I'm not sure, since it seems idealistic, but I think I am coming to believe that. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 07:30 PM (LCRYB)" Well, I think infantile treatment hurts them, I think freedom helps them, and I think freedom with the right social, non-intrusive influences help them more - so that much I can get behind.

427 Nor does this: 'RESPOND TO EVIL WITH GOOD' The proper response, Francis, is: Kill our enemies and enoy the lamentations of their women.

428 We also don't have to say that two gay guys need the same advantages of marriage. Unlike traditional marriage they are not going to have unplanned children when they can barely afford it--at a greater cost to one of the partners. That's it. Here's the thing: If hetero couples don't get married, they'll probably have children anyway. That's a bad thing. While a gay couple might choose to create or adopt a child, this is not a trivial process for them and doesn't result from a "night of passion".

429 Destroy the Family, Destroy Religion, Destroy Nationalism, Destroy Responsibility, Destroy the Work Ethic, Destroy Discipline, Destroy Accountability, Destroy the Military, Destroy Dodge Ball, Destroy America. Yup seems to be working Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 29, 2013 06:52 PM (9Bj8R) Yup. And with that I think i'll depart this thread. Those that "get it" get it. Those that don't will need to see more developments at which they can recoil in the future.

430

On the gay marriage thing, I have noticed:

 

I have about 1,700 facebook friends on my band page. Lot of gays. The most the gays have done is change their avatar to that gay rights thing.

 

It's the guilty straights that are all over the place, telling everyone their horrible bigots if they aren't for gay marriage, and putting up ugly posters, etc. constantly. It has dropped off a lot today, I noticed before they have a very short attention span.

431 I guess I'm still adjusting my tinfoil hat after the 25 SEALs killed in the helicopter in A-stan. Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 29, 2013 07:33 PM (lVPtV) you and me both. Sure are an accident prone group as of late.

432 #439

Some will fight and some will show love; this is the history of Christendom. It works better if the martyrs don't hate on the soldiers and the soldiers don't hate on the martyrs, know what I mean?

433

I agree, Ace, that gays have the Bully Pulpit because Hollyweird is on their side (ironic, since gays accuse straights of bullying them, HA!). But you left out public/gubmint schools. Gays have had their way there for years. So they've been winning the   hearts  and minds of our nation's youth through mindless entertainment as well as "education". Public/gubmint schools have been normalizing gay sex and desensitizing kids.

 

I think altogether, the gays' megaphone have wearied Americans. If they've made inroads, I think it's partly because Americans just want the issue to go. away.  so they've given in. They want the assault from the gays  to stop. They hope if gays get their way they'll shut up about   their sexual proclivities. But gays, like all progs, are never satisfied by concessions.

 

Thankfully, most Americans still fight the gay/prog agenda at the ballot box. 

434 There is a JAMA study which says that 40% of adult homosexuals admit to having been molested as children. If the "they are born with it" theory is correct, why such a large overlap with molestations? "Chaz" Bono was repeatedly molested for years by the Lesbian baby sitter with whom her mother left her. Yeah, she's decided she's a "guy." Sure she did. Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 29, 2013 07:37 PM (bb5+k) I actually suspect that some amount of same-sex attraction can be 'learned' or is environmentally influenced. It's simply that I don't think it's the only factor, and that some people can be 'born that way' too.

435 The really bad part was getting your chute entangled with the other guy's at 800 ft.or less, without much time to do much of anything.That's a bad day. Watched that happened to a couple of my Riggers at about 1,000 ft. Then again, their panicking didn't help the situation any. I thought they had enough time to unfuck themselves. Total damage: 1 broken femur, 2 dislocated shoulders, 1 broken arm and assorted lacerations and abrasions. That was a lucky day.

436

It's the same reason that we don't let children watch porn. . . The danger is that they'll be exposed to the fantasy and treat it as reality. To some extent we're already seeing this happen to a generation of young men and women who've been bombarded with messages promoting sexual liberation. The result is a generation of young women who have no self esteem and no idea what a real relationship is, anda generation of young men who have no initiative to go out and achieve anything with their lives. Why work and become your own man when you can play video games all day and still get laid?Posted by: Colorado Alex at March 29, 2013 07:28 PM (lr3d7)

Too late, we are already there. Either 20/20 or Nightline had a special about the number of young teenagers flocking to porn stars like James Deen; he is as big as Bieber apparently. Disney Channel is not cool enough or whatever. The indoctrination of kids to be sexually active before they are ready moves on apace. . .

437

340
Religion, Darwin, take your pick.

 

Posted by: nip at March 29, 2013 07:18 PM (lGVXf)

Wow, retarded. Not that it matters to your type, but the Vatican doesn't dispute Darwin.

You think a giant hand came out of a cloud or something? Like God is that lame?

 

438 >>>and I think freedom with the right social, non-intrusive influences help them more - so that much I can get behind. I like what you did there. You know what you did. In case you don't: I argue against infantilizing people by putting government (and social pressure) on their back to conform, you say you agree with that, except you favor "the right social, non-intrusive influences." Actually I think I'd agree with that, too, except I wouldn't include this notion that we have to sit here every day talking about Teh Gayz and why do they thwart Natural Law and spurn God. I think things stated positively are mostly positive. I like hearing positive stuff about traditional morality. What puts me off some, and I think puts many people off, is so much gayz this gayz that negative stuff.

439

 

Rush Limbaugh is wrong sometimes. 

 

Back in 2011, he said that Barky "is toast"...and also..."Anyone can beat him". 

He's been wrong about other things too.

 

 

 

440 Ace, Agree with that 100%. This is a great issue for people who want to feel "evolved" and look down on backwards-folk. It's also great for the people who were too young and/or cowardly to be involved with real civil rights struggles that were legitimately meaningful and sometimes dangerous. I've been finding the enthusiasm (and anger) on this issue puzzling for a while. Why are married 50 year-olds or straight 25 year-olds frothing at the mouth on this one? There's definitely some kind of weird psychological effect going on here. Because when you think about, this really isn't a very important issue in the grand scheme of things. I also think there's a lot of "advertising" or signaling going on with the enthusiastic support and the malice towards opponents.

441 We have a ghey president so ghey marriage for his peeps is a 'natural' end.

442

Watched that happened to a couple of my Riggers at about 1,000 ft. Then again, their panicking didn't help the situation any. I thought they had enough time to unfuck themselves.

An officer I served with spent time as an enlisted soldier in the Ranger Regiment.  He was haunted by the time that he fell through the chute of another soldier.  He walked away from the landing, the other guy didn't.

443 #451

It's not merely gays that are born 'broken', everyone is. To my mind as an Orthodox Christian, that they might be 'born blind' as it were, is not weird at all; it's part of the human condition and doesn't justify their behavior.

444 443 I guess I'm still adjusting my tinfoil hat after the 25 SEALs killed in the helicopter in A-stan.



Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 29, 2013 07:33 PM (lVPtV)

you and me both. Sure are an accident prone group as of late.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 29, 2013 07:41 PM (DGIjM)

Yep.

445 North Korea: 'outbreak of war hours away' as Kim Jong-un plans US strike North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un has ordered missile units to prepare to strike US mainland as a British tour operator was warned that the "outbreak of war probably only hours away". Some one should put that mad dog putz of a leader in North Korea out of his misery

446 yeah as Amish is discussing, I still don't buy the "Gayz can Love too" argument for gay marriage. It's not about love. Never was. It's about creating a legal structure to make sure kids know where their fucking meals are coming from and (less so now but once) to protect non-working women from the vicissitudes of male sexuality. It's about family and children, not a Government License of Goin' Steady.

447

Oh, and beastiality is next. Mark my words. I saw it with my own eyes while watching the Big Bang Theory (it was also the LAST episode I will ever watch of that show), but I've known about the push for awhile. Melissa Gilbert did a disgusting bit on Nip/Tuck  years ago.  It's coming.

 

I may disagree with Dr. Ben Carson on  the 2nd, but he was right on Hannity the   other night about this.

448 Well boys, I'm not gonna spend my Friday night talking about, reading about, or thinking about gay marriage, so I'm out of here. Have fun though! And happy Easter to everyone.

449 457 Christ Blinky,

I guess pointing out that bark spiking the football and basically outing the EXACT area the Seals came from may not have been good tradecraft is "bad"....

450 >>>I've been finding the enthusiasm (and anger) on this issue puzzling for a while. Why are married 50 year-olds or straight 25 year-olds frothing at the mouth on this one? There's definitely some kind of weird psychological effect going on here. Because when you think about, this really isn't a very important issue in the grand scheme of things. let me agree back at you and say that whenever someone's frothing at the mouth about an issue that affects them not at all you can imagine there's some ego and self-flattery invested in the proposition.

451 #459

yep. If you recall it used to be that the dad protected the girl until the guy married her, then it was his job. It's a structure to protect women and children from immature, dangerous men.

452 I guess I'm still adjusting my tinfoil hat after the 25 SEALs killed in the helicopter in A-stan. Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 29, 2013 07:33 PM (lVPtV) you and me both. Sure are an accident prone group as of late. Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 29, 2013 07:41 PM (DGIjM) Yep. Posted by: ChristyBlinky Loves Florida Gulf Coast basketball at March 29, 2013 07:46 PM (baL2B) Come on. They are dangerous men doing a dangerous job and that includes the training. And that is also what that ignorant dick out in St. Louis does not understand

453 It's not merely gays that are born 'broken', everyone is.

----------




Indeed.  Chief among them, am I.  Thanks be to God for Good Friday.

454 What is at issue here is the simple state license. And that is what bothers me most of all. Let's analyze what's going on here: The push for "marriage equity" isn't because gays are champing at the bit to "get married". They can (1) have a wedding with (2) a white dress (or two) and (3) flowers and (4) guests and (5) a photographer and (6) any presider willing to preside. They can have a (7) reception and ( rings and (9) cake. They can (10) live together, (11) have sex with each other (or others), (12) produce a child by whatever science has to offer, (13) raise the child, (14) have one income or two (Obamaeconomy exempting), (15) stay together forever and (16) die in each others' arms. And they don't need a marriage license. Except for some "spousal benefits" that were EXPLICITLY designed to benefit women who lose earning power when they bear and raise children and now only have the veneer of gender neutrality, there is no great benefit to marriage other than forcing accommodation. No, what this really is about is the Cult of the State. Marriage is only marriage if the State says it is. The State is my Shepherd and I am Its humble sheep.

