moonbattery.gif


« Happy Cost of Government Day | Main | Lawsuit to Impose Sharia on Dunkin' Donuts Moves Forward »


July 11, 2007

Dem Candidates Line Up For Gay Debate

If there is one special interest group that can count on being pandered to by Democrats, it's the tiny percentage of Americans who are homosexual. Candidates Shrillary Rotten, Osama Obama, the Breck Girl, and Chris Clod are actually going to participate in a special gay debate on August 9, focusing on the homosexual agenda, cosponsored by a homosexual activist group, and airing on a homosexual cable channel.

One of the hosts will be the deafeningly lesbian Melissa Etheridge. Who did you expect, Brit Hume?

Too bad virtually no normal Americans will see this farce. Witnessing a freak show featuring potential leaders of the free world slobbering on the appliqué-encrusted high-heeled pumps of militant transsexual degenerates might cure them of whatever sickness tempts people to vote for Democrats.

gays.jpg
Potential moderators.

Posted by Van Helsing at July 11, 2007 12:40 PM

Comments

Don't rain on my parade, big boy. Unless you plan on making it rain men! [LOL!]

It's my one night to wear my assless chaps when I meet the Breck Girl. Do you think he'll notice how big my buns are?

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 12:48 PM

Again - that is NOT my post above.

I think Van Helsing runs a skinhead website.

He posts freaky pictures of a gay pride. What do clowns have to do with me or Mary Cheney or Anderson Cooper or the other millions of gay people.

This is like posting pictures of black people in white face.

What is the implication or point of your story Van Helsing - just say it.

A once a year mardi gras type gay festival has to do with millions of gay people 365 days a year - how??????

And you or your dishonest right wingers are posting there own crap under "G."

Keep posting under G. and see what steps I take.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 12:55 PM

Van Helsing runs a skinhead blog:


Disapproval of homosexuality and of homosexuals is not evenly distributed throughout society, but is more or less pronounced according to age, sex, social class, education and religious status. According to UK HIV/AIDS charity AVERT, low educational level and social status, lack of homosexual feelings or experiences, religious views, and lack of interaction with homosexuals are strongly associated with such views.[19]

One study of white adolescent males conducted at the University of Cincinnati by Janet Baker has been used to argue that negative feelings towards homosexuals are also associated with other discriminatory behaviors. The study claims to have found that hatred of homosexuals, anti-semitism and racism are "likely companions,"[20] suggesting it is an abuse of power. A study performed in 2007 in the UK for the charity Stonewall reports that 90% of the population support the ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians.[21]

The anxiety of non-gay individuals that others may identify them as gay, particularly among adolescents whose construction of heterosexual masculinity is factored in part on not being seen as gay,[22][23] has also been identified by Michael Kimmel as an example of homophobia.[24] The taunting of boys seen as eccentric (and who are not usually homosexual) is claimed to be endemic in rural and suburban American schools, and has been associated with risk-taking behavior and outbursts of violence (such as a spate of fatal school shootings) by boys seeking revenge or trying to assert their masculinity.[25]

http://www.avert.org/hsexu3.htm

"Homophobia, racism likely companions, study shows," Jet, January 10, 1994

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 1:01 PM

OKAY, okay, I admit it, I'm a closet conservative! There, you happy?!

I really plan on voting for Fred Thompson.

He's a manly man.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 1:02 PM

Talk to the hand, girlfriend!

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 1:09 PM

Uh, Van, cleanup on aisle 69.

Posted by: Steve at July 11, 2007 1:22 PM

G,

You just don't understand. From the conservative stance no one really gives a crap what your sexual preference is. What conservatives have a problem with is the expectation of preferential treatment based on your "group".

That is one of the primary faults with Liberalism (sorry, progressivism). In a country where everyone is supposed to be equal, where we are supposed to be a "melting pot" liberalism segregates everyone. Then these groups are either deemed "protected" or not.

