GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Dinner at El Coyote Sunday 01/04

by

I am always fascinated by which of our posts lead to sustained comment threads. I had not expected my post announcing a dinner for blog-readers at Hollywood’s El Coyote would excite such controversy.

All those who RSVPed favored holding the dinner on Sunday. If you’d like to join us, please e-mail me for time and details.

Let me just say, I think the whole notion of boycotting this establishment is absurd. In frequenting it, we are not, as one reader suggested, countenancing bigotry. We are simply supporting a restaurant wrongly targeted by a group of angry activists in need of an enemy at whom to vent.

Merely because one employee supported Proposition 8 does not mean that the restaurant is itself anti-gay. Nor does it mean that she herself is. It merely means that she believes gender difference is a defining aspect of marriage.

And until gay marriage advocates learn to respect that understanding of this ancient institution, an understanding that prevailed unassailed for millennia, they will remain incapable of participating in a serious civil discussion on expanding the definition of the institution to include same-sex couples, an expansion which they seem to favor, but are unwilling to defend (with serious argument).

This dinner is a chance for our readers to gather and enjoy each other’s company. And to take a stand at politically correct anger run amok.

Comments

  1. Have a good time.

    Oh, any commentary on that rape case? I was hoping it was going to turn out to be a fraud, but it looks like it’s true. If they’re guilty, I hope they get locked up in small rooms for a long time.

    Or on that NJ case saying the Methodists have to allow everyone access to their property?

  4. To boycott this or any restaurant over an employee’s private donation to a ballot measure that she believes in is petty, heartless, useless and counterproductive to the gay cause.

    It is all the more stupid in this case because, according to a recent article, the boycott has already worked: Christofferson is gone from the restaurant, and the restaurant has officially given a massive $10,000 to the pro-gay-marriage cause.

  6. “Or on that NJ case saying the Methodists have to allow everyone access to their property?”

    Livewire, perhaps you should read a little bit more about the two cases involved (one which was thrown out) before you make a statement claiming things that aren’t true.

  7. >And until gay marriage advocates learn to respect that understanding of this ancient institution, an understanding that prevailed unassailed for millennia,

    Uh huh.

    You do know that up until recently (in the context of millenniums) marriage for women was essentially their father selling them to another family ? And what version of marriage are you talking about? There is one for every culture and subculutre.

    The fact that you view marriage as homongenous through both time and geography suggests that you really don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. Marriage morphs and shifts with the culture it’s in.

    Have fun at your dinner, let them know that you’re queer and you don’t mind eating in the alley because it’s their right to treat you like second class citizens because of the way you have sex.

  8. Salvage – facts don’t matter. Their arguments are only based on emotion. Under the light of day, they just don’t hold up.

    Also I looked through your archives condemning republicans over boycotting Disney and French Fries.
    Maybe I just could not find it.

  13. Gillie, you must not have tried very hard. Here’s where I wrote about my opposition to the Disney Boycott:

    The Success of AFA’s Ford Boycott Is a Disney-esque Fairy Tale

    Another not to Buy a Ford

    The Hullabaloo Over Microsoft

    And no, gillie, it wasn’t Republicans who boycotted Disney, but the American Family Association. Please review your facts before opening your mouth . . . or tapping away at your keyboard

    Oh, and salvage, seems you showed as little diligence in reviewing my thoughts on gay marriage as gillie did in scanning the archives. I have said that marriage should be allowed to evolve. On more that one occasion.

    And please, go review the facts of marriage because it differed from culture to culture and did not involve a “sale” as you put it of the wife. And while it did indeed differ from culture to culture, the one constant that linked the definition of marriage across culture was gender difference. Please review our archives on this topic, focusing on my posts and read them.

    And if you had any capacity for feeling shame or remorse, you would be humbled. If you had any class, you’d apologize.

    So, gillie, the facts are now in front of you. It seems that you and salvage don’t have much grasp (or awareness?) of them. I don’t think I’m the one who’s been basing his arguments on emotion. At least not in this case. 🙂

  14. Yes North Dumass IQ Thirty, all gay parents are bad just like all straight parents are good.

    The argument is not that gay people are going to be great parents or have super-duper marriages or anything else. The argument has nothing to do with sex, religion, ethics or any of that other happy crappy.

    The argument is simple, marriage is a universally recognized contract between two people that sets out certain rights and obligations.

    That is all it is as far as the government and society as a whole are concerned.

    Under our laws people have no sex, a person is a person is a person, full stop. So you cannot say that these two PEOPLE can enter into a contract but these two PEOPLE cannot.

    It is Constitutionally impossible.

    This is not anyone approving or endorsing the gay marriage anymore than it’s approving of or endorsing ANY marriage.

    You approve of Tom Cruise marrying anyone? Breeding? Raising “his” kids as Scientology drones? You approve of any of that? Wanna pass a law stopping it?

    Me too but sadly we cannot, The Constitution of the United States of America makes it impossible if we honor its words and intent.

    You don’t have to like fags, you don’t have to hang out with them, you don’t have to do anything but leave them be and let them pursue their happiness their way as you would like to be left to your own.

    So the only possible argument you can make against gay marriage is that you feel that homosexuals are not in fact people and therefor are exempt from Constitutional consideration and protection.