455

Who gives a shit about the fucking gheys??  I'm not happy that their unhealthy sexual practices allowed AIDS to spread worldwide, but we don't need to to talk about that now do we.  But otherwise who cares.  But in my opinion it's a sin and it's against my religion.  And fuck-all to what anyone thinks.  That's my position.  But no need to throw stones at anyone, just don't force your fucking lifestyle on me or try to teach my children that it's hunky dory.  Until you can teach kids to fucking write and read, and add, stick to those topics.

 

Just out of curiousity, how did AIDS first jump to humans and was it because of the monkey meat eating, or some ghey Africans??

 

441 and Nevergiveup:  Yep, that's exactly right.  I mean, why are we even debating this. We know what they're up to. 

 

THEY FUCKING WROTE A GOD BLESSED MANUAL FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and all we can do is argue their points.  That's what losing is.

456 Gay is either a personal choice, congenital, or that it sets sometime after birth.

The current trend, claiming it is congenital gathers more sympathy because the comparison with being a racial minority.  Most don't think it compares more readily with being born infertile, which everyone would seek a cure.

Viewed as personal choice, a hobby if you will, doesn't give much standing in any sort of discrimination case. Claiming it occurs sometimes after birth does not leave much grounds for discrimination and probably a stronger argument for a 'cure' (people can go blind.after birth, they don't turn into some sort of oppressed minority)

As a choice, there are a lot of people left and right who support individual liberty to do whatever another wants in the own home. Might not be enough to get rid of certain drug laws, but the fringe who would support enforcement of laws against buggery are already on the authoritarian fringe.

LGBT - what does that "B" mean and how would it affect marriage laws if SCOTUS buys into the argument that a sows ear is a silk purse?

If SCOTUS has real magic I would rather have SCOTUS declare people born without a penny to our names as being filthy rich, maybe they can declare than the streets are paved with gold and anybody who brings in a check of asphalt pavement has to be paid at the going rate for gold....

457 Which I guess is why rape and domestic abuse are so inherently disgusting; the fundament of society is designed to protect the ladies and the kids; it is awful when it is used to do the opposite.

458 It's about family and children, not a Government License of Goin' Steady.
Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 07:46 PM (LCRYB)

I'm so stealing that. Think I'll try to use it tomorrow night.

459 It's cheap moral outrage. I remember 10 years ago when a hot, straight (though really neurotic) 21 year old college chick told me the most important issue in the world was gay marriage. Not terrorism, not poverty, not disease, not war -- gay fucking marriage.

460

Posted by: Jerry at March 29, 2013 07:44 PM (dMUGf)

 

As far as why are straights  supporting gay marriage, I think it's to condone their own sexual perversions, albeit straight ones.  50 year olds are leftover hippies and 25 year olds are the offspring of the hippy infiltrated school system; they like kinky sex and condoning this  makes their own seem more "normal".

461

MaxMBJ

Exactly, Christ was the Firstborn of brethern, he opened the "Wormhole."  People like to act as if it does not matter, but believers, atheists, pagans, Moslems and Hindus write their checks base on when that wormhole was opened.

462 466 NeverGiveUp,

I think more Seals have died under barky Choom than any other PotUS....

I don't think it is a "dark sinister conspiracy to stop the truth" I think Giggles is a retard and got 25 on the scoreboard in an own goal because he couldn't keep his goddamned mouth shut and say "they came from Shangri-La."

It is a job so dangerous my mind, that has been around the 75th and knows some Q Course types cannot fathom the true depths of the razor's edge and I spent a lifetime near it.

There are too many days I think civilian leadership holds the entire force structure too cheaply.

463 I think a lot of people favor gay couples being able to contract a bundle of rights like marriage. But they do not want to redefine a sacrament, idea, tradition by judicial overreach. This has transitioned from a civil rights debate to unnecessarily nasty frontal assault on Christians mostly. We have to separate out the marriage inherited from history and what legal rights the state can regulate based on status. Which is why I thought state-by-state civil unions seemed logical. Instead of redefining marriage by judicial fiat, imo the worst option.

464 ace, I like what you did there. You know what you did. In case you don't: I argue against infantilizing people by putting government (and social pressure) on their back to conform, you say you agree with that, except you favor "the right social, non-intrusive influences." Actually I think I'd agree with that, too, except I wouldn't include this notion that we have to sit here every day talking about Teh Gayz and why do they thwart Natural Law and spurn God. " Great - I agree with you. I don't think that's productive at all either. There's a difference between having a good cultural standard and being absolutely frantic about something. I absolutely think that social conservatives have been rotten on this issue in a number of ways. Look, when I talk about social influences and social standards, keep in mind how broad that is. People are social beings. They react to their environment, they move with their peers, etc. If you think I'm talking about a world where neighborly busybodies are peeking in your window every day to make sure you're not masturbating, no, I don't endorse anything like that. In fact, I think social conservatives should be in favor of gay rights - insofar as that deals with same-sex attraction. I don't think a guy who is attracted to men should be fired from his job just because of his attraction. I think a sexually active gay guy is, in many ways, not all that worse than a Roissy fan who fucks a different girl in the ass every month. But I think a society that generally frowns upon the bath-house and the casual hetero ass fucking will be better for it. "I think things stated positively are mostly positive. I like hearing positive stuff about traditional morality. What puts me off some, and I think puts many people off, is so much gayz this gayz that negative stuff. Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 07:43 PM (LCRYB)" I agree with you totally. I'm not advocating that. I'm trying to fight against that - I think it's the main reason we got killed. Again, look at the France marches. Look at the success they've been having in terms of recent polls and getting numbers. See what they did differently. Because they sure as shit did not behave the way we did.

465 I really appreciated the sidebar link to the Baseball Crank regarding this last night. His research into gay marriage  (i.e. gay DIVORCE)  in Europe was enlightening.

466

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at March 29, 2013 07:47 PM (KL49F)

What epsode of TBBT? I am drawing a blank about this.

My biggest concern about the gay marriage issue stems from church/first amendment rights. Catholic adoption groups had to shut their doors because DISCRIMINATION. The Mormon church has LDS Family Services, which performs a similar function, placing babies of unmarried LDS women in LDS homes. (They also provide family counseling and other things.) That will totally get shut down in the future, I suspect. The left likes to pretend that they will not push against religion if gay marriage gets adopted, but, as with Obamacare respect of religion, they lie.

467 #438 Quote of the day:

I think infantilizing people tends to make them more infantile and makes them ethically and morally corruptible.

468 Ace, you're full of shit re gays "always" being 3-4% of the population. Gallup shows that that proportionately three times as many young people are gay than older people. So gay inflation does exist.

469 The reason the French are doing better with this is that they understand the consequences. They know it is a direct assault on religion. The Catholic Church cannot get out of the "marriage business." It is a sacrament.

470 @469 re: ape-human HIV The River is controversial but persuasive. Hooper has a lot of evidence and eye witnesses. Probably a polio vaccine made with chimp parts.

471 Homosexuality: The ultimate evolutionary Dead End.

But alas, our morally bankrupt secular society has placed the misuse of the rectum on the same moral plane as the intended use of the vagina.

Which only stands to reason, since this same self-centered self-gratifying society has long ago designated the by-product of both orifices (babies and feces) to the lowest common denominator of all human waste-matter.

472 Gay marriage  is actually another prog War on Women. It hurts women the  most. Yet, the majority of women are libs, smh.

473 483 Gay people die at younger ages, so it makes perfect sense for there to be a good deal.more young gays than older ones.

474 Oh, pardon me. That was Ace.

475 Oregon is toast? Oregon is trying to pass a law to let 16 year olds register to vote when they get their driving permit. Because it might somehow be "too hard" for them to do it when they are old enough to actually vote. And since they do vote by mail, exactly how do they plan to check that the 16 year olds are waiting until they turn 18 to send off that first ballot?

476 483 Ace, you're full of shit re gays "always" being 3-4% of the population. Gallup shows that that proportionately three times as many young people are gay than older people. So gay inflation does exist. Posted by: CK at March 29, 2013 07:58 PM (LmD/o) Got a link for this? I'd like to see this stat. That'd be very interesting. 484 The reason the French are doing better with this is that they understand the consequences. They know it is a direct assault on religion. The Catholic Church cannot get out of the "marriage business." It is a sacrament. Posted by: Californio at March 29, 2013 07:58 PM (2eIwi) Catholics in France? Since when? Seriously though, France is far, far more liberal, left-friendly, and 'at ease' with homosexuality in a lot of ways. And yet, they've had the most stunning pushback on this issue that I've seen in years. The fact is, for them to be pulling the results they are, you need quite a lot of non-Catholics/Christians/Muslims in their ranks. Recently a pull showed the 39% favor gay marriage with adoption, 36% civil unions, and 20-some percent (there was an 'undecided' left over) favoring neither. That's quite a drop from the previous highs of supporting marriage + adoption.

477 374 This is just more of the Long March through the Institutions, in my humble o. The churches being the last ones standing.
Posted by: navybrat at March 29, 2013 07:25 PM
=====
Episcopal Church all but finished

478 In other news, another cheating scandal run by the teachers in Atlanta..., run by...., wait for it..... Democrats. 35 people indicted

479

Posted by: LizLem at March 29, 2013 07:55 PM (8wqqE)

 

It was early into the current season when Amy made a  "joke" about it. It wasn't  condoning sex with animals,  per se, but it  was to make  mentions  about it  mainstream. Progs are getting the ball rolling just by bringing it up; there was a time not long ago where such a thing was strictly taboo even among Hollyweird. Now, not so much. Merely being mentioned is the  beginning. Get people used to it. 

480 493 Mike Hammer,

You cannot be serious?

Look if Democrat activist educators run an organized systems gaming cheating ring then  next thing you might tell me if the Left is into structural codified voter fraud....

we don't deal in h8 here son

481 Rush Limbaugh is past it. First he started saying he has nothing to say to welfare recipients demanding Obamaphones. Then he gave Rubio a love-in and then said the next day he never meant to endorse his amnesty plan. Now he says we lost on gay marriage and tries to walk that back. I think he's an old man, and prefers talking to fighting.

