Are you serious? LOL.

This from the same guy who thinks that illegal immigrants aren’t illegal if they’ve entered the country fraudulently, with illegal documentation, or forged papers.

That’s rich, GoB. Pure liberal BS –”nothing is illegal if it makes ME feel good”… you’re rich, GoB.

Wow, are you massachusetts-matt now?

You are SUCH an asshole with the whole sexual predator thing. You keep dogging me on it when you were the one that failed to read properly.

Do you think that someone who was forced to register as a sex offender whose crime was, say, beastiality, is any more or less of a threat to children than a child molestor?

What if the government decides that being convicted of sodomy (even between consenting adults) is enough to force you to register as a sex offender?

If you were convicted for something like that, you’d lose YOUR kids, and you’d be forced to move if you owned a house too close to a school, and you’d have to register as a sex offender in any community to which you DID move, all because you gave your domestic partner a hummer and got caught doing it.

Does that make your day, Michigan Matt? For the 13th time?

I’ve answered your questions on point. You’re the one who’s raised pointless, rhetorical, baiting questions like “Would someone please tell me why were in Iraq?” etc. So let’s keep the record str8; it’s the only thing that might ever be str8 in your book.

But guess what?

I’m still trying to figure out why you want to allow convicted sex predators to live next door to elementary schools, playgrounds, libraries, day care centers and nurseries? Why do you think it’s improper to restrict their choice in housing? Why do you speak with such passion against an obvious societal good? It’s almost an irrational passion.

Go ahead, GoB… make my day. Answer the question.

You see, we all know that you don’t have any trouble with being a second-class citizen; in fact, you think people who publicly say that you should be are pro-gay and gay-supportive. Heck, you say the same thing even when they support the FMA.

And it seems you didn’t raise a whisper when HRC and others gave tens of millions more of gay dollars to help these Dems promote that you should be satisfied with less, at the expense of fighting initiatives to permanently keep you with less.

What you have trouble with people being is non-Democrats. That’s why gay leftists like yourself fawn over homophobes and attack people who point out the fact that they are.

GoB, actually the “self-loathing”hammer is just a shortcut for GayLefties

No, Matt, you’re the one shortcutting here. Why don’t you tell me why you don’t expect the same treatment under the law as straight people do? Why are you satisfied that you’re less?

Are you going to answer any questions or are you going to keep avoiding?

And? I’d love to hear your definition of ’self-loathing homosexual’, since you seem to know what it is.

(shrug) Do you oppose polygamy? Do you oppose incest? Do you oppose prostitution or pornography?

You know, I’m speechless that someone like you who is so insistent that the government stay out of private conduct hasn’t railed against age-of-consent, child sex, and other similar laws in which the government tells us what we may do with our bodies in private.

The issue here is that most gays, being congenitally unable to stop their use of hate speech and rhetoric are powerless to have these sort of things repealed legislatively; thus, instead of moderating their tone, they go running to the courts, hoping that unelected liberal justices will write exceptions into the law for them.

Of course, the issue stepped around is that, because Lawrence was such a poorly-written decision, an entire body of case law has sprung up in which the court basically had to pluck things out of thin air and create convoluted differentiations between “private” and “public” to keep it from legalizing polygamy and child sex — and in the process, creating precedent AGAINST gay adoption and marriage. Brilliant, huh?

Had the gay community been mature enough to work through the legislative process, as had already been done in the majority of states, to repeal sodomy laws, this wouldn’t be an issue. But given the choice between short-term hatemongering and long-term sense, the gay community chooses hatemongering, every time.

And you still ignore the fact that the movement for marriage equality in this nation was from the beginning a movement of religious gay and lesbian people, who have labored for decades within their congregations to establish that their relationships are no different than the relationships of opposite-sex couples.

So it’s an attempt to impose THEIR religious views through law.

Besides, Jonboy, gays and lesbians have no trouble supporting people imposing their religious views as law — as long as those people are Democrats. Indeed, they gave them tens of millions of dollars to promote their homophobic views and endorse laws stripping you of rights — and spent comparative pennies fighting them.

So in short, at least I had the balls to call homophobes such. You and yours don’t support marriage equality; you support Democrats.

Strong words, Brian, but let’s see how much you MEAN them.

