« | »

AP Apes NYT On GOP And ‘Gay Marriage’

Some more ‘homosexual marriage’ agit prop parading as news from the Associated Press:

Dems: Opportunity as gay marriage acceptance grows

By Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public’s growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating their party’s hard-line opposition to an issue that long has rallied its base.

In recent weeks, Vermont and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage, while New York, Maine and New Hampshire have taken steps in that direction. Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations. For now at least, the public is much more focused on the troubled economy and two wars than on social issues.

In addition, over the past decade, public acceptance of gay marriage has changed dramatically

With congressional elections next year, Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan analysts [sic] say the changes benefit Democrats, whose bedrock liberals favor gay unions, and disadvantage Republicans, whose conservative base insists that marriage be solely between a man and a woman…

In recent months, proponents have used state legislatures and court challenges to legalize gay marriage, mindful that the majority of the public still isn’t supportive and successful ballot measures would be less likely

For years, the GOP and its conservative base has used its opposition to gay marriage to drive Republican turnout in elections and marginalize party moderates. Measures defining marriage between a man and a woman that were on ballots in a slew of states in 2004 were widely credited with boosting the number of conservative voters, giving Republican George W. Bush an edge over Democrat John Kerry.

But there’s been conflicting evidence since then over just how much that contributed to Bush’s victory.

What’s certain is that opposition to gay marriage for decades has been a potent tool for the GOP in rallying social conservatives. They are critical to the party’s grass-roots organizing and small-dollar fundraising.

But as more states accept gay and lesbian unions, there is a debate inside the party over how it should position itself on the issue. The dispute is just one part of a broader struggle within the out-of-power GOP over its identity and whether it should focus on rallying conservatives or attracting supporters from across the political spectrum.

Some prominent Republicans are backing away from cut-and-dried opposition, and some party operatives say it’s only a matter of time before others follow suit because the country is changing.

Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, a Mormon who is a potential presidential candidate, backed a 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But he says he favors civil unions and extending some legal rights to gay couples.

Last month, John McCain’s chief campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, told the Log Cabin Republicans: "Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds … that the party might be in the wrong on the question."

The shifting landscape is emboldening the gay-rights’ movement, a pillar of the Democratic Party’s left flank.

"We are at a tipping point moment," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading advocate of gay rights. "The lingering minority that continues to think that the way to win is to hold GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) people up as a wedge could not be more out of touch."

Once again we are the victim of journalistic malpractice as the our one party media push their agenda.

Just like the New York Times did last week, the Associated Press cites two people to substantiate its claim that the Republican Party is changing its stance on ‘homosexual marriage.’

And, just as The Times did, the AP characterizes remarks from a Republican Mormon(!) as proving their point:

Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, a Mormon who is a potential presidential candidate, backed a 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But he says he favors civil unions and extending some legal rights to gay couples.

How does this show that Gov. Huntsman is in favor of ‘homosexual marriage’?

Further parroting the New York Times, the AP turns to their now favorite McCain ex-staffer, Steve Schmidt, for their money quote – such as it is.

(Once again we are no where told that Mr. Schmidt is a man who has argued long and hard against the conservative social agenda.)

Yet even Mr. Schmidt admits that the majority of Republicans still oppose ‘homosexual marriages.’

Still, this is good enough for the Associated Press to claim there is a trend.

Never mind that everywhere voters have been allowed to have a say on the issue, such as in the very liberal state of California, they have voted strongly against ‘homosexual marriages.’

But this is the kind of propaganda we are fed by our media masters each and every day. And they wonder why people are getting sick of paying for it.

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, May 2nd, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

67 Responses to “AP Apes NYT On GOP And ‘Gay Marriage’”

  1. proreason says:

    If marriage isn’t sacred, what is?

  2. Anonymoose says:

    Like I said a few days ago, not a single state has approved this by popular majority. After seeing what’s happened to the opponents of Proposition 8 I think a lot of people are keeping quiet to avoid being harassed, and the silence is seen as “acceptance.”

    • Liberals Demise says:

      It doesn’t matter what the majority wants and VOTES for…..
      the perverted Left Wing Homo Drones and Bull Dykes make threats and show their tolerance by destroying others’ personal property and forcing their bedroom antics upon an unwilling sector of our society!! Then they think that it is okay!

      Hey Media Anal Ports :
      Don’t give us a “Golden” shower and then report that it is raining!!

    • catie says:

      Amen Odie, hear that Richie-AN OPINION IS NOT DISCRIMINATION unless of course you’re a lefty and then anything that disagrees with your opinion is discrimination. And you folks tell us you’re the tolerant ones. I’ve never met a tolerant lefty. Just because one believes a marriage (and you claim to be married to “a wonderful gal”-bet she loves being called a gal-for 28 years) is between a man and a woman does not make one a hater. How sad for you to be so unhappy with yourself.
      So, do you and all of your Huff Po and Kos friends come here often or did Olberdouche just turn you on to this place?

  3. Petronius says:

    This propaganda piece is an example of Liberal ideological thinking in its milder form. To the Liberal mind, his or her support for gay marriage is based on (or more precisely, from an outsider’s point of view, is justified by) abstract principles of equality, social justice, civil rights, reform of imperfect institutions, humma, humma, principles which all people of good faith must certainly cherish, blah, blah. The unstated inference here is that those who do not cherish the abstract principles of equality, social justice, humma, humma, are either ignorant and stupid, or malicious (people of bad faith––homophobes, racists, etc.). The author of this piece has chosen to be generous, because she is willing to suspend belief that Republican leaders are malicious. Instead she finds signs of hope––tiny bits of evidence suggesting that Republican leaders are becoming enlightened on the subject of gay marriage. And why not? After all, belief in the perfectibility and rationality of human nature are also gods in the Liberal pantheon. In other words, although the Republican base may be stupid and hateful, there are a few people of good faith among the Republican leadership who share the universal values of Liberalism. Of course it would never occur to the Liberal author that she is out of touch with reality––that the assault on traditional marriage is inconsistent with long practical experience (the biological sciences, sexual reproduction, all of human history, the struggle to build and preserve Western Civilization, the family as foundation for future generations, protection of children, etc.). For the Liberal, abstract principles will always trump reality.

  4. Richard674 says:

    It’s amazing to me the lengths that conservatives will go to defend discrimination.

    If marriage isn’t sacred, what is?

    In terms of the law, nothing. Sacred implies a metaphysical or religious origin. Marriage is simply a legal agreement, recognized by the State. Marriage ceremonies are often church bound, and are pleasant little events, but carry no legal weight.

    the perverted Left Wing Homo Drones and Bull Dykes make threats and show their tolerance by destroying others’ personal property and forcing their bedroom antics upon an unwilling sector of our society!! Then they think that it is okay!

    This kind of thing is a problem for your side. You should try and moderate these kinds of posts. I’ve been married to a wonderful gal for 28 years and I don’t feel any threat to my marriage by supported gay marriage. Forcing bedroom antics on a unwilling society? You are beyond stupid and are edging toward pathological paranoia. Get help or find a tall building and do the honorable thing.

    that the assault on traditional marriage is inconsistent with long practical experience (the biological sciences, sexual reproduction, all of human history, the struggle to build and preserve Western Civilization, the family as foundation for future generations, protection of children, etc.). For the Liberal, abstract principles will always trump reality.

    Assault on traditional marriage. Explain to me please, how gay marriage threatens or diminishes my traditional marriage. All of human history, eh? Ok, so 150,000 years ago when the homo sapien species emerged from Cro Magnon, actually co-existed with Cro Magnon and Neanderthal, marriage was defined as the union of one man and one woman? That’s interesting because when one studies just a little anthropology, one finds a veritable smorgasbord of arrangements between men and women. Sometimes many husbands, one wife. Sometimes many wives, one husband. Sometimes men with men. Sometimes women with women. Sometimes one man, one woman. The interesting thing about traditional marriage, is that it’s not all that traditional. What’s really funny about the conservatives on this issue, is they somehow think they will stop this next step in our evolution as a society. Have at it gentle souls. Puff yourself up with all the rightous indignation you can muster. Perch proudly on the canard of your moral superiority. And when society doesn’t collapse as result of allowing two individuals who love each other and wish to live their lives to enter into a state recognized legal living arrangement, go quietly into that good night of historical irrelevance.

    • gipper says:

      You forgot to address the biological sciences in your rebuttal.

      Do you think sperm was meant to travel up a rectum?

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Get over yourself college boy!!
      Prance with your underwear on your head ….. as long as you do it in the “PRIVACY” of your own home!!

      So…you want to deny me my right to free speech but you feel it is okay for you to dispense your sense of psycho babble because you can. You can……..just not to me!!

      What would you happen to possibly know about “HONOR” mister?

      I suggest you take your fence post sitting rump to another sight where principles mean nothing and Honor is nothing more than a 5 letter word!

      You don’t impress me with your bleeding heart and your better than thou attitude …………… Dick!!

    • Richard674 says:

      Do you think sperm was meant to travel up a rectum?

      I don’t sperm was “meant” to do anything except fertilize an egg and contribute it’s genetic material to that effort. By your reasoning I would guess you would claim sperm wasn’t meant to swim around in a test tube either but it does.

      So…you want to deny me my right to free speech

      No, actually I’m all for your right to free speech. In fact I would encourage you to voice your viewpoints on this topic everywhere you can. Quit this anonymous forum and write a lengthy LTE (letter to the editor) of your local newspaper. Call your local representative and your US Congressperson.

    • proreason says:

      You’re queer and you’re proud of.

      Good for you. Go join Alcee Hastings staff. Celebrate bestiality for all we care.

      Just celebrate your perversion du jour in private and keep your aberrations away from our children. We don’t want you persuading them that being queer is normal and just another lifestyle choice. The reasons are many, but include the anger that eats away at your lives, the fact that you die 10 to 20 years before normal people, the fact that you don’t reproduce, and the mental illness that plagues your brethren who can’t accept these irrefutable facts.

      As you know, the problem with any argument that you can come up with is that it will be rebutted by nature. Queers don’t reproduce.

      But if you aren’t the kind of queer who is filled with hatred because you got shafted by nature (like Drooling Barney or the grotesque Miss USA judge), and you are content to enjoy the freedoms of a country that doesn’t cut your head or your genitals off, than enjoy yourself quietly. And if you want to have the kind of legal rights that 99.9% of cultures throughout history have reserved for men and women, be happy with the fact that you can get those rights in this country.

      On the other hand, if you aren’t content with that, know that the perversions the maniacally irresponsible left insist upon celebrating are exactly the ones which are ripping this country apart, and that if that happens, your life will be so much more miserable than it is today, you can’t even imagine it. Well, actually, you will die in a very gruesome way at the hands of people from other countries who don’t have the generosity of those in this country who tolerate your perversions but oppose the ludicrous concept of “marriage” for queers.

      Have a nice day.

    • gipper says:

      “I don’t sperm (sic) was “meant” to do anything except fertilize an egg and contribute it’s genetic material to that effort. By your reasoning I would guess you would claim sperm wasn’t meant to swim around in a test tube either but it does.”

      You have admitted that sperm is designed for a specific purpose. So, too, is the penis. A penis is designed to transfer the sperm and its genetic material to the ovum in the fallopian tubes during coitus. A penis is not designed for a rectum.

      I don’t think ova can be found in a rectum, unless you’re talking about a bird’s cloaca, and even then, the bird is FEMALE.

      Sure sperm can swim around in a test tube, but that’s not for what they were designed.

    • Richard674 says:

      Wow, Proreason, that was awesome. The amount of hatred and bile in that post is truely impressive. Think about how proud your Savior must be of you tomorrow when you visit your house of worship. A couple of things, first. Not that it matters but I’m not gay. Been married to a wonderful gal for going on 28 years.

      Just celebrate your perversion du jour in private and keep your aberrations away from our children.

      I would say exactly the same thing to you, were you to give voice to that kind of hatred in my house.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      By chance …. is that (gal) Peter calling for you?

