moonbattery.gif


« Soon to Be a Relic | Main | ACORN May Impose Lifestyle Regulations Under ObamaCare »


August 19, 2009

Homosexual Marriage Gets Its Nose in the Tent in North Carolina

The institutionalization of depravity has taken a step forward in Durham, NC:

The debate over who should be able to wed legally took center stage Monday evening as the Durham City Council passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage. … Durham council members do not have the authority to change state law, but Monday's resolution was aimed at showing support for same-sex marriages. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have also passed resolutions supporting same-sex marriage.

According to a recent Elon University poll, more than twice as many Tar Heels oppose any legal recognition of homosexual relationships as support full "marriage rights." But the will of the public has very little to do with the liberal agenda. Already we accept as commonplace a level of degeneracy that would have made any normal person sick only a decade ago. Strong stomachs will be required to face the future if progressives have their way.

On a tip from Kel M.

Posted by Van Helsing at August 19, 2009 9:07 AM

Comments

Be grateful it's only sticking its nose in the tent.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 19, 2009 9:18 AM

I still fail to understand why they demand to have the "marriage" title. Can't they be content with knowing they love their partner? They have to have a string attached to it?

Seems like they want just because someone else has. Fundamental liberal tenet.

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at August 19, 2009 9:18 AM

I still fail to understand why they demand to have the "marriage" title.
Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at August 19, 2009 9:18 AM

they want everyone to acknowledge that they are "normal", bestiality and polygamy are next up for "normalization", the real "freaks" today (per liberal conventional wisdom) are the "breeders".

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 9:28 AM

Ahh, the jesus freaks weigh in. Have to make sure that we don't inadvertently do anything that would result in equal rights for everyone... after all, some of the members of the GOP are still pining for slavery. Why be progressive when you can build a bridge to the 12th century... and why stop there? I think we should stone to death all religious people who, for example, eat meat on Friday. Why not? same source as this bullshit... if you want to be consistent...

History, biology, and chemistry all say homosexuality is normal. Do some of you induhviduals need some remedial classes?

Posted by: "Meh" at August 19, 2009 9:36 AM

Weewilly is right.
The issue is not that they want to get married and start having normal lives (as much as they can). The issue is that they want the society to accept their sexual preference as "normal", and one of the ways to do that is by hijacking one of the most important social structures in a normal society, marriage.

Do you think they'll start getting married and STAYING married by the thousands? No.
They want ACCEPTANCE.

They want us to tell them that what they know is abnormal, is in fact "normal".

Posted by: Mats at August 19, 2009 9:39 AM

Are you completely incapable of seeing 'reality'?

When states legalize same-sex marriage, there are literally lines. People waiting to get married. So... that point would be WRONG.

"they want the society to accept their sexual preference as "normal"

History, biology and chemistry are on their side... (and you have... the Book of Jewish Fairy-tales). I think I'm going with 'you lose this round' here as well.

Do I really need to run a class here? Show of hands, who actually thinks homosexuality is a 'choice'? Who actually thinks that in human history OR in nature it is in any way unusual?

Let's try that 'thinking' thing about some 'facts' gained from 'reading books'... I know you haven't tried it yet, but i promise it is not painful...

Posted by: "Meh" at August 19, 2009 9:47 AM

Meh,

"History, biology, and chemistry all say homosexuality is normal. Do some of you induhviduals need some remedial classes?"

Must have gone to public school.

Biology: Penis fits into Vagina not Butt! Purpose...procreation.

History: Ends without procreation. Homos don't procreate no matter how much reconstructive surgery and hormones administered.

Chemistry: WTF?

Maybe you ought to get some remedial education.

Posted by: Bob at August 19, 2009 9:48 AM

History, biology, and chemistry all say homosexuality is normal.
Posted by: "Meh" at August 19, 2009 9:36 AM

if homosexuality were "normal" then there would BE no history, biology would never progress beyond a single generation, and as far as chemistry i fail to see how sexuality plays ANY part in this field; because a small percentage of people are gay, does not mean that it is "normal", homosexuality does not play ANY part in the "normal" congress of human affairs except as a sideshow to be ridiculed and scorned.


Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 9:49 AM

I knew someone would say something like Jay said. Haha

BTW Van, it's "accept" not "except" up there. Just nitpickin.'

I too fail to understand the history, biology, and chemistry comment. It's an unsupported assertation. Therefore, it's poor commentary. Ignore.

Posted by: Karin at August 19, 2009 9:54 AM

I really have to do this? ARGH! The willful ignorance makes angels weep... but fuck it, I have a few minutes, so here we go:

History: Form ancient times, across literally hundreds of cultures, homosexual contact has been an integral part of ritual, lifestyle, and society. Alexander the Great, Leonardo DaVinci... yeah, they didn't do shit for anybody. We should have made sure that they didn't get any rights... Not to mention Dionysian rituals, African tribes that used homosexual sex as a way to gain the strength of youth before battle... come the fuck on guys. Look it up. Historically, humanity has been pan-sexual. And it still is, regardless of the weird puritanical twist we get from the lunatic fringe in modern America. It is all about religion to you... and we don't care about your religious beliefs.

Biology: Look up "bonobos". Just do it. Once again, nature is pan-sexual. Every possible combination of sexual congress occurs in nature. Only way this is not relevant is, once again, adherence to the Book of Jewish Fairytales. So, if you want that one, I plan to stone you if I see you eat meat on Fridays...

Chemistry: It is by now clear to anyone who reads 'facts' that there is a major biochemical component to homosexuality. Twin studies, and the like, (that isolate variables) have proven that it is inherent. There is a lifestyle component, too, but that has to do more with societal norms than anything else - which would tend to support YOUR contention. If society forbids it (or at least the shallow-end-of-the-gene-pool socierty) then you would see LESS not more. (I always find that hilarious - "it is a CHOICE" says some redneck pastor who is unclear on the fact that no 13-year-old kid on earth would choose to be the target of revulsion and made sport of as an active choice? Ahh the intellectual inconsistencies of the flat-earth-society...)

Look, you can ignore all of this (and you will, simply because it makes your arguments completely untenable) but it is FACT. The world is a complex place, and JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT DOES NOT MEAN NOBODY CAN EVER UNDERSTAND IT.

OK, now that we have some data, who is ready to man up and stop acting like a 3rd grader on the playground? It's simple: "Yeah, we are wrong. We apologize for sticking our archaic religious doigma into modern life, and we promise to be better in the future about learning before we open our mouths".

DMD

Posted by: "Meh" at August 19, 2009 10:07 AM

History, biology, and chemistry all say homosexuality is normal.

If that were true, humanity would have been extinct millennia ago.

Homosexuality is not normal. That doesn't mean it should not be tolerated, it just means it's not the behavior of the majority of human beings. Genius is not normal. Talent is not normal. Just because something is not normal doesn't mean it's bad.

Posted by: V the K at August 19, 2009 10:10 AM

You apparently didn't READ the twin studies but made your own assertion.

Identical twins were studied and RARELY did twin #2 exhibit homosexual behavior when twin #1 was gay.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 10:15 AM

(I always find that hilarious - "it is a CHOICE" says some redneck pastor who is unclear on the fact that no 13-year-old kid on earth would choose to be the target of revulsion and made sport of as an active choice? Ahh the intellectual inconsistencies of the flat-earth-society...)

And yet these same people CHOOSE to murder other children, be liberals, support abortion, smoke grass, pick on fat kids at school...