482 I'm a transgendered lesbian and I don't see what the big deal is.

483 498 For a great time call 867-5-309,

Yeah ever since the castration I still can't get past my fear of the bicycle bar....

484

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at March 29, 2013 08:04 PM (KL49F)

Ahh, I see. Amy saying it makes it less cray, but yes just bringing it up says volumes (though it is Chuck Lorre, so not surprising.)

LOL, I can still remember as a kid, when Doogie Howser aired the Very Special Episode when he—gasp!—dated a singe mother. Any one else remember that? Not that branding unmarried moms with a scarlet S was a good thing, but our culture certainly has escalated on taboos that we openly revile, then discuss in Very Special Episodes, then sympathize with, then embrace. It certainly does make you go "what next?"

485 424 During one mass jump, with chutes open, a dude went right through my lines and we landed all assholes and elbows. With round chutes, it's quite survivable. The bad part is landing on top of one another. Getting tangled with ram-air (square) chutes is a whole other ballgame that often ends badly.

486 >>> France is far, far more liberal, left-friendly, and 'at ease' with homosexuality in a lot of ways. And yet, they've had the most stunning pushback on this issue that I've seen in years. I think France is not as liberal as it appears. I think the elites are just better about ignoring popular will in all of Europe. Well, now the US is catching up in that regard. as far as there being more young gays than old-- as this is about self-identification I'm not shocked to hear that younger people are more casual about telling a stranger on the phone that they're gay. I suppose that the "mainstreaming" of homosexuality will permit a certain number of gay-inclined people to just be gay rather than marrying a woman and making some man's daughter miserable. Let me ask people this hypothetical: If you knew a guy had a gay inclination, but he was struggling against it, and he came to you to ask for you daughter's hand in marriage, what would you say? I have a feeling you wouldn't be psyched about it.

487 "23 For me, homosexuality is either a choice or a mental disorder. It's neither a political movement nor a protected class which, like other protected classes, is to be used as a weapon to destroy our society as it was founded.

Marriage is a contract, not a civil right. It's definition is the union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and the furthering of the aforementioned society.

I have nothing against homosexuals. But do not use your choice or disorder to force the rest of society to bend to your will or the will of the political force that is behind you, i.e. the statists.

Sorry, that's how I feel.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 29, 2013 06:14 PM (tqLft)"

 

Good points. Gays always thought that if they could just prove they were "born that way" it would make all their dreams come true. Even if they could prove it, so what? We can prove  mental illness the same way. It means nothing. They are still abnormal simply because the majority are  NOT "born that way".

488 Ministers who dare preach against homosexuality and who are found out have been hauled in front of human rights tribunals. This is what the U.S. can look forward to. Posted by: I lurk, therefore I am, glad to have left DC at March 29, 2013 06:14 PM Yep. Which is why conservatives are extremely foolish to think this is not a big deal. We can also expect the LGBT movement to next push for lowering the "age of consent" laws and to put the Kevin "Fistgate" Jennings sexual curriculum back in schools (if it's not there already). Same-sex "marriage" is only the next step of many for the LGBT movement. This does not end by giving in on SSM. Not by a long shot. Want a reminder of the Kevin "Fistgate" Jennings sexual curriculum for Kindergarten and above? Google Gateway Pundit for "Fistgate" and also read here: GLSEN-ing Young Children -- http://bit.ly/4sEgyt

489 502 Ace,

Classical answer says "how much land is the dowry?" on the guy's end as well and the Dad thinks...."what connections will her kid have?'

This whole "this is love" thing is pretty new.

490 Alcoholics could argue that they are "born that way" (genetics, i.e. some cultures are known to be drinkers more than others). So,  should we make drunk driving legal?

491 If our "side" offered some way to generally bless gay coupling as None of the State's, or Society's, Business, while still keeping marriage a traditional man-and-woman affair, we might have won. That is, if we offered a middle path, sans gay marriage itself, the public would take that compromise. But we really didn't. Posted by: Ace at 06:06 PM We didn't? My recollection is our "side" offered civil unions and THEIR "side" rejected that. They wanted to redefine marriage or nothing. We had the middle ground compromise and they summarily rejected it out of hand.

492 http://bit.ly/16n97wT

Oh, Look, A Kitty...

World in crisis, so talk about scissoring.

493 Yep. Which is why conservatives are extremely foolish to think this is not a big deal. We can also expect the LGBT movement to next push for lowering the "age of consent" laws and to put the Kevin "Fistgate" Jennings sexual curriculum back in schools (if it's not there already). When that happens, I call dibs on fisting Ace!

494 ace, "I think France is not as liberal as it appears. I think the elites are just better about ignoring popular will in all of Europe. Well, now the US is catching up in that regard. " I'm not sure what you mean there. Statistically, however, France is one of the European countries with the least number of 'believers'. It's around Czech and Estonia in terms of figures. My point there was, if there's resistance to gay marriage in France - if the statistics I've seen hold up, and they seem to - it means that that resistance has to be coming, at least in considerable part, from people who are not motivated purely on religious grounds. In fact, if you listen to what the theme of their march was ("The rights of children trump the rights to children") you'll see as much. "If you knew a guy had a gay inclination, but he was struggling against it, and he came to you to ask for you daughter's hand in marriage, what would you say? " I have no daughter, so my own response comes with a grain of salt. However, I'd evaluate his character and ask him if he loved her, and if she loved him. I'd ask if he was bisexual. If he was homosexual and their attitude was 'we can beat this! we can make him heterosexual!', well... unless there was some brand new therapy or drug that had some amazing results (I do not think there is, not at all), I'd be damn reluctant. That seems foolish. If their attitude was, "well, we love each other. Sexual attraction is obviously an issue, but our love goes beyond that", and if he checked out otherwise? I'd, with some hestitation, approve. I would also approve him with far less hestitation than I would, say, a die-hard liberal hetero, or just a schmuck hetero.

495

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at March 29, 2013 08:20 PM (vUK/h)

 

Reminds me  of when the Israelis offered the PLO  half of Jerusalem and the PLO said   no; they want the WHOLE thing.   Progs/gays/Palis have lots in common.

496 If you knew a guy had a gay inclination, but he was struggling against it, and he came to you to ask for you daughter's hand in marriage, what would you say?  I have a feeling you wouldn't be psyched about it.
Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 08:15 PM (LCRYB)


I would say no. Because he is already suffering from a profound dysfunction.

497 This is the problem with bisexuals: they believe that they have the right to act on it.

498 Same-sex "marriage" has always been about one thing and one thing only:

Subverting the religious liberties of Christianity.

499 If you knew a guy had a gay inclination, but he was struggling against it, and he came to you to ask for you daughter's hand in marriage, what would you say?
---

It all comes back to our president. Mr Robinson musta been thrilled.

500 I don't think Rush is blaming language because that's his business, it's a fact.  The people with the megaphones are crafting the language and we have seen them use it to their advantage time and time again.  Tea Party racists and Republican war on women, except all evidence is to the contrary.  But because they say so, it's true.  It's as if there isn't video or audio or a personal history, just what they say with convincing authority.

501 And I disagree that this was not lost on language. It most certainly was. The pro-SSM side kept talking about homosexuals not having the same "rights" as heterosexuals. (1) marriage is not a right and (2) homosexuals could get married the same as heterosexuals. So even if marriage was a right, homosexuals have always had the same "right" to it (see: Jim McGreevey for one of many examples of married homosexuals). What the LGBT movement always wanted was to redefine marriage altogether to fit their lifestyle. But they didn't argue that, they whined about "equality!!!!" "marriage rights!!!" They twisted the argument, lied by omission and won the movement based on (1) lying (2) language (who wants to disagree with "equality" and "rights", even if those are lies") and (3) unending harassment and labeling anyone who disagreed with them as a hater or homophobe. Not to mention, harassing churches and businesses and individuals and putting their lives in danger by putting them on lists and harassing them into submission. And now, conservatives and the GOP are capitulating to these tactics. The LGBT movement basically used the same tactics as Muslims to drive their opponents into submission (harassment, protests, threatening businesses and families and individuals) and it worked. And now, guess what? They're going to keep doing it, just like Muslims keep doing it, since they keep getting what they want. Brilliant.

502 I think the France thing may have to do with the demographic crisis in Europe, both in terms of immigration and in terms of procreation.

503 507 Clyde Shelton,

That was on Earth One we're on Earth X or whatever....

only one side has been disingenous and nobody should be troubled by the gays judge shopping and running to courts is "no problem"....

I spent my feeble early political capital on "civil unions" backon  Earth One

504 514 I'm pretty sure Islam might be adamantly against it also, I wonder why that's okay? 

505 If you knew a guy had a gay inclination, but he was struggling
against it, and he came to you to ask for you daughter's hand in
marriage, what would you say?

I would tell him he was meant for a life of chastity.

506

Re:  A middle way we could have won on....

 

Trouble is, civil unions were supposedly just such a middle way....and those became unacceptable almost immediately aftter they became codified into law.

 

Anecdotally, I've put forth that I can accept gay marriage if its codification stops being used as a bludgeon against individuals who speak in opposition to homosexuality, businesses who don't feel comfortable working with gay clientele (a la wedding stuff), and churches who don't want gay marriage ceremonies performed on their grounds.

 

It's Not. Good. Enough.

 

They either diminish the severity and scope of the above.....or say that the thought, speech, and association enforcement jackboot is perfectly justified in the name of "fairness" and ending "discrimination."

 

Whole swaths of people just don't care about the real human toll for what they're advocating....and they won't until the government sledgehammer they've summoned with all this comes to get THEM (when THEY'RE the ones not politically in vogue).

 

To the extent we've lost, I'm not sure there was ever a way for us to win with such a fundamentally dishonest, self-destructively hedonist culture.

507 One observation to make: A great deal of opposition to SSM comes from demographic groups who will never vote Republican and will never hold the Democrat party to account for crossing them.

508 514 Strife,

Just wait until they get a load of Abdul...

he is not so polite in his "no" as they are used to...

509 We can also expect the LGBT movement to next push for lowering the "age of consent" laws and to put the Kevin "Fistgate" Jennings sexual curriculum back in schools (if it's not there already). Same-sex "marriage" is only the next step of many for the LGBT movement. This does not end by giving in on SSM. Not by a long shot. ---------- Forgot to add polygamy to this list, since the same arguments put forth in favor of same-sex marriage can be used equally for polygamy. If you cannot deny same-sex marriage, then you most certainly cannot deny polygamy. Age of consent, Kevin Jennings curriculum and polygamy will be the next steps. This will not go away as some naive GOPers think... Justice Scalia predicted this in his dissent in Lawrence V Texas in 2003.

510 you and me both. Sure are an accident prone group as of late.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 29, 2013 07:41 PM (DGIjM)

Yep.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky Loves Florida Gulf Coast basketball at March 29, 2013 07:46 PM (baL2B)

Come on. They are dangerous men doing a dangerous job and that includes the training. And that is also what that ignorant dick out in St. Louis does not understand

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 29, 2013 07:48 PM (9Bj8R)

I seem to have missed some story here.  Anyone have a link?  Not about the SEAL parachute mishap....but the connection of that to SEALS in Afghanistan dying?...and some dick in St. Louis?

511 If you knew a guy had a gay inclination, but he was struggling against it, and he came to you to ask for you daughter's hand in marriage, what would you say?

"get psychological help  for your mental health isssues before you buy a gun consider marriage, son "?

512 520 Cindy mumford,

a decapitation habit we foolishly thought getting past would be reward fuel for our "tolerance"

513 I have to wonder, with the statistics coming out of Canada -- and there will be more from the US -- that around 0.8% of marriages are same-sex, is this really good for gays? Think about it, either gays are roughly 0.8% of the population or they are far less likely to get married, feeding the stereotype of the homosexual as hedonistic arrested adolescent.

514 526 Tami,

They are discussing Mssr. Phelps I suspect...

Barack Obama has lost more SpecOps sailors than any post Vietnam PotUS....

"neat trick"

515

We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay--even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence...  To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choices and sin' and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.

 

516 @509 No need to wait on that so long as ace consents or is unconscious and agreed to leave with you (the new Ohio NAACP rule).

517 The problem with civil unions is that, at the time they were being proposed - and certainly in retrospect - they seemed rather like how 'don't ask, don't tell' seemed: like a stepping stone. Not the real goal, not something that was ever going to be satisfactory even if they passed, and whose entire purpose was to 'get people used to the idea' of such relationships.

518 528 Yeah, everyone is afraid loves tolerance and the Left is full of it.

519 I personally can't wait for the day of political reckoning when the Democrats try to magically align two of their fastest growing sources of pandering under one big happy inclusive tent of peace and tolerance:

The Gay Mafia Fascists and The Violently Anti-Gay Islam o-Fascists. 

520

Sorry for the double post. Lousy mobile phone and spacing issues. Corrected below.

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

Re: A middle way we could have won on....

Trouble is, civil unions were supposedly just such a middle way....and those became unacceptable almost immediately aftter they became codified into law.

Anecdotally, I've put forth that I can accept gay marriage if its codification stops being used as a bludgeon against individuals who speak in opposition to homosexuality, businesses who don't feel comfortable working with gay clientele (a la wedding stuff), and churches who don't want gay marriage ceremonies performed on their grounds.

It's Not. Good. Enough. 

Opponents either diminish the severity and scope of the above.....or say that the thought, speech, and association enforcement jackboot is perfectly justified in the name of "fairness" and ending "discrimination."

Whole swaths of people just don't care about the real human toll for what they're advocating....and they won't until the government sledgehammer they've summoned with all this comes to get THEM (when THEY'RE the ones not politically in vogue).

To the extent we've lost, I'm not sure there was ever a way for us to win with such a fundamentally dishonest, self-destructively hedonist culture.

521 This has been an "All Queer" week on Rush. Fed up.

522 533 Crude,

no they were precisely what was offered...

full secular legal equality and protection for Churches...

and they were scrapped for precisely that reason by the left.

and Fuck them...

I go with God

523 gays should be considered to have been born gay

criminals are born criminals

alphas are alphas


I'm glad I'm a Gamma! Alphas think too hard and Betas are almost as bad. Deltas and Epsilons work in nasty places.

I'm glad I'm a Gamma!

524 Arse, how about the question of gay marriage being lost, came from the fact it was reissued as an affront to freedom???

Freeeedddddoooooommmmmm (think BraveHeart)

525 The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status.

526

Lol, and now I forget to double space for paragraph breaks.

 

....Anyone in the barrel right now? Looks like my turn.

527 If you knew a guy had a gay inclination...
---
I reject the premise, too 'phobic and/or naive.

528 We've lost this issue for the same reason we've lost every other issue: the GOP is led by spineless (oh so electable) scum bags who stand for nothing; so they fall for anything.

529

AmishDude @ 523

 

You are talking about our African American brothers and those residents of undetermined status from Mexico?

530 I'm glad I'm a Gamma!
Posted by: T. Hunter
---
Ever consider renaming yourself Gatherer?

531 Age of consent, Kevin Jennings curriculum and polygamy will be the next steps. This will not go away as some naive GOPers think... Polygamy absolutely. The counterargument from SSM supports is South Park's version of Michael Jackson "That's so ign'rent." No genuine response. Age of consent has been tied to the homosexual agenda in Britain for some time, but I think this has nothing to do with the SSM debate. The mainstreaming of homosexuality in schools and sex education as how-to also is something independent of SSM. In fact, this is a place for pushback. Kids don't need to be fed sex in detail. Just talk about married couples.

532 @535 Appropriately, Strife, I have been wondering how that uneasy gay Left-Islamist thing could last, for ten years now. So a while. So long as the western Islamist flacks like CAIR and Aslan tell them what they want to hear.

533 I have a family member who is an alcoholic.

Should I celebrate his alcoholism and validate it by demanding that the rest of the world now refer to his drunkenness as "sobriety"?

Because, you know, I love him and I wouldn't want him to feel bad about himself or anything. Besides, haven't most of us been drunk at least once in our lives?

So what's the big deal here people?

*sip*

534 heh

quick quiz, sTevo

name that crappy eighties movie version of the classic.

535 538 533 Crude, no they were precisely what was offered... full secular legal equality and protection for Churches... and they were scrapped for precisely that reason by the left. and Fuck them... I go with God Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 08:36 PM (LRFds) Well, I mean even social conservatives largely opposed such things.

536 549 Strife,

I'm a genetic alcoholic in ~90% likelihood...

it's good to know I should just indulge since "FREEEEDDDDDDDOOOOOOMMMMMMM!"

fuck the societal costs.....I'm equal dammit

537

But come on. The sort of people who are primarily interested in words and their power are:

1. extremely political people

2. idiots who just like to parse words because they enjoy wasting your time with semantic games; being a nitwit over the meanings of words in everyday conversation is their idea of a crossword puzzle (sorry, but there's a special place in hell for all the endless liberal word-parsing during the Clinton Impeachment matter)

3. people who read and/or write a lot

 

=================

You're absolutely wrong about this.  Shiftng the meaning and impression of selected words and phrases also shape the ideas they're supposed to describe.  The left has been doing this for many decades.  Like "immigration" and how they are assiduously training all of us (failing with me, of course) to stop using the phrase "illegal alien" and instead use the term "undocumented worker."  THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS AND DON'T LET ANYONE TELL YOU OTHERWISE.

 

Also, "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion."  The fact is, they are pro-abortion.  PERIOD.  The only other choice the left will allow you is which loser you're going to allow to paw your body.  Liberals are the ones who want to force you into behavior they consider "good."

 

538 How about we leave people the fk alone and quit dictating how they behave, so long as its consensual and they harm no one but themselves?

539 Why didn't God dive in front of Eve and Adam and stop them from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

540

Conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very process that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not.

541 @554 Agreed.

Start with the pink mafia and their demands on my approval , acknowledge and  legally mandated consent.

542 551 Crude,

I'm a SoCon after a fashion...in the end this has ALWAYS been about things that are not what it is said to be about.

We knew the Church had to be protected, and the left when they were secure in their power understood it.

All of this drama, angst, disunity, and bullshit is a tantrum by the left ofr our success....

I hate them for this shit.

543 acknowledgment

/vino

544 534 528  Okay, apparently I'm not smart enough to use the strike through icon.

545 "fuck the societal costs.....I'm equal dammit"

Fk me having to pay for other peoples kids. If I pay for others kids schooling, they pay for my drinking.

Guessing the kids owe me 2 million so far...

546 I'm convinced gays are really going to hate SSM. Before civil unions a lot of companies and universities would have "partner accommodations". Basically, if you had a joint bank account, you'd have the benefits of marriage as far as that company was concerned. How easy! You don't have to go to divorce court or anything. How perfect! Then came civil unions. OK, that's a higher bar, but still there's no stigma. No great aunt asking why she wasn't invited to your civil union ceremony. Just sign the piece of paper and you get bennies. Awesome. But with marriage, you have to actually be married. And to get out of it, you have to get divorced. And that's a pretty high bar and most won't to go through it.

547 10 year old son today " the guys were saying that kid was wimpy and gay. Dad, I don't even know what 'gay' means."


tiny voice in my brain - Lucky you , kid. I hope it stays that way for a long time.

But I doubt it.




I like sven, hate them for this shit.

548 Gays can use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justifyÂ’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards....   This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings. It also means exposing the inconsistency and hatred underlying antigay doctrines.

549 561 leftoid.

You act as though people are restricted from copulating with what thou whilst that is not what is going on here....

Marriage was not at all about "this is LOVE!" in western civ until the last ~100 years....

it was about the alliance of families for child rearing and property law....

if the ONLY goal was for the gays to get te legal protections and benefits thereby this was solved in ~1992-1994...

this is about ratfucking the Church and I assure you I will try to ratfuck the whole for hurting my Faith.

550 heh

quick quiz, sTevo

name that crappy eighties movie version of the classic.
Posted by: T. Hunter
---

I give up.

I did have to go  here

http://bit.ly/Ztb9FC

to find out what a gamma is though. I suppose deltas would be the gatherers.

551 563 T Hunter,

Understand in the education 200 courses we were lectured on the Sexual Awareness Congress protocols for kids as young as 9...

they are actively trying to blow up our civilization, I loathe them with all I have in me.

552 "I will try to ratfuck the whole for hurting my Faith."

Just because you believe something?

553 562 AmishDude,

Maybe, I'll go with "guys acting like they aren't married for a 1000 Alex"

They want the parade and their voices to go away...

some of them want to flip off God.....

few of them want "baggage"

554 554 How about we leave people the fk alone and quit dictating how they behave, so long as its consensual and they harm no one but themselves? Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 08:44 PM (m7CdA)

Sure. So when will those consensual people leave the rest of us the fuck alone and stop forcing their degenerate consensual lifestyle into judicial and legislative activism, and into our schools onto our children and upon our Churches?

When?

555 568 Leftoid,

Yeah that's it...man you just solved the Middle East you simpleton....

I am ALLOWED to believe and I am supposed to be protected from the predations of the Government and the insane in my faith.

If you're giving heckler's veto power to folks...I have plans for Islam.

556 sTevo

http://tinyurl.com/chvkfrt


They posted the whole movie ?

wow

557 " I loathe them with all I have in me."

RatFucker, who is "them"?

558 573 Leftoid,

The fucking evangelical America hating left....

if Gays want to lay down with donks they are welcome to the opprobrium...

try explaining "Gay fucking economics" to me for a change

559 On presumption of paternity,

In a lesbian-lesbian marriage, one has a child, who is presumed to be the father... not physically possible...

It is unequal that in a traditional marriage the spouse is presumed to have fathered the child.

Presumption of paternity will have to be stripped from traditional marriage for this new novel definition of marriage to be EQUAL.

Same with all other actual physical differences...

Ultimately, if marriage is about equality, then it will devolve to the lowest common denomination - a piece of paper with two on it - or more names on it if we do not discriminate against bi.

560 Just because you believe something?

Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 08:54 PM (m7CdA)

Yeah. Just like people who believe that misusing the poop-chute as a love entrance is somehow normal even though our fundamental biological design screams otherwise.

561 @567 sven

 they already blew it up. We are all just Charleton Heston now.

562 "Yeah. Just like people who believe that misusing the poop-chute as a love entrance is somehow normal even though our fundamental biological design screams otherwise"

Drinking yeast piss doesn't seem biologically correct either, but Jesus drank it.

563 "The fucking evangelical America hating left...."

Libertarians love Freeeeedddddooooommmmmm, and we don't like your Gods telling us what to do. Any God.

564

Sorry - does not compute.

 

If I hold up my right hand and say from now on, I declare this to be a nose.  How many noses do I now have.  Libtards would say two since I clearly defined my right had to be a nose. 

Nope.

It is still be a hand BY DEFINITION.  You cannot change that fact by simply calling something else.  Ditto with 'gay marriage'.  Marriage is a defined thing - a union between a man and a woman.  If you are a gay male, there is nothing that prevents you from getting married and never has - as long as the union is with a woman.  That is the definition.  It is a thing that is clearly defined and has been so since the dawn of humankind.  I cannot change a car into a train, or a plane into a eggplant  simply by declaring it as such.  You can call it something else, heck you can even create a new word.  It will never be marriage.

 

565 Drinking yeast piss doesn't seem biologically correct either, but Jesus drank it.  Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 09:03 PM (m7CdA)


Really? What exactly is yeast piss?

And is it contrary to our fundamental biological design?

566 579 Leftoid,

typical cop out artist...

that "secular document" you're in love with as a pure intellectual exercise there...yeah READ the first amendment and get back to me.

567 Libertarians love Freeeeedddddooooommmmmm, and we don't like your Gods telling us what to do. Any God.
 
Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 09:05 PM (m7CdA)


Yes. Because God is bad and biology is on your side.

*dumbass*

568 583 Strife,

Quite....

gotta love the detritus thinking "I are outsmart da regular posters!"

Yeah Leftoid you sure did buddy....

there are plenty of secular reasons a spoon is not a fork....

add in the equal protection arguments, the rights to free association...yeah no secular argument against

"OPERATION FABULOUS!" at all

569 "Really? What exactly is yeast piss?"

Stupid, yeast piss is alcohol and Jesus drank it.

570 Stupid, yeast piss is alcohol and Jesus drank it.

Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 09:10 PM (m7CdA)

And alcohol is contrary to our fundamental biological design?

Really? Dumbass?

571 Tell me Blinkroid, what exactly is natural and biologically conducive about anal sex?

572 586 Strife,

just a lucky coincidence on that whole liver thing...

573 "Stupid, yeast piss is alcohol and Jesus drank it."

Sorry to infer that Jesus was real. I'm with the Jews in that the biblical Jesus was not God, or more likely the crucifixion never occurred.

574 just a lucky coincidence on that whole liver thing... Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 09:14 PM (LRFds)


If only the geys had an ass-liver......

575 "587 Tell me Blinkroid, what exactly is natural and biologically conducive about anal sex?"

Tell me RatFucker, we should all breed like Sarah Palin?

Run Rabbit Run.

576  The basic problem is innapropriate application of government to a non-governmental institution.  Licensing for marriage began in Calvinist Geneva in 1543.  It was done because the Protestants had to come up with an alternative to the ecclesiastical courts of the Catholic Church that handled family law.  It ended up being secularized through the back door because Geneva was a theocracy and when licensing began to metastasize to other countries, their governments were secular, rather than religious.  When Christ told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's he meant it.  Taking a sacrament and turning it into something like the piece of paper we get so we won't be arrested for fishing or killing the King's deer was bad.  And we are paying the price many times over.

577 Sorry to infer that Jesus was real. I'm with the Jews in that the biblical Jesus was not God, or more likely the crucifixion never occurred.

Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 09:14 PM (m7CdA)

Whatever. And ass-sex is still a fundamental misuse and abuse of our biological design.

I don't need any religion to point that obvious scientific fact out to me. So why do you need religion to obfuscate that fact?

578 Tell me RatFucker, we should all breed like Sarah Palin?

Run Rabbit Run. Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 09:17 PM (m7CdA)

What does that even mean dumbass?

Oh and, your anal sex is still a depraved misuse of the human biological design.

Why do you hate science?

579 The LGBT movement basically used the same tactics as Muslims to drive their opponents into submission (harassment, protests, threatening businesses and families and individuals) and it worked. And now, guess what? They're going to keep doing it, just like Muslims keep doing it, since they keep getting what they want.

Brilliant.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at March 29, 2013 08:27 PM (vUK/h)

-

And we need to do the same.  Get the millions of Christians   and others of sound morals to begin a vocal protest and blackball campaign against anyone who dares push the idea that homosexual behavior is not a mental disorder.

580 Blinkoid-"Yeast piss" now that's funny. Ace I have to disagree with you this one time. 81% of people under the age of 25 being in favor of gay marriage (according to some polls) isn't the elites getting their way. The gay rights movement has been fighting in some form for over 40 years; initially just to get homosexuality decrimininalized and eventually leading up to where we are now. Sure elites are involved, but there's been an awful amount ordinary people who gave enough of a shit to fight for this over the decades. This issue is "lost" only for those who want to view it that way. More intelligent conservatives might realize that with gay marriage being legal, the societal expectation will be for gays to marry. Then we can talk about reproducing in order to maintain the welfare state and the importance of 2 parent households-issues much more important to Adam and Eve as a married couple than what Adam Jr does with Everett.

581 Frreeeeddddoooommmmmm

Rabbit, Run

582 597 leftoid,

Hey I am not the one who thinks my beddy bye choices need adulation....

I don't get parades for fucking my wife...and i don't need my personal choices validated by undoing western civ.

583 596 Blinkoid-"Yeast piss" now that's funny.

Stole it from Vonnegut.

584 598 "i don't need my personal choices validated by undoing western civ."

RatFucker aka sven, I don't give a rats ass who you fuck, so long as I don't have to pay for your off spring...

585 Damnit, I forgot to change the title!

586 RatFucker aka sven, I don't give a rats ass who you fuck, so long as I don't have to pay for your off spring...  Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 09:36 PM (m7CdA)

Why the fuck should the rest of us pay for the exorbitant medical costs incurred by your reckless depraved lifestyle?

587 227 Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO said gay marriage would win back in 2003. Not sure if Goldberg made a similar prediction. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 29, 2013 06:55 PM Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, stated so as well. He stated that the decision in Lawrence v. Texas now legally opened things up to accept everything from same-sex "marriage" to prostitution to bigamy. Here is part of his dissent: http://bit.ly/bP5Udv That leaves, to distinguish the rock-solid, unamendable disposition of Roe from the readily overrulable Bowers, only the third factor. “here has been,” the Court says, “no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding … .” Ante, at 16. It seems to me that the “societal reliance” on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming. Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama’s prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that “he crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny”); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 199 (citing Bowers for the proposition that “[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality … rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms”); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that “a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage”); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469—473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery). We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,” ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.2 What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails.

588 All I want to do is be left alone to take care of my own self

I don't need your police

I don't need your military

I don't need your God.

589 604 All I want to do is be left alone to take care of my own self

I don't need your police

I don't need your military

I don't need your God.

Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 09:44 PM (m7CdA)

Yes of course. And your version of "left alone" includes judicial mandates that forces all of society to validate your perverted dysfunctional lifestyle.

It's all about your addiction to hairy smell man-ass isn't it.

Well yes. Yes it is.

590 604 Leftoid,

sure champ..."sure"...


hop to it....

I am *certain* you will protect the Hate Chicken brigades' "Cosntitutional right to fuck Churches"....

ESAD

591 Freeeeddddoooooommmmm

Little Strife, I can take care of my own self and don't need your Gods help in any way, in any shape, in any form

You need my help to pay for your own proliferation as you can't do it your own self.

Libertarian I am

592 Libertarians scare the shit out of the right...

593 freedoom?

594 607 Freeeeddddoooooommmmm

Little Strife, I can take care of my own self and don't need your Gods help in any way, in any shape, in any form

You need my help to pay for your own proliferation as you can't do it your own self.

Libertarian I am

Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 09:54 PM (m7CdA)

Blinkyroid,

I never mentioned God. So why do you keep obfuscating your degenerate lifestyle behind the false premise of religious intrusion?

And why should 98% of us incur the majority of the medical expenses brought on by the 2 percenter's disordered and dysfunction sexual addiction?

What the hell is Libertarian about any of that?

