Dignified Newsweek? They Print 'F--k John McCain,' Scalia a 'C--ksucker'
Newsweek's year-end Interview issue is "graced" on the cover by lesbian "Glee" actress Jane Lynch. We'll put "grace" in quotes since the interview inside with Lynch and well-named sex columnist Dan Savage is rude and hateful. Apparently, gay activists are encouraged to put on a bullying tone and spray hate at conservatives. Savage would say something vulgar, and then Lynch would chime in with "yeah, what he said" remarks. The interview was dated enough that the restrictions on gays in the military hadn't been lifted yet:
Savage: F--k John McCain—put that in NEWSWEEK.
Lynch: Yeah, I say it too, to the second power.
Savage: Really, when it comes to gay rights, there’s two wars going on. The first war is political. But the culture war is over. Between Glee and Ellen and how integrated and accepted LGBT adults are, that’s done. So it’s very frustrating to be steeped in how culturally accepted we are and know that there’s all these legislative things that we just can’t seem to make any progress on.
Newsweek: How long until there’s an openly gay president or Supreme Court justice?
Savage: Scalia isn’t gay?!? I always think the biggest homophobe in the room is clearly a c--ksucker!
Lynch: Totally! The next religious person who tells you there’s something wrong with being a homosexual, start the countdown. It’s Psychology 101—the people who are the loudest and hate it the most hate something in themselves.
Absolutely every traditionally religious person is homosexual? Why wouldn't Newsweek edit out these parts that make the gay lobby look so ridiculous? Either because they thoroughly enjoyed it, or because they feel oppresed homosexuals should be allowed a free path to say anything without rebuttal, especially insults at religious conservatives in prominent places. Newsweek's Jessica Bennett introduced the tag team of Savage and Lynch as, well, adorable:
Cheeky sex columnist meets fire-tongued cheerleading coach. Both were in Los Angeles to support the Trevor Project, a suicide-prevention organization for LGBT youth. We put them in a room together–and it's fair to say that neither held back. From parenthood to coming out to the sexual orientation of a certain (male) Supreme Court justice, Dan Savage and Jane Lynch gleefully tackled it all.
The two activists didn't slash Barack Obama, but they did begin with disappointment (again, before the DADT vote):
Lynch: Yes, we thought the great hope of Obama was going to magically change all that, and it doesn’t seem to have…
Savage: …had the intended effect.
Lynch: He’s just nicely walking the middle.
Savage: And unfortunately, when you split the difference on gay and lesbian people, what you wind up with is no legislative progress. You get a lot of nice speeches, you get invited to cocktail parties, and we have s--t to show for it.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
My sentiments:
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:24am.
F**k Newsweak. I cannot wait until they fold.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I cancelled yrs ago, but acc to this, I am not missing much
Submitted by StarAZ on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:26am.
A great franchise down the er...loo. Like that one, Tina? This little exchange sure didn't enlighten me or even interest me. The next time this mag changes hands--fifty cents?
Newsweek sold for one lousy
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:29pm.
Newsweek sold for one lousy dollar. I for one would be more than happy to buy Newsweek for 2 bucks, just to fire the whole lot of em!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Nobody reads newsweek. I
Submitted by Thoreau on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:26am.
Nobody reads newsweek. I think we can safely ignore them for the moment. Maybe wait until they are bought for 50 cents, instead of a dollar, by a communist crackwhore pumping out welfare babies.
~It's interesting
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:28am.
That even gay people use accusations of homosexuality as an insult.
Not really surprising, bru.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:34am.
That is their first retort when they get into one of their "bitch slapping" moods. They hurl the "gay" word (faggot, queer, corksocker) at their target because they KNOW it is the worst thing they can call them, especially if it is someone who is private about their sexuality. Nothing drives a flamer up the wall like a gay person who would just as soon keep it to themselves.
I see that as becoming a huge problem when DADT goes away. There are plenty of privately gay people in the service who had just as soon keep it that way, but they will be outed by the new breed that will enter the service openly.
By the way, what does "LGBT" stand for? Let's get buttered tonight!?
LGBT
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 11:28pm.
Lesbian
Gay
Bi-sexual
Trans-gendered
"Lets get buttered...?" Classy.
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 2:31pm.
Savage has, on more than one occasion, opposed “outing” other homosexuals. He believes that gays and lesbians SHOULD come out because he believes the more gay people you know, the less likely you will feel threatened by them, the less likely you will be able to see “them” as an unknown or underground population that has little to do with you or your life, the more likely you will be able to see gays as being normal human beings with whom you regularly interact, and the less likely you will be to vote against gay rights if you know that it would mean voting against the rights of friends and family and colleagues. But he ALSO believes that coming out is a personal choice that individuals have the right to come to individually.
The only time he says that there is an exception to this rule, is when the closeted homosexual in question is an active, loud, vicious and hypocritical opponent of equal rights who condemns homosexuality so ardently that it endangers the safety or the freedom of other gay people.
In Savage’s words, “Outing is brutal and it should be reserved for brutes.”
So true... I am ardently
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:47pm.
So true...
I am ardently hetero, but used to work with a group of computer programmers who were gay. Talk about catty...woa mamma! Betty Boop everywhere!!
"Gays shouldn't be allowed in combat for the same reason girls aren't, it takes them too long to get ready" -- Ann Coulter.
Got A Different Take
Submitted by rammingspeed on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:01pm.
I was a cop for over 30 years and worked with a number of homosexual officers. They were the same as everyone else. They had either good or bad character based on their overall behavior. Two lesbians I knew were among the very best cops anyone could ever see. They were conservative (libertarian) and were as disgusted with liberals as we all are. It isn't the gays overall, it's the left wing political activists among them who do the damage.
Well said, rammingspeed
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:20pm.
I agree with you 100% and have had the same experience.
It's not being used as an insult...
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:39am.
Savage himself admits to being a c@cksucker – it’s the kind of thing that sort of goes along with being a gay man… Calling Scalia a c@cksucker then, was just a way to identify him as fellow gay man. YOU may find homosexuality revolting/insulting, but Savage does not.
Savage DID insult Scalia, no question about that. However, the insult was not the implication that Scalia is gay; the insult was the implication that he is a self-hating hypocrite.
Are you gay this time around Dead Zippers?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:14pm.
Or you still sticking to the fake wife thing?
Using their "logic", one
Submitted by kareling on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:49am.
Using their "logic", one could argue Savage and Lynch are closet conservatives.
Or taken in another vector . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:38pm.
Lynch: " . . . It’s Psychology 101—the people who are the loudest and hate it the most hate something in themselves."
I think I understand what she's saying. Like, someone who self-identifies as a "sex columnist" is probably the person with the least realistic understanding of human sexual behavior.
Hhmm, you might be on to something
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:09pm.
Ever seen Dr Ruth?
This contrived interview
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:00am.
This contrived interview reminds me of one between Keith Olbermann & Janeane Garofalo on his show one night. Only there Janeane was the angry pseudo man & Keith was her malliable little bitch, eager to take a walk on the wild side.
In the accompanying photo Dan Savage looks a bit like that other gay, left wing, bomb thrower, journalist Ron Reagan jr. to me.
Barack_Must_Go.....