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Hate and bile, R674? Didn’t you just suggest that LD ‘…find a tall building and do the honorable thing’? What did you mean by that statement? For him to take some panoramic photos or to commit suicide? I infer the latter and am sure it was your implication. So, please, don’t scream ‘hate’ when you’ve just told someone to go kill themselves.

    • proreason says:

      “The amount of hatred and bile in that post is truely impressive.”

      uh, “pervez hilton”, “parading with penises”, “Barney Frank”, “bath houses”, “tea bagging”.

      No, dear friend, I couldn’t hate at your level unless I hated myself.

      As you do.

      I’ll return to my original post. If marriage isn’t sacred, what is?

      And uh, why is it that you are so eager to tell us about your happy marriage? I wouldn’t have thought it would be necessary to mention, just as you saw no mention of religion in my post…….which of course, didn’t stop you from the assumption that I am religious, and then slamming me for it.

    • Anonymoose says:

      If marriage is such a convoluted agreement that has meant different things across all of history and all the cultures, then why the rush for “marriage” as opposed to a civil union?

      The same things are there, a legally recognized union, shared benefits, etc., just not the validation of saying it’s a marriage.

      More importantly it is this culture and this time that we are living in, saying that well marriage has meant something else to other people in different times/places is just another moral equivalency argument, that therefore it must be okay.

    • Odie44 says:

      Richard674 –

      There is a chaotic manner in which you both opine and attempt to reason. aka “tail wag the dog.”

      It’s amazing to me the lengths that conservatives will go to defend discrimination.

      An opinion is not discrimination. Nor is being against gay marriage. As Prop 8 and every other states voters have concluded – it is the will of the majority of the people. That trumps any minority special interest groups perceived “right” or “laws”. To state its discrimintation, based on the will of the society – one can leave said society or drop the issue. What gay rights groups are doing – is attmepting to backdoor the will of the people through inane tactics, namely in the vein of “equality”. Or pressuring gov entities to overturn the will of the people. (in the Prop 8 California case). That leads to more problems, including being ostricized for said special interest groups. The target is being painted by its own ilk.

      In terms of the law, nothing. Sacred implies a metaphysical or religious origin

      Um, dead wrong. If so – there goes the argument of “equality”, of which I tend to believe is both unique and sacred to the American Constitution. Clearly the Founding Fathers had a different opinion of this equality, compared to now – but it s the norm of society that will dictate equality, not special interest groups screaming louder and using artificial leverage to force equality. Last time I checked – gays are doing pretty well across the board in America – and IF the people choose not to equate gay marriage wiuth traditional marriage – as I said above, does not conclude “discrimination.” In addition – our rights are also sacred. Oddly enough – you trump your supposed “reasoning” of gay marriage by denying anything, sans religion is sacred at all. You can’t pick and choose definitions of words, in that “tail wag the dog way”

      And as to the Shepard case , which has nothing to do with gay marriage “pro or con” – you again are trying to demonize one issue with an inane correlation to another. I understand its the liberal way – but to say “he was murdered to send a message to the gay community” you haven’t read about the actual case, but are taking liberty with your assumptions and poorly opined correlation and causation. 2 meth heads killing Shepard, even if it was intentional – was not done to send a message to anyone. That is the gross misconduct special interest supporters love to sully an issue in.

      Shepard was brutally murdered. He is dead. Do not use his death to make a case against “the gay community”, it shows how callous and vicious you are desperatley trying to “make a point”. Its pathetic the gay community is elevating their cause on the back of a dead kid, who again was brutally murdered.

      Hate crimes are inherently uneqaul to society. What a person beleives or thinks, when commiting a crime should not overweight the crime in itself. Because if you and the hate crime posse are correct – you have just supported those “who loved their wife so much, they killed them from being with another man” Their opinon or intent of “love” is a perverted attempt to murder someone and according to you – trumps the very act of murder.

      What I would like to know is – does the 674 in your nick refer to Ontario, Canada? Because if so – please opine on your own country of laws and not ours.

    • philipspace says:

      How’s about we just put it to a vote?

      Anyone?

    • ptat says:

      Richards 674: Perhaps you would be interested in knowing what the Creator of the universe, and everything in it including marriage, has to say about this issue. Bear in mind, too, that God loves you,me and gays, etc. We are all sinners, desperately in need of God’s salvation. Remember, too, this is God’s world and He made the rules, not me. Jesus taught “…at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’, and said ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh…'” (Matthew 19, verses 4 and 5). That is marriage.

    • Icarus says:

      Your answers show whose law(s) you subsist by.
      You are a goat, who follows your own self scent and that of other goats.
      We are sheep, but we follow a Sheppard.
      You submit to men.
      We submit to God.

  5. caligirl9 says:

    Last fall I voted with the majority of Californians on Proposition 8. But my reasons weren’t “I’m going to put a stop to homosexuality by doing this.” For me, it’s a matter of equal rights under the laws, something that just isn’t there. Equal rights go both ways.

    Forgive me for writing this, but I am not as passionate about the whole gay/lesbian marriage thing. I firmly believe that He will take care of it in His time. Everyone will face Him and eventually everyone will know how He feels about the whole thing, much like abortion.

    That being said, whenever I get in an argument with anyone over this, I say “I’m not opposed to gays and lesbians having the exact same rights as a heterosexual couple”—emphasis on exact same rights. I prefer a different “term” be used other than marriage, but I’m kind of meh on the whole issue because there are more important things facing us today, things that directly affect me. I do have gay friends and lesbian acquaintances and they aren’t trying to recruit me to their lifestyle. Except for what they do in their homes, most have the same worries and concerns as I have.

    But the libtards go ballistic when I say “exact same rights.” Those “exact same rights” mean there is no special protection under the law for GLBT people—so no special hate crime legislation, no special job/work protection. They must be treated exactly like me under the law. I get no special rights because I am heterosexual, and it should be the same for them.

    Not a popular opinion. My daughter argued that same point in one of her paralegal classes, and the middle-aged empty-nester Obama-loving courthouse-stalking libtards cried “But it’s not the same thing.” They accused her of being racist and prejudiced and pretty much anything a libtard calls a dissenting opinion.

    Well, it should be the same thing. They can’t have it both ways. Sorry for the slightly dissenting opinion my friends.

  6. Richard674 says:

    so no special hate crime legislation, no special job/work protection. They must be treated exactly like me under the law.

    Pretty much what the gay community is looking for. This means they can’t be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. As far as the hate crime legislation, unfortunately it’s necessary. A hate crime isn’t just an assualt or murder of an individual, it’s a terroristic act against a community. These individuals that commit these crimes are saying to an entire community, you have no standing and if you don’t disappear the same thing will happen to you. In the south, it was lynching. Matthew Shepard was brutalized and murdered as a message to the gay community. That kind of crime deserves special status.

    I firmly believe that She will take care of it in His time. Everyone will face Her and eventually everyone will know how She feels about the whole thing, much like abortion.

    I agree, actually I’m an atheist, but I would hope the big magic Gal in the sky attends to all peoples failings and faults at the end of this cosmic practical joke called existence.

    • gipper says:

      “A hate crime isn’t just an assualt or murder of an individual, it’s a terroristic act against a community.”

      You launched a verbal assault against four members of the Sweetness & Light community, trying to stoke terror. I hereby charge you with a hate crime.

    • Richard674 says:

      You launched a verbal assault against four members of the Sweetness & Light community,

      Wow, you guys are such delicate little meadow flowers. I had no idea I was being hurtful. I really hope no one feels like they’ve been pistol whipped, assaulted with a steel pipe, tied to a fence and left for dead for 18 hours.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Did you just answer the question “YOU” asked?

      Please feel free to hit the link Steve has provided you….I’d love for you to weigh in on that topic.

    • Anonymoose says:

      In regards to the job protection it happened to me once I was turned down for a job at a university because I was wasn’t gay, unbeknownst to me the manager was a well known member of their community and had been bluntly asking my references my orientation, and I found out when they were wondering what was going on.

      If I could have afforded a lawyer I probably would have been able to mop the floor with him, but for the money and hassle involved decided just to look for work somewhere else.

      So if they want “equal” treatment it has to go both ways, no claiming eternal discrimination and victimhood and acting like they’ll never do anything wrong.

    • caligirl9 says:

      Anonymoose, I have a feeling that what happened to you happens a lot in academia. “Quotas” ya know … “diversity” and all that.

      The hate crime legislation doesn’t work both ways, so it shouldn’t be there at all. Unless everyone ends up their own special group worthy of protection, which makes me white heterosexual disabled female.

      Let’s say I’m dumb enough to drive to Oakland and make the wrong turn on my way to an A’s game. I find myself in ‘da hood.

      Some gangsta in ‘da hood sees a lost white woman in her car. Said gangsta is a member of the local black Muslim “church.” He jumps in my car, rapes and kills me.

      Not a hate crime, because I was a stupid white woman who made a wrong turn and maybe was wearing a sleeveless blouse, which of course inflamed the gangsta’s religious sensibilities. I was asking for it.

      Bet that’s not prosecuted as a hate crime. Sure, he might get prosecuted and found guilty for the rape and the murder, but there will be no added charges of a hate crime.

      Heck, my survivors may be sued by that poor traumatized black Muslim because I offended him by wearing that sleeveless blouse which caused him to defend his religious beliefs by killing an infidel.

      Isn’t murder, on its own, in any degree, a crime of extreme passion, usually hate or anger or jealousy? And aren’t the killers of Matthew Shepard in prison for life (as they should be) because it’s wrong to do what they did, regardless of Matthew’s sexual preference? Adding the dimension of hate crime doesn’t make those people any more guilty, and you can imprison a person for his/her natural life (or execute only once) based on the murder charges alone. I also doubt the added potential charges of “hate crime” are much of a deterrent anyway. Isn’t that what law and the justice system is all about—adding consequences to an action?

      It’s not fair for a GLBT person to be fired from his or her job because of what he/she does at home. As long as he/she is doing the job, and not preaching his or her sexuality to co-workers (as offensive to me as someone trying to tell me how or what to believe in as far as my belief in a higher power, a power I choose to call God), live and let live. I’ve honestly never been approached by any gay or lesbians co-workers who have made efforts to “convert” me or seduce me. But when GLBT ends up a special affirmative action box on a job application, or a college or loan application, I have a problem with that.

      Where’s my white heterosexual disabled female box, and what does that have to do with my ability to do a job or pay back a loan? Not a thing. As it should be.

      I can think of only one specific situation when extra protection is required. I’m thinking of prison, but there are plenty of other “groups” that are protected in that situation—bad cops, judges, child molesters/killers. So protecting a homosexual inmate is no big deal, as it’s not up to the inmates to punish each other (but they do it all too often). And to be honest about the prison hierarchy, a person who murdered a GLBT may well be looked upon as a hero after conviction, so why give him/her extra props and allow that person to become the most popular member of the Aryan Nation, Crips or Bloods, Norteños or Sureños, or Asian Boyz? Instant prison credibility …

    • jobeth says:

      R674
      “at the end of this cosmic practical joke called existence”

      So many of my thoughts and beliefs were expressed so well by my fellow S&Lers so I won’t repeat their comments.

      However, whether you know it or not you revealed a lot about your inner self with that one small statement. You sound empty and sad. I can see why you can’t find anything sacred.

      The only thing I will say here is that whether you want it or not you will be the prayers of many of us here.

  7. Steve says:

    “This means they can’t be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. As far as the hate crime legislation, unfortunately it’s necessary. A hate crime isn’t just an assualt or murder of an individual, it’s a terroristic act against a community.”

    Where were you on this thread?

    Hastings Demands Protection For Perverts | Sweetness & Light
    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hastings-wants-protection-for-sex-perverts

    • Richard674 says:

      Can you deny the gay community has suffered because of assaults and murders? Assaults and murders simply because they were gay. Just the same as assaults and murders of any other minority group, just because they were a member of that community.

    • Steve says:

      Did you read the thread? Or, rather, listen to the clip?

      “Can you deny the gay community has suffered because of assaults and murders? Assaults and murders simply because they were gay. Just the same as assaults and murders of any other minority group, just because they were a member of that community.”

      Aren’t assault and murder already illegal?

      What difference does any extenuating motive make? Or what ‘community’ the victim belonged to?