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at August 19, 2009 10:17 AM

It is all about religion to you... and we don't care about your religious beliefs.

who on this thread has invoked religion?, besides you of course, speaking for myself i follow no religious faith. to pluck historical figures at random and assert that they were gay does not substantiate your point that it is "normal", these figures you point to in fact were quite "abnormal", and nothing links their homosexuality to the benefits society received from them which were all of a non-sexual type. "bonobos" sound like those gay monkeys i remember seeing on pbs(prohomolibtard), again they DO NOT reproduce via homosexual relations, so try again, these monkeys are quite "abnormal" themselves, else why don't they do the research on gay chimps or silverbacks *crickets*. as far a the "gay gene" i don't think they have isolated that yet have they, good tries on all counts though.

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 10:17 AM

Thanks Karin. Fixed it.

Posted by: Van Helsing at August 19, 2009 10:19 AM

You're right, weewilly. It is ironic that the only one invoking religion is the guy who hates religion.

But then, Meth has demonstrated that he doesn't deal with actual people... just the caricatures and straw men of his imagination.

Posted by: V the K at August 19, 2009 10:21 AM

after all, some of the members of the GOP are still pining for slavery.

That is truly offensive. The Republican Party was founded to end slavery. Many Republicans gave their lives – fighting Democrats – to achieve that. Democrats fought tooth and nail on the battlefield and in the North (the Copperhead Democrats) to end the war (sound familiar?) and allow slavery to continue.

After the war, Democrats founded the KKK to resist Republican efforts to extend the franchise to freed slaves. All blacks of that time were Republicans. Every one. All blacks elected to Congress during Reconstructions were Republicans. Every one.

Meanwhile, Southern Democrats passed Jim Crow laws during the day, and rode with the KKK by night to keep freed slaves down. Democrats continued to fight for segregation for over 100 years.

And now a turd like you has the utter temerity to assert that the GOP is pining for slavery? Fuck you. And I mean that sincerely.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 19, 2009 10:25 AM

History, biology, and chemistry all say homosexuality is normal. Do some of you induhviduals need some remedial classes?

I was a professor of chemistry in the Ivy League, and your statement is crap. And therefore utterly typical.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 19, 2009 10:26 AM

How does homosexuality benefit our species?

Specifically how does the maintenance and the increase of homosexual behavior have a positive effect on the growth of the population of a species, like bringing about new divers traits to assure the continued survival of said species?

Posted by: son of the preacher man at August 19, 2009 10:30 AM

Missing the point seesm to be the strongest character trait of the conservative mindset...

You deliberately ignore the fact that hundreds of disparate human cultures engage in non-heterosexual practices for various reasons throughtout recorded history. It is true, it is relevant, and it points to my contention that only the puritanical jesus-freak mindset has changed in the ensuing time, NOT human nature.

Bonobos exist. They are not extinct, but they engage in pan-sexual behavior. In fact, given current trends, humanity will not become extinct no matter how many people are gay. Nature says you are stupid. (I happen to agree, but nature said it, not me...)

The fact that they have not as yet isolated the gene that causes homosexuality is NOT relevant. They haven't isolated that genes for anything, completely. This does not mean it is incorrect, and also does not mean that we should stop looking. There is indeed some data to support the 'it is chemistry' declaration, and as time passes theere will only be more, not less...

As far as religion, this is entirely a religious issue. Secular people thee world over don't give a shit about gay marriage beyond the "of course. why would we not?" sort of statement. Pretending that this is anything but an attempt by the religious right to try and assert control over the rest of us is misguided at best, and more likely deliberately obtuse. (And here i thought your subset wanted the government to get out of the way and let us live our lives, no matter what... you won't let them provide healthcare, but you WILL tell them who can and cannot engage in civil unions? Hmmm.. someone took their irrational pills agian today...)

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 10:30 AM

some of the members of the GOP are still pining for slavery.

Of course, there are no actual links or citations of actual Republicans calling for slavery, but the voices insist it's true.

In case you missed it, here's video of Meth reacting to the news that conservatives outnumber liberals in all fifty states.

Posted by: V the K at August 19, 2009 10:33 AM

I'll say it in all caps just so it sinks in.

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE DO IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NORMAL.

Simple. By your logic, I could start punching babies and it would, therefore, be declared normal, common practice, and acceptable.

Stellar logic.

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at August 19, 2009 10:35 AM

Jay - were those democrats, or were they Dixiecrats? (I think I know the answer to that...) And who remembers Strom Thurmond OPENLY pining for the days of segregation and slavery? If you really, REALLY don't remember I'm sure I can find it for you on YouTube.

You may not like that the modern GOP is the home of America's remaining racist, intolerant, ignorant hill-folk... but it is. Which is awfully relevant to this discussion, since I am once again going to say that nobody in the secular, 'normal people' day-to-day world gives 2 shits about gay marriage beyond the knee-jerk reaction of listening to these sorts of people and thinking 'that is incredibly offensive. go back to your cave and stop talking'.

Posted by: "Meh" at August 19, 2009 10:36 AM

As far as religion, this is entirely a religious issue. Secular people thee world over don't give a shit about gay marriage beyond the "of course. why would we not?" sort of statement. Pretending that this is anything but an attempt by the religious right to try and assert control over the rest of us is misguided at best, and more likely deliberately obtuse.

again i'm not religious but i object to "marraige" of gays, "civil unions" are fine imo, but to hold up the union of two homosexuals to the same level as marriage is over the line of decency and leads to the utter subversion of a moral society.

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 10:38 AM

Let's review: Maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is "n attempt by the religious right to try and assert control over the rest of us."

But, Government control of health care, government control of talk radio, government control over the cars we drive, government control of what we can eat, government control of free speech, government control of our 'carbon output,' government control of when we're allowed to sell our homes (in the cap and trade view), and government control of education ... none of this is a problem.

Posted by: V the K at August 19, 2009 10:38 AM

you won't let them provide healthcare, but you WILL tell them who can and cannot engage in civil unions?

Sigh... civil unions equate to relationship... and we don't have a problem with that. We do have a problem with them parading themselves out there and forcing their "normalcy" on people. "Accept me accept me" garbage.

Why do they HAVE TO HAVE the marriage title? Are people not content with being in a committed relationship? They just want that tie to validate their abnormal behavior.

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at August 19, 2009 10:39 AM

The truth is, there is no barrier to two gay people forming a committed, meaningful relationship with each other. But, for some reason, some gay people just don't feel like their relationships count unless they force society to put some sort of stamp of approval on them.

Posted by: V the K at August 19, 2009 10:41 AM

I think what they want is the same benefits traditionally afforded to married couples in society; taxes, insurance, etc. The thing is, society has provided those benefits to married couples because society itself has a vested interest in monogamous heterosexual relationships. Think about it. Monogamy reduces sexually transmitted diseases, which is a public health issue, nevermind in a perfectly promiscuous society you would never know if you'd just knocked up your half-sister. Bad news there. Heterosexuality is in the interest of society because heterosexual couples have a strong probability of producing the future workers, soldiers, taxpayers that society will need. Homosexuals will not under any circumstances, so they ARE NOT entitled to those benefits. They're trying to steal from us, is my objection. Did that sound too religious to any of you?

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at August 19, 2009 10:54 AM

"civil unions" are fine imo, but to hold up the union of two homosexuals to the same level as marriage is over the line of decency "

WHAT line of decency? That is religious moraliazing, and nothing more. I think I have made my point that nature and history are full of pan-sexual behavior... and that it is ONLY the introduction of judeo-christian prosletzing that has turned this into any sort of debate. QED.

And as far as marriage versus civil union - why did any of you get married, if not for the same reasons we all do? it is society's formal 'stamp of approval' on two people's commitment to one another. And it is also...(trumpet fanfare please) a religious ceremony. If the only issue is the nomenclature, you would be making far different arguments; marriage is a word associated with a church, so you are all anti-marriage. If this is not about the Book of Jewish Fairytales... explain the difference.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 10:57 AM

And I cant help but notice ... dead silence from the peanut gallery about the difference between Dixiecrats and Democrats, and not a word about good ol' Strom... I take it that means you are ready to own your racist hillfolk element?

