Dick Cheney, Gay Marriage Advocate

"Freedom means freedom for every one."

A Gallup poll recently confirmed the obvious: knowing someone who's gay makes you more sympathetic to the gay agenda. Obviously, Dick Cheney has a bit of this going on.


Posted by: Ace at 03:20 PM



Comments

1 I agree.

Posted by: Dr. Manhattan at June 01, 2009 03:20 PM (OkrJ4)

2 Sure. But what is freedom?

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 03:21 PM (zqrtJ)

3 should i be suprised. personally i dont care about gay marriage. they shoud allow it, but my issue is the fact that the state is involved in marriage at all. the state should only give out civil union licences and then people can get married in church, temples, or whatever. the state has no place in marriage at all.

i still like former vice president cheney a lot. he is the only republican with balls left in the party, he should run for senate again in his home state, we could use him the the congress

Posted by: Ben at June 01, 2009 03:24 PM (wuv1c)

4 cheney is a great man let thestates decide if gay marriage should be allowed

Posted by: Newyorkstatistofmind at June 01, 2009 03:25 PM (7CROl)

5 This is just what Miss California needs to get back in the liberals good graces. "I do not agree with Dick Cheney."

Posted by: buzzion at June 01, 2009 03:25 PM (Lrsi6)

6 Wow, who freaks out more, the left or social cons?

My guess is the left. Cheney never was social issues warrior so they won't feel a sense of betrayal or loss (he was as clear on this as he could be at the time in 2000 and 2004).

The idea that Cheney is more to the left on this issue than Obama is...delicious.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 01, 2009 03:25 PM (PLGGU)

7 Must we persist in calling it an "agenda"? I don't have an "agenda". I have a desire to marry my partner.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:26 PM (4NAaB)

8 Looks like he is making a lot of changes, he is now also saying that there wasn't any link between Iraq and 9/11. Shocking and disappointing.

Posted by: John ryan at June 01, 2009 03:27 PM (behNH)

9 Freedom has nothing to do with it. I don't want the government, which represents me, endorsing immoral and asinine behavior. Gays are allowed to marry all they want, in private. That's freedom. Demanding government recognition isn't freedom, it's shoving your crap down my throat.

Posted by: Johnny at June 01, 2009 03:27 PM (xVKXy)

10 yeah robert but yet according to lefties we anti-gay marriage people ahve a discriminatory racist agenda

Posted by: Newyorkstatistofmind at June 01, 2009 03:27 PM (7CROl)

11 I thought Cheney and Republicans in general were against homosexuals while Obama was going to be their Savior? Now we find out Cheney is more down with the struggle than Obama.

Delicious irony.

Posted by: Brenden at June 01, 2009 03:28 PM (Y9/I4)

12 he said that john ryan you have proof?

Posted by: Newyorkstatistofmind at June 01, 2009 03:28 PM (7CROl)

13 Hasn't Cheney always been for gay marriage? I seem to recall that being said like 8 years ago and GWB acknowledging that they disagreed on the issue.

Posted by: muffy at June 01, 2009 03:29 PM (zplc6)

14 Don't try to engage John ryan. He's a hit and run troll who drops inane comments and disappears. He just runs away because he knows he'll be called on his poorly-written blather.

Posted by: nickless at June 01, 2009 03:29 PM (MMC8r)

15 I think marriage should be legal for anyone who's willing to endure it.

As long as they are legal adults.

Posted by: April at June 01, 2009 03:30 PM (2B3NC)

16 Seriously, forget about all this, aol news is reporting that Kate of John and Kate plus 8 is alone on a beach somewhere. this is what America is talking about!

Posted by: muffy at June 01, 2009 03:30 PM (zplc6)

17 Newyorkstatistofmind - I don't agree with them. I think your position on the matter is wrong, as I am entitled to, but I don't attribute discriminatory racist "agenda" to it.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:31 PM (4NAaB)

18 Meh, he's still full of epic win.

Posted by: Adlib at June 01, 2009 03:31 PM (k/CNO)

19 I believe that everybody should have the right to be miserable.

Posted by: eddiebear at June 01, 2009 03:32 PM (wnU1W)

20 Posted by: Johnny at June 01, 2009 03:27 PM (xVKXy)

That's about the dumbest thing I have read all day.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:32 PM (4NAaB)

21 I guess what I'm just not getting is who is taking anyone's freedom away?
You wanna be gay? Be gay. Who's stopping you?
Free to be married? What does that even mean? You wanna get married? Get married. Who's stopping you.

Posted by: Eleven at June 01, 2009 03:32 PM (7DB+a)

22 Ugh... "everyone"

So six-year-olds will now be free to marry their first cousins? That will make my mujahideen brothers very happy.

This is a perfect example of why major changes in the fundamental law based on thousands of years of tradition should happen democratically. When you crack the foundation with such blanket statements, everything falls due to a lack of normative support.

Posted by: Chip Abu Hussein Sayf Al-Dawla Islam at June 01, 2009 03:33 PM (sOtz/)

23
6
Wow, who freaks out more, the left or social cons?My
guess is the left. Cheney never was social issues warrior so they won't
feel a sense of betrayal or loss (he was as clear on this as he could
be at the time in 2000 and 2004).


Not too big a surprise to me on either Cheney's position or the likely lefty crack-up over it.

Cheney's position during the 2004 VP debate, when pressed on it, seemed to be of the "I love my daughter, but I'm obligated to uphold the positions of the administration" vein.

The lefties were expecting John Edwards' use of Cheney's gay daughter to become a wedge between Cheney and the conservatives, which didn't happen.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at June 01, 2009 03:34 PM (PWLfW)

24 I heard someone interview a divorce attorney the other day and she said she would love gay marriage cause that would mean gay divorce. Geez she was chomping at the bit.

Posted by: muffy at June 01, 2009 03:35 PM (zplc6)

25 Sullivan's cognitive dissonance on this one is going to give him an aneurysm.
Cheney strikes again!

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 03:36 PM (VW9/y)

26 24
I heard someone interview a divorce attorney the other day and she said
she would love gay marriage cause that would mean gay divorce. Geez
she was chomping at the bit.

If the history of gay marriage in Canada is any indication, that's VERY likely.


The first gay marriage in Canada broke up shortly after the ceremony, but the parties were still tied together until the country got around to codifying gay divorce.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at June 01, 2009 03:38 PM (PWLfW)

27 I heard someone interview a divorce attorney the other day and she said she would love gay marriage cause that would mean gay divorce.
No shit right. Can rich gay people really in their heart of hearts be rooting for this?

Posted by: Eleven at June 01, 2009 03:38 PM (7DB+a)

28 alright then robert glad you can disagree respectfully with me

Posted by: Newyorkstatistofmind at June 01, 2009 03:39 PM (7CROl)

29 My level of ambivalence about this issue is around 9.999999999 on a ten point scale.
Because nothing is perfect.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 01, 2009 03:39 PM (B+qrE)

30 i would think a gay white man would feel more happy about this thanany lesbian latina due to the richness behind his experience which the lesbian latina is deficient in

Posted by: Newyorkstatistofmind at June 01, 2009 03:40 PM (7CROl)

31 Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:32 PM (4NAaB)

That's because you're a fucking retard.

Posted by: Johnny at June 01, 2009 03:40 PM (xVKXy)

32 here we go again,
logically, any sane State must promote traditional households over non-traditional households, the State has a vested interest in producing the next generation of stable, productive citizens to tax, studies show that children raised in traditional homes, generally, do better in life than children raised in non-traditional homes, logic and practicality dictates that the State must endorse and promote traditional marriage.

Posted by: shoey at June 01, 2009 03:43 PM (IRh55)

33 "[Cheney] should run for senate again in his home state, we could use him the the congress"
Can a former VP run for Congress? I thought that once you were in out of the Executive Branch, you were pretty much done in the realm of public office...

Posted by: reason at June 01, 2009 03:44 PM (F26eZ)

34 I cannot believe that we live in a time where people debate the merits of two MEN "Marrying" each other. Have we lost our goddamn minds, people. . If you are gay, I dont give a shit. Be aware, however, that a LARGE majority of society does not and will not ever accept your lifestyle. Being gay is NOT the same as being black, etc. One is a fact of genteics, the other a choice of behavior. Inevitably, this push for 'gay marriage' will be used as an argument for acceptance of every deviant behavior under the sun.

Posted by: The Drizzle at June 01, 2009 03:44 PM (fWnCD)

35 <blockquote>30
i would think a gay white man would feel more happy about this thanany
lesbian latina due to the richness behind his experience which the
lesbian latina is deficient in</boockquote>You would be right about that, I think.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:46 PM (4NAaB)

36 Dick Cheney does indeed know someone who is gay: his gay daughter, who is gay and is his own gay daughter who, by the way, is gay.

Posted by: John Edwards at June 01, 2009 03:48 PM (jMk+v)

37 The first gay marriage in Canada broke up shortly after the ceremony, but the parties were still tied together until the country got around to codifying gay divorce.
Don't tell me. The catcher gets the house?

Posted by: Eleven at June 01, 2009 03:49 PM (7DB+a)

38 Sorry. Had to be done.

Posted by: Eleven at June 01, 2009 03:49 PM (7DB+a)

39 31
Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:32 PM (4NAaB)
That's because you're a fucking retard.

I'm sure that's it. It could not have anything to do with:

a) Who are you to say what is moral or immoral?
b) No one is hog-tying you and forcing you to watch so what exactly is being forced down your throat?

or c) As soon a straight people are forced to marry "in private" then maybe you have something remotely close to a point.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:49 PM (4NAaB)

40 I know homosexuals. That does not change my opinion on homosexual marriage. Why should it?

Posted by: maddogg at June 01, 2009 03:50 PM (OlN4e)

41 robert don't listen to johnny

Posted by: Newyorkstatistofmind at June 01, 2009 03:51 PM (7CROl)

42 Cheney, you magnificent bastard! (Someone had to say it!)

Posted by: runningrn at June 01, 2009 03:52 PM (aC/SY)

43 When the heterosexual divorce rate drops below 50% again, maybe then the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument wouldn't sound like such a load of hypocritical horse manure.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:52 PM (4NAaB)

44 Cheney can't hit the bullseye every time, ask his hunting partner.

Posted by: maddogg at June 01, 2009 03:54 PM (OlN4e)

45 The political firestorm will be when the black community has to deal with influential or rich older white men "marrying" younger black males. That imagery is not going to be popular in the culturally conservative black community.

The black reporter who had to get carried away from Obama, Barack's silence, and the minority schism on Prop 8 are tastes of this.

Posted by: Jean at June 01, 2009 03:54 PM (L64A6)

46 Unfortunately, some people take that to be a one-to-one correlation. If you know gays, you must be for gay marriage. If you are opposed to gay marriage, then you must not know any gays.

I live in Atlanta, yet I'm opposed to gay marriage. That isn't supposed to happen. I have friends and family members who are gay, some of whom are married. But I agree with #32. The purpose of state-encouraged marriage is to encourage stable families with children because those children are the future state. That a minority of straight marriages do not result in children is irrelevant, as is the fact that a minority of gay unions have children.

Posted by: VKI at June 01, 2009 03:54 PM (7yOgz)

47 Can a former VP run for Congress? I thought that once you were in
out of the Executive Branch, you were pretty much done in the
realm of public office...

Yes, you can, but it's generally not done for various reasons, mainly because being President or Vice President greatly reduces your life expectancy.


Former President John Tyler was elected to the Confederate House, but he died before he could assume office.

Former President Andrew Johnson was appointed as US Senator from Tennessee, but he died before he could assume office.


Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at June 01, 2009 03:56 PM (PWLfW)

48 I love the specious argument that since traditional marriage isn't stellar then other "kinds" will be good.

This is like saying since my business is failing I shouldn't oppose gambling on the side.

Freedom to redefine a term like marriage isn't "freedom" at all.

When shall we start to call pet owners "parents"? We won't because it isn't the same thing.

Posted by: DavidM at June 01, 2009 03:57 PM (R/e5b)

49 "That a minority of straight marriages do not result in children is
irrelevant, as is the fact that a minority of gay unions have children."

So why aren't you telling the folks getting married and not producing children they can't have federal recognition of their marriages?

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:57 PM (4NAaB)

50 >>As soon a straight people are forced to marry "in private" then maybe you have something remotely close to a point.

Robert-

I generally agree with you on a lot of things but I have a problem with this one. I don't really have a problem with gay marriage, it has no affect on me nor do I think it will have any negative affect on our society. In fact, I suspect just the opposite.

What bothers me most about the gay marriage movement is the tactics and the lack of honesty many employ. You, as a gay man, have exactly the same rights as I, a straight man, have. You're a smart guy, you know this. Why does the gay community at large refuse to admit this simple truth?

I think you guys would have a lot more support if you just admitted the truth, you want a new right carved out for your group and then state the reasons why this would be a positive for society. It might not work any better than what is the dominate position today but it might and it would have the extra added benefit of being the truth.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 03:58 PM (VW9/y)

51 We'll cut Cheney some slack when he dresses up in drag and suck's somebody off in a side alley at a San Francisco street fair.

Then and only then.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at June 01, 2009 03:58 PM (AoS9J)

52 I'm sure that's it. It could not have anything to do with:a) Who are you to say what is moral or immoral?b) No one is hog-tying you and forcing you to watch so what exactly is being forced down your throat?or c) As soon a straight people are forced to marry "in private" then maybe you have something remotely close to a point.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:49 PM (4NAaB)

A) Who cares? I decide which policies are moral based on criteria that are not relevant to the discussion and which I support based on those criteria.B) If you'd have bothered to read my argument you'll see what is being forced down my throat: acceptance of behaviour I find immoral and insane. The government represents me. I don't want my representatives supporting evil/immoral/insane/stupid policies. What's not to get? I went out of my way to keep my post as simple as possible. If you're not capable of even the lowest forms of reading comprehension don't reply to my comments.

Posted by: Johnny at June 01, 2009 03:59 PM (xVKXy)

53 Stockhomo Syndrome?

Posted by: Hucbald at June 01, 2009 04:00 PM (O9yAg)

54 Must we persist in calling it an "agenda"? I don't have an "agenda". I have a desire to marry my partner.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 03:26 PM (4NAaB

Then, Robert, your partner must be female because that is what makes a marriage. I have no problem with you living with and getting some legal benefits but it is certainly not a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, always has been, always will be. Any other combination is not a marriage.

Posted by: Bill R. at June 01, 2009 04:01 PM (EhlQq)

55 DICK NAZI CHENEY IS STILL AN EVIL NAZI WHO LIKES TO KILL BROWN PEOPLE TO PLEASE HIS ZIONIST MASTERS

/Sarc

Posted by: Newyorkstatistofmind at June 01, 2009 04:03 PM (7CROl)

56 Just get it over with already. Legislate gay marriage, then polygamy, and bestiality so we can burn it all down and then start over.


Posted by: John Galt at June 01, 2009 04:05 PM (SDkq3)

57 Yeah well, emotion shouldn't rule reason and truth isn't defined by who you like.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 01, 2009 04:06 PM (PQY7w)

58 Dick Cheney.


I mean it was there all along if you were looking for it.

Posted by: Blazer at June 01, 2009 04:07 PM (AoS9J)

59 I love the specious argument that since traditional marriage isn't stellar then other "kinds" will be good.
This is like saying since my business is failing I shouldn't oppose gambling on the side.
Posted by: DavidM at June 01, 2009 03:57 PM (R/e5b)

No, it just makes 'save marriage' rhetoric look rather hollow.

If 'saving marriage' were the social imperative some folks make it out to be then the real threat to marriage (it's devaluation by straights) would be getting a lot more attention.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 01, 2009 04:09 PM (PLGGU)

60 @#50

Jack - I honestly can't speak for the "community" (a term that actually infuriates me as I have almost nothing in common with the typical Castro Queen, which seems to be what the "Community" is made up of). And I agree with you - I cannot understand why the proponents of prop 8 went down the route of demonizing opponents rather than just laying out the rationale.

If I want my partner to be able to visit me in the hospital, I have to have a separate legal document for that. If I want my partner to have all my crap and my half of the house, I have to have a separate legal document for that. My partner and I cannot file join income tax returns federally.

Those are just 3 examples of things that require extra work on our part (and a lawyer) that heterosexual couples take for granted - these are all covered under the "marriage" banner.

Personally, I could care less what it is called. I am not hung up on
the word marriage. But I would take issue with the "we have all the
same rights" argument because it simply isn't true.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:12 PM (4NAaB)

61 I was a little quick on the post trigger there...


If someone is bleeding out from a gunshot wound to the chest, that doesn't seem like the ideal time to focus all the medical attention on the paper cut on a finger.

Cal Thomas, not heretofore known as a liberal guy, has called people out on this.



To those on the political and religious right who are intent on
continuing the battle to preserve "traditional marriage" in a nation
that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question:
what poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it
two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals
who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to
unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention?
Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not
as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That's because it
doesn't raise money and won't get them on TV. Some preachers would
rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows
by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That's because so
many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against
divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with
them.


Posted by: DrewM. at June 01, 2009 04:14 PM (PLGGU)

62 Lord Cheney's daughter is gay. What's the guy supposed to do?

I think under the circumstances, it's
excusable.

Posted by: CoolCzech at June 01, 2009 04:15 PM (iafWn)

63 I am for Gay Marriage. If taken seriously it brings accountability and responsibility to the homosexual community, like traditional marriage is supposed to. I believe that gays are born that way, not that they chose that lifestyle, so I may differ with many of you on here, but if someone is born that way, and we have had homosexuals since the dawn of man so at the very least it is a part of human nature, then that segment of society needs to be brought into the fold.

Keeping homosexuals on the fring of society has been damaging to a percent of our population. Time to saddle them with the misery the rest of us enjoy, to force that segment to grow the fuck up and settle down.

Having been married for 16 years I don't feel like allowing gay marriage will bring down the institution of traditional marriage. If you like pussy, marry a chick, if you like fucking assholes, marry a guy, unless you are a chick who likes dick and can't fuck assholes, then marry a guy, if you are a chick who likes pussy, marry a chick. It all works out.

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 04:15 PM (27iEn)

64 Civil unions for all!
Don't have any issues at all with the gay brothers and sisters. In fact I employ quite a few and make it comfortable for them. A rule that I have at the workplace is NO ONE talks about what goes on behind their closed doors and we all discourage wearing our sexual identities on our sleeves whether straight, bi or gay. Nobody's bizness.. everybody is happy.
Just don't agree with the 'act up' crowd, that's all.

Ps: Hey Andrew Sullivan @51
.. how do you know Dick Cheney doesn't suck cock?

Posted by: sickinmass at June 01, 2009 04:15 PM (/i4dU)

65 >>But I would take issue with the "we have all the same rights" argument because it simply isn't true.

What rights do I have that you don't?

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 04:15 PM (VW9/y)

66 Freedom means freedom for every one group of three or more consenting adults.

FTFY

Regards,

S. Slope

Posted by: Drumwaster at June 01, 2009 04:16 PM (Ymor3)

67 @62. Posted by: DrewM. at June 01, 2009 04:14 PM (PLGGU)

A-men. You want to make a stand that "marriage" should be a term applied only to heterosexual marriage, fine. But don't sit there and tell me you are protecting traditional marriage cause that is one big-steaming-load of bullshit.

Where is the boycott to get "Divorce Court" off the air?

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:16 PM (4NAaB)

Posted by: gumbo at June 01, 2009 04:17 PM (ZS8/C)

69 Robert @ 43

So you want to take part in an institution that, by your own admission, has no sanctity? Why, unless it is to promote an agenda? I mean if marriage does not carry any special meaning, why bother with it at all?

I'd also like some gay marriage advocate to take a stab at the magicalness of the number 2, that is, if you believe bigamy is wrong. Otherwise, that's what comes next.

Please understand, like some commenter above, my indifference to this issue knows few bounds. I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, that is confer 0 benefits to married people, and just enforce contracts between adult parties (yeah, yeah, I know how stupid that sounds with the current administration) But something tells me, that solution would not be supported by the gay community, because it would not validate the lifestyle. Plus, no more mormon bashing....................

Posted by: sears poncho at June 01, 2009 04:18 PM (uj/0b)

70 66
>>But I would take issue with the "we have all the same rights" argument because it simply isn't true.





What rights do I have that you don't?

I listed 3 things there that are not automatic for me. I consider those to be rights under "marriage". They are automatic. I see where you are going with that, that I can get the same thing by hiring the lawyer and doing all the work, but that sounds a whole lot like the "separate but equal" argument to me.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:19 PM (4NAaB)

71 To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve "traditional marriage" in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: what poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?
It's not an either/or thing. This is the most stupid line of argment possible. It's like saying we can't invade Iraq and deal with Saddam because we're not invading all the other evil dictatorships in the world.
I expect stupid arguments from the left, but not from my own side.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 04:20 PM (VUbVU)

72 Posted by: polynikes at June 01, 2009 04:17 PM (m2CN7)

I don't accept your analogy that your best friend is the same thing as my relationship with my partner. In fact, I would have to say I am somewhat offended by the notion.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:21 PM (4NAaB)

73 In the psychology books, there is a disorder wherin a person will dry-hump inanimate objects. I find it odd that that is considered a mental disorder, yet a guy finding another guy attractive isnt. I just came back from Cocoa beach, and I am here to tell you that if a man doesnt find the female form to be the hottest fucking thing on earth, he is a fucking deviant. It aint normal. Sorry.

