In case you weren’t sure, the Albany Times Union firmly supports the legalization of gay marriage in New York, and they don’t care if they have to skew facts to prove it.
The front page headline itself screams of what the paper is trying to push:
GOP Votes for Gay Marriage?
The sub-headline reads:
Some GOP senators may break ranks to back a bill for same-sex marriage in New York
After reading the article however, one has to wonder how the reporter, Irene Jay Liu, could possibly have concluded that Republicans breaking rank was the heart of the story.
What is the supporting evidence behind the possibility of Republicans switching sides?
Nothing more than a comment from Sen. Tom Duane, D-Manhattan, in which he states that (emphasis mine throughout):
‘… he is confident that a bill to legalize same-sex marriage will pass this year, and that it will pass with bipartisan support.’
Duane goes on, saying:
‘… he has commitments of support from Republican senators, but wouldn’t name them.’
Liu apparently believes that an unsubstantiated claim from a lone Democrat who is sponsoring the bill should be the focus of the story. Conveniently glossed over in the argument is the fact that:
‘at least four Democratic senators do not support the legalization of gay marriage: Downstate legislator Ruben Diaz Sr. and upstate lawmakers Darrel Aubertine, David Valesky, and William Stachowski have said they would vote against the bill.’
So, why is Senator Duane’s statement the focus of the story? Does it hold more weight than this quote?
"The conference has been opposed, and continues to be opposed to this bill," said Scott Reif, a Senate GOP spokesman.
Or this one:
"I doubt that the Republicans are going to join the Democrats to pass this now. They are dying for the upstate Democratic senators ... to come out in favor of this," Diaz said.
Now, after disseminating the hopeful conjecture of Senator Duane, the confirmed statements of the four Democratic senators, and the insistence of opposition from the GOP spokesman, shouldn’t the headline more justifiably read the following?
Democrats to Vote Against Gay Marriage
No question marks necessary for this version of the headline, for it reads as an accurate statement, which is in stark contrast to the wishful thinking involved with the actual headline.
Then again, when it comes to pushing a liberal agenda in a biased newspaper, wishful thinking will always take precedence over the facts.
Not content with using sleight of hand journalism on their readers, the Times Union web site also throws in some links to their previous examples of blatantly one-sided support for the agenda, including…
- An article featuring a push by the Albany Common Council to have gay marriage recognized by the 2010 census.
- An editorial entitled, Gay Marriage? It’s About Time, a piece which also pushes for the census to recognize gay marriage.
One of the highlights of the editorial is a comment which claims that because New York does not yet allow gay marriage, it ‘lags behind some other states.’ Four other states to be exact. That is an odd way to interpret a minority view. Would that also mean that 46 out of 50 (53 out of 57 in Obama’s USA) ‘lag behind’ on this legislation? Or perhaps the four states that have legalized gay marriage actually lag behind the majority?
Additionally, the editorial adds this support to their argument:
‘the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (is) a rather nasty example of homophobic legislation.’
To which one would have to wonder, does the Common Council’s current efforts to circumvent this Act constitute 'a rather nasty example of heterophobic legislation?'
Photo Credit: Joe Epstein / April 6, 2009
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
homophobic legislation
April 15, 2009 - 17:27 ET by Nearly NobodyDo all liberals have homo erotic fanticies? What is up with homos and liberals? Look at Keith Obermann. If is not gay he has missed a great opritunity. I think it is great that all libs are homos because that means that they are not going to reproduce. We can screw them back to a minority.
"Nearly Nobody's News"
Most liberals have one child
April 15, 2009 - 17:43 ET by MrSnugglesMost liberals have one child anyways, so they aren't replacing themselves.
Wow. Where does all this
April 15, 2009 - 18:03 ET by Another Dead KennedyWow. Where does all this hate come from? You realize of course that gay marriage is inevitable. By the end of the year we'll have at least a dozen states who will have legalized it. And yes, I'm a liberal, and no, I'm not a "homo." Sorry to be the one to prove you wrong.