Reality hurts sometimes, folks..... doesn't alter the truth.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 10:59 AM

"heterosexual couples have a strong probability of producing the future workers, soldiers, taxpayers that society will need. Homosexuals will not under any circumstances, so they ARE NOT entitled to those benefits. They're trying to steal from us, is my objection. Did that sound too religious to any of you?"

Nope. just stupid. Does that mean that if 2 hetero people get married, but one of them has a vasectomy/hysterectomy at time of marriage, they should be denied benefits too? That was painfully stupid...

What an inane argument. Try again?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 11:01 AM

Is wrong to say that I love lesbians? Now that is hot. But two burly dudes... yeah, not so much.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 11:08 AM

so let me get this straight, racist democrats are NOT democrats and morals ONLY come from religion?

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 11:13 AM

75+ comments in two days over gays, that should sum up what you have in posters here. For a bunch of folks who spend enormous amounts of time discriminating gays, you sure do spend alot of time waxing on about them.

Scientific research has proved homosexuality is natural in many individuals. Let's put it this way, if gays were allowed to enjoy the benefits of marriage, and straights were not, would you fight for that right?Helsing? Jay? V the Kitten?

For my liberal allies here, the full mooners will not address the Dixiecrats vs Democrats, because the former is part of their base. As Kay Baily Hutchinson noted yesterday at her old high school, "We want to go back to the good ole days of 1961!". She fails to mention in 1961, her HS was segretgated, and full of discrimination of blacks, of gays. and other minorities.

For the straight worried about gay marriage as a threat to your marriage, you likely have bigger issues than homosexuals who wish to share the same rights as you.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at August 19, 2009 11:16 AM

LOL Jay and Bob!

As humans, what monkeys do is irrelevant and rather proves the point that this is beastly behavior humans ought to avoid.

The ancient Greeks and Romans would have laughed right to your face if you suggested that men could marry one another.

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 11:18 AM

Hey North Carolina - Welcome to Massachusetts!

Homosexuals like to hijack the English language to appear normal. Anyone remember when "gay" meant happy? A town, populated mostly by American Indians on Martha's Vineyard was once known as "Gay Head". Several years ago the town voted to restore its Indian name "Aquinnah" because the name Gay Head became offensive to the residents.

What's comical is that the two homosexual women that started all this sh*t in MA ended up getting a "divorce" which not surprisingly got little coverage by the mainstream media.

Posted by: Son of Taz at August 19, 2009 11:23 AM

"The ancient Greeks and Romans would have laughed right to your face if you suggested that men could marry one another."

OUCH. This is the kind of stupid I am talking about... Hey mandy, while you're at it, can I get a rousing chorus of "Keep your damn guv'mint hands off my Medicare", please?

Go READ about the period, tell me everything you know about Homeric epics.... then go sit in the corner with a pointy hat while those with a command of 'factual reality' have a conversation. You are in time-out for ignorance. Was there rampant homosexuality in those times? (Yes. All over the place. They did not distinguish between hetero-/homo-/multi- in any way, and if you were one of us "edumicated lib'ruls" you would feel as embarrassed as I feel for you after uttering such dreck in a public forum...)

Now a step further - was there any civil benefit to marriage in those times, the way there are now (with tax incentives etc for married people)? Nope. (Unless you were King, I suppose, but that is a rather narrow issue, and damned if the rulers didn't have the strangest appetites of all...)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias"

DMD

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 11:31 AM

Here we go again. We've discredited the idea that homosexuality is even remotely normal over and over again with cited scientific study after study, on the rational end, as well as Bible verse after Bible verse on the moral and spritual side. See the numerous posts in the archives of this site. It's a perversion and abomination, and an extremely unhealthy and unclean one at that. Simple science for you anti-Jesus freaks -- The cell wall of the anus is just 1 cell layer thick - nothing was ever meant by nature to penetrate the anus, just waste products going out. Anal sex and penetrating that cell wall with disease is the reason AIDS is pandemic in male queers.

Anonymouse squeaks: "You deliberately ignore the fact that hundreds of disparate human cultures engage in non-heterosexual practices for various reasons throughtout recorded history. It is true, it is relevant, and it points to my contention that only the puritanical jesus-freak mindset has changed in the ensuing time, NOT human nature."

Listen up, human nature has always been sinful and against God's will. It's not God's will that has changed, but man's depravity continues towards sin. That is why, though you likely reject Him, you need Jesus and should become a freak for Him.

Posted by: ZMarshall at August 19, 2009 11:31 AM

In truth, we find the constant "You are all racists" canard of the braindead left to be nothing more than evidence of an intellectually bankrupt philosophy that can't promote positive arguments, but can only attack opponents with phony charges.

The left may be stuck in 1964, but we're not. The reason we don't rise to the Dixiecrat bait is because it's a stupid argument, irrelevant to 21st century politics.

Posted by: V the K at August 19, 2009 11:33 AM

The whole reason for gay marriage is to destroy the meaning of the word. Ok, heterosexuals have given them a great head start by doing so much damage since the hippie days of the 60s. Gay marriage is an attempt to be the final nail in the coffin. Thats why they arent pushing domestic partnerships anymore. The object is to change the word marriage to mean almost anything.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 11:36 AM

Anonymous it is you that are quite ignorant of the Greek and Roman aversion and disgust with "bottoms."

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 11:37 AM

gay marriage was an abomination in ancient times, if you had the knowledge you claim to have you would know that the greeks and romans abhorred it, homosexuality was condoned in the greek world, but the romans looked down upon it from the earliest times and only after aquiring the greek states/customs did they adopt a less-stringent attitude towards homosexuality, one could argue both greek and roman society suffered because of homosexuality, caesar was a supposed homo and look at the damage he did to the roman republic forcing them into slavery (under the emperors).

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 11:51 AM

Here's a suggestion.

"Meh" can marry "Nutlicker"

"Pansy90210" can marry "Goatse"

and

"Brandy" can marry "Anonypussy"

Marriages made in......Hell?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 11:54 AM

was there any civil benefit to marriage in those times, the way there are now

Yes, Legitimacy of the children, social acceptance, status, inheritance....

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 11:57 AM

"I take it that means you are ready to own your racist hillfolk element?"

Are you talking about Robert Byrd?

Posted by: Henry at August 19, 2009 12:25 PM

Oh Dear, you poor bigoted folk. Isn't America about diversity? Mandy, not to you, I know you explained you'd rather go back to what the founders had. But just think how great the decorating would be if your slaves were gay?!

Further, you guys would rather criticize gays than allow them to defend the country, you'd rather deny them rights that you enjoy because it's in Leviticus, or while it's a valid argument, debate ancient Greek promiscuity. Give me a break!

You whine about losing your rights under President Obama, although you have lost none, yet are comfortable denying rights to fellow citizens ?Explain the logic to that please? You live in a country of straight Conservative virgins, liberal whores, Republican infidelities, prostitution, drug use, abortion, illegal wiretapping, illegal wars (which Obama needs taken to task on), the Patriot Act,child pornography, Priests molesting children etc. But you have to stop the gays? Why do you care?

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at August 19, 2009 12:27 PM

"The reason we don't rise to the Dixiecrat bait is because it's a stupid argument, irrelevant to 21st century politics."

Uh.. are you actually contending that there are no more racist ignorant hillfolk that just hate for the sake of hate? Did you not see the video TODAY of a red-state-dolt shouting 'heil hitler' at a jewish guy on stage? You REALLY want to play that card? There aren't ANY of them out there voting republican and hating (blacks? jews? hispanics? muslims? people from a different christian denomination, even?)

