NPR Anchor Asks Barney Frank: 'Are You Heartened by the Distance America Has Come' on Gays?
Richard Harris wasn't the only NPR staffer wondering about the backwardness of America on Tuesday's All Things Considered. At the end of a completely supine interview with Barney Frank, anchor Guy Raz asked Frank if he was pleased at how far America had come from its backwardness on gay liberation from when he came out of the closet in the Reagan years.
"I want to ask you about a decision you made in 1987," Raz declared. "You went public to tell people you were gay. That was controversial at the time. Are you heartened at the distance America has come?" Frank said "without question," and said "prejudice" was very close to being eliminated in America:
FRANK: It will be my 25th anniversary. I was very frightened when I did it, it turned out unnecessarily. Yeah, I think one of the great success stories in America is the extent to which we have overcome prejudice based on being lesbian or gay, bisexual, transgender. It's not completely gone but the end is in sight. And I am proud of my role in that. I think frankly ioming out was a big part of it because reality beats prejudice and by presenting people, those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender with the reality of who we are, we give an alternative to the prejudice, and the prejudice loses."
Guy Raz (a former CNN correspondent) only asked four questions, all of them softballs that he let Frank take paragraphs to answer:
1. "What will be your top two or three priorities for your last year in office?" Frank answered for 50 seconds about stopping right-wing "guerrilla warfare" on financial reform and cutting the defense budget.
2. On the apparently glorious Dodd-Frank bill, "What in your view is it already doing to prevent the kind of crisis that inspired its implementation?" Frank answered for a full sixty seconds.
3. ,"If there was one think you could have included in Dodd-Frank that you just couldn’t put in there because it wouldn’t have been accepted, you know, by most members of Congress, what would that have been?" He answered for another 50 seconds.
The gay question was fourth, and only took 34 seconds to answer. On the NPR website, the headline was “Barney Frank's Two Top Goals: Protecting Wall St. Reform, Social Spending.”
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I'll tell you something - and
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:33am.
I'll tell you something - and I've tried to wrap my mind around this concept before I write anything stupid (OK - so I've been known to write a few idiotic things!!!)...................if I WERE gay, I sure as hell wouldn't want Barnaby Frump to be the kind of person who claimed to be representing me, or furthering my cause, or whatever the hell else he's talking about. The guy is a friggin' embarrassment in EVERYTHING that he is and does!!!! I'd throw in with Liberace in a hearbeat before I'd give one ounce of credit to Frump..............at least Liberace had talent, style, and a positive personality!!!
Barny Frank is the onus of the anus................KILLA
Frankly
Submitted by Truestar on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 3:51am.
I don't give a crap about Frank being gay, or what he thinks about gay progress. He remains one nasty, dislikable, corrupted and unprincipled politician and human being. I truly can't understand how the voters of Mass. kept sending this spittling jerk to Congress over and over again. He's supposedly retiring now---good effing riddance.
Not everybody looks the way they are. According to...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:42am.
those who know him, he is a mean, mean guy and very unpleasant to be around. That is the person you see in his photos and on television.
How a person like that ever became a politician who could be elected time after time, is far beyond my understanding.
I'll bet his long-suffering
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:39am.
I'll bet his long-suffering staff will be quite happy to collect their unemployment checks and not have to put up with being around this a**hole (literal definition!!!) any longer.............can you imagine waking up in the morning with the thought that you were going to your job, and Fwank was your boss????
Things started going downhill when they appropriated...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:36am.
the name "gays" for their sexual orientation.
My home town used to celebrate the "Gay Nineties" every year. It was a fun time for all.
I don't think they do it anymore.
mug shot
Submitted by dostrow on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 7:09am.
Hey Tim
Its not nice starting off our day with that disturbing mug shot of the liberal freak ,is it?
Did Massachussets really vote for this guy year after year?
LMAO
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:15pm.
I thought the same. He's doing is best "tough guy" impersonation, but I'm not buying it. They also employed some sort of photographic trick to make him look thin. If you ask me, the pinnacle of his career was that hilarious smackdown he took on the OReilly Factor.
how are these for alternates?
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:22pm.
Barney Frank - official portrait
Barney Frank - champion of homeland security
Barney Frank - Fannie Mae man with chutzpah
Looking at these...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 6:12pm.
Lokking at these pictures makes me understamd why they used to roll these guys!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Whoa, lotr...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 3:37am.
Now that's a low blow.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:48pm.
I know I know... you'll have to pardon my occasional lapse into the juvenile.
Fwankie
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:26am.
What's scary is that this guy was, allegedly, brought up in a part of the world where English is the vernacular.
Yet we need subtitles to understand what the hell he is saying, especially when agitated.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Pardon my crudeness
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:13am.
but am I reading the last 5 words of that headline correctly?
Thufferin'
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:35am.
Thufferin' thuccotash,Thugboat............that's a therious thatement!!!!
Thowwy.
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:48am.
I weawwy knew I thudn't have thaid it.
You WILL thuffer if you thay
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:03am.
You WILL thuffer if you thay anything that thupid again, tho watch your peath's and Q's!!!
I wish I knew how to type LMAO---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 7:31pm.
with a lisp.
You guys crack me up!!
Can I say 'crack' in a thread about Bawney Frank?
MD
If I can thay that Bawney
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:35pm.
If I can thay that Bawney Fwank is the onus of the anus.............then you can thay cwack!!!
K-K-K-Kiwwa
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 2:32am.
You awe weewee dithpikabwaw. M-makin fun of a wisp ith not n-n-nice now ith it?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I thought
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 3:09pm.
the whole headline was pretty crude, from a performance perspective anyway.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Plenty of conservatives are not prejudiced against gays
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 8:44pm.
"Yeah, I think one of the great success stories in America is the extent to which we have overcome prejudice based on being lesbian or gay, bisexual, transgender. It's not completely gone but the end is in sight."
I argue a lot about orientation issues here, and one of the things I hear often, which is heartening, is people expressing that they do not consider themselves prejudiced against gay people. Plenty of people don't think gays should be able to get married, but believe that they shouldn't be discriminated against in other ways or treated poorly.
So is it really such a liberal statement to praise a decrease in prejudice against gay people? I bet plenty of people here at Newsbusters think that the problem isn't that we need more prejudice against gay people, but that there is some special treatment that gay people are demanding. The rationale I hear here is that denying those special rights is NOT prejudice. I disagree with that, of course, but it seems odd to be taking a stand here in favor of prejudice as though only liberals could want something different!
I agree with you that it's a
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 10:41am.
I agree with you that it's a good thing that there is less ill-treatment of those with homosexual orientation. Nobody should be dehumanized (this being a moral dogma of Christianity, FWIW).
That said, I think you know where the political point of contention lies with most of us here.
Not to mention the soft-ball questions posed to him, without any mention or questioning of his controversial role in the housing bubble (which is the blame for our woes since then), and as compared to the would-be opposite treatment of outgoing conservatives, even those not embroiled in such controversy.
Whew!
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 7:11pm.
The "end in sight" sentence is in bold. That's usually done to indicate the point of contention. Maybe it is the blog author's desire to increase the amount of prejudice against gays, but I'm glad to have someone confirm for me that not everyone shares that view!
The Obsessive Devotion
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/06/2011 - 11:25am.
You simply will not rest until gays have more rights and more privileges than the rest of humanity.
What is driving this obsessive devotion of yours, hippiebear? Is it because YOU are gay (NTTAWWT)? Or is it because you are overwhelmed with guilt because you were born too late to participate in a REAL civil rights movement (such as the one that happened in the 1950s and 1960s)?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Really?
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/07/2011 - 10:27am.
You're going with "If you love gays so much why don't you marry one?" What are we, five?
Two simple requests
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/07/2011 - 5:35pm.
Please show me where I said that.
Then please endeavor to actually address my questions.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The answers are
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 12:40am.
No. Not gay, not guilty to be alive now. I don't think that homosexuals are currently treated equally to straight people in this country, and I want that to change.
The idea that only gay people would care about the rights of gay people is just as childish as assuming anyone who is against gay rights must be secretly gay. I assume that if I were to suggest that you were a little too defensive on this issue, you'd rightfully take me to task for a cheap shot. That's the comparison I was making.
Can gays marry, pay taxes, vote and get jobs?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 2:01am.
And, just to head off your whine that they can't marry, they can. SO, they have the rights that all of us have, and are treated equally with the rest of us.
Gays are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they desire. Same as anyone else. They can vote, they can pay taxes and they can get a job. They no longer are an "oppressed minority"., they have the same rights as anyone else.
What if we switched it
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 1:35am.
and said that everyone was free to marry as long as they married someone of the same gender? Would that be better for gay people than for you, or would you consider yourself to be treated equally?
It takes just a teeny tiny amount of perspective-taking to understand why the logic doesn't hold up when you are talking about something that involves emotion.
nice try, thank you for playing
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 10:09am.
Sigh. I didn't want to get heavily involved in this, but now I've been baited back in.
Why is it so difficult to understand that "marriage" is a pan-cultural, primordial sociological institution because of Nature, not in spite of Her.
A human law that "said that everyone was free to marry as long as they married someone of the same gender" would snuff itself out of existence as the society that imposed it would snuff itself out within a single generation. It would be the quickest instance of race-suicide ever "achieved," one that wouldn't even be recorded but for the "traditional" society archeologists who would come in and note the sheer stupidity, the literal Darwin Award Winners par excellence.
The "symmetry" that's implied by such reasoning is sophistry, pure and simple. There is no "gay marriage" in Nature, whether "we" in our heightened arrogance deem there one or not. And Nature will not be made a fool.
We don't decide rights based on nature
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:34pm.
If we based our marriage conventions on nature, you realize we'd all be polygamists, right? It would be biologically much more efficient to have men keep multiple wives-- we'd produce more human beings much faster that way. Most mammals are polygynous, very few are monogamous. None of our closest natural relatives are monogamous
So does that make polygamy a better system than monogamy? Or do you base your idea of marriage on something other than nature?
Take issue with
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 12:14am.
one thing mamabear, well other issues but this one in particular.
"We don't decide rights based on nature"
I do believe that Gods law trumps mans law and nature is Gods law.
Now i may have read a bit too much into what you typed, and i realize you may have meant that 'nature' may have been intended to mean the nature of man.
But that does not negate what Gods law is. We know that all of mankind is flawed and mans law can never change that.
IMO you are basing your arguments on feelings and not on facts, especially when you try to argue that 'gays' have been oppressed for so long. When and where have gays been denied rights? Your answer will be one. They cant marry and have the same rights as other married couples. Right?
So if in fact that is your argument, than please tell me how a tax incentive for married couples is a RIGHT?
Please tell me how a married couple has a RIGHT to a home?
Please tell me how filing jointly is a RIGHT?
Your definitions of RIGHTS are the same as the Obamacare debacle, "everyone has a RIGHT to have health care for free".
RIGHTS are not the same for libs as they are for conservatives.
true RE polygamy
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 2:19pm.
It's true that sexual reproduction in mammals has alpha-males impregnating multiple females to spread what are presumably superior genetics far and wide. But human beings are unique among mammals. Among other things, humans are self-aware and far more intelligent, with the ability to think and communicate abstractly. As a result, humans live within societal structures that, while based upon Nature, are developed anthropogenically beyond what Nature pre-determines for the behavior of lower mammals -- these societal structures that humans live within may be properly referred to as cultures.
And indeed, we find polygamy in the ancient cultures, and even in a handful of contemporary cultures and religious traditions today. For the most part it was enlightened Christianity that promulgated the notion that marriage is the indissoluble covenant between a single man and single woman, Jesus Himself specifically clarifying that this is what God had intended "from the beginning."
But nowhere do we find "gay marriage," aside from the affluent Western world over the past 20 or so years, which amounts to the last 4.8 minutes of a 24 hour day, when compared to 6000 years of human history (never mind the countless millennia of pre-history). That's because the fundamental defining element of marriage, that which is indeed ordained by Nature, is the male-female bond, which is the foundation of human existence itself. Cultures have disagreed on the non-essentials, i.e., the number, familial proximity or age of the spouses, but they have all agreed, without even a second thought, that "spouses" by their very nature are male-female.
Right
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:01pm.
Sorry to disappear from this conversation. The end of the semester is pain.
My point is simply that if we don't base our idea of society and societal rights on nature, then we are not constrained by it. You obviously choose to buck the trend of human relationships as far as monogamy is concerned (polygamy is more common across different cultures than monogamy is), but not when it comes to gay marriage. I want to make changes relating to gay marriage. It is fine for both of us to have those opinions, but neither of us has more support from "nature" for our opinion on what marriage should be.
sillybear
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:11am.
polygamy is more common across different cultures than monogamy is And you are basing this on...what?
I want to make changes relating to gay marriage. And being the deeply self-absorbed Statist/Socialist that you are, it's ALL you care about. There are far bigger problems in the world today, and what are you losing sleep over, night in, night out? Why, the SILLY, SILLY, SILLY idea that gays should marry! If it didn't have a potential to effect children I wouldn't care. But we all know how you hold children in the absolute lowest regard..It is fine for both of us to have those opinions, but neither of us has more support from "nature" for our opinion on what marriage should be. Um, yeah we do. Have you ever noticed that when men or women get together amongst their own genders, children aren't an eventual result, whereas when men and women get together, children can in fact result? Or are you that willingly blind to nature?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
And you are basing this
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 12:07am.
And you are basing this on...what?
Originally, Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, as referenced in another text.
If gay people can't produce children, then how does gay marriage affect children? I hope you aren't trying to claim that gay people can't be good adoptive parents, because there's plenty of evidence that they can:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm
One important point in that article is that being raised by a married couple is best, and of course, they are all opposite gender with very few exceptions. But gay couples raise children who have higher educational achievement than either a single parent or an unwed couple of opposite genders. So imagine would happen if we let gay people marry!
I'm joking, of course, that would be mixing up cause and correlation. Still, there's no evidence that children raised by gay parents suffer for it.
Unless marriages HAVE to produce children, there's nothing about nature that says that homosexuals shouldn't marry.
sillybear
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 8:56pm.
sillybear, that's the point. Once "gay marriage" silliness is gotten, and you get over FEELING oh so GOOD about yourself, you'll just move over to the next thing, which is ensuring gays can adopt and have families. This is the heart of why I think gay marriage would be a SILLY idea if it weren't a threat to children. (Next you will whine and scream about how I see gays raising children as a threat, and I view that as a problem every bit as much as I see rampant single-parent homes and marriage ending in divorce at an alarming rate as a threat to children. But you should save it: neither you nor your friend Mr. Cadell give a damn about children.)
Unless marriages HAVE to produce children, there's nothing about nature that says that homosexuals shouldn't marry. Please continue thrashing your hear against that wall, hand-crafted by about 6000+ years of human history. If your statement were true, gay marriage would have been done from the earliest possible times and we'd have evidence of it. Yet we don't. Why is that?
What a spoiled, deeply self-absorbed brat you are.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
How many times and in how many ways
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 2:52pm.
...must I spell this out?
So by your take on rights
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 8:51pm.
There was nothing wrong with laws that used to, in some states just until surprisingly recently, restrict marriage to members of the same race?
After all, everyone is treated the same under that law, right? We all have the exact same right to marry someone of the same race, and we are all equally disallowed from marrying outside that group. Certainly, the very existence of races as biological entities could be used to argue that nature "ordains" that we stick to procreating within those races. If we hadn't done that naturally already, then races wouldn't exist. And for thousands of years and in most human cultures, that's what we've done.
So based on your arguments, how could you ever object to bans on interracial marriage?
I know exactly how I would argue against them-- that precedent notwithstanding, there is no compelling REASON to stop people from marrying someone of a different race. It hurts nobody, so why not let people marry someone who makes them happy? What would your argument be?
Yes, of course
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 8:57pm.
the struggle of the homosexual is eminently equal to that of the races. Sheesh. Nobody chooses their race.
I'm drawing an analogy
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:17am.
and inviting you to explain why the same arguments you are using against gay marriage would not be just as effective against interracial marriage. I'm not saying homosexuality is the same as race.
Wait, mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:03am.
You're drawing an analogy between two largely unrelated entities? No. See. In actuality, you're saying the "struggles" homosexuals face in their relentless pursuit of classical marriage, is eminently similar to that of the historical unlawfulness of a black marrying a Caucasian. You might as well be comparing the financial difficulties of someone who works for tips to that of the 19th century slave.
There are a ton of problems with this "analogy" not the least of which is the fact that the vast majority of the very minority group known as homosexuals choose to be in that group. No one chooses their race.
[Edit: Except Barack.]
I love it when you tell me what I really mean
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:51am.
I am not trying to say that the two struggles are the same. I'm pointing out how the same argument could be used to defend the stance you hold on homosexual marriage and also the stance you (presumably) don't hold on interracial marriage.