Direction of hate
April 15, 2009 - 18:18 ET by boomerconKDW, you should realize the direction of the "hate & discontent". It's not that conservatives are homophobes, it's just that we strongly resent having things crammed down our throats (no pun intended) by the liberal establishment, who, of course gain traction ONLY by demonizing us conservatives.
If gays and les's can establish themselves in a respectable lifestyle (and I know some in my neighborhood who have), then where's the problem? Just don't be so flaunting and "in your face" about it. Hetero's aren't that way, in general.
By the way, I love your handle. Reminds of one of my all time favorite quips, "well, we'll just drive off of that bridge when we come to it".
I can understand the
April 15, 2009 - 18:39 ET by Another Dead KennedyI can understand the "cramming down your throat" aspect of it. I've spent most of the last 20 years living in different cities with big homosexual populations (NYC, SF, LA). At first it was weird, especially the more flamboyant gays. But for the most part they are the minority within the gay community, and as I got older I learned that they're no different than the rest of us. I have friends who are gay, and I would really like to see them as happy as I am in my marriage. In the end, the more flamboyant gays (if nothing else) make the halloween parades an especially fun night! At the end of the day, it makes no difference in my life.
But I do think that anyone who refers to gays as homos isn't exactly showing his or her tolerance of others. Since I was a kid I knew "homo" to be a derogatory remark - I'm certain it hasn't changed.
Thanks for the compliment on my moniker - I hoped someone would appreciate it.
Another propaganda piece
April 15, 2009 - 18:39 ET by jdhawkAnother propaganda piece devoid of actually news by a newspaper that will be crying for a bailout and as a house organ of the Albany, New York government it will likely get it.
Hey, if the murdering Hamas thugs can get nearly a billion dollars from President Teleprompter and Secretary of State billary, anything is possible.
By the way, have any of you paid your $5 bucks to get a chance to spend the day with the serial philanderer, Clintoon, to help pay for billary's campaign debts? Anyone . . . ? <barf>
Upstate NYT
April 15, 2009 - 21:19 ET by pgrossjrthe Times Union is a regional issue of the Times. Their editorial stance makes no attempt to hide their bias. Given the multitude of state and union workers in the area they dont have to. Used to live up there, glad to have escaped. Most of the region is republican, but Albany county is a blue island and along with NYC overpowers the fast fading rural areas in the state.
Obectivity in the News died
April 15, 2009 - 22:45 ET by GeronLObectivity in the News died a horrible death by asphyxiation
If marriage can be redifined for same-sex couples then anything
April 16, 2009 - 04:53 ET by Rush Fangoes. If Bob, Ted, Mary and Alice are in a loving foursome relationship, why can't they show this love by marrying? Moreover, don't exclude incest from marriage (brothers and sisters, sisters and sisters, etc.) otherwise the ACLU and the left will sue for discrimination.
The good news is that liberal newspapers such as the Albany Times Union will be gone before too long. An article posted at the Huffington Post titled Sam Zell On Tribune Purchase: "I Made A Mistake" states in part:
In an interview with Bloomberg TV Wednesday, Sam Zell admitted today that his 2007 purchase of the Tribune Company was a "mistake" and likened the company to a "live virus."
"By definition if you bought something and it's now worth a great deal less, you made a mistake," Zell told Bloomberg TV Wednesday. "And I'm more than willing to say that I made a mistake. I was too optimistic in terms of the newspaper's ability to preserve its position."
---------------------------------------------
“Nobody believes what the mainstream media says now anyway. Except the uneducated, the illiterate, and the uninformed -- which, sadly, is a fairly large number” ~ Rush Limbaugh
Funny how gay marriage is
April 16, 2009 - 09:22 ET by moderncommentaries83Funny how gay marriage is "inevitable", when in all the states where it's been put to a vote, it's been rejected by the people of those states. Logically, it would make sense to know that racial minorities, liberals, and possibly even gays vote against gay marriage for such rejection. So it's only "inevitable" if black-robed mullahs or agenda-driven politicians overlook the will of the people and do what they want.