595 608 Libertarians scare the shit out of the right... Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 09:56 PM (m7CdA)



Correction: the profound stupidity of hypocritical Libertarians scares the shit out of intelligent clear thinking individuals.

596 Tired of paying taxes for:

Other peoples kids

The Police

The Military

The Church

I can take care of my own self.

597 572 sTevo

http://tinyurl.com/chvkfrt


They posted the whole movie ?

wow
Posted by: T. Hunter

---
One way to kill three hours.

I am an hour in, may as well keep going.

598 Correction: the profound stupidity of hypocritical Libertarians scares the shit out of intelligent clear thinking individuals.

Posted by: Strife at March 29, 2013 10:01 PM (ntNJz)


Why do you hate freedom, Strife?

599 612 Tired of paying taxes for:

Other peoples kids

The Police

The Military

The Church

I can take care of my own self. Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 10:03 PM (m7CdA)

Then why should everyone else foot the bill for your gay medical expenses? 

How do the rest of us opt-out of  the financial consequences of your depraved and reckless behavior?

Riddle me that.

600 Why do you hate freedom, Strife?

Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 10:05 PM (m7CdA)

"Stupidity" isn't "free" Blink. Especially when it is legislated by judicial fiat.

601 Strife, Stupid, etc

I can take care of myself so long as you leave me alone.

I am not gay, but nor do I have stupid shit kids

602 617 Strife, Stupid, etc

I can take care of myself so long as you leave me alone.

I am not gay, but nor do I have stupid shit kids Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 10:14 PM (m7CdA)



Then why are you advocating that society should take care of degenerate people with addictive sexual dysfunctions?

And when those stupid kids of today become the doctors and nurses who have to wipe your ass and save your life when tomorrow gets here, then why shouldn't you have a vested interest in them?

603 "And when those stupid kids of today become the doctors and nurses who have to wipe your ass and save your life when tomorrow gets here, then why shouldn't you have a vested interest in them?"

Strife, You stupid fuck, they will be charging me a thousand dollars an hour to wipe my ass, and paying someone 9.50 an hour to do it.

GD you are dumb.

604 Strife, You stupid fuck, they will be charging me a thousand dollars an hour to wipe my ass, and paying someone 9.50 an hour to do it.

GD you are dumb. Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 10:23 PM (m7CdA)



How do you expect the system to pay for all of that high-risk gay butt-love healthcare ....dipshit?


Welcome home to Libertarianism. You stupid fuck.

605 Posted by: Strife the Stupid Shit:

"How do you expect the system to pay for all of that high-risk gay butt-love healthcare ....dipshit?"

Again freedom hater I am not gay, but I pay for your stupid kids schooling.

Why do I have to pay for your stupid shit kids schooling?

606 Again freedom hater I am not gay, but I pay for your stupid kids schooling.

Why do I have to pay for your stupid shit kids schooling? Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 10:32 PM (m7CdA)


Because kids are a fundamental element of a productive free society.

Unlike the degenerate homosexual lifestyle which does nothing but diminishes society with depravity, dysfunction, and sickness. Oh and because homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end, it can't even contribute the most vital fundamental building block of society - offspring.

So why do you hate healthy societies and science? 

607 How old is the earth Strife? Your best guess.

608 How old is the earth Strife? Your best guess.

Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 10:44 PM (m7CdA)

4.54 billion years.

609 The sky is semantic blue.

610 Strife, your kind believes the Earth is around 6k years old. You vote for them... so you own their beliefs.

611 626 Strife, your kind believes the Earth is around 6k years old. You vote for them... so you own their beliefs.  Posted by: Blinkoid at March 29, 2013 10:53 PM (m7CdA)



My "kind"?

And what type would that be?

BTW, I'm an electronics technician, so you see, science is my friend.

612 so is this some kind of dual sockpuppet shenanigans

613 626 Strife, your kind believes the Earth is around 6k years old. You vote for them... so you own their beliefs. What nonsense. You asked him a question hoping he'd say 6k, and he didn't. Swing and a miss. You don't get to go "no wait you really mean 6k". You fucked up. Own up to it. It's part of what "freedom" is about.

614 Posted by: Crude at March 29, 2013 10:57 PM (N3XVc)


Bachmann, Palin, Cruz, Sanitorium, Perry, etc, etc, all believe the Earth is around 6k years old.

Else the bible lies.

615 "so is this some kind of dual sockpuppet shenanigans"

You mean "Blinkoid" and "Strife"? That's my guess.

616 I think that this gay marriage, and hedonism in general is going to be swept away in the coming economic collapse. Its really tough to be a hedonist when you're trying to survive. Hedonism, and the gay lifestyle in particular require an ease of living that's simply not going to be here in the not too distant future.

617 I don't understand how "gay marriage"-- gays seeking an institutionally recognized relationship/ commitment to ONE partner in a shared (bourgeois) household-- means MORE hedonism. That argument doesn't compute.

618 The Death Of The Family - Mark Steyn  3/29/13


"Gay marriage? It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, “It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.”

That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right. They’ve figured out what, say, terrorist-turned-educator Bill Ayers did — that, when it comes to destroying core civilizational institutions, trying to blow them up is less effective than hollowing them out from within."

http://tinyurl.com/ckffn4u

619 634 Strife,

Yup the butthurt is strong in the Libtard Klan...

and they jedi mind trick Luap Nor Kultists into thinking FREEDOM is trying to undo evolutionary constructs to safeguard the brood...

on the one hand fuck 'em, on the other you have to admire their zeal.

620 Rush was NOT totally wrong.

Fact is, our side is a bunch of poor messaging idiots. The left all acts in unison, calling it "marriage equality", who could oppose that. Since there is no such thing as gay marriage, why did even our side in many cases accept their premises on language?

Since 2 heteros also cannot get married if of the same gender, it proves the laws are about that, not about "marrying who you love", etc.

As such, gays seek special greate than equal rights, and to change the definition of marriage, to permit 2 persons of the same sex to marry, not to allow "gay marriage, since no such thing exists.

There is no parallel with this an inter-racial marriage, but leftist falsely conflate (and our side does not correctly answer in unison) Justice Thomas and his white wife with being discriminated against were they trying to marry some years ago. Since race IS a state of affairs observable to third parties, it's not changeable, etc. you cannot compare the 2. You cannot suggest laws against miscegenation created after the fact not involving the definition of marriage as being equivalent. A black man not being permitted to marry a white woman can prove discrimination directly, a gay person cannot.

Fact is, our side did not show people that Heather having 2 mommies is not healthy for kids, who require contrasting gender roles and examples to thrive, since gender parenting styles are a-symmetric and complementary.

And, no, the absurd argument of the state needing to then require a no issue of license to marry for older or sterile partners does not hold, since all married opposite sex couples provide examples for their nieces and nephews and the kids of friends and their friends kids.

As one poster here noted, the left never sleeps, uses emotion well, and keeps asking for the moon, more than they expect to get, so they end up getting a lot more than even they could hope for. They do not tell their social liberals (like Libertarians and GOP moderates and the Establishment of the Republicans) to sit back and shut up for fear of offending the public for short term considerations instead of focusing on the long term game.

Social conservatives like myself understand this, too bad so many on "our" side do not...

P.S. Polygamy is next, count on it. It's not a "slippery slope" argument. My guess is our clueless side will lost THAT debate soon, too...
 

621 you kinda have to back up a claim if you're gonna say something's a mental disorder. like how would it be effectively treated then, for instance.

Posted by: JDP at March 29, 2013 06:26 PM (60GaT)

---

The DSM classified homosexuality as a mental disorder for quite some time.  Now, it isn't.

As for treating it, that's a good question.  How does that apply to pedophilia?  Is that an "orientation" worth protecting, legally?  See, when we take deviant sexual acts and dress them up as civil rights, and protected classes, this is the pickle we get ourselves into.  Why is the "gay" orientation worth protecting (say like race and blacks) but the pedos aren't (say like race and Asians). Or those into the dead, or animals, etc.

Rush is right on the language. It's not even "gay marriage",. it's same sex marriage.  No need to be "gay" to get it.  And that leaves open a lot of other reasons and couplings beyond "love" and "sex".

622 what about infertile couples, maaaan??? /argument-ender

Posted by: JDP at March 29, 2013 06:42 PM (60GaT)

---

Infertile couples go to fertility specialists for help to conceive, and they in turn have to admit there is something "wrong" with them, as naturally, they should be able to conceive.

So, are gays couples ready to admit there is something wrong with them?  Didn't think so.  Naturally, they CAN'T conceive, EVER, unless they have straight sex.  When they go to a fertility clinic to create a kid, they want to get AROUND nature, not restore nature.

623 on the one hand fuck 'em, on the other you have to admire their zeal. Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 11:16 PM (LRFds)



Their zeal is little more than an ever-evolving narcissism that preys endlessly on the timeless traditions of functional morality.


“Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.”
- G.K.Chesterton

624
Without trying to get too personal, and without wishing to ask the question directly -- some guys really like beejers. This, you might know, was officially a type of sodomy until heterosexuals got wise and made heterosexual sodomy a-ok in the lawbooks.

It's also considered a sin.

And yet some of us really like it.

Mental disorder, then?

--

Homosexuality (male) is a behavior that can adversely affect your health, since you are inserting a delicate organ into an orifice intended to expel biological waste that can be harmful to others.  See, when ya crack open an anatomy or biology text, ya understand the distinctions between straight, gay and lesbo, and the reasons for treating them differently become crystal clear.

Please, enlighten me - since homosexuality is defined primarily by an ACT that deviates from the norm of heterosexual sexual intercourse,  what causes you to commit the act?  Mental imbalance, emotional problem caused by abuse, personality defect due to promiscuous nature, a genetic defect of birth (since if you are born gay, and not straight, its genetic dead-end as you can't reproduce), a disability (your "orientation" prevents procreation, which is the main point we're all here to begin with) or all of the above?  How can you provide legal, constitutional "protections" or "rights" to something when you don't even know WHAT causes it?  Compare to gender and race, as an example.

625 what about infertile couples, maaaan??? /argument-ender  Posted by: JDP at March 29, 2013 06:42 PM (60GaT)


Infertile couples still fit within the time-tested natural paradigm of marriage. And as such they offer a healthy option for adopted kids. Unlike same-sex couples whose predominant definition of a "healthy" environment for child rearing involves the salacious  lifestyle of *open* monogamy. The fact is, promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals, "married" or not.

Also, the infertile heterosexual couple contributes a healthy living example of natural gender design to the overall functionality of a healthy society.

626 Oh, fuck you, Ace:  saying  "Limbaugh is a guy who works with words so his preferred prism is "language.",  is like saying dissing Shakespeare  as a guy who works with words so his preferred prism was "language."

Say what?  You think what Limbaugh has to say (orally)  and how he offers his ideas (aka reasoning) has any bearing on the discussion?

Is there some other mode of expression that words and writing do  better in terms of communicating  meaning and reasoning? Books, essays, and letters, perhaps?

If oral commentary doesn't convey anything meaningful, then why study aka read/analyze what humans have been writing for some 4,000 years?

Ace, deep down, you're shallow. 99.99% of human being don't care about words and their power, but they sure as shit are ruled by ideas expressed by words and writings.

627 Bachmann, Palin, Cruz, Sanitorium, Perry, etc, etc, all believe the Earth is around 6k years old. Else the bible lies. Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 11:01 PM (m7CdA) Nah, false choice and it's always been a false choice. And I don't care if someone believes the earth is 6kyo. But someone tried to make that an issue, and it didn't fly. Disagree if you want, but I really don't care. Those are exactly the sorts of differences that need to be put aside in order for people to work together on socon issues.

628 643 Crude,

add in that that is Leftoid socking me...

I made my peace with the duality of heart and mind...

anyway good observation on your part...

629 I'd be inclined to acquiesce in decoupling civil and religious marriage. I'd still think gay marriage was morally wrong, and that the precedent would really quickly cause societal tragicomedy to ensue, but I'd acquiesce in that. *If* the government and the supporters allowed the religious organizations alone to bless those unions or not as their consciences dictated. I have no confidence whatsoever that they will do that. In fact I have every confidence that the government won't do that, and the supporters *certainly* will not. So no. That, in part, is why they can't have nice things.

630 It's bizarre that these libertarian goofballs keep patting themselves on the back for their bumper sticker "get the government out of marriage." They, too, have bought the mirage that this is just about homosexuals being able to marry. It's not. It's about affirmation, by force, through the power of the state, and eventual participation. The homosexuals wouldn't be happy if they could just marry, outside of the state, like heterosexuals do. They want heterosexuals affirming and supporting what they do as not only an alternative lifestyle, but a superior lifestyle. And, if they don't, they want to beat the heteros and religious folks over the head with it until they comply. Then, and only then, do they think they can silence that thing called a conscience.

631 "I made my peace with the duality of heart and mind... anyway good observation on your part..." Gotcha sven, my bad.

632 Can someone tell me how to easily quote people here? Are you just copying and pasting and adding BTW, I have to say, I'm overall impressed with the comments here compared to places like hotair. People here are far more funny and less RINO than the hotair folks.

633 Preview of coming attractions (sorry for the pun): The San Francisco UP YOUR ALLEY  Fair!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6cu28x

Utterly NSFW, no one under 18 allowed. But hey, these folks just like Ozzie and Harriet, aren't they? I mean, it's all the Same, isn't it?

634 Ace's post omits all of the people like me who couldn't care less whether the government officially recognizes marriages between gay couples, and in fact considers the whole issue to be a bullshit distraction.

Leftards push for gay marriage because they know social conservatives won't like it.  Social conservatives don't like it because they know it is something the leftards are pushing.  And the wheel goes round and round.

This is a political fight engaged in for point scoring, nothing more, and our side is losing.

At the end of the day, it simply does not matter.  Gay couples who wish to marry will marry, regardless of whether the government recognizes the union or not.  Contrary to conventional mythology, government endorsement does not a marriage make.  A marriage is made by the couple themselves.  The state plays no role except as record keeper, and a refusal on the part of the state to record the existence of a marriage does not wish it away. 

Government recognition has consequences for taxation, probate, and other various uninteresting things that tax attorneys and accountants spend their days digging through.  Government acknowledgement (or the lack thereof) of a marriage involving a gay couple does not have any effect upon the rest of us.

Meanwhile there are many important things that do.  We're countless trillions of dollars in the hole, and digging deeper.  Our nation is rapidly decaying by any measurable criteria.  Yet THIS irrelevant nonsense is what people choose to focus on, just because the leftards are making a fuss about it.

Republicans and conservatives are called the party of stupid.  I don't think this is quite true.  I think that we are the party of the easily duped.  The left leads us around by the nose.  They get to pick and choose what they'll promote, because we reflexively fight them on everything no matter what they choose.  So they choose things that will make us look bad when we fight them.  We play into their hands again and again, which makes us look stupid.

635 The only people who truly understand the institution of marriage are those who have experienced divorce.

636 "They give you an engineering answer."

No, they give you the correct answer.  Engineers have this annoying habit of dealing with reality, not "the way things ought to be."  (go ahead, guess what I do for a living...)

637 Ace, I really do not care anymore. Teh Gheys have beaten this subject to death. Next week it will be some other grievance. Nobody cares about this except yakking heads on TV. They are idiots.

638 The set that proposes gay marriage sees marriage as an issue of self fulfillment, larded up with a great deal of romantic fantasy about finding that perfect soul mate.  Marriage is all about them.   This is the reason most of them have not married or could not stay married.    The rise of this view seems related to the emergence of the 20th century's culture of entertainment.  That culture turned the pathetic characters at the center of cautionary tales such as Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary into romantic-and feminist-heroines.

It's a view of marriage that cannot last for the simple reason that it doesn't work very well for the parties involved, especially the children.  It also places a huge demand of society for social services as few of these people have children and thus free ride on Social Security and Medicare. Nor are they huge savers.  All that chasing after the perfect consumer lifestyle eats up earnings.

In my 20s I was pro gay marriage.  I was cured by prolonged contact with the incredibly narcissistic members of the GLBTG community.    Or rather what happened is that by age 40 I had matured and my gay friends visibly had not.   Today I prefer the company of more thoughtful people.  I expect many of today's young people will have the same experience. 



 

639 What I have not heard from either side in this argument is the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled on the general question of Federal authority over any family relations TWICE.
The Federal Government has no authority to regulate marriage, gay OR straight. In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that “under the Constitution, the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.” (Sherrer v. Sherrer, 194 . Even in the judicial activism of the 1970’s, the Court again held that the regulation of “domestic relations” is within the “virtually exclusive province of the states.” (Sosna v. Iowa, 1975).
I have no problem with same sex couples having the same rights as opposite couple pairs, but leave it in the STATES where it belongs.

640 Gay marriage wasn't "lost".

It was a stupid hill to pick to die on.

Instead of trying to ban gay "marriage", congress should have banned government from forcing any church to perform a religious ceremony for said couples. A much more important hill, in my opinion.

641 656:

Which seems brilliant, until you realize that IS what the left and the militant homosexual factions were after. Lawsuits are already on tap to force people to agree and support same sex marriage in the almighty name of tolerance, and it's also already happened in other nations.

These folks will not be sated with same sex marriage being legal. They want to ram it down your throat, too.

642 "Instead of trying to ban gay "marriage", congress should have banned government from forcing any church to perform a religious ceremony for said couples. A much more important hill, in my opinion." When the Supreme Court feels free to invent laws for us, there's no point in such gestures.

643 LOL-An overused word that can reflect bad things of a culture more at ease with screens than with face to face engagement, but useful in describing some of the comments I read. 1. Gays fuck. Heteros fuck. Some are extremely promiscuous (hello frat boys and girls?) others, not so much. People have been doing so outside of the bounds of marriage literally since the dawn of humankind. What was once vulgar (going down on a woman, BJs etc) has become acceptable over the centuries-after all while going down on Kate Upton circa 2013 may be a sacred ideal to me, a Vesuvian Kate Upton circa 69 probably wouldn't be the healthiest thing-standards of hygenie differ after all. 2. It is extremely patronizing (so patronizing, almost, as liberals who question why I "need" an AR-15 or who question why we don't "need" nationally subsidized healthcare) to posit that gays shouldn't marry because of someones negative personal encounter or use of decades old "studies". Homosexuality is defined by attraction between 2 same sex human beings. Sure, gay sex is often used to define homosexuality; so too has hetero sex always been used to define heterosexuals. There's a reason why the lady in "Baby it's Cold" is worried what the neighbors will think of her spending the night. Shit even the most bigoted, anti gay, anti woman cultures (where we at Middle East Muzzies?) explicitly forbid women from being "immodest" with the idea that they will sexually tempt men. 3. 2 loving parents, straight or gay, will always be better for a child than an often chaotic foster care system. Period. Whose to say a child raised by 2 moms won't find a male role model to emulate, that his mothers won't know anything about men or have wonderful men in their lives? Thats the same thing as saying "why the fuck should I ask a Catholic priest about marital issues, he literally has no idea about what a women looks like naked, let alone being married to one ?" Considering how many heteros either a)decide to never marry these days or b)think of kids as an unwanted burden, it's extremely hypocritical to blanket all gays as dirty sex machines. 4. The Earth is a few billion years old. This belief in no way diminishs a belief in G-d, or for Christians, a belief in Him having a Son. In the 21st fucking century believing anything else is going to make you look retarded, sorry.

644 *going down on a Vesuvian Kate Upton circa 69 wouldn't be the healthiest thing I guess I never learned to measure twice and cut once

645 1. Gays fuck. Heteros fuck. Posted by: Danny at March 30, 2013 04:36 PM (vSp/O)


This post is simply overloaded with baseless nonsense and outright misinformation:

First the irrefutable biology:

All that gays do is fuck. And contrary to our observable naturally ordered design, they fuck an orifice that is specifically designed for exit only. "Exit-only" in an orifice designed specifically and exclusively to excrete the most vile germ-ridden waste the body can produce. An exit-only orifice that lacks any natural lubrication and is prone to easily tear. And when it tears it provides a dangerous combination of direct blood supply contact within a heavily polluted environment of bacterial and viral waste matter.  And as such, homosexuality has resulted in it's own propensity towards otherwise rare diseases and deadly diseases. HIV AIDS, and specific cancers of the head, neck, and rectum. Oh and just recently, a strain of meningitis that has developed in sexually active HIV positive homosexuals.

And homosexuality by its very nature has a promiscuity rate far greater than that of heterosexuality. In fact, promiscuity is the acceptable norm in same-sex lifestyles. Hence the contradictory and self-defeating term of  open-"monogamy" in homo-verbiage.

However, heteros have the distinct ability to *reproduce*. Reproduce by actually using the orifice and the gender combination specifically designed for that purpose. And because they reproduce, they produce the most basic and vital component for all of society - offspring.

And all credible analysis has proven that children receive the best possible societal upbringing in the environment of a health monogamous heterosexual marriage.

And offspring (and the monogamous hetero paradigm involved)  is specifically why marriage has been a universally recognized and restricted institution in every thriving society since the dawn of humanity, regardless of race, creed, geographic location or time period.

646 It's pretty obvious to me that the only gays that you of personally are the ones in 50s era studies. Frankly the promiscuity argument is total bullshit, as I can dig up quite a few straights who cheat on their spouses or girlfriends. Some gays will be promiscuous, other not so much. I personally know several gay couples every bit as faithful as some of the hetero couples I know. I love how you mention "offspring" as if we didn't live in a world full of people who marry and never reproduce. As if there arent plenty of kids put up for adoption by parents who don't want them. You probably aren't much brighter than the lawyer that Justice Kagan had to explain the birds and the need tovwhen he argued that there "is likely to be someone fertile in a 55 year old couple." (Goddamn you made me say something nice about a liberal justice. You sir are wicked) And although this may have escaped you, STDs happen to straights as well. I love giving oral, but there's a chance for HPV to be spread that way. Sexual health is a concern of both orientations. The only good I can see in this is that now I know why gay marriage is lost- most Americans of all stripes find your style too cruel to want to listen to. And if Dick Cheney of all people is for gay marriage, I'll take his judgment anyday over yours. How many terrorists have you water boarded?

647 662 It's pretty obvious to me that the only gays that you of personally are the ones in 50s era studies. Posted by: Danny at March 30, 2013 06:35 PM (vSp/O)

And you would be wrong.

I have one sibling, two close friends, and 4 different associates and colleagues over the years who were gay/lesbian. And non of them were anything close to monogamous in their myriad of unsettled relationships.

And yes, the well established historical body of research on this bears this out: http://tinyurl.com/cyqozmg

And the recent contrary studies have relied on selectively sampled and small case studies, and are often performed by researchers who themselves are inclined to same-sex attraction or who are already sympathetic to same-sex political advocacy.

648 I can dig up quite a few straights who cheat on their spouses or girlfriends.

So you want to validate the morality of same-sex unions based on the immorality of heterosexuals.

Brilliant.

649 I love how you mention "offspring" as if we didn't live in a world full of people who marry and never reproduce. As if there arent plenty of kids put up for adoption by parents who don't want them.


Militant Gay Activists drove Catholic Charities in Illinois out of the adoption business. Catholic Charities provided 20% of all adoptions in the state.

Tell me again how gay/lesbians are so deeply concerned about the children - will ya?

Oh and, children who live in the environment of same-sex couples actually fair much worse than others.

650 Well THAT was a bizarre clusterfuck of a post. WHAT THE FUG was supposed to have happened there? Was the post supposed to rear up rampant and then lose its mind, run around in circles, and chew its own leg off before toppling over?

651 Since when has the Almighty ever been in favor of old folks procreating?

652 I want to point out the gross hypocrisy in saying that all gays are promiscuous people incapable of commited relationships-plenty of us straights have rather sizable glass houses. You knowing those that you know isn't enough; is it really sound policy to say "we should keep said law because a group of people acts entirely the same across the board?" Of course not-no group of people acts entirely the same. You being the scientifically grounded type (I mean hell you definitely answered correctly the Earth age question, unlike some prominent GOPers) I'm suprised you are able to argue that gay marriage somehow has an impact on straights.

653 668 I want to point out the gross hypocrisy in saying that all gays are promiscuous people incapable of commited relationships-plenty of us straights have rather sizable glass houses. You knowing those that you know isn't enough; is it really sound policy to say "we should keep said law because a group of people acts entirely the same across the board?"
Of course not-no group of people acts entirely the same.

You being the scientifically grounded type (I mean hell you definitely answered correctly the Earth age question, unlike some prominent GOPers) I'm suprised you are able to argue that gay marriage somehow has an impact on straights. Posted by: Danny at March 30, 2013 07:23 PM (vSp/O)




I didn't say all gays are promiscuous. I said the vast majority are.

And they are.


And again, the only way you can validate the immorality of homosexual couples is to cite the immorality of heterosexual couples. That's a self-defeating argument by its own rationale.

And since homosexuality is (in and of itself) an evolutionary dead-end incapable of procreation, AND coupled with the self-evident fact that it is an explicit misuse and abuse of our naturally ordered biological human design, AND, the fact that it is inherent to psychological and physiological disease, makes for an overwhelming case against societal validation of the disordered and perverse tendencies that are innate to such an addictive sexual deviation.

Your arguments are based on nothing more than overly sentimental emotionalism driven by an inherent narcissistic overreaction to your internal guilt and neurosis.

654 Actually, I'm not the one making blanket assumptions. I don't need to "validate" anyone's morality because-get this-I don't believe the state has a right to interfere in the actions of two people. I believe that homosexuality isn't a choice any more than me fawning over Kirsten Dunst in 2nd grade was a choice. With that in mind, I don't consider myself or the state to which I am a voting citizen special enough to tell a gay couple not to marry. My line in the sand is two human beings of age and consent who wish to marry. You always refer to gays as evolutionary dead ends. Well amigo, kids with Down syndrome and cerebral palsay are also evolutionary dead ends-they almost always can't reproduce. Do they merit our derision for being born that way? I measure all human beings in my life by the same measuring stick; if we were to apply your sentiments towards gays to other "evolutionary dead ends" we would be staring at a very scary road indeed. Far from being overly emotional, it is your sense of panic over gays being allowed to marry that is far more emotional (certainly not "emotionless judgement"). I will keep repeating this salient point: the disintegration of the family, a 72% percent absentee father rate in the African American community alone, and people desiring careers before marriage all have nothing to do with gay rights.

655 670 Actually, I'm not the one making blanket assumptions. I don't need to "validate" anyone's morality because-get this-I don't believe the state has a right to interfere in the actions of two people. Posted by: Danny at March 30, 2013 09:08 PM (vSp/O)


Really?

Then why are gay-activists demanding that the state and federal govt mandate formal validations of their lifestyles?

656 I don't believe the state has a right to interfere in the actions of two people. Posted by: Danny at March 30, 2013 09:08 PM (vSp/O)




Your motives are bullshit.

To quote Mark Steyn :



“It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.

That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right. They’ve figured out what, say, terrorist-turned-educator Bill Ayers did — that, when it comes to destroying core civilizational institutions, trying to blow them up is less effective than hollowing them out from within."

657 I don't need to "validate" anyone's morality because-get this-I don't believe the state has a right to interfere in the actions of two people.


You demand that the state stay out of peoples bedrooms. And then to justify the state's mandated validations of same-sex bedrooms-

you cite other people's bedrooms:

I will keep repeating this salient point: the disintegration of the family, a 72% percent absentee father rate in the African American community alone, and people desiring careers before marriage all have nothing to do with gay rights.

*facepalm*

658 I emailed this to Ace but I thought I'd throw my two cents in, which is probably what it's really worth: So I've been thinking about this supreme court case. Whether Gay marriage can be banned, be legal, whatever. It occurred to me that this is not about a society we want to have but simply about money. Who has it, who has to pay it, who gets it. The arguments seem to center around how unfair it is that gay couples have to pay estate taxes, how they don’t get the tax benefits married heterosexuals do. I was reminded of a Boston Legal episode, the final one actually, where William Shatner’s character married James Spader’s character. They were not homosexuals (hetero as they come, sleazy in fact) but wanted to in fact protect themselves and their assets. While they did love each other, it was as brothers. Shatner’s character was declining in health and had considerable wealth. He trusted Spader’s character to take care of him and marriage gave him the rights and authority to do so. So being gay is a preference, right? Men that prefer other men rather than women? So I prefer chess to checkers, does that make me a protected minority? Do I get civil rights and tax laws based on such a thing? As conservatives, we really hate the government picking winners and losers, i.e. Oil companies get heavily taxed while we throw money and tax breaks at Solendra and whatnot. We believe the market should let these things sort out, that the government should not penalize or help legal businesses attempting to make a product and let the market decide that. If I prefer to be an oilman rather than a teacher, I should not be taxed differently. So if men prefer other men, should they be penalized? Or rather: should marriage be encouraged through tax laws? We don’t like the mortgage deduction, community reinvestment act, and artificially low interest rates because those things mess with the natural market forces that could cause the housing market do exactly what it did. (Go kaboom.) So why do we accept the government to mess with social contracts like marriage? If a person decides to remain single, if that’s his PREFERENCE, why is that person penalized through the tax code? Why do we accept that in a free society, our preferences to whatever pursuit of happiness we choose can be condoned or condemned by the government? We should be able to do whatever we want as long as they do not impinge on the bill of rights and other’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We say “leave it up to the states”, why? Why does any government have any say in this, for or against? However a person chooses to live his or her life, these personal decisions should not have to take into account whether or not we get a break on our taxes. If the government stays out of this altogether, if the tax code was say.. a flat 14%, then marriage-gay or otherwise- is no longer an issue. No one would care! Get rid of the immoral death tax and a person’s will would take care of the rest, would it not? For christsakes, if an old lady can leave her fortune to her cat, a gay man should be able to leave his to his lover. If a person takes responsibility for his own health and names someone to be his caretaker in his declining years, would Shatner and Spader need to get married? Churches can make these personal decisions and thanks to freedom of religion, if one church condemns, another will permit. The issue is how to let one group into a framework that allows certain privileges to those who made a personal choice: men and women choosing to get married. Now men and men or women and women want to be allowed to work within that framework. Soon non-homosexual men will marry to get these rights so being single won’t be such a penalty. Then polygamists, then who knows what. The answer isn't for the government to decide who will and won’t be permitted to play in the framework, the answer is to DISMANTLE the FRAMEWORK.