Since you think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobic bigot, say it. Say Harry Reid is a homophobe. Say John Kerry is a homophobe. Say Nancy Pelosi is a homophobe. Say Hillary Clinton is a homophobe. Say Howard Dean is a homophobe. Say Bill Clinton is a homophobe.

Or start spinning about how this and this are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, because that’s what HRC, NGLTF, Stonewall, and all the other “gay-rights” groups are doing as they spend their millions on them.

If you haven’t, please read the whole posting. I agree that this young man was very courageous and professional in the way he handled himself and I applaud him for it. But it reinforced my mystification at the argument that gay marriage is a “civil right.” Huh? Andrew loves citing this over and over. But aside from saying your tax refund would be higher under “marriage”…. no one has yet explained (to me) how withholding marriage (Gryph’s definition) is “trampling on my civil rights.”

Check the opinion in Loving vs Virginia, the case that struck down miscegentation laws. The Court held that marriage is a fundamental civil right. If I remember correctly, that decision was handed down in the mid-1960s, so it’s not like it’s a radically new idea.

And then North Dallas Thirty wrote:

AFAIC, liberals should not be allowed to raise children, especially boys.

Well, this clinches it. You’re obviously insane.
No, I said that, and I’m hardly insane. I’m just sick of watching liberals raise wussified, panty-waisted gun-fearing girls with dicks instead of men. I’m inclined to believe atheists shouldn’t be allowed to raise children, either.

Apologies to NTD for attributing the most insane comment to him (or her). If I could edit the earlier comment, I would.

Like your fellow idiots earlier who contend that only the GayLeft can determine whether a person is truly “gay enough” to warrant the gay appellation… what a bunch of hate-filled, insecure gay men that leaves you with –and intolerant, too. But at least it allows you to do that collective tsk-ing, elbows akimbo, and hips all asway.

And then North Dallas Thirty wrote:

Well, this clinches it. You’re obviously insane

Jonboy, Rightwingprof wrote that piece of trash.

I think that’s where most people get the idea that a homo who doesn’t support same-sex marriage (it’s not GAY marriage) is self-loathing.

Which I suspect was originally the point of this blog, Brian. But there are a good many people, Republican and Democrat, who view the words “Gay American,” or even “Gay Patriot,” as inherently self-contradictory. (You may even have encountered a few of them in this thread.) But don’t give up on our basic American values — individualism, limited government, equal treatment under the law — just because we haven’t lived up to them yet.

And Richard — right on!

The government must either recognize all marriages were all parties are consenting adults or it should not recognize any marriages.
The former is unacceptable; the latter is ideal.

So, in your ideal world, if two people were married and one of them died without a will, his or her property should pass to his or her parents? (Or children, if there are any). And the spouse would have no legal claim to that property, because the state would not recognize the marriage? Of the person was in an accident and medical decisions needed to be made, and no healthcare power-of-attorney had been executed, it would be the parents and not the spouse who would be given the right to make medical decisions? The state recognizes marriages because there is a desire in our culture to provide aid and support to those couples who choose to dedicate their lives to each other. Stripping away the privileges, rights, and obligations that the law grants to or imposes on married people strikes me as being seriously anti-family.

North Dallas Thirty wrote

Since gays have aligned themselves with the anti-religious hatemongering leftists who insist on purging all forms of religion, who engage in constant hate speech against religion, and who blast the religious as ignorant and superstitious fools who should be excluded from government, it’s no surprise that people equate gay marriage with an attack on religion and act accordingly.

All the gay and lesbian (and bi and queer and trans) people I know are as religious as the heterosexual people I know. Which is to say, they range from a very religious to not at all. At any gay pride parade, one of the largest groups will be marchers affiliated with various churches, and in my experience they receive some of the loudest cheers from the crowd. There is no anti-religious left in this country (not in any mainstream way). However, there are many people, both religious and secular, who do not believe that the religious views of some people should dictate the law of the nation, and who are willing to challenge those on the religious right who use their pulpits to preach hatred. And you still ignore the fact that the movement for marriage equality in this nation was from the beginning a movement of religious gay and lesbian people, who have labored for decades within their congregations to establish that their relationships are no different than the relationships of opposite-sex couples.

North Dallas Thirty continued:

You see, Raj, the amusing and ironic thing is that the inept liberal justices who wanted so badly to pander in the Lawrence v. Texas decision created this mess themselves. To satisfy frothing gay-rights activists such as yourselves, they loudly proclaimed that the state has no right to regulate morality.