Gay marriage - especially the very vocal, vicious minority of supporters - will cause untold damage to free speech (look at Canada), freedom of religion (look at Canada, and Europe), and the ability of the people to deem what is and isn't socially acceptable behavior. The EU is working to pass legislation that would basically prohibit churches from declining to perform gay marriages - even if they object to them.
Is this also "inevitable", Kennedy? Is it "inevitable" that Christians, Muslims, Jews who believe in a very specific definition of marriage will be forced to accept a union that contradicts their religious beliefs? Is this fair? If yes, why? What about our rights to free speech, religious exercise, conscience, etc.?
And, as others have pointed out, when we determine it's wrong to limit marriage to one man and one woman because we are discriminating against the sexuality of gays, then it - logically - cannot stop with marriage being between two consenting adults.
If my sexual preference is three men (or women) - who is the state to say we can't get married?
If my sexual preference is young children - who is the state to say I can't marry the 8-year-old down the street from me?
If my sexual preference is animals - who is the state to say I can't marry a goat or a dog or a dolphin?
If my sexual preference is inanimate objects - who is the state to say I can't marry a chair or your car?
This opens the door to a whole manner of forced acceptance of a slew of behaviors that do not benefit society or the individuals involved.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Religion doesn't count in
April 16, 2009 - 12:51 ET by Another Dead KennedyReligion doesn't count in this argument. Religion doesn't make our laws. Look up the Separation of Church and State. The bible promotes slavery and stoning deaths. Should we bring those back too?
No one is looking for anything more than 2 individuals marrying. Your arguments about 3 men marrying each other, marrying children (must I even comment?), marrying animals (no comment based on your stupidity), inanimate object (you're f*@#ing kidding, right?) - it's insanity if you really think these are forthcoming issues.
Now let me ask you a question: If a law is put in place, a constitutional ammendment forbidding all of your predictions EXCEPT gay marriage, would you still have a problem allowing gays to marry?
Hi KDW ~ relax, nobody is advocating a theocracy...
April 16, 2009 - 15:50 ET by pahuber"Religion doesn't count in this argument. Religion doesn't make our laws."
Our laws were, in fact, based on Judeo Christian beliefs.
"Look up the Separation of Church and State."
You mean the establishment clause. The comment "separation of church and state" is contrived and not based on any factual constitutional law .
"The bible promotes slavery and stoning deaths. Should we bring those back too?"
From which book? And verily, Jesus spoke saying... yeah, bring unto me thy slaves and have them stoned... The above statement is just flat out false.
"No one is looking for anything more than 2 individuals marrying."
This is false. There are many many movements that seek to indoctrinate our children at every level. Canada is already becoming openly hostile to those who speak against homosexuality.
So, no. There is clearly an agenda to go beyond just two people marrying.
"Now let me ask you a question: If a law is put in place, a
constitutional amendment forbidding all of your predictions EXCEPT gay
marriage, would you still have a problem allowing gays to marry? "
Absolutely. It is an immoral lifestyle CHOICE.
Oh, so you want a religious
April 16, 2009 - 16:18 ET by Another Dead KennedyOh, so you want a religious debate now? Okay, factually, nothing in the bible is true. Otherwise it would be taught as history. Right? Right? Or are you going to use Separation as your argument. Works for you, not for me?
Where are your sources? There is NO practical agenda to go further than to allow 2 individuals of the same sex to marry. Outside of some extremist groups, it just ain't true.
It is an immoral lifestyle CHOICE.
Proof? Or is that your religious belief? Being gay is not a crime, any way you want to spin it. But how pissed are you that very soon legal gay marriage will come to your state? It's gonna happen whether you like it or not.