Posted by: The Drizzle at June 01, 2009 04:22 PM (fWnCD)

74 If bobby here is agreeing with you, Drew, you ought to reconsider your position.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 04:22 PM (VUbVU)

75 71
Robert @ 43

Please try not to lump be in with that is perceived to be the "gay community." I have a very different take on things than lefty gays, as evidenced my party registration.

Read the comments between Jack and I - I have indirectly answered your comment in that conversation.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:23 PM (4NAaB)

76 I am for Gay Marriage.
No! Not you, Uniiball! Not the poster who regales us about the joys of anal sex!

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 04:24 PM (VUbVU)

77 Posted by: The Drizzle at June 01, 2009 04:22 PM (fWnCD)

And this is precisely the sort of comments that promoted "discriminatory racist agenda" label so may gay marriage opponents get labeled with.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:26 PM (4NAaB)

78 If I want my partner to be able to visit me in the hospital, I have to have a separate legal document for that. If I want my partner to have all my crap and my half of the house, I have to have a separate legal document for that. My partner and I cannot file join income tax returns federally.
Tough shit. You're failing to convice me of the vicious discimination you live under.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 04:27 PM (VUbVU)

79 I'm down with teh gays on getting married. It is already happening all around the world and America. So far, squirrels aren't falling out of trees on fire. I don't think this will lead to human-horse nuptials or anything of the sort, but I wouldn't put it past an attorney to give it a shot. We have a judicial system, let 'em sort it out. I'm sure Metro's Supreme Court appointees can use their special minority richness of experience to come to the conclusion that states' rights should decide this. Just like we found a right to privacy for abortion in the Constitution, we can make up some more crap so dudes that like dudes and chicksthat eatat the Ycan get married, but it's not necessary. I know it doesn't seem fair, and you gay cats want what you judge to be 'equal rights', but, truth is, life ain't fair, and neither is the law. Ask OJ, then and now.
Gay divorce would be funny as hell, though, stereotypically speaking. Gay guys, speaking generally, are freakin' hilarious.

Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 04:27 PM (yUiO3)

80 #59
it should, but how can you have that arguement when we have to have this one?

Posted by: shoey at June 01, 2009 04:28 PM (IRh55)

81 >>I listed 3 things there that are not automatic for me. I consider those to be rights under "marriage"

You listed 3 things I can't have if I want to marry a guy either. I'm sorry but you aren't some unique sex just because your gay. Your a guy who wants to marry a guy. Period. Your sexual orientation is a separate issue and has no bearing. This is exactly where this argument has always failed.

I understand why you want these things but you need to come to grips with the simple fact that they represent a completely new right, one that does not exist in any fashion today. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You have the right to partake of that right as do I. If you want to marry another guy then be honest and say you want something new instead of taking the same old, and I would add unsuccessful tactic, of stating that traditional marriage isn't perfect so adding something new can't make it any worse.

Trust me, there are a lot of people who are sympathetic or at least apathetic to going along with what you want. But many don't like to sold on a concept that just isn't true.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 04:28 PM (VW9/y)

82 Is homosexuality a behavior or a choice? I am seriously asking. If it is a behavior, it is a deviant behavior by any definition. If it is a choice, then you as a homosexual have to live with the fact that a majority of society finds it unacceptable. You cannot have it both ways. No pun intended.It's not the same as denying a black person their rights, so dont go there. Either deal with it, or keep it out of the public spotlight. I am tired of the fucking whining of people that make their lives harder by their own choices, and spend all their time blaming society for not accepting them.

Posted by: The Drizzle at June 01, 2009 04:28 PM (fWnCD)

83 You know what irony is? Someone with leftist views calling himself "John Ryan". Or maybe I shouldn't assume he's referring to Clancy's ongoing character.

Posted by: teej at June 01, 2009 04:28 PM (lG7ds)

84 Speaking of Gay Marriage.
This video has a gay reference in it, funny as fuck.
Enjoy: http://tinyurl.com/l9hk9w

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 04:29 PM (27iEn)

85 Posted by: polynikes at June 01, 2009 04:25 PM (m2CN7)

All the divorced people I know are all Republicans and I live in the SF Bay Area. Sorry, I don't think that assertion holds water.

I think you can make the argument that divorce has certainly been de-stigmatized by those things, but to assert that god-fearing righties don't take advantage of divorce in significant numbers just doesn't wash.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:29 PM (4NAaB)

86 and,
even if straights have devalued marriage, it doesn't matter becauseit's still the engine that produces more taxpayers than any other.

Posted by: shoey at June 01, 2009 04:29 PM (IRh55)

87
The idea that two men or two women should start a family is ludicrous. Just another fraud perpetrated on the United States by the Leftists to undermine our value system.

Posted by: Unicle at June 01, 2009 04:31 PM (4l4QP)

88 Posted by: polynikes at June 01, 2009 04:28 PM (m2CN7)

Well, there is some rational and reasoned discourse.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:31 PM (4NAaB)

89 To be fair, though, most traditional marriage are doomed to the shithole, so what the fuck do I know....

Posted by: The Drizzle at June 01, 2009 04:31 PM (fWnCD)

90 Posted by: polynikes at June 01, 2009 04:28 PM (m2CN7)

By the way, fucked your best friend lately? Buy a house together? Live in the same house at all? No, didn't think so.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:32 PM (4NAaB)

91 We have a judicial system, let 'em sort it out.
It's not the fucking judicial systemsjob to "sort it out".
I'm sure Metro's Supreme Court appointees can use their special minority richness of experience to come to the conclusion that states' rights should decide this.
You are demented if you believe that.
Gay guys, speaking generally, are freakin' hilarious.
Know a lot of gay guys, gator? Your image of them seems to be based on watching TV.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 04:33 PM (VUbVU)

92 "Can a former VP run for Congress?"

Sure. Even a former President can: John Quincy Adams served in the House for several years after his presidency.

Recall that former VP Walter Mondale was drafted to run for the Senate in Minnesota after Paul Wellstone's plane crash (cue conspiracy theories), and then lost to Norm Coleman...thus making Mondale the only person in American history to lose in all 50 states, as he lost all BUT Minnesota to Reagan in 1984.

Posted by: Dave J. at June 01, 2009 04:33 PM (jNE9Q)

93 If I want my partner to be able to visit me in the hospital, I have to have a separate legal document for that. If I want my partner to have all my crap and my half of the house, I have to have a separate legal document for that. My partner and I cannot file join income tax returns federally.

You can with civil unions. You have that choice. I have marriage, I have that choice.
But using that arguement really isn't that stellar because unmarried couples, no matter how long they have been together,can't do any of those things either. I had to sign 5 forms to get my boyfriend of 8 years, into the recovery room after my brain surgery. So please, don't tell me we aren't equal.

Posted by: momma at June 01, 2009 04:34 PM (penCf)

94 Flenser,
Yup!

Most women love it, you know it, I know it, they know it.

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 04:34 PM (27iEn)

95 Well, there is some rational and reasoned discourse
As opposed to your petulant whining that "I want what I want andI want it now"?

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 04:34 PM (VUbVU)

96 Flenser,

Unfortunately the right makes incredibly stupid arguments an integral part of its attack on the idea of gay marriage. I have yet to read a rational explanation for why gay marriage is bad for straight marriage, yet some on the right blather on and on about how it will be the end of times if gay marriage comes to pass.

Gays should be allowed to form legal partnerships that are identical to the legal partnership I have with my wife. Call it marriage, call it a steaming pile of crap, call it whatever you wish. I don't care. Just don't force my religion to perform the ceremony, and I will happily not give a shit.

Drizzle,

You can't possibly be as stupid as you sound, so I am going to assume that you are a sockpuppet. However, the preponderance of evidence show that being gay is most definitely not a "choice." Who the f@#k would choose it, when except for the last few dozen years, gays were treated rather badly at best, and murdered at worst.

Posted by: NJconservative at June 01, 2009 04:35 PM (/Ywwg)

97 Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 04:20 PM (VUbVU)

Of course you do since it pretty well deflates a lot of what you seem to think. Are you going to call Cal Thomas anti-traditional values?

What it shows is the priorities of so-called 'defenders of marriage'. Obviously the priority of many is to keep teh gheys out than to actually fix the societal devaluation of marriage.

If supporters of traditional marriage can walk and chew gum at the same time, where's the counter part to Prop 8 that would address skyrocketing divorce and illegitimacy rates?

How come no one ever seems to get around to that flenser?

Posted by: DrewM. at June 01, 2009 04:35 PM (PLGGU)

98 As long as you don't want me to be a bridesmaid I don't care who marries whom (gay or straight) provided both parties are of legal age and the same species. I've attended and celebrated the marriages of many gay friends but, as they say, I don't really have a dog in this fight.

That being said, on a day filled with awful news and infuriating opinions being lobbed from the left this story put a smile on my face. I love imagining heads exploding all around the leftist enclaves.

And yes, I am petty and small minded like that.

Posted by: dumb_blonde at June 01, 2009 04:35 PM (OWdwM)

99 I understand why you want these things but you need to come to grips with the simple fact that they represent a completely new right, one that does not exist in any fashion today. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You have the right to partake of that right as do I. If you want to marry another guy then be honest and say you want something new instead of taking the same old, and I would add unsuccessful tactic, of stating that traditional marriage isn't perfect so adding something new can't make it any worse.

You have a way with words.

Posted by: momma at June 01, 2009 04:36 PM (penCf)

100 It's not Dad who should run for the Senate, but his lesbo Liz Daughter, who seems to have his bite with better looks, no Haliburton baggage and some other interesting background.

From what little I've heard, she would be great on a Presidential ticket. She would have the PRESSSSident all tied up in knots because they'd be attacking a lesbo Cheney, not some hockey Mom Palin.

Posted by: drfredc at June 01, 2009 04:37 PM (ljMiA)

101 Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 04:28 PM (VW9/y)

It seems more like you are taking issue with the way this debate is being framed and I can't say I disagree, but I also don't think you can simply dismiss the argument because you don't like the way it has been framed.

So, if it makes things simple, I'll just go there: Yes, I want all the same rights and privileges for my partner and I that married heterosexual couples have. This would be new law (or "rights" if you will) and it would be a new federal recognition of our relationship. It doesn't have to be called marriage. I'm perfectly content with calling it a Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, or whatever.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:37 PM (4NAaB)

102 Gays should be allowed to form legal partnerships that are identical to the legal partnership I have with my wife.
And you think that the right makes incredibly stupid arguments an integral part of its attack on the idea of gay marriage
You don't even bother to make any arguments. You just toss your opinions out there like they mean something

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 04:38 PM (VUbVU)

103 I listed 3 things there that are not automatic for me. I consider those to be rights under "marriage". They are automatic.

I have to agree with JackStraw here. There's no act that say JackStraw can do that you cannot also do, and vice versa. So it's just not correct to say that you don't have equal rights under the law. What you're really asking for are additional rights that mirror those usually given to man-woman marriages.

And I'm not unsympathetic - I actually believe that people should be able to arrange their affairs in a reasonably easy way to get the benefits you listed above. But I am bothered by the dishonesty of demanding 'equal rights' when really the gay marriage movement is asking for new rights that would match those of heterosexual marriage out of a sense of fairness. It comes off as a cheap tailcoat riding of the civil rights movement when it's really something different (and something I'm okay with).

Posted by: Mtenloch at June 01, 2009 04:39 PM (YRmyX)

104
"Can a former VP run for Congress? I thought that once you were in
out of the Executive Branch, you were pretty much done in the
realm of public office..."

Sure. John Quincy Adams served in the House of Representatives for nearly 20 years after his term in office. William Howard Taft served as Chief Justice after his term. There's no constitutional bar to holding public office after being president, though most presidents are sick to death of it all by the time they leave office.

Posted by: Brown Line at June 01, 2009 04:39 PM (VrNoa)

105 Posted by: polynikes at June 01, 2009 04:37 PM (m2CN7)

No, it doesn't count if you fucked the same girl, sorry.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:39 PM (4NAaB)

106 Robert, you are free to have a wedding with your partner.

In public, with invitations and tuxedos and dresses and whatever you want (or, more precisely, can afford).

And it will be no different in any way from any wedding ceremony anywhere. Except that whomever is officiating won't be signing a license afterwards in some office.

That's it. No difference. None.

I remember a time when co-habitation was the "in" thing. All kinds of lefties were falling all over themselves to say that a piece of paper didn't define their love and were living together and raising children without marriage.

It doesn't define love. Marriage is a social contract drawn up primarily for the protection of children and the furtherance of the structure of extended families. This is why when old people get married, they invite a dozen people who don't dress up. It's cute, but nobody really cares. They say they do, but they don't.

If it's really, truly, about the love for your partner, go for it, ignoring those pieces of paper. In fact, if it's about love, true love, then marriage sends the wrong signal.

Marriage doesn't mean you will love each other forever, it means that when things go badly, you're agreeing to stick together anyway. That's not love, that's buying a long-term contract when the market is favorable.

If, however, it is about forcing society to confer its approval upon you, then it seems that you desire to marry society more than your partner.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 04:40 PM (T0NGe)

107 >>So, if it makes things simple, I'll just go there: Yes, I want all the same rights and privileges for my partner and I that married heterosexual couples have. This would be new law (or "rights" if you will) and it would be a new federal recognition of our relationship. It doesn't have to be called marriage. I'm perfectly content with calling it a Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, or whatever.

Works for me. Go forth and procr..., sin no m..., Go Mets!

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 04:40 PM (VW9/y)

108 "It's not Dad who should run for the Senate, but his lesbo Liz Daughter..."

I'd like to see Liz Cheney run for office, too, but it's Mary who's the lesbian daughter. Liz lives in Frank Wolf's (R) district in northern Virginia: I'd suggest that before trying to take out Mark Warner or Jim Webb.

Posted by: Dave J. at June 01, 2009 04:40 PM (jNE9Q)

109 Posted by: Mtenloch at June 01, 2009 04:39 PM (YRmyX)
What you're really asking for are additional rights that mirror those usually given to man-woman marriages.

That is a very succinct and accurate way of putting the issue, at least from my perspective.


Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:41 PM (4NAaB)

110 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 04:40 PM (T0NGe)

Sorry, that just isn't the case.Make a list of all the things that changed when you got married - joint tax returns, joint ownership, etc. Then add to that the list of things you would no longer have if you got divorced and just lived with your spouse.

Mtenloch nailed it.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:43 PM (4NAaB)

111 The coolest thing about homosexuals is lesbian porn.




I said it!

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 04:43 PM (27iEn)

112 Didn't get married. Won't get married. In fact, in that light, it seems that *my* rights are being trampled on here.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 04:45 PM (T0NGe)

113 Maybe Cheney said it just to watch the left blow a fuse. He is evil you know.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 01, 2009 04:45 PM (1Jaio)

114 See, that was (for the most part) and honest discussion free (for the most part) of unnecessary name-calling and hyperbolic invective.

Now don't you all (for the most part) feel better about yourselves today?

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:46 PM (4NAaB)

115 Yes, I am completely demented. I'm more than skewed....it's a long story, but I grew up all weird. No doubt. But, I like good people. Some of those good people happen to be dudes that like the skin flute.
I come from a chemistry background, and I know we are all ruled by chemicals, chemicals are ruled by genetics. You all say it's preposterous to not find beautiful women hot. I agree completely, which is why it makes sense that gay dudes have some different chemistry going on in their heads. Not saying a straight guy can't make a choice to behave gayly, but a gay guy can't choose to be straight.I know a ton of gay guys, and some of them would love to get married. I would be honored to be at their weddings. It may be wrong according to your moral code (I grew up fundamentalist Southern Baptist in Georgia), but I read somewhere that it wasn't for me to judge. We are all sinners and fallen short.
It's probably weird to a lot of guys that I'm comfortable around the gays. Never touched a dude,I can't make the choice to be gay because I'm not. But, I find people who have had it rough because of who they are are usually more accepting and kinder to others. I could be wrong, but I would rather be nice to everyone, some who happen to be gay, than tell them how they are wrong for feeling the way they do and condemning them to hell. I'll let them know how I feel on issues, but I'm all for government leaving us alone, especially in private matters.

Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 04:47 PM (yUiO3)

116 DrewM. at #62 cites Cal Thomas who mentions the distinction between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. That's how the progressives have framed this issue.
Originally, however, the issue was traditional marriage vs. non-traditional marriage. The former presumes a man and a woman who have kids after they get married and stay married 'til death do them part. Non-traditional marriage is pretty much everything else.
Once drive-thru marriage chapelsin Las Vegasgained acceptance even if they only married straight, heterosexual couples consisting of a man and a woman traditional marriage as a serious societal institution was finished.

Posted by: John Edwards at June 01, 2009 04:47 PM (jMk+v)

117 Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage.

he's either not paying attention or he's lying. Maybe the talking heads are that way, but ordinary folks are absolutely not.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 01, 2009 04:51 PM (PQY7w)

118 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 04:45 PM (T0NGe)

Hold a protest. I'll attend in support.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:51 PM (4NAaB)

119 So, can I have a harem?

Posted by: kolchak at June 01, 2009 04:51 PM (Hw/tt)

120 Gator,
I agree.
I used to be (heh!) a world class asshole about this issue but then one of my best friends had a son, who happened to be gay. There is no way in hell that kid chose to be the way he was, he was wired that way. That kid has had to go through a shitload of crap and the family has had to deal with it. It is a hell that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

It forced me to look at the issue differently and being around his son has brought me to a different conclusion about homosexuals.

No, this wasn't a magical homosexual moment like Hollywood projects, you just cant help to soften your position when you actually see a child who is clearly gay have to deal with life.

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 04:52 PM (27iEn)

121 I think the main "agenda" with gay marriage isn't that the people want to break into your church. It's that they want their relationship to be honored by the state in terms of rights and benefits.

The reason homosexuals sometimes compare their struggle (or whatever) to the civil rights movement, is because a lot of the time they're being perceived negatively, vilified, and treated badly for something that doesn't hurt anyone else (I'm fairly certain no one here could find verifiable evidence for the contrary). Homosexuality is only partly a "choice". For example, as a heterosexual, yes I do have a choice in who I want to be with, but I don't really have a choice in who I have strong feelings for. It just sort of happens.

Marriage has evolved a lot over the centuries, from polygamy to monogamy, to accepting interracial marriages, and it will continue to change along with society.

Posted by: Driftwood at June 01, 2009 04:52 PM (JXhUI)

122 Hold a protest. I'll attend in support.

I'm sorry, but I'm not so narcissistic that I desire the approval of society.

Maybe it's a lack of daddy issues. What do you think?

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 04:53 PM (T0NGe)

123 Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 04:47 PM (yUiO3)

You know how I knew I was gay? I had sex with a woman. Seriously - had never touched another guy. Was a virgin until 20 and 1 romp in the hay with a girl gave me that moment of perfect clarity.

That's chemical (and slightly comical).

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:53 PM (4NAaB)

124 from polygamy to monogamy

Apparently trends are not monotone.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 04:55 PM (T0NGe)

125 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 04:53 PM (T0NGe)

I think you misunderstand me. While I have no doubt a great many gays are, my reasoning and my desires are rooted in the practical. You aren't gay and a registered Republican if you are seeking approval from anyone.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:55 PM (4NAaB)

126 So what you are saying, Robert, is that the state should punish single people, are you not?

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 04:57 PM (T0NGe)

127 Posted by: polynikes at June 01, 2009 04:53 PM (m2CN7)

Me thinks someone thinks it's all about them.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:57 PM (4NAaB)

128 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 04:57 PM (T0NGe)

WTF??? Are you on glue?

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:57 PM (4NAaB)

129 So far, squirrels aren't falling out of trees on fire.
Oh, come on! That would be pretty fuckin' cool, though, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at June 01, 2009 04:58 PM (fKpiB)

130 >>> Must we persist in calling it an "agenda"?

Other terms are loaded the other way. If I write "gay rights" I've already conceded we're speaking of rights.


Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 04:58 PM (gEsIJ)

131 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at June 01, 2009 04:58 PM (fKpiB)

I'd pay to see it.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 04:58 PM (4NAaB)

132 See, that was (for the most part) and honest discussion free (for the
most part) of unnecessary name-calling and hyperbolic invective. Now don't you all (for the most part) feel better about yourselves today?

Allow me to say with all sincerity, fuck you, you're not my mother. Go condescend to someone else.

Posted by: nickless at June 01, 2009 05:00 PM (MMC8r)

133 Driftwood @ 126, still a lot of people in this world think polygamy is just dandy. Matter of fact, that whole billion + religion of peace think it's just fine for a man to have up to 4 wives.

So, kolchak @ 124, if you can find them, I see no reason you can't have that harem.

Posted by: sears poncho at June 01, 2009 05:00 PM (uj/0b)

134 Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 04:58 PM (gEsIJ)

I know, the "agenda" thing just makes it sound so nefarious though.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 05:01 PM (4NAaB)

135
So far, squirrels aren't falling out of trees on fire."Would we be so cavalier about cutting down trees if they screamed? We probably would, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason."

--Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy

Posted by: Dave J. at June 01, 2009 05:01 PM (jNE9Q)

136 WTF??? Are you on glue?

Not likely, as I would not be able to stand later. Is that some sort of fetish you speak of? I didn't think we would be getting into details of sexuality in this discussion and would keep it on a more elevated level.

But whatever floats your boat. I'm just not interested in subsidizing your boat because you don't want to pay for it in full.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 05:01 PM (T0NGe)

137 Posted by: nickless at June 01, 2009 05:00 PM (MMC8r)

Wound up a little tight today? That was a tongue-in-cheek comment obviously lost on the humorless.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 05:02 PM (4NAaB)

138 I hate fucking gay squirrels. They hide my nuts.

Posted by: sickinmass at June 01, 2009 05:02 PM (/i4dU)

139 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 05:01 PM (T0NGe)

I don't even know what that means.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 05:02 PM (4NAaB)

140 Wound up a little tight today? That was a tongue-in-cheek comment obviously lost on the humorless.

Perhaps if your sense of humor were more sophisticated, it might have appeared funny.

Posted by: nickless at June 01, 2009 05:03 PM (MMC8r)

141 Posted by: nickless at June 01, 2009 05:03 PM (MMC8r)

Or, another explanation could be that your sphincter clenched so tight your wife/husband couldn't wedge a pinky up there.

However, we'll go with whatever make you feel best about yourself.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 05:05 PM (4NAaB)

142 It's not difficult. I'll give you a while to think about it. People don't do enough thinking anymore.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 05:05 PM (T0NGe)

143 I wonder if Dick Cheney is good in bed. If he's not recovering from a heart surgery, I bet he is.

Posted by: Who knows at June 01, 2009 05:06 PM (0aQsc)

144 I have two gay family members and don't think they should be able to marry the same sex. This whole gay agenda working to be a protected class is bullshit since it is based on behavior, not race, age, gender, etc.

Once you sanction one behavior as main stream, what's next. It's all BS and I hate it being forced upon us every day by the media. Now 1st graders get forced to learn about gay families as if it was normal. They should not even be thinking about sex, let alone using an alimentary canal for the purpose.

Posted by: BillyBob at June 01, 2009 05:06 PM (/EnDu)

145 Or, another explanation could be that your sphincter clenched so tight your wife/husband couldn't wedge a pinky up there.


When you're entitled to monitor either my level of discourse or the tension of any of my sphincters, I'll let you know.

Posted by: nickless at June 01, 2009 05:07 PM (MMC8r)

146 Posted by: nickless at June 01, 2009 05:07 PM (MMC8r)


When you're entitled to monitor either my level of discourse or the tension of any of my sphincters...


You have more than 1? Do you have any idea how popular you would be in the Castro? You could be making some serious money.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 05:08 PM (4NAaB)

147 #64...being "born gay" is an unproven "theory" perputrated as the truth (see AGW as a kin) in order tomake homosexuality more palitable to the masses. There is no "gay gene". Being gay is a lifestyle behavior choice. I'll grant, the roads to this choice are often complex and likely not fully understood. But, it's a choice. Like the anti-life movement, the gay rights movement isn't about gay marriage, it's about political power. The ink won't be dry on the law codifying gay marriage before those pushing the agenda will move to the next item to be forced upon society.
I'm a social and economic conservative. I will never knowingly vote for anyone who is pro gay-marriage, anti-life, anti-gun, pro-tax the rich, pro-AGW circus.
Limits my options, I know.

Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 05:10 PM (YBTwf)

148 So, can I have a harem?

Actually you can. There's a loophole in current law where multiple marriages done in countries where it's legal will also be recognized in the U.S. So you could go to Saudi Arabia, marry yourself 3 wives, and then bring them back to the U.S.. Now you may run into hassles with the INS, but I believe once your wives are here in the country they get all the legal rights that a U.S. married couple would get.

Posted by: Mtenloch at June 01, 2009 05:12 PM (YRmyX)

149 Robert -- yes the human body has more than one sphincter. Carry on.

Posted by: Eleven at June 01, 2009 05:12 PM (7DB+a)

150 Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 05:10 PM (YBTwf)

When you choose to put the genitalia of someone of the same sex in your mouth or another orifice, then I'll accept that being gay is a choice.

I'll need photographic evidence though.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 05:13 PM (4NAaB)

151 I'm not married to agenda. I do not know of another alternative. Gallup phrased it as "sensitive to gay issues" or something, which is imprecise, as a lot of people -- including those against the gay agenda -- are "sensitive" to "gay issues." I.e. Gay issues does not specify whose side of the argument we're talking about.


Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 05:13 PM (gEsIJ)

152 "Sensitive to gay issues" sounds so....gay.

Posted by: Eleven at June 01, 2009 05:14 PM (7DB+a)

153 "Sensitive to gay issues" sounds so....gay."

So does "Queer about gay issues".

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 05:19 PM (27iEn)

154 "When you choose to put the genitalia of someone of the same sex in
your mouth or another orifice, then I'll accept that being gay is a
choice."

So you believe that gays are also predisposed towards violent criminal activity? I can't think of any other explanation for why such a proportionately huge number of men in prisons "discover" they are gay.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at June 01, 2009 05:19 PM (/y1J0)

155 Say Robert, are you willing to be taken to the cleaners in a gay divorce?

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 01, 2009 05:19 PM (w41GQ)

156 >>>...being "born gay" is an unproven "theory" perputrated as the truth (see AGW as a kin) in order to make homosexuality more palitable to the masses. There is no "gay gene". Being gay is a lifestyle behavior choice.

Nonsense. Seriously, put ideology and doctrine aside and consider under what circumstances that you, presumably a straight man, would "choose" the gay lifestyle.

It's a bizarre thing to insist upon, really. I know you don't mean to -- far from it -- but you are basically echoing the claim of many of the sillier gay theorists who posit that EVERYONE is kinda gay and could be gay if they just "let themselves."

It's silly when gay goofs claim that straight people really are just "choosing" to be straight, as if the choice in preferred sex of sexual partner was a casual or circumstantial one. That straights are, as they sometimes say, just gays who are still in the closet or who lack the "courage" or sense of adventure to "try new experiences."

It's equally silly to suggest that gays are really closeted straights who are just choosing, as if the choices are fungible, to be attracted to guys.

I really find this argument strange because many straight guys who advance are, of course, completely straight, so much so that the thought of having sex with a guy is physically repulsive to them. (I'm kinda in this category -- no thanks.) And yet these guys are advancing, basically, a theory put forth by the silliest of gay enthusiasts, that anyone can just choose to be attracted to whomever they want.


Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 05:19 PM (gEsIJ)

157 Yeah, I knew thinking would be too much of a burden.

So here's the deal. You want to have rights and think you are entitled to social benefits because you happen to be in love and (we are presuming) that your partner wishes this marriage thing, too. (Or maybe he's just nodding his head, hoping you won't get the chance to implement this stupid idea.)

But what about those who aren't? You don't have a right to be in love and if love is the basis for the marriage license, then those who aren't in love are second-class citizens.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 05:19 PM (T0NGe)

158 "That a minority of straight marriages do not result in children is
irrelevant, as is the fact that a minority of gay unions have children."So
why aren't you telling the folks getting married and not producing
children they can't have federal recognition of their marriages?

Robert, did you miss that "irrelevant" word up there, in between "is" and "as?" Or perhaps the entire post #32?

Offended that someone compares their best friend to your partner? I can't imagine too many straight people that would find that offensive. Incidentally, yeah, I have actually lived with my best friend before.

Dude, you're just whining, and it isn't helping your cause.

Posted by: VKI at June 01, 2009 05:22 PM (7yOgz)

159 robert@7..."
Must we persist in calling it an "agenda"? I don't have an "agenda". I have a desire to marry my partner."

GO EAST YOUNG MAN, GO EAST....
a) Who are you to say what is moral or immoral?
b) No one is hog-tying you and forcing you to watch so what exactly is being forced down your throat?"

Robert, have you been to San Francisco lately? The hell they aren't forcing people to watch things no one, and I mean no one, ever wants to watch.

And perhaps, considering the level of snarky wit on this blog perhaps this was not the best choice of wording "...forced down your throat?"
I'm just sayin'......

Really, I think it all comes back to the activist agenda.We have all learned the hard way that it is never enough.
Get rid of the 'activists' and you'll get more positive press. Right now most people think perez hilton when they think of gay marriage...not Joe and Bob the normal guys down the street. Plus...maybe the gay culture could present itself as being something other than a creepy sex cult? Just a thought.
I think that's what is really creeping everyone out. And we all know from experience that gay marriage won't be enough. The whole gay "lifestyle" as presented by activists will be forced on our kids in school...you know it and I know it.
It's already happening.
And see, that's where you lose most regular straight people I think. We actually don't give a rip what you do in private, but we don't want our kids indoctrinated.
If the gay community lost the 'activists'...who are just idiots that want to bitch about something so they can remain the center of attention long after their expiration date ad nauseum....which means there will always be something else, some other new and special 'right' they demand....the gay community would get ahead faster.
Lose the activists...and the agenda. Gain friends and acceptance through honesty and not force...it works. Really.

Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 05:23 PM (aUut1)

160 Robert's right and already made my point -- if you're postulating that gays are really straights who have "chosen" to, putting it crudely, suck off other guys, do attempt that thought experiment as it applies to you. If you're a straight guy, you know damn well you'd never, ever even consider this.

So how do you fail to generalize from your own experience in this situation and assume there are just all of these straight dudes out there, just like you and just as straight as you, who've just up and decided to prefer the penis over T&A&V?

It just makes no sense.

If these guys are "straight," deep inside, they're obviously not quite as straight as most other people.

Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 05:23 PM (gEsIJ)

161 I wish this whole issue would just go away.Gays have been getting along fine without marriage, the world will keep turning if they are allowed to marry.We seriously have bigger fish to fry and gay conservatives(or libertarians) should keep that in mind.

Posted by: steevy at June 01, 2009 05:24 PM (WHOLq)

162 consider under what circumstances that you, presumably a straight man, would "choose" the gay lifestyle.

I think it's pretty well established that prison tends to have a swaying effect in this regard.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 05:24 PM (T0NGe)

163 Exactly. I'll say it again - if you're going to argue that there is no choice in the matter, than the inescapable conclusion is that "born-gay" men have a much higher tendency to commit violent, jailable crimes.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at June 01, 2009 05:27 PM (/y1J0)

164 That doesn't mean I favor gay marriage, tho. I don't. Because while regular and same-sex marriage might be alike in some ways, they're unalike in others.

Main thing is that despite gay marriage proponents' insistence, marriage is not primarily about "love." The government does not need to endorse "love" or encourage it. the product, as they say, sells itself, and always has.

What marriage promotes is stable family formation for children.

And while gays *can* have children, they 1) can't have children with each other, obviously, and 2) they also DON'T have children at a very high rate. Heterosexual marriages produce a lot of children; homosexual couples, fairly few.

One can argue that the exceptional case of gays raising children should be enough to treat all such couples as the same as heterosexual couples seeking marriage. I dont. Exceptional cases are exceptional cases and the norm is the norm.

Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 05:28 PM (gEsIJ)

165 >>>I think it's pretty well established that prison tends to have a swaying effect in this regard.

Something I do not understand and never will.

However, violent prisoners are obviously not "normal."

Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 05:29 PM (gEsIJ)

166 Playboy douchenozzle published and then they pulled this article on "Conservative Women He Wants to Hate Fuck"

Since he can't get a real women without drugs and chloroform, rape would be the only way he could get his flaccid little lefty dick near their business. Pam Geller was named and she's not amused.

Megyn Kelly was named too. Any scum ridden lefty who raped our goddess had better find a very far place to hide.

The only question I have is how is Playboy still in business? Pr0n can be found profusely and for free

Posted by: kbdabear at June 01, 2009 05:30 PM (93F13)

167 AmishDude,
You think everyone in Prison is sucking each other off? You ever been in Prison?

The fuck?

It may have a swaying effect for some people, but not everyone is sucking dick and getting sucked in prison. The extent of homosexual behavior in Prison is, um, blown way out of proportion.

I have family and friends who have served time, it ain't as prevalent as the media portrays.

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 05:30 PM (27iEn)

168 >>I think it's pretty well established that prison tends to have a swaying effect in this regard.

Not really. Most prisoners tend to view man on man in prison more as rape or a release than gay sex. There are no female alternatives. Don't think so? Go up to some guy in Rahway State Prison and tell him he's gay for bending over his cell mate.

I'll send flowers.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 05:32 PM (VW9/y)

169 Aaaah, so because not every last single person who ever stepped into a prison was sucking a dick within 20 seconds, therefore, the vastly higher rate within prison as opposed to the regular population is utterly irrelevant and meaningless.

Awesome. God, I wish conservatives could use logic and meet burdens of proof like this and have everyone accept it.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at June 01, 2009 05:33 PM (/y1J0)

170 I think it's pretty well established that prison tends to have a swaying effect in this regard.

Except that there's really no gender choosing going on in prisons. You put a bunch of relatively young, sexually active men in prison with no women for years, and you should expect a certain amount homosexual behavior. The telling point is that nearly all of these men do not continue to have gay sex once they get out.

Posted by: Mtenloch at June 01, 2009 05:36 PM (YRmyX)

171 Something I do not understand and never will.

I don't know that it's so hard to understand on a theoretical level. You can have a violent distaste for human flesh, but when stuck in the Andes with no hope of rescue, all of a sudden cannibalism isn't so bad.

You think everyone in Prison is sucking each other off?

Yes. Everyone. Every single person. Especially in womens' prison.

All I know is statistics. (Which is some of that scary number mathy stuff.)

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 05:36 PM (T0NGe)

172 Prison sex is mostly not a homosexual thing.Some of it is but most of it is not.

Posted by: steevy at June 01, 2009 05:36 PM (WHOLq)

173 It is also a song by Tool.Take a listen.

Posted by: steevy at June 01, 2009 05:37 PM (WHOLq)

174 "All I know is statistics. (Which is some of that scary number mathy stuff.)"

You have stats on the percent of people who participate in homosexual play in prison?

Please provide a link for that information.

Prison ain't like OZ or gay prison porn, or anything that HBO puts out.


"Yes. Everyone. Every single person. Especially in womens' prison."

Heh!

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 05:39 PM (27iEn)

175 Prison sex is mostly not a homosexual thing.Some of it is but most of it is not.

Yeah, you never seem to hear about prisoners wanting to marry their cellmates so maybe it's not about teh ghey.

Posted by: Mtenloch at June 01, 2009 05:39 PM (YRmyX)

176 So, you can choose to have gay sex. But only if you don't have a better alternative handy. That's not gay though. You can't choose to be gay. You can just choose to have gay sex. Which isn't the same thing. Of course, it is impossible to make that distinction in anything like scientific terms. We just -feel- there's a difference, and the guys enjoying their buttsex in prison really aren't gay, because... oh fuck it, can we just admit that you're claiming that they're not gay is purely about the fact that it is inconvenient to your argument?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at June 01, 2009 05:40 PM (/y1J0)

177 Most prisoners tend to view man on man in prison more as rape or a release than gay sex.The telling point is that nearly all of these men do not continue to have gay sex once they get out.

So I guess one can be not gay when engaging in gay sex and presumably can be gay without engaging or desiring to engage in gay sex.

Awesome. It's all a state of mind.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 05:41 PM (T0NGe)

178 kbdabear....and yet Playboy still claims that it exists to 'empower' women. Riiiiiight.
The mindset is pretty appalling...and Robert are you listening?.You think you have it tough? Try being an attractive hot woman with a brain. Not bragging here....more like whining.
My 'favorite' line?
"God, you were so beautiful until you opened your mouth...."
Yeah, true story.
I know...it is my cross to bear...snicker.
But seriously, gay guys should get in the whine line behind women.

Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 05:42 PM (aUut1)

179 185 There has never been and never will be a shortage of assholes in this world.

Posted by: steevy at June 01, 2009 05:46 PM (WHOLq)

180 "Gay Agenda"....Google it.

Posted by: Pelvis at June 01, 2009 05:47 PM (LlaBi)

181 I'm anti-government marriage. If you want to call yourself married, go to a church of Las Vegas and sign a legal contract, but the government shouldn't be giving people breaks just because they call themselves a couple.
If things don't work out, that's their fucking problem, not the U.S. tax payers.

Posted by: Saint at June 01, 2009 05:47 PM (mG0IU)

182 >>So I guess one can be not gay when engaging in gay sex and presumably can be gay without engaging or desiring to engage in gay sex.

>>Awesome. It's all a state of mind.

For someone who preens on here constantly and never misses an opportunity to tell everyone how smart you are because you like math, you seem to be surprisingly obtuse. Rape is an act of violence, not sex. If you sequester a few hundred men in a prison with no alternative for their sexual outlet, they will prey on weaker men for that outlet. This has only been know since there have been prisons.

Put down the slide rule and read a little history of the human condition. Your big brain might even get bigger.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 05:49 PM (VW9/y)

183 I may chose to be gay if I had sex with say, Susan Boyle. Let's be honest here, some chicks can be so gross a guy may be willing to put his dick in another dude's mouth.

But ever since I grabbed my girlfriend's boobs in high school all those years ago I've never looked back. I love boobs, but vaginas still scare the shit out of me after all these years (and always will.) That may be another reason guys choose the dudes.

Posted by: Brenden at June 01, 2009 05:49 PM (Y9/I4)

184 Seriously. If gays argue that they don't have the same rights as married couples, then why aren't they arguing in favor of common law marriages? Why aren't they fighting to get that term back on the books?
Because that would solve their 'problem' and help out those couples that do not want to get 'married'.

Posted by: momma at June 01, 2009 05:50 PM (penCf)

185 So I guess one can be not gay when engaging in gay sex and presumably
can be gay without engaging or desiring to engage in gay sex.Awesome. It's all a state of mind.

Actually I would argue that it's all about sexual attraction which takes place in the brain. A man who's sexually attracted to other men, yet who has never had sex with another man, would still be a gay man. Most virgin boys in high school would still claim to be straight even though they've never been with a woman.

And Robert has admitted he's slept with a woman once, so does that make him straight?

Posted by: Mtenloch at June 01, 2009 05:51 PM (YRmyX)

186 It is not the 'gay rights' thing, it is the term marriage. Get a different term, you'd have tons of support. Try to steal our term, you bet people are going to get pissed off.

Posted by: momma at June 01, 2009 05:53 PM (penCf)

187 Ace, in terms of your utter disbelief that anyone could possibly choose to be gay, I have three responses beyond the prison example.

1) Have you ever heard of the concept of an "acquired taste"? Think about what that phrase means, and apply it here. Why do you think so many people can deliberately cultivate a liking for something they initially abhor (like, say, beer) in every other facet of life,

2) Ask Jim McGreevey why one would possibly ever choose to be gay. Commit tons of indictable crimes. Feds are on your case. You're screwed. Stand up in front of a camera and say "I am a gay American." All is forgiven!

3) If you're a straight white male, you're fucked, low man on the grievance totem pole. There's exactly one of those three things you can change in order to hop on the entitlement gravy train, and gain acceptance with the cool in crowd.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at June 01, 2009 05:53 PM (/y1J0)

188 156...Robert, the proof burden is on you and those asking for us to alter society on your behalf. There is no genetic evidence you were born gay. I don't have to prove that you weren't. The lack of honesty on behalf of the gay rights movement is typical of left-wing agendas.
Here's the kicker, though. Say I'm totally wrong and a "gay gene" is found. Wouldn't a national debate on ending a pregnancy because the child has the "gay gene" be a kick in the junk?
163...Ace, if you read my post clearly, I grant that "choice" is a simplification of a complex action. You ask for circumstances under which a straight man would "choose" to be gay? Here are a few...severe alienation, incredible insecurity, victim of abuse/neglect, feminization by guardians, curiosity, misplaced admiration for a mentor/peer, coaching/recruitment by respected peer.
I could go on, but to deny we all could choose to engage in homosexual behavior is denying reality. You may be repulsed by the thought, that doesn't mean you couldn't overcome your repulsion (as a result ofcoaching, recruitment, trauma, etc). With enough "effort" and the right circumstances, you can overcome just about any "normal" genetic wiring. The Bible refers to it as "searedconscience".
A woman who chooses to strip for a living stastically has been the victim of abuse at an earlier age. It's undeniable fact. Yet, they are still making a choice and many grow to revel in that choice, even with the negative vibe they get from parts of society. They weren't born to strip.
For those repulsed by my inclusion of The Bible, I'm not perfect and have not referenced this term to infer I am. But, I also recognize the moral component of this discussion which is based, in large part, on biblical principles.

Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 05:53 PM (YBTwf)

189 For someone who preens on here constantly and never misses an
opportunity to tell everyone how smart you are because you like math,


No, it's not that I'm smart, it's that I'm not that smart. But I'm smarter than the people who call each other smart. This doesn't speak well of them.
Rape is an act of violence, not
sex.

Well, it's both, that wasn't my point. This was:
Most prisoners tend to view man on man in prison more as rape or a release than gay sex.
Yeah, the "release" thing is not rape.

If you sequester a few hundred men in a prison with no alternative
for their sexual outlet, they will prey on weaker men for that outlet.

Yes. Exactly. So?

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 05:57 PM (T0NGe)

190 Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 01, 2009 05:19 PM (w41GQ)

That's what pre-nups are for.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 05:58 PM (98ywz)

191 Amishdude,
You got those stats?

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:01 PM (27iEn)

192

For the young and those with short memories:

The gay marriage/civil union "issue" only became an "issue" after the AIDS (HIV) "epidemic". Before that there was little to no interest in the gay community for gay marriage/civil unions. In the pre-AIDS days homosexuals reveled in their sexual promiscuity and flaunted it.Then along came AIDS, millions of dollars in health care costs -- and all of a sudden it meant their lifestyle might really cost them. In response they tried to transmogrify the gay lifestyle into some equivalent of heterosexuality. Thanks to the MSM they largely succeeded.

The whole thing was driven by HIV gays without health insurance who want their medical costs covered by their lovers who had it.

That's what it's really all about -- then and now.

Posted by: Tinian at June 01, 2009 06:01 PM (70sTG)

193 You got those stats?

Kinsey study.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 06:01 PM (T0NGe)

194 I would also choose to be gay if I get to have sex with Brian Dennehy.

But I like chicks, I swear.

Posted by: Brenden at June 01, 2009 06:02 PM (Y9/I4)

195 Let's just put it this way. I have not now nor have I ever fallen in love with a woman. I have, however, fallen in love with several men.

I would hope we all agree that who you fall in love with isn't a choice.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:03 PM (98ywz)

196 190: LOL, you sound like Mr. Garrison. "I don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die." It certainly made his sexuality complex.

Posted by: Ray at June 01, 2009 06:05 PM (f44Vn)

197 If I recall, Barry Goldwater said the same thing. That really did give me pause for thought and still does. However, in the end I must go with the Judeo Christian (And Islamic) ethic and say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. As Liberals have chipped away at our religious institutions and the influence they had for the better, our lives have undeniably become much worse in many ways. And as the Liberal Red Termites continue to eat away at the foundation of our culture and civilization there must be a place where we draw the line;all three monotheistic religions are againsthomosexuality. Redefining marriage is only confusing an already confused culture, and God knowswe have much more important things to fight about. (Sura 2:29)

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at June 01, 2009 06:07 PM (Wg0Cb)

198 Brenden @ 201

Everyone understands the Brian Dennehy exception. Your hetero cred is still intact.

Posted by: sears poncho at June 01, 2009 06:07 PM (uj/0b)

199 "Kinsey study."

For real?

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:07 PM (27iEn)

200 I'll accept good people who partake in what some would call deviant sexual behavior.Of course, they call it that because they haven't done ityet.

Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 06:08 PM (yUiO3)

201 There is no way in hell that kid chose to be the way he was, he was wired that way.


So? Does that make it right, or what he should do, how he should be? Lots of people are born some way, we consider some of them horrible and wrong (psycopaths, child molesters). Simply being some way doesn't give you a pass to engage in that behavior.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 01, 2009 06:08 PM (PQY7w)

202 Actually I would argue that it's all about sexual attraction which
takes place in the brain.

I'm really not interested in (even if it were possible) divining the sexual desires of people with regard to brain chemistry. That isn't the point. Moreover, I think way too many posters here are obsessed with classifying people as "gay" or "straight".

I really don't care to classify Robert one way or the other. Or anybody else for that matter. Homosexual refers to the act. I suppose you could extend the definition, but somehow you seem to see some utility in defining people as members of a sexual group based on some sort of neuron activity independent of the actual sexual activity.

Perhaps it's a matter of just bending over and "thinking of England."

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 06:11 PM (T0NGe)

203 The Globe says Obama is gay. It's not the credability of the source, it's the seriousness of the charge.

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at June 01, 2009 06:11 PM (Wg0Cb)

204 >>> I could go on, but to deny we all could choose to engage in homosexual behavior is denying reality. You may be repulsed by the thought, that doesn't mean you couldn't overcome your repulsion (as a result of coaching, recruitment, trauma, etc). With enough "effort" and the right circumstances, you can overcome just about any "normal" genetic wiring.

Dude, no.

I don't mean to be insulting but sometimes I do wonder if those pushing this idea are themselves fighting homosexual urges and reckon, as some gays do, that their experiences are universal.

Even if I grant you your "gay by coaching/rape/seduction" etc. notion, then you have to accept that those successfully "recruited' are now kinda, what's the word, GAY. They're not really straight anymore, are they? Or else they wouldn't keep going to guys for sex.


Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 06:12 PM (gEsIJ)

205 Qwinn,

So people decide to become gay as a career move? Or to gain some PC cred?

Please.

Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 06:13 PM (gEsIJ)

206 Government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. It forsake protecting it as an institution years ago. If two people want to enter into a legally binding civil contract, that is their business. People can get "married" by the "religion" of their choice, or just choose not to, it makes no difference to the civil contract. This would be a much better arrangement for everyone, as the contract would be binding and much more likely to be fair to both parties than the current divorce industry allows. Pay the lawyers up front for a good contract, not at the end when they milk the fees and prolong the agony.


Posted by: Ray at June 01, 2009 06:14 PM (f44Vn)

207 202...Robert, you've been very respectful in the discussion and I'm sure you believe you aren't making a choice. But, choosing to believe or not doesn't change the bottom line truth/facts.
I can never change, genetically, who my parents are. I can deny it, renounce them, never have known them, be adopted, etc. But, it's an unchangable occurance. All the scientific evidence is that you weren't born gay...what you do with that reality is on you.
Take heart, though. This is, at it's core, a moral issue and morally we're heading south, as it were, in a hurry. At at many points along the way I have personally hastened the slide.

Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 06:14 PM (YBTwf)

208 >>So? Does that make it right, or what he should do, how he should be? Lots of people are born some way, we consider some of them horrible and wrong (psycopaths, child molesters). Simply being some way doesn't give you a pass to engage in that behavior.

So if you had one of these horrible deviants as a child, you would treat them, how?

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 06:15 PM (VW9/y)

209 CT,
Being gay is not the same as being a psychopath or child molester, it is not anti-social. It is clearly a part of human nature that is not the same as anti-social criminal disorders and has existed since man crawled out of caves.

What would you suggest he or his family do? How would you suggest he live?

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:15 PM (27iEn)

210 186....too true, sadly.
193..."It is not the 'gay rights' thing, it is the term marriage. Get a
different term, you'd have tons of support. Try to steal our term, you
bet people are going to get pissed off."

Really! Gawd....what are you guys going to want next? First you stole all the good words...gay, queer, interior decorator...and now you've come for marriage?
But seriously though...who here hasn't had the horrifying experience of being with, say, an older relative and they say something like "Gosh dear, I just feel so queer today".
True story. My sister and I were with our 90 year old grandmother at Scoma's in San Fran. when my grandmother popped out with that gem..loudly. My sister later pointed out...after we came out from under the table...that just before we dove for 'cover' my eyes were spinning around the room like an iguana's....

Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 06:15 PM (aUut1)

211 I had a young lady come out of the closet to me today. I was flattered that she trusted me enough to do so, especially since her parents don't know (or are in denial). It's tough for these kids.Try to remember when you were in grade school, and you started liking girls/guys automatically. All over society, you see straight couples everywhere: on TV, ads, in your house. Imagine getting all that data every single day and still knowing it is wrong for you. If they are all born straight, they have to deny their nature, then live in fear, depression, and anonymity, all just to rebel against society?For what gain? What's in it for them?

Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 06:22 PM (yUiO3)

212 if you legitimize gay marriage, what's next? it's a slippery slope that i dont think is good for society. i dont care if a guy wants to marry another guy at all, but it's not about ME its about the greater good of our social structure. sort of like pot legalization, you make weed legal, whats next? coke? meth? somebody out there will want that, we all know it would happen. look to europe for the drug thing, youll find needles all strewn out in the streets.

then youll have the arguments from people who love animals, people who want multiple wives/husbands, after all its about LOVE right? sooner or later, throngs of protests will spring up here and there claiming that whats good for the goose is good for the gander. it's all a load of bullshit. marriage has been traditionally defined as a man and a woman. and since nobody can explain just what makes someone a homosexual, they should get no recognition of traditional marriage. do we have to create new laws to satisfy EVERY minority in this country? can't always have what u want folks. tuff titty.


Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 06:23 PM (DkK1B)

213 Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 06:14 PM (YBTwf)

I have to wonder though why it is that you believe you are in a position to dictate that I am under some kind of delusion?

And as you said, there is no scientific evidence that I am born gay. So I also have to ask how it is you can state with such certainty that all the scientific evidence says it is a choice?

With such a paradox in one's argument, it amazes me that it can be expressed with such confidence.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:24 PM (98ywz)

214 well what makes someone a homosexual? funny, nobody can explain it lol

Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 06:25 PM (DkK1B)

215 str8 outta monogahela dropped DA HAMMAH!

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:27 PM (27iEn)

216

Let's just put it this way. I have not now nor have
I ever fallen in love with a woman. I have, however, fallen in love
with several men.I would hope we all agree that who you fall in love with isn't a choice.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:03 PM (98ywz)
In a period of weeks or months?

Posted by: Tinian at June 01, 2009 06:27 PM (70sTG)

217 Many years, starting around age 15. I am 39 now.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:31 PM (98ywz)

218 211...Ace, again, I'm addressing the "born gay" stance. I've stated in my post once you go so far on the lifestyle road, you can become convinced you were born that way. Afterall, who would choose to do such horrible things? So no, they aren't straight anymore, but they've convinced themselves that it wasn't really a choice.
Byyour logic, gays and those who advance this theory are admitting their behavior is repulsive. They only do it because they are a slave to their genetics.
You're applying rational logic you find elementary, to an extremely complex and tangled circumstance. Since you haven't experienced any "gateway" circumstances, for lack of a better term, you find it impossible to think a man could give another man a mouth-hug unless he was born to do so.

Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 06:32 PM (YBTwf)

219 so robert, would you say that homosexual is genetic?

Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 06:32 PM (DkK1B)

220 >>You're applying rational logic you find elementary, to an extremely complex and tangled circumstance. Since you haven't experienced any "gateway" circumstances, for lack of a better term, you find it impossible to think a man could give another man a mouth-hug unless he was born to do so.

So how do you explain homosexual and even bi-sexual activity in lower animals? It's been known and documented for some time and I'm pretty sure they don't have a lot of the gateways you enumerated.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 06:36 PM (VW9/y)

221 I knew I was straight when 'Booger' from Revenge of the Nerds said, "Pan down. I want bush."
I really wanted bush, too.
Some other times when straightness revealed itself:Solid Gold DancersOlivia Newton-John, when Sandra Dee came out in the slut leatherShower scene in Porkies 1, 2, and 3Christie Brinkley pool scene in Vacation

Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 06:36 PM (yUiO3)

222 Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 06:32 PM (YBTwf)

I don't think Ace was speaking of specific acts. I believe he was speaking of gay-bashing, estrangement from friends and family, and the other non-sexual consequences that go with being gay in most instances.

For instance, I would not have chosen to be kicked out of my parents house after honestly answering the question "are you gay?"

I would not have chosen to endure hours of badgering at the age of 19 about how sick I was and how much I needed help.

I would not have chosen to be attacked by police officers indiscriminately hitting any queer they could find during the 1991 Republican National Convention in Houston.

I would not have chosen for one of my sisters to call my a fag.

I would not have chosen to be hit with a baseball bat while walking down the street in Houston by a passing car full of teenage boys screaming fag.

The list does go on.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:36 PM (98ywz)

223 Being gay is not the same as being a psychopath or child molester, it is not anti-social.


*tweeet* Red Herring, 10 yards.


I didn't say they were the same. I'd like to believe you know that.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 01, 2009 06:37 PM (PQY7w)

224 Lets say it was a choice. Who fucking cares? So someone chooses to be gay because they don't like the way women smell, or the way the vagina looks. Lets say they chose to try dick out and ended up liking the dick and found anal sex a pleasurable alternative. Who fucking cares?

Why is claiming it is a choice the argument that trumps all others? I could give a shit even if it is a choice.

We have always had homosexuality, we always will. There is something in us that makes it a very consistent part of humanity. It is not anti-social or destructive, it is simply an alternative.

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:37 PM (27iEn)

225 "So how do you explain homosexual and even bi-sexual activity in lower
animals? It's been known and documented for some time and I'm pretty
sure they don't have a lot of the gateways you enumerated."

we're humans, not animals, completely different. some animals eat feces from another animal. some animals live in trees. that doesnt explain homosexuality.

Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 06:38 PM (DkK1B)

226 Which gay agenda would that be, Ace?

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 01, 2009 06:38 PM (TpmQk)

227 CT,
You are right. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:39 PM (27iEn)

228 Again I retread my steps on the same topic. The origin of marriage, as the west has come to
know it, is from Greek traditions. The purpose being reproductive
responsibility, and presenting a stable platform, based on the
biological parents, where children can be raised. I strongly believe
this institution, of upbringing based on the loving committed
relationship between the biological parents of children, is unique,
still has no equal in the upbringing of children, is of great benefit
to society, ought to be encouraged, and deserves a special name. Even
the Greeks, from which the tradition began, whom also accepted
homosexual relationships as an often regular part of being, shared the
same sentiment; That special bond between a father and mother deserved
to be placed on a special pedestal.

Strangely many believe
that words define things, in fact it is just the opposite. Calling a daisy a rose changes nothing about either flower in reality,
only changes the definition of the word rose to include daisies.If
homosexual unions come to be known as marriage, it is not the
homosexual union that has changed but the definition of marriage. Most
likely what we now know as marriage will then find a different term to
describe itself such as the ever popular "Traditional Marriage". As societies view does not change when you force words to be re-defined. Society simply finds different words to describe the concept.

Do I have a belief in the idea that homosexual couples have an option for a legally binding committed relationship like marriage? Yes, I think such an option, so long as marriage is regulated by the State should be available. I am unconvinced that State interference in the institution of marriage has done anything but weaken it though. But, the idea that a committed homosexual relationship is identical in every way shape and form to the heterosexual counterpart, is, overlooking the very purpose of marriage, and, is akin to saying sexual differences simply do not exist. Is the argument truly that the traditional marriage with husband/wife/children is in no way unique? Noticing there are differences and stipulating that different words be used to describe them, is not any more homophobic than suggesting that men and women have biological differences and as a result need to have different names is sexist. I mean really, the whole, biologically bound children thing (both parents and all), is pretty significant, and unique composition.

Meh, we're (all of us except the govt') going to lose this argument anyway. Eventually it will be legislated into being and word meanings will traverse, and what we now know as marriage will find a distinct new term of description, or the word marriage will be replaced at law with something more broad. In the end, which ever way we go the result will be exactly the same, to the dissappointment of all. Marriage as we know it today will no longer recieve State recognition, and, homosexual relationships will not get the instant respect they want; And government will have a broader beuacracy with which to control our lives. Everybody loses.



Posted by: Michael C Keehn at June 01, 2009 06:39 PM (0q2P7)

229 And why, after all of that, would I not lie to myself and try to be straight?

"To thine own self be true."

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:40 PM (98ywz)

230 220...Robert, it's not a paradox, as I said, it a moral basis. The awesome thing about God and moraility is this, anyone can accept or deny God and his "laws", which I believe are bibilcally given. However, He either is or isn't. My choosing to believe in Him doesn't make Him exist. Nor would my denial of Him result in His not existing. If God is God, how we react to Him and His laws won'taffectHis existence.
Science happens to back my stance, which is morally based. But even if science figures out a way to have you "born gay", it won't change God's view of it morally.
And for the record, I'm not sneering or frothing as I type. I know emotions run high on such topics and I also understand the frailty of humanity makes moral issues difficulty to discuss honestly.

221...actually, the answers would likely be too un-pc to publish.

Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 06:40 PM (YBTwf)

231 Tell 'em, Uniball! Why are we still arguing about something that has been a part of the animal kingdom since the first fish took a big breath and a walk?

Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 06:41 PM (yUiO3)

232 until homosexuals themselves can explain the condition, then maybe something will happen i think. i'm not quite sure science can back up the fabled "we were born this way" excuse, if they have, i havent seen it.

Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 06:41 PM (DkK1B)

233 I would not have chosen to be attacked by police officers
indiscriminately hitting any queer they could find during the 1991
Republican National Convention in Houston.

Wow, that's a neat trick. Who won the election in 1991?

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 06:41 PM (T0NGe)

234 But, I like good people. Some of those good people happen to be dudes that like the skin flute.
What has what to do with gay marriage?
It's probably weird to a lot of guys that I'm comfortable around the gays.
I'm confortable around gays. So what?
I could be wrong, but I would rather be nice to everyone, some who happen to be gay
Being "nice" to people has diddly to do with gay marriage. Or regular marriage. I'm not being "nice" to a man and woman when they get marrried. And I'm being un-nice to gays when they can't.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 06:43 PM (rMBij)

235 >>we're humans, not animals, completely different.

We're different animals, animals nonetheless. Surely you had time for biology in high school.

>>some animals eat feces from another animal.

Yes, and so do some humans.

>>some animals live in trees.

Did you know in Kenya, there are a large number of people who live in houses called tree houses for much the same reason that some other animals live in trees. Helps avoid predators.

>>that doesnt explain homosexuality.

No, it doesn't. But that's what I was asking you to do. Why do animals of different species have homosexuals if it is a gateway or learned behavior?

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 06:44 PM (VW9/y)

236 We have always had homosexuality, we always will. There is something in us that makes it a very consistent part of humanity.
Lots of things are part of humanity. The whole idea of civilisation is that most of them ought not be encouraged.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 06:46 PM (rMBij)

237 I remember someone tossed a playboy in a drainage ditch when I was in sixth grade. My friends and I all hung out under a bridge in the drainage ditch and looked at the playboy.

What a rush.

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:46 PM (27iEn)

238 Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 06:40 PM (YBTwf)

I guess I just don't pretend to know how God views things. I think Gene Robinson said it best when asked during his 60 Minutes interview a few years ago what he thought God might ask those that have demonized gays, and him, when they died and went to heaven.

His response, paraphrased, was Why did you do that to my gay and lesbian children?

I don't mean this with disrespect, but you simply cannot know what God thinks. You can only make assumptions and take on faith that you are right in your beliefs, same as me.

On that point, we are on equal footing.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:46 PM (98ywz)

239 sorry jack, im not buying into your "were animals of a different species" nonsense as a way to explain homosexuality. i mean wow, how come there arent any homosexual fish? why no homosexual insects? see what i mean? and how about those homosexual plants while we're at it. you're reaching i think.

homosexuals can't explain their condition, the closest they come to is "i was born this way". so i'll take that at face value.

ok, they were born that way, which leads me to believe that it's genetic...fine.

considering the small population of homosexuals to heterosexuals in ANY species, i'd say it's an abnormality. kind of like albinos. no?

Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 06:47 PM (DkK1B)

240 >>some animals eat feces from another animal.



Yes, and so do some humans.

Curse you for putting 2 girls 1 cup into my head again

*gag
*barf
*spit

Posted by: pajama momma at June 01, 2009 06:48 PM (kWQTL)

241 "Lots of things are part of humanity. The whole idea of civilisation is that most of them ought not be encouraged."

But why this?

When you make that statement you are equating homosexuality with anti-social and criminal behavior. It is neither.

If your arguments are based on the Bible I will probably not agree, I am agnostic. Sorry.

Write me off.

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:49 PM (27iEn)

242 I wouldn't think it my place or the government's to say another person's ideology is wrong. I want less government interference in all our lives. I'm nice in the sense that I don't tell them they are wrong about what they think about themselves.
And, I don't think you would want a guy who likes blowing dudes to marry your sister.
It feels mean-spirited and hateful to so vehemently disagree with them about their life. It's theirs. I'm not talking about your Folsom Street crowd, just normal gay cats.

Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 06:50 PM (yUiO3)

243 albinos are legit, why not homosexuals?

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:51 PM (27iEn)

244 Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 06:50 PM (yUiO3)

Here, here. And for the record, I stay as far away from Folsom Street as possible.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:51 PM (98ywz)

245 uniball,

theyre legit abnormalities.

Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 06:51 PM (DkK1B)

246 Being gay is not the same as being a psychopath or child molester, it is not anti-social.
Being gay is anti-social, by defintion. The social means "society", and homosexuality is destructive to society. This is why, even thought homosexuality has been known to every civilization in history, none of them have ever considered such a thing as "gay marriage". Homosexuality may have been widespread and accepted in some societies, but they stll never adapted "gay marriage".

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 06:52 PM (rMBij)

247 Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 06:52 PM (rMBij)

Whose definition? And how is my life destructive? I live with my partner, I pay taxes, we garden, we shop, we participate in neighborhood bake sales.

What are we destroying??

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:53 PM (98ywz)

248 I guess I just don't pretend to know how God views things. I think Gene
Robinson said it best ... Why did you do that to my gay and lesbian children?

So, I guess Robinson does not have the restraint that you do. He's more than willing to speculate on the mind of God.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 06:54 PM (T0NGe)

249 albinos are legit

Really? Ask Dan Brown.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 06:56 PM (T0NGe)

250 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 06:54 PM (T0NGe)

Well, he was a little bit close to God than me, being a Reverend and all, so I'll forgive him the idle speculation. That doesn't delegitimize his point.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:57 PM (98ywz)

251 flenser,

Granted there is a high level of promiscuity but that is actually one of the reasons I am for gay marriage. It places the burden of responsibility and expectations on the homosexual community as it mainstreams the culture, something many seem to crave. Creating a path toward responsibility can only be good for society.

This is just my theory and may not make any sense or not happen at all, but I believe bringing this segment of society into the fold is good.

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 06:57 PM (27iEn)

252 I wouldn't think it my place or the government's to say another person's ideology is wrong.
The entire purpose of this site is to tell other people that their ideology is wrong.

I want less government interference in all our lives.
Government legalising gay marriage increases government interference in all our lives.
It feels mean-spirited and hateful to so vehemently disagree with them about their life.
Grow up, you childish little fuck. Being an adult means disagreeing with people "vehemently" about many things. Again, I'm amazed you can stand to read this site with such tender feelngs. I say this to you with considerable mean spiritedness.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 06:57 PM (rMBij)

253 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 06:54 PM (T0NGe)

And it also demonstrates the vast array of differing viewpoints on the subject.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:58 PM (98ywz)

254 we participate in neighborhood bake sales.

You take the last brownie sumpin's gonna get destroyed.

Posted by: pajama momma at June 01, 2009 06:58 PM (kWQTL)

255 This is just my theory and may not make any sense or not happen at all, but I believe bringing this segment of society into the fold is good.
You don't believe this shit, so why are you writing it?

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 06:59 PM (rMBij)

256 Posted by: pajama momma at June 01, 2009 06:58 PM (kWQTL)

Things can get a little ruthless toward the end of the day when inventory is dwindling.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 06:59 PM (98ywz)

257 Well, he was a little bit close to God than me, being a Reverend and
all, so I'll forgive him the idle speculation. That doesn't
delegitimize his point.

Actually, any attempt to divine the mind of God on his part indeed delegitimizes his point entirely and with it any attempt to use it.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:01 PM (T0NGe)

258 how is my life destructive? I live with my partner, I pay taxes, we garden, we shop, we participate in neighborhood bake sales.
You create nothing. You are a dead end. Do you know what a mule is? You're a mule. Society has no need for mules, and thus has no need to pretend that they are just the same as the non-mules.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 07:03 PM (rMBij)

259 And it also demonstrates the vast array of differing viewpoints on the subject.

So? That's the biggest non-sequitur yet. Lots of people believe in the Loch Ness Monster, too.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:03 PM (T0NGe)

260 @The Hammer,

Science does not back your stance. You are simply incorrect. There are some data that show a genetic component to "gayness." There is no credible evidence that being gay is a choice.

Once again, why the fuck would anyone choose to be gay? It has been around forever, but only recently has it been safe to be gay in much of the world.


Posted by: NJconservative at June 01, 2009 07:04 PM (/Ywwg)

261 Flenser,
I do believe it. I should have said, "may not make any sense to you, or not happen at all".

I strongly believe that gay marriage can bring about positive change to some segments of the homosexual community, not all, but some. Just like there are still heterosexual swingers and cheaters, it isn't going to impact everyone but at least it will create positive examples within the community and create societal expectations.

I am leaving now. Have a good evening everyone.

PJM-No homosexual play tonight!

Posted by: Uniball at June 01, 2009 07:04 PM (27iEn)

262 robert,

YOUR lifestyle may not be destructive. but the issue isnt about YOU. its about homosexuals at large. im sorry but the vast majority of homosexuals ARE the folsom loonies. at least thats what i see, and what everyone else does. you may not venture into the bizarro realm of transgenderism etc, but unfortunately, many more homosexuals do.

Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 07:05 PM (DkK1B)

263 Somebody's angry....their isn't perchance a dick in your mouth right now, is there?

Posted by: gator at June 01, 2009 07:06 PM (yUiO3)

264 "Science does not back your stance. You are simply incorrect. There are
some data that show a genetic component to "gayness." There is no
credible evidence that being gay is a choice."

"some data"? lmao ya i got a bridge on mars.

it is either genetic or it isnt. if so, its a genetic abnormality.

Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 07:07 PM (DkK1B)

265 If your arguments are based on the Bible I will probably not agree, I am agnostic. Sorry.
They are not based on the Bible, you dope. Please pont to all the non-Christian civilizations which have adapted marriage between homosexuals.
Write me off.
I did that a long time ago, and not because you are agnostic.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 07:08 PM (rMBij)

266 I strongly believe that gay marriage can bring about positive change to some segments of the homosexual community, not all, but some.
I'm indifferent as to whether it can or not. In any case I'm certain that your idea of positive change would not match my own.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 07:09 PM (rMBij)

267 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:01 PM (T0NGe)

So I trust that you are applying that standard to the arguments stated here with regard to God and gays?

As I said, I was paraphrasing the answer and the question. I will try to find the exact quote and context so I am accurately relaying his words. It never struck me as a definitive statement on what he "knew" God would say, but rather what he "hoped" God would say.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 07:10 PM (98ywz)

268 Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 07:05 PM (DkK1B)

Hogwash. There are more like me than there are like the Folsom crowd.

That was spoken like someone whose only experience with someone gay is what they see on the evening news, chosen more for its shock value than any honest representation of gays as a whole.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 07:12 PM (98ywz)

269 robert,

guess were going to have to disagree.




Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 07:14 PM (DkK1B)

270 There are more like me than there are like the Folsom crowd.
You are correct in that much.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 07:15 PM (rMBij)

271 Just cause it needs to be posted again...

<___ width=350 src="http://www.newswire.poormojo.org/images/hung_cheney.jpg">

The Well-Hung Dick.

Posted by: DelD at June 01, 2009 07:18 PM (WHoJw)

272 Posted by: DelD at June 01, 2009 07:18 PM (WHoJw)

Now see, that even disturbs me.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 07:20 PM (98ywz)

273 Okay, one more time...The Well-Hung Dick.

There's a man looking for cougar if ever there was one.

Posted by: DelD at June 01, 2009 07:21 PM (WHoJw)

274 Aaaargh. I've failed again to post an image.

Posted by: DelD at June 01, 2009 07:22 PM (WHoJw)

275 >>sorry jack, im not buying into your "were animals of a different species" nonsense as a way to explain homosexuality. i mean wow, how come there arent any homosexual fish? why no homosexual insects? see what i mean? and how about those homosexual plants while we're at it. you're reaching i think.

No, I don't see what you mean.

Insects? Plants? Seriously, did you ever take a basic science course? We are animals. Mammals. Not plants or even insects. If this is news to you then you need to do some basic learning before you start telling other people that their lives are scientifically unsound.

Homosexuality in animals has been known for some time and even used successfully to defend homosexuality in court cases in places as unlikely as Texas, see Lawrence v. Texas.

It is, in short, a scientifically and even legally accepted practice in mammals of all type. It doesn't matter what you buy or what you think, you are wrong.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 07:22 PM (VW9/y)

276 It's not hugely important whether homosexuality is genetic or learned behavior. We outlaw lots of things which are genetic behavior, as well as many things which are learned.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 07:25 PM (rMBij)

277 >>>it is either genetic or it isnt. if so, its a genetic abnormality.


You conflate "genetic" and "innate." Innate need not be genetic.

The most likely cause of homosexuality is the particular hormone mix (and other chemical catalysts) that a growing embryo is subjected to in the womb.

This isn't a gene thing.

Posted by: ace at June 01, 2009 07:26 PM (gEsIJ)

278 Granted there is a high level of promiscuity but that is actually one
of the reasons I am for gay marriage. It places the burden of
responsibility and expectations on the homosexual community as it
mainstreams the culture, something many seem to crave. Creating a path
toward responsibility can only be good for society.

I am not so sanguine. I was in McCarran airport just last week and saw a funny t-shirt shop and several of them described the, if I may refer back to Cheney, lack of freedom involved in marriage.

Indeed the jokes about "ball and chain", "nagging wife", etc., etc. are endless and part of our culture.

Why? Why do men see marriage as, if I may quote Admiral Ackbar, "a trap" or at least a non-optimal transaction?

Well, in part because marriage is a construct that protects women almost explicitly. They withhold sexuality in order to obtain marriage. Either they withhold it entirely or use a sexual relationship to lobby for married life.

I don't see any of that happening with same-sex couples. There's no biological impulse to marry young as there is for a woman who wants to try to have a husband to help provide for her and/or raise her children.

Same-sex marriage will largely be a capstone to relationships that are already stable. People in their 40s and above having a nice little catered ceremony with friends and family.

The problem is that this push for same-sex marriage is doing damage to an already unstable institution. An old NRO article from 2004 details the Dutch experience. The bottom line is that virtually no homosexuals have married, but marriage has fallen out of fashion for heterosexuals and so have in-wedlock births.

Is gay marriage merely a consequence of a larger social trend? Probably. But the correlation cannot be denied and, while there is almost no larger social benefit from state recognition of a handful of same-sex marriages, there are huge social problems that could result and the data suggest would likely result.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:28 PM (T0NGe)

279 "You conflate "genetic" and "innate." Innate need not be genetic.





The most likely cause of homosexuality is the particular hormone mix
(and other chemical catalysts) that a growing embryo is subjected to in
the womb.





This isn't a gene thing.
"

...ok maybe i guess. nobody has explained it yet. there is no science that ive read that accurately describes it's causes. so far ive read a ton of speculation.

ok so we're mammals, a species of "animals" lmao we're different from the baboon and the lemur over there humping each other. and any attempts at saying their behavior and our behavioral patterns are one and the same to try and describe homosexuality is silly. but its fine if you want to delude yourself jackstraw, have at it.

its an abnormal behavior within the human species. simple as that.



Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 07:36 PM (DkK1B)

280 Christ people, when I said "Freedom" I didn't mean gays, I meant the Tiajuana Were-cougar. You gotta let that bad boy out.

Posted by: Dick Cheney at June 01, 2009 07:39 PM (K5AMb)

281 You know what is great after a debate like this? Looking down at a sweet dog with a gentle soul lying at your feet looking back up at you with unconditional love.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 07:41 PM (98ywz)

282 So I trust that you are applying that standard to the arguments stated here with regard to God and gays?

Largely. There is an interesting theological issue that we only know God as He is presented in holy books. As such, if you accept the Christian God as He is presented in both testaments, you have to accept what is presented there because there is no other way to know God. Otherwise, you are simply ascribing what you wish God to be.

That being said, those who wish God to be something are simply using God. This is a hideous practice.

but rather what he "hoped" God would say.

And what if He doesn't? Robinson acts as if he is doing God a favor by believing in him and if the Big Guy gets out of line, then Gene will just withdraw his faith.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:41 PM (T0NGe)

283 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:41 PM (T0NGe)
And what if He doesn't? Robinson acts as if he is doing God a favor by
believing in him and if the Big Guy gets out of line, then Gene will
just withdraw his faith.

I don't get that from his statement at all. And I haven't been able top find the link to a transcript or full video of the interview.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 07:45 PM (98ywz)

284 Oh, I'm not saying it based on the interview, but based on his quote.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:49 PM (T0NGe)

285 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:49 PM (T0NGe)

I know, I just don't see how you are getting that from the quote.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 07:51 PM (98ywz)

286

Cheney finally admits he is a liar



"Washington CNN-- Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he does not believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning or execution of the September 11, 2001, attacks



He strongly defended the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq, however, arguing that Hussein's previous support for known terrorists was a serious danger after 9/11."



Which is of course just more sleazy drivel since Saddam's 'previous support' dates back to before the First Gulf War.



Posted by: T Dub at June 01, 2009 07:54 PM (SY6a4)

287 It's just that you don't "hope" for what God will say. It's gnostic at best and "just making shit up" at worst.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:54 PM (T0NGe)

288 Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he does not believe
Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning or execution of the
September 11, 2001, attacks

You really ARE an idiot. I don't know anyone who actually thought that.

Posted by: pajama momma at June 01, 2009 07:56 PM (kWQTL)

289 500 Server Error on other posts comment function

Posted by: Gerry at June 01, 2009 07:57 PM (wxx0L)

290 You forgot this part of the Cheney quote:

I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that
[Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while,
[but] eventually it turned out not to be true

oh and this part:

there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back
10 years. It's not something I made up. ... We know for a fact that
Saddam Hussein was a sponsor -- a state sponsor -- of terror. It's not
my judgment. That was the judgment of our [intelligence community] and
State Department."

Posted by: pajama momma at June 01, 2009 07:58 PM (kWQTL)

291 Uh, T Dub, Abu Nidal -- an actual well-known terrorist -- was still living in Iraq in 2002 under the protection of Hussein's government when he "committed suicide" by shooting himself 4 times.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:58 PM (T0NGe)

292 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 07:54 PM (T0NGe)

You can't divine the mind of God by saying you know God believes a certain thing but yet it isn't ok either to say you hope God is of a certain mind? I'm getting whiplash here.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:00 PM (98ywz)

293 245...I hope The Bible is God's way of letting us know how to live. If it's not, we're all in trouble.

267...yep, and man is the driving force behind AGW. No matter how many times you type it or plug your ears and scream it, it's doesn't make it so.

Why would someone choose to be gay with all of the horrible consequences? Well, I've listed reasons above...and negative outcomes are not a predictor of behavior. Heard of anyone taking up meth or smoking? Not a lot of positives come of those choices. And, not everyone starts for the same reasons. And, many become so addicted it's like they were born that way.


Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 08:01 PM (YBTwf)

294 Posted by: T Dub at June 01, 2009 07:54 PM (SY6a4)

Please don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:01 PM (98ywz)

295 T Dub being the troll...

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:02 PM (98ywz)

296 Since I can't post on the appropriate thread, the recruiter killer was "Abulhakin Muhammad, also known as Carlos Bledsoe" and the police say he specifically targeted the military.

There isn't any more info that I can find.

No official statement from the White House on the website.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 08:03 PM (T0NGe)

297 Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 08:01 PM (YBTwf)

So, gay men are just addicted to...dick? Jebus Crepes, I could strain pasta with that analogy.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:04 PM (98ywz)

298

Promiscuous sex is the hallmark of the gay lifestyle.

The only reason this argument exists is the high cost of health care for those infected with HIV.

Posted by: Tinian at June 01, 2009 08:05 PM (70sTG)

299 Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he does not believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning or execution of the September 11, 2001, attacks
This would be news, if he'd said something different before. Now run along and find Cheney saying that he believed that Saddam planned and executed the 911 attacks.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 08:06 PM (5ugDY)

300 Hey Njconservative @100:Are youas fucking stupid as your reading comprehension makes you seem?. I didnt say it was a choice to be gay. I seriously asked if it was or not. If it isnt a choice, is it genetic? Genetically, what would make two people of the same sex attracted to each other? Dont give me the "It is all through the animal kingdom" bullshit. Some animals eat their own shit. I dont know about you, Njconservative, but I hold myself to a higher standard than a shit eatinganimal. My personal opinion is that it is abnormal. You may disagree, but I am entitled to the fucking opinion. All that aside, Robert has had some funny fucking retorts in this thread.

Posted by: The Drizzle at June 01, 2009 08:08 PM (fWnCD)

301 You can't divine the mind of God by saying you know God believes a
certain thing but yet it isn't ok either to say you hope God is of a
certain mind?

Yes. You don't get to. The whole point is that God is God. You are less than a speck on His shoe. He may have knowledge beyond your understanding. It's presumptuous to think otherwise.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 08:09 PM (T0NGe)

302 You know what is great after a debate like this? Looking down at a sweet dog with a gentle soul lying at your feet looking back up at you with unconditional love.
That's always a good thing, though I would not say that this debate has been especially acrimonious.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 08:09 PM (5ugDY)

303 Maybe homosexuality should just be considered a 'normal aberration'? I can attest to the fact that it does occur in animals fairly often...and I don't think they have 'mommy issues'. And kids, we are animals.....
Robert @229.........I get what you are saying but, maybe the House of Gay should clean up it's act before joining society in marriage? Often the negative impression that people have of other people is based on something. I'm not talking about straight people that are phobic or negative either...but just regular nice people.You must admit that the gay activists are really hurting your cause...activists of any kind always do. That's just reality.Activists are attention whores stuck on stupid.....they will do anything for attention. And that is exactly the problem. Think Folsom street etc.
I have to ask....why would the police beat you up? And this:"I would not have chosen to be hit with a baseball bat while walking
down the street in Houston by a passing car full of teenage boys
screaming fag."
This is a shitty thing to have happen but why did it happen? And please understand I am asking you this question in good faith...not to trip you up. How could people have known that you were gay?

Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 08:09 PM (aUut1)

304 Being this is the one Comments Thingy that still seems to be working, I just gotta say as far as the 2 Arkansas recruiters who were hit today, "Police arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23". And that's all I gotta say. End transmission.

Posted by: Corona at June 01, 2009 08:12 PM (InjUv)

305 284...Ace...this isn't a religous blog and I'm not trying to hijack the thread. I've discussed some moral principles because my stance on gay rights is based on moral principles.
The answer to the question of why gays "exist" as asked up-thread is a really complicated answer from a moral standpoint. Essentially, God allows man to make choices and after time, the results of those choices can become so ingrained in our humanity, that we struggle to get back to the ways God intended.

I don't believe God "creates" gays.

Again, science may eventually give an answer traced to birth....though anyone who visits your site enough knows science can give us anything, if we want it bad enough.

Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 08:13 PM (YBTwf)

306 yeah i always found the animal analogy to be lacking when trying to explain the behavior. to equate animals which are driven by their instinctual traits to humans is a crock and whats worse is the ones who make the argument know it. facts are facts, homosexual behavior hasnt been explained, scientifically or otherwise. and this isnt to say that homosexuals cannot be productive and worthy citizens or even role models to a certain degree. as some on this thread would try and have you believe.

Posted by: str8 outta monongahela at June 01, 2009 08:13 PM (DkK1B)

307 Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 08:09 PM (5ugDY)

I didn't mean to imply that it was, more that, while respectful, it is a hot-button issue and does take a good amount of energy.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 08:09 PM (T0NGe)


Then I find "hoping" God is of a certain mind perfectly consistent with that statement.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:13 PM (98ywz)

308 304...I pointed out negative consequences are not a predictor of behavior. No one is addicted to meth before they try it, so addiction is not the point.

I don't pretend to know why specifically, you are gay. That's between you, your family, and God. As I said earlier, you can choose to believe what you want, but it doesn't change the unchangeable.

To my original points, the gay community is demanding society change its very fabric to satiate their political agenda. They do so using false arguments, non-existing science, and brutish tactics. I reject their demands and base my decisions on moral and philosophical grounds.

Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 08:21 PM (YBTwf)

309 Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 08:09 PM (aUut1)

You must admit that the gay activists are really hurting your cause...activists of any kind always do.

I readily admit that.

I have to ask....why would the police beat you up?

Keep in mind I was 21 at the time. An AIDS protest turned into a Bush effigy burning party. People I was with were about 200 yards away from where the effigy burning stared, then the eventual "barricades in the fire" started.

Police gave no warning at all and charged into the crowd on horseback. When this started, my group started to leave because obviously we didn't want to get caught up in it. Before I knew it I found myself running with an officer on horseback chasing behind screaming "RUN! RUN!" and he whacked me in the back with his club 3 times. Another officer jump off his horse, clipped someone running next to me in the leg, knocked them to the ground, then proceeded to beat the crap out of them.

Mind you, at this point we were a good 1000 yards away from where the effigy burning took place.

And this:"I would
not have chosen to be hit with a baseball bat while walking
down the street in Houston by a passing car full of teenage boys
screaming fag."

I was literally just walking down Westheimer street on my way to the bus stop to go to work in the Galleria.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:21 PM (98ywz)

310 Posted by: The Hammer at June 01, 2009 08:21 PM (YBTwf)


...you can choose to believe what you want, but it doesn't change the unchangeable.

Precisely my point.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:23 PM (98ywz)

311 "...committed suicide" by shooting himself 4 times."

In the chest, no less. His unfortunate "suicide" was reported by Saddam's secret police, who just coincidentally happened to be there at the same time armed with exactly the same guns and ammo he used to "kill himself." Funny that.

Posted by: Dave J. at June 01, 2009 08:23 PM (jNE9Q)

312 I was literally just walking down Westheimer street on my way to the bus stop to go to work in the Galleria.

I should say this was in the Montrose district in Houston, the "gay" part of town.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:24 PM (98ywz)

313 The bottom line is that virtually no homosexuals have married, but
marriage has fallen out of fashion for heterosexuals and so have
in-wedlock births.

Young hetero men tend to shy away from institutions that become associated with teh ghey.

Posted by: carl at June 01, 2009 08:26 PM (EX+6L)

314 Police gave no warning at all

Gee, with an open flame in the middle of the city? How gauche of them!

my group started to leave because obviously we didn't want to get caught up in it

I'm not up on my law, but isn't this "leaving the scene of a crime" or "evading arrest" or something?

Mind you, at this point we were a good 1000 yards away from where the effigy burning took place.

'Cause you ran away from it! "Hey, come on, OJ is so far away from Nicole and Ron's bodies, we should just let him go."

So on that one, no sympathy. Yet another hippie protestor who thinks that anything he does can't possibly be against the law.

I'll admit, this one caused me serious disquiet: "I would
not have chosen to be hit with a baseball bat while walking
down the street in Houston by a passing car full of teenage boys
screaming fag."I was literally just walking down Westheimer street on my way to the bus stop to go to work in the Galleria.

So guessing that there might be more to this story too, I will bite: How did they know you were gay?

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 08:32 PM (T0NGe)

315 Ah, you answered my question. So everyone got the baseball bat and epithet that day, I guess.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 08:34 PM (T0NGe)

316 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 08:32 PM (T0NGe)

So this whole respectful discourse thing is just a load of BS on your part, I see.

If you have such disdain for me, why not come out and just say it?

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:37 PM (98ywz)

317 Robert, that description you gave at 8:21 does not sound anything like "police officers indiscriminately hitting any queer they could find during the 1991 Republican National Convention in Houston."
It sounds like police discriminately hitting a bunch of goons, and you happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 08:37 PM (qx7gs)

318 Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 08:37 PM (qx7gs)

The crowd extended out about 300 yards from there the troublemakers were. When the trouble started, we started leaving.

Now, I am no match expert, but how do cops on horseback end up where I was hitting me in the back when I was that far away from where the people causing the trouble were? Why weren't they arresting the people right there causing the trouble?

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:40 PM (98ywz)

319 Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:40 PM (98ywz)

that should read "math" expert.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:41 PM (98ywz)

320 >>Ah, you answered my question. So everyone got the baseball bat and epithet that day, I guess.

I hit dorky mathematicians with bats whenever possible. Given what a cunt you are, I'm sure you understand.

I wouldn't want you to be disquieted or anything. I'll even announce my presence if you walk in my neighborhood.

Actually, that was a lie. I don't dislike all math geeks. Just you.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 08:41 PM (VW9/y)

321 Hey, Ace, would you consider Tammy Bruce a credible source on whether homosexuality is a choice? Here's a quote from her book The New American Revolution, page 230...

The most politically incorrect thing a homosexual can admit is that their sexuality is their choice. It is for me. The ongoing rhetoric in the "gay" community that we're "born this way" is patently absurd, primarily because the people making this claim have no clue what the truth is. They have no idea because it's forbidden to suggest we study or inquire about the nature of homosexuality.

Posted by: Nate at June 01, 2009 08:42 PM (HF/qk)

322 Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 08:37 PM (qx7gs)

The point is, they weren't interested in just going after the core group they already had surrounded - arresting those that started the mess. They very deliberately went after anyone in the crowd they could.

And excuse me for saying so, but you weren't there.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:43 PM (98ywz)

323 If you have such disdain for me, why not come out and just say it?

I didn't, actually. I wish you all the happiness that you can find in life. I am not sure why my approval concerns you so much, however. It shouldn't matter to you what I think of you. (Well, it should because I happen to be awesome, brilliant and awesomely brilliant, but in principle, it shouldn't matter what anyone thinks.) I'd thought that you might be more secure in yourself not to seek such approval.

Live and learn.

But then, like flenser pointed out above, you did the usual lefty tactic which is to mischaracterize an event to evoke sympathy when the facts tell otherwise. That is pretty low and now I can't trust anything that you say,

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 08:47 PM (T0NGe)

324 Robert, your question is evading the point. These cops were not out there "indiscriminately hitting any queer they could find", based on your own account of events. They were hitting a specific subset of queers, those who were taking part in an out of control "demonstration".
The fact that they were burning Bush 41 in effigy tends to undermine your previous claims that the majority of homosexuals are normal in allother respects. That's moonbat behavior. I personally hope the cops brokea few heads.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 08:48 PM (qx7gs)

325 As is usual when I arrive to one of these threads late, I haven't read all the comments, so pardon the interruption wherever the discussion has lead.

That said... one more time for the record:

You can't be prejudiced against an activity. Prejudice means you really don't know what someone is like based on their skin color, their hair color, where their parents came from, or what the name on their place of worship is, and you're making some kind of assumption based on those things, all of which are irrelevant to really knowing what a person thinks and believes. (Or, at least, somewhat irrationally biased, when it comes to religious denomination.)

Queers want equal treatment based on who they fuck. That tells me all I need to know to make an informed decision about what they're all about, just as much as if they were a child molester, or a rapist, or a polygamist.

And if you don't like the comparisons, I'm giddy with delight.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 08:53 PM (0guas)

326 Why weren't they arresting the people right there causing the trouble?

You admitted you were 1000 yards away and being hit with sticks. How do you know they weren't?

And if they weren't, why would that indicate that they were chasing people because they were gay when they had the actual perpetrators who were, presumably, also gay.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 08:53 PM (T0NGe)

327 Robert...thank you for the answers. Wouldn't it be great if people like you ....down to earth and rational....hijacked the gay rights movement back from the loons?
It seems to me that straight people get blamed for being 'intolerant' when really they are just reacting to some seriously creepy displays. Displays that I'm sure you find creepy. I know my gay friends do..they are mortified by the Sisters of Perpetual indulgence bullshit for instance.
It seems to me the cops were trouncing you because you were at an activist rally [yes, I know about being young and dumb...cesar chavez] and things were on fire. You cannot assume they were beating you up for being gay because for all you know half of them were gay.
As for the young guys screaming 'fag'.....I raised three sons and none of them are in the least bit homophobic [come on! with a tiburon princess for a mother...no way]or hateful and that was their slam against their friends for at least a year and visa versa. Then it moved on to moron...you get the picture. Look, as a woman I can honestly relate to feeling assaulted by words, but you cannot go down the path of assuming the worst about people....that leads to very bad places. Stupid teenage boys do act, well, stupidly sometimes.It's not personal..it just feels like it. And you are sensitive about the subject for good reason.
You have to have a thicker skin about it...as women have to. We get called all sorts of charming things...including 'breeder' by gay men who don't like women. That doesn't mean that everytime I meet some gay man I am going to assume he doesn't like women.
It's like marriage.....you have a good one by having a good sense of humor and a short memory.
One of the best bits of advice that was ever given to my friend Timothy is "Don't try to wear the tiara before the contest ends"...in other words...do what women always have to do....gauge the 'climate' and adjust yourself to it. Or as my grandmother would say "Honey, you can't plant corn before the field is ready".
And the 'straight field' has been so burned by the activists that it just isn't ready. So ,it's up to people like you to help change not just the image, but the reality.

Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 08:54 PM (aUut1)

328 Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 08:47 PM (T0NGe)

Well, first off, I am not seeking your approval. My comment was in response to the obvious though cleverly disguised disgust in your #321 response. I prefer to deal with people honestly with everything on the table and you are less than honest about your true feelings given the disdain dripping from those comments.

Second, my listing of the "consequences" I noted was in response to a question asking what consequences, not to invoke sympathy.

I think you have a promising career in Straw Man construction. And you never did trust anything I said, so let's not pretend that you are some high-minded person giving thoughtful consideration to an opposing viewpoint.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:56 PM (98ywz)

329 The point is, they weren't interested in just going after the core group they already had surrounded - arresting those that started the mess. They very deliberately went after anyone in the crowd they could.
Well, sure. but your earlier statement was that they were specically targeting these people for being queer. And the further detail makes it clear that they were not. If you'd been part of any mob setting stuff on fire, the cops would still have waded in and kicked some asses. And rightly so.
The moral of the story is don't take part in demonsations/ riots and be surprised if the cops whack you with a night-stick. Regardless of your sexual proclivities.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 08:57 PM (qx7gs)

330 Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 08:48 PM (qx7gs)

The majority of those protesting where _not_ invloved in the effigy burning. The vast majority there were indeed behaving peacefully.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 08:59 PM (98ywz)

331 >>Queers want equal treatment based on who they fuck. That tells me all I need to know to make an informed decision about what they're all about, just as much as if they were a child molester, or a rapist, or a polygamist.

>>And if you don't like the comparisons, I'm giddy with delight.

You can't begin to know how giddy I am to know that you are the icing on the cake to have me once again re-register as an Independent.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 09:01 PM (VW9/y)

332 Robert..."The majority of those protesting where _not_ involved in the effigy
burning. The vast majority there were indeed behaving peacefully.'
try to put yourself in the cop's shoes. It's a tough job, made even more difficult by whiners and lawyers.And you were a participant....own it.

Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 09:02 PM (aUut1)

333 I hit dorky mathematicians with bats whenever possible. Given what a cunt you are, I'm sure you understand.


Thanks, Jack, but if I were to tell the story of my persecution, I wouldn't go around mischaracterizing it.

And that's Doctor Cunt, to you.

Frankly, when Robert told the story, I wanted more details, but I wasn't going to press him on it. I was sufficiently horrified with the baseball bat incident that I didn't want to post anything that sounded like a challenge, but now I'm wondering how it went down. If it even did. Busy street, walking to work, lots of people, why him? It's Texas, did somebody take out the bastards?

I was fully willing to accept the incident as given. It's certainly not an isolated event.




I wouldn't want you to be disquieted or anything. I'll even announce my presence if you walk in my neighborhood.


Wouldn't the parallel to this incident of violent criminal behavior be your walking in my neighborhood?




Actually, that was a lie. I don't dislike all math geeks. Just you.

You seem obsessed. Want to talk about it? I could have been a psychologist but...well, you know...it's too easy.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 09:05 PM (T0NGe)

334 Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 08:54 PM (aUut1)

Actually sat down to post a thank you for extended me the benefit out the doubt. After that last comment, however, changed my mind.

Have a night night everyone.

Posted by: Robert at June 01, 2009 09:06 PM (98ywz)

335 Bye, Jack. Don't let the door... blah, blah.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 09:08 PM (0guas)

336 Look. Let's cut through all the bullshit, shall we?

For the entire history of man, yes, even places where it was "accepted", homosexuality has effectively been considered a mental disorder. This is the official position of the Catholic Church (along with stating that we should feel pity and mercy for them), and of the American Psychiatric Institute until some time in the mid 70's.

What changed it? The "research" of an incredibly sick pedophile fraud named Kinsey. His data was utterly fraudulent and worthless. But people bought it and it got the APA classification changed. Then we found out how utterly fraudulent he was. But the classification remained changed.

Oh, and back then? Gays insisted, with every bit as much ferocity as they now hold for the opposite position, that being gay was ABSOLUTELY A CHOICE, IT IS NOT GENETIC, NO WAY, YOU'RE A BASTARD BIGOT IF YOU SAY SO, because that was the argument that then best serviced the argument that it should not be considered a mental disorder.

The instant they achieved their goal using that argument, and found a new goal, they advanced the exact opposite argument to get to it.

And somehow, we're all still buying into the claims made by a pedophile fraud who literally conducted sexual experimentation on infants.

Awesome. Me, I'll go with what the APA believed before the entire issue was taken over by pedophiles and frauds. And what at least 60 centuries of recorded history agree with.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at June 01, 2009 09:09 PM (/y1J0)

337 If I was involved in a right-wing demonstraton where people started to burn Obama in effigy, that is the point where I'd realise that things were rotten and it was time to leave. I would not be sticking around to wait for a police charge. I would not even care if there was a police charge in the offing.
You say you were 21 at the time. We have all done stupid things while 21. The disturbing thing here is, I get the feeling that you still don't understand you were being dumb. All I'm getting from you is injured self righteousness. That's not an attractive trait.

Posted by: flenser at June 01, 2009 09:09 PM (qx7gs)

338 >>And that's Doctor Cunt, to you.


Nah. Just plain cunt. My credentials are at least as impressive as yours.

I'm just not as insecure as you.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 09:10 PM (VW9/y)

339 You have to have a thicker skin about it...as women have to.

Not the same. They're talking about more than just name-calling. At best it's verbal abuse, at worst, it's violence.

I get annoyed with the victim culture, but Robert is asserting stuff that passes the Fat Kid test. (I.e., is this more or less than the teasing that a fat kid would ordinarily expect?)

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 09:10 PM (T0NGe)

340 Robert...seriously?
First of all...I was not calling you a whiner or lawyer...when I reread it I realized it came out that way. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
But you did, without meaning to, prove my point for me,sadly. You are a walking victim. You assumed the worst and then got all uptight about it instead of asking a question. Do you really think that you are the most injured person on the planet, or even this thread?
Dude....stop taking yourself so seriously. It's not healthy and definitely very unproductive.
I could tell you a story that would break your heart and make you ashamed to be acting like such a victim. Remember...you do not know what burdens other people are bearing.

Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 09:13 PM (aUut1)

341 And Jack, if that's a condition for winning elections, I'll be happy to be a part
of a small, insignificant party with no power that says what I believe.
Lord knows, I haven't found one yet that really does, though Dutch did a good job of being a one-man party I could follow.

But the fact is, we've
been told for generations that conservatism can't survive without
conceding to this, that, or some other liberal trope. If you really,
finally leave us to wither and die, like you promise we will, I'd like
to see it happen. Inevitably, when we stand up for what we believe in
and shout you peckers down, we win elections.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 09:14 PM (0guas)

342 It should be stated, also, that I think it much more likely that the Republican Party officially takes Jack's position, and he's happy for a couple of years. And then the party dies, like the Whigs did. If that happens, it's inevitable. You just can't have two parties saying the same thing. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 09:18 PM (0guas)

343 "Not the same. They're talking about more than just name-calling. At best it's verbal abuse, at worst, it's violence."

I'm not getting what you are saying......who are you talking about?

Posted by: christmasghost at June 01, 2009 09:18 PM (aUut1)

344 >>Inevitably, when we stand up for what we believe in and shout you peckers down, we win elections.

peckers? You're a joke. I was a Republican before you were a thought dickhead.

Ronald Reagan had a gay son. Dick Cheney had a gay daughter. Now you want to deny people the right to believe in the same political values you share because they are gay and you are only what, black? How fucking stupid are you?

Good. You shout your joy when you get you get beat again. Me, I don't need the money or the bullshit of fighting for an ignorant party anymore.

Eat a dick, dick.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 09:25 PM (VW9/y)

345 My comment was in
response to the obvious though cleverly disguised disgust in your #321
response.

Damn. Both "obvious" and "cleverly" disguised. How did I manage that?

I think you are reading what you want to read. You have decided that it is more convenient that I be an enemy. It does make the argumentation easier.

I
think you have a promising career in Straw Man construction. And you
never did trust anything I said, so let's not pretend that you are some
high-minded person giving thoughtful consideration to an opposing
viewpoint.

Your very first response to me assumed facts that were not true. I am not married and I believe that it is unwise for society to change to encourage my lifestyle (or lack thereof) or to confer benefits because of it.

You are the one constructing straw men. I do believe that same-sex marriage is mostly not about marriage but about a need for validation. In your case, I don't think so, but most who argue for it are arguing, either directly or indirectly for social approval of gays. It's not an unreasonable argument, actually, but I don't see where marriage has to be sacrificed on that particular altar.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 09:27 PM (T0NGe)

346 Black Republican,

Welcome aboard. Ignore the dickhead. I'd much rather have you aboard and pray that JackStraw finally leaves in the perpetual huff he adopts that never seems to end.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at June 01, 2009 09:28 PM (/y1J0)

347 >>Welcome aboard. Ignore the dickhead. I'd much rather have you aboard and pray that JackStraw finally leaves in the perpetual huff he adopts that never seems to end.

No worries, numbnuts. Then it will just be you, Fred and Sarah.

Best of luck.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 09:31 PM (VW9/y)

348 My credentials are at least as impressive as yours.



I'm just not as insecure as you.

Perhaps you should be.

I mean, if you're going to do name-calling, at least be clever about it.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 09:32 PM (T0NGe)

349 "If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff." -- Groucho Marx

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 09:35 PM (T0NGe)

350 So, this survey says when a person knows a gay person, which would include all gays of course, there is only a 50-50 shot that the person will favor "gay marriage".

This is something to crow about? 30 years of unbroken positive press, governement diversity programs and political correctness and all they have managed to produced was a 50-50 shot with people who should be coducive to the idea of "gay marriage"?

Pro-lifer's have managed to better that with the general public, not just those who "know them personally" and prolifers have had nothing but unmitigated bad press and intraction from political elites. Including the government ACTIVELY funding proabortion forces to the tune of billions of dollars.


This survey is nothing to crow about, it's a fail of epic porportions.
If GM had the kind of support that gays have had over the last 30 years from the elites everybody in the country would be driving a shitty pontiac and GM would be bailing us out instead of the other way around.


Posted by: Rocks at June 01, 2009 09:37 PM (3RHzM)

351
someone hits you in the head..
You Shoot Them..

only way they're gonna learn.

there been a little more shootin..woulda been
a lot less bashin'

tony
south haven

Posted by: Tony LaVanway at June 01, 2009 09:38 PM (EPE/m)

352 >>Perhaps you should be.

>>I mean, if you're going to do name-calling, at least be clever about it.

You mean like saying as you have every day that lawyers suck? Constantly. Incessantly. Endlessly.

Nah, I'll leave that little bit of cleverness to you.

Oh and Quinn, no need to keep putting your name at the end of every post. It's in that little name box right below your name. You must have noticed that by now.

Or do you just love seeing your name?

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 09:39 PM (VW9/y)

353 I used to be in favor of gay marriage, but three years ago a gay friend of mine... really nice guy, and politically moderate... unintentionally showed me that the whole gay marriage movement was, in fact, just another front in the war on Christianity.

I knew then that I'd have to take sides in that culture war, and I chose to side with the Christians. Christianity has, overall, been far more beneficial to society than homosexuality has.

Full-on libertarianism was no longer an option for me, because I realize now that opposing conservatives on one front weakens them on others. I decided it was far better to work for a world that's, say, 80% perfect than to take my ball and go home in the face of anything short of 100% perfection.

Posted by: Nate at June 01, 2009 09:39 PM (HF/qk)

354 Since then, I've come around to believing that social conservatives are actually correct on abortion and gay marriage, which were really my last two liberal hold-out positions.

Posted by: Nate at June 01, 2009 09:46 PM (HF/qk)

355 I heart Dick Cheney

Posted by: LAsue at June 01, 2009 09:48 PM (pYouB)

356 Yeah, Dick Cheney is pretty awesome. That's one opinion of mine that will never change.

Posted by: Nate at June 01, 2009 09:50 PM (HF/qk)

357 You mean like saying as you have every day that lawyers suck? Constantly. Incessantly. Endlessly.

Ah, hits home, eh? I thought that might be it, but I didn't want to assume.

You people gave us Obama. He is a "smart lawyer", remember? That was his major credential: smart lawyer. In the top something of his class at Harvard.

Won't release any transcripts, mind you, but trust us, he's super-smart.

Well, where do all of those great lawyer brains get us? For one they get us Sotomayor, who not only thinks she's "wise" (how's that for arrogance?) but that she has the right to impose that wisdom upon us.

The legal profession, which never stops patting itself on the back and viewing its own success stories as potential dictators for us all, are the most dangerous people in this republic.

They deserve to be taken down about 100 pegs and if I have to remind them that they found my subject difficult and I find theirs to be trivial, I don't mind doing so.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 09:52 PM (T0NGe)

358
piece of paper,is not gonna make
Ma and Pa happy,about the fact that they will not have any grandkids.

tony
south haven

Posted by: Tony LaVanway at June 01, 2009 09:54 PM (EPE/m)

359 I was a Republican before you were a thought dickhead.




Which is why, as I just said, I've never been a huge fan of the
Republican Party, per se. (My nom notwithstanding - it's a historical
reference, not a personal label.) If the party wants to continue to be
you - or, factoring in what Dutch led it to become, return to being you
- so be it. As soon as the party stops lauding him as a great
conservative Republican, and says that's become a contradiction in terms, I'll
be happy to be one to take his ball and find another party. Until then,
I say it's still a fight for what we are to be.





Ronald Reagan had a gay son.




Nice attempt to smear him with the stigma of identity politics, but how
did it affect his political beliefs, if ever? He opposed gay rights
legislation, but also opposed Briggs. Good for him - it
was borderline, if not outright, unconstitutional. You can't tell
people what to think. You can restrict their behavior, and engender a
culture that fosters certain taboos short of censorship, but you can't
control thought.



So that's why I'm saying all this. You get your say, and I get mine,
and people out there can decide which is the better way. I'm just sick
of being told I have to shut up and hide my beliefs from the rest of the country or (cry!) we'll lose another election. Since when did conservatism begin to base ideology on political outcome?

THIS is what conservatism is. If you want to stay a Republican, and you want Republicanism to be some big tent country club where everybody gets to belong, fine - you can keep it. But I'm going to stand up for conservatism, and wherever that is accepted, that will be my party.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 10:06 PM (0guas)

360 Something to keep in mind:

There are 6 billion humans on this planet. It is almost undoubtedly true that some people are "born gay" and some people "choose gay" out of that population. Think of them as the tails in the normal distribution.

But too many of you are arguing by example and the examples you choose are in those tails.

The average person does not choose their sexual gender preference. Some few do.

--------------------

But we would all be better served if the government was THE HELL OUT OF PERSONAL ISSUES LIKE MARRIAGE.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at June 01, 2009 10:07 PM (1Bods)

361 Is there anyone living today that doesn't know someone that's gay? Hard to fathom...

BTW Amish Dude, I'm a lawyer and I think from the comments there are a lot of lawyers on this site, but don't think any of us are either dangerous or believe that we are more wise than anyone else (and I certainly didn't "give" you Obama or Sotomayor).

Posted by: LAsue at June 01, 2009 10:10 PM (pYouB)

362 I believe sexual preference is always a choice. It's usually a choice made deep down on a subconscious level, where we're not even aware of it, but still a choice.

Posted by: Nate at June 01, 2009 10:11 PM (HF/qk)

363 I live in Houston and the police have gone beyond the call of duty protecting ungrateful, embelishers like Robert during their yearly pride parades and street fairs for decades.

Posted by: polynikes at June 01, 2009 10:12 PM (ZsWLi)

364 It is almost undoubtedly true that some people are "born gay"

Sorry, that's an assumption I'm not about to concede. It might be proven someday that some people are more predisposed by biology than others to make the choice, but I believe in the end they are all made by their environment.

But we would all be better served if the government was THE HELL OUT OF PERSONAL ISSUES LIKE MARRIAGE.

That is the libertarian argument at its root, and I am a conservative. There are some things that drift into the public sphere as a social plus or minus, and the people of the states have the right to encourage and discourage them as they see fit.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 10:17 PM (0guas)

365 I also think gay activists actually agree with me that sexuality is a choice, and this is why they're so desperate to teach our children about it earlier and earlier in their childhoods... so the seed of this choice can be planted in their subconsciousnesses as early as possible.

Posted by: Nate at June 01, 2009 10:19 PM (HF/qk)

366 That last right, of course, is protected by the 10th Amendment. That poor bastard of an amendment hardly gets any respect.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 10:19 PM (0guas)

367 >>Which is why, as I just said, I've never been a huge fan of the Republican Party, per se. (My nom notwithstanding - it's a historical reference, not a personal label.)

Then change it. Are you handicapped or an idiot?

You chose it. Start showing some personal responsibility and stop blaming your mother.

>>If the party wants to continue to be you - or, factoring in what Dutch led it to become, return to being you - so be it. As soon as the party stops lauding him as a great conservative Republican, and says that's become a contradiction in terms, I'll be happy to be one to take his ball and find another party. Until then, I say it's still a fight for what we are to be.

Sorry, I only speak English. If you want to argue with me you have to speak it.

>>Nice attempt to smear him with the stigma of identity politics, but how did it affect his political beliefs, if ever?

Ronald Reagan had a gay son.

Are you a functional retatrd? His son was gay. He still is. This is not in dispute. Neither is the fact that when Reagan was governor of CA he signed the most expansive abortion law in the history of the US. Are you denying any of this

>>THIS is what conservatism is

Thanks, sparky. But seeing as you are wrong on what you think you know, I think I"ll just go with what I think conservatism is,



Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 10:21 PM (VW9/y)

368 Well, so will I, Jack.

Posted by: Nate at June 01, 2009 10:22 PM (HF/qk)

369 And nobody's perfect; not even Reagan. But he was still pretty awesome, overall.

Posted by: Nate at June 01, 2009 10:24 PM (HF/qk)

370 It's a great source of shame for me that I didn't appreciate Reagan while he was President. But I get it now.

Posted by: Nate at June 01, 2009 10:26 PM (HF/qk)

371 Jack, one of us is illiterate, historically ignorant, and completely unaware of who he is talking to. And the view in my mirror proves it's not me.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 10:26 PM (0guas)

372 >>Jack, one of us is illiterate, historically ignorant, and completely unaware of who he is talking to. And the view in my mirror proves it's not me.

Get a new mirror, junior.


You want to preach to me, you better do a hell of a lot better than you have.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 10:31 PM (VW9/y)

373 Reagan had a gay son?

Ohhh...so that explains why Ron JR. was an a-hole.
It all makes sense now.

Posted by: Tony LaVanway at June 01, 2009 10:34 PM (EPE/m)

374 I can preach all I want, Jack. I don't require from my listeners that they hear.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 10:40 PM (0guas)

375 No society thatnormalizes homosexuality will survive for long. They never have in the past; they never will. It is fundamentally depraved immoral and obviously insane to anyone not deluded by their social environment or their own depravity.
It's also completely incompatible with the Bible, fwiw. So, support it all you want, but don't say you haven't been warned.
Is that discriminatory? Yes.
Is it the truth? Also yes.

Posted by: Salamantits at June 01, 2009 10:47 PM (Vz1WE)

376 >>I can preach all I want, Jack. I don't require from my listeners that they hear.

That can't possibly be all you got after your indignant rants and speeches. Let me help you.

"Jack, I'm sorry that I was an asshole with the preachy horsheshit I said. You were right. I'm sorry."

I thought your listeners would appreciate some honesty after your false sanctimony, black repub.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2009 10:49 PM (VW9/y)

377 Discriminatory, yes. Prejudiced, no. Except in Newspeak, these things are not always synonymous.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 10:52 PM (0guas)

378 God what nonsense. Does knowing an alcohlic or a drug addict make you more sympathic to their plight? People are responsible for their actions and engaging in unatural beavior is an action that can only lead to disgrace, shame, and probably to death.

Now tell me again why I should care about the behavior of somebody seeking sex in a public bathroom?

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 01, 2009 11:08 PM (B8gqF)

379 Might even be prejudiced--in the same way a law allowing a State to bar known trannies from teaching, based onthe fact that "Transvestites are mentally ill", is prejudiced to TV's.
But, either way, it's morally ethicallycorrect discrimination/prejudice because a society has an absolute right to approve or disapprove of certain lifestyleslegislatively. In fact, it is the duty of a society's legislative body to protect the societal norms that put it in place.

Posted by: Salamantits at June 01, 2009 11:09 PM (Vz1WE)

380 If you screw a guy in pooter,while you
were in prison,dos'nt mean you the ghey?
screw a guy's pooter is sooo ghey..
guy whose says that,guess what he did while in jail?

pleeasee..you think i just fell off turnip truck?

next thing you try to tell me is extramarital oral sex is not really cheating.

hah.. nice try..

tony
south haven

Posted by: Tony LaVanway at June 01, 2009 11:13 PM (EPE/m)

381 Yes, Jack, Reagan approved an expansive abortion law when he was governor. He was, in fact, a Democrat at one point. HOLY CRAP! If he was once a Democrat, THAT DELEGITIMIZES HIM IN EVERY WAY!

Oh wait. No it doesn't. Cause no one remembers or cares about Reagan from when he was a Democrat. They care about who he became after he grew up and got a conscience. That's why he wrote a book called "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation." Hint: it does kinda eschew what he did as a governor in pretty much every way.

So explain to us why his vote as a governor matters in even the most minimal way.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at June 01, 2009 11:40 PM (/y1J0)

382 Salamantits, your example proves it's not prejudice.You're saying the
transvestite's activities (cross-dressing) are themselves an improper
act violating societal norms and justifying legislative action. Thus,
the transvestite is not being "pre-judged" based on irrelevant
criteria. The state can discriminate legally, but prejudice is not an
issue.




That's the heart of my argument. Queer advocates rely on a "civil
rights" agenda to force their viewpoint on a public that is predisposed
against them, but that has previously learned that prejudice is evil. To counter to this tactic, we need to deny the queers the use
of civil rights language and teach the public to enforce its own mores
- which is both valid and legal.



Jack and his friends can then call us names in return - which, as we've
seen, is exactly what they do - but then it's a discussion about the
kind of culture that a state wants. I think most Americans would welcome a society where "gay" is once more a stigma (but not much more than that!), if only they were allowed to say so in public again. And nothing is preventing that except when we keep our mouths shut and allow the opposite to run the culture.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 01, 2009 11:40 PM (0guas)

383 BTW Amish Dude, I'm a lawyer and I think from the
comments there are a lot of lawyers on this site, but don't think any
of us are either dangerous or believe that we are more wise than anyone
else (and I certainly didn't "give" you Obama or Sotomayor).

I contend that you are out of the mainstream, LAsue.

A few statistics: there is 1 lawyer in the US for every 265 Americans. The next country is Brazil where the ratio is 1:326. No country comes close to the Byzantine legal system we have. Nobody's afraid of breaking the law. Everybody's afraid of getting sued.

The good people of California pass a proposition -- any proposition, it's never done. We have to wait on tenterhooks to see if some activist judge will slap it down.

Our whole government has become an oligarchy of the legal profession. We are a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers.

But my real ire is for what passes for scholarship in the universities, and the law schools are part of this. That wretched course Obama taught at UChicago was nothing but pseudointellectual claptrap at best, but it is exactly what one can expect from a 4 year education in the wussmanities.

The legal profession is lead from the top by people like Sotomayor who think that success in an easy subject entitles her to rule. I am absolutely stunned at people who point to someone and say that he's smart because of some success in law school or in the legal profession. There are some true geniuses out there and they don't really find the negative commerce clause all that challenging.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 01, 2009 11:46 PM (bZ9KY)

384 TBR, I don't think homosexuality should be stigmatized or that the law should have any role in doing so. Homosexuality generally operates outside of mainstream society because of the lack of natural procreation and will continue to do so unless forced into a mainstream role by law.

I don't want the law used for social engineering, even if it's the kind that I want.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 02, 2009 12:00 AM (bZ9KY)

385 theblackrepublican 389: I meant prejudiced in a non-pejorative sense, as with "discriminating", and was pre-emptively ceding a potential quibble,but I think you make a much more relevant point vis-avis the hijacking of the language of civil rights.
Don't be too hard on those not speaking out--there is nothing but trouble for all who do--it's very costly in social terms, in money (often) inblood. The delusion that "it"is normalis widespread, too; many don't know anything else!
And, I'd like to add, that we musn't forget the historical complicityof the(spit)psychiatric community in all this...

Posted by: Salamantits at June 02, 2009 12:05 AM (Vz1WE)

386 Nate@372.......good point. I hadn't thought of it that way....hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Posted by: christmasghost at June 02, 2009 12:27 AM (aUut1)

387 Thanks AmishDude, I misspoke. I usually try to distinguish between homosexuality and homosexual conduct, and there I slipped. I believe homosexuality should be viewed (and where possible, treated) as a mental disorder, but most homosexual conduct should be ignored by the law. The only time it should be relevant is with regard to attempts to sanction the act itself as normal or part of a relationship protected by law.

I make the distinction between protecting those dealing with homosexuality from harm and "unnecessary" discrimination, while still stigmatizing the act and those who flaunt the "lifestyle". Yes, there's lots of grey area there, and a lot is wide open to interpretation, but I don't see this as an issue with any easy fix.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 02, 2009 12:28 AM (0guas)

388 I am looking for a big man to be kind to me. Am submissive and partial to chains.

Being queer makes me feel so feminine.

Posted by: T DUB at June 02, 2009 01:15 AM (B8gqF)

389 "The most likely cause of homosexuality is the particular hormone mix (and other chemical catalysts) that a growing embryo is subjected to in the womb.

This isn't a gene thing."

The evidence I've seen is that a lot of female homosexuality is linked with testosterone levels in the uterus, but that male homosexuality is more likely to be genetic.

Also, the greater plasticity of female sexuality means that homosexuality-as-choice would likely be more widespread among females.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 02, 2009 02:01 AM (TpmQk)

390 God I love Dick Cheney. He's a neo-con + libertarian after my own heart.

Basically agree with him here: (1) I'm in favor of instituting something like civil partnerships for gay couples; (2) it should be up to the states. I'm agnostic-- even ambivalent-- on the extension of the word "marriage" though.

There's some real stupidity on this thread (please tell me some of these are sockpuppets or mobys), along with some good good-faith argument. But just want to reply to the 'anti-social' thing.

If you want to argue that homosexuals or the practice of homosexuality are 'anti-social' in some sense, to our society as it's presently constituted, go ahead & try (I don't buy it at all, but good luck). But the argument that it's *intrinsically* anti-social is patently false-- and there's no need to resort to the non-human animal kingdom to show this.

Easiest to dispose of is the "mule" argument-- that a community of non-child-bearing individuals, who do not participate in the institution of the "family," is by its very nature not productive to society. First counterexample that comes to mind: the institutions of the monastery & convent in the Middle Ages-- pretty damn fundamental to the preservation & continuity & some very important innovations of Western civilization. (As a libertarian & individualist, I find the the axiom that 'pro-social' necessarily = 'child-bearing' prima facie absurd, but if you want to come at me with the Bible, I'd suggest reading, oh, some St. Paul & St. Augustine, for starters.)

Re homosexuality specifically: you only need to read some Plato (or some Greco-Roman history) to discover that the practice of (what we would call) 'homosexuality' actually had a very important social function, was, for example, actually integrated into the educational institution of the academy, and the pedagogical cultivation of 'youth' into 'man' & 'citizen'. The wise mentor/ tutor was often the 'lover' (penetrator) of the student (penetratee) he was educating into becoming a man, citizen of the polis. Plato's Socrates actually presents himself as the exception in this regard-- admiring the beauty of his student Alicibiades but refraining from physically seducing him (because the 'beauty' that matters is Beauty as Form, which points to the Form of the Good, yadda yadda). (Something of this classical tradition survived in the British boarding school, no?) Beyond this, there was also much in the practice & rhetoric of philia (friendship/love) among men that had (what we would call) a 'homosexual' component.

I'm not defending these practices (& in fact would abhor anything like this 'pedagogy' in our society) or making any claims other than refuting the thesis that homosexuality, by its very nature, has been in all historical societies (and specifically those most important to the Western tradition, eg Greco-Roman antiquity) conceived as, or in practice turned out to be, 'anti-social'.

How these historical facts fit into the nature/culture, biology/choice debate, is trickier. (And I don't want to get all Foucauldian here.) My own belief: I think there's a predominant, actually deterministic biological component to sexual preference/ attraction-- certainly deterministic at the poles: the heterosexual majority (the biological 'norm'-- 'norm' in a descriptive not prescriptive sense) & most of those who identify as homosexual *cannot but* feel sexual desire-- which, in humans, is sublimated & develops into what we call romantic 'love'-- for the other/ same sex. We/ they can't help it. However, I do believe in something like the Kinsey scale-- a range, between the poles, in the possibility of feeling sexual desire-- or at least taking sexual pleasure in-- the 'other' other.

I'll be my own example: I'm a straight girl, i.e. definitely heterosexual, who's never in my life felt desire for another woman-- but I occasionally have sexual fantasies involving women. (I suspect this may be more common among women than men?) There's a difference between, say, Cary Grant & Marlon Brando & Mick Jagger etc. (who each had male lovers, but I think of as heterosexual), and Rock Hudson (who I think of as-- albeit closeted-- completely *gay*)-- or, like, Elton John. So historical/cultural variation in the coding of 'homosexual' behavior (as accepted, socialized, or outlawed & abhorred) is superimposed on biological variability-- allowing for a realm of cultural influence on the proportion of individuals in a society who may 'choose' to engage in some homosexual activity-- but this doesn't negate the fact of biological determinism on the primary orientation of a human being, heterosexual/ homosexual.

Anyway, as a straight girl, I'll just end with the confession that-- I've always had kind of a weird crush on Cheney. He's on my list of 'old guy' celebrity crushes, along with Gene Hackman & Brian Cox... (& maybe, now, Brian Dennehy?)

Posted by: lael at June 02, 2009 06:10 AM (ulEmZ)

391 Re homosexuality specifically: you only need to read some Plato (or some Greco-Roman history) to discover that the practice of (what we would call) 'homosexuality' actually had a very important social function blah blah blah at great length.
Yes, I stipulated that manycivilizations accepted the practice of homosexuality, and pointed out that exactly none of them ever instituted homosexual marriage. You know, the topic we are discussing? But you were too busy admiring your own intelligence and too intent on trotting out your Philosophy 101 to notice what I was saying.
Easiest to dispose of is the "mule" argument-- that a community of non-child-bearing individuals, who do not participate in the institution of the "family," is by its very nature not productive to society.
And yet you fail to dispose of it, unless you actually accept your own idiotic equation of homosexuals to religious orders. You also skip gayly(!) past the points being made - that a society can tolerate only a small minority of mules, and that they impose a cost which idealy is compensated for in other respects. The religious orders for instance, gave back more to society than they took out. The same cannot be said of organized homosexuality.
As a libertarian individualist, I find the the axiom that 'pro-social' necessarily = 'child-bearing' prima facie absurd
Your being a "libertarian individualist" explains much. But once again you are way off base. Child bearing= pro-social for the blindingly obvious reason that there is no society without people. And, pending the arrival of the libertarian millenium, there are no people without child bearing. Why do I get the feeling libertarians imagine that people spring forth fully formed from the ground?

Posted by: flenser at June 02, 2009 07:19 AM (BAy7M)

392 47 Former President Andrew Johnson was appointed as US Senator from Tennessee, but he died before he could assume office. Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at June 01, 2009 03:56 PM (PWLfW)


Actually Andrew Johnson won election to the Senate from Tennessee but died shortly after taking office.

Posted by: Scipio at June 02, 2009 07:24 AM (rRNqo)

393 From what I heard Dick wasn't talking about marriage, as in the term 'marriage', he was refering to the rights of couples. Plus he was refering to lesbians, and bisexual females, and nothing else

Posted by: Eric at June 02, 2009 08:06 AM (N+w6G)

394 flenser:

But I'm all for child-bearing, and child-bearing families, as a preeminent societal value! As something essential for our society to encourage & preserve & culturally enshrine-- even, I'd be willing to grant, as the *primary* social value & form of life! (Even if it weren't a personal choice for myself. I'm a libertarian, but I'm also very sympathetic, philosophically, to conservatism.) I'd agree, for example, that's a definite demographic advantage the US has over Europe.

I would just strongly disagree with the view that that's the *only* pro-social, productive, valuable form of life for an individual to pursue, voluntarily or involuntarily, in our society. Or the only form of life we would want to grant societal value to. (It would certainly *not* be in our-- conservative-- interest to disallow non-child-bearing individuals from participating in or contributing to society, or from feeling that they are or can do so.) And I just don't think homosexuals or homosexuality or the hypothetical institution of gay marriage pose any kind of threat to that value or that institution (the value of the child-bearing family)-- given the invariant biological facts: homosexuals will always be a biological minority; & homosexuality will always be, if not marginal, certainly *secondary* to the institution of heterosexual marriage/family. (That was the case, of course, in Greco-Roman society as well.)

The primary threats to the institution of the child-bearing family, I would argue, really don't have much if anything to do with homosexuality. (E.g., i's not like there are less homosexuals in America than in Europe. Homosexuality doesn't seem to me a factor here.) And there's a case to be made (not that I would make it, but it's arguable) that the institution of gay marriage would further the societal value of the child-bearing family-- as a value for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

Posted by: lael at June 02, 2009 08:10 AM (ulEmZ)

395 @drizzle,

You are, in fact, as stupid as you sound.Here is the quotation to which I referred:

"Being gay is NOT the same as being black, etc. One is a fact of genteics, the other a choice of behavior."

Look familiar?

Posted by: NJconservative at June 02, 2009 08:48 AM (/Ywwg)

396 PS Flenser, in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't referring to you in re the "stupidity" I perceived in this thread (especially 2 or 3 examples of it): even though I very strongly disagreed with you, for me you were more part of the "good faith" argument in it.

Posted by: lael at June 02, 2009 09:11 AM (ulEmZ)

397 I should be able to pop a few heads in Studio City with this one:

HEY
GUESS WHO
SUPPORTS
GAY MARRIAGE?

*flip sign*

DICK CHENEY

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 02, 2009 10:09 AM (TgXQ+)

398 What exactly is the gay agenda, new shoes?

Just because a guy is a cock gobbler, butt pirate, or cum catcher does not mean that he's out to destroy the country. The same is true for women who eat carpet.

The real tragedy is that there are so many lesbians who either don't know how to use a camcorder, or who have been denied camcorders to begin with. Lesbian sex acts that are not preserved on tape and promptly uploaded to the internet are lost to the sands of time forever.

Posted by: Lee at June 02, 2009 10:23 AM (xOpTz)

399 Being gay is not a choice. If it were then no one would be gay.

I am straight. I am intensely attracted to women. I'm like a fucking junkie when it comes to females. So why would I choose to go against my basic nature and pursue a sexual relationship with another man, especially when doing so would subject me to public shame and ridicule?

If you are a guy, just imagine for a moment that some guy is holding his cock out in front of your face and expecting you to suck on it. Is that something you would want to do?

Now imagine that there is an attractive young woman lying naked on a king sized bed, beckoning for you to join her. What is your inclination now?

Being gay is not a choice but a birth and/or developmental defect. This is tragic, but it isn't a matter of choice.

Expecting gay people to choose not to be gay is like expecting mini-me to choose to grow taller. Ain't gonna happen.

Some will of course argue that gays can choose not to act on their homosexual desires. That is true, but why should they have to? It is also interesting that virtually everyone who makes such an argument is actively involved in heterosexual sex, or desperately wishes that they were.


Posted by: Lee at June 02, 2009 10:52 AM (xOpTz)

400 A Gallup poll recently confirmed the obvious: knowing someone who's gay makes you more sympathetic to the gay agenda.

Unless who you know is my cousin. Ugh. That guy is creepy.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at June 02, 2009 11:50 AM (sNAzZ)

401 Ace, no, people don't -just- go gay for the reasons I mentioned, it's just grease for the skids.

I've noticed that gay men tend to fall largely into one of two categories:

1) They were abused as a kid, usually by a family member. This basically just screws them up royally.

2) For whatever reason (but usually looks and wealth), women throw themselves at these guys. These guys never ever had a challenge getting laid by women. They quickly came to find women boring. They eventually simply lost interest in women, and moved on to men as the new thrill.

I'm sure there are gays who fall into neither category, but I bet 90% fall in one or the other.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at June 02, 2009 12:58 PM (/y1J0)

402 @Lee,

Please reevaluate your statement that "[t]he real tragedy is that there are so many lesbians who either don't
know how to use a camcorder, or who have been denied camcorders to
begin with." I lived in The Bay Area for twenty years. I would run screaming from the room, scarred for life, if I saw explicit sex between some of the unbelievably ugly, masculine, angry, and just plain nasty looking (and nasty) dikes who seem to inhabit much of San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley.

These chicks, on the other hand are a different story, but alas, I never saw them.

Posted by: NJconservative at June 02, 2009 12:59 PM (/Ywwg)

403 I can attest to the fact that my two mommies kept me in a dog kennel till I was twenty three and feed me on a diet of Bovril and humas till Palin Steele looked good to me.

I swear I am hetero, although I have done the nasty with Palin as often as I can unless I get lucky at the tube lou.

Posted by: T DUB at June 02, 2009 01:58 PM (B8gqF)

404 The Black Republican,

So you doubt that even one person out of 6 billion is "born gay"? Really?

That's a bizarre contention. Some people are born with 6 arms. Or 5 nipples. Or a dead twin inside them. Some are born twins to 2 different fathers. Some are born with both male and female sexual organs.

But somehow the idea that one person is "born gay" is simply too much for you to fathom? I think your belief is difficult to support, at best. And by the odds it's down right unlikely.

Keep the faith.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at June 02, 2009 02:25 PM (1Bods)

405 Is Cheney simply saying that the states ought to have the right to decide the issue, or is he suggesting how they decide it?

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 02, 2009 02:45 PM (b68Df)

406 "I'll be my own example: I'm a straight girl, i.e. definitely
heterosexual, who's never in my life felt desire for another woman--
but I occasionally have sexual fantasies involving women."

Okay....whoa....waaaay too much information............

god...what was the phrase? intellectual preening + creepy in your face mental images=

Posted by: christmasghost at June 02, 2009 02:47 PM (aUut1)

407 Nom de Blog 411:
No one has been born gay in a trillion births in the same way that no one has been born an arsonist.Homosexuality is a psychological abberation, not a congenital defect. Sex is genetic; sexuality is conditioned. Perhaps if you examined your own sexuality biography more honestly, rather than with an eye to self-justification?

Posted by: Salamantits at June 02, 2009 03:42 PM (Vz1WE)

408 Salamantits,

It's funny that you would assume me gay. I'll be sure to note that you're convinced anybody who disagrees with you is a psychological freak who simply must like to fuck other dudes. Your pathologies notwithstanding...

And given that you're a new commenter and I've been here for about 6 years, you might want to be a bit more careful with the name calling.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at June 02, 2009 04:31 PM (1Bods)

409 Nom de Blog,
"Name calling"? Well, that's an interesting negative reaction to having been mistaken for a homosexual for someone that appeared to have the same dificulty understanding the basic nature of it that most homosexuals do.I apologise for assuming, if that's what yuo need;but are youreally sosurpised at this assumption, given that it was on a thread about homosexuality and you were taking an apparently "pro-normalization" stance?.
Of course, now that your reaction has shown your agreement with the basic contention thathomosexuality is aberrant, I'm lead to wonder what you find so hard to believe about someone else agreeing with it, too.
And my suggestion to look to your own sexuality biographywill still offer the same rewards relative to this debate regardless of how you identify yourself.

Posted by: Salamantits at June 02, 2009 05:39 PM (Vz1WE)

410 Salamantis,

You're full of shit. You meant to call me abnormal by the very definition you offered in your comment @ 414. I simply parroted what you wrote and noted that you meant to give offense. I don't ever take offense from yahoos on the internet. You will find that I count you among that number.

The fact that you have no chance whatsoever of proving there has never been anybody "born gay" is obvious. It is you that must prove your case. You say not only has it never happened but that it can never happen. That's quite the negative you believe you can prove. I'll wait patiently here for you to be the first person in history to prove such a case.

My case is much simpler. With all the biological diversity in humankind, there has likely been at least one person "born gay" even if the vast number of self-identified gays are not "born gay". Note that I don't have to prove nearly so much as you.

But the idea that you would take to name calling and spurious attacks does say a bit about you. Were you born a name caller? Were you born with the innate ability to prove negatives? What about your biological make up causes you to be so prone to assumptions about other people you've never met?

Are you possibly mad at me because I fucked your sister and/or your mom? If so, you wouldn't be the first.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at June 02, 2009 06:03 PM (1Bods)

411 You're doing a lot of harumphing for someone who isn't offended.
My contention is that sexuality is not congenitally determined. The number of births is immaterial to that contention, sowhat you're asking me to prove is, to say the least, a digression.You disagree with me. I must now live with that, with being full of shit,and withthe fact that you fucked my sister and/or mother...



It would all be a lot simpler if you just admitted you were a homo...

Posted by: Salamantits at June 02, 2009 07:23 PM (Vz1WE)

412 Salamantits,

You're apparently not bright enough to differentiate "harumphing" from "making fun of the dumb kid".

You are arguing sexuality can never be genetically determined. Therefore, you must prove the negative. I am still patiently waiting for that proof.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at June 02, 2009 07:47 PM (1Bods)

413 Nom de Blog,
I'm STATING that sexuality in human beings ISN'T genetically determined. I drew an analogy between being homosexual to being an arsonist. I don't require any proof of that because, to me, it is self-evident. I'm happy for you to disagree with me and don't feel any need to satisfy your petulant demands.
Unless you're actually saying that some arsonists are that way because of their genes? Then I take it back; your demands are not petulant, they're purile.
And you're right again--I'm just not bright enough to see that you're not exercised unduly by being mistaken for a fag; you're simply mocking a mushwit child. Simple!
Whatever you have to tell yourself...

Posted by: Salamantits at June 02, 2009 09:09 PM (Vz1WE)

414 Salamantits,
You're arguing something without any proof whatsoever and you're happy with that. I applaud your willingness to admit your own idiocy. Not many people will admit they base their opinions on whim alone.

Perhaps psychopaths aren't ever born either. Would you care to argue that? I mean, you're positive that arsonists and gays share all the important similarities necessary to analogize them. (A little reductio ad absurdum never hurt anybody, I suppose.)

Or perhaps you'll argue nobody is born with Down's Syndrome. Or manic depression. Or lithium imbalances. Since none of those things are analogous to homosexuality, you may as well argue those silly points as well.

But in your world I'm sure it all makes wonderful sense. And of course I'm butt fucking dudes in that make believe world of yours too. Because nobody could possibly disagree with your biological belief who wasn't a fudge packer.

Tell me, what other classifications have you generated in your happy place?

Posted by: Nom de Blog at June 02, 2009 10:11 PM (1Bods)

415 I do not know whether the speed is also a problem, there is always some problems, but this game is really good, I like it very much, pictures are so beautiful, I have a website. I will do a good job in the network as soon as poss Very grateful to the producers, has brought us such a good picture.Why I went to a map which, when there will be a shadow in the flash? Many aspects of the game I think the United States than in Japan too strong, and true, vivid, clear, great.ible, then enjoy the game happy. I want to say is, your viewpoint is not wrong, but many people do not like the idea we can not make generalizations, the need to prove that it is completely correct, it is not easy, so I only wrote his own opinion; on alibaba like sony and you can compete? Who said it was not clear, of course, it is entirely different industries, but how can you did a few years whether they need to compete with a market? Or too short a lot of things that, like a happy life, and I wish you good luck, I wish everyone good luck. 杭州店面装修上天ge强寻杭州办公室装修杭州江干区空调维修产有f中杭州室内装修中drd联在缝纫机维修风进矿产要地T恤衫腻子粉银行pos机pos机代办反向链接杭州搬家公司杭州复印机出租杭州搬家杭州搬家seo杭州植物租赁杭州花卉租赁银行POS机杭州花卉出租杭州花卉公司seo文化衫

Posted by: jack.q at June 08, 2009 08:32 PM (6xZR+)

416 Long past the expiration date, but since I tripped back here I'll answer this:

So you doubt that even one person out of 6 billion is "born gay"? Really? That's
a bizarre contention. Some people are born with 6 arms. Or 5 nipples.
Or a dead twin inside them. Some are born twins to 2 different fathers.
Some are born with both male and female sexual organs.

Correct on all counts. Find me same-sex twins born fully sexualized and engaged in the act. Then we'll have a common frame of reference to talk about this.

Posted by: The Black Republican at November 01, 2009 02:26 PM (63u7J)

417 Compared with other softwares, the MPEG4 Converter Mac
is so powerful and easy-to-use, You can free download it right now!
FREE! NO SPYWARE! NO ADWARE! If you happenly want to convert VOB to
MPEG4 mac, I highly recommend this VOB to MPEG4 Converter for Mac to
you. Specially designed for mac users, this conversion tool can be a
good helper when converting VOB to MPEG4 on mac os x. Not only convert
VOB to MPEG4 mac, this VOB to MPEG4 Mac is able to convert between any
video formats on mac, both general video and HD video are supported.



VOB to MPEG4 Mac enable mac users to convert their favorate video with
various formats to portable devices like iPad, iPhone, iPhone 4, iPhone
3Gs, etc. Therefore, you can share video/audios everywhere at anytime.



If you need, here also provides you with the following two tools which is as perfect as MPEG4 Converter Mac.



VOB to MPEG4 Mac



MOV to MPEG4 Mac

Posted by: MPEG4 Converter Mac at November 17, 2010 07:16 AM (7XK2b)

418 thanx for all ...

خلفيات
صور خلفيات
توبيكات
نكات
j,fd;hj
topics
توبيكات جديده
توبيكات للماسنجر
توبيكات 2010
يوتيوب
فيديو
العاب بنات
العاب
العاب دلع
العاب
العاب جديدة
العاب فلاش
العاب للبنات فقط
games
صور
images
افلام
movies
دليل
دليل مواقع
توبيكات
توبيكات دلع
منتدى
منتديات
كيوت
مركز تحميل
ديزاين
شات
شات
دردشة
تصميم مواقع
تصميم ستايلات
تصميم منتديات
بحث توبيكات
بحث توبيكات جديدة
توبيكات RSS
توبيكات العيد
توبيكات رمضانية
توبيكات منوعه
توبيكات ملونه
توبيكات رومانسية
توبيكات خالد الفيصل
توبيكات رياضية
توبيكات اسماء
توبيكات اغاني
توبيكات انجليزية
توبيكات عربية
توبيكات مضحكة
توبيكات حزينه
توبيكات اسلامية
صور كيوت
تحميل صور
العاب مغامرات
العاب مراحل
العاب ايمو
العاب اكشن
action games
العاب ذكاء
العاب تركيز
العاب تلوين
العاب تركيب
العاب صور
العاب تعليم
العاب لغة انجليزية
العاب دبابات
العاب دراجات
العاب حربية
العاب قتال
العاب رياضية
العاب سيارات
العاب رماية
العاب عربية
العاب هانا مونتانا
العاب شعر
العاب قص شعر
العاب كرتون
العاب بلاي ستيشن
العاب طبخ
العاب انمي
العاب باربي
العاب مكياج
العاب ميك اب
العاب تلبيس
العاب ترتيب
العاب فلاش بدون تحميل
العاب بدون تحميل
العاب فنانين
العاب ماريو
العاب سوبر مريو
العاب سونيك
العاب سونك
العاب دولز
العاب بنات دولز
العاب بلياردو
العاب اطفال
العاب صغار
العاب براتز
العاب عرب
العاب مونتانا
العاب طيارات
العاب طيران
العاب قص الشعر
العاب مضحكة
Funny Games
العاب بازل
العاب بن تن
ben 10
العاب سبونج
سبونج بوب
spongebob
العاب ورق
بحث العاب
خلفيات للكمبيوتر
خلفيات شاشة
خلفيات رومانسية
خلفيات حب
خلفيات مسلسلات
خلفيات افلام
خلفيات فنانين
خلفيات بنات
خلفيات شباب
خلفيات اسلامية
خلفيات اطفال
خلفيات انمي
خلفيات سيارات
خلفيات رياضية
خلفيات للجوال
خلفيات للموبايل
خلفيات اسماء
خلفيات حروف
خلفيات مسن
خلفيات ماسنجر
خلفيات سوداء
خلفيات مناسبات
خلفيات حيوانات
خلفيات طيور
خلفيات طبيعية
خلفيات زهور
خلفيات ورد
خلفيات متحركة
خلفيات فيديو
خلفيات فوتوشوب
خلفيات تصاميم
خلفيات رعب
خلفيات جماجم
خلفيات العاب
خلفيات ماركات
خلفيات شعارات
خلفيات روعه
خلفيات ثلاثية الابعاد
خلفيات بلاك بيري
خلفيات لاب توب
خلفيات جديدة
صور اسلامية
صور جديدة
صور بنات
صور اطفال
صور شباب
متحركة
صور حب
صور ورود
رعب
صور انمي
صور حيوانات
صور رسوم
صور افلام
صور اسماء
صور شفايف
صور للجوال
صور وسائط
صور مسن
صور تواقيع
صور للمنتديات
صور رياضية
صور سيارات
صور مضحكة
صور فوتوشوب
خلفيات للشاشة
صور دقة عالية
صور عيون
صور مكياج
صور فساتين
منتدى رمضان
طريق الاسلام
اناشيد
القران
استماع قران
اخبار
اخبار الصحف المحلية و العالمية
يوميات
مدونات
شعراء
مصممين
مصورين
تصاميم
التصوير
mms
خلفيات سطح المكتب
تواقيع
تواقيع منتديات
سكرابز
سكرابز فوتوشوب
صور تصاميم
صور للتصاميم
خامات
خطوط
ملحقات فوتوشوب
سويتش ماكس
ملفات فلاش مفتوحة
بيكسل
دروس التصاميم
دروس فوتوشوب
دروس ايميج ردي
دروس وسائط
تصاميم وسائط
توبيكات ماسنجر
توبيكات ملونه
صور ماسنجر
سكربتات ماسنجر
ثيمات مسنجر
برامج مسنجر
برامج
برامج كمبيوتر
يوتوب
مقاطع youtube
السياحة
السفر
حفلات
عضو في ورطة
انمي
رسوم متحركة
صور اسماء و حروف
عروس
فساتين العرايس
تجميل
مكياج
فساتين
ملابس
موضة
اكسسوارات
مجوهرات
شنط و احذية
عطور
كريمات
البشرة
العناية بالشعر
تسريحات للشعر
صبغات شعر
صحة و غذاء
ريجيم
حوامل
الحمل - الرضاعة - الولادة
طبخ
معجنات - فطائر - اطباق - طبخات - وصفات
النجوم
فنانين عرب
افلام عربية
افلام اجنبية
تحميل مسلسلات
مسلسلات تركية
صور فنانين
مسلسلات رمضان
الجوال
روايات
قصص
بلاك بيري
BlackBerry
ايفون
خلفيات جوال
برامج جوال - العاب للجوال - ثيمات للجوال
مسجات
رسايل
وسائط
وسائط فيديو - رسايل نصية - رسايل وسايط
بلوتوث
نغمات
الرياضة - مباريات - اهداف
السيارات
سيارات جديدة
صور لاعبين
قصص مضحكة
نكت

Posted by: cilinton at November 24, 2010 04:32 PM (qSaaw)

419 zehra ise gtn bana dayam vurduruyor ahh ohh yeahh diye inliyordu serpil porno izle meltem ve yelize hadi sakso ekmilerdi bende srar edince tamam ama yava olucak ve sadece arkadan yapcaksn dedi bnse tamm dedim ve bunlar soyundu zehray brakp melteme getim bu ara asl iini biliyor kameraya porno video ufack kalalrn tutup yaragm gtune yavaa soktum bende yavaa soktum yarag kkune kadar soktum meltem sex video nolur ok acyo diyordu bense artk ileden kmtm ve baladm kkne kadar sokup karyordum meltem kendini ileri atyor sex kzm diyerek gtn sikiyordum ve meltem acdan aglamaya balaynca getim yelizin gtne sokar sokmaz yeliz inim inm sex izle yelizin zerne abanp memelerni avuluyor gtne sokaraak bebegm diyrdum ve yelz yere yglp kald sra kzlklarn siki kvrlp ac inde yatmt zehra kafas guzel oldu iin bacan siki izle zehrann zerine kp yaragm amnn uzerne getrdim netsiki zehra nolurr yapma brak dedi ama elini bile kaldramyordu zehra bnm diyerek amna soktum seksizlesene ilk girite kzlg patlad porno izle 3 unude sabaha kadar ewire evre becerdim grup sex inim inim inleyerek sonunda beni boalttlar sabah giyiip gttler porno asl gunluk 200 tl kazanyordu porno pakize baka erkek arkadalar ednyr sen baka porno kz sikiyrsunda ben nye baka erkeklere vermm dyrdu bnde maadem yle sana o kpkrmz am gzmn nndeydi seks izle ben ok azdm birden ieri girdim ablam naposun dedi bende ok azdrdn seks izle beni dedim gel ozaman dedi bende banyoya girdim baladk pmeye porno izle memelerinin ucu dimdik olmusdu ben sonra o kll porno izle amna parmak atmaya baslamsdm oda zevke geld benmmkn ald elne porno yalamaya baslad sonra hadi sok trke sex bana porno ilk domalt dm sonra basldm gtne sokmaya 5 dk git gel yapdm sonra bacaklarn porno koydum omuzuma baladm amna sokmaya travesti ben hemen boaldm ben boaldm oda benden 5 dk sonra titreyerek boald sonra ikimizde porno banyodan kdm yataa gittik

Posted by: sessiz at December 24, 2010 11:43 AM (UEY94)

420 Shopping for the perfect watch can be a daunting task. watch07.com is your trusted resource and destination to find information on the coolest, most fashionable, and cheap watches. with so many different brands and styles to choose from, it's easy to feel overwhelmed when making a choice. Our passionate team of experts culls hundreds of quality sites in order to serve you the newest, trendiest watches as well as the best prices on timeless classics. watch07.com currently features over 20 different quality watch designers. whether you are searching for name brands like: IwC watches, Audemars Piguet watches , Rolex watches, Cartier watches, Chanel watches, Officine Panerai watches,Vacheron watches,Casio watches, Guess watches, Diesel watches, Breitling watches, Swiss Army watches, Omega watches, Tag Heuer watches, Panerai watches; or researching by category mens', womens', or luxury wristwatches; or scouring our recommendation's for Best Selling watches; browsing dress watches or casual watches; or deciding between gold timepieces renowned for their craftmanship or digital quartz watches with all the bells and whistles watch07.com has what you're looking for.

Wholesale,replica : A Lange Sohne watches | Alain Silberstein watches | Anonimo watches | Audemars Piguet watches | Baume Mercier watches | Bell Ross watches | Blancpain watches | Breguet watches | Breitling watches | BRM watches | Burberry watches | Bvlgari watches | , Cartier watches | Chanel watches | Chopard watches | Chronoswiss watches | Corum watches | Dewitt watches | Dior watches | Ebel watches | Ferrari watches | Franck Muller watches | Glashutte watches | Graham watches | Hermes watches | Hublot wathces | IWC watches | Jaeger Lecoultre watches | Longines watches | Louis Vuitton watches | Mont Blanc watches | Officine Panerai watches | Omega watches | Oris watches | Piaget watches | Porsche Design watches | Richard Mille watches | Roger Dubuis watches | Rolex watches | Rolex Yachtmaster watches | Tag Heuer watches | U Boat watches | Ulysse Nardin watches | Vacheron Constan watches | Wyler Geneve watches | Zenith watches

Posted by: cheap watches at March 02, 2011 01:30 AM (2bWBF)

421 it is wonderful~

Posted by: Tammy Edmond at May 10, 2011 05:18 AM (lnyod)

422




commobilea mobile,
mobiles,mobile shop, egypt, nokia, samsung, sony ericsson, htc, lg,
motorola, alcatel, benq, bluetooth, headset, charger, battery, cases,
camera

Posted by: mobil55 at July 03, 2011 08:38 PM (VhP/1)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0972 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0413 seconds, 430 records returned.
Page size 291 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat