Pushing a liberal social agenda is the last thing you'd expect to see on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street." But the network's June 16 mid-morning show featured a segment praising the California Supreme Court for legalizing same-sex marriage because of a predicted economic benefit.
"This time around, one study expects over 100,000 gay couples will tie the knot, providing a boost to California's ailing economy hit hard by the real estate foreclosure meltdown," CNBC Silicon Valley Bureau Chief Jim Goldman said.
Goldman cited data from the pro-gay Williams Institute, a division of the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. According to its Web site, the Williams Institute "advances sexual orientation law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship, and disseminates it to judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public."
"Overall, they'll have about a $684-million boost to the economy over the next three years," Williams Institute Research Director Lee Badgett told CNBC.
California's gross domestic product was $1.55 trillion in 2007. The potential "boost" - an average of $228 million annually - would add a little over 1/100th of 1 percent (0.0147 percent) to the California economy.
"New partnerships, new revenue - as California prepares to say ‘I do' to a flood of same-sex weddings," Goldman added.
Still, Goldman warned the state could miss out on this economic impact if Californians decide to amend the state constitution on November 4 to reverse the court's decision and limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman.
"And indeed, the celebrations and ceremonies will begin later today, but all of this could come to a screeching halt come November when a ballot measure seeks to reverse all this," Goldman warned. "But, in between now and then - we're talking big-time bucks - lots of money for a lot of vendors looking for a host of new ways, well, to generate some cash."
Comments Policy
What a BS story. So where
June 17, 2008 - 09:34 ET by SickofLibsWhat a BS story. So where were gay couples living before, under bridges on the interstate?
Not without a ring
June 17, 2008 - 10:13 ET by KC MulvilleIt's not like adult homosexuals have been avoiding living together because they've been waiting to get married. They haven't been allowed to get married until now, so they wouldn't have been waiting for it.
This is another story which was obviously initiated by the gay advocacy group. I mean, seriously, does anyone think that the editors and reporters were gathered around a CNBC table, and someone said, "Jeez, what kind of impact will gay marriage have on the housing crisis?" To which the editor replied, "Better check that out and run a story on that, Goldman."
What happened, obviously, is that the gay advocacy group gave the media a press release, or a report. Goldman added the video and voice-over, but the "news" all came from the advocacy group. Anyone want to bet how much time the reporter "fact-checked" the advocacy group's guess on 100,000 new weddings, or the $684 million guess about how much revenue gay marriage will produce?
You have that right
June 17, 2008 - 10:18 ET by ForeverOnTheRightYou have that right SickofLibs. I live in Minneapolis and its very sad for me to say this but I understand it's the second gayest city next to San Fran. I have two gay couples living on my block in homes, not apartments. So if this insanity spreads to Minnesota, these two couples would not be buying a home, they already have a home. (Fortunately for me these two couples are not flamboyant gays. And they are good neighbors.) I've lived here in Minnesota and I have seen it go down hill morally in the last 50 years.
Minneapolis is the SECOND
June 17, 2008 - 10:29 ET by SickofLibsMinneapolis is the SECOND GAYEST CITY?? - where is Prince when you need him?
Well, at last your neighbors aren't impacting the school budget, which I think may be the hidden, but more newsworthy, feel-good story here. Unless you have 'pregnant men' in the neighborhood...
Most gay people are boring,
June 17, 2008 - 11:34 ET by Cureboy675Most gay people are boring, normal individuals who don't do the whole flamboyant thing. You probably would never even know that they were gay aside from the obvious fact that he's living with another guy. Its the few that take the flamboyant thing to the extreme that everybody notices and then people assume thats the way everybody is.
Here's my take on the gay marriage thing (and yeah, I'm gay...And yes, I know I'm going to hell, as my Grandmother repeatedly reminds me). I just want the same legal priveledges as everybody else, the tax and legal protections the same opportunity to cover somebody else on health insurance. All that stuff and thats it. I don't care if you want to call it marriage, a civil union, or a "guy-guy-legal thing". I'm not hung up on the label of it.