KDW ~
April 16, 2009 - 16:36 ET by pahuber"Oh, so you want a religious debate now?"
No. Why would you say that?
"Okay, factually, nothing in
the bible is true. Otherwise it would be taught as history. Right?
Right? Or are you going to use Separation as your argument. Works for
you, not for me?"
I do not understand what you want to convey to me here...
"Where are your sources? There is NO practical agenda to go
further than to allow 2 individuals of the same sex to marry. Outside
of some extremist groups, it just ain't true."
It would not matter what sources I supplied or sites. You are convinced in your own mind, regardless.
"Proof? Or is that your religious belief? Being gay is not a crime,
any way you want to spin it. But how pissed are you that very soon
legal gay marriage will come to your state? It's gonna happen whether
you like it or not."
Okay, so you did not respond to any of my statements which disputed much of your last post (e.g., sep. c & c, what our laws were based upon, etc.).
Not sure what your game is KDW.
Okie Dokie
April 16, 2009 - 17:10 ET by Another Dead KennedyI'll answer your one question (questions are sentences that end with this little thingy: "?").
From which book? Both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation:
http://www.carm.org/...
I'll respond to any question you ask. I'm not assuming your statements are really questions. Were you going to answer any of mine, or is this just a one sided discussion? (notice the "?" I threw in there)
It would not matter what sources I supplied or sites. You are convinced in your own mind, regardless.
Really? Provide me with a valid argument and perhaps you can change my mind. I consider myself to be a pretty open minded individual. After all, I'm the one condoning gay marriage.
I'm not playing a game here. You came after me, remember?
KDW ~ The words promote and permit have different meanings.
April 16, 2009 - 17:30 ET by pahuber"The bible promotes slavery and stoning deaths. Should we bring those back too?"
I bolded and italicized your word promote since that is the word I took issue with.
You also stated:
"Religion doesn't count in this argument. Religion doesn't make our laws."
Do you believe that our constitution was based on Judeo Christian values?
The term "separation of church and state" is an inaccurate interpretation of the establishment clause and is nowhere found in constitutional law.
"I consider myself to be a pretty open minded individual. After all, I'm the one condoning gay marriage."
Condoning gay marriage does not make you open minded.
"I'm not playing a game here. You came after me, remember?"
I merely posed some questions to you...
How clear must I get?
April 16, 2009 - 17:48 ET by Another Dead KennedyHow clear must I get? YOUR religion does not dictate the laws of this country. If you think religion should make our laws, which religion do you choose? Yours, I assume. What about everyone else? THAT'S why religion doesn't make laws. First Ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
You are right about one thing - nowhere in the Constution does it mention Separation. That's partially why the language is included in the first ammendment, in addition to Jefferson's Wall of Separation letter.
Geez! Slavery:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from
among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of
such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You
may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent
inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel,
your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If that ain't promotion, I don't know what is.
Question time. How does gay marriage affect you and your family?
KDW ~ You are evading the question, again.
April 16, 2009 - 18:19 ET by pahuberDo you believe that our Gov't and its foundation were based on Judeo Christian values? Yes or no?
"That's partially why the language is included in the first amendment, ... "
That is patently false. NOT even partially.
Where, pray tell, are the actual words "separation of church and state" in the first amendment of the constitution?
You see KDW, your point is not valid. You can try and keep saying that I want my religion made into law, but that does not make it true.
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)~ This is not a Biblical mandate promoting slavery. To you, however, it could be made into anything I suppose.
How does gay marriage affect you and your family?
It would effect all of our families by causing sin to abound even more than it has in our country. The effects would be a continual loss of God's blessings upon our land.
Does that answer make you happy?
No, it most certainly does
April 16, 2009 - 18:26 ET by Another Dead KennedyNo, it most certainly does not. Please answer the question. How does gay marriage affect YOUR family?