I really will go look up the lovely speech where Strom is openly pining for segregation, if you want to force me to.... but somehow I imagine you will just ignore it anyway.

Those like me will not let this slide, (nor should we) because there really are people out there, who always come down on the side of "I wish it was the distant past" (here meaning 'GOP voter', of course) who are straight racist, and will remain thusly ignorant of 'society' no matter what. So.. screw you. You want to play for that team? You gotta accept that there are players on the team who represent the least palatable, least sane members of our society.

Don't like it? EMBRACE THE FUTURE and stop forming all thoughts as if it were the 1940's.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 12:37 PM

Why do you care?

It's hard not to notice when an entire group of people entirely define themselves by where they like to put their penises.

I'd rather not talk about it; you twinks don't leave that option open.

And seriously, marriage is, by definition, the joining of a man and a woman in holy matrimony. You may not like that; you may not like that the State is part of that process. I don't either. Do something about it. Something, that is, other than trying to change the meaning of words to fit your sexual preference. That just screams insecurity.

Posted by: cowlove at August 19, 2009 12:39 PM

Meh:

"History, biology, and chemistry all say homosexuality is normal."

Absolutely false.

You support the sticking of an erect penis up the output of the digestive system. The thin walls of the anus tear easily and even if they don't, are set up to transfer the AIDS virus if the 'butch' partner has AIDS. The PH is right, cells exist to transfer the virus, and you say it is "normal".

AIDS is over-represented in men who engage in homosexual sex, never mind other conditions such as rectal cancer.

The fact that homosexual behavior existed throughout history is IRRELEVANT. So what? So has murder and greed. Doesn't make it right.

Your beliefs about biology and chemistry are similarly rubbish, ignoring the obvious and focussing on tiny pockets of 'controversy' that hardly matter one way or the other. Your arguments are awash with trivial things. "Pan-sexual" So what? Totally inapplicable to humans.

But of course, yes, we have the problem and your kind are so 'tolerant', aren't they? Lookup Ake Green, Christian Horizons, David Parker, Elane Photography, etc. etc. etc. Oh, yes, I want to be FORCED to celebrate the sticking of a penis into an anus. Woo Hoo.

You are an A grade twit. Those who want to debase themselves are free to do so, but normal people will bristle at being forced to declare is 'normal' It is not. Not ONE person breathing on this plant is a result of homosexual sex.

Score Progress -
Heterosexual sex - 6,000,000,000+
Homosexual sex - 0

Now, if you're so smart, point out to me where I have ONCE used a 'religious' argument.

Game Set Match.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 12:41 PM

Ghost of Wellstone obviously doesn't get the fact that it's not about 'gays' living their lives, it's about normal people being forced to declare it normal when it is actually a sick distortion of the sexual act.

Google JD Unwin. Don't mess with marriage or even normalize anything other than lifelong heterosexual partnerships. Society literally depends on it.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 12:45 PM

I second reading JD Unwin "Sex and Culture." Add to it Roger Devlin's "Sexual Utopia in Power" if you want to see where society is headed. Rather gruesome, really.

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 12:47 PM

Cowlove, rather smallminded of you to assume that anyone who defends the rights of fellow citizens who happen to be gay, must be gay. What happened to "all men created equal" or "love thy neighbor", does that only apply if they are straight ? As I stated, some cultural history is likely needed here. As Anon pointed out, it likely isn't written by Strom Thurmond. That you get bent over the idea that "traditional marriage" is a man and a woman, and therefore that is what it should be. So, by that standard, the Constitution should not have been amended...ever, cause it's traditional. Right ?

For that matter, would you like separate water fountains for blacks again? How about gays at the back of the bus ? Gay vars and restaurants in the middle of nowhere? The hypocrisy here is deafening!

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at August 19, 2009 12:51 PM

btw, I love how liberals consider homosexual 'marriage' progress! It is actually sending society backwards to the primitives, where straightforward facts are just ignored. Who needs arguments and evidence? I get MY kicks. Stuff educationinanization, I'll stuff my penis wherever I like and YOU have to like it!

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 12:51 PM

You deliberately ignore the fact that hundreds of disparate human cultures engage in non-heterosexual practices for various reasons throughtout recorded history.

What a staggeringly stupid argument. All human cultures have also engaged in murder. Is that OK too? Sheesh.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 19, 2009 12:52 PM

ZMarshall - "Listen up, human nature has always been sinful and against God's will. It's not God's will that has changed, but man's depravity continues towards sin."

Uh, I assume here that you are talking about a judeo-christian god? I don't recall anything about Thor, or Asmodeus, or Ba'al, or (yeah, this could go on awhile) being all about the sinful nature of mankind. What a stupid argument. That mindset is a construct of the catholic church, designed specifically to control you. You have shed some of the tenets (ever eaten meat on Fridays? What's your address, I'd like to come stone you to death with an angry mob, please) , but you cling to others on the premise that you are scared of 'different'.

Which is exactly what this debate is really about. Those people are 'different', therefore you feel the need to tell them they are inferior somehow.

Religion needs to get the deuce out of the way of politics, and sopciety in general. Wanna be keen on jesus? go for it. But I sure as shit don't wanna make a single decision affecting humanity based on magic... and nobody else should, either.

Posted by: "Meh" at August 19, 2009 12:55 PM

GOW - don't give me that skin colour/gay equivalence crap. No-one can wake up one morning and be ex-black. But the dirty secret of the 'gay' movement is that thousands of ex-gays exist.

Stop comparing behavior with immutable characteristics. Nobody here is fooled by that ridiculous assertion. Nobody is 'born gay' But plenty are born male or female.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 12:56 PM

Meh thinks religion should get out of the way, but him and his cohorts can coerce us to accept what they think is is normal. Can anyone say, 'hypocrite'?

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 12:58 PM

Stephan, straight men and women also engage in anal sex, so your argument is nil. AIDS is here, and because, maybe not yours? Scientists are stymied from using tools to find a cure.

Further, to you thinking you are asked to believe it's normal is irrelevant. As a citizen, you are expected to respect the rights of fellow citizens, the same same ones granted to you. Because you feel it's "not normal", does not make it fact.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at August 19, 2009 12:59 PM

Cowlove, rather smallminded of you to assume that anyone who defends the rights of fellow citizens who happen to be gay, must be gay. What happened to "all men created equal" or "love thy neighbor", does that only apply if they are straight ?

What rights are you defending? Gays have the same rights as everyone else, despite all your bleating to the contrary. Just to be clear, all men are created equal. I don't want to hear about what you like to do with your penis, either.

I've noticed a trend with you that when you're backed into an obvious corner, you simply make up arguments to argue against. That's called a Straw Man, and it's a fallacy, needing no response.

And what's with your racist garbage? Why do you degrade the struggle for civil rights by comparing it to anal sex? Sicko.

Posted by: cowlove at August 19, 2009 1:01 PM

so "marriage" is a "right"?

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 1:02 PM

What a staggeringly stupid argument. All human cultures have also engaged in murder. Is that OK too? Sheesh.

Ouch. Profound stupid there, huuh? You couldn't work anything about hitler in, too? Wait.... I missed the part where homosexual sex actually kills people... I think we can all agree that murder is bad (it is one of few places where biblical nonsense and the modern code of laws agree, even!); this does not in any way relate to something that happens between consenting adults who don't care what you think.

You probably can't see the difference, can you?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 1:03 PM

btw, Meh, your understanding of Old Testament Law is PATHETIC.