I am doing that in order to try and tease out the real reason you don't like homosexual marriage. It isn't about the law being fair, because you could say the same thing about interracial marriage bans and you don't support those. It isn't "the way it's always been" because you could say the same thing about interracial marriage.
So what is it, really? Choice is a fallacy, there's no evidence people choose their orientation, and lots of evidence they don't. If that's your reason, you are misleading yourself, and I'll switch to trying to convince you of that!
Personally, I'm pretty much indifferent on gay marriage
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 1:28am.
I'm not gay, I'm not planning on becoming gay, and I'm not planning on re-marrying. So I really don't have a horse in this race. My only stance is one of tradition, that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Their race is irrelevant.
My real beef with the issue is that outside of the run-of-the-mill gay couple living their lives however they chose, I don't believe there is a real desire among the Gay Lobby for the issue to ever pass. I've detailed my position on this here. I don't suspect you'll agree with my stance, but I defy you to prove it wrong.
No evidence people chose their orientation? If by orientation you mean chemically and organically, as in Asperger's, then I will agree with you. But orientation and sexual preference could mean similar but significantly different things. There are lots of people who chose to partake in gay sex for no reason other than physical enjoyment. And many remain in gay or bi-relationships as a result. I love my best friend. I loved my Marine brothers when I was in the Corps. There's no reason to think that two males that engage in consentual sex could not -in time- develop a loving relationship as well, though they are no more organically inclined toward homosexuality than am I.
Just curious mamabear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:04pm.
News around the world shows how difficult life can be sometimes
So why is gay marriage the center of your universe? Do you discuss other issues at other websites?
No need to answer if my question is offensive. I was just curious.
The question isn't offensive
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:26am.
but it is pretty petty.
Ok mamabear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:51am.
Sorry if I was "petty:.
Have a safe trip home and Merry Christmas .
Yeah, Martin Luther Milk.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:14pm.
We got a street in town named after him/her.
It's a one-way, but only sometimes.
I bet it's called
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:38am.
"The Chocolate Highway". Right?
Jer
piece of cake
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:18pm.
Race has zero basis in marriage. Nadda. Unless we are saying those of a different race are a different species, or that those of a given race all have penises or vaginas, or have an altogether different set of genitalia that render impossible organic copulation, race simply has nothing to do with it. American laws that restricted marriage based upon race were, simply put, racist. Next question.
But, if I may, let me continue.
Sex, however, has everything to do with it. It is the defining element to this special class of "relationships."
And sex is about reproduction. If I turn to a fundamental textbook on human anatomy, the body is bio-logically broken down into distinct "systems" that have distinct organic functions. Note well that there is no chapter on "The Sexual Gratification System" or the "Self-Fulfillment System."
Human marriage, as a societal institution, exists based upon Nature. We are all here as the result of 6000+ years of a human societal pattern: Male intimately bonds with female (in a way that is not possible with any other being), female gives birth to offspring, male stays with female to protect female and offspring, both raise the offspring providing the necessary male and female role models for proper emotional development... and the cycle continues. If the species was not dependent upon this cycle, there would be no marriage, as the term would be without meaning.
Point by point
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:41am.
People who supported racial purity thought that there were good biological reasons to ban interracial marriage. They were wrong, like you.
The fact that sex is pleasurable is not an accident. Our bodies are designed that way on purpose. We could have evolved/been designed (depending on how you think that happened) so that only sex with the opposite gender felt good, or only sex that produced offspring. We aren't that way, and that isn't an accident.
We could also be creatures that require 2 parents to successfully raise offspring. There are plenty of species like that, but we aren't one. It is much better to have children raised by two parents, but our biology specifically makes it such that only the mother is actually biologically required. Again, if "nature" wanted something different, it could have it.
Without getting into too many more details that I think a number of people here would find inappropriate, nature does not tell us what kind of relationships to have. Looking to nature to define marriage is a choice you are making, there's no imperative. You are lying to yourself if you think you are basing your opinion on anything more solid than that.
point by point rebuttals
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:51pm.
lotr, Very well said! Very
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 8:07pm.
lotr,
Very well said! Very well said.
Unfortunately, don't expect mamabear to agree. I have discovered, as you have, that the whole gay "marriage" movement is all about feeling good and feeling like you are accomplishing something great for society. The Truth? who cares! let it be damned.
As a Latino, I find the whole comparison to the race struggle so incredibly offensive. None of us can choose our race, the color of our skin, however, we can choose who we sleep with. the gay movement wants us to believe that we are no better than animals and we can't choose who we sleep with.
You can choose who you sleep with,
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:23am.
just not who you want to sleep with.
Choosing my words carefully here
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:43am.
I don't think it is appropriate on a site like this to go into too much more detail about sexual pleasure. Suffice to say that whatever one does for sexual pleasure requires nerve endings that don't exist in other places. So whether nature or God created our bodies, they did not create bodies that could only be used one way. If pleasure is a manifestation of divine life, then God is a lot more open-minded than you think!
Also, I have said "who cares." Homosexuality is not normal. It is something that occurs in a small percentage of people, and in a small percentage of individuals among many other species. By that measure, it is not natural. From an evolutionary perspective, it is maladaptive. My response to all of these naturalistic fallacy arguments is: so what? As a society, we don't judge people's value by their evolutionary usefulness.
But gay marriage isn't about feeling good about ourselves, it is about allowing other people to be happy if they aren't hurting anyone in the course of doing so. Nothing in nature tells us to do that. Nothing in nature tells us to respect people's individual rights. We decide to do that, except when we decide not to. I think the conservative stance on homosexuality is grossly hypocritical when viewed through anything other than a religious lens.
Not careful enough, mambear,
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 1:13am.
because most of it is -with all due respect- a load of crap. First of all, from another post- sure you can chose who you want to be in love with. Many people are in love with someone who is not in love with them in return, but they still chose to feel the way they do. You can chose not to love someone as well. But moving on to the subject of this reply:
Maybe not, but you -and millions of others- judge a society by their evolutionary usefullness. If not, you wouldn't abide by the survival of the fittest theory. If a creature cannot procreate, it is of no use to the rest of the society, from an evolutionary standpoint.
But you are right, homosexuality is not normal. I'm not passing judgement on whether it is good, bad or indifferent, but it most certainly is not normal. It is the choice of a small percentage of people. And you can argue to your blue in the face that there is no choice in the matter, but until that gay gene is proven, you're flat out wrong. There are cases where children have been manipulated through malice or with purpose to believe that they are only capable of being involved in a same sex relationship, but the vast majority of today's homosexuals have adopted a stance that they can be whomever they want to be, and society should not judge them for it.
Finally, your premise on gay marriage relies heavily on the idea that gays in love cannot be happy without the sanctity of marriage. That's bull. The following excerpt is from an email- not sent to me nor by anyone I know, and I cannot provide the source because the original source was not noted. It comes from a conservative lesbian and was written to a blogger relative to the question: How can a homosexual be conservative? I can provide the link to the blog if you're interested, but it's pretty much immaterial- these words would be equally relevant whether issued by a homosexual or heterosexual.
Sounds to me like this woman can be -even if you wish her not to be, or believe she is incabable of being- quite happy. My understanding is that you are not gay. I could be wrong, but I believe you've indicated that here before. Well, I find it incredibly hypocritical for you to presume that conservatism is incompatible with homsexuality, simply because of one single issue; an issue that you, presumably, do not share. You are certainly worthy of your liberal stripe however; it is worn by those who must put people in categories in order to determine the path that is -as you noted above- allowed for them.
bkeyser
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 2:35pm.
I am intrigued by the first paragraph in your post. It seems to suggest that 'love' is somehow a choice. In my experience, it is not a choice at all..but some sort of mental disorder that inhibits rational thought and rewires your brain. Once it strikes..you're doomed.
Actually, mandrake
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 2:56pm.
it should say "sleep" with, since that was the wording used in mambear's referenced post. When I made the comment, I didn't have that particular post open, and was relying on my poor memory for her wording. I should have edited my comment after posting it.
To clarify, you can chose who you want to sleep with, they just may not chose to reciprocate the desire. In many respects, love can come about similarly.
It's strange to me how in one sentence, liberals will disregard the effects of single-parenthood and extole the freedom around casual sex with multiple or even same-sex partners, then in the next try to hold up the seemingly flippant and puerile emotion of love as suddenly unquestionable and all-powerful when exhibited by- or claimed for homosexuals.
Fair enough
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:08pm.
I do agreed that 'in love' and 'sleep with' are two very diffirent things. I think Shakespeare wrote a lovely sonnet about that..which I can't remember at the moment.
There are however times when I wish I could get my brain back to the way it was before I met my wife ;)
Why not?
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 12:08am.
Choosing who we fall in love with sounds like a great idea! I suggest we implement that plan immediately!
"Maybe not, but you -and millions of others- judge a society by their evolutionary usefullness. If not, you wouldn't abide by the survival of the fittest theory. If a creature cannot procreate, it is of no use to the rest of the society, from an evolutionary standpoint."
Huh? I don't want to jump to conclusions, but this sounds like you are suggesting society sees no value in people who are infertile. That's kind of reprehensible. Please clarify if I'm misunderstanding.
As for the gay gene, I don't know how many times I can say this-- genes are not the only way that things are biologically determined. Your height is not controlled by a "height" gene. That does not mean it is a choice.
At no point have I said that gay people cannot be happy without gay marriage. Of course they can. I'm not married and I'm happy! The point is that if some people want to get married, they should have the right to do so.If only rights that prevent happiness were worth protecting, then women wouldn't have the right to vote (unless you are suggesting that there were no happy women before that!)
I don't think that homosexuality is incompatible with conservatism. I think it is incompatible with the mainstream conservative view on homosexuality! Your email writer seems to think that her God is okay with her relationship as long as she doesn't get married. She is perfectly welcome to think that, but most people I discuss this issue with here would disagree with her. That doesn't prevent her from being conservative, it just means she is not quite mainstream in her opinions. And only social conservatism has anything to say about homosexuality at all-- nothing stopping anybody from being a fiscal conservative and gay. What I am criticizing is not conservatives so much as it is the conservative stance many here espouse.
I know I'm not arguing with a united front here, but I can only type so many posts-- at some point I have to lump and address my arguments to the stance that is most often presented against me.
And what conservative stance on gays is that?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 2:25am.
The one that says it ain't marriage unless God says so? If that's the case, what is it exactly that you want for gays? Rights, (marriage ain't one), or the total acquiescence of religion to the gay agenda?
The vast majority of conservatives, including religious conservatives, are willing to give the "rights" of power of attorney, hospital visitation, even the collection of insurance benefits to domestic partners.
Marriage to many, even on the left if they are true to themselves and their beliefs, is a religious institution. There really is no getting around that. Civil unions are the common ground, but that is not good enough. What are we to do?
Civil unions are fine
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 9:21pm.
as long as that is what EVERYONE gets from the state. This isn't about religion, it is about the state sanctioning some unions and not others, and then giving rights to the unions it sanctions that are denied the people who don't get them.
We have a tradition in this country of not accepting separate-but-equal as actually equal. So make every state-sanctioned union a "civil union," let anyone who wants to find someone to marry them in a ceremony and call it "marriage," and have done. Sadly, I expect some people on the conservative side of the argument will object to changing the name of their piece of paper to a "civil union certificate."
see mamabear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 1:17am.
Any opposition to gay marriage and to you its about religion. Well not for all of us. My "disrespect" and opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. My feelings on this issue is really very simple minded. It's spooky, and just plain yucky. Thank you for not going into "too much detail" cause thats what I find yucky. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order of life. Nothing personal against gays, in fact, I actually feel sorry for them, not hate them, for the life they must live. I view homosexuals the same as I do others with "birth defects".
Compassion, acceptance and accommodation is respectful but to totally change our society for a small % of the population to a degree that distorts and perverts order and values is asking too much.
The least compelling reason of all
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:53pm.
I think most straight people find the idea of gay sex yucky. I know I do. But that is about the least compelling reason I can think of to deny someone something that they tell me would make them happy. Why on earth should another person only be allowed to do something if you don't find it "yucky?"
Married straight couples also do lots of things I find yucky, I imagine many you would find yucky too. Shall we stop straight marriage on that account?
OK
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 2:19pm.
On this note, I'll attempt to call a truce, as I respect that you're at least being honest here. Obviously I don't think naturalistic arguments are a fallacy, and I don't think the conservative stance is hypocritical, although there have been many conservatives who have certainly lived hypocritical lives. I believe the socio-naturalistic argument is the best argument against "gay marriage." And thus while an isolated case of "gay marriage" may not "hurt anyone," I believe that in the ensemble people can and will be hurt in an indirect, gradual manner.
Truce accepted
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:49pm.
We disagree vehemently, but it is nice to be able to do so civilly!
Goos evening mamabear
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 2:21am.
Please tell me one right that normal people have that homosexuals don't have.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Forget about the gay issue
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 3:03am.
Forget about the gay issue here in our country...........which is about as meaningless as eating arugula and French Fries, as far as importance goes...............it appears that the part-time gay Barry Soetoro has instructed the other part-time gay Nurse Hillary Ratchett to be 'fighing' for 'gay rights' all over the world.............and undoubtedly spending a LOT of OUR money doing it!!! As Nurse Ratchett said herself - 'gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights'...............hell, you ugly big-cankled socialist hypocritical lesbian harpie.............speak for yourself!!! And take your weak-ass junior high game to some mooooooooooslem country as see how far you get with it!! (Although her current girlfriend is a mooooooooooslem, who just happened to be married to, and impregnated by, a worthless useless Jew - you CAN'T make this crap up!!!).
And it seems that the majority of Boy Bi-Sexual's gay lovers have somehow DIED within the past year or so............without any good explanations.
I don't wanna hear another godd**m thing about 'gay rights'!!! You guys are SO FAR down the list of importance........just go do whatever the hell it is that you do, and stop trying to get everybody else to think that it's important.
hippiebear...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 9:54pm.
I don't think that homosexuals are currently treated equally to straight people in this country, and I want that to change. In what country? Because I know you aren't talking about the United States.
As other posters have pointed out, there is virtually nothing gays can't do that I can't do.
I still suspect that you are merely looking for a civil rights movement since you missed the big, LEGITIMATE one in the 1950s and 1960s.
The idea that only gay people would care about the rights of gay people is just as childish as assuming anyone who is against gay rights must be secretly gay. I'm looking for what makes you tick. See, I just think it's weird that you don't give a s*** about the United States and don't think it is worth defending (you only like the military if it isn't "aggressive"), but you will FIGHT and DIE for the rights of gays. I, on the other hand, are one of those freaks who simply want all to be free and for the Golden Rule to be applied.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There is one thing
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 1:44am.
They are not allowed to marry someone they love. They can marry someone, but is that really a right we think matters without the second half of the sentence? This is America. That means we aren't marrying anymore for politics or money or to combine our real estate holdings or strengthen royal bloodlines. We don't arrange marriages. We don't keep them in the family. We don't exchange formal dowries or bridewealth. We don't require marriages to produce children or raise them. Marriage may involve all of those things, but we don't expect people to marry for any of them unless they also feel something.
We marry for love, and there is one group of people who still can't do that.
All wrong, hippiebear
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 8:02am.
Actually, in this country that you think is the sickest, most evil creation known to man, making North Korea look like a desirable place to live no doubt, all because we don't have gay marriage - people marry for ALL sorts of reasons. And you being an arrogant Leftist, you assume ALL marriages are done out of love. Not all are.
Hippiebear, I hate to break it to you, but humanity has functioned just fine for the past 6000 years or so without gay marriage. Humanity can get by another 6000 years without it as well. The thought that gays should marry to me is absolutely beyond silly. Besides, the issue is not being waged for the benefit of gays - it is being waged by Leftists because if there is anything they hate with an intense passion other than successful people, it is organized religion.
See, you are never going to get your wish. Sure, the State - the god YOU worship - might grant gay marriage, but no religious institution will. And that's the point. Leftists are not able to use police power to harass and intimidate churchgoers, and are not able to, say, burn down churches with full congregations inside a la The Patriot (some want to, deep down inside), so they have to go for the next best thing - poking organized religion in the eye, early and often.
Marriage is not about love - that love exists is icing. Marriage would not exist if children didn't take so damn long to raise. Marriage is an institution that exists for children above all. But as if you, Miss "My solution is to destroy children" hippiebear give a damn at all about children. All children are to you are damnable inconveniences.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I always know you're feeling threatened
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:42pm.
when you start making bizarre claims about what I think. Non sequitors about North Korea aside, when you look for someone to marry, are you genotyping potential matches to find the ones likely to produce the best children? You could, there's no need anymore to rely on those pesky secondary characteristics like big hips and breasts. You should go straight to the source and determine the best match to produce lots of robust offspring.