I already said separation is not included in the constitution. And NO, the exact words are not written in the first ammendment either.
Now it's your turn - where, pray tell, does it say in the constitution that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?
You can try and keep saying that I want my religion made into law, but that does not make it true.
All you need to do is deny this statement.
~"How does gay marriage affect YOUR family? "
April 16, 2009 - 18:34 ET by choselife3xHow does a pedophile raping an eight year old affect YOUR family?
Just because a particular action doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Last time I checked raping a
April 16, 2009 - 18:50 ET by Another Dead KennedyLast time I checked raping a child was illegal. What country do you live in?
well
April 16, 2009 - 19:04 ET by botgso is gay marriage in most states, what country do you live in?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
2 consenting adults in love
April 16, 2009 - 19:17 ET by Another Dead Kennedy2 consenting adults in love does not compare to raping a child. Nice try though.
??????
April 16, 2009 - 19:24 ET by botg2?
why 2??
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
The real question is
April 16, 2009 - 19:43 ET by cocodrieWhy should we be forced to change the definition of marriage? Since the beginning of mankind it has been defined as the union of a man and a woman, NOTHING ELSE.
Next thing, someone will want to marry the London Bridge.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Well the London Bridge is
April 16, 2009 - 20:14 ET by mandrakeWell the London Bridge is little out of my league. But I have been considering asking Fred Phelps to marry me. Do you think he would be receptive?
Good evening Mandrake
April 16, 2009 - 20:22 ET by cocodriethought your buddy was Lothar.
The London Bridge is nice though, she's built like a brick bridge.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
In the case of a pedophile
April 16, 2009 - 19:00 ET by mandrakeIn the case of a pedophile raping a child there is clearly a victim. In the case of gay marriage, who exactly is the victim..be specific!
Power-saw to the people - Dexter
Both of those who marry. Whether male or female.
April 16, 2009 - 19:21 ET by pahuberIt is an abomination before the Lord.
Second, our country will suffer the consequences of continual sliding into sin. The blessings once enjoyed because of our righteousness will be found no more.
pahuber
"Now it's your turn -
April 16, 2009 - 18:35 ET by pahuber"Now it's your turn - where, pray tell, does it say in the constitution that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?"
I never said nor did I ever infer that it did.
I made the statement that I do not want a theocracy or my religion made into law and you say this:
"All you need to do is deny this statement."
So I guess you are calling me a liar or saying that I am disingenuous. How wonderful... how come I am not surprised when people like you resort to this type of arguing?
"Please answer the question. How does gay marriage affect YOUR family?"
Unlike you ignoring of my question concerning the basis of our country being Judeo Christian I answered your question last post.
Gimme a break. You've
April 16, 2009 - 19:08 ET by Another Dead KennedyGimme a break. You've ignored just about every question I asked, or you've answered it with another question. You did not answer the question about how gay marriage affects YOUR family. You simply wrote:
It would effect all of our families by causing sin to abound even more than it has in our country. The effects would be a continual loss of God's blessings upon our land.
Once again you're basing your answer on your specific religious beliefs. You also didn't clarify a difference as to how gay marriage justifies your concerns over the fact that people are gay, married or not. Or do you suggest being gay should be outlawed? Never mind.
I no longer care.
As we are just going in circles, I vote to end this now.
plus
April 16, 2009 - 19:15 ET by botgi must say that your name here is very disgraceful, how dare you make fun of Ted Kennedy and his family so blatently!! You should be ashamed, HOW DARE YOU
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
I'm not refering to Ted.
April 16, 2009 - 19:30 ET by Another Dead KennedyI'm not refering to Ted. There are a few other Kennedys out there you know.
yeah
April 16, 2009 - 19:33 ET by botgsure
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
You'll figure it out
April 16, 2009 - 22:10 ET by Another Dead KennedyYou'll figure it out someday.
KDW ~ You just do not like the answer. I believe that I have
April 16, 2009 - 19:40 ET by pahuberaddressed ALL of your questions.