I guess it's okay for some bitter homos
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:58am.
to use filthy language. But call them rump wranglers and see them throw a hissy fit.
Hold it...so being a c--ksucker is now a bad thing?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:08am.
And here I thought it was the greatest thing in the world.
These militant homos need to refine their messaging.
This is just the way they are.
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:24am.
In m dealings with "gay" people I see quickly that this is just the way most are. In a word vulgar, of course other words come to mind but vulgar pretty much covers it. Looking at Romans chapter 1 verse 20 there is a progression from one level to another each becoming worse that the last. Finally in verse 28 being given over fully to the evil they embrace. Don't allow yourself to be deceived, you are not helping them by just over-looking their behavior. Never fail to stand on the word of God, not in a judgemental way but in love. We can never reach anyone for Jesus while being judgemental. Remember God considers all sin the fruit of the same tree in that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin in the eyes of God, because the question always comes up that they were born that way. The answer is yes. We are all born under sin. We as humans do not need to be taught to sin we know from birth how to be selfish,
"You can lead a liberal to
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:30pm.
"You can lead a liberal to logic but you can't make them think." Awesome quote that says it all! Thanks.Sissy power!
Submitted by KC Mulville on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:30am.
Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
The liberal business model
Submitted by ghost of Mary J... on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:32am.
"Oh, so you don't like this leftist garbage? Here is more of it in your face" And they wonder why this doesn't sell...
Support Our Troops. God bless the US military.
http://adoptaplatoon.org/
Everytime...
Submitted by Burnside on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:17am.
These lefties open their fat mouths they lose the argument and hoist themselves by their own petards. I say let them keep doing what they're doing and pass me the popcorn when you're done! Such fun to watch these Marxists go down in flames, wouldn't you say?
Happy New Year to you all you NB'ers!
Wow
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:09am.
The tolerent libs are at it again ;-)gotta love that tolerance
Submitted by rowdygirl on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:11am.
It's always so interesting to me that the supposed "enlightened and tolerant liberals" are also the most hateful and vile people on earth. How could anyone take their argument seriously about "gay rights" (sorry..but I threw up in my mouth while typing that) when all they can come up with is name calling & character assasinations against anyone who opposes their point of view?
I don't understand how having same gender sex qualfies you for any kind of civil or constitutional specialness? I'm not a homophobe, but I don't agree that it's a right. I don't agree that "gay marriage" is a right or the same as traditional marriage. Nothing that ANYONE can say will change that for me. I have a very close friend that's gay. She and I have been friends for 25 years and we agree to disagree. I don't hate her for her choices and she doesn't hate me for what I believe.
Calling someone a c*******er WILL NEVER win them over to your side. It only makes you look like an intolerant idiot.
Tam
Totally agree Rowdy Girl
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:33am.
These clowns come across as elitist like their opinions count more than others because they are better than everybody else Anyone that namecalls with vulgar names to describe folks that don't accept their opinions comes across as immature childish and they automatically lose the debate.Newsweak indeed
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:53am.
I get pissed when assholes like these two put Ellen in the same plane as them, sorry Lord and lady (guess which apply to whom?????????????????????), neither of you can light a candle to Ellen in regards to talent OR her ability to be gay and not offend everyone who isn't.
Don't give a flying bleep if you choose that lifestyle, but do it with a bit of class and dignity like Ellen and her wife does.
You got your grand wish that you ALL can serve in the military and flit around if you choose, but BE PREPARED for some backlash IF you act like this "guy" and "gal", the military will take care of the chip on your shoulder.
Ellen? Seriously?
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 3:15pm.
Have you ever witnessed Ellen with any of her girlfriends or wives or partners? She can't keep her hands off them like showing us how to paw someone we're with is manly or womanly or ???? Publicly giving the person you're with tongue kisses and mauling them doesn't give you class -- ever. Ellen is talented but really appears to be unsure of herself and her public lesbianism to me. Or she could just believe in being a pig in public.
Showing affection for somebody does not make you a bad person
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:16pm.
Ellen does not try to be high and mighty and imply her opinion is better than anyone elses and does not slam Christianity or their beliefs It's people like Olbermann and Ed Shultz that think that they are superior to Christians because of their so called tolerant beliefs. Christians for the most part think we are all equal, but the elitist libs think they are above everyone else.Answer to the Newsweak question?
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:55am.
ALSO, I believe there is a gay member of the court, Sonia Sotamayer, but SHE lacks the gravitas to be open about it, her FAULT, NOT OURS.
By that logic...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:03pm.
Savage: Scalia isn’t gay?!? I always think the biggest homophobe in the room is clearly a c--ksucker!
Lynch: Totally! The next religious person who tells you there’s something wrong with being a homosexual, start the countdown. It’s Psychology 101—the people who are the loudest and hate it the most hate something in themselves.
By that logic, it appears that both Savage and Lynch are actually conservatives!
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Homo "phobe"
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:01pm.
How did they get that word into such acceptance? If I disagree with their life choices then I'm supposed to be afraid of them. But they disdain the natural attraction between opposite sexes and it's something to be "proud" of. I say that the homosexuals are the ones that are afraid of the opposite sex.
Homosexuality, like liberalism, is a mental disorder.
As to the "militant" folks on the side of the rainbow, if you think bullying is bad, you'd better do all in your power to ensure that we always maintain a civil society. If we ever break down into anarchy, I dare say that attitudes towards homosexuals will become less than tolerable.
'Heterophobe'
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 7:06pm.
The proper answer to that kind of smear from those kind of people.
In their twisted locic
Submitted by ArchieBunker on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:19pm.
In their twisted logic calling someone a c@cks@cker should be a compliment.
"Newsdeath"
Submitted by tomchris on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:23pm.
What's really going to make Savage and Lynch unhinged is when they see how horribly photographed they were for this issue. The ominous shadows, the untouched, unflattering closeups...all the techniques used by photographers when their subjects are Republicans. Very strange, to say the least.
What do you expect from the
Submitted by jdawg2009 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:40pm.
What do you expect from the magazine that once had a cover depicting Obama as "God of All Things". They're hopeless.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/newsweek-cover-depicts-president-obama-as-god-of-all-things
To be fair... I've said "f**k
Submitted by Bruzilla on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:44pm.
To be fair... I've said "f**k John McCain" myself on numerous occasions. :)
LOL! Haven't we all, at one
Submitted by jdawg2009 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:00pm.
LOL! Haven't we all, at one time or another?
Bruzilla,
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:00pm.
LOL - So have I.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
This is why
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:47pm.
This is why Newsweek is no longer a real news magazine but is now the size of a weekly scandal sheet. I can read this garbage in World Wide News or News of The World or whatever it's called.
As a Christian, I'm ok with people like this hating me. It doesnt mean I hate them. But my savior says they'll hate me because they hated him first. And I'm ok with that.
It's a good thing they're so
Submitted by Semus on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:49pm.
It's a good thing they're so Liberal, otherwise we wouldn't be able to excuse their hateful violent rhetoric. It's true they normally aren't physically violent, thats left to some poor misguided individual or group..
Has anyone said it yet?
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:30pm.
"I'll buy that for a dollar!"
That must be one of the best lines from Robocop
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
...
Submitted by Eugenia on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:47pm.
No surprise here. Their language is vulgar because their lifestyles are. A perfect match.