      Richer people have been assaulted by poorer people all throughout history.

      Where are their special protections? Why aren’t their laws against speech that encourages class warfare?

      And what does any of this have to do with ‘homosexual marriage’?

    • Richard674 says:

      Of course, quite the non sequitor there but anyhow, can you answer my question, “Have members of the gay community suffered assaults and murders simply because they were members of the gay community?”

    • Liberals Demise says:

      No more than any other community….black, white, rich, poor et al.

      Please feel free to hit the link Steve has provided you….I’d love for you to weigh in on that topic.

    • proreason says:

      “Have members of the gay community suffered assaults and murders simply because they were members of the gay community?”

      Just plain stupid.

      Steve rebutted this simply and eloquently.

      If you would like to reduce violence against your “community”, the course of action you are selecting is probably the worst possible one you could take.

      If I were you, I would educate the public and celebrate the fact that an outsized percentage of the great geniuses in history have been gay, and stress the fact that your, er, “lifestyle” is not something that many people have the ability to choose, that you mean no harm, and that you seek and are successful at contributing to the greater culture in many ways. And I would regularly point out the fact that many other cultures, including Islam have orders of magnitude greater discrimination against gay people than does the U.S. and thank this country for the unique tolerance it shows despite the many contemptable zealots on your side who continually try to incite more violence.

      Screaming like a banshee about “gay marriage”, attempting to ruin the life of a 20 year-old woman who isn’t gay, and parading around with giant phalluses just isn’t something that would have occured to me.

      But then, I’m not insane with anger.

    • catie says:

      RIchard from Kos, do you care about the attacks in places like Seattle and SF on members of the US Military. Of course not, it doesn’t fit your template. How sad that you don’t care about them? Perhaps you’ve joined in. People like you generally do.

  8. U NO HOO says:

    Same sex people getting married is like a Tom Thumb marriage, you know, those cute things little kids do for pretend.

    It just isn’t a marriage.

    Let us just make marriage private; no income tax, nor social security, nor employee benefit differences due to marriage. Don’t ask, don’t tell.

    No government money grab for marriage licenses.

    Etc.

  9. Richard674 says:

    What difference does any extenuating motive make? Or what ‘community’ the victim belonged to?

    Okay, by that logic, then murder is simply murder. No 1st degree or 2nd degree or 3rd degree. Agreed?

    • Anonymoose says:

      No, you’re playing around on it. 3rd degree is accidental, 2nd degree is where you wanted to kill someone but it wasn’t premeditated, 1st degree is you planned it in advance. It doesn’t matter who.

  10. canary says:

    Richard674, your statement “In terms of the law, nothing. Sacred implies a metaphysical or religious origin. Marriage is simply a legal agreement, recognized by the State. Marriage ceremonies are often church bound, and are pleasant little events, but carry no legal weight.”

    wrong. Our United States of America laws were formed, built upon, abided by, fought wars over, sacredness. We pledge allegiance to America for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union.
    America is sacred by laws. We are to adhere to the foundation of these laws and principals ordained and established in the United States of America. We count them Holy, Sacred, and worth dying for.

    Richard674 to tell someone to “Get help or find a tall building and do the honorable thing.”

    You show that you have the mentality of a terrorist, or a President and a Senator who told the heads of their banks to commit suicide. One who was brainwashed into thinking he should, did, and his tormentors should be charged with a 2nd degree manslaughter hate-crime.

    Your rediculous claim a little anthropology shows a smorgesborg of abnormal does not exist. Scientists have long settled that sexual deviant behavior is not normal behavior. It’s not the norm. Further, the normal marital tradition, is still the same normal marital tradition.

    Richard674 ” What’s really funny about the conservatives on this issue, is they somehow think they will stop this next step in our evolution as a society.

    You are the funny gay hilarious, one. Human or Animal Gays can’t naturally evolve. Except out of billions of species God created the sea-horse, because
    Yes God Can.

    So, while mankind kills full-term babys thanks to the liberal extremists, there are many unnatural ways to grow unnatural things. Soon, it won’t be just babies’ livers they use for adults to regrow. Breast implants will be replaced by one that grow from tiny ducts. Cloning, inspite of Daisy the sheep, that died in 1 year, they are cloning humans.

    But, the real harm of the abnormality of gay marriages, is the effect on our youth, and future generations that will deal with identity and mental issues, diseases. Basically, what liberals are creating is a do what ever makes you feel good, that is leading to a country of perversion by legal definition. I mean fooling around with animals, humans exposing themselves to bio-hazard toxic waste,
    then selfishing spreading to the other gender, in order to force normal society to come up with a cure. The teen age became the highest rate of new AIDs cases, but now homosexuals are back in the lead of new cases. And who picked out the word gay. Usually the gay charactor in a movie or show, is portrayed to be funny and make us laugh. Because they are abnormal, and we are getting a closer look to see what it’s like, which can be amusing as watching a monkey imitate a human being. It’s funny to see a man imitate a woman. They are making money in Vegas. The abnormal is always interesting.
    Why put a child in a place of confusion, where they try and earn their parent’s love, they become gay and they really aren’t gay. What do gay parents tell the children. Well, do a little of everything and by age 18, 25? you’ll know. Or better you can have both, when we get more marriage laws changed.

  11. canary says:

    Richard674, my little wicken, is the little lion with horns Odin whispering in your ear asking for a sacrifice? At first your tall building jump appalled me, but I think the spell you cast on me is working, and I’m evoluting and becoming immune,
    I think I hear Odin in my left ear telling me to suggest you give him the highest honorable pleasing sacrifice to Odin,

    bzzzz. Richard, take your own adivice..”Get help or find a tall building and do the honorable thing.” what’s that you say Odin?… humm.. bzzz.. jump Richard…bzz humm…..you will make good fertilizer for mother nature’s sidewalk….bzzz…humm.. NO WAIT. I must have been in a trance. Dont’ do it
    Richard. There is a heaven and hell. Believe in Change. Yes God Can!!!!

  12. gipper says:

    “The dispute is just one part of a broader struggle within the out-of-power GOP over its identity and whether it should focus on rallying conservatives or attracting supporters from across the political spectrum.”