"You've ignored just about every question I asked, or you've answered it with another question."
Not true. I do not see how you can write this.
"You did not answer the question about how gay marriage affects YOUR family. You simply wrote:"
That was my answer. Again, you did not like it.
"Once again you're basing your answer on your specific religious beliefs."
So what?
Again, do you not believe that our country was founded on Judeo Christian values/principles???
Notice that I even answered your little mini seminar from the OT.
"As we are just going in circles, I vote to end this now."
Fine. How does being a Christian preclude me from voting my conscience...
oooh, sorry...I forgot to check my belief system in at the door.
And if you don't read
April 16, 2009 - 18:29 ET by Another Dead KennedyAnd if you don't read [Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT] as promoting slavery, then you're helpless.
And if you don't read [Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT] as promoting slav
April 16, 2009 - 18:46 ET by pahuberery, then you're helpless.
Call me when you get your MDiv. at least you may gain some understanding of the times and nuances of the Hebrew language.
This command to Israel allowing such does not promote slavery.
Even as Moses was allowed by God to allow Israel a writ of divorce did not indicate a promotion of the concept of divorce. In fact, Jesus declared that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that he allowed it... Hardly a promotion. In the same way your reference was not a promotion of God's idea of slavery.
You would do better to study the Bible than just quote some disingenuous group's poor understanding of the Word of God.
I'll feel sooo much more
April 16, 2009 - 18:59 ET by RR GOPI'll feel sooo much more free when two men can engage in oral sex and engage in sodomy through the blessings of holy matrimony, and some lucky lady can take long warm showers with Rosie shrouded in legal wedded bliss.
I'm beginning to understand Chris Matthews' tingly feelings running up his leg now.
What's next? Turning a blind eye to domestic terrorists and supporting their positions as college professors? Empathizing with our enemies? Forcing banks to give loans to people who could never hope to pay them back? Having reputable news services actively support political candidates?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Oh my...thoroughly ridiculous.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Falacies promoted by Kenedy Death Watch ~ a synopsis
April 16, 2009 - 21:47 ET by pahuber1. Separation of church & state.
2. The Bible promotes stoning & slavery.
3. There is no gay agenda other than gays wanting to legally marry.
4. Condoning gay marriage means that you are open minded.
Debunked.
Silly you! When you can
April 17, 2009 - 11:05 ET by Another Dead KennedySilly you!
When you can defend your statements I'll start responding again.
Nothing is debunked.
Just because you say you won doesn't mean you won.
Keep up the fight.
kdw ~ you were debunked and you cannot answer questions.
April 17, 2009 - 12:37 ET by pahuberIt seems obvious from the prior posts... 'cept, maybe not to you, of course.
kenedy death watch standard response immediately follows.
April 17, 2009 - 12:41 ET by pahuberIf any doubt to the above post then read the prior posts between myself & kdw.
atheism running amok
April 17, 2009 - 00:08 ET by Old EuropeThis is what you get from atheists and their twisted views. If you believe in yourself and not God, then ANY sick proposal gains traction. Look at all these happy gays who have a lower life expectancy than chain smokers! They all know that their gayness is an aberration and they feel guilty about it. But they think that by constitutionalizing it, they can fool enough people into accepting their aberration. But Christians know that Satan is at work here, because he is out to destroy family values and convince more and more susceptible kids to accept the gay life as harmless and cool. And the Bible predicted that people would be blaspheming and turn a blind eye to God's word. is it any wonder that Christianophobia is acceptable but homophobia not? What is it with liberals and gays and all sorts of psychic diseases? Is it because liberalism itself is a mental disorder? I guess so.
Where do you get your
April 17, 2009 - 11:36 ET by Another Dead KennedyWhere do you get your information?
Look at all these happy gays who have a lower life expectancy than chain smokers!
Source please.