FYI, the Law has three parts Ceremonial, Civil and Moral. You obviously don't know how that works in terms of that whole Jesus crucifixion torn curtain fulfill the law thingy.

But tell us all again how wonderful and normal it is for a penis to be rubbing inside an anus.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:03 PM

Stephan, you would mock the Civil Rights Movement by saying there is no comparison between what blacks and gays have faced? Hmm, hate crimes come to mind? And these restored "gays" went to see Michelle Bachmann's husband, who is blatantly gay, or how about Ted HAggard? worked pretty good for him, huh?

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at August 19, 2009 1:03 PM

"I missed the part where homosexual sex actually kills people"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........

Duh.

Heterosexual sex creates new people.
Homosexual sex does not.

Numbers diminish. Same as with murder. Never mind AIDS, rectal cancer... Are you really this thick?

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:05 PM

"Nobody is 'born gay'"

Then what exactly is their motivation, huh? There are millions of them... oh wait i know, since you are a member of the flat-earth society... it is a secret cabal! a grand conspiracy!

Isn't everything....?

HA!

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 1:06 PM

Homosexual Duke University Official Adopts Black Children and Molests Them

Original Article So That You Can't Argue I Found a Hate Website

Older article but damn, that's a Five-fer.

Homosexual.
Homosexual adopting children into abnormal family.
Black children, abandoned by parents.
Child molestation.
Ignored by the MSM.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 1:06 PM

"love thy neighbor" = tell then the true word of God. Not coddle them in their sins.

Many black people are wising up to the conflation of their history with that of the elite perverse sodomites and they are not happy about it one bit.

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 1:07 PM

No it is actually you who mock the civil right movement by making ridiculous comparisons. A man can change his sexual behavior, but not his skin color.

And your examples don't matter, all it takes is ONE bonafide ex-gay to exist and your argument is teetering. Welcome to the new (for you) world of logic. If they CAN change then it is not immutable, and it is not the same as skin color.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:09 PM

Stephan - "Heterosexual sex creates new people.
Homosexual sex does not."

See earlier post. If a man and woman are getting married but have undergone a vasectomy/ hysterectomy... are they as ineligible as gay folks to get married? According to your (admittedly poor) argument, I guess I can't be married either. Guess I'll have to tell the wife. Sad times...

I hate poorly constructed arguments. Lemme guess... you are one of those keen-on-jesus types, right? This sort of nonsense is the hallamrk of people who do their thinking based on 'faith'....

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 1:10 PM

"hate crimes come to mind?"

As opposed to all those live crimes?

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 1:11 PM

Jay - were those democrats, or were they Dixiecrats?

They were Democrats. All of them. Don't try to define away the problem.

You may not like that the modern GOP is the home of America's remaining racist, intolerant, ignorant hill-folk... but it is.

Rubbish. Total, utter, unalloyed rubbish, and communist agitprop into the bargain.

Which is awfully relevant to this discussion, since I am once again going to say that nobody in the secular, 'normal people' day-to-day world gives 2 shits about gay marriage beyond the knee-jerk reaction of listening to these sorts of people and thinking 'that is incredibly offensive.

How about the people of very blue California? Are they racist, intolerant, ignorant hill-folk too? Californians crushed homosexual marriage last November by voting for Prop. 8, which amended the state constitution to ban homosexual marriage. Minorities in particular voted heavily in favor. So your contention runs exactly counter to ...reality.

And I cant help but notice ... dead silence from the peanut gallery about the difference between Dixiecrats and Democrats, and not a word about good ol' Strom... I take it that means you are ready to own your racist hillfolk element?

Kiss my ass. I just returned to the office. Dixiecrats were and are Democrats. Copperhead Democrats in the North were Democrats. Democrats lynched ca. 50 blacks in NYC during Civil War draft riots. Didn't know that, did you? The black lynched in the South by Democrats were...Republicans, to a man. No exceptions.

For my communist allies here, the full mooners will not address the Dixiecrats vs Democrats, because the former is part of their base.

And the whores are part and parcel of yours, comrade. For which you are doubtless grateful. Whore.

Isn't America about diversity?

No. America is about American values, comrade. Individual freedom, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity. No mention of "diversity" in the Constitution.

You live in a country of ...liberal whores

Leave yourself out of this.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 19, 2009 1:11 PM

Mandy, I would have the same argument with any person, of any race who wish to stifle the rights of others. So, nice try. Funny, I see the bigoted men here claim they "not interested in what other men do with their penis'), but apparently are. For the number of comments in yesterday's thread about a gay man acting "stupidly", and then onto this one. If you do not care, allow them to share the same right you enjoy, or once enjoyed.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at August 19, 2009 1:12 PM

"Then what exactly is their motivation?"

Does it matter? No. Point is the body doesn't cope well with it and it is also sterile. Fact.

I could care less WHY (in a general sense - I would react differently on an individual basis)

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:12 PM

oops make that "love"....

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 1:12 PM

Ah, yes, the old elderly/infertile canard - as if that is a valid argument.

Sorry, but that's a FAIL for you.

Homosexual sex is a categorical error - the two sexes are obviously made for each other, and society endorses marriage for the express purpose of its POTENTIAL PUBLIC benefit. ie. the next generation of people. Witness the fact that a normal couple who want children but are infertile are devastated about it. But a 'gay' couple already KNOW they cannot. You are comparing 100% of the time versus (I'm guessing) single digits. Not even close. Try again.

And nice try to speculate on my belief system. But all you're doing is telling us about YOUR prejudices and how you build smokescreens around your pathetic arguments to protect them. You are ACHING to say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!" and avoid dealing with the facts. The narrow minded one looks at you in the mirror in the morning, my friend.


Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:22 PM

Spot on Mandy - I love that 'hate crimes' idea - yes indeed, murder is worse when you kill a homosexual compared to a white straight male.

Makes sense to liberals and lawyers I guess.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:27 PM

Ghost of Wellstone, you think that we are fixated on 'gays' No. They are welcome to get out of our faces. They are the protagonists here.

They want to tell us what marriage is - ie. force us to think like them.

No, it's not normal. Go ahead do whatever you like behind closed doors, but don't splash it everywhere and hire lawyers and tell us you want to change marriage and then get all huffy if you encounter resistance. You do not have the right to force us.

Get your facts straight. (no pun intended)

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:32 PM

Thank you, Stephan. I've been away for a couple of hours so... Yanno something? Even with a vasectomy, even with the desire not to have children, minds can change. Vasectomies can be reversed. The homosexuals, however, still can't have their own children. Argument fails.

Besides which, I don't care what the traditions are, were, or have been in any other culture, past or present, or in any other species. These are OUR traditions. If you don't like it, try to change it. That's what you're doing, that's fine. However, YOU HAVE NO PLACE complaining if someone decides to fight you on that. We may be right or wrong, as you may be, we may win or lose, as may you. It is overwhelmingly immature, however, to complain when there is resistance, and tell it to shut up because you're the inevitable future. Grow up.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at August 19, 2009 1:33 PM

btw, GOW, respecting the rights of citizens works both ways.

As far as man-woman anal sex - irrelevant. It's also not healthy, but not REQUIRED by DEFINITION. Try again.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:35 PM

Interesting that those so invested in evolution have such a lack of understanding about the theory. It is not politically correct toward homosexuals, women or various racial groups.

A tenant of Christianity is that race and ethnicity are not indicators of salvation and so only trivial distinctions. Just an observation.

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 1:37 PM

Homosexuality, once the "love that dare not speak its name", now the "love that doesn't know when to shut the fuck up." When is it harmful? Go search, I urge you to do it for yourself, the health effects of homosexuality. What is the average life expectancy? What diseases are common? What behaviors contribute to these? You may be surprised.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at August 19, 2009 1:38 PM

GOW "Because you feel it's "not normal", does not make it fact."