    Yes, yes, that’s it! The Republican party needs to appeal to all people across the political spectrum and gay rights advocates to win back the White House and Senate seats.

    Oh, wait. Already tried that and it failed.

  13. canary says:

    I can tell you gays showing too much gayity, in the military can really bring the moral down. There are laws on fratenizing with superiors too, brings moral down. Most employers don’t allow sex on the job.

    Hate crimes bog the system, reducing getting criminals off the street faster. More court costs. If 6 Afro-Americans or Mexican gangs were to kill a white person, it’s not a hate-crime. We already have a defense for “man caused disasters”. They take into consideration, abnormal sexual, dsyfunctional family, or poverty as a child.

    • catie says:

      Canary, obviously Richard hasn’t served but I’m sure he’ll say he did. You’re absolutely right though. It does cause problems. Even having “couples” over there is causing problems (according to my husband) with unit cohesion. But Richie doesn’t care he just wants his agenda shoved down our throats.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      canary said: “man caused disasters”.

      Sorry, the new, improved (as of just a minute ago) Obamadictionary calls them “Bush-instigated-para-natural-events”

      That way no one can ever forget that even though Algore invented the internet and is giving us only a few more years before global warming puts NYC under water (where’s the bad there?), that “W” is the master of all bad weather….and caused N’awlins to flood.

      Please make a note of it.

    • canary says:

      catie, I am going to edit my statment a bit, because I know there are gay hero’s in this country, and gay hero’s in the military.
      catie, your statement is more how I feel, it’s not limited to one sex or style. It’s not real fair, in isolated situations, or some drunk soldier of the same sex coming on to you. lol. The worst is their sticking together and sucking up, to superiors. I meant that metamorphically, but…lol. I was a medic, and occasionally a soldier who wanted out, would try and get medically discharged, that they were gay. They’d bring in graphic photos to prove it. And it never got them discharged. I just don’t think it’s a problem like people make it out to be. Like the fear of getting kicked out. I remember a guy shot himself in the foot, and did light duty, waiting for his medical out, for our podiatrist, stole and faked prescriptions and ended up charged federally and state.
      Prayers for your husband and keep us updated to the truth of what’s going on over there. I saw on the news that the Iraqies were starting their racing horses again. Ya know, lined up behind a rope like the old days, and it just touched my heart. I am proud of our soldiers. Anytime, I feel cold, or any discomfort, I think and pray for our soldiers.

    • catie says:

      Canary, he was sent over to relieve someone from their job as he had done Training Teams before with the INP & he knows most of these guys. One of the Lt.’s is married to a JAG Officer and their “time together” is a big problem for unit cohesion as you can imagine as there is only 11 in their unit. They are located very close to each other. This is a big mess and the guy he relieved was having “time together” with a female Sgt. This is an hetero problem but people like Richard won’t be able to see the difference.

  14. proreason says:

    Richard,
    having suggested that one of us commit suicide,
    having accused another of venom and bile,
    having defended his objective moral outrage (somehow) by declaring that he is in fact is married to a woman,
    having compared marriage to a new car loan agreement,
    having called another S&L poster beyond stupid,
    having demeaned religion numerous times,
    having assaulted free speech a dozen times or more,
    having revealed ignorance of evolultion by suggesting Homo Sapiens descended from Cro-Magnon man,
    having declared that gay marriage is the next step in the evolution of society,

    seems to have taken his tolerant persuasive “liberal” self somewhere else.

    Could it be a 2 for 1 night at the bathhouse?

  15. eaglewingz08 says:

    The liberal press is just so deceitful and disingenuous on these issues. The polls show that if the public is asked a choice whether traditional marriage should be the rule or marriage expanded to same sex couples, the results track California’s Proposition, 58 percent for traditional marriage 38 percent for legalizing gay marriage. Even when civil unions are thrown in the percentage approving of gay marriage does not rise out of the thirties.
    Moreover, the vile tactics of proponents of gay marriage are such that the fears of religious conservatives that they will be targeted under anti discrimination laws for acts of conscience (not stating gay marriage is heaven sent, or refusing to solemnify gay marriages). One only has to look at the treatment of contestant Ms. Prejean to see what the Alinksy leftwing gay rights advocates would do with the imprimatur of marriage. Kindergartners will be placed in same sex couples and be led to pretend they’re married, to increase ‘acceptance’ and ‘diversity’ of same sex couples. Religious conservatives will be even more vilified (I know that doesn’t seem possible but it will happen) if this gets rammed down the nation’s throat.
    And once it is, where does ‘affectational preference’ stop as a basis for marriage? One couple of two spouses, three, four? Marriage between family members? Why should marriage be limited to human beings, if affection or orientation are the key and not the genders of the parties? The left tries to dismiss these arguments, but every fact that the right predicted would happen with respect to the Gay Agenda, has happened to date. There is no more reason to disbelieve what conservatives say on these issues, given their credible track record on this issue.

  16. jrmcdonald says:

    I believe that we need to use the Amendment process to change the United States Constitution. We need to start the process by public petition of each State. With two-thirds of the legislatures of the States we can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments. This process has never been used, but we need to show the Judiciary it is the American people who decide the path of this nation.

  17. Icarus says:

    Richard,

    Let me just (respectfully) ask you these…

    Is “hate” a good thing or an evil thing?

    Who decides what should/can be hated or no hated?

    Who’s philosophy & standards should we try to live by?

    Should you answer them logically and without deviation I will be pleasantly surprised!
    I thank you in advance.

  18. el polacko says:

    wow,,, richard674 makes a few quite reasonable observations and he’s attacked with some of the most sick, vile comments i’ve ever seen. gay people pay their taxes just like everyone else and should be accorded all the same rights and responsibilities as their straight counterparts. anything less is not what america is all about. this is about equality under the civil law .. we are free to do whatever we want in our churches but when did the main tenet .. if not the ONLY tenet… of what many folks are calling christianity become being anti-gay ?? why are people only upset about hate crimes legislation when it includes sexual orientation (which would apply to both straight and gay people, by the way) ? i don’t hear anyone calling for repealing the hate crimes classifications for religion or race, so the law itself is obviously not the issue. the only answer, it seems to me, is simply bias against a group (which is, ironically, evidence of why the legislation is needed.) how does it hurt me if prosecutors have an extra tool in investigating crimes or if a happy gay couple’s relationship is registered with the state ? these are non-issues that are being inflamed by prejudice and hatred… it’s shameful.