But....I do think its tricky to call it marriage, because of the religious aspect of it. I don't think we have any right to force any religious organization to go against their beliefs and be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that they don't believe in. But in a purely legal sense, I don't see a problem with having the same legal benefits of a regular marriage.
But there is one financial benefit: In a couple years, divorce lawyers will have new clients pouring in. Gay people are just as capable of screwing up a relationship as straight people :)
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Relationships
June 17, 2008 - 14:40 ET by KC MulvilleWith respect, I deny your premise. You presume that you're being denied privileges because society disrespects your relationship. Not so. Society shouldn't give a crap about your relationship, or heterosexual relationships, either. We should have no interest in relationships of any kind. What matters is children, and that's why you're not getting tax breaks.
But marriage is not just another relationship among many. It's special because it produces children. What if gays adopt? OK, that logic follows. What if gays hire people to inseminate/bear children for them? That's a separate argument, and I would oppose that, on the grounds that I don't think society should separate child-bearing from marriage. But I'd prefer to keep the idea of marriage to be a child-bearing family relationship, and the privileges bestowed on that basis, not a referendum on your sexual preferences.
KC, Thank you for at least
June 17, 2008 - 16:04 ET by Cureboy675KC, Thank you for at least taking the time to give a well thought-out, intellectual reponse. Although I disagree with you, I appreciate your ability to be respectful and state your opposition in a rational, reasonable way. As opposed to immediately making some twisted leap to beastiality and pedophiles.
I only have an issue with the thinking that marriage should only be an institution for producing children. There are plenty of couples who choose not to have children or simply can't have children. But their marriages are considered just as valid.
But like I said, I'm not really hung up on the marriage label, and I have no interests in procuring child tax benefits if I have no children (I honestly don't know much about how taxes for married people work, so forgive my ignorance there)
And as an aside, and I'm not pointing this directly at you, but to a crazy bureaucratic society in general. Our government can't do anything to stop some welfare mom in the projects from having four or five babies and raising them with no fathers and what not. But, somehow (for some reason that I will never understand) the greater concern of our society is moving heaven and earth to prevent two financially-stable and monogamous people from adopting a child because people are uncomfortable explaining why Susie has two daddies.
and likewise it would be
June 17, 2008 - 20:02 ET by TruthMongerand likewise it would be great to get one from your crowd on the hypocracy against the peds, etc...
oh well, ad hominems are easier I suppose:)...
...and Repubs have put the kibosh on the welfare moms big time - I'm sure you are aware but hope no one here remembers- just mentioning it for the record...
as for "two daddies" there's nothing wrong IMHO with a "civil union" between 2 or more people of the same sex, or different sex, relatives or not - and allowing them to adopt kids...
Why must you call it a "marriage?"
There can be no other purpose than to try and engineer homosexual romance as culturally legitimate - in which case why then discriminate against the peds? If you don't like pedophilia - then just don't be one - but why stand in the way of others (referring to the large number of under-age people who desire it and eagerly consent to it)?
it's because of your own personal moral distaste for it - which is the same thing you bitch about regarding gay marriage opponents...
And I imagine you're probably also against polygamy...
Like ped oppostion, this gay opposition will never go away - it's against God's design...
Thank God for democracy
June 17, 2008 - 23:17 ET by KC MulvilleGlad to have a civil discussion, and that takes two - so thank you as well.
We disagree. I want civil marriage to include the idea of children and family. You don't. That's fine. Hey, we live in a democracy where we can haggle these things and work out an arrangement. That's a good thing.
I have a prejudiced view, perhaps. I'm a daddy with four kids, and being a daddy is a crucial part of my identity. I don't buy the argument that parents are interchangeable. Mothers are mothers, and fathers are fathers, and they both have an important, dynamic, and unique roles to play. I'm not just a co-parent who happens to be male - I'm a father, and that's a special thing. No insult intended to a single parent, because they have to fill both roles, and that's a huge job. I have tremendous respect for single parents. But I still think the model to strive for is for a mother and a father, and while not everything works out that way, while we have a choice, that's what we should strive for. Just one daddy's opinion.
And, as for your point about the welfare mothers, I think you reinforce my view. It doesn't matter whether the 'welfare queen' is just an exaggeration. Some elements of society want to destroy the respect for fatherhood. Any woman who falls for the feminist creed that men aren't necessary should not have children. And when abortion law prevents fathers from being included in the decision to even bear the child, that's a legal denial that fathers are important. I think the disintegration of the respect for fatherhood began right there. ....... OK, so you touched a nerve. Sorry.
This is a joke
June 17, 2008 - 09:48 ET by 10ksnookerRight? NO serious person would make such a statement with a straight face.
I want what Goldman is smoking
June 17, 2008 - 10:10 ET by kgI want what Goldman is smoking. He is so far from reality it's not funny.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
I know it isn't part of the
June 17, 2008 - 09:50 ET by taterI know it isn't part of the story but this is my pet peeve with the MSM...they aren't getting married...it's a civil union, you need one man and one woman for a marriage. It's like saying the economy is in a recession when it's been showing growth.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
So, let me get this straight...( pardon the pun)
June 17, 2008 - 10:13 ET by c5thenThe Willimas institute expects "over 100,000" gay "couples" to contribute $684 million in revenue just by getting married? That means that each couple is estimated to spend $6,840 on the marriage ceremony? That's one expensive marriage license!
Fact reality check...There are probably not much more than 100,000 gay "couples" in the entire country, so the "research" institute is expecting every one to make a bee-line to Calif. to tie the knot and/or make a statement. Sounds rather unreasonable to me. 100% of any group do not all do or think the same way.
They are using the same tactic that the abortion crew used in the 1960's. Over-infalte the numbers and statistics to make it seem a bigger issue than it really is. In other words, they are lying through thier teeth.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Gotta wonder when
June 17, 2008 - 10:17 ET by longriderGotta wonder when someone is going to marry their pet,
probably someone has already. You know it’s coming. If you can leave 12 million
bucks to your dog there should be no reason you can’t marry him/her. Gotta love
California.
Uh humm
June 17, 2008 - 10:57 ET by expatriotSo they do a study and predict what the economic boom will be for California based on what? So far it does not look like they are breaking down the doors to get married. It will be very surprising if their predictions come true.
If gays are accorded the
June 17, 2008 - 11:33 ET by jdhawkIf gays are accorded the same rights as married couples following their "union" then it is a net negative to the state of California. Since, married couples pay less taxes when filing jointly then if they were to file separately.
This is true at both the state and federal levels. So, it is a net negative at the federal level as well.
Meanwhile, I am outraged that a gay advocacy group, the Williams Institute, can actually be a part of a major institution of higher learning. UCLA is taxpayer supported with both state and federal tax dollars. We, the taxpayers, helped this "institute" get this message out. <barf>
Nonsense!
June 17, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Ten7sExactly the opposite is true. Both the social and financial costs of legalizing gay marriage will be great indeed.
First, there will be little legal way to prevent homosexuals, who engage in pedophilia 1200% more often, from getting access to foster children and/or adoptees.
Next, as homosexuality gains acceptance, more and more young people will engage in homosexual behavior. About half of men who engage in homosexuality will get AIDS or another chronic STD like hepatitius or herpes, and thus a cronic and costly health condition. About one-third who engage in homosexuality will become addicted to drugs or alchol, another serious usually chronic health problem. And a quarter will be beaten severely or raped by other homosexuals (and I'm talking about non-consentual beatings here, like domestic violence or date rape).
To top it all, most of the well-off homosexuals won't get married b/c it will open them to 'community property laws'. The ones who will most likely get married will do so to get spousal benefits from the state, fed, or a private company or organization.
All of these will be a huge drain on the economy without even getting into long term social costs.