Wrong. Biological facts tell me that it's not normal, because the act of sex (part of reproduction) can never fulfill its intended purpose. Once you strip away the emotional hoopla, and just view it even at its most basic function value, you can see it isn't normal. No 'feelings' involved this side, just the facts.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:40 PM

One more thing, Meh, on your weak infertility argument, plenty of couples exist who thought they would never have children and then they just happen to fall pregnant later unexpectedly.

You just don't get it do you? It's about setting up the structure BEFORE the children come. Countless studies show kids do better (less crime, higher marks in education) with a married mum and dad. It's a good idea to elevate the concept above all others, not drag it down into the mud with people who think anything goes with sex is OK.

(At this point liberals love to trot out individual examples, but forget this is a point about the general population, not about specific cases.)

But whatever, two women or two men can't have kids - ergo, they are CATEGORICALLY disqualified from marriage by virtue of their own choice. They can still live together and do whatever they like, but they can't tell me what marriage is. They don't respect anything about it anyway.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 1:53 PM

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at August 19, 2009 2:00 PM

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at August 19, 2009 2:01 PM

Heck, my wife (RIP) and I had reason to think we weren't a bastion of fertility, but OOPS we had a sprig, who's now 13 and not exactly an endless source of pride, but proof you can't give up hope.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at August 19, 2009 2:03 PM

Stephan - there you go, extrapolating your own beliefs onto others... the 'act of sex' as you delicately put it, is no longer remotely just for precreation. It is fun. It is all around us. The 60's were before my time, but damned if they didn't get that part right. There is no purpose to being all puritanical about sex; we all enjoy it (I can't picture even the most devout religious type or hardcore anti-gay advocate stating that sex for pleasure is not real...)

As such, sex for pleasure has an important societal place. Are you actually denying that our society views sex differently than, for example, the Puritians? That society at large has remained static since the dark ages, just because your views have?

If it is a part of modern society, it is de facto 'normal'. And don't give me the 'murder is part of society too' crap - there are not millions of murderers, and while i am unconcerned inviting gay people to houseparties and dinners out and such, I can safely say I have no murderers on that list.

So there you go. Times they are a-changing. It is clear that you don't like it, but it is going to happen regardless. I bet there are plenty of places for the intolerant among you to go live if you don't want society to ever change (there are people all over the 3rd world that have been living the same lives their family lived since the 12th century. Go try that on for size...)

Posted by: "Meh" at August 19, 2009 2:06 PM

"They can still live together and do whatever they like, but they can't tell me what marriage is. They don't respect anything about it anyway."

Wow. really? You want to say that out loud? That same-sex couples can't possibly respect the commitment, feelings, and connection that goes with marriage? That they are just sooo depraved taht somehow nothing positive can possibly result?

Not only are you a jesus-based moron, you're a dick, too. Mom would be so proud...

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 2:09 PM

Funny Goatse should mention child pornography and child molestation. Perhaps he should have a talk with Barbara Boxer, Sam Adams, Gary Becker, Mel Reynolds, the late Gerry Studds, and Ohio Governor Ted Strickland about it.

Oh, forgot, IOKWDDI (It's OK When Democrats Do It)

The equality argument is bogus since gays have exactly the same right to marriage as heterosexuals, that is, the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

So, the only reason remaining is whether there is a compelling societal reason to extend the marriage privilege to same-sex couples. Validating people's feelers is not, in my view, a sufficiently compelling reason.

Posted by: V the K at August 19, 2009 2:20 PM

"As such, sex for pleasure has an important societal place. Are you actually denying that our society views sex differently than, for example, the Puritians? That society at large has remained static since the dark ages, just because your views have?"

Perhaps you should read some really history instead of Nathaniel Hawethorne's propaganda about what the Puritans actually thought. The results would surprise you. Excellent book I recommend "The Puritan Family." You would be surprised.

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 2:23 PM

There is obviously no lack of choice of places where the standards these lefties seek are indeed normal, so they should have little difficulty finding an amenable society in which to live. Why is it, then, that they feel some need to enforce those standards on OUR society, denying US the option to live in the society which WE feel amenable? It's about control, not rights.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at August 19, 2009 2:26 PM

There is obviously no lack of choice of places where the standards these lefties seek are indeed normal, so they should have little difficulty finding an amenable society in which to live. Why is it, then, that they feel some need to enforce those standards on OUR society, denying US the option to live in the society which WE feel amenable? It's about control, not rights.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at August 19, 2009 2:26 PM

Meh,

"there you go, extrapolating your own beliefs onto others..."

Look in the mirror.

"is no longer remotely just for precreation."

Or PROcreation perhaps. Your opinion or anyone else's does not change biological fact. Sex may be enjoyable, but its primary function is always going to be procreation. It's daft to think otherwise. Sales of condoms and other contraceptives seem to fly in the face of your argument. You might have a terrible sexual experience - and still fall pregnant, comprende? Fun is secondary.

"There is no purpose to being all puritanical about sex"

Bzzzzt. Wrong. Mainly sticking to biological facts - I haven't really even STARTED on the moral aspect.

I did read the rest of your garbled logic, but since you think invitations to murderers or those who engage in homosexual sex to dinner parties makes a squat of difference to the inside of a rectum then your brain cells are fried, quite frankly.

Times can change all they like, but a penis does not belong in an anus. How 'intolerant' of me to continue to point out a specific biological function of the human body in the face of radical social engineering extremists...

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 2:27 PM

Stephan's post again alludes to the consonant disconnect between those supporting Darwinian Evolution and the implications of their social policy with regard to species survival.

These 2 ideas are at loggerheads with each other yet they cling to both and those they can ignore the fact that the worldview they claim to be based on logic is just wishful thinking.

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 2:35 PM

the result of "multiculturalism" is that NOTHING is "abnormal", everything is "relative".

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 2:43 PM

"Wow. really? You want to say that out loud? That same-sex couples can't possibly respect the commitment, feelings, and connection that goes with marriage? That they are just sooo depraved taht somehow nothing positive can possibly result?"

You bet I'll say it loud. Marriage is about children and 'gays' CANNOT EVER HAVE KIDS if they continue to just engage in homosexual sex. Talking about infertile and elderly couples is indicative of the stupidity of those propping up the daft idea that marriage is about the individuals who walk up the aisle, so to speak. Of what interest is it to the government of any society that two people love each other? Do you seriously want a government to assess how much 'love' two people have?

But they sure as heck do have an interest if that lifelong union CAN create new people. It's in society's interest to support as an ideal the institution that has historically had the greatest success at raising that next generation. So we add all kinds of benefits to help MAINTAIN the strength of that society into the distant future. And you want to tear that down. You have no idea what you are messing with.

But that you just whine and bleat and say "we/they want equal rights" and "we/they love each other". I say get a brain and a medical textbook - with lots of pictures, if you're not much of a wordsmith.

And V the K, you're right, they conveniently forget they have the EXACT same opportunity AND limitations on who they can and can't marry.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 2:45 PM

"Why is it, then, that they feel some need to enforce those standards on OUR society, denying US the option to live in the society which WE feel amenable?"

Uh, why do you need to enforce YOUR standards?

Currency says 'in god we trust' (i sure as hell dont... that's all you). I can't get drunk before noon on Sunday because of religious 'blue laws'. In fact, the MOST pervasive laws that interfere the MOST with the average person's life come from your side of things, not mine. The society in which you feel most comfortable would be one in which we all, what? never do anything fun, never have sex for pleasure, never display anyhting beyond wht YOU consider normal sexual behavior?