Obama's a "liberal" too
Submitted by iveseenitall on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 2:13pm.
Unprincipled slobs, all of 'em. Barry just congratulated the man who electrocutes dogs. What kind of a "human being" would torture animals for fun? Would you? But o.k. by Barry boy, I guess. Unprincipled slobs, all of "em.
BTW---Speaking of "liberals", almost unnoticed is that Holder's "Justice" Department just removed the American flag from its website and replaced it with a commie phrase about "common law" and Marxist symbols---check it out. Unprincipled, un-American slobs---all of 'em.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"(progressive)
Newsweek journolism at it's
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 2:02pm.
Newsweek journolism at it's very finest! "Curse, hateful, bigoted remark" echoed with "Yeah!" No wonder it's worth a dollar. I will hold a private funeral when they finally enter the drain. There will be scotch.
Snoozeweek....how the flighty hath fallen!
Submitted by Herbster on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 2:01pm.
Was it George Washington who said, "Profanity is the sign of a limited vocabulary?" Sorry, but I never heard of either of these two geniuses. Time, Newsweek, US News......all headed down the toilet. Why? "Journalism" is the only product that doesn't care about its users. Government also.......just wait 'till the VOLT, (Dare I say, Revolt?) comes on the market. Wait until the buyers of this electriclemon get their electric bills after nights of recharging. Biggest selling vehicles here in Texas? TRUCKS! Not wimpmobiles.
When USNews folded, we were offered
Submitted by Cape Conservative on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:38pm.
the same number of issues with Time...but I chose the REFUND option instead!
Sorry bunch of so-and-sos! I'm glad Newsweak is failing...the new owner is the husband of ULTRA-LIB Congresswoman Jane Harman! Let's hope they lose their rears on this investment!!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Domestic Right Wing Terrorist! And by our president as a 'swiftboater' - both titles I'll wear proudly!
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
Remember to start calling again next week!!!!!!
202.224.3121 LET CONGRESS HEAR THE ROAR OF THE SILENT MAJORITY!
202.456.1111 WHITE HOUSE COMMENT LINE
Savage: Scalia isn’t
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 2:47pm.
Savage: Scalia isn’t gay?!? I always think the biggest homophobe in the room is clearly a c--ksucker!
Lynch: Totally! The next religious person who tells you there’s something wrong with being a homosexual, start the countdown. It’s Psychology 101—the people who are the loudest and hate it the most hate something in themselves.
Except Scalia isn't loud and hateful. I've never heard him loud and hateful, he's generally very academic in tone and reserved. He just has a difference in opinion.
But Savage and Lynch are:
Savage: F--k John McCain—put that in NEWSWEEK.
Lynch: Yeah, I say it too, to the second power.
I think they secretly have a problem with people being gay and hate themselves for it.
It would stand with the experience I have.
There are a lot of really loud gay people who hate social conservatives, and the reason tends to be because they had personal struggles over being gay, and they blame the culture for brainwashing them to think they have problems with it. For instance, Andrew Sullivan... someone who tries to convince everyone that he's living up to conservative values since living monogamously in a gay relationship is conservative, but is still obsessed with the idea that Trig is Sarah Palin's baby and wants genetic testing done to settle the issue.
Gay activists who are straight also tend to believe the only reason that people disagree with gay marriage is because they find gays 'gross', since thats how they looked at gay people themselves. I've also seen most patronizing attitudes towards gays come from liberals. One person said to me on some occasion: "I like gay people, they're good at fashion". Who creates all of the stereotypes of gay people in Hollywood?
"Progressive" logic
Submitted by iveseenitall on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 3:06pm.
F'^%$*'n John McCain ---but "forgive" Michael Vick and Bill Clinton.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
Try it this way
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:16pm.
Rush Limbaugh: F--k Barack Obama -- put that in Newsweek.
Sarah Palin: Yeah, I say it too, to the second power.
Any guesses on how loud the howls would be from the MSM?
Yeah, I know. It's too obvious, but at the time I write this no one else has mentoned it.
Savage: Really, when it comes
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:58pm.
Savage: Really, when it comes to gay rights...
OH GIVE ME A ROYAL BREAK ALREADY.
I am so sick of hearing about "gay rights" and being "treated like second-class citizens." Gays can vote, own property, ride in front of the bus as well as drive it. Hell, they can even get married,..so long as it's to a person of the opposite gender -- a rule that applies to EVERYONE regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation!
What they don't have the right to do is redefine the institution of marriage for the rest of us, which is what this is really about and what they've been trying to bully and guilt-trip this country into for the last several years. Ain't gonna work! And even if they do pull it off, which in this upside down world is entirely possible, it won't make it any less of a lie!
You should also point out
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 6:12pm.
You should also point out that straight people can't have a same-sex marriage either. Is this bigotry against straight men in Platonic relationships?
No. Then why is it bigotry against gay men in romantic relationships? Its not the government's business that you're having sex. That's not the purpose of marriage laws.
What is your definition of marriage?
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:56pm.
I doubt it is the same as my own. I know it is not the same as others. What does marriage look like to you?
Equal rites (and yes, I spelled that correctly)
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 2:15pm.
Consider this for a moment: Imagine a world in which the legal system supported marriage and constructed laws to protect it, but in this world, only church marriages are recognized.
The law applies to everyone, and anyone can get married, so it is not discriminatory. Gay, straight, black white, it doesn't matter. Everyone can get married. Even Jewish people can still marry… as long as it’s in a Christian church.
If the only requisite for something NOT being discriminatory is that it applies to everyone, than the above scenario is perfectly acceptable. There ARE restrictions, but if Buddhists can’t get married in a Temple, and neither can Jews, and neither can blacks or whites or straights or gays or Christians, or anyone at all, than the law is applied to everyone equally…. Right?
Now, you might say that it IS discriminatory because it does not recognize the rights of people to practice their own religion, but you would be wrong. Jews can still be Jews. Muslims can still be Muslims, Buddhists can still be Buddhists. They can still attend Synagogue or Mosque or Temple; they can still celebrate their respective holidays; they can still raise their children within their faith; they just can’t get married the way they want to without the government declaring it invalid.
Homosexuals don’t want to marry someone of the opposite gender. “Giving” them that right is an empty gift. Heterosexuals don’t want to marry someone of the same gender. “Restricting” them from that ability is not a punishment.
True, homosexuality isn't religion, but claiming that someone is free because they are afforded a right that goes against who they are, that is not equality.
I hope you locked the DeLorean.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 2:25pm.
.
~He did
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 5:55pm.
Locked himself out of it, as a matter of fact. I saw him standing on the side of the information superhighway with one thumb in the air and the other in his mouth about an hour ago.
I'm guessing you didn't stop. LOL.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 5:59pm.
.
~Nope
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 6:12pm.
But I slowed down enough to raise his hopes right before the apple core hit him.
Simple
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:01pm.
They can choose not to practice their lifestyle in the current form and then take advantage of all the "rites" heterosexuals enjoy.
Sure
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:24pm.
But if I were to use that logic and apply it to the above analogy, this would mean that you would advise the Jews to abandon their religion in its current form and take full advantage of the ceremonies that Christians enjoy.