The homosexuals are just pawns of the Leftists' agenda. The Communists used to blackmail homosexuals into joining their cause, now the same type of Leftist people are using homosexuals as shock troops to break down western civilization.
homosexuals, who engage in
June 17, 2008 - 12:04 ET by JasonChomosexuals, who engage in pedophilia 1200% more often
1200, you say? Source, please. And does this mean that the act of pedophilia was same-sex or that the pedophile identifies as a homosexual in general? There's a big difference, you know. Many male pedophiles who go after boys are married with children and have never had a homosexual relationship with a grown man.
as homosexuality gains acceptance, more and more young people will engage in homosexual behavior.
Social acceptance does not cause homosexuality. It seems more likely that further acceptance will push more people to come out of the closet - a good thing - but will not affect the number of gay people in any significant way.
About half of men who engage in homosexuality will get AIDS
Source, please.
or another chronic STD like hepatitius or herpes, and thus a cronic and costly health condition.
Homosexual activity can be practiced just as safely as heterosexual activity. Unprotected sex, period, is a problem. If homosexuals have somewhat higher rates of transmission, that doesn't make it exclusively their problem.
About one-third who engage in homosexuality will become addicted to
drugs or alchol, another serious usually chronic health problem.
Source, please.
And a
quarter will be beaten severely or raped by other homosexuals (and I'm
talking about non-consentual beatings here, like domestic violence or
date rape).
Domestic violence and date rape occurs quite frequently in heterosexual relationships; I don't see anyone citing that as reason to abolish straight marriage, though. Oh, and your source on the 1/4 thing, please.
long term social costs.
Such as?
The homosexuals are just pawns of the Leftists' agenda. The
Communists used to blackmail homosexuals into joining their cause, now
the same type of Leftist people are using homosexuals as shock troops
to break down western civilization.
Haha, yup, breaking down Western Civilization, that's the liberal agenda right there! And the gays are just our pawns?
Occam's Razor: We could imagine that liberal support of gay causes is part of a massive conspiracy to disrupt and destroy decency and traditionalism - or we could realize that allowing gay people to marry is simply a natural part of the liberal ideology in which people who don't conform to every aspect of "all-American" culture are not shut out of the protections and institutions that the rest of us take for granted. If you lived in a society in which people turn and stare or laugh or mock you when you walk down the street holding your wife's hand, I bet you'd want to fight for these rights too.
Anyway, kindly provide sources on all your Fun Facts About Gays, because they seem fishy to me.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
That is rather fascinating.
June 17, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Cureboy675That is rather fascinating. Considering all these "facts" of yours (I especially love the one about half of all gay people getting AIDS or a chronic STD requiring treatment), its amazing that insurance companies and hospitals haven't gone completely bankrupt already...Or have all these millions of "Chronic STD" patients just been avoiding medical care for 20 years, hoping that gay marriage will kick in and they'll find themsleves a sugar daddy who will add them to their health coverage.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
it's hard to explain, I
June 17, 2008 - 12:49 ET by TruthMongerit's hard to explain, I forgive you - for you know not what you do...
but sinful "civilization" always collapses upon itself - this is indelibly etched in history...
so we'll just put gay "marriage" on the list with abortion, gambling, porn - the good fight never ends...
and very soon we may have to add ped "marriage" and beastiality "marriage" and prostitution and drug use and multitudes of other social ills to the state-sanctioned list...
it's disease - either the host conquers it, or it conquers the host...
America, like Rome, may not survive its moral downfall, but God will - which is all that matters to me:)...
stay tuned...
Your forgiveness is not
June 17, 2008 - 13:23 ET by Cureboy675Your forgiveness is not required, nor is it desired.
But if you honestly think I support "beastiality marriage" or "ped marriage". Get a grip. First of all, neither of those things involve two consenting rational adults. And how many of you live in neighborhoods where an adult is "living in sin" with an animal or a child? But I'm willing to bet a number of you live in neighborhoods where there are two guys or two girls "living in sin"...And yet, I'm also willing to bet there isn't a gay pride parade marching up and down your block every day, nor has your neighborhood crumbled into a spectacle of orgies on the streets. Its just two guys living together.