    Are you making that argument?

  15. Salvage, you say marriage “marriage is a universally recognized contract between two people that sets out certain rights and obligations.”

    Okay, please provide me one example of a culture before 1990 which so defined marriage, that is, not including gender difference in the definition. Please note we are talking about “marriage” here, not other arrangements that some societies made to acknowledge same-sex couples.

    Thanks.

  16. You mean like reading here, Dave? http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases08/pr20081229a.html

    Try to read and follow the article. Ask for help if you have trouble with the big words.

    “The application from Bernstein and Paster to hold their civil union ceremony prompted a swift change in policy by the Association. By April 1, it was decided by the Association president that it would cease permitting the public to reserve the use of the Boardwalk Pavilion for any wedding and other events.”

    So, in order to not run afoul of hurting someone’s feelings in exercising their right of association, the church chose to bar everyone.

    Let’s repeat that. A Methodist asociation (that’s a religion, adDave) is barred from determining how their private property is being used.

    I don’t think it’s been thrown out in the past three days.

    As to the rape case. I was really hoping she was lying, because I’d prefer one more lying human on the planet, rather than four more rapists.

    [sarcasm]Oh, I forgot, rather than keep their property use under their control, those evil Methodists are one step away from hanging the couple, and they’d have gotten away with it too, if they’d been allowed to show they’re as evil as Imadinnerjacket. [/sarcasm]

  17. Gillie and Salvage are two good reasons why most Americans (especially African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans) continue to vote overwhelmingly for DOMAs in at least thirty states. “Equal rights for me, but none for thee.”

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  18. Unfortunately for your argument, salvage, society already bars people from marrying based on age, blood relationship, previous relationship, mental fitness, and other factors, several that have to do with a person’s sexual desires and practices. Therefore, by your argument, these bans are unconstitutional.

  19. >I have said that marriage should be allowed to evolve.

    Oh my, how gracious of you! So it should be by your timetable? Tell me what makes you the leader of the parade?

    >And please, go review the facts of marriage because it differed from culture to culture and did not involve a “sale” as you put it of the wife.

    Yes, yes it did and in some places it still does.

    >And if you had any capacity for feeling shame or remorse, you would be humbled. If you had any class, you’d apologize.

    You’re adorable.

    >I don’t think I’m the one who’s been basing his arguments on emotion

    Yeah you are but I’m no mental health expert so I wouldn’t dare to try and untangle the king rat that must be your psyche to describe which ones but none of them positive.

    It’s sufficient to say that you are wrong, that one does not “allow” evolutions, evolution like shit happens. More and more people are starting to come to the very real idea that how people have consensual adult sex is unimportant and certainly not a basis for discrimination. You can prattle on about “separate but equal” all you like, that argument is so dated and debunked it might as well be made with crop circles thus it can be cheerfully ignored.

  20. Go read my posts, salvage, by “allowing marriage to evolve,” I meant that governments should not put constitutional amendments in place which would prevent legislatures from passing laws recognizing same-sex unions.

    You might know that had you bothered to read my past posts on marriage.

    Fine, you say it’s sufficient to say I’m wrong, but you still haven’t met my challenge. You have yet to provide one example of a culture not defining marriage by gender difference before 1990. And I never prattled on about “separate but equal.”

    You say my argument is dated and debunked, but provide no evidence to make your case. So, please familiarize yourself with my arguments before taking issue with them.

    Please debate my points, don’t insult my person or put words in my mouth. Are you even capable of understanding the arguments of those with whom you disagree?

  21. >please provide me one example of a culture before 1990 which so defined marriage,

    All of them, what part of my abstraction fails for you?

    > Please note we are talking about “marriage” here,

    Please note we are talking about the same thing, you can parse the word like a motherClinton but it boils down to the same thing. Two PEOPLE under a contract that gives them certain rights (visitation in hospitals, privileged communication etc.) and obligations (alimony, property etc.).

    All the bells and whistles are immaterial. A Jew may not recognize Jesus but he knows the Catholics next door are married just as he is and both, regardless of how the ceremony around the contract was performed, have the exact same rights as far as the government is concerned.

    Now do you feel like answering any of my actual points or are you going to keep throwing chaff and hearings around the joint.

    Thanks.

    >Unfortunately for your argument, salvage, society already bars people from marrying based on age, blood relationship, previous relationship, mental fitness, and other factors, several that have to do with a person’s sexual desires and practices.

    >Therefore, by your argument, these bans are unconstitutional.

    It is unConstitutional to deprive someone of their freedom yet there are government run jails in America.

    This sort of obtuse schoolyard logic arguments are the kind that convince me I’m right but just in case you really are this ignorant.

    Children being married to adults is bad for children therefore it is reasonable for the law to intercede. We all agree with that.

    Two gay men getting married does not harm children.

    Close relatives marrying can lead to birth defects, this has been proven by science, and this is bad for children and society so it is again reasonable for the law to intercede.

    Two gay women getting married does not cause birth defects.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “previous relationship” and “mental fitness”. What possible past relationship could determine if two people can marry? And as for mental fitness if only the mentally fit got married I would expect there wouldn’t be much of it going on.

    >several that have to do with a person’s sexual desires and practices.

    Like what? Are you saying if we let PEOPLE get married then PEOPLE will want to marry dogs? Pumpkins? Real Dolls? Well don’t worry about it; we’re only talking about PEOPLE.

    You understand that gays are PEOPLE right?

  22. Salvage, you’re not arguing, you’re insulting me, but at least you’re amusing me with your silliness.

    I have issued a challenge which you have failed to meet. And your prattle on and on and on about whatever you’re prattling on and on about.

    But, you do do one thing for which I am profoundly grateful; you make clear to me that some leftists obsessed with conservatives have no understanding whatsoever about their obsession.

  23. a person is a person is a person, full stop.

    Except when you’re trying to get a job or into university, then it’s full stop to the white male applicants.

    Oh my, how gracious of you! So it should be by your timetable? Tell me what makes you the leader of the parade?

    Sweet Jesus! Are you serious? Do you even think about what you’re going to write first?

  24. It is appropriate. We know how apes argue, and that is an apt metaphor for the quality of gillie and salvage’s commentary.

    Regardless of the issue, punishing an entire business because a single employee exercises her freedom to participate in a political debate is thuggish, fascist, and indecent.

  25. >You have yet to provide one example of a culture not defining marriage by gender difference before 1990.

    No I haven’t because I don’t need to, my argument is that a marriage is a contract between two people and you cannot say yes to these two people and no to the other two people without a damn good reason.

    And there is no good reason other than some people hate fags but that’s not a good reason and its their problem.

    >And I never prattled on about “separate but equal.”

    Yeah, yeah you do, you may not see it but you really do, I’ve now poked around your achieves enough to get that, this post right here sums up how sadly confused you really are:

    >Fortunately, I know gay couples who take their marriages seriously. That’s why I opposed Proposition 8.

    >Think about that statement for a minute. Okay?

    And then you go on to say that you’re against gay marriage because no one has made a case for it to your satisfaction?

    Like a man pretending to be asleep you can’t be woken.

    >you even capable of understanding the arguments of those with whom you disagree?

    Fully capable, that’s why I disagree.

    Now are you going to answer my points I wonder?

    I’ll ask it again:

    What is it about marriage contracts that they should be allowed for one couple and not the other within the context of a gender-blind legal system? No, no, I don’t want to hear about “before 1990”, the law does not take gender into consideration that is a simple fact, tell my why all of the sudden in this case it should.

  26. >Except when you’re trying to get a job or into university, then it’s full stop to the white male applicants.

    AHAHAH! YES! There are no white people who have jobs or get into university. That is why you are uneducated and poor, because you are white.

  27. >Salvage, you’re not arguing, you’re insulting me,

    So that would be you have no reasonable response to my points, again, and now are pulling the old “You insulted me and so now I don’t have to answer anything!” routine. A tried and true wingnut when cornered tactic.

    That’s cool, I’ve got to get to Gears of War and it really is getting very stupid in here.

  28. marriage is a contract between two people.

    If all teh gheys want is the contractual connection, they are free to get those under California’s generous domestic partnership statutes, or to enter into contractual legal arrangements of their own design.

    But this isn’t about that, it’s about ghey activists thinking that an in “in yer face” to those who believe in traditional values will somehow validate their self esteem.

  29. The amusing thing is watching salvage backpedal from his original claim that it was wrong and unconstitutional to deny anyone marriage based on how they have sex to his argument now that it is not wrong or unconstitutional to deny marriage to people because of how or with whom they have sex based on things like biological differences and impact on procreation and existing marriages — which gay liberals previously insisted were irrelevant.

  30. >please provide me one example of a culture before 1990 which so defined marriage,

    All of them, what part of my abstraction fails for you?

    salvage, are you pathetic, or just stupid?

    GPW said this:

    Salvage, you say marriage “marriage is a universally recognized contract between two people that sets out certain rights and obligations.” Okay, please provide me one example of a culture before 1990 which so defined marriage, *that is, not including gender difference in the definition.*

    Or is it blindness? I added *highlighting and stars* in hopes that you will see it better. GPW asked you for an example of a culture that defined marriage (not union-analogues-for-gays, but marriage) without regard to gender difference, before 1990. Do you understand now? And can you provide an example?

  31. salvage, of the possible choices I mentioned above – that you’re either pathetic, stupid, or blind – I’m beginning to think ‘stupid’ is it. You said this:

    [marriage puts] Two PEOPLE under a contract that gives them certain rights (visitation in hospitals, privileged communication etc.) and obligations (alimony, property etc.).

    Bzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Legally, marriage is *NOT* a contract between the two people for hospital visitation, privileged communication, alimony, etc. Marriage is something else, an incorporation document. It incorporates what the law recognizes as a third new entity with its own interests, “the marriage”, then imposes DUTIES on the people AND ON THE REST OF SOCIETY, with regard to supporting the new entity. Since you apparently didn’t know that, salvage, you must not know much.

    my argument is that a marriage is a contract between two people

    There you go again, salvage, with the gross stupidity and ignorance. Let me try to spell this out for you slowly. A. State. Marriage. License. Is. Not. A. Contract. Between. The. Two. People.

  32. marriage is a contract between two people

    No. It isn’t.

    you cannot say yes to these two people and no to the other two people without a damn good reason

    100% of those who oppose gay marraige would agree with that sentence. They just happen to think that requiring a gender difference is a good enough reason. It’s our job (those of us who support gay marraige) to persuade them to a different view with rational arguments. As opposed to, you know, salvage’s ape-ishly stupid and ignorant shrieking.

  34. It’s our job (those of us who support gay marraige) to persuade them to a different view with rational arguments. As opposed to, you know, salvage’s ape-ishly stupid and ignorant shrieking.

    Or childish temper tantrums, or punishing businesses or individuals for engaging in the political process.

  35. Actually, Americans should not let that “5,000 year old institution” meme go unchallenged, since monogamous same-sex marriage is only a few centuries old in the Americas, as the Europeans (particularly the Spanish) brutally repressed same-sex marriage among the Amerindians.

  36. I know this is completely off topic, but some of you have been praying for my nephew Achikam, now he is in the midst of the battle. No direct word from him. His parents know no more than we do reading the news.
    The IDF along with the American military are out there fighting evil in this world.
    So thank you for those who have been praying, and keep the prayers going for all the Israeli soliders. They need them now.
    Leah

  38. Yes, Leah, we’ll keep him in our prayers.

    I’d like to note that the American President is actually blaming terrorists for terrorism, blaming the current violence on Hamas. Enjoy the clarity… there’s only 17 days left of it.

  40. always wondered:

    why do those who want to live an alternative lifestyle wish to participate in an institution of traditional society?

    considering the same legal benefits are offered to couples, at least in CA where the instant issue is foremost, isn’t it in keeping with the ‘alternative’ lifestyle to also form an alternate institution to traditional marriage?

  41. why do those who want to live an alternative lifestyle wish to participate in an institution of traditional society?

    Partly because of insecurity. People somehow believe their relationships don’t really count unless the state gives them precisely the same recognition as traditional marriages, even if the participants are uninterested in the commitment, monogamy, and child-raising aspects of traditional marriage. (Also, it won’t work, if you’re a bitter unhappy gay leftist the day before gay marriage is legalized, you’ll be a bitter unhappy gay leftist the day after.)

    But mostly, I think it’s an “in yet face” to traditional society, and it provides the same cheap thrill as, say, dressing up children in bondage gear and taking them to an open sex fair.

  42. Lorenzo in comment #6, the native Americans did indeed allow same-sex marriage, but required one of the partners was forced to live his (or her) life in the guise of the opposite sex in a society where gender roles were clearly delineated.

    In many cultures, this was not by choice.

    In requiring one partner to live in the guise of the opposite sex, those cultures reaffirmed the centrality of gender difference to their understanding of marriage.

  43. But Amerindian cultures typically believed in more than two genders, since gender was defined by both body and spirit. So it was not that they “lived as women” but that they lived as the third gender. (Some cultures put female body+male spirit in the same gender, others had a fourth gender.)

    There were other cultures which had same-sex marriage (either as a transitional or a longer-term arrangement) apparently without such gender differentiations. It is fairly clear that same-sex marriage, as a broad group of social forms, is rather more common across human cultures than marriage as only heterosexually monogamous between legal equals, since Western countries have not had that since, well take your pick of when (when rape inside marriage became legally recognised? When marriage did not bar women from certain jobs? When married women had fully independent property rights?…)

  45. #40 NDT you are disgusting, there is no basis for you to make such and insane claim about Dems and Obama. You are as completely devoid of morals as those in the video clip.

    “Let’s repeat that. A Methodist asociation (that’s a religion, adDave) is barred from determining how their private property is being used.”

    Yes Livewire, repeat it. An organization that had “gained a Green Acres tax exemption from the state Department of Environmental Protection nearly 20 years ago after a finding that the Pavilion will be open to the public ‘on an equal basis.'” is told to abide by what they agreed to. What part of equal is difficult? What part of “open to the public” is confusing? The couple did not ask to use the church (religious property) for their ceremony just a pavilion that had been used for similar purposes many times before. The fact that the property is owned by an association related to the Methodist church (but not by any specific church I believe) doesn’t change what they had agreed to when they took the tax break.

    The Association changed the policy, they’re cut off from taking public money (which is what a tax exemption amounts to) so now they are free to impose whatever restrictions they choose. I’m making an assumption here, so could be wrong, but I would think that the property would still be available for members of whatever Methodist churches are part of the association to use.

    I was referring to the finding of “no probable cause” in the second case when I said “thrown out”.

  46. NDT you are disgusting, there is no basis for you to make such and insane claim about Dems and Obama. You are as completely devoid of morals as those in the video clip.

    First, the existence of that video clip and the proof that Obama’s church and Obama’s spiritual mentor, who Obama has never criticized for doing so, were publishing and endorsing Hamas propaganda, provide more than enough basis to demonstrate what Obama and the Democrats who support him (like in that video) believe.

    Second, adDave, I remain impressed by your ability to make moral equivalence between my posting proof of these things and your party’s supporters telling Jews to “get back in the ovens”. What you make clear is that you consider criticizing Obama and his party’s stances in support of Hamas and against Jews to be equivalent to the genocide that these Obama supporters endorse.

  47. ok, must have been too many big words.

    They allowed access to any couple that would abide by their rules, on an equal basis. Holding a civil union, they would have equally barred two men and two women. But then again, you look at religious freedom as a step away from being allowed to drop a wall on you, so I understand missing the point.

  49. No Livewire I don’t, that’s just your twisted interpretation of what I say. This is NOT about religious freedom. It is an issue about use of private property, that fact that by a religious “association” has nothing to do with it. You have no f’ing clue about my religious beliefs or how I feel about religion/churches in general and you are moving into NDT territory every time you make your false claims. My statements have always been about SPECIFIC people and organizations not religion as a whole. Again, you are trapped in that all or nothing mentality that so plagues some on here. And it’s too bad you couldn’t have stuck to the issue rather than in your very first response turning it into an attack on me. Grow up.

    NDT – you provide no proof only more of your sick warping of reality. The protest and what was written in your second link have absolutely no connection. Connecting the protesters to Obama and the Dem party is a foul deed. Your nonsense is not criticizing, it is pure hostile attack based on your own hatred, just like the protesters are attacking Israel and Jews on the hatred in their hearts. I think they are cowards who rant and rave while they are here in the States and free to do so. They should be “invited” to return home and join the fight for the land they “love”.

    The existence of the video clip proves that there were protesters in Ft. Lauderdale and nothing more. Until you hear Obama or any Dem official condoning such actions and words you have no basis for your claims.

    I hope some day you finally get a clue and realize that your hatred is the same that fuels fanatics like these protesters. You attack and attack and attack, usually with NO VALID foundation to your vomit. And it’s that sickness that turns every single comment trail on here into a personal gutter level rumble.

  50. You attack and attack and attack, usually with NO VALID foundation to your vomit.

    Correction, adDave; I have been more than happy to provide links that demonstrate the point, namely that Barack Obama and his Democrat Party supporters are not only publishing and promoting Hamas in their church bulletins, but are taking to the streets to tell Jews to “go back to the ovens”.

    Normal people contrast that with your attempt to argue that gays who don’t agree with you support genocide, and recognize that you are wanting in the evidence, intelligence, and coherence department. Now, with your whine about comment “vomit”, they can add proof of your hypocrisy as well.

  52. why do those who want to live an alternative lifestyle wish to participate in an institution of traditional society?

    ShyAsrai, I’m not sure what you mean by “want to live an alternative lifestyle.” Gay persons more and more don’t want to pretend to be straight and marry a person of the opposite sex any more, since that is unfair to the spouse, among other things. I would say the reasons that most gay persons want to participate in an institution of traditional society are the same as for straight persons.

    considering the same legal benefits are offered to couples, at least in CA where the instant issue is foremost, isn’t it in keeping with the ‘alternative’ lifestyle to also form an alternate institution to traditional marriage?

    No.

    Partly because of insecurity. People somehow believe their relationships don’t really count unless the state gives them precisely the same recognition as traditional marriages,

    You mean like many straight couples?

    even if the participants are uninterested in the commitment, monogamy, and child-raising aspects of traditional marriage.

    Ditto.

    Dan, I’m not going to be able to make it tomorrow. It’s a bit of a hike from NJ. Otherwise, I’d try to be one of the first five. 🙂 Have a good time!

  53. Oh, and adDave, as far as Democrats supporting and endorsing Hamas, read it and weep.

    Then start attacking me for bringing it up, rather than asking why your party’s leaders endorse and support terrorist organizations whose sole goal is to destroy Jews and publish said organizations’ propaganda in their church bulletins and sermons.

  55. In reply to comment #43, yes, Amerindian cultures took marriage to be “across gender”, but they defined gender by both body and spirit so had three (or even four) genders. (The notion that they believed in “women with dicks” accords with neither much evidence nor common sense.)

    Many species in nature have more than two genders (see my review of Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow).

    Other cultures seem to have had various forms of same-sex marriage without including gender differences as part of the package.

    Be that as it may, same-sex marriage is certainly a more common social form across human cultures than marriage as heterosexual, monogamous and between legal equals (which the West has only had for: take your pick, since rape within marriage was accepted, since women were no longer sacked from certain jobs for getting married, since they have been able to be legally independent property owners …)

  56. >Except when you’re trying to get a job or into university, then it’s full stop to the white male applicants.

    AHAHAH! YES! There are no white people who have jobs or get into university.

    AHAHAH! YES! That’s exactly why I’m not in Houston serving as a firefighter for HFD, dingleberry.

  57. That’s exactly why I was let go from an Emergency Management position, despite almost 10 years experience, meanwhile a black kid with 0 experience, slept through training and was late to work one day because he spent the weekend in jail still works there.

    Explain to me how that works?

  60. >If all teh gheys want is the contractual connection, they are free to get those under California’s generous domestic partnership statutes, or to enter into contractual legal arrangements of their own design.

    No, they are not “free” to get a “separate but equal” arrangement (that is what you are arguing here BTW) they have to hire expensive lawyers and jump through hoops whereas a straight couple just had to get married. Classic discrimination.

    >There you go again, salvage, with the gross stupidity and ignorance. Let me try to spell this out for you slowly. A. State. Marriage. License. Is. Not. A. Contract. Between. The. Two. People.

    Yes. It. Is. That is why you need witnesses, that is why you need signatures. That contract grants the parties certain rights and obligations. That is what contracts do that’s what it is. If you want to break the contract you have to go to court to get it dissolved. What part of that isn’t like a contract?

    >And after that, we’ll get Obama and his Democrat Party supporters, who are telling Jews to get back to the ovens.

    HAHAHA! YES! They’re all Hitler!

    Its neat how the opponents of gay marriage are have equally intelligent opinions on other subjects.

    >why do those who want to live an alternative lifestyle wish to participate in an institution of traditional society?

    Because that institute grants certain rights via the marriage contract and there is no legal reason to shut them out.

    >considering the same legal benefits are offered to couples,

    They are not offered, if they want to get them they have to spend a great deal of time and money that a straight couple does not.

    >LOL! Come back when you have gotten to high school.

    Hmmm could be awhile, I dropped out decades ago. You do know that video games are a multi-billion dollar industry and are the only entertainment segment to show growth over the last five years? That many analysts are calling it “recession proof”? To equate video games with immaturity exposes yet another facet to your ignorance. Considering how much it all costs one most certainly has to have a steady source of income, kids can’t afford to game like I do.

    >AHAHAH! YES! That’s exactly why I’m not in Houston serving as a firefighter for HFD, dingleberry.

    >That’s exactly why I was let go from an Emergency Management position, despite almost 10 years experience, meanwhile a black kid with 0 experience, slept through training and was late to work one day because he spent the weekend in jail still works there.

    Aw poor dear, it’s always someone else’s fault isn’t it? I bet every failure in your life is like that. Could it be that you’re not in an Emergency Management position because you simply were not good enough? That you screwed up? That they fired your ass because you’re useless? Broke policy? Endangered lives? No! It’s because they only let Black guys (who are all lazy and shiftless naturally) into Emergency Management positions in Houston, I know, there are no White guys doing that job in that city.

    >Explain to me how that works?

    Sure, rather than facing reality and working harder to compensate for your weaknesses you decided to blame the system for being biased against you. It’s simple and requires no self-awareness and paints you the victim so it’s the perfect wingnut solution. Next job don’t be a screw-up and they may not fire you, that’s how the system generally works.

    >Jimmy Carter is such a loathsome man.

    History’s greatest monster from what I hear but he didn’t sell arms to Iran to fund nun rapists and he didn’t invade Iraq getting hundreds of thousands killed for no reason so I’m not sure if that’s true.

  61. #51 Again you claim that you have submitted proof that Obama and the Dems support the protesters shouting vile things towards Israel. And AGAIN you are lying. Your “proof” shows only that SOME have spoken in support of Hamas – IN THE PAST. Show me one tiny shred of evidence that they have approved the hatred of the protesters in Ft Lauderdale. If you want to look into the past – in January of 2008 Obama defended the right of Israel to protect it’s people. Recent articles in Islamic press have criticized him for NOT condemning Israel’s current actions. I realize that is not proof that he does support Israel any more than V using Newsbusters as a source for proof of his support for radical Islam.

    Your claim was that Obama and Dems support the cries of “back to the ovens”. You cannot and will not ever be able to support that claim rationally. That won’t stop you from making it over and over again but each time you do it’s a lie. There is plenty to criticize Obama and the Dem party for so why not focus on reality. There is also plenty to criticize Israel for but that does not legitimatize the hate that the protesters were spewing.

    And, I’ve never claimed that “gays who don’t agree with me support genocide”, that was about AE and it wasn’t because he doesn’t agree with me. In other comments I have said that a continued pattern of hate by fanatic individuals can end up in extremely violent even deadly actions on their part. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing, it’s about seething, uncontrolled hatred as evidenced by constant lies about and slanderous attacks on others. Some spread it by protests in the streets others by comments on an otherwise intelligent blog. To you the first is wrong (I agree), the second is acceptable (hypocrisy)

  62. No, they are not “free” to get a “separate but equal” arrangement (that is what you are arguing here BTW) they have to hire expensive lawyers and jump through hoops whereas a straight couple just had to get married. Classic discrimination.

    Problem is, salvage, you still haven’t spoken out against bans on child marriage, plural marriage, incestuous marriage, and all the other ways in which people are not allowed to marry their chosen sexual partners as being “unconstitutional” or “discriminatory”.

  63. Sure, rather than facing reality and working harder to compensate for your weaknesses you decided to blame the system for being biased against you.

    Sorry, salvage, but gay ENDA supporters like you insist that any time a gay person is fired, it’s not their fault and that it has everything to do with bias and discrimination.

    You simply make your hypocrisy more obvious here.

  64. And the liberal adDave does it again.

    First he claims that no Democrats have ever supported Hamas.

    And AGAIN you are lying.

    Then he contradicts himself in the next sentence.

    Your “proof” shows only that SOME have spoken in support of Hamas – IN THE PAST.

  65. “Separate but equal” isn’t an argument, it’s a bumper-sticker slogan. Which is about the level of sophistication teh ghey left typically exhibits. Ghey people who can come up with the money to take a vacation on Fire Island, or create a fully equipped sex dungeon in their basement can pony up a few hundred bucks for a lawyer to draw up a partnership agreement.

  67. “First he claims that no Democrats have ever supported Hamas.”

    There has perhaps been a bigger a**hole than yourself born on the face of the earth but I couldn’t name one. You could at least say things to base your drool on that have even the tiniest bit of truth to them. Your lack of contact with reality is pitiful. I can only hope that there are tons more like you in the pseudo-conservative ranks, it would guarantee that you will fail miserably and become an even sick joke than the Klan with their pointy heads.

    “Ghey people who can come up with the money to take a vacation on Fire Island, or create a fully equipped sex dungeon in their basement can pony up a few hundred bucks for a lawyer to draw up a partnership agreement.”

    Good one, parrot another toxic right wing stereotype. I suppose that the reality of millions of us who do not fit that specific myth is meaningless to you.

    Salvage, Cali has one of the best domestic partnership laws in the country, there is no extra burden on gays for legalizing their partnerships. If the difference between civil unions and marriage is just the words then the separate but equal chant doesn’t really work either.

    Salvage, there are very real cases of race being the deciding factor of who stays and who goes. Whether that’s true or not in TGC’s case doesn’t change the fact that it happens. Good people are dumped while total slackers are kept on simply because of the color of there skin. I have a coworker who should have been fired two weeks after he started with the company over 8 yrs ago. He is stupid (I mean almost to the point of having to wipe the drool off his chin), he has no work ethic, doesn’t care whose job is made harder because of his ignorance, and almost every single supervisor he has ever had has tried to fire him. The company has repeatedly refused to. That is discrimination.

  68. NDT you are disgusting, there is no basis for you to make such and insane claim about Dems and Obama. You are as completely devoid of morals blah blah blah blah…

    A typically pretentious, twisted ADD way of saying, “NDT, how dare you point out the truth, that Obama’s former church of long standing supports the vicious, evil Hamas terrorists.”

  69. What part of [a State marriage license] isn’t like a contract [between the two people]?

    Oh, just the whole thing. You know… the part where the rest of society has to (1) legislate the institution into existence, and then, when a couple enters into it, the rest of society has to be (2) placed under obligations to support them. And the part where entering into it incorporates a third legal entity, “the marriage of… “, having its own legally recognized interests. And the part where the 2 people have to add their own explicit contractual provisions, IF they want to make the marriage go your way (being a contract between the two of them).

    So: Not. A. Contract. Between. The. Two. People. Try learning something about marriage before you hold forth on it, salvage. Now, if you wanted to argue that it was a contract between *the rest of society* as one party, and the newly recognized couple as the other party, that still wouldn’t quite be right but you’d come a little closer.

  71. ILC, what you say is true about a State license, but it has nothing to due with marriage. That is between the two people, and God if they acknowledge there is a God.

  75. I don’t like it when two men kiss on the courthouse steps. It’s just too “EEEW!” for me. I’m not saying they don’t have the right to do it, it just makes me uncomfortable. I don’t think men should try to imitate straight couples. Male love is different. It doesn’t have to be romantic. Sex between men should be, IMHO, Mixed Martial Arts with an orgasm. I am perfectly content to not “marry” another man. Ick. I want bludbrudershaft. I want a purely masculine connection. A quiet civil union followed by a long night of nude wrestling would be fine with me. Let straight couples have “marriage” since it seems to important to them.

  76. HAHAHA! YES! They’re all Hitler!

    You said it, not me. Not to mention their heroes are such luminarious murderous bastards like “Uncle Joe” Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara etc.

    Could it be that you’re not in an Emergency Management position because you simply were not good enough? That you screwed up? That they fired your ass because you’re useless?

    Yeah, that’s it. I was a screw up and a worthless POS with zero experience was a far superior choice. You’re freakin’ brilliant. I can guaran-damn-tee you that fi I wasn’t good enough, a screw up and useless, I wouldn’t have been hired in the first place. Unless, of course I were black, Hispanic and/or female.

    It’s simple and requires no self-awareness and paints you the victim so it’s the perfect wingnut solution.

    Actually, it requires self awareness to realize that’s how the game is played. And no, I don’t consider myself a “victim”. As I said, that’s how the game is played. From unions to affirmative action, liberals are very keen on keeping the worthless employed so they have voters and they can pretend they actually give a shit about people in the process.

    As far as “wingnut solution”, that explains groups like HRC, GLAAD, Stonewall democrats etc. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Dingleberry.

  77. (Other comment filtered)

    What’s more, dingleberry, I was told by two HFD batallion chiefs that I was wasting my time applying BECAUSE they were looking for blacks and Hispanics. Foolishly, I applied anyway because I thought that my credentials would speak louder than the color of my skin. But I was younger and dumber back then. And no, no other white candidates were accepted during that hiring process.

    In an industry dominated by favoritism of who you know (literally and biblically) rather than what you know, knowing Dr. “Red” Duke, Dr. Paul Pepe and one of Dr. Debakey’s chest cutters didn’t hold a candle to my lack of melanin.

    I’m quite aware of why I didn’t make it into HFD and why I didn’t make it in Emergency Management. Clearly you don’t, nor do you know jack shit about me and my work aptitude. You don’t even know that I don’t wallow in victimhood as liberals are wont to do.

    I’ll give you kudos though. Generally liberals won’t answer my questions, I suppose, out of fear that they’ll actually expose their ignorance or what they really think. Fact remains that they don’t have to. You at least tried.

  78. “But of course, like a good liberal, you won’t hold Obama accountable for this behavior because of Obama’s skin color.”

    Congratulations NDT, you’ve found a new BS lie to sling at me. A person’s skin color, or language, or blah blah blah does not excuse them from being held accountable and gives them no extra priviliges with me, never has and never will.

    Funny how when Wright rants and raves about the US and white folk he’s a hateful liar. When he claims something about Obama that you agree with he’s suddenly telling the truth. You are so full of sh*T

  79. Funny how when Wright rants and raves about the US and white folk he’s a hateful liar. When he claims something about Obama that you agree with he’s suddenly telling the truth.

    Actually, I don’t think Wright is lying, in the sense that he knows better and is deliberately telling a falsehood, when he rants about the United States and white people; he’s just saying what he actually believes, regardless of how stupid it is. Ultimately what got Wright disowned was that he told the truth about Obama, which is that Obama will say and do whatever he has to to get elected — including denouncing Hamas when Wright knows Obama supported him and his support of Hamas.

  82. I don’t think men in love should try to model their relationships on heterosexual couples. Does that sound not-gay? My image of male love comes from Achilles and Patroclus, Bacchus and Sergius, Alexander and Hephaeston, David and Jonathan, etc. and that sort of pure masculine bonding D. H. Lawrence describes in Women in Love. It is difficult to imagine this kind of masculine love being expressed by public cuddling. Far from being separate but equal, I think male love is separate but better. I think that civil unions will allow men to show how much deeper, how much more monogamous and faithful and intense, male love is than the weak and somewhat effeminate bonds men have with women. OK, maybe I’m not gay–I love masculinity too much.

  85. #84 NDT, any chance you have more than one person to use as an example? And I don’t see anyone in that article name Tex so it appears it is just another case of you lying about someone because they disagree with you.

  87. 81.

    Let me think of 3 off the top of my head.

    1) Steve Stivers who, despite some voting irregularities certified by a blatently partisan democrat Sec of state, didn’t challenge the loss to Mary Jo Kilroy.

    2) That Gov of Washington who was blatently cheated out of an election by the democrats, but didn’t fight it ‘for the good of the state of Washington.’

    3) Richard Nixon, 1960. Who lost to blatent manipulation by the Daley machine and LBJ in Texas, but didn’t fight, for the good of the nation.

    Yes, this means I’m rating Nixon as having higher standards than Obama, since you conceed he’d do or say anything to be elected.

  88. Boycotts are part of Free speech. I guess this blog writer is against free speech? Funny how free speech is supported in one case, but not when the writer disagrees with the topic. Lol. I love conservatives – they are so easily debunked. I believe everyone has a right to boycott whoever they like for whatever reason they want. And the writer has shown no connection between “this is the wrong approach” and history. In fact – boycotts and protests have worked. Including those against businesses supporting the Vietnam war, companies that refuse to serve blacks, and other folks. You may disagree with the boycott – but please – provide some “facts” as to why its the wrong approach so we can see what you think the final goal should be.

  91. #82 – OK, Ash, I see your point. And yes, the wrestling scene in D.H. Lawrence’s “Women in Love” is very homoerotic. Still, I don’t think that expressions of pure love between two men should be in any way limited – which was my main point. Plus, a kiss between two males has been documented all the way back to Old Testament days – witness the kiss between David and Jonathan to name one example.

    That being said – I also agree with your point that masculinity is more compatible with being a so-called “man’s man” and expressing one’s emotions through physical contact. I’ve always said that gay men are more “masculine” than straight men because of our appreciation for the male form and physique.

    And not to hijack the thread or open a can of worms, but there tends to be a dichotomy between “masculine” gay men and the feminized ones. As I’ve always told my friends and family, being gay doesn’t necessarily mean being a pansy. If I wanted to have sex with a woman, I’d have married one. (Fortunately I didn’t – Hubby is truly a man’s man. But I digress.)

    Bruce and/or Dave, maybe there’s a blog topic in all of this somewhere?

    BTW – Ash, good points and all. Would love to hear more from you about this.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  93. Oh, and adDave, any chance of you condemning the people brought up for supporting gay marriage bans, like you do to everyone else? Any chance of you demanding a boycott and public shaming of HRC and the Democrat Party, the way you do everyone else? Any chance of you saying that gays who vote for Democrats who support gay marriage bans and believe that marriage is a “sacred union” that should be limited to a man and a woman are self-loathing, just like you do everyone else?

  95. Just stumbled on your site as a link off of Michelle Malkin’s. As a hetero breeder type, I don’t often seek gay-specific sites (ok time to throw stones, trolls).

    However the whole prop-8 debate makes me mad from the sense of privacy and respect. Some idiot has now put up eightmaps.com which will allow any nutcase radical activist type to hunt down and harass those with whom they disagree. Google is party to this, and should be made to take it down or at least remove people’s names and adresses.

    Let’s all hope that fair-minded and decent people of all viewpoints can see the danger in this. This time you might smirk that it has those ‘evil conservative minded types’ on the run. I guarantee if it was a similar breech of privacy for left-thinking individuals (pick ANY leftist issue), people would be screaming bloody murder from the highest mountaintop. The hypocrisy is mind boggling here. Any number of groups involved in terrorism or human rights violations could use the google map technology for bad intentions.