For example in a comedy routine a black comedian can make jokes on "crackers" but Don Imus is fired. Christians are allowed to be mocked and ridiculed but Muslims are off limits. Straight people are dismissed as "breeders" but dare not utter the word "fag".

Posted by: Darth T at July 11, 2007 1:46 PM

Hey look, the clown on the left, his mouth is open just wide enough to insert my man pole!

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 1:53 PM

That's it, the imposter G. just got his IP address banned.

Posted by: Van Helsing at July 11, 2007 2:03 PM

Strange... G says, "I think Van Helsing runs a skinhead website."

G displays the same prejudiced traits to over-generalize that bigots use.

What evidence is there of this being a skinhead website? Are there pictures of skins? Pictures of skinhead fashions? Articles about skinhead music? Event listings of skinhead events? Anything suggesting skinheads at all?

Prejudice is defined as a prejudgmental statement of ill doing, or an evaluation or decision made before the facts of a case could be properly determined and weighed.

False accusations like the skinhead libel reveals the true reverse bigotry of G. His derogatory references to heterosexuals have already been noted.

Posted by: Freedom Now at July 11, 2007 2:05 PM

Way to go, Van!

Darth T
you pretty much spoke for me, as well! People like G. should stop being "gay" and be AMERICANS. I'm a proud Southerner, but before that, I AM AN AMERICAN!

Posted by: KHarn at July 11, 2007 2:08 PM

Thank you, T. I've said that many times.

Do what you want, we don't want to hear about it, and we certainly don't need to condone, affirm or celebrate it.

Kharn: That makes you a rascist by default :).

Posted by: Steve at July 11, 2007 2:19 PM

"G,

You just don't understand. From the conservative stance no one really gives a crap what your sexual preference is."

Yeah,
Just don't try to ram it down our throats.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at July 11, 2007 2:26 PM

Thanks, Van; I was running out of descriptive pronouns (well - I was running out of something...)

On topic: I would like to see a debate addressing how minority special interest groups may be kept from forcing ideologic lifestyle changes on an unwilling majority. As near as I can tell from reading his frequent articles at Townhall - Fred seems to be the only candidate out there who is willing to touch the subject.

I wonder if they'll let a FOX reporter attend?

Posted by: Jimbo at July 11, 2007 2:27 PM

I won't ram it down your throats as long as you don't ram your sexual orientation down mine and everything that goes with it.

Gays want respect and equality - not anything special.

Since when does equal = special?

I do not know how to explain more simply - sexual orientation discrimmination applies to everyone - if a straight person is fired b/c he is straight he can sue under such laws.

These laws apply to discrimmination based on SEXUAL ORIENTATION - not not being gay.
It just so happens that most people who are discrimminated against on the basis of sexual orientation are gay.

Hate crimes laws cover the religious right and so do anti-discrimmination laws [based on religious affiliation of belief].

Why should they get, protection for a belief system when gay people cannot get it for having an innate difference which is not a choice?

It makes no sense.

This is not rocket science.

You just do not get it b/c you just do not want to think about it.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 3:29 PM

All I want to do is discuss the issues - and you wish me dead of AIDS, call me ignorant names, etc. - its unintelligent and low end.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 3:30 PM

respect is earned; not dictated by a law

Posted by: Jimbo at July 11, 2007 3:31 PM

A civil right [such as civil unions] is dictated by law.

I earn respect everyday at work. I produce. I do not want a hand out. I also do not want to be marginalized and demonized b/c I was born with a different sexual orientation.

A Jew should not have to deny that they are a Jew, a gay should not have to either. It is an issue of personal respect.

I do not go to gay pride parades b/c I do not like them - I think they are a very poor representation of gay people. However, if you saw straight people at Mardi Gras you would realize that decedance is not a gay issue.

Or Hooters, or girls gone wild, strip clubs, girls night out, chippendales, Las Vegas cabarets

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 3:42 PM

Discussing the issue of homosexuality is fine. That is part of Democracy, but so is that fact that people will argue against homosexuality. I don't mean that a$$hole that was pretending to be you G (btw you might want to thank the "Skinhead" Van for blocking him).

What tweaks me the most about many of the gay rights issues is that they are brought down on the public via Judicial fiat (marriage for example). The proper way for these social changes to be made is to go through the Congress.

It's not our fault that even in the most liberal states that ballet initiatives for gay marriage fail. You as a group need to justify to the public why they should change their beliefs. That is the responsibility of a minority belief: to convince enough people so it becomes the majority. And doing a Judicial end-a-round is not going to win you any votes.

Posted by: Joshua at July 11, 2007 3:46 PM

I can't see what's so wrong with political candidates discussing gay issues. Isn't that part of politics in a free society? And what's wrong with laws against discrimination? Sure respect can't be legislated. But discrimination can be slowed and why not?

Posted by: Dr. Jillian T. Weiss at July 11, 2007 3:59 PM

I don't know who is more Gay, Edwards or Obama, but I'd kiss either one before I'd kill Hillary.

Posted by: DANEgerus at July 11, 2007 4:02 PM

Kiss Hillary... sorry...

Freudian slip.

Posted by: DANEgerus at July 11, 2007 4:03 PM

Yes - I owe thanks to Van Helsing for blocking the fake G.

Re: the change happening thru the courts versus the legislative process - the argument goes like this:

The US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.

The rights of a minority should not depend on whether the majority thinks they should have those rights. That is Unamerican and unfair.

Should the majority vote on whether women should have the right to vote, on whether blacks should be able to be served in any restaurant they want to eat in.

Should the majority decide whether interracial marriage should be legal.

Should the majority of the population - directly or thru their legislative representatives - decide whether Jews can marry non-Jews or go to the same public schools as non-Jews.

The Courts have always decided the rights of minorities.

People on the right call it judicial activism. To me it is one of the core reasons the Courts exist under the Constitution.

Gay people have always exited but have only recently become visible and the nature sexual orientation more understood.

This has given rise to a relatively new minority group based on an innate differnce in sexual orientation.

The newness of this idea is what is a stumbling block for many people. It is a generational issue.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 4:31 PM

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

The laws we now have are for all men. ALL PEOPLE! ALL. “All” is self explanatory – all means everyone!

Adding anything to all can only mean special rights for some.

Only in socialist totalitarian societies are some more equal than all.

Posted by: Jimbo at July 11, 2007 4:36 PM

Jimbo,

Correct - Only in socialist totalitarian societies are some more equal than all.

Heterosexuals are more equal than homosexuals under the law.
That is my point.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 5:01 PM

Why? Because homosexuals are not identified specifially, by sexual preference, in the constitution?

G.; I (as any real conservative) don't really give a flying backwards leap what you do in your bedroom. And most of us don't believe the things you do in your bedroom make your life any more or less special than anyone else's life.

My God, G. - I lived in SF for 18 years - you think I don't have homosexual friends? Do you think even someone as redneck as me considers you less than human?

Take a deap breath, boy. Step back and praise God you don't live in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Jimbo at July 11, 2007 5:29 PM

G, if I might interpolate between the various viewpoints, I think that straight people in general are uncomfortable about homosexuality because of a deep-seated, largely irrational but nevertheless not therefore invalid, distaste for the practice and its practitioners.

Think of how you regard, say, necrophilia, or bestiality. Does it hurt anyone? Are you secretly worried about turning into one? Can people help being that way? Arguably no, but...there's just something indefinably distasteful about it, and people resent being forced to accept it as a perfectly acceptable lifestyle despite those feelings.

I'm not equating homosexuality with necrophilia or bestiality, but just trying to convey the nature of the resistance to the idea. Imagine someone try to argue you into accepting necrophilia or bestiality, and you'll appreciate the nature of the resistance. At some deep, almost biological level, it seems...wrong, for reasons that are hard to pin down precisely.

Homosexuals are probably better off keeping a lower profile and just living their lives in peace, rather than campaigning not just for tolerance but for acceptance of their lifestyles in principle, because that's a tough sale.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 11, 2007 5:34 PM

Theres a little problem with banning IP addresses - they are using DSL all they need to do is shut down their PC and a new IP address will be assigned. Every time I log on I get assigned a new IP address.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 11, 2007 5:39 PM

G - the problem with many homosexuals is that they do try and ram their lifestyles down peoples throats and if they refuse to say Homosexuality is normal and moral they are branded as thought criminals.

Just because homosexuals may be born that way doesnt mean its normal or desirable any more than people who like to have sex with animals, dead people and children are normal. Mohammad had sex with children and he is hailed as a prophet. Go figure.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 11, 2007 5:43 PM

Jimbo you are exactly right on the issue and that is what is wrong with G's argument.

As to marriage, that is a privilege that our society conveys to a man and a woman to promote the nuclear family. Like it or not, the best interests of society are served by having a mother (female) and a father (male) raising children. Society therefore ought to promote those things that best serve society.

If you are gay or transgender or lesbian or completely asexual and you want to live your life that way, go ahead. You don't qualify for the privilege though. If you want to have the benefits that are associated with marriage, then there are any number of ways to accomplish that. You can effect it by contract, living wills, a will, corporation law, whatever.

If discrimination is the issue then you have recourse to all of the laws of society, you don't need special exceptions and special interest legislation. Jimbo said it right ALL means ALL.

The liberals want all of these different groups to have special status. That only promotes dissension between groups. This country has been a beacon to the rest of the world precisely because we have endeavored to be a melting pot and to provide every person an opportunity. The country hasn't been perfect and there has been inequalities and discrimination, but it is still, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst system except for all the others.

If we now, as has happened over the past thirty years, promote special interest groups, whatever they be based on (race, gender, sexual orientation), we will slide back into the kind of society that all those immigrants, who came to this country looking for a fairer opportunity left behind. The protestants vs the catholics in No. Ireland, the Sunnis vs the Shiites in the middle east, the Croats vs the serbs in what was Yugoslavia only we'll turn it into the straights vs the gays, or the girls vs the boys, or the blacks, browns, whites vs each other. How stupid is that when it can just as simply be ALL in Jimbo's sense.


Posted by: Bob Fowler at July 11, 2007 5:49 PM

Jay Guevara,

I hear what you are saying. The fact remains that a small percentage of the population is sexually and romantically attracted to only members of the same sex. All indicators are that it occures in the womb during gestation.

Sex with children is wrong because children are innocent and are profoundly hurt by pedophlia. Sex with animals is repugnant b/c it is another species.

How many straights out there like to watch 2 women having gay sex - 99% maybe? So I am not too sure what you are getting at re: being repulsed. Is it 2 men having sex and/or being in love that repulses you - not 2 women?
Why the difference? Because it does not turn you on? There is nothing in it for you? It offends your notion of manhood? It freaks you out that someone who you do not find sexually attractive at all may find you sexually attractive?

Everyone has a sexual orientation.
You and other straight guys and women are sexual beings. I think some of the distaste comes from shame about sex in general.

I do not like gay pride parades b/c they are generally very distatsefull and I know many gay people who feel the same way. They started in the early seventies and represent a sort of skewed and ghettoized depection of gays.

It seems to be part of human nature to push back when society makes you feel ashamed of the way you are - otherwise you implode - many gay have imploded.

I think it is a sort of biological glitch. We all are sexual beings - some are born with an homosexual sexual orientation.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 6:03 PM

Bob Fowler,

Your argument makes some sense but has several holes in it.

What about couples that cannot procreate - they are allowed to get married.

As far as access to contract laws to allow for partner visitation in hospitals or medical leave, etc. - it can very costly independently arranging all of the legal benefits that are granted to married couples by virtue of a marriage certificate.

Also what about adoption? That is illegal for gays in many states.

Being ALL in Jimbo's sense is what gays are trying to accomplish.

If you do not want sexual orientation covered under hate crimes laws or anti-discrimmination laws - then remove everyone category from coverage under those existing laws including race, religion, and ethnicity.

Anti-discrimmination laws and hate crimes laws that include sexual orientation - cover BOTH straight and gay people.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 6:12 PM

"Gays want respect and equality - not anything special.

Since when does equal = special?"

Equal does not = special, but what we are dealing with is not a desire to be treated equally. What we are dealing with is special and even preferential treatment. Look at the example in this article. Do you think that the Dems will have a debate solely to cater to the issues facing "straight America"? I don't think that'll happen.

The issue of preferential treatment goes even further. Look at the "hate crime" laws. If a white man is assaulted by a black man the penalty could be 3-5 years, but if a black man is assaulted by a white man it is deemed a "hate crime" and carries an additional penalty. The constitution specifies equal protection under the law. But if kicking my ass carries a lesser penalty than kicking a black guys ass is that equal?

True equality means that gay or straight doesn't matter, white or black doesn't matter, male or female doesn't matter everyone is treated as equal. But we will never reach that when we keep segregating ourselves into separate little groups each with different little rules and status.

Posted by: Darth T at July 11, 2007 6:27 PM

G, interestingly enough, I've never seen the two women scenario as attractive, for some reason. I know most straight guys do, but there's no non-linearity there for me (i.e., no increment from each of two women in a similar state of undress). No idea why. No repugnance, in fairness, just no added interest either.

I don't think the distaste is a function of shame, frankly. I think of things such as fisting, which definitely hits the "Ewww" button. That, and my time in grad school in Berkeley, where physician friends recounted tales of the ER at SF General, and things they'd fished out of rear ends on weekend nights. I'd like to think they were making up those stories. Unfortunately, I don't think they were.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 11, 2007 6:47 PM

G,

I wished I could've of responded earlier, but I got dragged away to go grocery shopping with my family. It looks like Bob responded enough for me.

That being as it is I would like to explain what it is that really bothers me about the entire gay culture. It is how they identify themselves. I can not conceive why one would choose how they like to obtain an orgasm as their driving political cause. I am not meaning to be flipient as it is an honest issue I have with the entire issue. For myself I identify myself as a Christian Catholic Conservative, not a straight man.

And for the issue of being discrimination, the Gay Olympics is discriminatory (just an example). I know that you will say that anyone can compete, but the title implies who should compete. Tell me that there wouldn't be a royal sh*t fit if someone started a Straight Olympics, even if anyone could compete. That is not only discrimination, but a double standard and hypocrisy.

Posted by: Joshua at July 11, 2007 7:01 PM

Jay Guevara,

Those are bizarre, fringe activities that the vast majority of gays do not engage in.

They are the exception.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 7:09 PM

Darth T,

You are wrong. If a black man kills a white man b/c he is white that is a hate crime. These types of crimes are prosecuted all the time. The same standard exists under the law.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 7:10 PM

Joshua,

It is interesting getting your perspective.

I wish there were not a gay this of gay that either. Past exclusion is what drives that though.

I go to Canada regularly and gay people are very accepted and integrated into society more there.

The difference is you don't know who is or is not gay b/c it is a non-issue. At bars, e.g., gays and straights go to the same watering holes and interact. I don't mean hippie types - but sports types.

Why is it different here? Is it b/c gays are more marginalized here? Is it b/c gays seperate themselves here - or do both of these things feed off each other?

As American society becomes more accepting of gays - I think you will see more integration here - probably in the next generation.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 7:17 PM

"As American society becomes more accepting of gays - I think you will see more integration here - probably in the next generation."

how do you integrate something that cannot reproduce? american society may become more accepting, but only to our own demise. there has not ever been in the history of the world, a society that has flourished under its homosexuality. ever. it cannot.

why? it is unnatural, not to mention disgusting in the eyes of G-d and G-dfearing people and it's high time it was pointed out.

Posted by: nanc at July 11, 2007 8:04 PM

nanc,

Approximatley 5% of any population is born with an homosexual sexual orientation. Homosexuals have always existed. It is biological.
You can either push it down or accept it.

Denying it and pushing behind a closet does not make it go away.

I don't agree with your ranting and raving about what you think God thinks. I also do not agree with your literal interpretation of the Bible. The earth was not create 6,000 yeas ago.
The Bible is full of great metaphors and imagery - unforunately some among us misuse the Bible and cling to a literal interpretation.

Religious fundamentalists, whether Islamic or Christian, are a danger to civilization, intelligent societies, and growth of human knowledge.

Religions were created to explain the mysteries and wonder of life - not to use to stifle human growth and knowledge.

Gay people have always existed - they are only more visible now because of changes in society.

If you want to shame somebody - shame yourself for keeping yourself dumb. Don't try to shame me.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 8:31 PM

I can't believe all the responses here. I feel like this place is becoming libtard. Tolerance yes, acceptance NO.

Seriously, you guys are either closet gays or stupid. Gays want to recruit, sounds really gay, but it is true.

Next we will hear that adultery is ok.

This is an assult on basic family values. Gay marriage is an attack. Civil unions are ok, heck I support them, in fact I wished they went further. Gay marriage is an attack on religion and basic family values.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 11, 2007 8:34 PM

nanc,

Most people who call themsleves Christians that I have talked to do not think like you do.
Most religious Jews certainly do not.

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 8:36 PM

Anonymous,

Gays don't recruit people - I think I know alot more gays than you do.

How can you recruit someone who is born that way?

Do tall people recruit short people into being tall?

Are you straight b/c you were not "recruited into being gay" or are you straight b/c you like women?

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 8:40 PM

What does a person's sexual orientation have to do with politics?

Posted by: G. at July 11, 2007 8:41 PM

[QUOTE=G]Anonymous,

Gays don't recruit people - I think I know alot more gays than you do.

How can you recruit someone who is born that way?

Do tall people recruit short people into being tall?

Are you straight b/c you were not "recruited into being gay" or are you straight b/c you like women?
[/QUOTE] All I can say is yes, gays recruit, they look for kids that don't have direction, this sounds really ugly because it is true.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 11, 2007 8:46 PM

I guess HTML tags dont work, I blame the democrats, lol.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 11, 2007 8:48 PM

Sorry gays do recruit. They corrupt people.

Ask prisoners. I know it is even worse for female offenders.

Here is the kicker, I support gays. I KNOW they catch a lot of crap.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 11, 2007 8:55 PM

When there are no more gay pride marches I might start thinking that gays aren't trying to get a special priviledge.

Posted by: Archonix at July 12, 2007 3:15 AM

G,

"What about couples that cannot procreate - they are allowed to get married."

There's always some exception, most of the time a couple doesn't know before marriage that they can't procreate. If we were to take your position literally then where is the line to be drawn? Why not polygamous marriages? Marriages between siblings? (I could get more outrageous, but its not necessary to make the point.) The point is that marriage, like a driving license is a privilege that society provides to its constituents because it is good for the society.
Marriage between people or entities that does not promote the bests interests of society should not be endorsed by society. I don't see any argument that gay or lesbian marriage is good for society. I hear only arguments that it is good for the individuals involved. Then I argue that there are plenty of other methods to achieve the goals goals that you say they seek to achieve without society's express "marriage" sanction.

"Also what about adoption? That is illegal for gays in many states."

Frankly I think it should be. As I said in my earlier post....."Like it or not, the best interests of society are served by having a mother (female) and a father (male) raising children. Society therefore ought to promote those things that best serve society."

"If you do not want sexual orientation covered under hate crimes laws or anti-discrimmination laws - then remove everyone category from coverage under those existing laws including race, religion, and ethnicity."

I couldn't agree more!

"Anti-discrimmination laws and hate crimes laws that include sexual orientation - cover BOTH straight and gay people."

Not true. And you're trying to have it both ways with those two statements. Anti-discrimination laws, at least the more recent hate crime enhancements were passed to pander to special interest groups. Crimes against people are crimes against people and don't require enhancement for "special" people.

Posted by: Bob Fowler at July 12, 2007 9:38 AM

Ask prisoners?

Prison rapes are by blacks against whites. It is a power and control [and revenge] thing and has little to do with sexual gratification.

Again - how do you recruit a hetersexual into being an homosexual?

It is an innate difference in sexual orientation.

Posted by: G. at July 12, 2007 9:58 AM

>>Prison rapes are by blacks against whites. It is a power and control [and revenge] thing and has little to do with sexual gratification.

Did you know that it's considered "racism" to talk that way?

Posted by: KHarn at July 12, 2007 11:02 AM

It is not considered racist to talk like that - it is a fact that has been documented in several reports.

Al Sharpton might claim its racist but a rational person would not.

Posted by: G. at July 12, 2007 1:26 PM

Bob Fowler,

Then there are alot of exceptions - women who marry after menopause, people who have no intention of having children even though they can.

Gays marrying would benefit society.

It would make them be legally responsible for their relationships. It would create more stability in that population.

It would allow adoption of unwanted children by gay couples.

Re: Hate Crimes laws re: sexual orientation - YES they do cover both straights and gays.

If someone is beat up simply b/c they are straight - they would be covered - it is on the basis of SEXUAL ORIENTATION - not on the basis of being gay. Everyone has a sexual orientation -and if the victm was targetd specifically b/c of his of her sexual orientration - then they would be covered.

Maybe your confusion lies in the fact that most people who are beat up b/c of their sexual orientation are gay.

This is not rocket science.

Posted by: G. at July 12, 2007 2:04 PM

>>>Al Sharpton might claim its racist but a rational person would not.

Yeah, you tell Sharpton that he's not rational. I'd love to be there when you do!

>>>What does a person's sexual orientation have to do with politics?

Why don't you tell us? It seems that GAYS act like a political party. They have their own lobbyists and recently had canidates come to answer questions about BEING GAY.

Posted by: KHarn at July 12, 2007 4:11 PM

KHarn,

Gays, like left handed people, and people over 6'5" or under 5'0", exist in every political party, religion, socio-economic status, level of education, and race.

Currently there is a movement for gay rights in the US and elsewhere so it may appear that they represent one group but they do not.

Posted by: G. at July 12, 2007 4:31 PM

G,

"Re: Hate Crimes laws re: sexual orientation - YES they do cover both straights and gays."

That may be true in theory, but not true in application. The minute that a gay person was charged with a hate crime GLAAD and the ACLU would come down like a ton of bricks.

Posted by: Darth T at July 12, 2007 4:55 PM

Darth T,

No they would not - I guarantee you they wouldn't.

Posted by: G. at July 12, 2007 5:07 PM

Darth T,

At least now - for the first time in my life - I understand what you and others mean when they say special rights.

What you are saying is that it would be one sided.

Posted by: G. at July 12, 2007 5:13 PM

Hate crimes are stupid, as they criminalize not actions, but thoughts.

If I killed G because I wanted his wallet, that would get me sent to prison (and possibly executed). If I killed G because he likes to juggle balls off his chin, then (a) exactly WHY is that worse than killing him for his wallet, and (b) what kind of extra sentencing would I get that I wouldn't get for killing him over his wallet?

Posted by: Crush Liberalism at July 13, 2007 2:53 AM