Except
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:57pm.
that you've created a scenario for marriage out of thin air; your example doesn't exist. What does exist is the freedom to marry one person of the opposite sex, who is not an immediate blood relative, and is of an age to agree to such a legal union freely and without duress. You can what-if it to death; that doesn't change the fact that certain choices we make in life prohibit us from doing things that others can do.
Many people choose business over marriage. In certain religions, some devout followers choose a lifestyle that prohibits marriage. Many military and others in hazardous employment choose to remain unmarried so as not to place undue pressure and worry on a spouse. And there are ordinary heterosexuals who choose any number of paths that make marriage untenable. Gays are no different. If they want to be "married" as opposed to forming a civil union, stop being gay. And if they cannot do that, then accept the fact that their calling has led them in another direction.
One of my favorite movie quotes applies here.
Ok....
Submitted by You on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 12:24am.
It IS possible to consider hypothetical situations as part mind exercise for debate or philosophical discussion. I did not create the scenario just to entertain myself.
I would still like it answered. IF the scenario I described WERE real, and IF you believe that any law that applies to everyone is a fair law, then would you IF it were true, suggest to the Jews in the "story" to convert?
Now if you refuse to answer because the hypothetical doesn't do it for you, how about the historical? It’s not about something I pulled out of thin air, the laws did exist.
Interracial marriage.
Interracial marriage used to be illegal.
And technically, because whites couldn't marry blacks, AND blacks couldn't marry whites, the law applied to everyone. I know what it was a BIT more complicated this, and you may feel that I am drifting into the realm of hypothetical situations, but try to go with it.
Anyway, everyone had the freedom to marry one person of the opposite sex, who was not an immediate blood relative, and was of an age to agree to such a legal union freely and without duress. Under those conditions anyone could marry anyone they wanted... as long as it was within their own race.
BECAUSE the law applied to everyone, was it an example of equality?
Fine "You"
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 6:45pm.
I'll address this directly -even though I don't believe that every law is a fair law and my guess is that no one holds that belief.
But I'll bring it back to the gay issue since that's really the crux of the discussion. Homosexuality -to my understanding- is not yet a recognized religion in this country.
The problem as I see it, is that the outward -or public- exposure gays project is that of militant, anti-establishment thugs trying to force their views and wants on people without making the case why their wants and views are just. (Take the glittering childishness that is all the rage among gay activists today. Or the Folsom Street and Up Your Alley Fairs; it's difficult to feel sympathetic for the plight of these people when they're reforming sex acts on a public street. I realize this is how all gays live or act, but this seems to be there very public persona the activists like to put forth.) This holds for any organized effort that fails to persuade the majority through tact and reason that their positions are beneficial to the community at large and are of such import that they cannot be achieved by any other measure.
If gays want to form a committed relationship then they are free to do so in this country. If that relationship is somehow lessened or delegitimized because there is no marriage license on file with the state, then either work above board and through reasoned arguments and evidence that a marriage license is vital to their cause. If they fail in their efforts, they should either keep trying, and/or take the appropriate measures within the law to achieve those "benefits" they believe are deligimizing their union. Get a PoA and designate the partner legal guardian in the case of catestrophic injury or death. Name the partner in their Will. Notify hospitals of their situation when one has a surgery so they are aware of why the other wishes to remain overnight. Etc.
Still, I imagine there are issues beyond the minor ones I've noted above, but those same issues would apply to hetero couples who for one reason or another wish to remain committed and cohabitate, yet without the license from the state -and there are many of these couples who still manage to get home loans (well, maybe not anymore; hardly anyone is getting home loans these days), car loans, etc.
Please tell me how a gay couple is less advantaged than a straight couple living together but not married?
I don't even own glitter
Submitted by You on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 9:16pm.
A gay couple (who wants to get married) is less advantaged than a straight couple living together but not married in two respects.
1.) The straight couple can still CHOOSE to marry each other, have that marriage recognized, and receive the benefits and privileges that the license "entitles" them. The Gay couple cannot make that choice.
2.) The straight couple DOESN’T WANT to get married. They gay couple DOES.
You are right that a straight couple living together who wishes to remain unmarried would have to jump through the same legal hoops that does a gay couple WHETHER THEY ARE MARRIED OR NOT. But my question to you is, UNLIKE the straight couple, if the gay couple WISH to become married, and they live in a state where it is legal, and they go through a marriage ceremony, and receive a valid state marriage license, why should they be treated like an unmarried but cohabiting couple who doesn't even want marriage?
Why should this NOW MARRIED couple have to ALSO go to notary after notary after lawyer after lawyer after lawyer in order to get the power of attorney AND the healthcare proxy AND the co-parenting agreement AND several other documents, AND have to go to hospitals individually to talk to them about their “situation” AND carry those documents with them at all times in case either of them are injured while out of town so none of the hospitals they HAVEN’T specifically spoken to deny them the rights they had to specially get.
And even with all the things they CAN get (provided they are willing to pay attorneys fees) why should they STILL be denied things like police officers death benefits, spousal veterans benefits, Judicial protections and immunity, crime victims recovery benefits, and others?
You asked whether marriage is VITAL to gays. No. No more than it is VITAL to straights. No one actually NEEDS to be married. Not gays, not straights, not men not women, not anyone. Marriage is a choice. It is about love and respect and selecting a spouse and sharing a life. Some straight people don’t even WANT marriage, but they still have it as a choice. Straight people make marriage important. It's why they fight so hard to "protect" it. The government makes it important. it is why it automatically entitles married couples 140 protections that are not afforded to people who are just shakin' up. saying that something isn't VITAL doesn't mean that it isn't valuable. It may not be VITAL for straights to marry, but marriage IS valuable to them. It may not be vital for gays to marry, but it is VALUABLE to them too.
You also asked me to argue reasonably, and to provide proof about my arguments. But I have the same questions for you. Do you feel that it is reasonable to ask gays who DO want to marry to go through so many extra steps, and pay so many extra attorneys fees to only partially protect themselves and their loved ones the way straights and their loved ones are protected? Why is it so vital that they NOT automatically receive the protections that straights automatically receive? Why is it vital that they be treated differently? What is your proof?
Oh yeah, you just "have gay friends", that's all.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 9:21pm.
But kudos on all the dramatic capitalizations.
First of all "You"
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 10:13pm.
I didn't ask you to argue reasonably and with evidence- I indicated that gays should do that. I suppose you could be gay and assumed I was speaking to you when I said gays, but that's really immaterial; it is the organized gay lobby that is not arguing reasonably or with empirical evidence.
Secondly, you seem to be making the argument that a married couple is somehow more valuable than an unmarried couple -gay or straight. This seems to be a personal observation to which I cannot comment on; though I can say that as a divorced male since 1995 and still single, I don't feel either devalued or oppressed.
Finally, people often have to jump through hoops due to the choices they make. It's inconvenient, sure, but if it's important you'll make the commitment.
I never said
Submitted by You on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 11:13pm.
That a married couple is more valuable than a cohabiting couple, I said that AS a married couple they have more rights. They do.
"... people often have to jump through hoops due to the choices they make. It's inconvenient, sure, but if it's important you'll make the commitment. "
If ALL married people, including straight married people, had to jump through all those hoops... I would have no problem with it. Marriage ITSELF is a choice. Marriage is a commitment. I do not object to making everyone go through inconveniences in order to make that commitment.
What I do object to is that straight couples are NOT required to jump through those hoops while gay people are. Straight couples are not inconvenienced or bogged down in red tape while gay people are.
If jumping through all those hoops is a difficult but entirely reasonable step in the commitment process, why not make straight people do it too?
The Lib known as "You" = Troll
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 11:39pm.
Do Not Feed The Troll
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
If jumping through all those
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 10:20am.
If jumping through all those hoops is a difficult but entirely reasonable step in the commitment process, why not make straight people do it too?
Because roughly 97% of people are straight, and only 3% are gay. Marriage was conceived as a union under God between a man and a woman. Laws were later created around that union. Gays would like to appropriate the benefits associated with those for whom the laws were originally intended and the general public has consistently determined that to be an untenable situation.
As I said earlier if gays wants to change public opinion -win the hearts and minds, as it were- they need to take a more reasoned approach and bring temperate arguments to the table. But the gay community is not doing this- they spend most of their energy attacking their detractors rather than trying to educate them or earn their sympathy. They throw sh*t on them. They force feed their agenda through Hollywood and the news media. They threaten those who disagree with their positions and put their names and addresses on a website. And they continue to degrade their "plight" and themselves by taking part in lewd sex acts on public streets, defiantly ranting that they deserve what others have. (No, this isn't all gays -I'm not pigeonholing, but this is the public face. This is what makes news. This is what many think of when they think "gay lifestyle".) This is nothing more than a twist of the "spread the wealth around" argument used by economic leftists- "we didn't earn it, but we want what you have anyway, even if we have to take it from you." That's tyranny, and that approach will never work in this country.
Wealth
Submitted by You on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 2:27pm.
“ Gays would like to appropriate the benefits associated with those for whom the laws were originally intended…”
“This is nothing more than a twist of the "spread the wealth around" argument used by economic leftists- "we didn't earn it, but we want what you have anyway...”
I may be socially liberal, but I am fiscally conservative. If you work hard, and pay your taxes, and do everything above-board, you should be able to benefit from your hard work. No one DESERVES to take YOUR money.
But this analogy doesn’t fit. In the case of money, if some people are given (or flat-out take) your money, you have Less money. That’s not fair – for them or you – especially you. But I am talking about RIGHTS. If gays get the same marital protections we already have... we don’t have to give up any.
Taking money away has a direct effect. When it comes to our hard earned money, every dollar we “share” with someone else means one less dollar for ourselves and our families. It isn’t the same with rights. It isn’t the same with benefits. Equally sharing rights and benefits does not withhold a single benefit from YOU. Regardless of how many gays share them, WE don’t have any FEWER protections.
OUR benefits stay the SAME.
Giving them to others does not mean that we have to Give Them UP ourselves.
Yeah
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 4:57pm.
that's really nitpicking my point. I'll concede that giving gays the same rights as straights does not remove rights from straights- their aren't a finite number of rights. But that's about 1% of the point I was making.
You have nothing to say regarding the substance of my argument?
You made four points in a single post
Submitted by You on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 5:40pm.
I was going to address each separately so you could respond in turn.
Speaking of...
Public opinion
Submitted by You on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 5:54pm.
“…the general public has consistently determined [marriage equality] to be an untenable situation.”
In Massachusetts, gay marriage is legal. In that state, polls consistently show that roughly 60% of the population supports it. In this state at least, hearts and minds have already been won. The people support it, the courts support it, and the state supports it.
The federal government invalidates their opinion.
It also ignores Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, California (pending prop 8), and, as of yesterday, New York.
Public opinion does not support your thesis
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 8:18pm.
Connecticut Courts determined same sex marriage legal in 2005.
Iowa Courts legalized same sex marriage in 2009.
Vermont legislated same sex marriage in 2009.
New Hampshire legislated same sex marriage in 2009.
DC legislated same sex marriage in 2010.
New York legislated same sex marriage in 2011.
The majority was only in the Courts or the state legislatures where same sex marriage has been legalized. When put to a vote, it consistently fails. To wit: California Courts legalized same sex marriage in May of 2008; the following November, the voters overturned it. Maine legislated same sex marriage in May of 2009; the following November, the voters overturned it.
28 states have approved Constitutional Amendments defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. As of January 2010, 29 states had constitutional provisions restricting marriage to one man and one woman, while 12 others had laws "restricting marriage to one man and one woman." 41 out of 50 - I'd say my position is solid.
MASSACHUSETTS Should Mass be
Submitted by You on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 11:58pm.
MASSACHUSETTS
Should Mass be denied the right to self govern?
LEGISLATION
If you feel that laws regarding gay marriage that are not put to a popular vote are invalid, then by that logic, the fact that DOMA was LEGISLATED by congress and signed into law by Clinton without a popular vote, means that IT TOO is invalid.
COURTS
Civil rights issues are often decided by the courts, not by voters.
Take Loving vs. the state of Virginia… do you really think that if the original court case was put to a popular vote in 1959, that it would have been supported by the general population?
Who do you think is better equipped to decide whether something is legal and/or constitutional, the courts, or the public?
Would it have been appropriate at that time to allow public opinion dictate legal freedoms of individuals?
Is it even appropriate to have a majority vote on the rights of a minority?
Speaking of,
I wanted to ask you this much later because it was, until now, somewhat off-topic. But since we’re here already,
“[Straights should not be restricted in the ways that gays are] because roughly 97% of people are straight and only 3% are gay.”
I would like you to expand on this.
Even though we strongly disagree on the issue of marriage rights, I don’t actually believe that you mean this the way it sounds.
"You", I did not say
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 10:30am.
"that laws regarding gay marriage that are not put to a popular vote are invalid"; "You" said that. What I said was that when the issue of gay marriage is put to a popular vote, it loses -virtually every single time. This goes to my position that the hearts and minds of the general voter have not been won by gay marriage advocates. Politicians, as we both know, are subject to pressures beyond that of the average voter and Courts are most often ideological. (Notice- I wasn't specific in political party with that last statement.)
My reference to the 97-3 statistic, in context, makes perfect sense. "You" specifically asked:
"If jumping through all those hoops is a difficult but entirely reasonable step in the commitment process, why not make straight people do it too?"
I'll expand as requested.
First of all, I didn't say jumping through hops is an "entirely reasonable step" ("You" did. See a theme here?). What I said was that gay couples -and straight, living-together couples, for that matter- have the ability to attain largely the same "benefits" as a straight married couple by utilizing legal processes currently available. That's a statement, not a judgement on convenience.
Secondly, 97% of the American population -according to most studies- is straight. The folks in this demographic already have the legal right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not a close blood relative and is of legal age. You're asking that since gays don't currently have those "rights" in 45 states, that they should have to give them up to accomodate or equalize to the 3% who don't. AND YET in your very next comment, "You" said this: "Giving them to others does not mean that we have to Give Them UP ourselves."
__________________________________________________
I don't know how much of what I've written on NB you've seen. I don't know what you know about me. But here's a little insight: I like to debate and I'm pretty patient and extremely honest when I do. I provide sources when needed to back up my assertions and I try to remain respectful regardless of the topic or whom I'm debating. I'll admit when I'm wrong and I am open to altering my convictions if a better argument is placed. Hopefully, you can attest to that in this back and forth. But if you're going to continue to put words in my mouth, I'll just simply back off and let you write my replies for me. I have no desire to engage in a three-way conversation where I'm involved twice, and only in control of one of those. Please leave the straw men out of the debate. I would also suggest that you open a Forum on this toic since we're debating on a six-month old thread and we're rapidly running out of width. If you do, please let me know with a link; I'll be happy to join you there.
__________________________________________________
Finally, yes, Massachusetts -and the other 56 states- should have the right to self-govern. But legislating something is not the same as earning popular support. Mass may very well have enough popular support to push through legalized same sex marriage -and the other locales where it is legal may have it as well- but we'll never know since it wasn't put to a popular vote. I'm not necessarily saying it should -our political system is set up the way it is for a reason and a general vote on every proposed law in not tenable- but still 41 states have put it to a vote and two states that legislated it had it reversed upon popular vote, so the overwhelming evidence is that -save for the north east and a radical Court in Iowa, same sex marriage does not enjoy wide, popular support in this country. The gay marriage lobby has failed miserably over and over again.
Why not leave religion out of it?
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:07pm.
In Christianity a merging of soul's/forces are ceremonies and called Marriage. Why cant Gays call their Unions something else? Why cant they have their own ceremony, performed by some respected group (elders) of their own. Why drag the folks of Faith into it?
I for one am flat sick of all this supposed Gay bashing because those of Faith wish to practice it with-out ridicule and scrutiny. Who is scrutinizing them?
That is actually...
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:18pm.
a halfway decent idea.
Except for 2 problems.
1.) All ceremonies, whether they are performed by a priest, a judge, a captain at sea, or by an Elvis impersonator, are ALSO called marriages. And once the ceremony has been performed, the couple in question are, from that point on, a MARRIED couple. The term is not exactly exclusive.
Even Atheists, who not only reject the idea of a God, but often reject the idea of a soul, can get "married".
However, if government were to recognize their (as yet unnamed) ceremonies performed by (the leader/representative) of their choosing, AND they were afforded all the same LEGAL rights as any other ceremony called "marriage", I think you would see the outrage die down a little.
2.) Government DOESENT do this. Most states restrict, if not outright BAN same-sex marriage, same-sex unions, acknowledgement of same-sex ceremonies of any kind. Even if they WANTED to call it something else, Government wouldn't recognize it. The claims of bashing come from the fact that gays are excluded from anything resembling marriage, regardless of the name. They are prohibited from receiving acknowledgement, they are denied legal protection or representation.
If a straight couple is married in Alabama and they move to Wyoming, they stay married. If a Gay couple is married in a state where it is legal, and moves to another where it is not, the marriage is effectively dissolved because the licence is ignored.
Gays don't want to FORCE churches to perform ceremonies (and anyone who does is an @ss). They don't even need it to be recognized by religion to be valid. They DO need it to be recognized by government to be legal, and binding, and protected.
Oh...
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:32pm.
One thing I forgot to add, mostly because I often ignore it myself, is that it is not a true dichotomy. It is not EITHER faith OR homosexuality. There are homosexuals of faith.
I would never force any church anywhere to perform the ceremony, but if they were Baptised in the church, and they were Confirmed in the church, and they have a family who accepts them for who they are, and who tells them that God still loves them, I think it would be sad if they were told they could not join souls with the person they love in the church they love in front of the family and the God that they love. I think it would be sad to deny any Christian the right to a Christian marriage. Regardless of who is standing up there with them.
I aint buying it
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 7:55am.
If the Gay community spent as much effort to gain civil unions as they do Gay marriage, they would have them. The rest of it sounds like a cop out to me.
Fact is a lot of Gays just want to make a mockery of those of Faith, by compromising Marriage.
The wife and I were married by the local Justice, we have Faith.
What don't you buy?
Submitted by You on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 12:04pm.
Many politicians who " support 'civil unions' " do so only at the state level. Now, I support the right of states to self-govern. So, in theory, this sounds great. Except that, "married" couples AUTOMATICALLY have the rights/protections of:
Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Child support
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Joint Insurance Plans
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
and about 120 OTHER benefits/rights/privileges
These rights are nationally provided and nationally protected.
These are only some of the rights that are DENIED couples in "civil unions". The laws change from state to state, the benefits change from state to state, and the protections that are provided, are not always extended to people in the LGBT community.
Now maybe you are right, that if enough effort was put into creating a FEDERAL definition of "civil union", they would get it. But many politicians do not support unions at the federal level.
And maybe you are right that, if they fought to get the same rights as "marriage" under another name, they would get it. But many politicians feel that those rights are special, and should be RESERVED for "marriage".
And maybe you are right that gays would gain more acceptance if they abandoned the idea of “marriage” and settled for “civil unions”. But many politicians feel that gays shouldn't receive ANY acknowledgement or support in their “unions” at all. They are called dangerous and evil and disgusting and unworthy. They say that homosexuality should be criminalized or “treated” or simply ignored. Even in here, I was actually told that they DO have marriage rights because, “Gays and lesbians can marry people of the opposite sex just like anyone else.” And that if they don’t want that, they should “stay single.”
Basically, that they should turn straight or die alone.
interesting
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 12:15pm.
You support state-level decisions, except for all the times you don't.
In Kentucky, minors can marry each other at the age of 16. The federal government doesn't have the right to say, your state got it wrong so we refuse to give you federal benefits.
You either knew this already and were lying, or you're too lazy to do any research on the concept of states' rights.
I might be lazy sometimes, but...
Submitted by You on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 5:05pm.
I rarely, if ever, lie.
In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act GAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO IGNORE state law.
Section 3, EXPLICITLY PREVENTS the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages in any state. DOMA is the federal law that withholds federal benefits/support/acknowledgment of same sex marriage. Even if an individual state decides to make it legal. Even if the voters of that state approve it. Even if a couple holds a valid marriage license form that state, even if the couple is a current resident of that state. It can and does refuse to give them benefits. Even with the right to self govern, when it comes to gay marriage, the federal government can and does say "woah, hold on there... you got it wrong."
The federal government CURRENTLY IGNORES the state laws of, and marriage licenses in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, as well as California (though the legality of prop 8 is still being debated).
I have done my research, and I know the law.
The federal government does not support state rights
when it comes to gays.
The federal government does not support marriage rights
when it comes to gays.
But you are right, it does support marriage
when it comes to kids.
"I would never
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 5:25pm.
force any church anywhere to perform the ceremony". But if they don't, they're just like the rest of us "homophobes", and it's "sad". So, does it follow that churches will, one day, be forced to perform the marriages, rather than make you "sad"?
No
Submitted by You on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 6:33pm.
Regardless of my "feelings", I wouldn't sign petitions, I wouldn't write my congressmen, I wouldn't even argue for it in blogs. I believe in the first amendment. I believe that an individual's right to practice of religion freely is too important.
I mean, religious polygamists attempt to claim a beach of Free Practice when government prohibits multiple marriages, so I guess there is precedent for government stepping in. But when it comes to the practice of religion, the government usually lets people do their own thing. Quite rightly too.
I can't say it will never happen... just that I won't help it to.
In that situation I wrote above, I was hypothesizing about a specific Christian. One who grew up in the faith and was denied a church wedding because of who she chose to marry.
Though I didn't say so in the post, I was imagining a situation in which gay marriage was already LEGALLY recognized. In my mind, she could have gone to the justice of the peace. I wasn't saddened by her inability to marry, but her rejection from the church she still has faith in, and by her inability to continue to practice her religion freely.
Like I said, I believe that particular right is important.
~False premise
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 8:30pm.
I wasn't saddened by her inability to marry, but her rejection from the church she still has faith in, and by her inability to continue to practice her religion freely.
Practicing your religion freely doesn't mean you can foist your version on other people. She can practice whatever she wants as long as it doesn't break any established laws and she doesn't try to force other people to go along with it. Refusing to offically sanction her brand of religion doesn't mean anyone is keeping her from it.
You'll notice, Bru
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 9:23pm.
Liberals never say "I was saddened by the pastor's inability to continue to lead his church in the direction he personally chose."
Or, "I was saddened by those conservative parents, whose local school district robbed them of their right to keep the gay lifestyle away from their children."
Her brand of religion
Submitted by You on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 9:38pm.
is Catholicism.
The ceremony she would have wanted would have been Catholic
The location a church
The officiator, a Priest
She didn't DO anything to them. She didn't force her church to marry her. Her church forced her to marry without the nuptial mass, outside her church, and away from her priest.
If her true religion were Catholicism
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 10:07pm.
she wouldn't ask or expect to be married in the Church. She would accept that homosexual behavior is a sin.
Do you think you can go into a college and demand they teach you plumbing? Or that McDonald's serve you Chinese food?
right you are, radical
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 10:17pm.
If she really loved and respected her church, she would not put it in a bad situation. A typical example of, "I love Christianity, now here are all the things we are going to change about it."
Not every Catholic
Submitted by You on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 11:30pm.
Thinks of it as a sin
http://people-press.org/2009/10/09/majority-continues-to-support-civil-u...
Now, a Christian Post article objected to the results of the poll, but only on the grounds that the options did not ALSO include "common law unions". Still, the results show that when Catholics were asked if they supported gay marriage or opposed gay marriage, the majority supported it. It was a slight majority, but still a majority.
question for You
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 11:50pm.
If I walk into an Amish church one day and decide to call myself Amish, should they rearrange their belief system to accommodate me?
Religion doesn't work like a democracy.
The girl in my story
Submitted by You on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:06am.
came from a Catholic family. She was baptised in a church, and confirmed in a church, and attended that church. She wasn't some random, raving heathen off the street that decided to take a look inside the church because she thought the building looked pretty.
She was a member of the church SINCE BIRTH.
do you not understand the concept
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 10:14pm.
That forcing a priest to show up for a ceremony against his views would be the exact same as rejecting his faith. Forcing a church to open its doors for a controversial ceremony would strip that church of its own identity.
She doesn't own the church building, and the priest is not her personal assistant. Ministers do not have to do ceremonies for anyone if they don't feel like it.
I think I have said in three posts now that
Submitted by You on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 11:54pm.
She did not force the church to do anything
I would not force the church to do anything
I would not condone the suggestion that the church be forced to do anything
I would oppose someone who made the suggestion that the church be forced to do anything
I acknowledge,
and have acknowledged... repeatedly,
and will continue to acknowledge,
that this would be WRONG
Take me at my many, many words and stop acting as if I am personally attacking the church. Again, I ACKNOWLEDGE that it would be wrong.
The WHOLE reason I started this tangent was because I wanted to break down the idea that it is EITHER supporters of gay marriage OR religious people. That is not true. It is also not EITHER religious people OR gay people. There ARE people who go to church AND who believe in God who are ALSO gay.
THEY can hold in their heads the concept of God and AT THE SAME TIME believe that it is NOT a sin to be Gay.
I can hold in my head that it is sad to exclude a faithful member of a church from a church ceremony and AT THE SAME TIME believe that it would be Wrong to prevent the exclusion from happening.
let me say this more slowly
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:02am.
You repeatedly said in this thread that you were saddened by a lesbian being unable to force her church to marry her.
Never once did you speak any sympathy about priests feeling threatened.
You won't force churches to comply - you'll just litter society with accusations that they are intolerant, whining that you are saddened for your friend, and propaganda showing the Catholic church to be socially liberal.
Then, shockingly, when the church caves to pressure, you'll take credit for pushing them.
All the while sniffing that you don't want to force them.
NOOOO....
Submitted by You on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:11am.
I repeatedly said that I was saddened that a christian wasn't ALLOWED to marry in her church.
I NEVER said that I was disappointed that she couldn't force her church to perform the ceremony. That is how you INTERPRETED what I said. Go back and look at the actual words that I used.
~What she wasn't ALLOWED to do
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 6:44pm.
was to redefine the entire Catholic concept of marriage to mesh with her own idea of it. She would have been forcing other people to not just accept, but condone, validate, sanctify, and bless her own twisted version of a marriage relationship.
None dare call it hate speech.
Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:59pm.
Given the logic these morons put out about their opponents secretly being gay and therefore hating themselves, it is clear that these degenerates are secretly fundamentalist Christians and hate that about themselves.
Observation
Submitted by 2WarAbnVet on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 7:01pm.
The primary problem I've noticed with the "gay" community is that it refuses to abide by the "live and let live" philosophy. They demand that you not simply tolerate their lifestyle, but you are required to celebrate it. If you see two homosexuals engaged in anal intercourse in the middle of Main Street, your only correct acceptable reaction has to be, "Oh, what a cute couple."
If I saw that in the street
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 11:43pm.
If I saw that in the street, I'd toss a bucket of cold water on them, just like i would if i saw a couple of dogs humping in the street.
Ever notice how intolerant are the ones that claim how intolerant we are? Tyranically li'l b@stards, aren't they?
Really...?
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:28pm.
Oh yes... when the "gays" as you put it, were trying to prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation, or tried to secure their right to make medical decisions for an injured or dying partner, or even visit them in the hospital at all... Decent people would have supported those proposals... but I forget that "gays" go too far. I always forget about the "right to have anal sex in public while other people watch and are forced to cheer them on" clause that they include in every single solitary bit of legislation they purpose. THAT must be why "straight" people fight them on the issues.
Tell you what: If you drop the hateful hyperbole, I will drop the snarky sarcasm.
Hmmmm...
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 6:57pm.
Will you also drop your obsession with "group rights' as well as your penchant for barking orders at people?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sure thing...
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 8:26pm.
But does this mean that you would be willing to give INDIVIDUAL gays and lesbians the right to marry or adopt on a case-by-case basis instead of supporting a sweeping ban based solely on "group" membership?
I assume that by placing "group rights" in quotes, it means that you see them as unconnected individuals. As such, these people would be undeserving of the rights and protections that other groups get. If they ARE unconnected individuals, you would be quite right in your actions.
But it would also mean that you could not TREAT them like a group. If you truly believe them to be isolated individuals, AND you treat them accordingly AND afford or deny them rights as individuals, it would show that you have the courage of your convictions.
If that's the case, then I apologize. To you.
However, I do believe that 2WarAbnVet commented on "the 'gay' community" as a whole.
I responded in turn.
Gay marraige
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 8:37pm.
Gays and lesbians can marry people of the opposite sex just like anyone else. They have the same rights.
Read my post on equal rites
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:34pm.
above, or just click here:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/12/29/dignified-newsweek-th...
I welcome your response.
A totally random thought...
Submitted by HelenS on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:29pm.
I would like to opine that jackassinine stupidity, even if ok'ed or declared legal, is still jackassinine stupidity.
There, I said it.
...on no particular legislation but observable in several.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
I can relate to saying 'F**k
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:30am.
I can relate to saying 'F**k John McCain..........he deserves it!!! And I can also say, with as much honesty as I can muster..........F**k that c**ksucker Boy Blunder Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Obama.................and I think that EVERY word of that sentance would be TRUE!!!!!!
Let me see
Submitted by 76United on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 11:34am.
So you can't say an electric car is gay, but you can call a Supreme Court Justice a c**ksucker.
Got it!
Thanks Hollywood Left!
Kudos
Submitted by rammingspeed on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 11:52am.
One of the best points I've ever seen made on any blog site. Kudos.
Destroying Themselves
Submitted by rammingspeed on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 11:52am.
I'm glad these people say what's really on their minds, and that it gets press coverage. They stab themselves in the heart every time they do it, and the evidence is the Tea Party and the Tea Party's growing influence.
Let them speak so we know them for the hypocrites that they are.
Loosing
Submitted by BH206L3 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:21pm.
My mom always said that once you start using four letter words in an argument you lost the argument. I don't watch glee, I could care less about it. I seen Jane Lynch in a few movies and she is very good. I don't what her problem is. In America I have the right to free associate with anyone I choose, that means If I don't accept Jane Lynch's behavior, I don't have to be around it. I can go watch other things. She has the right to free Speech, and I have the right not to listen. I have my problems with Senator John Mc Cain, but I will disagree with him but I would never call him any thing but sir, 'No sir you are wrong on that point' as and example. The Ordeal in Hanoi earned him that respect!! Nobody reads Newsweek anymore, just a bunch of looses in my view. At some point the people at Fox who produce and pay the bills for Glee at some point are going to cut there losses or cancil the show. Its never going to live as long as Married with Chidren.
I'm a conservative and a gay
Submitted by D2Boston on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 3:39pm.
I'm a conservative and a gay man. People like Savage make me sick. These are the people whose attitude and, quite honestly, their ugliness (inside and out) make me laugh at them. This panty-waste no more speaks for me or my friends than Hugo Chavez might. He's a pustule that should be popped and wiped up, stat!
There are gay people in this country who love America, love the Constitution and all it affords us, and who do NOT feel as though we need special rights to live our lives - including some contrived "right" to marry. I have a great life because my working class parents taught me to study hard, work hard and make something of myself -- and that's what I have done. Only in America is this possible, and as a gay man, I have the same rights of any American -- people like Dan Savage whine as if we're oppressed... only in a country where a guy like me can pull down hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, own a couple of homes, worship freely at the church of my choosing, come and go wherever and with whomever I choose could be labeled as "oppressed" by the insipid rantings of people who really just need a good slap. And it is the scum posing as intellectual discourse on the homosexual left - and other liberal factions - that stand in defiance of all that is truly good and American. Well, this faggot will have none of it.
Hey Dan -- go screw yourself. Jane -- you're immensely talented, but apparently not very bright judging by the company you keep.
~D2Boston
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:57pm.
I'd say "Welcome to NB", but I see you've been a member longer than I have. I guess you don't post very often. lol
Thanks for pointing out the obvious; it's quite annoying to say exactly what you just said and have some moron retort, "Well, you aren't gay, so what do you know?".
Well D2
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 7:06pm.
It's the commie way. Segregate and conquer. Small little groups are easier to manipulate then say, Americans. I applaud your defiance
Doesn't matter to me
Submitted by djwolf12 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:18pm.
I've seen the show once, and I gleefully pronounce GLEE SUCKS. LYNCH should swallow
It's actually quite a good show
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:40pm.
Is doing very well in the Nielson ratings for a show in it's second season.I don't ask for gay people to feel sorry for me . . .
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:51pm.
Or to hold my hand . . . or to "support" my heterosexuality . . . why do people like these two constantly want heterosexuals to feel sorry for them . . . to hold their hands . . . or to "support" their heterosexuality.
I don't care if they have sex with members of the same sex, or with animals. Well, strike that, I would feel sorry for the animals. But they seem to think they have some special right to flaunt their sexuality and rub it in our noses.
That's why they get ridiculed and get their asses kicked. No, I don't support the ridicule and the ass-kickings. I'm merely explaining it, just like the Black Princeton "intellectual" is "explaining" why Michael Vick killed dogs.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
Do you feel oppressed?
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:22am.
Your sexuality is already supported...
It is supported by your church, by your politicians, by your laws, by your family, by your friends by your schools, by society in general.
You get to flaunt your sexuality all over the place. It is shown in movies, on TV, in magazines on the street, in your home, in public and in private. You can be with the one you love... advertising your heterosexuality... at parties, at weddings, in clubs, in church, in school, anywhere. Going out on a date with someone of the opposite sex displays your sexuality. Dancing with that person in public advertises your sexuality. Marrying the opposite gendered person of your choice absolutely flaunts your sexuality. Having biological children flaunts your sexuality. Kissing your spouse in public? *gasp* that person is STRAIGHT!
The thing is, even with all this sexuality flaunting behavior going on, you don't HAVE to declare that you are straight. It's taken for granted.
They don't want the special right to declare their sexuality, they want the same rights you and I have. The ones listed above; the ones that you have handed to you on a silver platter; the ones you take for granted.
Ha-Ha-Ha!
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 6:55pm.
Um, no, I cannot flaunt my sexuality all over the place. You clearly have not heard of the concept of "discretion".
Nor do I have any sort of right to marriage, or anything having to do with the opposite sex.
What YOU want are "group rights".
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I have heard of discretion...
Submitted by You on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 9:46pm.
But here is something YOU do not understand. Expressing your sexuality all over the place is not the same as being sexual all over the place. Not one of the scenarios I described in my post did I describe tactless or indiscriminate displays of affection. Not once did I describe sex. Being in a relationship, whether straight or gay, is not all about sex, but it is about sexuality.
Being straight, I can get married, I can adopt, I can share insurance coverage with my spouse, I can go on dates without people staring or judging or condemning me. I can even hold hands in public as a discrete, but nonetheless clear, display of my sexuality. I do know the meaning of discretion. It means to act with tact and self-restraint.
But it ALSO means the freedom to act on one's own without the influence of external agencies.
I support giving homosexuals all the rights that I ALREADY have.
I believe that they too, should be allowed to act with discretion.
New Troll
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:21pm.
New Troll Posting on a 6 month old thread.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Oh, and Savage, you POS?
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:58pm.
Awful brave of you to call Scalia a cocksucker. Did you pick the pubes out from between your teeth before you salivated while you said it?
D2Boston? Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I wish you continued success and satisfaction with your life. You deserve it.
Those other two can flagellate themselves into an early grave.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
The saddest part
Submitted by ArrowSmith on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 12:58pm.
is you could wave that interview in front of the average leftie and they will go u-hu right on....