Now there's an awful world to live in... give me a "socialist" state with no religious bullshittery, no blue laws, and universal healthcare any day.

Where do I sign up? Oh... wait... I already did. I think it was last Novemner.. there was some big event that I recall...

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 2:49 PM

Where do I sign up? Oh... wait... I already did. I think it was last Novemner.. there was some big event that I recall...
Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 2:49 PM

so voting democrat means "signing up" for socialism? a 52/48 win is all it takes to totally subvert the form of government? you libtards wonder why we think your ideas are dangerous?

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 3:09 PM

and apparently "anon" thinks the ONLY way people can have fun is by having "gay-sex", and we just don't want ANYONE to have fun, never mind that no one here has said gays CAN'T have sex or do whatever, we just oppose the flaunting of their deviant lifestyle in front of our damn kids!

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 3:12 PM

""Wow. really? You want to say that out loud? That same-sex couples can't possibly respect the commitment, feelings, and connection that goes with marriage? That they are just sooo depraved taht somehow nothing positive can possibly result?

You bet I'll say it loud."

Eek. Well, I am delighted to say that you, Stephan, are gonna have a rough next few decades. The tides of history are already in motion on this one, and the flat-earth society is losing. Delightful stuff, that.

As far as procreation... it is irrelevant. That's right, irrelevant. Those who choose to, can feel free. Those who choose not to, choose not to.

Gay couples are choosing not to procreate. Just like my wfe and I choose not to procreate. Kids suck, and I want a Ferrari. Raw selfish desire (you should like that, anyway... selfishness is certainly the capitalist motto!) Where does that fit into your little 'scheme'?

Guess what? There are PLENTY of people on earth. We have no need for everyone to procreate. Or even most. This is once again one of those 'sure it made sense hundreds of years ago' moments... does it still make sense now? (Nope... why do we need another billion people?)

Posted by: "Meh" at August 19, 2009 3:31 PM

Hey Liberals! "Gay DIVORCE" is not a law anywhere in this country, so if you get "gay marrage" passed, they'll be STUCK with each other and will have YOU to blame!

Posted by: KHarn at August 19, 2009 3:39 PM

How very profound. Way to contribute.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 3:44 PM

Gay couples are choosing not to procreate. Just like my wfe and I choose not to procreate. Kids suck, and I want a Ferrari. Raw selfish desire (you should like that, anyway... selfishness is certainly the capitalist motto!) Where does that fit into your little 'scheme'?
Posted by: "Meh" at August 19, 2009 3:31 PM

gay people "choose" not to procreate? i thought being gay was "genetic" and doesn't involve choice? why can't you have a ferrari AND 10 kids, if you libtards all of the sudden embrace "greed" (profiting by supplying a needed product/service) why not go all the way with it?

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 3:45 PM

"so voting democrat means "signing up" for socialism?"

No, it clearly means we voted for someone who was aware that the status quo was no longer tenable, and someone had to do something. You are not clever enough to figure that out, and as such are part of the problem. nice going there.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 3:46 PM

You are not clever enough to figure that out, and as such are part of the problem. nice going there.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 3:46 PM

lolz, first he says "sign me up for socialism", then says "wait i already did, last election", when this was pointed out he reverts to this idiotic babble, the "status quo was no longer tenable" lolz you don't even realize how moronic you are.

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 3:52 PM

we voted for someone who was aware that the status quo was no longer tenable,

Yeah, that 5% unemployment and $200B deficit under Bush was so awful. I am so glad we have 10% unemployment and $1.8 trillion deficits under Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 3:55 PM

Leave it up to the voters and not a bunch of tyranical unelected liberal activists judges or the ATHEISTS.COMMUNISTS and LAWYERS,UNDERGROUND

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at August 19, 2009 3:59 PM

The tides of history are already in motion on this one...

Or, in a more apt metaphor, the septic tank is about to overflow.

like my wfe and I choose not to procreate.

Is this really true? Or are you just saying this to cheer us up?

Kids suck, and I want a Ferrari. Raw selfish desire (you should like that, anyway... selfishness is certainly the capitalist motto!)

Children should never have children. Fully agree there. It's not selfishness, it's self-absorption, aka immaturity, aka the Peter Pan Syndrome. But I for one am delighted with your decision. Just don't justify any future left-wing crap with "It's for the children!" That ain't gonna wash, coming from you.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 19, 2009 4:30 PM

Good. I hope gay folks come out in droves to get married in NC!

Good to see some southerners who can mind their own goddamn business and leave people be.

Posted by: brs at August 19, 2009 4:30 PM

Didn't your tin foil hat get the transmission from headquarters, Meh? Ferrari's cause global warming

Posted by: mandy at August 19, 2009 4:33 PM

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2009 4:35 PM

Good to see some southerners who can mind their own goddamn business and leave people be.
Posted by: brs at August 19, 2009 4:30 PM

the lunacy of these mental-midgets is astounding, if the gays "minded their business" they wouldn't be trying to force their deviant behavior on society as a whole.

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 4:37 PM

"the lunacy of these mental-midgets is astounding, if the gays "minded their business" they wouldn't be trying to force their deviant behavior on society as a whole."

I know! And what's more forcing their way into your life than their private relationships that are none of your fucking business in the first place. I like that you guys are for less gov't - except for who you're fucking and what hole you're putting it in, you guys are real hands off with the big gov't stuff.

Oh yeah - I also hope they have pride marches in your towns.

Posted by: brs at August 19, 2009 5:09 PM

The Faustian bargain of the left... complete license to do whatever you want to anyone else in the bedroom with no consequences... in return for complete micromanagement of your life once you step out of the bedroom.

Pass.

Posted by: V the K at August 19, 2009 5:16 PM

"Ghost of Wellstone at August 19, 2009 12:27 PM"
It's actually really funny that you mention child pornography as one of the issues that we supposedly ignore due to being distracted by the gay marriage issue or whatever, yet it is the ACLU, an organization which remains firmly embedded in the liberal camp, which has fought tooth and nail to fully legalize the possession and distribution of child pornography. Also, you say that we ignore the sex abuse scandals among priests, yet liberals like you ignore the fact that there have been many, MANY more accusations of child molestation made against public school teachers (A group that is sacred to the Left) than against priests or ministers.
While we're on the subject, it should also be made clear that it is the liberals, not the conservatives, who attempt to ensure that child molestors get sentences that are as lenient as possible.
"Stephan, you would mock the Civil Rights Movement by saying there is no comparison between what blacks and gays have faced?"
Ghost, YOU are the one mocking the Civil Rights movement by comparing what blacks went through and what gays went through. Most blacks today, especially those old enough to remember what that era was like, greatly resent how modern liberals attempt to compare it to the gay rights movement. There's a reason why blacks tend to largely oppose gay marriage (i.e. in California's elections last fall, 70% of the black voters voted in favor of Prop 8).
Meh, I'm not even going to bother starting an argument with you. I'm perfectly comfortable debating with people who don't believe the same things I do, so long as they at least remain polite and respectful towards me and what I believe. However, I refuse to debate with people like you, who are so immensely bigoted against my beliefs that the vast majority of their arguments consist solely of throwing crude insults, vicious stereotypes, and inaccurate straw men at me.
News flash: Insulting people's political and religious beliefs as viciously as you have is not a very good way to win people over to your side.

Posted by: Adam at August 19, 2009 5:35 PM

V the K said:

"The Faustian bargain of the left... complete license to do whatever you want to anyone else in the bedroom with no consequences... in return for complete micromanagement of your life once you step out of the bedroom."

Come one now - you're a full scale authoritarian movement and you say this? The fourth amend doesn't only apply to the bedroom - neither does ceding the executive with unlimited powers. YOur party suspends Habeas - then argues that can apply to US citzens - and you say it's just the bedroom?

Please. It would be totally fruity of you ONLY applied it to what gays do, but to be totally fair neconservatism's roots have been deeply planted in the authoritarian mindset since you ran off Goldwater and his ilk. So at least you seem straight - you want Papa Gov't to tell EVERYONE what to do, as long as Uncle Big Bidness is at the table with him.

So spare me that stupid bedroom line y'all always trot out.

That said, shame on you for wanting to control what your neighbor's doing in his own home just the same.

Posted by: brs at August 19, 2009 5:52 PM

again, and for some reason this is entirely lost on the 'tards, no one is oppressing gays by not calling their "unions" a "marriage", if two guys wanna sodomize one another there is NO impediment to them, but when they attempt to legitimize their deviant lifestyle decent people object.

Posted by: weewilly at August 19, 2009 6:29 PM

Adam, I can understand your argument on the analogy of Civil Right and Gay Rights. However, amongst friends who have faced the discrimination hurled on them, for some both homophobia and being black. Most of have suggested the animosity felt has to with religion. That said, the hate crimes, the discrimination,and the stereotypes have a common cause...acceptance. In the era of the Civil Rights movement, African Americans were not going to pack up and leave, laws had to be put into place to educate bigots. The same is being attempted by the LBGT community now. Gays are not going away. You can either grant them the rights we all enjoy, or be a bigot. Your choice? But do not wax on about "my rights disappearing", I paraphrase, when you find it ok to deny rights to another. It is the 21st Century and a number of you act like it is 1961, and it got ugly when a black man became President. Do you see the comparison?

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at August 19, 2009 6:43 PM

Meh
"As far as procreation... it is irrelevant. That's right, irrelevant. Those who choose to, can feel free. Those who choose not to, choose not to."

Ah, I see what you are now. You chose not to deal with my point about contraception and fun with sex. You just ignored it just like you ignore the other biological facts about anal sex that underpin my argument.

What is the point of wasting time on you? You don't know how to argue. A tip for you - when someone proves your argument is false, give up, because pressing on proves nothing about your foolish argument, but everything about foolish you.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 6:46 PM

GOW, the comparison between civil rights and homosexual BEHAVIOR is invalid so the rest of your argument is irrelevant.

Skin Color - born with it, unchangeable
Penis up someone's butt - individual choice (which a plenty big enough number used to do but no longer do.) Never mind the infertility and health risks.

Last I heard having black skin didn't increase your risk to AIDS or rectal cancer monumentally. Or stop you procreating.

There is NO denial of any rights whatsoever - someone who engages in homosexual sex can drive a car, take out any form of insurance, and yes - like everybody else - marry someone who qualifies (ie. opposite sex, old enough, unrelated) assuming they are not already married. But like me, they CANNOT marry someone of the same sex because they don't meet the basic criteria.

Equal rights are already here today. The whole 'gay marriage' campaign is based on a lie.

Wanna see a bigot? Look in the mirror. The charge of homophobia is MUCH worse today than being 'gay'. Even though a normal healthy view of sexuality being called a 'phobia' is laughable - I've worked with 'gays' all my working career - I don't exactly run away from them, but I do wonder how long they have to live.

"and it got ugly when a black man became President." ROFL! Hilarious! Don't you realize that YOU are the racist to make that statement? WE DON"T CARE about the color of his skin, but YOU DO.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 7:07 PM

Stephan, while I do not really care to dissect what Meh's argument was, you have to conclude that Meh, Anon and myself had you guys scrambling today. That said, your argument on procreation is not only bigoted, but sexist. The reason for marriage is "procreation"? Really? I thought love played a part in the equation. Many gay couples do not engage in anal sex contrary to what you may think.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at August 19, 2009 7:08 PM

brs
"That said, shame on you for wanting to control what your neighbor's doing in his own home just the same."

Huh? I don't know how many times this has already been said on this thread but here it is again: Someone who engages in homosexual sex is free to do so, but they do NOT have the right to force others to consider their distortion of sex normal when simple facts of biology prove otherwise. 'Gay marriage' FORCES people to celebrate anal sex between men, to name just one thing. A wedding, FYI, is essentially a PUBLIC event. brs, YOU are the protagonist.

Again, the update on that score:

Heterosexual sex: 6,000,000,000+
Homosexual sex: 0

I think one side is just winning.

Marriage is an institution to give children the best chance to grow up well. Giving in to 'gay marriage' means that the government has an interest in how much any two people 'love' each other. The government could (and should) care less.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 7:16 PM

GOW
"Stephan, while I do not really care to dissect what Meh's argument was, you have to conclude that Meh, Anon and myself had you guys scrambling today."

ROFL! Only in your mind. ALL of you REFUSE to deal with the basic facts of biology. No "scrambling" here. I've been thoroughly enjoying smashing every argument. Honest. This is a LOT of fun for me watching you guys make fools of yourselves.

"That said, your argument on procreation is not only bigoted, but sexist."

and inconveniently for you, based on biological fact. So, nature is "bigoted" and "sexist" is it? What drugs can you take to draw such a ridiculous idea?

"The reason for marriage is "procreation"? Really? I thought love played a part in the equation. Many gay couples do not engage in anal sex contrary to what you may think."

FAIL. Any two or more people can 'love' each other, but only ONE type of relationship creates new people. Therefore it is given special place in that society if people want to commit to that relationship for life. So that civilization continues and oddly enough, the next generation do the same thing. Someone who engages in homosexual sex is sterile by choice, therefore the relationship cannot categorically offer the same benefit to society and there is no 'next generation'. btw, it matters little if some do not engage in anal sex - certainly most men DO. Red herring.

Posted by: Stephan at August 19, 2009 7:30 PM

That said, your argument on procreation is not only bigoted, but sexist. The reason for marriage is "procreation"? Really?

Yes. That is the public policy purpose of marriage: to provide for the uprearing of children (maybe the fags misunderstood that phrase, which would account for their interest in marriage). If that's bigoted and sexist, then I say, "Great!" I'm not a Red anyway, so I couldn't care less. The purpose of marriage is to avoid...well, to avoid the situation in black inner cities.

I thought love played a part in the equation.

You thought wrong. The state doesn't care why people get married. That's their business. Nowhere in the relevant statutes does the word "love" appear. (Of course, neither does "sodomy," at least in connection with marriage. "Sodomy" appears in the criminal code.)

Many gay couples do not engage in anal sex contrary to what you may think.

I defer to your firsthand knowledge of this. I guess you guys are just overcome with clumsiness whenever you walk past a cucumber on the floor in your birthday suits. Sounds plausible to me.

Oops – almost forgot. Whore. Does that make me bigoted and sexist? Great! Whore!

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 19, 2009 8:20 PM

I haven't waded through all the comments, but a few thoughts/links:

biological, really?

Innate, really? Some folks would disagree.

Posted by: comet at August 20, 2009 3:59 AM

Scrambling........ right. NOT.

Posted by: Karin at August 20, 2009 5:59 AM

Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.

Posted by: PJ at August 20, 2009 7:24 AM

Posted by: cowlove at August 20, 2009 7:54 AM

brs you obviously don't live in the south. I do and personally could care less what two adults do in the privacy of their own home. What I don't like is gays throwing their lifestyle choice in my face. Here's as plain a message as I can send to gays. I don't give a shit what you do in your home,keep it to yourselves! When gays air out their lifestyle choice in public then by virtue of the first ammendment I have the right to voice my opinion.I am curious though and maybe so stoned or brs can answer,why do gays want to get married? Is it just to rub "breeders" noses in it,because if it is then they want to get married for all the wrong reasons.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at August 20, 2009 11:47 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)