Back to my two consenting rational adults argument...I know inevitably, somebody will throw at me that old chestnut: "What about if a father and his daughter want to get married???". First of all, is this really an epidemic? Can you find me more than five current examples, out of 6 billion people on the planet mind you, where a couple is proud to be father/daughter, brother/sister and are insisting on having the same rights as everybody else? If those people start the endless legal battle to have the same marital rights and achieve even one legal victory, then we can sit down and have a chat about it.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
you're forgiven
June 17, 2008 - 14:36 ET by TruthMongeryou're forgiven anyway...
and it doesn't matter if you support "beastiality marriage" or "ped marriage" or not - what matters is other do - and you have no grounds to stop them - in fact - you should be supporting them:)
otherwise you would be a hypocrite
Because I support the
June 17, 2008 - 15:19 ET by Cureboy675Because I support the chance for two legally-aged consenting adults to have their relationship legally recognized, I should therefore support the abuse of underaged children because to do otherwise would make me a hypocrite?
I just want to make sure I have the logic down before I go out and buy my "I'm a hypocrite" t-shirt and bumper sticker. Because in this case, I'd rather be considered a hypocrite.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
legally recognized - A
June 17, 2008 - 20:09 ET by TruthMongerlegally recognized - A "CIVIL UNION" WILL LEGALLY RECOGNIZE IT - so why does it have to be called a "marriage?"
and ped's may seem "abusive" to you - but what right do you have to impose your morals on others, my extremely judgemental pedophobe friend....?
gay "marriage" is just as abusive as pedophilia IMO, just like peds are so reprehensibly "abusive" to you - but your comfort zone is apparently all that matters i guess, and the rest of us can simply FO - typical "tolerant liberal..."
make sure you get both sides of the sticker done - to match your blatant two faced hypocracy
Gay marriage is so wrong...
June 17, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Clear thinkerOn so many levels.
Not only is the act of homosexuality an abomination, but to then have the state endorse it by issuing licenses is beyond comprehension of a moral and civil society.
This country is in need of therapy!
"Abstain from McCain"
You know what, you're
June 17, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Cureboy675You know what, you're right. As soon as Federal Government (and every state government) outlaws every other thing the Holy Bible says God disapproves of, I will be right there with you proclaiming that the abomination of homosexuality should not be recognized.
Cure, that of course will
June 17, 2008 - 12:34 ET by JasonCCure, that of course will not hold water with the anti-gay hysterics because most of the other things God disapproves are not nearly as icky as homosexuality; especially when two homosexuals seek state-sanctioned monogamy. The depravity!
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
you guys must support the
June 17, 2008 - 12:50 ET by TruthMongeryou guys must support the peds too I take it:)
otherwise you have a major dilemma to sort out soon...
Um, yeah, I'm all for
June 17, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Cureboy675Um, yeah, I'm all for abusing children. Not sure where that comparison comes from...But if it helps you feel better, so be it.
you don't have to be in
June 17, 2008 - 14:48 ET by TruthMongeryou don't have to be in support of pedophilia...
just get out of the way for those who do:)...
you should support their right to their particular lifestyle desire, too
that's your dilemma
I tell you what,
June 17, 2008 - 16:45 ET by Cureboy675I tell you what, TruthMonger, I'm going to make you a promise here in front of everybody.
The day the "National Gay Registry" goes online and they start sending out flyers when a gay person moves into a new neighborhood (you know, all the things they rightfully do with pedophiles), I will come here and whole-heartedly accept your analogy as reasonable.
Until then, gonna have to continue to just roll my eyes.
wow - a "promise" on an
June 17, 2008 - 20:18 ET by TruthMongerwow - a "promise" on an anonymous post - I'll bank on that big time...
we'll talk soon then, I guess...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism
hopefully you can become a bit more tolerant and learn to celebrate some diversity:)
I'll tell you the truth,
June 17, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Cureboy675I'll tell you the truth, TruthMonger, it kind of gives me the creeps that you are obsessed with the topic and have done so much research on the topic. But I'll humor you.
Because I'm curious. Would you shoot somebody who was about to sexually assault your child? I have two nephews, and I would shoot without thinking twice about it and I doubt any jury in this country would find me guilty.
Now, having said that. Would you shoot somebody who was having a gay wedding ceremony in their backyard where your child might be able to see it? Actually, I think I know the answer in your case. (Especially considering your argument that both things are just as abusive) But would you then expect a jury to then let you go?
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Would you shoot
June 17, 2008 - 21:53 ET by general companyWould you shoot somebody who was about to sexually assault your child?
I would shoot them if I heard them think it
Would you shoot somebody who was having a gay wedding ceremony in their backyard where your child might be able to see it?
You said their backyard,right? I would not shoot them , but we might have a bit of fun at their expense. Somethings are just to funny to be ignored.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
You know, go ahead and
June 17, 2008 - 22:06 ET by Cureboy675You know, go ahead and laugh. If I couldn't handle mean-spirited people I would have called it quits a long time ago.
But I honestly don't care if people find it a joke, or stupid, or ridiculous or anything like that. (We usually laugh at you so its only fair) But if you want to equate it to something as horrible and cruel as brutalizing a child, that is what is going to irritate me.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Cureboy, what, exactly, is your position on abortion?
June 17, 2008 - 22:47 ET by R D HelmThe truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Personally, I think
June 17, 2008 - 23:02 ET by Cureboy675Personally, I think abortion is wrong. And let me tell you why, because I think the argument of it being a woman's choice is a little hypocritical.
I mean, if a woman wanted to have an abortion, but the unborn baby's father was completely willing and ready to raise the child on his own (once the child was born)...He would have absolutely no say. The woman could have the abortion and the father could do nothing to stop it and the rationale would be "Its a woman's body, its a woman's choice"
However, if the woman wanted to have the baby and the father didn't. Again, he would have no say in the matter. The woman could carry the baby to term and the father would have to spend the next 18 years providing financial support for the child and the rationale would be "Well it takes two to make a baby". (Mind you, I'm not suggesting that father's should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, because I don't think that at all...I'm just pointing out my problem with it only being the mother's right)
Do I think abortion should be illegal? That's a trickier question for me. If a woman is at the point in her pregnancy where the child stood a good chance of surviving outside the womb, I say absolutely it should be illegal. But a woman taking the so-called "morning after" pill...On that, honestly, I'm not quite positive about. But in that case, I tend to lean towards being OK with it personally (especially if the unborn child's father couldn't care less)
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Cure... Thanks...at least
June 17, 2008 - 23:03 ET by bigtimerCure...
Thanks...at least that was an honest to goodness post.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Cureboy. . .
June 17, 2008 - 23:06 ET by tracheostomyYour stance on abortion actually goes hand-in-hand with the arguments against gay marriage. Think about how your logic also factors into child custody after a baby is born. Men have no rights there either. Thus, multiple incomes for feminists.
Equal rights for women became a business and needed to continue on to create new agendas in order to stay in business. . .even if that meant taking away the rights of men.
Which isn't a big deal really. Because men have no idea they're being taken to the cleaners.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Right. But like I said (I
June 17, 2008 - 23:17 ET by Cureboy675Right. But like I said (I think it was in some other thread, there's so many of them), if you are referring to that article about how two legally married women could have six incomes...I think two single women who just decided to live together would be able to scam those same six incomes and they wouldn't have to spend millions of dollars on lawyers for supreme court cases.
But please don't misunderstand, I think that once a child is brought into the world, both parents must provide financial (and more importantly) emotional support for the child. And I think it should go both ways...If the father is raising the child alone, the mother better pony up the dough.
I'm going to meander off-topic and give you what is at the top of my wishlist for our society. I wish it wasn't so easy to have babies. My sister and her husband tried and struggled for years before she gave birth to my twin nephews. And I tell you, those boys will never be neglected, they will never be taken for granted because of all the hopes and disappointments that everybody went through before those little guys were born.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Cure,
June 17, 2008 - 23:13 ET by R D HelmI appreciate your honesty here.
Too often many who claim to lament the ill-treatment of children have no problem with people (quite literally) ripping one out of its mother.
Sad, that is.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Cureboy,
June 17, 2008 - 23:16 ET by RESTLESS 1I've said a few times that the only time a "woman's choice" is pertinent as pertains to abortion, is before she spreads her legs. I can see an argument in the case of rape, incest or death of the mother, but as contraception? No way.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
You're absolutely right.
June 17, 2008 - 23:20 ET by Cureboy675You're absolutely right. And I hadn't considered that possibility when I was babbling a moment ago. But, just for the record, I would never want to imply that a rapist should have the right to have a voice in what happens to a woman's pregnancy when the pregnancy was caused by the sexual assault.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Oh TM, we've had this
June 17, 2008 - 14:41 ET by JasonCOh TM, we've had this argument so many times. The gay marriage debate comes up, you cheekily say we'd better support incest, beastiality, and pederasty as well, despite the fact that that makes no sense whatsoever, I demonstrate why the comparison is complete and utter bulls--t (or in this case, Cureboy does), and we go our separate ways until gay marriage comes up again.
Go search your copy of the KJV for some other outlandish high-horse platitudes with which you can condemn modernity, and leave cultural debate to people who can handle it without baselessly comparing gay people to pedophiles for the umpteenth time.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
truth hurts I know:) I
June 17, 2008 - 14:49 ET by TruthMongertruth hurts I know:)
I can wait...
I just wish I could get conservatives to care
June 17, 2008 - 12:37 ET by sarcasmo1/10th as much about various pending fiscal disasters in the TRILLION$ (see various open threads for details...) as they do about other people "doing it." No wonder government is so obese, and no wonder I feel such an intense need to mock them.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
social conservatives have
June 17, 2008 - 12:51 ET by TruthMongersocial conservatives have higher priorities, sarc - without morality there is no country to govern:)
No, fiscal conservatives have more clue
June 17, 2008 - 13:13 ET by sarcasmoWithout honesty in the financial system, EVERYONE is getting it up the poopchute, and social(ist -- at least it usually seems that way) "conservatives" need to get that clue. I'm not asking you to be like me and not care whether 2 guys are doing it. Go ahead, keep caring and keep being outraged at something you're not gonna ever change. I'm asking for 10% of the outrage over homosexuality to be transferred to outrage over obvious financial criminality. 10%. And the fact that I don't get it will make me continue to mock y'all, because frankly, you deserve it.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
fair enough - after all we
June 17, 2008 - 14:50 ET by TruthMongerfair enough - after all we mock the hell out of you too
But I'll be the one
June 17, 2008 - 14:53 ET by sarcasmoSaying "I told you so" when the financial system goes kaput. I doubt homosexuals are going to be any different, or make any difference, despite various beliefs about them. Money matters, and these days I find "conservatives" largely clueless on the subject, but as anxious to discuss homosexually as ever.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
money didn't make much
June 17, 2008 - 15:09 ET by TruthMongermoney didn't make much difference to sodom and gamorrah
but go the way you feel you must...
All I asked was 10% of the attention
June 17, 2008 - 15:13 ET by sarcasmoThat you object so-strongly even to that speaks volumes regarding why I'm inexorably driven to mockery.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
you ain't the first and
June 17, 2008 - 15:27 ET by TruthMongeryou ain't the first and won't be the last...
mockery of Christians and Las Vegas are very popular destinations these days...
and now California...
certain parts of Thailand, Amsterdam, etc...
I'm not "mocking Christians" (plural)
June 17, 2008 - 16:51 ET by sarcasmoI mentioned nothing about Vegas or Thailand, etc. I'm mocking a nutcase (singular) who is obsessed with homos to the exclusion of fiscal reality.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Be careful what you wish for
June 17, 2008 - 13:13 ET by AndersonCure, be careful what you wish for. Other “abominations” as found in Leviticus include shaving, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, planting your fields with more than one type of seed, laying with a woman when she is unclean, eating pork and eating shellfish. You don’t want to give up lobster tail, do you?
Leviticus also has clear instructions on where to find and how to buy human slaves, lest you make a mistake in these types of transactions. Children who curse their parents are to be put to sure and certain death.
Mike Huckabee has stated that he wants to rewrite the U.S. constitution to mirror the Bible. Although I support him and hope he will be McCain’s choice for VP, I hope he considers all of the consequences of his convictions.
godhatesshrimp.com
June 17, 2008 - 14:52 ET by TruthMongergodhatesshrimp.com dude...
it's been done before:)
It's funny as hell
June 17, 2008 - 14:54 ET by sarcasmoTo think that I initially brought that URL here solely TO MOCK PEOPLE LIKE YOU, and like the caricature you are, you've managed somehow to adopt it, instead. You make my job too damn easy.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
thanks for the compliment...
June 17, 2008 - 15:01 ET by TruthMongerbut it's God that turns all things into good - through me - sometimes...
you do understand that your mockery is my badge of humility:)
it all started with spitting on Jesus and nailing Him to a cross...
That site has nothing *whatsoever* to do
June 17, 2008 - 15:06 ET by sarcasmoWith "spitting on Jesus" (a New Testament exists!!). Neither does mocking you, though.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
The GodHatesShrimp site
June 17, 2008 - 15:17 ET by JasonCThe GodHatesShrimp site aside, can I just say that I am shocked - shocked! - that an Evangelical moralist who veils bigotry with scripture is declining to offer even a hint of a response as to the stupefyingly obvious hypocrisy of being an absolutist about the Old Testament parts he likes and not addressing the parts that basically everybody considers irrelevant and/or outdated (meaning they don't address something as groooooss as homosexuality, so who gives a shit, right)? It's too bad that those of us who don't use the bible as the end-all-be-all of everything have to keep asking this question like a broken record, but of course, we never get a straight answer about it.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
as God likes to say -
June 17, 2008 - 15:25 ET by TruthMongeras God likes to say - is ad hominem really the best you can do:)...?
btw I take the entire Bible literally - OT and New...
so ya wanna try again? see if you can stump the fundie:)
it's one of my favorite ways to win converts...
I'm fine with banning shrimp - although as a gentile the shrimp thing doesn't apply to me...but the homo thing being in the NT as well as the OT does...
come on give it another shot! you can win this ridiculously basic argument...I mean look how stupid I am! it would be so easy....
and all these worldy kingdoms will be yours...
It ain't just shellfish.
June 17, 2008 - 15:46 ET by JasonCIt ain't just shellfish. Is homosexuality the only thing in the OT that applies to everybody, whereas everything else is either for the Jews or rescinded in the NT? Very convenient.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
oh there's other stuff -
June 17, 2008 - 15:54 ET by TruthMongeroh there's other stuff - such as murder, theft - I didn't write the Bible though - so don't get mad at me...
unless it's convenient - then please feel free:)!
So, Truthie, my next steaming plate of linguine and clam-sauce..
June 17, 2008 - 15:31 ET by R D Helm..is going to send me to Hell?
Dude.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
only if you're an OT
June 17, 2008 - 15:34 ET by TruthMongeronly if you're an OT Jew:)...
and you're not...are you...?
I don't know what TM is
June 17, 2008 - 16:46 ET by taterI don't know where TM is trying to go with this but this is the NT passages about inheriting the kingdom of God. Point is this is why I'm opposed to it because I don't want to lose out on the kingdom of God...and those people who engage in it or support it that's their decision but they will have to deal with God.
1 Corinthians 6 : 9-10 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor
adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 8-11
We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but
for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and
profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
1 Romans 18-32
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of
eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and
perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give
him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their
senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an
image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the
creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and
burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males
and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their
perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice;
full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty,
boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their
parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such
things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those
who practice them.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Slavery was economically
J