    • proreason says:

      “people pay their taxes just like everyone else and should be accorded all the same rights and responsibilities as their straight counterparts.”

      Yep. And they have the same rights and responsiblities as straight people do.

      “when did the main tenet .. if not the ONLY tenet… of what many folks are calling christianity become being anti-gay ?? ”

      Hows that el polacko? The lead comment on this thread was from me. It was “if marriage isn’t sacred, what is?”. After which gay Richard attacked in force, eventually suggesting that someone who disagrees with him commit suicide.

      Let me ask you….

      “when did the main tenet of liberalism become that queers be able to dictate to the vast majority of society how the most important social compact among human beings be defined?”

    • Richard, is that you? You don’t disguise very well. Maybe a friend of Richard that he asked to come onto this site and defend him?

      You seem to forget, sir, that Richard included these remarks:

      “You are beyond stupid and are edging toward pathological paranoia. Get help or find a tall building and do the honorable thing.”

      before any attacks were made on him. “Beyond stupid”, “pathological paranoia” and then telling someone to jump off of a tall building. And these are all in his first post. Certainly this man has dealt no respect to anyone on this site, and yet we are expected to sit back and let him tell us to commit suicide? You liberals love to ignore the hate spewed at us and tell us how hateful we are when we defend ourselves.

    • proreason says:

      Well Said CaliforniaBear,

      As I’ve often said, when liberal nitwits attack, they do so ought of guilt, and in most cases, what they complain about is behaviours they themselves are guilty of many times over.

    • Anonymoose says:

      I think Richard/Polacko has flown the coop but nonetheless. The hate crimes laws are bad ideas, and they are not an “extra tool” for a prosecutor to investigate a crime, they are a sentencing enhancement to already existing crimes, just they apply only to specific classes of victims. This goes against equal protection under the law.

      If a “happy gay couple” wants to “register with the state,” then why does it have to be a marriage? Why not a civil union or cohabiting arrangement? You’re saying one thing but really looking for another.

    • philipspace says:

      Behold, the internet troll, in Birkenstocks.

      Assuming richard (or el polacko) has been married for 28 years (and I’ve no reason to assume otherwise), isn’t he getting a bit old for this kind of trite, juvenile crap?

      The basis of their entire argument (singular, because they really only have one) can be summed up with “well, why not?” When a response is given, they blow it off as unsatisfactory to them with a little hand waving.

      They equate their traditional marriage as being synonymous with two men (or women) playing house. Have you done much partner swapping? Engaged in casual encounters in airports or bathhouses with or without your wife’s consent? Ever bring home a venerial disease to your spouse? Do you think your relationship would be just as important to each of you if you did?

      Do you have an argument for or against polygamy, or incest? What about adultery, or bestiality? How about child molestation, any reason why those should be lawful, or conversely not? Should these also be protected? Why?

      Or is your answer “why not”?

  19. Celina says:

    Why is it that with abortion, we aren’t supposed to want to change laws but to change “hearts and minds” then the laws will eventually follow. But with gay marriage, despite the mounds of evidence that traditional marriage is beneficial to society as a whole, we are just supposed to push laws granting gay couples special priviledges without bothering with the whole “hearts and minds” jazz.

  20. canary says:

    el polacko,
    Richard674 opinions were irrational and were not truthful.
    el Polacko you might try and rewrite your post so it’s easier to understand. America doesn’t have to change laws for a few who think we do.

    Can you list the countries in the world don’t hold the normal tradition of man marrying woman. List the countries where man marrys man, woman marrys woman.

    Gay people in America allready get equal rights and discriminatory protection.

    el Popacko “anything less is not what america is all about.”

    huh? anything less than what. what kind of equality within the civil law do you mean?

    el Popacko “we are free to do whatever we want in our churches
    (not so)

    el Popacko “but when did the main tenet .. if not the ONLY tenet… of what many folks are calling christianity become being anti-gay ??

    Christianity does not believe unnatural acts, such as man having sex with another man, nor woman making sex with another women. or sex with animals, group sex, any sex acts not considered normal.

    el Poracko” why are people only upset about hate crimes legislation when it includes sexual orientation….”.

    no one said they are only against hatecrimes laws to protect gays.
    gays already have police protection and laws to protect them gays Gays allready get police protection. Gays have protection if their employer treats them differently, like less pay.

    If you need to focus on a gay issue, maybe you could stop straight men or women from being raped by their own sex in prison. It’s barbaric.

  21. Icarus says:

    Is “hate” a good thing or an evil thing?
    For the moment since we don’t know exactly what existential viewpoint either of you derive your philosophies from, let’s look at the problem, void of the God dynamic.
    An object/concept; as far as its purpose and productivity, (to both, natural order, to society and finally to self) determines whether it is to be loathed or loved.
    So let’s pick a straightforward object, and apply criterion and methodology through analogy.

    Let’s say we have 2 fruit trees; one produces good fruit, for the farmer and for the village. This tree’s purpose was to produce good fruit for consumption. It does that, and is extremely productive; as it feeds the farmer and the village. There is nothing detestable about it.
    And once its life has run its course; it will be seasoned and used to fuel fires in the villager’s homes. A purposeful and productive existence from start to finish.

    A tree next to it produces little fruit and of the fruit that it does produce; not a single piece is edible. The tree is diseased and its fruit is and worm infested. Not even the squirrels or birds eat of it. In addition, the acrid stench of the decaying fruit burns the nostrils of the farmer when he comes to tend the orchard,; and sometimes even drifts over to the village.
    Logically I think its obvious as to which tree should be loathed and cut down.

    What purpose, production, and overall benefit to society does a homosexual lifestyle offer?
    What good fruit does this lifestyle produce?
    It’s neither natural nor logical… and we haven’t yet factored in God.
    What’s its purpose other than self gratification? What does this (Lifestyle) produce?

    Please do not attempt to substituent the homosexual lifestyle with a specific man/woman that practices that lifestyle – and who may be exceptional in his/her field… this can be applied to both sides. It’s the concept of homosexuality that we are examining.

    On a side note: It’s utterly clear that Richard was the first to SPEW hate and recommend a suicide solution, to anyone who opposes his viewpoints?

    • VMAN says:

      Great analogy. I’m sure Rick will ignore it just as he ignored the comment by gipper.

    • gipper says:

      “Great analogy. I’m sure Rick will ignore it just as he ignored the comment by gipper.”

      That is a great analogy, Icarus.

      I believe this is the comment you are referencing, VMAN:

      “’I don’t sperm (sic) was “meant” to do anything except fertilize an egg and contribute it’s genetic material to that effort. By your reasoning I would guess you would claim sperm wasn’t meant to swim around in a test tube either but it does.’

      You have admitted that sperm is designed for a specific purpose. So, too, is the penis. A penis is designed to transfer the sperm and its genetic material to the ovum in the fallopian tubes during coitus. A penis is not designed for a rectum.

      I don’t think ova can be found in a rectum, unless you’re talking about a bird’s cloaca, and even then, the bird is FEMALE.

      Sure sperm can swim around in a test tube, but that’s not for what they were designed.”

      I didn’t think Richard would be trapped by his own words, but he was. Anyway, he was great fun to debate. Had Richard continued, I was eventually going to talk about gay marriage. I mean, if there’s no biological basis for homosexuality, one shouldn’t even begin a discussion about gay marriage.

    • proreason says:

      “if there’s no biological basis for homosexuality”

      They’ve been working on that for about 40 years now with no success. The biological basis must be well-hidden. (The truth is, like virtually all human behaviours, it’s learned, but it happens so early in life that it is mostly irreversable, at least with current techniques. And the learning process is so complex that nobody even knows how to adjust the environmental factors that cause it. If people knew, the rate of homosexuality would drop precipitously.)

      If you want to piss them off, go there immediately. Their heads explode.

      But what then does that prove?

      It proves their intense shame about their affliction, and that they seek desperately to justify it. If it was such a great thing, they would simply enjoy it, wouldn’t they? But of course, they don’t think it is such a great thing. Indeed, they hate themselves. (which is the primary reason to oppose the whole movement. Who wants their kids to hate themselves?)

      Hence the anger that fuels not just the ridiculous “debate” about marriange, but much of the ultra-left hate agenda. Notice that racial minorities have little such hatred…..for them, it’s all about stealing your money, and they are fueled by demagogues not idealogues. As they get paid off, most minorities go silent

      For the screaming mimmee queers, it’s deeply personal. They don’t just want to kill you, they want to destroy the world for punishing them so. Nothing can stop them. They didn’t pick marriage because they want rights, they picked it because they know that marriage is the treasured foundation of human civilization.

  22. Enthalpy says:

    Many of us are respectful of others. We will defend the rights of others to live as they wish within our founding beliefs and documents-and their amendments. However, most Americans do not want to recognize homosexual marriage–and there is no question about that. If the homosexual lobby persists and we are continually distracted from life threatening issues of our time, this issue will come to a resolution. Within a Muslim caliphate with its Sharia law, the issue of homosexual marriage would be put to rest once and for all; if there are no homosexuals, the issue of homosexual marriage becomes irrelevant. Given the demography in present day European Union countries, no homosexual couples, married or otherwise, will grow old together; they will not grow old at all.

    • canary says:

      I agree. During the campaigns, Republicans centered on more important issues threatening America, Democrats focused more on social issues that were petty in comparison.
      Now the Democrats are still too focused on micro-scoping global social issues, events, photo-ups, world travels, bowings, and book clubs, gardening, blaming those of us back home, mis-representing us, humiliating and demoralizing millions of Americans who can not defend themselves. We have a leader, loathing America every chance he gets.

  23. Icarus says:

    Thanks’ guys.
    There have been many great comments on this thread.

    One last analogy:

    If someone tells you that they like to eat poop; that they enjoy the scent and taste of it; and they also add that “it’s their own business if we want to eat it or not” – and that they should be allowed to eat it and be able to declare it openly to all.

    Can you convince them otherwise… that it’s sick?

    No! …Absolutely not!

    Eating the poop is merely distinctive of their belief system.
    It’s their belief system that’s perverted; until they correct that it’s hopeless; and all your efforts in telling them that poop is not good to eat, are in vain. We are wasting our breath. (Keystrokes)

    It is impossible for two divergent belief systems to unite and agree on anything.
    In the end they both have to answer to their source.
    But one thing is obviously clear… one is a lie, while the other is truth.
    darkness and LIGHT cannot (and will not) EVER combine!

    Whereas we believe in God and his perfect moral law.
    They believe in self; and moral relativism.
    God’s moral standards are perfect and reflect his eternal LOVE; for he is love.
    …Justice is part of that love.

  24. proreason says:

    One more point on “gay marriage”.

    The bulging vein queer lobby is determined to have their affliction declared to be normal. That’s an important driver behind “gay marriage”. They want the world to acclaim that being a homosexual is absolutely no different than being hetero. Queers are just as happy, just as successful, live as long, do not experience unusual psychological disorders, etc. But of course we know that isn’t true. Many, if not most, lead lives of quiet or angry desperation.

    That is the root of the long and unsuccessful search for the “gay gene”. They want to prove that they were born that way, and that there isn’t a single homosexual anywhere anytime who has had the ability to change what natrue wrought.

    And maybe they are right about it. Certainly, many in this country believe that to be true.

    But what if they are wrong?

    What if there is a trigger in early infancy that is innocently set off by those closest to the child? If it exists, what if we could educate people about it? Wouldn’t that mean that hundreds of millions of people for all eternity could NOT lead lives or quiet or loud desperation?

    What if one of those poeple was your grandson or great grand daughter?

    What would that be worth to you?

    But they won’t have it. They have already stopped such research and seek to prevent it forever.

    They seek to force the world to declare them normal through intimidation and anger..


« Front Page | To Top
« | »