Yeah, that’s the real problem in America today—the way the gays have managed to completely silence Christians. Can you even recall the last time you heard a peep out of an American Christian? Remember how the gays drove Mike Huckabee from public life? Whatever happened to Rick Warren anyway?
Sigh.
Go and watch the video, marvel at the awesome power of the gay rights lobby, and then take their “Family Values Survey.” (Please note: hating and fearing gay people is the only value the Christians behind this survey are interested in.) Unfortunately there’s not a “who gives a fuck?” option for the first question (“Do you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin?”), so just vote “undecided.” And to this woman…
…I’d like to say this: the gays are perfectly willing to tolerate your story—”tolerate” meaning “put up with” not “be delighted by”—it’s your haircut that we can’t abide. You can be an ex-lesbian without having to have your hair done by the same woman who frosts the cakes down at the IGA. Thanks to Slog tipper Sean.
200
I don’t think it is wrong.
And I support President Obama.
I agree with him that homosexual marriage is poor social policy.
I guess Barak and I will both be adjusting ourselves.
198
Before the Civil War the judiciary was an obstacle to abolitionist efforts. Dred Scott decision, etc.
After a great struggle the will of the people (a will that had been molded and shaped by President Lincoln) was expressed in Constitutional Amendments 13-15 that freed slaves and granted Civil and Voting Rights.
How much struggle will it take before the will of the people shakes off judicial oppression on the issue of homosexual marriage?
Homosexuals activists would be wise to learn from Lincoln and educate the public rather than always attempting to negate their will thru judicial measures.
198
Yes, sometimes the rights of weak powerless minorities are not popular.
Ask any of the 35 million babies slaughtered since Roe.
Oh yeah, you can’t.
Cause they were slaughtered.
Nice piece of judicial activism, there.
Hitler killed 6 million.
In Hell he shines Blackmun’s shoes.
Killing 35 million innocent babies trumps Hitler.
or Stalin.
Blackmun is a big deal in Hell.
You are so right.
Judicial activism rocks.
And protecting the weak doesn’t.
Roe v. Wade did not just fall out of the sky as “judicial activism.” Before 1973 women were demanding control of their on bodies. There were demonstrations across the country for abortion rights, lawsuits and lobbying efforts that lead up to Roe. The Supreme Court does not operate in a vaccume. It does respond to social and political movements.
In 1970 voters here in Washington made this the first state to legalize abortion by passing Rererendum 20. Several states had also liberalized abortion laws because of the rising feminist movement of the era.
Court decisions like the 2003 Supreme Court decision that abolished state laws against private sexual activity were also the direct result of the gay rights movement and a growing consensus among the American people that lesbian and gay people are equal citizens of this country deserving of full equal rights.
204
Roe short circuited the democratic process in which the people and states debate, discuss and reach a consensus which is reflected in their laws. It may be messy and take longer than some want but it is the only way lasting change can occur. Civil Rights was a long painful journey from slavery to segregation to a Black President but we have a Black President because we have formed a national consensus about racial equality.
Abortion is still an open oozing divisive political war because the process was not allowed to run it’s natural course.
Gays want to do the same thing with homosexual marriage. Instead of letting it be debated and voted on they want to find a judge to give them a shortcut to what they want. Any victories so won will leave bitterness in their wake and the issue will not be resolved no matter what judicial rulings are on the books.
185
Words can not express how uninteresting this is.
I believe in mandatory abortions unless you are married and have a verifiable source of income. I also believe in mandatory abortions for women under the age of 22 or over 40.
Further, I believe that abortion should be free to any women who wants one, when she wants it. The sperm donor (husband, boyfriend, whatever) should not be involved in the decision, or even notified.
I would like to see us triple that 35 million figure. There’s already too many people on Earth.
“Ask any of the 35 million babies slaughtered since Roe.
Oh yeah, you can’t.
Cause they were slaughtered.”
Hey, who let the retard in?
Anyway, the 35 million aboritons weren’t “babies”: They were balls of cells. But even if they were babies, who gives a fuck? Babies are just annoying smelly mess machines, useless until they learn how to walk and talk and wipe themselves.
And the dirty little secret of the “pro life” crowd is that they love the babies but they hate the children. If those 35 million cell clusters had been allowed to develop into children, they’d all be bitching about how much it costs to feed, clothe and school them.
Anti-abortion freaks who mouth concern about “the babies” are really just prudes who don’t want to see a woman get away with having no consequences sex. They could give a shit about “the babies”
Take the little bundles of joy cells out of a pregnant woman and put it somewhere else then. Will that make anyone happy? People need to leave the breeders alone and find a better hobby. If you can’t take the fetus’s home and grow them in your little pot nursery, then you need to back the F up.
30: There is one huge important difference between the anti-prop 8 crowd and the KKK: A conspicuous lack of lynchings and burnings.
If you don’t believe that a large percentage of abortions are done out of simple medical expediency, done to assure the best interests of the woman involved, you have a dangerously naïve assessment of the very real risks of even an uncomplicated human pregnancy.
Childbirth was a leading cause of death until this century.
If you don’t believe that the first, seventh, fourth, fifth, and tenth amendments to the US Constitution convey a broad right of privacy that empowers a woman to weigh the pros and cons and decide for herself whether or not abortion is in fact in her best interests then you lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Well said #211.
The American people time and time again have spoken when given a chance through the democratic process. They have rejected the wishes of gays to destroy the family by cheapening it with their mock weddings. Government cannot sanction two people of the same gender wanting to play house.
This is repectfully asked.
1. How does gay marriage destroy the american family?
2. How is a gay wedding a mock wedding?
At present it seems the biggest threat to families is divorce, and it’s heterosexuals who are divorcing. Doesn’t the desire of same-sex couples seeking to declare that they want to affirm lifelong loving commitments exemplify marriage at it’s best. I fail to see how such lifelong commitments by same-sex couples hurts the rest of us. Instead, their desire to partake in marriage, sends a message that commitments for life can provide one of life’s most humanizing relationships. I think that both civil unions and same-sex marriages could actually serve to strengthen the institution of marriage and family.
Sorry for the typo at 214, it should read “respectfully”. I need to edit better.
Two people of the same gender playing house is unproductive. The only baby they can have is doll or if they go somewhere were they can adopt. It would be nothing but a cheap imitation of the real thing plus it would send the wrong message to children that two grown up men behaving like little kids by playing mom and dad is right when everyone knows it’s not because nothing comes out from that childish play.
So, they are unproductive because of their inability to concieve children? So, what about heterosexual couples who are unable to concieve due to infertility, or elderly couples, or healthy adults who do not desire to have children of their own? Couldn’t you describe those same couples as “unproductive” or as “playing house”?
Why is it childish play for same-sex couples to raise children, be they concieved through sperm donations or brought into a family by adoption? Is it not better to provide homes for orphans, and foster children? There is no scientific evidence that children raised by same-sex couples become inclined to adopt a same-sex lifestyle anymore than childern raised in the general population are inclined to adopt a same-sex lifestyle. I still think providing families for children regardless of parent gender orientation would strengthen familes not harm them.
addition to comment 217
What about single parents, be they single because they never married, are divorced, or widowed? Are they “playing house” as well, because they don’t have an opposite gender partner in their family?
So, diminishing the population like in Western Europe where gays have been allowed to play house legally is strengthening the family?
Why don’t we just skip granting gays the right to play house and just hand over our sovereignty to Mexico…better yet to Al-Qaeda. Because if we go through with this childish experimentation there will be no more native born U.S citizens to defend the nation in the future. You’re advocating for the termination of the Union. Way to go, patriot!
I think you have deviated from the original topic? Do you not have an answer to my questions?
First, the U.S. of A is not a nation with a diminishing population. Second, approximately 90% of the Union’s population is heterosexual and thus able to produce native born U.S. citizens. Third, only same-sex male couples can’t concieve, same-sex female couples can and do produce native born U.S. citizens by using sperm donors. Therefore, there is no immediate threat to either Mexico or Al Qaida gaining a position to overthrough the U.S. due to a reduction in the population of native born U.S. citizens. Thus, I’m afraid your argument that same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages being a threat to national security does not hold up.
Why do gays hate Christian so much? The Christians are just expressing their freedom of speech. I see so much hate an aggression from homosexuals.
Why do gays hate Christian so much? The Christians are just expressing their freedom of speech. I see so much hate an aggression from homosexuals.
One can ask why do some Christians hate gays so much? Why do some Christians feel the need to impose their faith on others? Why do some Christians feel the need to carry “God hates fags” signs? Why can’t gays be allowed to speak freely? Unfortunately, I see more hate and aggressions from Christians towards homosexuals, than homosexuals towards Christians.
If homosexual marriage is legalized should polygamy also? If not, why?
241
No one is imposing anything.
Existing law bans homosexual marriage.
The existing 225 years old laws have nothing to do with any religion.
Homosexuals now want to force a change in civil law to reflect their moral view of what marriage should be.
It is incumbent on those who want to change the law to show why it should be changed.
That is a good question, rob? I haven’t given it much thought. Legalizing marriage between homosexuals would still maintain the position of marriage being between two individuals of age of consent. When and how was it determined that marriage was between just two? Some could argue that the Bible contains many polygamous relationships and thus it is neither unnatural or unethical. Your thoughts.
@216–Maybe nobody told you, but gay and lesbian couples already are adopting children and raising them. Some lesbian couples conceive a child and raise the kid themselves or can adopt them out to a gay male couple. This was happening before the movement for same sex marriage and civil unions. This is in part what has driven the demand for same sex marriage benefits.
Happily children all over the world already have gotten the message that this is the normal and natural state of affairs. This is why acceptance of homosexuality will continue to grow over time. I hope it has the effect of allowing kids who realize that they are lesbian or gay themselves to come out of the closet and accept who they are. The negative messages they might get from parents or church should be undermined as often as possible.
@243
Could one not argue that faith is being used to indirectly impose itself? For instance when the argument against same-sex unions is based on the belief that homosexuality is a sin, and against God’s will. Or when the argument that marriage was defined by God and is a sacrament is used?
Personally, I propose that the government should get out of the marrying business completely. Instead states should grant the same civil rights and legal benefits to both heterosexual and homosexual unions. And make them unions (not marriages) regardless of the gender of the couples involved, that way those who want to have a union that is blessed as a sacrament can do so if they choose.
why do the post numbers jump from 223 to 241?
Kim: Since when are lesbian couples able to conceive without sperm?
I have to admit you have stun me with that. I have read about female Komodo dragons giving birth without the product from the male but female humans is some new to me.
@248 Lovechild. Lesbians like any other women can get the sperm from a clinic or from a willing male donor. It is really not all that complicated and is something that nobody will ever be able to control or regulate.
247
Posts 223 -241 said the same thing by the same poster. So, I think slog deleted them.
Loveschild @ 248
My post said that they use sperm donations. If they have their babies in the U.S. their children are native born U.S. citizens. Loss of native born U.S. citizens is what you made your post @ 219 about.
Loveschild,
Are we ever going to address the questions @ 214 or @ 217?
214 answer is 216.
217 answer: Two elderly heterosexual couples unable to have children as any other infertile heterosexual couple are not a bad example for children to see because their unions are not mimicking the unions that contribute to childbearing. When kids see them they won’t get the idea that two men or two women can produce children. As oppose to the mock marriages gays want to impose on our laws.
251 answer: I’m glad you made clear this was false:”only same-sex male couples can’t conceive, same-sex female couples can”, no same sex couples be it male with male or woman with woman can produce children without the contribution from the opposite sex. That’s why gay marriages would be mock marriages by childish adults wanting to play house that would desensitize so much the future generations that they will end rejecting childbearing.
Thank you for your answer to 214 and 217. You still didn’t directly answer, but I will accept your response. We can agree to disagree.
Now, in your post @ 248 you appear to not have paid close attention to my entire sentence in post 220. I didn’t say anything false or change what I said. I never said children could be concieved with out the contribution from the opposite sex. I said that lesbians can have children, with the contribution of a member of the opposite sex, and those children born here would be native U.S. citizens.
Got it. I thank you also for yours.
By the way I’m not opposed to visitation rights and giving gays some leeway on inheritance issues. I’m just opposed as many concerned people are, about allowing them to equate their unions with that of heterosexuals.
Loveschild,
Please explain, and I mean this sincerely, why you think that same-sex marriages will result in future generations becoming desensitised and begin rejecting to bear children. Do you have any research to support your view? I have two children, and my husband had a gay parent. Neither my husband, his brother, nor his sister are gay. All three are heterosexuals, happily married with children. There is no research that I know of that supports your premise that children raised by same-sex couples grow up to choose same-sex lifestyle. That said, is the inability of same-sex couples to have children, without the assistance of a member of the opposite sex or adoption, your only reason to oppose same-sex unions? Or does the idea of same-sex people living in a loving relationship while providing a home to child, be it concieved through aid of a member of the opposite sex, foster child or adopted, offend you?
Loveschild,
Really, I’m not trying to drive you crazy just to understand. I appreciate your answering very much. So, do you think they can have legal unions as long as they aren’t thought of as a marriage or called a marriage? And what makes their union less than heterosexual unions? Is it the ability to reproduce?
Thanks for responding.
Deandre,
I may be speaking too late to ask you this but why is it that heterosexual African-Americans think that they can speak for the entire race in this matter. As it is, we lgbt African-Americans have a voice in this too but you never hear us because folks like you hog up all of the attention.
It’s not a matter of comparing, it’s a matter of families and relationships being protected. When we play the comparison game, we play into the hands of the religious right – who really don’t give a damn about lgbts or African-Americans of any orientation.
Kim: You asked, “do you think they can have legal unions as long as they aren’t thought of as a marriage or called a marriage?” Yes. I would also add to that, as long as the complete same benefits given to married couples are not given to them. Then I have no problem with them having some sort of legal unions and some reasonable benefits accorded to their needs, being legally recognized for them. Because I’m sure you’ll agree with me that gays don’t need all the same rights that married couples get.
You asked,”what makes their union less than heterosexual unions? Is it the ability to reproduce?” Yes. Please don’t take this as disrespectful on my part but I think you should reconsider your position concerning this point.
Think about it, had that parent of your husband always pursued a gay life, your husband would have never been born and you wouldn’t have the same family you enjoy now. That’s if you meant that the parent was the biological mother or father of your husband. Can we at least agree on this point?
Loveschild, Please explain, what constitutes as “same benefits”, and how are the rights they need different from married couples.
I will think as you have asked me to, but I don’t think my position will change. One reason is my husband’s mothers sexual orientation has never been an issue for my husband, it is a fact. His mother is a lesbian. He has never wanted to pursue a gay life, he has always known he was heterosexual. Second reason, as I don’t know how being homosexual eliminates the desire to be a parent, nor do I think it should eliminate someone’s right to be a parent. Gay or straight we all have the same human desire for fullfilling human relationships. It’s human to want to bound to your beloved, be it a marriage or civil union, and it’s human to want to love and raise I child. So, can we agree to disagree?
I think I am getting tired. Sorry for all the typos in post 260.
They do not need the same benefits because they don’t form families by themselves through cohabitation. I’m not saying that a single gay person is inferior to others, I’m saying that same sex couples are by nature inferior to heterosexual couples. Being that their reality, government has no obligation nor can they obtain any benefit from treating them the same as heterosexual couples.
Kim, how can your relationship with your husband that has grown with two more members due to your union be considered the same with that of two men who have produced nothing with solely their union? It can’t, yours is superior and needs to be protected legally and encouraged to continue through benefits that compensate what you two are contributing to your country.
Same sex couples by nature are inferior? I think that you are making bad judgements there. Who decides that?
If you judge the superiority of couples by their ability to reproduce then you are basically saying that heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce are inferior by nature and should not have protection. This would include couples where one partner is infertile or impotent and elderly couples.
I don’t think you thought that through.
Loveschild, you are simply wrong on so many levels, I can’t even begin to know where to start. What I can say is, aren’t you the “superior” heterosexual couple, with your “they shouldn’t be given the same benefits as you” speech. Ugh, you are one ugly person, starting from the inside-out.
Also for the record, lgbt couples do form families via adoption and artificial insemination (two methods also done by heterosexuals).
It always amazes me how when people talk not protecting same sex couples for the sake of the children, they always intentionally omit the fact that thousands of lgbt families in this country include children.
I’m not accusing you of that, loveschild, but I think that intentional omission speaks to the hypocrisy of some of those who would stand against lgbt marriage protection. The inference and connotation that they are protecting the concept of family by doing and saying things to make families who don’t fit their definition of the term feel inferior.
Loveschild,
I’m afraid we are stuck. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I do appreciate your taking the time to respond.
Gay families do need the same benefits, because they are families. Many same-sex couples do have children. Their relationship is real, and the children they are raising are real, and they deserve equal protection under the law. These families already exist.
You’re right my relationship with my husband has grown with our two children, but so has Mr. Savage (who started this post) with his husband and their son. I honestly do not believe that my union with my husband is superior to Mr. Savage and his husband’s. Nor do I think my husband and I’s parenting or family is superior. I guess I am saying, I don’t see, believe, or understand how being heterosexual is superior to homosexual. Neither are special, neither are superior. Despite the difference in sexual orientation the love, commitment, fidelity and devotion are the same. Because, I believe all love flows downward from God. The ability to love is part of what unites us in our humanity. Their family doesn’t replicate mine in its outward apprearence, but does in love and parenting. Sorry, if you think that makes me a bad patriot. I could argue, but I don’t like agruing, that desiring freedom from oppression makes me a true patriot.
Thank you again for responding. I appreciate hearing your opinions and the reasoning behind them. I respect your position. We shall agree to disagree. I have no more questions for you.
Best wishes,
k
Loveschild,
Since when has the human population been dangerously low, where a union has to result in children in order to be valid? Most people view marriage as a decision by two adults to spend the rest of their lives devoted to each other. Many choose to have children as well, and I’m sure it’s very fulfilling, but think about this: there are reasons that the government doesn’t make it mandatory to have children once you are married. Do you think they should? Also, even if you want to view marriages with children involved as “superior to” or “more beneficial than” those without, why does the government have to officialize this opinion as if it were fact? How do married couples without children harm married couples who have children? Does a child evaporate every time a gay couple gets married? Do you think that these gay people would be more likely to have kids if they were NOT married? I’m a heterosexual who never plans to have children. Ever. Should I be banned from getting married? Should my marriage receive less benefits than one with children? Wouldn’t it be more expensive for the government to establish all the new beureaucracies that would be required to keep track of each individual marriage’s fertility than it would be to simply have one set of benefits for all marriages and civil unions?
Also, since when is adopting a child less valid or productive than having one the old fashioned way? Shouldn’t one argue that those heterosexuals who have children that they can’t take care of are the unproductive ones? Isn’t it therefore at LEAST as productive to adopt a child that someone else has already had? Why does a married couple who adops a child need fewer benefits than one who gives birth to one? Is it easier to raise an adopted child? Are they less expensive? Does adoption need to be discouraged? Is it harmful for lesbians to take on a sperm donor? Is it really that important that only the genes of the married couple go into their child? Would such a child be “lower quality” than one whose genetic parents are married to each other? Isn’t it a child with two parents either way? Will it make any difference to the government or society that one of its parents was a sperm donor?
Even if gay couples never have children and never adopt, how will this cause the US population to go extinct? Do you think that every single US citizen is secretly gay, and that the illegality of gay marriage is the only thing keeping us in the closet?
We’ve established that your average homosexual marriages are not harmful, do not encourage children to be gay, and do not set any better or worse of an example to children than your average heterosexual marriages. So why, then, should they be discouraged or seen as a “mockery?” You say it’s because of their inability to have children with each other, but in order to explain why that’s important, you have to answer all my questions.
Kim: I agree we’re stuck here. I believe gay unions are not the same as heterosexual families and can’t be equated to received the same responsibilities nor the protections married couples have. I think you’re letting the love you feel for your mother in law obstruct any reason based pragmatism on this subject. I understand it, respect that love you have for her and for your husband and at the same time disagree with your conclusions.