I’m speechless at the idea that a person who claims to care about the rights of gay people (or of any people) could seriously argue that the state should have the power to tell me and another consenting adult what we may do with our bodies in private.

And then North Dallas Thirty wrote:

AFAIC, liberals should not be allowed to raise children, especially boys.

Well, this clinches it. You’re obviously insane.

I know gay men and women who have been in committed relationships for close to fifty years. That’s about five years longer than my own parents have been married. What does that say about all these people who make the absurd claim that homosexual unions are “Godless” or not based on love?

If straight people really did hold the monopoly on what marriage is all about, then my own sister would still be together with her second husband. Incidentally, they divorced only two months after tying the knot. You see and read about this happening everywhere across this nation, and yet Capitol Hill still wants to preach about the so-called “sanctity of marriage” and prevent fellow Americans-(who just happen to be gay)-from enjoying the same God-given rights they currently have and take for granted. How totally blind do you have to be to not recognize how wrong that is? This is the year 2006. We should be progressing as a society. But, instead, there are those of us who insist on keeping things locked within a strict 1950’s mentality. This clearly has to stop. We’re all grown-ups here and, until we can learn to quit keeping each other down over petty differences, we’re not going to see a positive change.

Hmm….the fact that the Supreme Court in several instances has pointed out that marriage and other “public acts”, such as adoption, do NOT qualify for equal-protection status.

You see, Raj, the amusing and ironic thing is that the inept liberal justices who wanted so badly to pander in the Lawrence v. Texas decision created this mess themselves. To satisfy frothing gay-rights activists such as yourselves, they loudly proclaimed that the state has no right to regulate morality. Unfortunately, what that did was open the door for legalization of polygamy, pedophilia, and other forms of “morality” legislation to be overturned. To get around that, they split matters into “private”and “public”, declaring that “private” was protected, “public” was not.

And now, thanks to that gyration and others created by their refusal to hear gay adoption cases and rejection of polygamist arguments, there is an excellent body of case law that says only marriage between two consenting adults of the opposite gender enjoys equal protection.

Now, Raj, if you and your fellows had been content to repeal laws legislatively, this wouldn’t be an issue. But you had to go running to Mommy Ginsberg to get an exception, and as you should well know, exceptions to the law create problems.

Funny, I don’t think either Dallas’s or Fort Worth’s nondiscrimination ordinances say “Republicans and conservatives only”.

Oh, and in case you looked….the campaigns I helped in Dallas of Ed Oakley, Laura Miller, and Monica Barros-Greene are those of, even though the races are officially non-partisan, Democrats. Indeed, Laura Miller is married to Steve Wolens, who was one of the most liberal Democrats in the Texas Legislature.

Oh, and Lupe Garcia, a good friend of mine and who I helped to become Dallas County’s first Hispanic and lesbian sheriff? Democrat.

Party affiliation matters not, if I think a person has good common sense and will tell me the truth about what they’re thinking. These people all did.

Others of us have lived most of our lives unencumbered by any doubts about our sexuality, our right to equality in all respects, and with no doubts about where our best hopes for marriage parity lie. We’ve lived through several life stages and endured the inequities in each and now say “Enough. We’re going to fight for what should be ours as Americans”. Driven by our love for our loved one (contrary to GPW’s silly assertion that “it’s all about the financial benefits”), we’ve played by the current rules of jumping through legal hoops to assure their future financial security. We’ve bought houses in one name and then gifted half to our partner to make sure both are on equal footing; we’ve drawn up elaborate wills to protect assets; we always have to do 5-6 things in every process to assure ourselves of what heterosexuals come by naturally. This is not “American” and some of us gay people are fighting to change that while others are fighting against that change.

A lovely speech.

Except you’re not.

Otherwise, you wouldn’t be prancing around chanting “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to state and Federal efforts to do the opposite. Nor would you be suctioning tens of millions of dollars to give to the campaigns of these homophobes and spending mere pennies in comparison to block the initiatives that said homophobes are praising and supporting.

Since you think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobic bigot, QP, say it. Say Harry Reid is a homophobe. Say John Kerry is a homophobe. Say Nancy Pelosi is a homophobe. Say Hillary Clinton is a homophobe. Say Howard Dean is a homophobe. Say Bill Clinton is a homophobe.

THEN we might believe you support change, instead of pandering to homophobes based on political affiliation.