I'll bet, though, you're still hung up on outdated things like "personality." It's true that not all marriages are done out of love. But that's the American story, the ideal we strive for. It isn't in every country. In some cultures the ideal is to marry up in life, or make a good chunk of money, or find someone to help you take care of your parents and produce lots of children to work on the farm. We're spoiled, and Americans get to imagine a life where we fall in love with someone and create a family that society honors and respects. Just, not all of us. Yet.
for our self-absorbed hippiebear
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:54pm.
I know that you are losing the argument when you start to whine about me making "bizarre claims about what (you) think". Besides, you really don't think. You FEEL, and you FEEL your way through life.
when you look for someone to marry, are you genotyping potential matches to find the ones likely to produce the best children? You are clearly unfamiliar with studies published in even your favorite Leftist publications which indicate that, yes, there is a biological aspect to sexual attraction. Or maybe you aren't quoting them because they are inconvenient to your shoddy argument. You could, there's no need anymore to rely on those pesky secondary characteristics like big hips and breasts. Oh, don't worry, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to breasts. To me, that provides differentiation between men and women. Nothing more. By typing that, I have marked myself as a complete, total freak to the rest of the male population. You should go straight to the source and determine the best match to produce lots of robust offspring. And who's to say this isn't happening all the time?
I'll bet, though, you're still hung up on outdated things like "personality." I am because I have to be. But I seriously doubt a discussion covering that aspect of my existence is something you are up for, intellectually or otherwise. It's true that not all marriages are done out of love. But that's the American story, the ideal we strive for. It isn't in every country. How entertaining. A committed Statist/Socialist, telling US about ANYTHING American! I shall now pause while I finish laughing....(whew!) okay, it's good to know you are equally committed to using Hollywood to tell you everything you should know about human nature. Oftentimes people get married for exactly the wrong reasons. Ever wonder why the divorce rate is so high? Brace yourself: not only do I think that gays shouldn't marry, but I think that it should be made A LOT HARDER for straight people to marry. In some cultures the ideal is to marry up in life, or make a good chunk of money, or find someone to help you take care of your parents and produce lots of children to work on the farm. To show you just how deeply self-absorbed and ignorant of history you are, this applied to this country just a generation or two ago - and indeed in some places it is still reality. Right here in the United States. We're spoiled, actually, you are the most spoiled of all and Americans get to imagine a life where we fall in love with someone and create a family that society honors and respects. Just, not all of us. Yet. I know. It is going to take a long time for me to find the right woman to marry. See, hippiebear, I, as straight, as utterly heterosexual as I am, have zero right to marry. Zero. Zip. Nada. None. Yet, you want me to believe that gays should marry because IT'S THEIR RIGHT. Do you know what a blithering idiot you sound like right about now?
If I do not have a right to marry, if no one I know has a right to marry, if no one in this country has a right to marry - NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO MARRY. Damn skippy you are spoiled; you think every damned thing is a "right".
Oh, and nice try. Yes, marriage exists for procreation, but MOST IMPORTANTLY, trumping all, marriage exists as a mechanism for society to assign responsibility for the rearing of children. Do keep in mind that it takes quite some time to get children ready for thw wider world.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So you don't have any marriage rights?
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:08pm.
If you find someone you want to marry, and who is free from other ties, a consenting adult, and who wants to marry you-- do you not have the right to get married?
Now, if two gay people find the same thing, do they have the right to get married?
That's the important difference. You are not GUARANTEED marriage, that would be stupid. You have the right to engage in it if you want to and the opportunity arises. Gay people only have the right to marry in situations where they wouldn't ever want to-- with a member of the opposite sex.
This isn't confusing. You have the right to buy things like housing without being discriminated against because of the color of your skin. That doesn't mean you get a house no matter how much money you have! I have a right to equal pay, but that doesn't mean I get paid even if I never show up for work. D oyou see the difference? Rights are not guarantees. No one is guaranteed marriage. Everyone, including gay people, are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender. THe important difference is that gay people have no right to marry anyone they would ever want to marry, and you do.
Also, sorry to disappear. Crazy busy.
sillybear
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:24pm.
If you find someone you want to marry, and who is free from other ties, a consenting adult, and who wants to marry you-- do you not have the right to get married? No.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO GET MARRIED. THE END. I know that everything single damn thing in the universe is a freaking right to you, but the truth is that the number of actual, honest-to-Shahinshah rights you have is EXTREMELY small, and even these have to be fought for.
I have a right to equal pay, but that doesn't mean I get paid even if I never show up for work. D oyou see the difference? You absolutely do not have the right to "equal pay", whatever that is. Res quantum valorem tantum vendi potest.
You have the right to buy things like housing without being discriminated against because of the color of your skin. Which, as I am suspecting (and this example only serves to strengthen my suspicions), you are overwhelmed with pure, total guilt because you missed out on a genuine civil rights movement. So you have to gin one up so that you can FEEL GOOD about yourself.
THe important difference is that gay people have no right to marry anyone they would ever want to marry, and you do. Really? There are lots of women I'd love to marry but can't. Why? Because NEITHER YOU OR I OR ANYONE ON EARTH HAS THE RIGHT TO MARRY. This "right" has NEVER existed. It never has, and it never will.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have other issues to tend to. You see, there are far bigger things in this world to worry about than the absolutely SILLY idea that gays should marry. And if children weren't involved, I'd laugh at you and all of you people who think this silly idea is viable. Bigger issues include things like, oh, I don't know: national security, foreign relations, having a government beholden to the same rules of accounting as the businesses it regulates and punishes for violating accounting rules, getting rid of that $15 trillion monument to Congressional incompetence REGARDLESS of who owns it, and inculcating the shocking concept of personal responsibility into the nation's citizens once again.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Still mixing it up
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 12:10am.
You're still using the word "right" like it means "guarantee." They are similar in some ways, but not the same thing.
Keep reaching sillybear
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:16pm.
I think you know you are losing this argument, and badly. Your word gaming notwithstanding, I am in fact talking about a right in exactly the manner you are.
And you need to grow up and accept the fact that there are very, very, very few rights in this world.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Side note
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:32am.
I have no desire to back down from this fight, but I am heading home for the holidays and will have much more festive things to do with the next week than argue with you people! I'll be on a bit, but I hope everyone has a great Christmas, Hanukkah, or whatever holiday you celebrate!
Mamabear
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:40am.
Travel safely, and have a wonderful Christmas/Hanukkah (or whatever) with your family.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Happy Holidays to you Mama
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:04am.
We'll be here when you get back. :)
Back!
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:20am.
Hope everyone is getting a little break, enjoying family time :)
Mamabear, Anything the State
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:13am.
Mamabear,
Anything the State has the legal power to deny you, is not a Right.
For example, the State has the legal power to deny me and every single person the driver's license application. Thus, driving is not a Right, it is a privilage.
However, the State cannot deny me the Right to worship God or not worship God. The State, in this instance, is limited, controlled. It can't deny me this Right.
All of us, homosexual, heterosexual, polygamist and whatever other union you can think of can apply for a civil union license from the State. Homosexuals can apply for a civil union license as much as any heterosexual. And the State has the legal power to deny this license to anyone and everyone who applies.
Anything the State can legally deny us is not a Right. Anything that the State has no power to deny us is our Rights and Freedoms. Speech, Religion, Press, Gun, Remain silent, etc, etc, etc.
but remember, right now, homosexual civil unions ARE hurting innocent children, tens of thousands of them around the United States all because homosexuals cared more about their made up right than about the consequences of creating homosexual civil union laws. Countless of children are going unadopted thanks to homosexual civil unions. Funny thing is, the media, the Left those who always love to use children are props to push their agenda and who claim to love children and that it should be done for the children, are silent and say nothing about the tens of thousands of children being hurt thanks to homosexual civil unions.
Again, Catholic Charities being dropped everywhere as a contractor to adopt children. The States who have done this are not interested in hiring another contractor. Why was Catholic Charities dropped? Because it is a Catholic institution and it will not adopt children to homosexual families. thus the States and homosexuals rather have homosexual civil unions than have children adopted.
So much for the Left caring for children. But silence, there is zero story from the media about this horrific tragedy and the poor children who are being harmed by homosexual civil uions.
Links?
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:17am.
I'd like to find out more about the Catholic Charities issue. Could you link to some news stories, websites, etc?
Also, civil unions are not offered in all states. You obviously live in a state where they are, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that every person in this country can apply for a civil union. They can't.
Mamabear, Again with the
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:00am.
Mamabear,
Again with the homosexual marriage?
1) Yes, no one has a right to marry. Marriage is a religious ceremony that the religion you belong to will let you or not.
2) No one has the right to civil unions. I have to ask permission from the State in order to have a civil union with anyone.
3) Homosexuals, just like any heteroseuxal, can apply to have a union recognized by the State. We can all, every single human being in the United States can apply for a civil union license. And the State has the power to deny each and every one of us, regardless of sexual orientation, this license.
Anything that the State can deny us, is not a Right. It is a privilage controlled by the State, much like a driver's license.
4) Here is a question I asked you last time, many moons ago, we got into the homosexual debate. Homosexuals are so worried about having rights that we heterosexuals do not enjoy that they do not care for the harmful consequences of their civil unions. Yes, the good old, "...but how does a gay couple having a civil union hurt anyone?"
Well, here is how! The State of Illinois passed a civil union laws for homosexuals. Oh, everyone has applauded, "Hooray! Hooray! Equal rights privail. Hooray! Hooray!" Oh, everyone is rejoicing, what happinges. good for the State of Illinois. Yes, everyone is rejoicing except the 5,000 or so kids who will now go unadpoted in the State of Illinois. These thousands of children will never know the warmness and kindness of a home. Why? Because the State of Illinois dropped Catholic Charities, which helped heterosexual couples to adopt children, as a contractor for adoptions! Why did they drop it? Because Catholic Charities abides by the rules of the Roman catholic Church and will not adopt children ot homosexual families.
Thus, thanks to civil unions for homosexuals in Illinois, 5,000 children will go without ever finding a family since this was the number of children that Catholic Charities handled.
So, I wonder. I thought Liberals cared about the children. Isn't that what we are always told when it comes to healthcare, those poor children without insurance. Oh the pain.
Yes, homosexual civil unions hurt, and are currently hurting 5,000 children in Illinois and countless upon countless of thousands of children in every single State that has adopted homosexual civil union laws. Because it is not only in Illinois that Catholic institutions which were contracted by the State to adopt children have been dropped, but in every single State that homosexual civil unions laws have passed.
Care to address this point, Mamabear? now you see how civil unions for homosexuals are harmful, hurtful and dangerous to countless upon countless of thousands of children? Is this what you claim to be good?
Is that true Liberallies!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:37am.
Because those prospective parents have absolutely no other avenue of adopting the very same 5000 children of which you speak? Is that really true, LL?
It is your contention the State of Illinois absolutely forbids the adoption of those 5000 children by any other means. Is that really true, LL?
If that is true, perhaps the Charity of which you speak should release its contractual stranglehold over said adoptee children. To refuse would be cruel, wouldn't it?
So, Liberallies is lying again
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:32pm.
And we know why he does that.
Que?
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:52pm.
Que?
lotr
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 9:37am.
He has a tendency to lie in defense of his faith. I keep trying to tell him there's a terribly strange oxymoronic dichotomy to his approach, but he won't take heed.
The least he could have done is explain to me how those 5,000 children now have absolutely no chance of being adopted.
OK... so...?
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 11:39am.
What does that have to do with the thread topic? Are you trying intentionally to derail it? Or are you arguing in favor of "gay adoption"?
One more observation: Making the claim that someone is "lying" is an easily made, but difficult to demonstrate, accusation. It would be far better (and more convincing) simply to dispute the point, rather than accuse a person of having evil designs.
lotr
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 2:22am.
If it is your intention to pick up the mantle of Liberallies and explain how 5,000 children will now be denied adoption because Catholic Charities has been dropped by Illinois as a broker, please proceed.
I am unaware of any legal action by Catholic Charities denying the adoption of these same children through other sources.
Please explain to me how these 5,000 children will be denied adoption
For the second time... que?
Submitted by lotr on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:20pm.
Did you even bother to read a word of what I wrote?
Yes. Call people to task when they are wrong.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:56pm.
But, with all due respect. Please. Please. Please. Ensure they are wrong when you call them to task. It is never good when they are in the right. Please.
As usual, Liberallies overhypes a complex subject by injecting emotional pleading into a subject rather than looking at it with a critical and logical eye.
LL: ...thanks to civil unions for homosexuals in Illinois, 5,000 children will go without ever finding a family since this was the number of children that Catholic Charities handled
...WILL GO WITHOUT EVER FINDING A FAMILY...
DIRECT QUOTE.
EVER.
EVER.
EVER.
Wrong.
Dead Wrong.
On Monday, the Thomas More Society, the law firm representing Catholic Charities agencies in their fight with the state, announced it will file a motion to dismiss their lawsuit...
Because the state already began transferring the charities' case load to other agencies willing to work with same-sex couples months ago...
So the case was dropped because those 5000 children have already been moved to other agencies.
They may or may not find families. But not for the reasons LL listed.
So is it a lie?
Since he has a history of making emotional pleas based on faulty reasoning, who the hell knows. But Cool Arrow has every right to question him based upon his history of using emotional pleas based on his loony reasoning and based ALONE upon his loony reasoning.
Cool Arrow was correct in calling him out.
Oh, and the date one that news --- Posted: 11/15/11 09:48 AM ET --- The news was out more than a month before LL made his faulty post.
No, Cool Arrow was NOT correct
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:19am.
Again, please read back through the thread. I don't have any problem with someone calling into question the accuracy of a particular post.
I do have a problem with someone calling someone else a "liar," especially when that someone else is a NB regular in good standing.
Do you think George W. Bush "lied" about WMD? Or was he simply mistaken, working off faulty intelligence? Do you understand the point?
In my original comment, I gave Cool Arrow the opportunity to "amend" his original comment. He has not done so (and based upon past interactions, I'm not going to hold my breath -- but neither am I going to hold my tongue).
So I'm left to surmise that the "liar" comment stands, and I'm not about to tolerate that crap.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 1:11pm.
LL: Cool Arrow, Well, I understand. Radical, lying wackos, such as yourself...
LL (to CA): But what can I expect from someone who enjoys lying about the Roman Catholic Church...
LL: It is all there for people to read and see what a liar you are and how Hydro had a crazy fit...
LL: You, Cool Arrow, are a liar. It helps...
LL (to CA): Again with your lies. Nice of you to act as you only can, a liar.
LL (to Jer): ...complained when I called you a liar.
LL: ..claim something entirely different, liar.
LL (to Wrathful Brunette): ...making you....a liar.
LL (to WB): ...you have proven to be also a despicable liar.
~Seriously, lotr?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:17pm.
Why would you even ask CA if he's doing anything from a "secret pro-gay marriage stance" unless you're simply trying to bait him? You've both been around NB quite a while and you should know him better than to even posit such a thing.
yes, seriously
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:35am.
See my above comment.
I don't believe CA has even made one contribution to this 100+ comment thread in defense of traditional marriage. So when his only comment is an ad hominem attack on the veracity of one of the conservatives who are laboring to do so, basically derailing the original thread, naturally I begin to question where his "loyalties" lie, whether he is conscious of it or not.
If CA or anybody else calls into question the accuracy of a particular post, that's fine and dandy. But I take issue with personal attacks, especially when they are made against a conservative in the midst of defending a conservative POV from someone is supposedly on "the same team."
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 2:30pm.
Cool Arrow made a respectful post where he questioned the veracity of another's post.
Cool Arrow - Tue, 12/20/2011 - 1:37am <---- Post asking if a clearly dubious claim that children will be consigned to orphanages FOR LIFE is really true. (And I proved it was not with news that came out a month before the LL post)
IGNORED -- In the meantime, LL made posts elsewhere.
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:24pm. in Whoopi Goldberg blog
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:15pm in SNL Tim Tebow blog
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:31pm in SNL Tim Tebow blog
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:00pm in SNL Tim Tebow blog
Finally Cool Arrow concluded that the guy clearly had no intent of backing up the statement that 5000 children WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER be adopted -----> Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:32pm
Oh and seriously, do I have to look up the personal attacks Liberallies has made on people on supposedly scare quote "the same team" close scare quote? Because there has been a lot, and I do mean a lot. By the wrath of the Big Trolljegeren above, there has been a lot.
Sorry if your thread got all derailed and stuff. But considering how it has been dead for a month, can't really blame a guy for going a little off topic when someone makes the outrageous claim that 5000 children will be denied the chance to get adopted FOREVAH AND EVAH.
sorry, but I beg to differ
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:40pm.
lotr, Careful, soon you will
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:50pm.
lotr,
Careful, soon you will be labeled a troll by The Vet.
You will be told that you can't insult while others throw insults to you, as being called a pedophile by a poster and the anti-insult self-made police saying nothing.
You will be told that defending the Roman Catholic Church against the vile, disgusting lies that have been thrown against Her dealing with the Inquistion is foolish and obssesive.
I can be quite an a-hole, but not out of the blue and without a good reason. It doesn't make it Right, I agree, but there are some here on NB who believe that they can pound and pound on someone, insult and insult, be hypocrites, be inconsistant, etc and when called upon this behavior they go crazy.
You should check out Hydro's forum about me. Talk about hydro losing it, being obssesed and honestly, crazy.
Friendships and Conservatism are more important to some NBers than being consistant, sincere and backing the Truth.
Well. Well. Well.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:03pm.
Now he claims I called him a pedophile? Or stood by while he was called a pedophile? Who knows. Watch out everyone. Liberallies is hitting even lower lows.
The Vet, Nope, never said
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:44pm.
The Vet,
Nope, never said you called me a pedophile. But yes, i was called a pedophile by Cool Arrow and the self-made NB police, which just had finished yelling at a fellow poster for putting up insults, which included Cool Arrow, matthewdean as well as others, said nothing when the insult was thrown out.
It is all there to see. But shoot, my "horrible" insults are horrific when they are in response to your feeble attempts to demean me, to Cool Arrow calling me a pedophile. Oh yes, mean old me. How dare I stand up to you and other bullies. Please.
Hitting low blows would be if what I am saying is not true. Also, if you need me to, I will be more than glad to cut and paste the "nice" PM sent to me by Cool Arrow where he once again called me a pedophile. Why? because I have stood up against his vile and disgusitng attacks against the Church. PMs the self-made NB police can't read, but the public forum where he called me a pedophile can be.
Quote. Quote coming. Make way.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:54pm.
Liberallies: i was called a pedophile by Cool Arrow and the self-made NB police...
So now the list of people that called you a pedophle is expanding. Not only Cool Arrow, but the NB police as well.
QUOTE. QUOTE. QUOTE.
So, Liberallies is lying again
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:32pm.
And we know why he does that.
Liberallies: Hitting low blows would...
I said NEW LOWS not LOW BLOWS. We know your excuse for your writing. What is your excuse for failing to read what is printed right here on this page.
The Troll, say what?
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:08pm.
The Troll,
say what? hahahahahahaha!!!
reading comprehension not your strength, eh? before you make fun of my reading skills please make sure you take classes in reading-comprehension. never said that a group of people called me a pedophile. ONLY Cool Arrow called me a pedophile. The self-made NB police who love to go after posters for insults, for what they believe to be inconsistancies, etc stood by and said nothing when this disgusting and vile insult was thrown at me. Proving what you and others have shown so far. you don't care about the insults, you only care to hurt those whom you believe hurt you.
Only Cool Arrow called me a pedophile, never claimed more people did it. But look at you. You are more interested in going after me than taking on Cool Arrow for using such a vile, disgusting and outrageous attack.
Where is the insult police of NB going after Cool Arrow? silence! exactly proving my point.
You again prove that your interest is not the truth, rather that your ego feels good. paaaaattttthhhhhhiiiiitttttiiiic.
I am laughing at you The Troll. Your mind is too much fun to toy with.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:20pm.
I quoted you directly from this page --
Liberallies: i was called a pedophile by Cool Arrow and the self-made NB police...
Not my fault you can't properly form a sentence. Awwww wait. Secun landwiches. Right.
Sit there and call me a lair just like your buddy lotr. You typed the sentence out. Live with it.
Oh and I don't believe you.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:24pm.
Liberallies: ...Cool Arrow called me a pedophile...
QUOTE COMING. AND I QUOTE.
So, Liberallies is lying again
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:32pm.
And we know why he does that.
The Troll, Yeap, thanks for
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:47pm.
The Troll,
Yeap, thanks for proving as much, reading-comprehension not your forte. Poor you. You didn't quote me, you took me out of context as you always do, in order for the words to mean what you want them to mean. How Liberal of you. You should be proud of yourself.
Oh and what shall I do....The Troll doesn't believe me. AHHHHHHHH....oh no. It is the end of the world. hahahaha!!!!
Do you think I care you believe me or not? Well, obviously you are such a megalomaniac that you would think so. The facts and truth do not need you to believe in them in order to exist.
Anyway, YAWN!!! you have bored me. Better things to do than waste my time with a megalomaniac like you, Brunette, Hydro.
If you feel the need to, if your ego doesn't allow you to stop, since you have no self-control go for it, type away. I will check your childish writings later on today or tomorrow, point at you and laugh at you, ok? deal?
It is always fun to toy with the minds of the court jesters like The Troll.
Iz win!
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:09pm.
Iz got poorly written, poorly structured, run on, incoherent sentences! Iz your fault you can't rid demz!
and The Troll proves he lacks
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:50pm.
and The Troll proves he lacks self-control...
The Troll showing his lack of self control below this post in 3...2...1...
yes lotr...
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:03pm.
... and anyone else.
Please visit that post of mine and bask in the crazy craziness of my crazy obsession where I lose it in a crazy way.
(and if someone could please point out where exactly I exhibit any of this crazy craziness, I'd really appreciate it)
hydro
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:14pm.
What "post of yours" is this?
lotr
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:36pm.
A goofy thing I posted in the Forum Section in The Woodshed.
Hydro, hydro.... yes, poor
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:49pm.
Hydro, hydro....
yes, poor you. You were obssesing over my words over lunch and since you are so obssesed with me, you decided to put up a whole forum against me.
And yes, i call it craziness when an individual celebrates the human birthday of a God they do not believe exists.
you became snarky and sarcastic after I gave you a straight forward answer which I still believe today. if you are not Christian and do not believe in the Christian God, you have ZERO business celebrating Christmas. Much like if you aren't a Jew, you have zero business celebrating Hannukah, much like if you aren't a Muslim and deny the existance of Allah, you have zero business celebrating any of their holy days.
This is a concept that drove hydro, mad with rage and the poor sap started a whole forum against me which has attracted the scum, the lowest of the lowest of NB who do not like me. Honestely, I am enjoying seeing how his crazy post is attracking the crazies of NB who do not like me.
Awwwww. Now I feel sad.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:52pm.
You want to prove you were not serious. Have at it. I really don't care. I can't state the facts any more clearly and you appear to have serious issues with the scrolling wheel on your mouse.
We get it. You only condone actions you feel are appropriate and will spin like a top to support your buddies.
What-Eh-Va.
"spin" question mark?
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:10pm.
Please explain. Specifically, please identify what exactly was "spin."
I don't condone ad hominem attacks in the midst of thread that I'm active on.
lotr, it isn't worth it. All
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:18pm.
lotr,
it isn't worth it. All the Vet will be able to do is end by calling you a troll when you do not bow down to his point of view.
It is wrong of me to keep it going, but I have learned that taking a hanful of Conservative posters on NB seriously is pointless.
I find it amusing that The Vet and his "friends" have yet once to stand up to Cool Arrows disgusting and vile insults, but they cry when I react to these. Much like I did with Wrathful Brunette, I was stupid enough to allow her to egg me on and I lowered myself to her level.
I was called a pedophile in a public forum and the self-made NB police who are here crying over my "horrible" insults have yet to stand up to that poster. Of course they do not care since it was someone who they dispise that was insulted. Truth, consistency, sincerity is not their forte.
Quote Quote Quote
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:30pm.
Liberallies: I was called a pedophile in a public forum...
QUOTE COMING -----
So, Liberallies is lying again
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:32pm.
And we know why he does that.
The Vet, My goodness man.
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:11pm.
The Vet,
My goodness man.
lotr clearly claims he does not condone my behavior either and you keep on going.
It is all about going against me because I dared stand up to Wrathful Brunette, you and the others whom you have claimed are respected members of NB and how dare anyone stand up to the wrong behavior of a fellow Conservative. My goodness man.
You just don't know when to stop, or more likely your ego doesn't allow you to.
Go back to Crazy Professor's forum against me. At least there his and your crazyness and obssesion with me is not in full display.
(flush)
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:26pm.
.
And look who is calling me a LIAR now.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:06pm.
The Vet: Cool Arrow made a respectful post where he questioned the veracity of another's post.
This post --->
Is that true Liberallies!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 1:37am.
Because those prospective parents have absolutely no other avenue of adopting the very same 5000 children of which you speak? Is that really true, LL?
It is your contention the State of Illinois absolutely forbids the adoption of those 5000 children by any other means. Is that really true, LL?
If that is true, perhaps the Charity of which you speak should release its contractual stranglehold over said adoptee children. To refuse would be cruel, wouldn't it?
And then I stated the EXACT time of the post. Where is the disrespect?
lotr: The post was not "respectful" by any means. It was a lame ad hominem attack. Attack the message, not the messenger.
NOW YOU ARE CALLING ME A LIAR IN SO MANY WORDS. Up yours as well. You never had any intention of being serious here. You are only here to back up your buddy that I proved wrong, you buddy that goes right into attack mode, ATTACKS YOU IGNORE. So up yours too. Frelling sitting there and calling me a liar after you whine when others are called liar.
Sorry, but you just called yourself a liar
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:12pm.
So, according to The Vet, if anyone disagrees with him as I did, that person is "calling [him] a liar in so many words."
In referring back to the original post, please note that my beef wasn't with the text quoted above, the text that is supposedly in evidence that The Vet has been called "a liar."
Here's the post I originally responded to, with a simple question: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/11/30/npr-anchor-asks-barne...
That post was an ad hominem attack, nothing more. That was the post I responded to. And it was anything but "respectful."
Uh oh. I've disagreed again with The Vet, so I guess according to him, I've just called him "a liar."
Reply below.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:09pm.
Up yours with your misdirection games.
lotr,I see you flew into a
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 4:42pm.
lotr,
I see you flew into a hornets nest. The Vet and Cool Arrow don't particularly like me because I don't bow down to them. I will repeat it again, Cool Arrow is an extreme anti-Catholic and I have zero problem saying so. He does lie and lie a lot and his only interest is to demean, destroy and spit upon the Roman Catholic Church. He has been trashing the Roman Catholic Church with lies, half-truths, innuendos for over 5 years here on NB. When anyone stands up to his radical anti-Catholicism, he goes bunkers. Cool Arrow lost it a few weeks ago and wrote me a "nice" PM calling me a pedophile.
But I have learned that with Cool Arrow is a complete and utter waste of time and no different than throwing pearls to pigs. I have linked him to Catholic sources, but he keeps on claiming he knows more about Catholic teaching, Dogmas and The Faith, than the Pope, the Magisterium, than Vatican backed sources, etc. He is simply not worth it. He is one of those anti-Catholics that his hate blinds him. all we can do for him is pray for him and that whatever happened to him that has led him to hate so deeply such a great institution as the Roman Catholic Church, he can come to terms and realize the ways of his error.
A point I did not make earlier in this forum is the fact that a Religion is being discriminated against because of its beliefs. The State of Illinois discriminated against the Roman Catholic Church when it dropped Catholic Charities due to the Catholic stance against homosexual behavior. But as we have learned, Liberals believe in equality, it is just that in the eyes of Liberals, some are more equal than others.
By the way, at the time I had last read the news on Catholic Charities and the Civil Union law in Illinois. Catholic Charities were desperate because they did not know what to do once the law passed. Yes, the picture looked very grim and it seemed as thousands of children would go unadpoted. I should have read up on my news before typing my original post. Was it a lie, of course not. No one linked me to sources proving me wrong, as I have done with Cool Arrow, and I still claimed that what I wrote was the truth, as Cool Arrow does. I have zero problem in this instance saying, I was wrong, I should have followed up on the story before typing. Foster and adoptive cases are being transferred to SECULAR and Protestant organizations that have no problem destroying the life of children and allowing homosexuals to adopt them. I do believe that they are getting overwhelmed. Oh and by the way, quite a few of those working for Catholic Charities in the adoptive and foster care division are being laid off, not all, some who do not mind are being hired by Protestant and Secular organizations adoptive and foster services.
Yes, cases are now being transferred. Sad that a made up right for homosexuals has won over Freedom of Religion. AND any child that ends up in a homosexual union IS being hurt and will be emotionally, psychologically and more likely than not physically hurt.
Here is a nice article showing the pain of Catholics and how the Left cares nothing for Freedom of Religion and children. http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/opinions/9483161-474/catholic-charities-c...
and yes, I am completely ignoring two or three NBers who are simply not worth the time or effort. No matter how much the truth is shown to them via links and reliable sources, their hate and huge egos will get on their way of seeing the Truth.
Now he is calling me a liar.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 4:43pm.
Waiting for the outrage from lotr....
Liberallies: ...stupid Huffinton Post story...
Nevermind the Huffington Post carries NEWS and opinion. No, it was stupid and left wing so I am lying now. Don't like it? How about the Chicago Tribune ---
...the Roman Catholic dioceses of Joliet, Springfield and Belleville have dropped a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, agreeing to transfer thousands of foster care children and staff to other agencies.
Liberallies: Go ahead, The Vet, keep on quoting Left wingers who want to make it seem that no one is getting hurt over this.
Yeah, that is why I brought it. To make it seem no one was getting hurt. That is not a lie is it lotr? Too bad no one can scroll up and see what I actually said. When will someone invent a dang mouse.
Liberallies: ...the 5,000 or so kids who will now go unadpoted in the State of Illinois. These thousands of children will never know the warmness and kindness of a home. ...5,000 children will go without ever finding a family..
Look who is now claiming I and/or Cool Arrow said something else?
Liberallies: ...does nothing to prove that children in the foster and adoptive services in Illinois are not being hurt.
No one claimed the children would not feel pain because of this. WE DOUBTED HES STORY THEY WOULD STAY ORPHANS FOREVER.
~The awesome part
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:04am.
about arguing with LL is that all you have to do is tell him he's wrong, and he'll spend the next three days punching himself in the face.
Whoops. Somebody changed their post.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 4:56pm.
Liberallies original post : My original point stands about homosexual civil unions hurting children. But as I have come to realize with some “Conservatives” here on NB. They are more interested in their personal egos than the Truth. Transferring cases to other agencies does what? C’mon, can we think here? And I am the one supposedly being emotional? Overwhelm other agencies!! I live in illinois and some stupid Huffinton Post story (incredible that some “Conservatives” care more about their ego than the Truth they will stoop so low as to quote this joke of a site. Next we’ll be getting as reliable source Daily Kos articles), does nothing to prove that children in the foster and adoptive services in Illinois are not being hurt. Oh wait, I know, quote Pat Quinn saying that cases are being smoothly transferred. Go ahead, The Vet, keep on quoting Left wingers who want to make it seem that no one is getting hurt over this. WOW!!!
Furthermore, a point I did not make earlier in this forum is the fact that a Religion is being discriminated against because of its beliefs. The State of Illinois discriminated against the Roman Catholic Church when it dropped Catholic Charities due to the Catholic stance against homosexual behavior. But as we have learned, Liberals believe in equality, it is just that in the eyes of Liberals, some are more equal than others.
But too many on the Right as well as on the Left are more interested in their partisan fight and that we all be partisans than on the Truth. The Truth is neither Right nor Left, Republican or Democrat.
Someone going crazy in 3….2….1
Notice he took out all references to me and my stupid lies and my lying lying uncaring hatred for the poor children.
Notice also the ending taunt designed to dismiss and cut off all replies before they are made. Not trollish at all.
From his edited post ---
...and yes, I am completely ignoring two or three NBers who are simply not worth the time or effort.
He did not ignore me before he edited it. Hmmmm. That statement in the edited post is dead wrong as well, now aint' it?
The Troll, You do have an
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 5:09pm.
The Troll,
You do have an obssesive personality, don't you. LOL
Well, Merry Christmas The Vet and Happy New Year.
Find a wife or something, all this time you waste on NB is harming you.
Up yours with your insults.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 5:14pm.
lotr: But I take issue with personal attacks, especially when they are made against a conservative in the midst of defending a conservative POV from someone is supposedly on "the same team."
The Troll, Still haven't
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 5:19pm.
The Troll,
Still haven't found a wife, eh? :-)
Well, let's be honest son, you are not defending a Conservative point of view. You have been obssesed with attacking me since I did not bow down to you when you first went after me. You are also furious because how dare NB not banned me. Everyone you've taken on has been banned. So, how dare Liberallies not be banned.
Your ego has been hurt and you need to follow me and attempt to hurt me as I hurt your ego. Oh, I know, I know, you will not admit as much, but we both know this is the truth. :-)
You and I are defentely not on the same team, Mr. Obssesive Personality.
nice try, The Troll, but as always you missed!
Oh, yes, yes, I forgot, my bad only you and those whom you decide are the only ones who are allowed to insult other posters. Sorry for not asking your permission to insullt you, The Troll. :-)
Phweet. Didn't read a word of that.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 5:52pm.
If someone finds anything new in that, please PM me. As usual I have to stop reading because liberallies just turns it into a tauning insultfest with nonstop demeaning kid's and son's and child's as though we are just children to be spoken at.
I made a mistake. I proved Liberallies wrong. Time for him to start punching himself in the face.
~The awesome part
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:04am.
about arguing with LL is that all you have to do is tell him he's wrong, and he'll spend the next three days punching himself in the face.
The Troll, Poor thing.
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:01pm.
The Troll,
Poor thing. Proved me wrong? I admitted I was wrong and you can't stand it. :-)
Taunting insultfest? LOL The Troll describing his childish behavior. I treat you, the Troll, as you behave.
Yes, I know, I know you aren't reading my posts. Not only are you a Troll, but now aslo a liar.
If you did not read it, child, how do you know I used words as "child", "son" to describe you and your behavior?
I am laughing at you, The Troll. :-)
Punching myself? The only one punching himself is poor The Troll who can't stand me. You lack any type of meaning in your life that you have become obssesed with a faceless and meaningless words from a person you have never met. Behaving like The Troll on NB gives meaning to your life.
My good friend, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. May this year bring you a wife so you can spend less time obssesing over me.
In case, you missed it, Mr. Obssesive Personality, I was wrong in my statement to mamabear. Children are being hurt, but not in the manner that I thought, not being adopted.
But remember, you and I are most defenetly not on the same team. I am more interested in fighting for the Truth. You are more interested in fighting for Conservatism. Well, actually I am wrong, again. Shoot.
You are more interested in fighting for The Troll's ego than you are interested in fighting for Conservatism or the Truth. But the Truth is neither Conservative nor Liberal nor Libeterian, nor etc, etc.
As with my previous post.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:03pm.
Someone kindly notify me if something useful is said. I will be out by the lake listening to the Loons.
The Troll, Oh, oh...here you
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:15pm.
The Troll,
Oh, oh...here you go becoming The Last Word Troll.
No, no, please NBers, notify me if and when The Troll stops behaving like a troll and he actually starts putting the Truth over his ego and Conservatism.
blah blah blah PM me blah blah blah something new.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:27pm.
Anyone else notice the insulting is once again going one way and non-stop with no speed limits?
The Troll, Oh yes, no, no,
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:36pm.
The Troll,
Oh yes, no, no, you never insult me, right? Nah, no way. The Troll would never insult. hahaha....
Anyone else notice that The Troll is a liar?
blah blah repeat. blah blah PM blah blah new.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:43pm.
Mist just rolled in.
I can guarantee you
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:26pm.
Nothing useful will be said,
Boudin, You are right, The
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:40pm.
Boudin,
You are right, The Troll rarely says anything useful. Well said. :-)
Liberallies, instances---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:17pm.
of inconsistencies you put forth, are there for all to see.
You may be "more interested in fighting for the Truth", but you are failing to indicate anything other than a desire to lash out at those who either point out those inconsistencies, or disagree with your views..
Regardless of who is to blame initially for a flame war, truth should shed light; not heat.
MD
.
Matthewdean, If you bothered
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:33pm.
Matthewdean,
If you bothered to read my post to lotr, I admitted my mistake, did I not? DID I NOT?! Yes, I did. I did not excuse it, I did not try to hide it. I did not sugar coat it. Did I? NOPE!
I lash out at the tools and fools who prefer partisan games, Conservative or Liberal, than those who seek out the Truth and stand up for it.
The Troll and a few others have proven that the Truth is meaningless to them. If the Truth does not align with their Conservatism, Liberalism, Libetarian, Marxist, anti-Cahtolic etc beliefs they will deny it and attack anyone who does not agree with them.
The Truth should not lead to flame wars, but Conservatives like The Troll and others are not here for the Truth. Either you align with them in their radical Right Conservatism which is NOTHING I ascribe to or they will do everything within their power to demean you, attack you, etc.
I am not interested in the type of "Conservatism" The Troll and his ilk want and believe in. They can keep it. It is as much of a problem as Liberalism and Libetarian.
the hypocrisy, lies, half-truths, inconsistancies, hate, etc. from the likes of The Troll, Cool Arrow, etc are all on NB for people to read.
Example: a few weeks ago, Cajun2 and Cool Arrow were crying over insults and derailing in a post by a fellow Conservative, I don't remember his name, but even you chimed in on it. In the SAME forum, Cool Arrow derailed it and called me a pedophile. The SAME "Conservatives" who had lashed out at the other Conservative said nothing. I can go on and on.
The Trolls behavior. This person is the biggest Troll of NB and he is given a pass why? Because he is a fellow Conservative. His behavior would not be tolerated for a second if he was a Liberal. True? yes, true. He insults, belittles, demeans anyone, Liberal or Conservative, who does not bow down to him. But oh my goodness, if he feels that his medicine is being used against him.
Before you talk about my inconsistancies, make sure you point out that of your friends. But don't worry, I don't expect you to do so.
Conservatism and Egos are more important than the Truth. You can keep this type of "Conservatism".
Lotta words.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:52pm.
For a guy that admitted nothing, called me a liar, claimed my source was wrong, then edited it all away while I was responding.
Liberallies original post : My original point stands about homosexual civil unions hurting children. But as I have come to realize with some “Conservatives” here on NB. They are more interested in their personal egos than the Truth.
Liberalies: ...I admitted my mistake, did I not? DID I NOT?! Yes, I did. I did not excuse it, I did not try to hide it. I did not sugar coat it. Did I? NOPE!
The Troll, Poor Mr.
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:10pm.
The Troll,
Poor Mr. Obssesive Personality. blah, blah, blah....poor you.
My post is up for everyone to read. I admitted my mistake, I did not sugar coat it, I did not excuse it. I was straight foward and honest. I made a mistake.
If you were not obssesed with me and always looking to be right, well, you wouldn't be looking like the fool that you have proven to be.
Memo to the sys admins
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:15pm.
When you get back from vacation..isn't this the sort of thing that could be moved to a Forum? (not that I have anything against really thin threads)
Blah blah blah.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:20pm.
Oh look, a mourning dove.
Was I talking to you?
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:34pm.
I think not. But you seem to have an need to have the last word..which I suspect will be 'blah'. Very well, you win..oh and have a Happy New Year.
Try again.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:37pm.
I know the internet is hard a confusing but look again. And don't forget, always double check before you remove your ass and parade around with it on your head.
No sweat
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:45pm.
Just 12 weeks to go till I get to retire with full benefits from MRC..just like JWF. And I do wish you a happy 2012 my friend.
Liberallies, you do go on ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:12pm.
and on and on and on and on.
Your "Truth" is not everyone's truth.
I acknowledge that I respect The Vet for his intelligence and the information contained in his posts; and I also consider him a friend.
In my time here, I have NEVER seen him "attack" someone without reason - and as he always starts out with supporting details as to why he differs with any given poster, the "attack" segment is then initially generated by the opposition, not him.
That said, neither does he back down from a confrontation.
Your posts, when I Initially came across them as a new member, put you in my respect column as well; for you are obviously intelligent.
And passionate.
Your passion, however, seems to override any semblance of common sense regarding when it is time to back off. Your continued use of derogatory and belittling terms like "son" makes you look like more of a troll than what you try and make your opponents out to be.
In my opinion, you have become a parody rather than a paragon.
MD
Matthewdean, I do go on and
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:38pm.
Matthewdean,
I do go on and on? did you see the length of your post? oh wait, I am not suppose to go on and on, only you are. Hypocrite.
You could have saved a lot of words and time simply said, "Yes, Liberallies, I am a hypocrite. So what". At least you would come across as honest. Everything you said is what you need to tell yourself in order to feel good about your hypocrisy and inconsistancies.
And the Truth argument. Great, no different than what Liberals do. The Truth IS the Truth and the Truth is absolute. It is not negotiable, it is not dependent on you or me or on anyone else to believe in it. The Truth exists despite you and me and everyone else. You just made the same argument that Mamabear and countless other Liberals make on NB and every else make about the Truth.
You see, you just proved me right and are not smart enough to see it. Conservatives more than willing to sell their values, more than willing to sell Conservatism, more than willing to sell the Truth as long as their egos are not bruised and they are not proven wrong. Pathetic.
Conservatism stand no chance with "warriors" like Matthewdean, The Vet, and their ilk. we must pray hard that these individuals do not win the day in the Conservative ranks.
Better "warriors" like us, than---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:48pm.
the ridiculous raving, ranting, repetitive rabble rousing record you represent.
MD
Matthewdean, I prefer my
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:13pm.
Matthewdean,
I prefer my record, oh "warrior", than your hypocrisy, inconsistancy and turning back on the Truth.
I don't sell my soul and the Truth for friends or for Conservatism as you have so clearly done.
You have sold consistancy and sincerity in order to feel good about yourself and your wrongful stance.
Go "warrior" continue, Conservatism is in real trouble with "warriros" like you and your ilk, hypocrite.
~lotr
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:59pm.
Flawed logic. If I showed up on an abortion thread and just questioned a participant on a point he/she made, would anyone be able to reasonably conclude that I secretly support abortion? Frankly, that's absurd. No one has to reargue every single point every single time just to prove they aren't really now for something they've argued against on numerous occasions for years.
I can only conclude, based on your defense of LL, that you're a fellow Catholic and defending the hapless tool solely for that reason. I haven't seen you defend anyone he has made vile personal attacks against, so obviously your problem isn't really with personal attacks against members of good standing, as you claim.
Good night, and good luck.
Wrathful Brunette, Cry
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:26pm.
Wrathful Brunette,
Cry baby.
Oh, the hypocrite preaching against hypocrisy.
You aren't serious about someone staying quiet when vile and disgusting insults are used, right? Look in the mirror before you complain to lotr.
Not that you are honest to yourself or anyone else.
No, that's a true statement
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:59pm.
And if you suddenly showed up on an abortion thread calling one of the pro-life bloggers a "liar," any objective observer would indeed probably come to the initial conclusion that you were pro-abortion.
My defense of LL has nothing to do with LL personally. Why is that so difficult to understand? It has to do with an ad hominem surprise attack against someone who was trying to argue a point in defense of traditional marriage.
You can conclude whatever you want about me. It's not about me. But lemme tell you this: I cannot stand sectarian crap.
~lotr
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:23pm.
My screen name for my first two and a half years here was choselife3x. I've done it a couple more times since then, and no one who is even vaguely familiar with me would ever think for a second that I support abortion. You are not an "objective observer", you know CA isn't secretly for gay marriage, therefore your accusation was dishonest.
Frankly, I'm surprised. I would not have thought it of you.
I'm curious as to what you mean by "sectarian crap" and in what manner you apply it to this conversation. If you'd care to clarify, we could go to the bottom of the thread where there's more room.
WB
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:49pm.
We may need to continue below eventually.
I did not know you were choselife3x -- I am very familiar with your old name on NB blogs RE abortion, and have been very appreciative that you're out there as a pro-life voice on NB.
My question to CA is essentially the same as asking the idiomatic question "Who's side are you on anyway?", albeit in a more specific, pointed way.
By "sectarian crap" I mean the tired old 19th century triumphalism of old, the Catholic versus Protestant crap. NB forbid it a number of years ago, as it has nothing to do with the mission of "exposing liberal media bias." And whenever it rears it's ugly head, I just can't keep my mouth shut.
What is your excuse for calling me a liar?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:57pm.
.
Huh?
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:07pm.
What on earth are you talking about?
Huh? What are you talking about.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:11pm.
It is here on this page, in direct response to a post you made, but huh, English must be your second language too.
You called me a liar. Find it. I am not repeating myself after you made such a show of talking about calling others liar.
Is this an episode of the Twilight Zone?
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:55am.
Please provide the link to the post of mine where I "called you a liar."
Yes, but of course Cool Arrow
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 4:14pm.
Yes, but of course Cool Arrow was not trying to bait me. LOL
Bull.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 5:01pm.
Liberallies: ...the 5,000 or so kids who will now go unadpoted in the State of Illinois. These thousands of children will never know the warmness and kindness of a home. ...5,000 children will go without ever finding a family.
You made an outrageously inflammatory claim that was proved to be false a month before you made it.
mamabear
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:09am.
I would rather not discuss your apparent "rights" to gays, as have been your fave subject here. But i have responded to you , kindly i might add, and gave a response to the actual facts that i presented in a different thread, about gays and marriage.
You see most conservatives don`t give a hoot about what you do for work or what you do for entertainment nor do we care what you do behind closed doors.
YOU and people like YOU keep bringing up the "well they are gay so they are prosecuted" meme and complete BS. "We" don`t bring that crap up at any time unless it involves actual marriage and than yes.
Lest i get vulgar about the sexual practices between man and woman and the practices between man and man or maybe in your case woman and woman, do i think that you love no different from me? Hell no i don`t, feelings are what they are and thats a key.
"You" people keep shoving this in my face and why? Yes i said "You".
Why do Americans and people who live and thrive and enjoy our citizenship as Americans demand more "rights" than others?
Little test for you and i would love an honest answer, OK?
I am an American but i do need more assistance than another group because i do feel as if i have been oppressed.
What am i?
Am i white,black,asian,latino,hispanic,gay,lesbian,transexual,?
See, hippiebear, I, as
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:25pm.
See, hippiebear, I, as straight, as utterly heterosexual as I am, have zero right to marry. Zero. Zip. Nada. None.
Uhhh, can you explain this one please? Because I too am "utterly heterosexual" and I'm pretty sure I could get married any damn time I please so long as it was to a woman who consented to marry me.
Needless to say, I'm on mamabear's side on this issue as a whole, but I have no intention of disrupting your tete-a-tete. I'm just very very curious as to what you mean by this, because you seem to know your stuff otherwise.
Rupert,
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:39pm.
The explanation is simple. Unsane is laboring under a misapprehension, which often leads to erroneous statements, as was the case here.
Jer
Nice try!
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:50pm.
Actually, no. But then, you think just about everything is a "right" as well.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No, not everything. Not even just about everything...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:52pm.
Only those things which have been explicitly recognized as rights under the US Constitution, albeit a list which has gradually expanded over the past 100 years or so. Obviously there are instances where conflicts of opinion exist within the federal judicial system which have yet to be addressed and ultimately resolved by the SC.
Jer
Please explain these rights?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:10am.
That have been expanded unto the Constitution in the last 100yrs
The 18th?, maybe the 20th? maybe the 24th? Good grief
Boudin...right to marry
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 1:13am.
Here is some judicial and constitutional background on right to marry: [p.110 et seq]
THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL
PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER
The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental RIGHT
protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v
Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a
fundamental RIGHT” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional
support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978)
(“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all
individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of
personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of
the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967)
(The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
RIGHTS essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage
is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring,
and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association
that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not
political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social
projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any
involved in our prior decisions.”).
The parties do not dispute that the RIGHT TO MARRY is
fundamental.... [my emphasis in italics and CAPS]
Jer
Thank you!
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:54am.
The idea that having a legal right to something like marriage means you could FORCE someone else to get married is just ridiculous. Unsane's definition of "right" is just completely out of step with the way other people use the word.
Keep dreaming
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:39pm.
The right to marriage does not exist. You and Jer can talk until you are blue in the face but there is ZERO right to marriage, just as I have ZERO right to join any organization that I want to join.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:41pm.
Are you trying to tell me I can't join the faculty of Harvard?
What? Harvard???
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:31pm.
Why on earth would you want to debase yourself that way?
I'm worried. Anything you want to talk about, rad?
:o)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ok which Pinto is being yapped about . Car Horse er Bean
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:03pm.
I did meet a gal named Miss. Right.
She used the word No on me. That's not right, man.
In the land of Is is what it is.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Rights are temporary and up to twiddling.
Aloha rights 2012 style eh brah!
You Didn't Build That.
Just caught this Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 10:23pm.
I'm looking at the dates of these findings (possible incorrect term1), and it occurs to me that based on this case law (possible incorrect term2) , gay marriage should have been deemed legal in all states no later than 1987. We're in, what, 2011 now? What's that, 24 years? What happened? Were any of these opinions overturned? And if so, doesn't that make them null and void in the argument? And if not, see: What happened?
[Edit] I just did a search for "US Code Right to Marriage", because it seems to me that if there is a right to marry, it would be stated somewhere- more than likely in the laws of the land. Funny; you know what the only thing is that shows up?
DOMA.
But wait, there's more!
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:33pm.
And why an army of lawyers haven't taken TX to court over the Texas Constitution (which has an amendment which pours cold water all over Jer; I've shown it to him before) I have no idea...IF marriage is somehow a right.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 7:15pm.
Just because an act, or exercise, or belief may be deemed a constitutional "right" doesn't mean it is unrestricted and unlimited or that it's reach and meaning is beyond debate. As you know, even the right of "free speech" is not absolute [but to therefore conclude free speech is not a "right" would be absurd].
The recognition of "marriage" as a right--even a fundamental one--doesn't end the argument over the appropriate definition of marriage, much less dispose of the issue of gay marriage, but rather determines the nature of judicial scrutiny applicable when addressing the interests of a state and the potential conflict of those interests with a constitutional right.
Granted, one of the enduring assaults on judicial activism is its detection and declaration of rights under the constitution which neither exist explicitly nor were intended to be discerned by implication. But, that argument aside, the constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and the acknowledgement of a constitutional right to marry is one for which there is ample precedent.
Jer
bk...addendum
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 7:33pm.
THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL
PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/11/30/npr-anchor-asks-barne...
In the interest of clarity, that statement [appearing in my earlier post which you addressed] was the federal judge's conclusory finding in his decision--based on his review of the facts and legal precedent--and was not itself a pre-existing Supreme Court enunciation of the law.
Jer
Ok Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 7:50pm.
I get what you're saying, but to date, the Supreme Court which is the ultimate interpreter of the Law, has not ruled that marriage between two men is a guaranteed right under the Constitution, correct? If they had, as they did for abortion, we wouldn't be discussing the existence of such a right, rather the discussion would be focused on the repeal or re-classifying that right. So far, all we have from the Supreme Court is the accepted Federal definition of the word marriage in the DOMA. (If I'm wrong here, please correct me- I'm far from an expert in law.)
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:16pm.
...to date, the Supreme Court which is the ultimate interpreter of the Law, has not ruled that marriage between two men is a guaranteed right under the Constitution, correct?
Correct.
If they had, as they did for abortion, we wouldn't be discussing the existence of such a right, rather the discussion would be focused on the repeal or re-classifying that right.
Correct, i.e. as the right relates to same-sex marriages
So far, all we have from the Supreme Court is the accepted Federal definition of the word marriage in the DOMA. (If I'm wrong here, please correct me
As far as I know, but I certainly haven't exhaustively researched how the SC may or may not have historically defined "marriage".
Jer
One more series of questions, your honor...
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:15pm.
Now, Mr. Jer, in your position as an expert witness for the gay marriage lobby, is it safe to say that our rights as American citizens are defined- either through direct language, i.e. the amendments to the Constitution, or by specifically stating what is not a right and thereby a violation of someone's rights in the form of a civil or criminal act- in the US Code?
If no, where [else] are our rights as American citizens delineated?
If yes, where in the US Code is the right to marriage listed?
If you don't mind, bk...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 5:49pm.
I prefer to be addressed by my official title, to-wit: The Honorable Judge Jer, Justice Emeritus Newbustersitum [or, informally, the initials THJ3EN are also acceptable].
Now, just because a right may not be specifically enumerated in the US Constitution does not mean such right does not exist or should be otherwise denied to a lawful American citizen. For example, I think we all can agree that every man has the right to pet his own dog, but the framers of the Constitution were understandably unpersuaded by any compulsion of logic or predisposition or expediency to expressly provide for same by meticulously defining and delineating such right. (Please refer to Amendment Nine of the Bill of Rights which addresses unenumerated rights.)
As you are no doubt aware, there is no specific reference in the Constitution--much less an unequivocal guarantee--to a right of privacy, although the concept has been addressed, amplified, and its scope enlarged by the Supreme Court over the course of many years in numerous decisions, most notably and controversially in Roe v. Wade. Such implicit and penumbral rights generally arise out of expansive interpretations of related constitutional provisions and then are incorporated via the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to be made applicable to the various states. Rights deemed to be fundamental require that a state demonstrate a compelling reason for any action which purports to impinge upon such rights.
With that as a backdrop, the federal judge in the California Prop 8 case held that marriage is a fundamental right entitled to the guarantees of both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution, and that therefore the action of the State was subject to strict judicial scrutiny demanding proof of a compelling state interest in defining marriage so as to carve out an exception and exclude those of the same sex from being granted licenses, and that the state having failed to meet this burden, the Proposition was thus declared unconstitutional.
THJ3EN
In other words, the best you could come up with
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 7:34pm.
is the opinion of an activist judge. I'll except your withdrawal from the case. ;-)
No, it was a nice way of saying your previous post
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 8:29pm.
almost completely missed the mark. :-)
Jer
Ah,
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 1:07pm.
and yours, is a dodge. Either that or you lost track of the subject matter: that marriage is a "right". The jury will see right through your last response.
Good morning bk
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 1:15pm.
Jer came to a fork in the thread and took it.
Have a blessed year.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good morning to you coco
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 1:16pm.
Quite! LOL
Happy New Year
Hmmm...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 5:22pm.
There seems to be some confusion over the direction of the discussion. I took the fork in the road, and you took the cul-de-sac.
Jer
Did I neglect to mention how much I like 'thin' threads?
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 5:35pm.
Maybe the Admins could transfer this type of thing over too..I don't know. KOS?
My reply to you was on this comment
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 6:27pm.
Boudin...right to marry
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:13am.
Here is some judicial and constitutional background on right to marry: [p.110 et seq]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/11/30/npr-anchor-asks-barne...
The confusion, or maybe memory issues, are all on your side of the screen Jer.
Okay...ask your question, but at bottom of page,
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 2:37am.
please.
Jer
Hmmm...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 8:58pm.
Ever read the Texas Constitution?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No, at least not all of it...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:21pm.
The last time you asked me that question several months ago, I requested that you direct me to the provision you had in mind and you responded that you weren't going to do my homework for me. I think Boudin or somebody then linked the document or a portion of it, but it didn't resolve the issue.
Jer
thank you Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:31pm.
Your reply to Bk was one of your best at NB. Straight forward answers, no bs, no deflection based on "wording".
Thank you. Try it again sometime....;-)
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:52pm.
Does the wording in your post regarding "straightforward answers" imply a belief that my past responses have reflected a "gay" bias?
Jer
no Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:58pm.
I'm not that funny.
straightforward: direct; honest; frank
;-)
Oh, I see...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:08pm.
So THIS TIME, I was being "honest". Well, thanks a lot, missy.
[Okay, word parsing out of my system for tonight.] :-)
Jer
Jer catching on*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:13pm.
Self deprecating humor.....now that is funny..;-)
Simple
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:47pm.
According to the Texas Constitution, gay marriage cannot happen in Texas.
So, if what you are saying is correct, why hasn't anyone come forth to challenge the Texas Constitution and the will of the voters who voted to have that amendment put in effect?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
As a military man, Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 8:40pm.
I'm sure you understand the importance of choosing where and when and which adversary to attack.
Jer
Perhaps, but...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 8:45pm.
I guess the Texas Constitution blows your notion that there is some sort of phantom right to marry clear to hell then.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm sorry, Unsane, I apparently misunderstood...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:06pm.
I thought you said the TX Constitution barred gay marriages. But I now gather it explicitly states there is no right to marry period, and the state may refuse to license it or recognize it for any reason whatsoever.
Here's an idea: Why not quote the exact language?
Jer
Why?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:48pm.
Because you can't, my Socialist poster. No one, absolutely no one, has a right to marry.
The rights you have are so very, very few...
I'll go ahead and mark you down as someone who is anti-religion, OR simply believe that gays deserve more rights and more privileges than anyone else...or both. But then, Leftists think group rights trump individual rights at all times anyway.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wow, you're interesting.Not
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:04pm.
Wow, you're interesting.
Not a socialist, by the way. What on earth did I say that aligns with Das Kapital?
Now, if you wouldn't mind. Aside from the fact that, thank goodness, you can't FORCE some woman to marry you, what on earth impedes you or me or any other straight person from marrying whenever we feel like it? Repeating your cryptic answer from before, followed by a quotation from a Nazi-sympathizing metal band, is about the same as no answer at all.
Don't play dumb
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:04pm.
Don't play dumb with me, Rupert. I've seen you post here for years and you worship the State as the answer to any and all things.
No one has the right to get married. Period. If you did, you could in fact force marriage. But you cannot. For but one example.
You may not align with Das Kapital, but let's not play dumb. I know where your ideological bread is buttered.
To me, there are only three reasons to support gay marriage:
1) You are unable to actually persecute people for worshipping something other than the State;
2) You are consumed with guilt over not being part of a LEGITIMATE civil rights movement such as that which happened in the 1950s and 1960s;
3) You believe gays deserve more rights and more privileges than other people just because they are gay. Leftists tend to believe that individual rights are utterly silly and outmoded and should be replaced by group rights.
As to Slayer: a nice, idiotic statement there. Yes, there are many songs they have about the Nazis: "The Final Command", "Angel of Death", "Behind the Crooked Cross", "SS-3", and others I may have missed. But you aren't much of a headbanger. See, the ONLY reason Slayer has songs about the Nazis is simple: the Nazis KILLED PEOPLE. If you want Slayer to write a song about you, go kill some people. Anyone who is familiar with their music knows that they obsess with the dark side of humanity.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
First of all, we'll just have
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:31pm.
First of all, we'll just have to agree to disagree about Slayer. Your defense of them would be like me telling Brent Bozell that Glee is actually PARODYING a liberal attack on conservative values.
Since I've so prolifically demonstrated my allegiance to the governmental teat, please post just one link to something socialistic that I've said in my tenure here.
As to your enumerated "points":
1. No idea what this is supposed to mean. Every person who really does get married buys in to the idea of state power to some extent or another. There are many (mostly misguided) reasons to oppose gay marriage. The blithe, know-it-all tone of your claims, this one in particular, demonstrate that you don't even believe what you're saying. If you really think this, you might at least have the courtesy to explain how such silly thing might work.
2. Ha, you say this in like every post you get into. What a weak recourse. Maybe I'll adapt that one. Whenever someone is kicking my ass in an argument, as mamabear has been kicking yours, I'll just accuse him of her of having childish ulterior motives for caring about the issue in the first place. Truly pathetic.
3. Nope, not at all, but thanks for breaking out yet another worn-out, nonsensical right-wing narrative. Oh yes, a sub-group of society that couldn't even publicly acknowledge their sexual preferences a few decades ago for fear of their own physical safety, is now being given SUPER-rights in MA, VT, IA, etc. If you really believe this, again, you could at least explain how one's claim that gay people ought to have the same right (yes, RIGHT!) to wed is somehow above and beyond that of straight people. Nitpick about the word "right" all you want. Where has anyone, ever, even suggested that gay marriage be instituted in such a way that it would surpass straight marriage? The thrust of your argument seems to be:
Pro-Gay Marriage posters think that because straight people have the right to marry, so gay people should too. Butt in a strictly technical sense that I refuse to explain, straight people do NOT have the right to marry. So I'll ignore the fact that your original statement was conditional to that, and assume that you want gay people to have rights that straights don't!
And thus comes your utterly cliche statement. Gay marriage = Gays having elevated rights. Get some new material.
Oh my
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:42pm.
When I got married, I didn't buy into the power of the state, I bought into the power of God.
Uns, getting his @ss kicked? I think not.
So you had a church ceremony
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:47pm.
So you had a church ceremony but did not get a state marriage license or certificate?
No, Uns is getting owned pretty good, I'm afraid. If he'd deign to actually provide some sort of argument for what the hell he's talking about when he utter absurdities such as the notion that advocating for equal marriage rights for gay people is "worship of the state" (implicitly suggesting that straight marriage, for the very fact that it involves a nice complementary penis and vagina combo, does not suggest such worship), I might be able to take him seriously.
We have all been through this
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:53pm.
countless times with mamabear. I doubt that for your sake he's going to repost the arguments he's used. It's rather tedious to go around the same old circles again and again with her.
My marraige is state sanctioned, but more importantly, it's sanctified by my church, which is what matters the most to me.
Considering how many times
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:00pm.
Considering how many times he's repeated the fallacious and tiresome claim that any time a liberal advocates anything, said liberal is just mad that he/she doesn't have a "real" civil rights issue to fight for, I can't imagine he'd be so averse to explaining how allowing gay marriage would somehow give gay people "rights" that straight people do not have. It's a ludicrous argument that hinges on specious nitpickery about whether straight people's marriage privileges in fact meet the definition of "rights." He then says that since we use the word "right" in reference to gay marriage, and since straight people don't technically have that "right" we're actual advocating for SUPER rights! It's a transparent argument that a second-string debate team sophomore could see right through.
Hhmmm,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:01pm.
Fact is, the state is using Marriage just like any other entity, to tax the folks in the name of "health". And the States that have leaders (dimwits) who believe they can increase without decreasing their voter base, will be for it.
If the Gays were serious, they would create a ceremony to signify their bond with their partners. And would even have a leg up on the rest of us, because the State would not be able to influence it. They already have the power of civil unions, the rest is all BS!
I don't entirely disagree.
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:01pm.
I don't entirely disagree.
Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:07pm.
*
Hey rube...er rupe
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:12pm.
"Angel of Death" is a song about mengele. They hardly portray the "infamous butcher" in a positive light. I guess you'll now tell us that all of the hippie protest bands of the sixties were actually pro-war because they wrote about it.
And if it's not consecrated in a church, it is not marriage, gay or straight, IMO. As no religion I know of endorses or even accepts gay marriage, that's not likely to happen. Civil Unions for everybody!!!
Gay marriage, Rupe---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:14pm.
surpassing straight marriage -
"Where has anyone, ever, even suggested that gay marriage be instituted in such a way that it would surpass straight marriage?"
If a particular religious denomination believes homosexuality to be wrong and denies the sacrament of marriage in a religious ceremony within their sanctuary or on their property, to homosexuals, and the day comes that homosexuals can successfully sue to be favored with a religious ceremony:
surpass - (transitive verb) - to transcend the reach, capacity, or powers of - (synonym) - to exceed
Gay marriage will indeed 'exceed' straight marriage if it is legally forced upon religious entities.
If you believe that legal enforcement of a religious ceremony is not on the GLAAD, GLBT & Q agenda, then Rumpert Cadell would be a more accurate username for you - "Rump" for short, as you are an ass.
MD
I think that would be bad
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:07am.
I am not in favor of churches being forced to marry people whose union violates their beliefs. There are churches that have no problem with gay marriage, so there isn't any reason to require the ones who don't to provide them. I know there are people who will sue, but I think that's wrong. And frankly, people who want to sue a church for disapproving of their lifestyle are doing that now, without legal gay marriage.
If a particular religious
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 12:16pm.
If a particular religious denomination believes homosexuality to be wrong and denies the sacrament of marriage in a religious ceremony within their sanctuary or on their property, to homosexuals, and the day comes that homosexuals can successfully sue to be favored with a religious ceremony:
Ah, but the church already has this right to deny. If certain gay advocacy groups want a legal precedent to FORCE various churches to perform gay ceremonies, that would be a whole other fight. Because as it stands now, whereas the state - a public institution - would have to provide seriously compelling evidence as to why it is denying any given opposite-sex couple from procuring a marriage license, a specific church has far more latitude in denying the use of its vestments and representatives. If I were to visit a particular pastor with my fiancee right now, and asked him to perform our wedding in his church, and he found us to be unfit to uphold the values of his institution (which would likely happen, seeing how the fiancee and I are both atheists!), he'd be well within his rights to say no.
Changing how the state grants marriage licenses wouldn't change this. There may well be some hard-line gay advocacy groups that can't wait to litigate against church discrimination, but the fact is that churches already have the power to deny their matrimonial services, even to couples that have obtained a state-issued marriage license. It is fallacious to claim that the elimination of sexual orientation discrimination as a criterion in the issuing of such licenses would somehow also change the rules pertaining to how private institutions may choose what sort of ceremonies to affiliate themselves with.
And let me add that if it came to the point of such litigation, I would be on your side.
It doesn't matter whose agenda it's on, Mattthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 6:40pm.
it's not on the US Constitution's agenda. End of story. End of your argument.
Jer
"Jerr", ever hear of a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 6:43pm.
constitutional amendment?
You stalking me, boy?
MD
I use the triple "t" when I really want your attention, md....
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 6:59pm.
and, yes, I've decided to switch gears and stalk you until the first of the year just for the heck of it..
Jer
Ah, the old switcheroo, eh, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 7:26pm.
--- pretend as though you are going to start doing what you accuse others of doing in hopes that no one will notice that you have always done just so.
Clever, that.
Almost diabolical, even.
So, where is your answer to the question I posed as to whether or not you have heard of a constitutional amendment?
Do you really believe that with a government in place that decides they can mandate the purchase of health insurance, that the possibility of mandating GLBT & Q marriages in a religious setting, by religious leaders of congregations, cannot be possible?
MD
Why would you say that?
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 8:57pm.
Why would you say no one has a right to marry? It's right there in the Constitution..everyone has the right to the pursuit of unhappiness.
What if
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 1:04pm.
disposing of your noisy neighbor made you happy?
Rupert, As a heterosexual
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 1:53am.
Rupert,
As a heterosexual you are not free to have a civil union with a woman who consented to be with you. If the State denies you your civil union license, you have zero right to have a legal union with that woman.
Do I have the right to drive? No i do not. I can apply for a diver's license, much like I can apply for a legal union license, but the State has the power to deny both.
When you have a Right to something, the State, at any level, can't deny you this Right and Freedom.
Your Rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. These, can be seen as limitations on the Federal Government, or as spelling out of our individual Rights. But nonetheless, the Bill of Rights spells out what the Federal Government can't deny you. It puts limits on the Federal Government. Each State Constitution has similar things.
the fact that the State can deny you and every single person who applies for a civil union license means that no one has the Right to a civil union.
This is basic Political Science 101!
As a heterosexual you are not
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 11:59am.
As a heterosexual you are not free to have a civil union with a woman who consented to be with you. If the State denies you your civil union license, you have zero right to have a legal union with that woman.
OK, yes. So are you now claiming that it's unfair that gay people can get civil unions but we straights have to settle for actual marriage? Or are you simply shooting down my claim that, as a straight person, I could marry any woman who consents to marry me and who is of a legal status that RECOGNIZES her consent as valid? Because okay, yes, technically the state could deny that. But it's not like that happens with any sort of regularity. Straight couples do not apply for marriage licenses with fingers crossed, just hoping against hope that it will be approved. It's regarded as a matter of course, and indeed that's how it basically always plays out.
But even though Unsane is technically correct in this regard, its relation to gay marriage is slippery at best. He seems to be suggesting that if gay people are granted marriage rights, the very use of the word "rights" means that they would not be subjected to the possibility of having their marriage license rejected. That the clerk would just see that it's two dudes or two ladies and rubber stamp that application without batting an eye. Which is of course a position that no one on the pro-gay marriage side has promoted. Rather, taking this more strict definition of marriage as a state-granted privilege as opposed to a right, we simply advocate that the gender of the participants NOT be a factor in denying the necessary licensure.
Ha!
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:43pm.
Funny how you brag about kicking my ass elsewhere and here you sheepishly concede that I am correct.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Read the whole post. Your
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:44pm.
Read the whole post.
Your claim that "marriage rights" is a misnomer is correct on a strictly technical and theoretical level, even though in practice (for us straight people) the word "right" is quite appropriate.
Your attempt to use this fact as basis for an argument against gay marriage, however, is a non sequitur and utterly fails. Because while the state may technically withhold a marriage license from a heterosexual couple on some obscure grounds, the very fact of that couple's gender, by definition, would not be the reason.
Suppose only people whose last names ended with the letters A-M were allowed to get a driver's license. Last names with N-Z cannot. The A-M people still have to pass the road test at 16, renew every couple of years, maybe pass some simple vision test. Your argument is rhetorically identical to saying that we shouldn't even be talking about the N-Z folks' driving rights because NO ONE has the "right" to drive. Even those A-M people have to pass certain requirements, after all! Not letting the N-Z crowd even have the opportunity to try, then, is not discrimination!
This is why your ass is being kicked by mamabear, who is clearly way too polite and civilized to point out as much, and unlike you, doesn't waste brainpower trying to come up with unclever, vaguely insulting variations on your screenname ("hippiebear"? How are you not a professional comedy writer?) Your entire argument in this thread relies on obsessively nitpicking a perfectly legitimate colloquial usage of the term "rights"; and while you may be technically correct, that correction of her word choice doesn't actually weaken anything else she's saying.
Sick freak...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:55pm.
Look, sick freak, you bragged endlessly about how I got owned here, blah blah blah, and here, you sheepishly concede that I am in fact correct.
I hate to break this to you, but as you are just as selfish and deeply self-absorbed as hippiebear, it will fly right over your head - you have VERY VERY FEW ACTUAL RIGHTS.
As I so hate repeating myself, I have listed the very basic reasons why I think gay marriage is at best a silly idea and at worst an extremely bad idea all throughout this thread. Read them all as I am not your little fox terrier.
Let me boil this down for you: the ONLY reason YOU want gay marriage so badly is because you are a deeply, intensely self-absorbed individual. That your stance might adversely effect children doesn't bother you in the least - hell, from everything I see here, you absolutely hate children. As for me, sorry, marriage has worked reasonably well for the past 6000 years, and I feel no need to jerk with it. But then, I'm not as obsessed with FEELING OH SO GOOD about myself as both you and your friend hippiebear are.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You complain about being
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 1:34pm.
You complain about being compelled to repeat yourself, and then proceed to reiterate the same baseless, laughably flimsy accusations with which you've already littered this thread. I would expect nothing else, really.
And you have no rebuttal whatsoever to an incredibly simple dismantling of your core argument, except to fall back (for the nth time) on juvenile speculations about why I or anyone else cares about the issue. And even if your speculations were correct, it wouldn't at all change that your argument holds no water.
Rupe,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 8:08pm.
While I give you points for consistency, I would point out that all people in a rut share that condition; only then, it is termed a malady.
MD
Ha!
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 8:23pm.
Rupert, just saying you dismantled my core argument does nothing to support your argument. It may boost your massive ego, but nothing else shall result.
And actually, my argument DOES hold water. Go join your girlfriend hippiebear in thrashing your head against a wall constructed by 6000 years or so years of human history. The only thing you have accomplished on this thread is that you are deeply self-absorbed (but then that's something of a requirement for being a Leftist), you have a massive ego, and basically you should be imprisoned if you even LOOK at a child (re: your endorsement of incest). And you become extremely angry when you are told you can't have your way all the time, and in many cases, that is done for a VERY good reason.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
It is to laugh. Now, you want government
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:41am.
to define "love", so that the government can make sure everyone can "marry for love"? Your favorite, or second favorite, president couldn't even define "is".
You're right, it's hilarious
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:49pm.
Because only one side of this argument is trying to define love-- yours. I'm saying people fall in love with who they fall in love with, and as long as each party is a consenting adult free to enter into marriage, it shouldn't be the state's place to define which of those loves are valid and which aren't. Your side of the argument thinks only certain kinds of romantic relationships are real or valid or worthy of acknowledgement by society.
No it isn't
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 12:34am.
Our side says marriage is a religious institution. The state should have no interest in it, (hetero or homo), period.
Of course, lawmakers saw a way to make a dime out of it, and thus got involved, collecting fees and whatnot. We don't care who falls in love with who. We just wonder, why is not good enough to enjoy the privileges of marriage without insisting on calling it marriage?
I'd agree with that
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:10pm.
But I don't know that most of your colleagues here would.
"Certain kids of romantic relationships"
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 12:40am.
Does this mean if a person falls in love with an airplane or building they should be allowed to marry it?
Got my eye, Rad, on a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 2:59am.
bank vault. :o)
MD
So the "love" thing isn't all that it's cracked up to be...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 3:35am.
and next time you're marrying for money?
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:43am.
Nope.
Not marrying FOR money.
I'm marrying the money itself.
MD
Have you ever been to a
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:01pm.
Have you ever been to a wedding? Generally, BOTH parties are required to declare their consent/intention to wed the other. Airplanes and buildings can't do this.
Same goes for animals, cars, and whatever other dumb counterexamples anti-gay marriage folks can dream up.
Next!
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:06pm.
Next you are going to tell us you cheerfully endorse incest.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Endorse it? No. But if
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 12:06pm.
Endorse it? No.
But if people really want to go that route, what do I care? As long as it's clear that there's mutual consent, I'd have to say that's their business.
There are some real concerns there though. First, there's more of a possibility that an older family member had raised a younger one - "groomed" him or her - to accept such an arrangement. I'd be wary of incest marriages with a big age difference. Second, the government does have a legitimate interest in reducing the number of children born with debilitating mental and physical defects, and incestuous coupling skyrockets this number.
However, to address both of these points: Actually getting married is hardly a prerequisite for abuse of a child or sexual partner OR for procreation.
And you are correct, I'm not much of a headbanger. The only metal groups I like at all are Isis and Converge.
Rupert Cadell, the new Incestmo
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:44pm.
But if people really want to go that route, what do I care? As long as it's clear that there's mutual consent, I'd have to say that's their business. Well, well, well. I thought Incestmo was bad. You are about as big a sick freak as he is.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well now you're just being mean
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:14pm.
People DO fall in love with inanimate objects and want to marry them, http://www.tressugar.com/Marrying-Eiffel-Tower-Other-Inanimate-Objects-2...
What are you some kind of inanimate object bigot?
And I wish Matthew and his money all the happiness in the world, although I'm sure if Matthew allows his spouse to be free and travel to cash registers he'll be even happier.
Rad---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:27pm.
iob - good one.
The wife said I could marry the money - provided first, that it was legal, and second, that she was listed as it's legal guardian. :o)
MD
Just a suggestion Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:56pm.
If Obama stays in office and OS becomes "legal" then here is a better marriage partner for you
Just accept it
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 12:25am.
Marriage is not about love, and you really need to learn to accept that.
Marriage has just about everything to do with the fact that babies, when born, aren't nudged repeatedly by mommy to walk upright, to which babies respond to by walking upright after about five minutes of nudging. For but one little tiny example.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
How about a mandate?
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:11pm.
Everyone who gets married has to raise a child. Otherwise, you aren't really married, you're just hanging out together a lot, right?
sillybear
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:41pm.
Keep indicating to me just how deeply self-absorbed you are, and how you make it a point to refuse to understand human history and human nature.
Once again, sillybear, many years before you were born, there were people on this planet, and these people had societies and cultures not terribly different from what you are in now. The only differences, when you get down to it, are technological. Anyways, when the concept of marriage was derived, it was done because, while sex would occur anyways, humanity figured out in a hurry that sex is designed to have a consequence: children.
Something odd about humanity, which you clearly have not figured out: most mammals are at least ambulatory and can do SOME things for themselves at birth. But when people are born, they are helpless. Indeed, they are helpless for quite some time after birth. And even then, they have to learn a whole hell of a lot of minutiae to function as members of society. Dealing with all of this can be, and is, quite the PITA to deal with.
So, in order for society to properly deal with these issues, the concept of marriage was derived. It isn't just for procreation: it is a way for society to assign roles and responsibilities for the raising of children. That is why marriage exists. You can argue and whine about how therefore we should make child-rearing mandatory for married couples and you can just as childishly whine that couples not willing to procreate not be allowed to married, all because YOU aren't getting what YOU want (and remember, to sillybear, it is all about ME ME ME), but it simply will not change the fact that marriage is in fact designed for children.
You simply have to deal with that fact. If gay marriage had no chance to effect children, I wouldn't care. But as it does, like many things that effect children, I DO care. Today's children will be looking after me when I'm in a nursing home. I'd prefer not to do anything to screw them up.
Before you go any further on this subject, get a grounding on human history and human nature. Not what you WANT them to be, but what they actually ARE.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Pesky nature again
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 12:17am.
Plenty of other mammal species are altricial. Most of them mature faster, but they still require complete care at the beginning. In most mammals, that care is provided entirely by the female. You really need to stop pretending that nature is the ultimate model to base our society on.
You are the one who keeps saying marriage is all about children. I suggested forcing child rearing so that marriages would more closely fit YOUR ideal, not mine! The truly bizarre thing is that you say gay marriage is invalid because it doesn't produce children, and then claim not to be able to let it happen anyway because it affects children! Which children?
This kid maybe?: http://youtu.be/FSQQK2Vuf9Q
Figure out the basics first
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:52pm.
sillybear - Until you figure out the basics of human nature, as has been spelled out to you by people all over this thread (most eloquently and most succinctly by lotr), I don't think you can talk about this subject. Well, sure, you CAN, in that you have a username and password here and a keyboard and the ability to use one - but you aren't making ANY sense whatsoever. Walk away from here and think with your brain for a change.
Marriage exists for the raising of children, and the assigning of the roles and responsibilities of child rearing to the married couple. It has been this way for millenia before you were even thought of. You are too spoiled and self-absorbed to figure that out, but that's a fact. And, oddly, world civilization has survived for millenia without gay marriage. It just has. Forgive me, but I don't want to jerk with something that works, and works reasonably well. Incidentally, you have failed, and failed miserably, to read where I would even go so far as to make it A LOT HARDER to get married, period.
Before you start trying to show the world how smart you are, you want to be firmly grounded in the fundamentals. On that score you are beyond a flop.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh please
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:09am.
That was a lot of words just to say "nyaaah"
World civilization also survived just fine for millenia without constitutions that protected the rights of common people from nobility, without penicillin, without cars, and without Christianity. So obviously we don't need any of those things. The "don't jerk with what works" attitude would leave us fighting over bread crumbs with sharpened sticks. No, wait, there wouldn't be any bread. Maybe, we want things that improve our lives, even if we don't need them to survive.
It just isn't working sweetie
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 1:50am.
You just cannot accept that the arguments you have put forward JUST AREN'T WORKING. Now you are trying to conflate not supporting something YOU want because YOU want to FEEL OH SO GOOD about yourself with being a Luddite.
Sorry, sweetie, but marriage is a TEENSY bit different from technological advancement. Before AND after each of those steps were taken, marriage has existed. And you are STILL busy slamming that selfish, spoiled, self-absorbed head of yours into a wall made by 6000 years of human history.
Next you are going to try to conflate this silly idea of yours with the argument of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system versus the Copernican, heliocentric one.
NONE of your arguments are going to change some extremely simple facts you are simply going to have to come to terms with before you type a single other response on this thread:
1) You can put two men or two women together and they can be together for decades and no children will result. For some weird reason, they CAN and DO result when you put a man and a woman together.
2) Human children take a long time to raise. They are helpless when born and they take quite some time to develop into fully functioning adults. Add to this the complication of making them into productive, functioning members of the society they are born into.
3) To deal with these cold, hard facts, the concept of marriage was developed.
4) In light of the above, there are certain types of arrangements that societies shun or will not allow because of the detrimental and disturbing effects to all. AND there are others society will not allow because to begin with THEY ARE JUST PLAIN SILLY. SILLY, SILLY, SILLY.
The ONLY reason YOU want "gay marriage" is because YOU are a selfish, spoiled, self-absorbed brat who thinks you can and will ALWAYS get YOUR way, no matter what. And you want to FEEL GOOD about yourself. If it screws up society or most importantly, children, SO BE IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T REMOTELY CARE. hippiebear wants what hippiebear wants, the rest of the world be damned.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Feelings?
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 12:25am.
I brought evidence that being raised by two gay parents does not "screw children up." You've countered that with nothing but assertions. Do you have any actual information you'd like to add to the discussion, or do you prefer to continue hand-waving?
Men and women do not always produce children. Some of them can't, just like gay people can't. They are biologically incapable. Are you in favor of denying marriage to infertile couples? If not, would you like to try and change your argument so that it involves some internal consistency, or are you okay with the lack of logic inherent in denying marriage to one group for a reason that also applies to another group that you allow to marry?
Let's just strip feelings out of this and look at it logically, right? What is your exact criterion for a "silly" relationship as opposed to an unsilly one? Silly is a very vague, subjective term. If you define it concretely, then we can examine the issue without involving your feelings. While we're at it, you call my support of gay marriage selfish. How exactly is it selfish, in a real, quantifiable way? I'm not gay, and I am not trying to get married. What commodity or resource do I gain if gay marriage is accepted by society?
This is why I don't argue with idiots.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 1:48am.
This idiot has had this explained time and time again. And here it is once again stating the same stupid blather.
failurebear: Men and women do not always produce children. .... Are you in favor of denying marriage to infertile couples?
The idiot says we should dump the entire concept of marriage just because some couples can't have children.
Statement --- Knives are used for cutting meat.
failurebear: Serial killers also use knives. Are you in favor of murdering people?
Statement --- Buses are used to bring children to school.
failurebear: Sometimes buses run over children. Are you in favor of banning buses and having children walk in traffic to get to school?
Statement --- Squirrels are cute and climb trees.
failurebear: Squirrels carry rabies. Rabies kill people. Do you want people to die?
Up yours idiot.
:
I didn't say we should deny marriage to anyone
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 9:34pm.
I asked Unsane if he would like to try and introduce some logical consistency to his argument. Thanks for the triple demonstration that logic isn't your strong suit, either!
Here's a better analogy:
Mamabear: Guns can kill people, therefore we should ban guns.
The Vet: Forks can also kill people. Would you like to ban forks?
It's an honest question. If the only justification for banning guns is that they kill people, there are lots of other things that should be banned. If I wanted to be consistent and logical, without changing my position on guns, I would need to explain why guns are different than other things that kill people.
If Unsane wants to be consistent and logical, without changing his position on gay marriage, he needs to explain how gay couples are different from other couples that can't produce children. Otherwise, denying marriage to one childless couple on the basis of childlessness while allowing marriage for another childless couple is inconsistent.
Turds to roses
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 9:52pm.
Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. If we are going to change it to include persons of the same sex we had just as soon call turds roses and give a bouquet of turds to our beloved on Valentines Day.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Lame
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 3:04pm.
Sorry, but "it's always been like this" is another argument you could just as easily use to justify prejudice on a whole range of other issues. Unless you fancy yourself a bigot, which I imagine you don't, you might want to come up with a more sophisticated reason.
Looney
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 3:28pm.
No argument, just the plain truth that the definition of marriage has been the union between a man and a woman since Adam and Eve. You are attempting to rewrite history and reality to promote a personal obsession.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Not so much
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:24pm.
A man and a woman? Try a man and many women. Are you in favor of that, since that's much more the way it's "always been?"
Idiots don't listen.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 2:30pm.
I said I don't argue with idiots. Only an idiot would attempt to argue with me after I made that statement.
Idiot.
Every time
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 3:12pm.
Your the kid who loves to tag, but every time someone tries to tag you back you claim you weren't playing anyway. You should have gotten over that when you were five!
How about this-- it doesn't count as an argument unless you have a chance of winning. So until you grow some spine I won't really be "arguing" with you anyway. I'll be schooling you :)
iz troll winnaH!
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 3:31pm.
Iz monkizpipples no talk to iz trolliz! Make trolliz winnahZ! IZ trolliz danz nah!
But they can
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:04pm.
still be in love, right? If marriage is about love and none of those other things, then it seems to me, gays in love aren't missing out on anything.
~Except the opportunity
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:48pm.
to be a bitter divorcée.
Bru
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:56pm.
Oof. I've got one of those. Let me tell ya, they're better off.
"overcome prejudice" = brainwashing near completion
Submitted by SaseboSailor on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:12pm.
About a month ago there was a story about a high school guy in TX who whispered to his buddy that he was a Christian and he thought homosex was wrong...He was suspended. Yesterday was a story about a lady graduate in counseling student at Augusta College who dared think that homosex was immoral..they want to kick her out of grad school.
The Penn State scandal is characterized as pedophilia but at it's heart, it's really a homo going after young boys..the same is true at Syracuse. How did they go on for YEARS with no one saying anything??
The effetes and elites in higher education and journalism are so brainwashed into fear of being labeld anti-gay or even thinking "anti-gay" that they willingly ignore awful acts committed by gays against kids and teens in order to avoid anyone questioning their liberal credentials.
They consider themselves "educated", but in fact they are amoral, sniveling cowards.
STOP THE IGNORANCE!
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:59pm.
What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
The truth of the matter
Submitted by John Francroix Jr on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:16pm.
The thought is more upsetting than the reality of gay marriage. I haven't a clue who's married on my block and wouldn't know if the ladies 2 houses down married tomorrow. It...just...doesn't...make...a...difference.
Legalizing same sex marriage (that's same sex marriage, NOT marriage with children, puppies, fish, dragons, unicorns, or the dead) is feared, for it would mean condoning homosexuality. And we don't want that, now do we?
Condoning homosexuality?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:39pm.
No, we don't want to do that.
At all
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:31pm.
!
Not even---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:40pm.
in the military, bk?
Why, I'll bet some feel good, sensitive to the bone, caring liberal will attempt to set that right - you just watch and see.
Next thing you know, some unelected gay judge will overturn the vote of the majority in CA who have voted (twice, now) against gay marriage.
Or should that be GLBT & Q marriage - ?
MD
Isn't funny md
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:44pm.
how little miss Bradley Manning is saying confusion over his own gender is what led him to struggle so mightily in the Army that he just had to release classified intelligence to Wikileaks? Almost seems like someone should have asked...
Well, MD, there is this.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 8:18pm.
Now, you have to realize, this picture and the "kiss" are not a photo op, at all. This was not staged, in any way, by some PR flack who thought he/she would get in good with the GLBT crowd that seems to be running the military now.
UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 8:29pm.
It would appear that times have changed a bit; not necessarily to the complete good, for all.
Likely to continue on this way.
MD
Rad79
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 8:09pm.
Yeah, John walked into that one.
At least, as a newbie (4 week) lib here, he's telling it like it is from their side. Honesty, at least. They totally want to condone it.
He's suddenly plopping his "liberal sensitivity" poop on a few threads, I see.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
false
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:01pm.
The truth of the matter is that it is the reality of "gay marriage," not the "thought," that is "upsetting," and there are very good reasons it ought to be upsetting.
If we "don't have a clue who's married on the block", or if "it just doesn't make a difference", then why the sudden big political push? Why would you even bother wasting your time entering a post on a conservative blog?
Obviously it does make a difference, and we do have a clue about who's married on the block.
At issue is not what dirty deeds go down behind close doors. We all are very well aware of all of it in today's day and age. The difference here is forcing a public acceptance of something that has heretofore been considered immoral. And yes, we don't want that.
Although, bk, if your reaction to my best effort to explain
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 2:57am.
is that I'm "confused", "dodging", and am afflicted with possible "memory issues" [at least you didn't play the "out of my depth" card this time], it may be better to address your concerns to someone else.
Just remember: A "right" to marry--even a constitutionally recognized right to marry--is not necessarily a constitutional sanction of "same-sex" marriages. The judge in the Prop 8 case held that it is, but the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue, and that is the nub of the debate.
Jer
Jer, I was merely responding to your
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:49pm.
legal quotations regarding the "right to marry". That's it. You seemed to be implying by noting the quotations from the 60's and 1987 (I think) that there was, in fact, court standing or opinion or whatever verbiage correctly indicates a court acknowledgment that there is a "stated" right to marry. I challenged that by asking if that was so, then why is there still a question about homosexual marriage? It would seem to me that certainly by 1987, after the Civil Rights Act, we wouldn't be limiting anyone from such a statute. That we'd be discussing repealing such a statute similarly the way we're discussing (not us, in this conversation, but society, contemporaneously) repealing Roe. But that's not the case.
My point is, that there is no statute regarding the right to marry. There is a statute regarding the right to assemble, and the right to bear arms, and the right for women and blacks to vote, and the right to worship the religion of your choice and for freedom of the press. These are all enumerated. The right to marry, however, is not. And according to the questions I posed you, you seem to agree, making the comment I replied to, misleading and incorrect on it's face. Almost as though your use legal opinions -given the fairly common belief on these threads that you have a background in law- was an attempt to deceive.
Basically, the problem as I see it is the overuse, and misuse of the term "right" as it relates to US citizens. Another example is the "right" to collective bargaining. Or the "right" to assemble on private property. Or the "right" to disrupt a funeral. (That one is a little iffy, as sometimes "rights" trump bad taste.) Just because people do it, doesn't mean they have the right to; sometimes it's just accepted by an ever devolving moral society.
I'm pretty sure that covers it. I'm also pretty sure I wasn't nasty or demeaning in my comments to you. Nor you to me. And as far as being "out of your depth"- I wouldn't expect so from the legal point of view, thus I didn't feel any inkling toward that notion.
⇒ lotr
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:04pm.
Though the cause for which he argues may be a very good one, I object to your demand that LL's interjection of falsehoods into the argument be ignored.
Plain and simple, he lied about the 5,000 kids, refused to defend the lie, and seems to have found a defender who will overlook that lie.
It is craven of you to now hide behind the defense that since I have not said anything in this thread supporting traditional marriage, I must necessarily refrain from comment.
You ride a losing horse when you defend lies in defense of your argument.
I'll be a broken record here
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:35pm.
⇒ RingLord
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:07am.
Inasmuch as LL still refuses to either recant or support his ludicrous claim concerning the 5k kids, it stands as a false assertion to mamabear.
And unless I'm mistaken, it was you who brought up, in your defense of LL, that I had not taken a stand on either side of this issue. I simply contend my views on the subject neither add to, nor detract from, whether LL's statement is true or false.
But here you are, playing the "you must be one of them" card when I challenge the veracity of a claim made by someone with whom you agree on this issue.
Since when is it proper to condone untruth just because you're ideologically on the same side as the presenter of the falsehood?
Flail away!
Cool Arrow, I refuse to
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:42am.
Cool Arrow,
I refuse to recant? reading-comprehension not your forte. Recanted with my very first post to lotr on this forum.
I dare you to be the man you refuse to be and admit that you just lied in the above post when you claimed I refused to recant my words to mamabear. you are nothing, but a lying littlel weasel, that is what you are.
It is only a falsehood if I keep on repeating it as the Truth once it has been pointed out to me and I continue to repeat the same thing. Hmmm...much like you constantly do when it is pointed out with Vatican backed websites that you are lying about the RCC Dogma and teachings, but you continue with yoru lies against the Church's teachings.
But what can be expected from a fool who went as low as to call me a pedophile in public and in a private email because I pointed out your immense lies, hypocrisy, lack of sincerity, inconsistancies. C'mon lie, claim you didn't call me a pedophile so I can continue to prove to you what a pathetic pathological liar you are.
You, The Vet, Wrathful Brunette for you the Truth be damned. What a bunch of low lifes. Disgusting.
Don't confuse me for the lying anti-Catholic tool that you have become.
Braaaaackkkk. Braaaaackkkk callz me pedopops Braaaack
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 6:27am.
...you, as being called a pedophile by a poster... ...called me a pedophile. But yes, i was called a pedophile by Cool Arrow... ......to Cool Arrow calling me a pedophile. Oh... ...once again called me a pedophile. Why?... ...where he called me a pedophile can .. ...a group of people called me a pedophile. ONLY Cool Arrow called me a pedophile. ...Only Cool Arrow called me a pedophile... I was called a pedophile in a public forum and... ...PM calling me a pedophile. ...and called me a pedophile. The SAME... to call me a pedophile in public... ...you didn't call me a pedophile so I can... ,,,was to call me a pedophile when I backed,,, ...called me a pedophile? ,,, that you called me a pedophile. Did you call me a pedophile Cool Arrow? ,,,ment to call me a pedophile,,, ...called me a pedophile. ...called me a pedophile. Depending... ....defense is to call people pedophile when you... ...or claiming that I am a pedophile?
It ain't really clear. Who called you a what?
For the umteenth time
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:39am.
The problem isn't "challenging the veracity of a claim made by someone." The problem is challenging the veracity of someone. There's a difference.
It grieves me greatly to see what has transpired since. The point is very simple: Attack the message, not the messenger. Judge the sin, not the sinner. That goes for all parties. Or are you disagreeing with that?
A mother spends an entire week desperately laboring to persuade her child to eat his vegetables for his own good.
Meanwhile her husband just sits there saying nothing the entire week.
The mother says all sorts of things to appeal to the child's self-interest and reason, but the child just can't get over the appearance and texture, and is thus close-minded about it. Finally, she tells the child that "unless he eats his broccoli, he won't get enough Vitamin A, and he needs Vitamin A to grow up big and strong."
Suddenly the father interjects by ranting in front of the child: "Is that true! Is that true! There are other ways of getting Vitamin A besides broccoli! Quit lying for the Farm Industry!" He then waits 5 seconds for a reply, then foments further: "She hasn't admitted her falsehood -- she's lying!"
Hey boys and girls!
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:03pm.
Let's Do The Booby Dance!
Figure I could entertain you after yet another lecture from Professor Dull on how to conduct your postings.
Why don't you call me a liar again. That will up your credibility in lecturing us all. Yeah, I screwed up. I made a respectful post to you right up front just before you think it is cool to call me a liar after your wasted lecture on calling others a liar. Better if you just took a big ol' crap right here in the middle of the thread. The effect is that same.
Now I am challenging your veracity. You place your friendship with your venomous buddy over what little respect you have left. Do us all a favor and start searching for some more evidence to back up your buddy's whines about being called a pedophile. He could certainly use your support now.
Oh dear. Did I go off topic and derail your thread again?
Not taking the bait
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:16pm.
If you want to continue calling yourself a liar, knock yourself out.
Now I am calling you a liar.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:24pm.
I referred to the original post of Cool Arrow here when I said it was respectful NOT his post saying LL lied. I gave the timestamp. Then explained what he said. There can be no doubt whatsoever I was referring to his ORIGINAL POST. None. No doubt. I was referring to this post ---->
Is that true Liberallies!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 1:37am.
Because those prospective parents have absolutely no other avenue of adopting the very same 5000 children of which you speak? Is that really true, LL?
It is your contention the State of Illinois absolutely forbids the adoption of those 5000 children by any other means. Is that really true, LL?
If that is true, perhaps the Charity of which you speak should release its contractual stranglehold over said adoptee children. To refuse would be cruel, wouldn't it?
You respond DIRECTLY to my post. DIRECT RESPONSE - The post was not "respectful" by any means. It was a lame ad hominem attack. Attack the message, not the messenger. You were referring to his ORIGINAL post, the one I mentioned EXPLICITLY. YOU QUOTED MY WORD RESPECTFUL.
So where was the name calling in that post? Where? Where was the Ad Hominem attack?
I said it was respectful. You said it was not, directly contradicting me like I was some kind of stupid little boy.
You NOW CLAIM despite the clear evidence I was referring to the original post, and your DIRECT response where I referred to the original post that, oh hey buddy, I was actually referring to the second post where he said he lied.
In referring back to the original post, please note that my beef wasn't with the text quoted above, the text that is supposedly in evidence that The Vet has been called "a liar."
Oh, NOW IT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE SUDDENLY EXACTLY WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
Let's quote me for frelling liars that think the can sit there and act stupid.
Yeah, now I am the liar. Yeah, that is how it works. I make a clear post stating exactly the point that is to be made. You contradict yourself by being unable to follow what is written in clear English and then claim oh pooh, I was rilly referring to that other post but you iz deh liar. I iz juz stupid.
Up yours. Now lecture us some more on how to post, mmmmmkay?
Uh oh. I've disagreed again with The Vet, so I guess according to him, I've just called him "a liar."
So what do you call your little game then? Call me a liar in saying it was not respectful, then turn around and say you wuz juz referring to suntin else.
Not playing some game. Not being completely stupid. Juz mistaken when correctin The Veet.
That was the post I responded to. And it was anything but "respectful."
No it wasn't. YOU USED MY WORD - respectful. The word I used to refer to the original post. Up yours with your frelling game. Making it out like I am some kind of liar when you can't even admit you made a mistake.
MELTDOWN ALERT-MELTDOWN
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:30pm.
MELTDOWN ALERT-MELTDOWN ALERT-MELTDOWN ALERT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE CLEAR THE BUILDING. THE TROLL IS HAVING ONE OF HIS USUAL MELTDOWNS. NOT A PRETTY THING TO SEE. FOR YOUR OWN SANITY, PLEASE LEAVE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MELTDOWN ALERT-MELTDOWN ALERT-MELTODOWN ALERT.
Odd. I don't feel meltdowny
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:18am.
Actually, the word vindicated comes to mind.
I'll grant you that the post that preceded these, the one you are referring to, wasn't necessarily disrespectful.
The one I was referring to. The one where I was correct.
Might want to hang off on the Meltdowny talk until someone is at least wrong. Kinda hard to be correct all along and then have a melfdown.
The Troll, Wow...get a life
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:34pm.
The Troll,
Wow...get a life and a wife. You certainly need both. too much time on your hands. Poor thing.
(foaming at the mouth, crazy wide eyed response from The Troll in 3..2...1)
~Nah
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:41pm.
You definitely caps locked him into unconsciousness.
Wrathful Brunette, Link or
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 2:24pm.
Wrathful Brunette,
Link or admit you lied and apologize.
I have PMs from 4/3/2010 to 4/7/2010 proving that you are a vile and digusting person who will do and say anything to get back at those she does not like. You lied. I never claimed to condone violence against women.
Do you know what the P in
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:36pm.
PM means? How about you prove it!
~?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:42am.
I told you to go ahead; what's the hold up? Make a forum on it. If you keep making crap up and claiming PM's prove it, while failing to produce anything, I may just go back through and find them myself and print the creepy, stalkerish screeds you kept sending me.
Crazy Brunette,
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:50am.
Crazy Brunette,
Hmmm....check page two of this forum. PMs there for people to read. :-)
Yes, go for it, provide the creepy, stalkerish screeds now you claim I sent you. Go for it. I am all for it, provide these. The depths you will go to lie have no limits for garbage like you.
You vile and disgusting behavior has no limits.
now you have two things to prove, that I stalked you via email and proof that I condone violence on women.
I have already done what I said I would do. The april 2010 PMs are up for everyone to read. Interesting enough, I also have a PM from Cajun2 about the forum where you claimed I condone violence, it was in complete support of me. I guess she also support violence against women.
You are one wacked out, lying, sniveling brat.
⇒ Thank you for your civility LL
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:55am.
And for restraining yourself from crossing the line into insults and namecalling.
You ain't no beacon, and your light don't shine.
Cool Little Liar, Hmmm...yes
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:05am.
Cool Little Liar,
Hmmm...yes hypocrite, sure liar.
⇒ OOPS
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:13am.
Rather than have LL come back and say "You say I have not been namecalling and insulting people when clearly, I have!", please understand, the above post was facetious.
Whew! That was a close call!
⇒ OUCH
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:19am.
OUCH! He beat me to it.
Cool Little Liar,
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:21am.
Cool Little Liar,
hmmm...Liar, do you need help? you are having a mental break down it seems and talking to yourself.
Remember, you are Cool Arrow, no need to reply to Cool Arrow.
Poor Cooly, he finally cracked and lost his marbles.
Cool Little Liar,
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:19am.
Cool Little Liar,
Hmmm...sure hypocrite, yes liar.
(poor Cooly, obssesed with LL)