Do you think that if gay marriage is outlawed you've actually won? The only thing it means is that gays can't marry. Homosexuality has been since the beginning of time, and will continue whether you like it or not. Good luck with your fight.
Sources? you have a tough time with those kdw... at least with
April 17, 2009 - 12:45 ET by pahubercredible sources.
KDW: Again, do you believe our country was founded on Judeo Christian values?
It's a simple question.
My GOD!!!
April 17, 2009 - 12:53 ET by Another Dead KennedyWHO EVER SAID IT WASN'T???? Values and laws are 2 different things. People who don't read your bible still agree with many/most/all of YOUR values. You don't need religion to be a good person.
But in your mind, you can't possibly be a good person if you don't agree with ALL of your bible. You've even decided to interpret it in ways that justify your arguments. This is it. I am not responding to you anymore. You're not here for a discussion. You just want to state your beliefs over and over and over and over again. I'm done.
KDW ~ Re-read what I have written to you and see if I have not
April 17, 2009 - 13:05 ET by pahuberanswered your specific questions put to me.
I have even tried very hard to be a gentlemen during our discourse. You have been over reaching with many of your statements. You have a problem with those who do not want gay marriage legalized. Ok, I understand that you are passionate about this topic, but please realize that I have been trying to be honest and open with you with my responses... you reply to my responses as non-responsive (which could not be further than the truth).
Your last paragraph is not supported by ANY of our posts between each other and you know it or are reading something into it that is not there.
My responses are directly related to your questions and yes I did pose questions to you that you take as hostile, for some reason.
It seems that you are here to just freely accuse of hate w/o any dialogue.
I will have to let others just read our posts and judge for themselves.
Please do not assume that I will just play dead and let you say crazy things like the Bible is pro-slavery or stoning w/o response.
Kennedy - Would you answer just one question for me?
April 18, 2009 - 03:59 ET by Rush FanI've read all of these threads, and you pose some interesting comments and questions. These are the two I find most interesting:
1) No one is looking for anything more than 2 individuals marrying.
2.) If a law is put in place, a constitutional ammendment forbidding all of your predictions EXCEPT gay marriage, would you still have a problem allowing gays to marry?
My question to you is: If I and others want to enact a law to allow three or perhaps four (two couples) to marry each other, and gays would be included in this revised marriage law, would you agree to this change in the marriage law?
By the way, this new law would state that marriage could not exceed more than four people. After all, we don't want to make a farce out of the institution of marriage.
Another twisted Atheist
April 18, 2009 - 05:06 ET by Agnostic"If you believe in yourself and not God, then ANY sick proposal gains traction."
Why? Are you saying that if you believe in God you're suddenly so intellectually adroit that you can no longer fall victim to a logic fallacy (irony intended)? Or is it that since I have no specific belief in your God that I am incapable of discerning good and evil, right and wrong or perversion and righteousness.
I will not get into a discussion of your religious beliefs because I feel you have a right to your beliefs. I believe that you should have an unhindered ability to worship or not worship as you see fit. Freedom of religion – that Constitution thing you spoke of works both ways. I truly believe you have the right to your opinion, your religion and the pursuit of happiness. It is a shame that you use those freedoms and your religion to pass judgment on me as someone so weak minded that I will allow myself to be put in a position where ‘ANY sick proposal gains traction’. If I recall from my reading of the Bible (admit to skipping the whole who begat who sections though) judgment was not to be in the realm of man but I guess when it comes to those who don’t follow your religious beliefs you make an exception. Keep that stone handy since you obviously feel you meet the qualification to cast your stones (I don’t think so).
I also do not remember anywhere in the Bible that said that non-believers were necessarily evil, bad, sick or perverted. Perhaps I have forgotten that part of the bible.
I realize that many people hold that sacred beliefs should be universal and that anyone not within the halo of those beliefs can be considered an enemy but not only is that outside the teachings of Christ it is a very myopic view of society.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections