Who among us hasn’t posted in haste and said things that could have been phrased better?

Me.

Oh sure I sometimes later think of things to add, but I mean what I say.

[Senatus] “I think it’s unimaginably pompous for Americans to constantly claim we are the “greatest” country ever.”

[Steven] America is the greatest for me…

Unfortunately, Senatus has a point. Not in the way he thinks. But America, under the socialist-fascist philosophy of the Democrats, is no longer a free country. China, which is communist and commits human rights abuses, is actually better in terms of economic freedom than America is today. I’m not sure what “the freest country in the world” is today. I’d have to think about it. But part of the Democrats’ goal is to make America less of a free country, and less of a great country. *To the extent they succeed*, then, tragically, America in indeed no longer the greatest country. That is why we must defeat them.

Who among us hasn’t posted in haste and said things that could have been phrased better? I’m prone to take Sent at his word that he was over blustery.

Now as to marriage, lets remember there are two different levels of meaning here.

1) A commitment, normally within religious or sociatal context, between two (or more!) adults promising a life long relationship. This is allowed in every state of the union, if not publicly recognized. (possible exception, heritcal offshoots of the LDS, but aren’t they formally charged on fraud and child abuse more than polygamy?)

2) Legal recognition by the state of a relationship between one man and one woman.

It is possible (and encouragable) to have 1 without 2.

I think I need to apologize for the tone of my earlier post. I was, in hindsight, a little overwrought when I wrote that post, and I’m sorry it came off as rather harsh and blustery.

You said it, you meant it.

Social issues mean far more to me than fiscal or foreign police issues ever will.

I wonder…would gay marriage mean a damn to you if you’re pounding sand for Islamo-fascists or some other enemy of America? Wouldn’t you prefer security first and worry about the miniscule later? Wouldn’t you want the freedom to get married and not worry about the plane, while on your honeymoon, being hijacked and flown into a building?

To be frank, most conservatives frighten me on gay issues.

What is it about individual freedom, liberty and responsibility that terrifies you? What is it about the desire for you to succede and be the best at whatever you choose to do that frightens you?

Why couldn’t Doug Hoffman have just said same-sex marriage / civil unions are a state matter

Bush did and he was pilloried as a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe so what the hell difference would that make?

and that he would defer to the Department of Defense on DADT?

McCain did and he was pilloried as a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe so what the hell difference would that make?

Not to mention McCain granted an interview with the gay media. Chairman Obama was too busy surrounding himself with racist, sexist, bigot homophobes to do so.

Best wishes,
-MFS

How ironic; you’re now whining about people calling your beliefs wrong and ridiculing them when you came storming in here in your first post to do exactly that to all of us.

You can dish, but you can’t take. How very typical of a gay liberal, and how very obvious it makes it that you expect preferential treatment based on your minority status.

Somehow I’m supposed to not let the sexual identity I struggled for fifteen years to come to terms with influence any choice I make in the political realm.

“Any” choice wouldn’t be the problem. The issue here is that you let it influence EVERY choice you make, to the point where you are incapable of making a decision WITHOUT consulting your Big Book of Approved Gay Outcomes.

Furthermore, you insist that, because WE do not make what you consider an “approved” gay outcome and belief system, we must be self-loathing and psychologically disturbed — or not really gay.

Since I’m nothing but a “narcissistic, self-obsessed, insecure” little f*g for wishing to be treated with a modicum of respect in this country

Correction. You are a narcissistic, self-obsessed, insecure little f*g because you are incapable of recognizing the difference between respect, which includes the capacity to disagree, and unconditional worship and affirmation of whatever you do regardless of performance, consistency, or intelligence because you are gay, which is what you are demanding.

I hope all of you are happy when these wonderful evangelical Christian conservatives who apparently wrote all our founding documents finally turn this country back into a “Christian Nation”, circa 1790.

Your fantasies based on your irrational antireligious bigotry and hatred are no concern of ours. The fact that you are a bigot who hates Christians, demonizes them, and does everything in your power to hurt them is your own psychological disturbance. You and your fellow cowards who hide this behind your sexual orientation are the primary problem in this country.

Grow up and stop blaming your bigotry on your sexual orientation, coward.

I do so love the hypocrisy of gay liberals.

It doesn’t seem like you care at all about gay issues…..Again, my wallet is not more important to me than the equal protection of me and my family under the law…….I have tried to be open-minded about the views here, but I just can not wrap my head around this obsession you people have with money……Good luck to all of you, I hope your bank account can shield you from the homophobic hellhole all your conservative “friends” want to turn this country into.

And later:

I guess I just look at politics differently than my fellow gays who are conservative. Our priorities are simply too different, irreconcilable perhaps. Social issues mean far more to me than fiscal or foreign police issues ever will. I know I’m going to look close-minded by saying so, but this is why I could never date a conservative / Republican – the gap in beliefs and expectations is just far too broad, it would poison everything else.

As far as I have been able to observe, both in this country and abroad, it has been center, center-left, liberal, and left-oriented groups that have championed change for the gay community. To be frank, most conservatives frighten me on gay issues….I can’t help but see him as just more of the same anti-gay conservatism I’ve seen in politics all of my adult life. He’s been endorsed by a host of anti-gay religious right groups, from the National Organization for Marriage to Concerned Women for America. If that doesn’t bother you as a gay person, then vote for him – I just would not be able to do it myself, he opposes my way of life, and that just hits too close to home for me.

Insulting, condescending, and patronizing all at once — and then he tries to claim OTHER people are angry?

I hope all of you are happy when these wonderful evangelical Christian conservatives who apparently wrote all our founding documents finally turn this country back into a “Christian Nation”, circa 1790. Then you’ll have all the guns, un-taxed income, and sodomy laws you ever dreamed of. Once we deregulate the health insurance market and every insurance company moves to the state that only mandates you cover a runny nose, then my gay brothers and sisters with HIV/AIDS will really get a taste of the mercies of the unfettered free market. I mean, what insurance company in their right mind will cover someone with something as unprofitable as HIV/AIDS? But who knows, maybe we’ll all be rich enough to just pay for treatment out-of-pocket, once all of the government-hating TEA Party crew have taken the Federal Government and “drown it in the bathtub”. You know, if it wasn’t for the Federal Government the South would still be segregated and something like twelve states would still ban consensual intercourse between gay men. You’ll forgive me if I don’t view the Federal Government with quite the same suspicion as most people here.

“I think it’s unimaginably pompous for Americans to constantly claim we are the “greatest” country ever.”

America is the greatest for me; otherwise, I would have left it long ago for a more congenial environment. I imagine that’s why people who stay in the areas of the world they are in stay…because it is the greatest for them.* Thank God for choices.

“I actually do think the ideals of Western Civilization could be considered among if not THE “greatest” and should be defended, but who decided that our nation’s embodiment of Western Civilization is the best?”

I don’t want to live in France’s embodiment of Western Civilization or for that matter any European countries embodiment of Western Civilization. I like the American embodiment of Western Civilization and it is why I stay in America. If I didn’t, I’d move. No, no place is perfect; however, I think the American dream, as originally constructed, offers the greatest level of freedom to individuals than any other system that has risen in the western world. So call me pompous all you want.

* Some people don’t have a choice gay Iranians; how unfortunate is that?

“Harsh” and “blustery”? Don’t be silly, Senatus. Personally, I found your complaints of being treated as “a second-class citizen,” the claim that you and your family are denied “equal protection under the law,” your implication that gays are “socially-despised” in the US, and your statement that all straight conservatives want to turn America into a “homophobic hellhole” to be downright breezy. No apology necessary.

“Social issues mean far more to me than fiscal or foreign police issues ever will.”

Well, Senatus, when you define the issues in a vacuum as having absolutely NOTHING to do with each other and you happen to be too intellectually obtuse to see any overlap between them, then you have no choice but to choose one and reject all others.

“I know I’m going to look close-minded by saying so, but this is why I could never date a conservative / Republican – the gap in beliefs and expectations is just far too broad, it would poison everything else.”

Senatus, you’re not close-minded for making a personal choice that you would never date a conservative/Republican. What makes you close-minded is that you would make that choice having ZERO understanding of the conservative beliefs that would purportedly “poison everything else.” You might as well swear off ever dating Panamanians because their paralyzing phobia of roller derby “would poison everything else.”

“As far as I have been able to observe, both in this country and abroad, it has been center, center-left, liberal, and left-oriented groups that have championed change for the gay community.”

Other than being a “fierce advocate” for gay costume changes, what exactly has Obama changed for the gay community? I agree that he and Bill Clinton both “championed” the repeal of DADT, “championed” marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman, and “championed” the Defense of Marriage Act. But with all that “championing” going on, why is it that you’ve never actually won any of these battles?

“To be frank, most conservatives frighten me on gay issues. There are a precious few who are able to balance fiscal and national security conservatism with gay-friendliness (or even neutrality), but they are not the norm in my experience.”

So, let’s review: Iran hangs gays pursuant to Sharia law in broad daylight (strictly with the humane “dangle and strangle” method) and Iran’s President is welcomed to Columbia University to assure us that gays don’t even exist in his country—big surprise there.)

Bush condemns Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, states unequivocally that Iran WILL NOT be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, and he is condemned by liberals as a war-mongering bully who has no right to say what country can or can’t have nukes.

Obama treats Ahmadinejad as an esteemed diplomat even after Iran is caught lying AGAIN about its on-going nuclear enrichment, says little more than he is “deeply concerned” about “the violence” in Iran after Ahmadinejad steals an election and dispatches his minions to murder protesters in the street, and Obama continues to engage in diplomatic chit-chat while the centrifuges whirl and the country’s representatives scoff publicly at the idea that they would ever give up their nuclear plans.

Any idea which President those dead Iranian gay teens would regard as being more “gay friendly” in their approach to national security?

“If that doesn’t bother you as a gay person, then vote for him – I just would not be able to do it myself, he opposes my way of life, and that just hits too close to home for me.”

No, Senatus. What “hits too close to home” for you is that Hoffman has not ritualistically and affirmatively validated, endorsed, approved, and CHAMPIONED your way of life. And that, in your narcissistic, self-obsessed, insecure world means that he is oppressing you and actively plotting your destruction. In other words, your feelings are hurt and in the absence of an abject apology from Hoffman for the oversight and his personal commitment to tell you on a daily basis that he thinks it’s super-awesome that you’re gay, you have no choice but to fill the black hole of your insecurities with paranoid fantasies of persecution, victimization, and oppression.

As an evangelical Christian (who also happens to be gay), I can assure you that every Christian I know supports allowing you (as a gay man) to have power of attorney on behalf of your partner in a hospital situation, and in fact, in many (if not most) states, you already have this power. In the few states where the law has not been updated, it is simply a matter of time before it is; and all of this has and will be accomplished without changing the definition of marriage. As for issues of wills, if the will is drawn up properly in the first place, then there is nothing in most states that prevents a transfer of property from one gay partner to another. And again, if there is ambiguity in the law in some states, this is something that can be remedied without resorting to changing the definition of marriage. So if these are the issues you are concerned about, why don’t you ask Doug Hoffman, or any conservative Republican, what they think about changing those particular laws, and I can assure you that you will be pleasantly surprised to find that the vast majority of Republicans will agree with you.

As for the religious affiliation of the Founding Fathers, you have been spoon-fed a lot of anti-Christian propaganda and nonsense by your leftist friends. Every one of the Founding Fathers was a professing Christian of one sort or another (there might have been one or two Deists in the bunch, but this is not as clear as you might think).

Larry Schweikert and others have written persuasively on this topic. Here’s a quote from Schweikert:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413314/posts

“Jefferson wrote in his Bible, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.” Jefferson, we might add, was the chairman of the American Bible Society. Patrick Henry, in 1776, stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.””

And then this:

“Had the Founders been subject to the incessant polling we suffer from today, three things are clear: 1) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, characterized the United States as a Christian nation (leaving aside what each interpreted that to mean); 2) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, thought it imperative that leaders display the type of character that sprang from Christianity; and 3) They would have almost certainly unanimously agreed that the “wall of separation” was to prevent one Christian denomination from dominating, and was never intended to be a wedge between the government and Christianity.

And who are these terrible authoritarian evangelicals you speak of? I do not know of a single evangelical leader who wants to take away any of your rights, or see you persecuted in any way. I can think of a few Muslim leaders who want to see you hanged; but trust me, us little ol’ Christians don’t mean you any harm. You need to get past that hysterical and narrow minded stereotype.

Wow, you seem like a really angry person. Even if I wanted to move to Cuba I don’t speak Spanish and I hate hot weather, so it’s definitely a no-no for me. I do speak French, so perhaps I could move to Québec.

Anyway, I honestly don’t hate the United States, I know you won’t believe me, but I don’t. I actually like a lot of things about our capitalist system, but I’m also realistic enough to not think it’s the be-all-end-all. I know this will sound blasphemous to a conservative, but I also don’t think any country is the “greatest”, even the US. I think it’s unimaginably pompous for Americans to constantly claim we are the “greatest” country ever. I actually do think the ideals of Western Civilization could be considered among if not THE “greatest” and should be defended, but who decided that our nation’s embodiment of Western Civilization is the best?

Sean A -

I just KNEW someone would pick up on that as soon as I posted it. And no, that is not what I meant.

Senatus, I assume the “calamity” you’re referring to is being admitted to a Canadian hospital.

Yes, I certainly could “hold a wedding ceremony in front of your family and friends, call yourself “married,” and live openly and freely as such for as long as you want”. That isn’t going to do me one bit of good when the hospital ignores our power-of-attorney (as happened to the Langbehn-Pond lesbian couple in Florida), or my deceased partner’s family challenges our will or tries to take half our property. Evangelical Christian conservatives don’t care about any of that, because if they give my relationship ANY legal recognition, then they are sinning, and that outweighs anything else to them, fairness or compassion be damned.

As far as these “evangelical Christian conservatives who wrote our Constitution” you seem to idolize, who on earth are they? They certainly aren’t George Washington the Virginia Episcopalian and devoted Freemason, or Benjamin Franklin the Pennsylvania Episcopalian with heavily Deist beliefs, or even James Madison, another Virginia Episcopalian who said: “The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. (1819)” That hardly sounds like something Focus on the Family or the Family Research Council (today’s “evangelical Christian conservatives”) would approve of.

And you don’t even want to start on the Declaration of Independence’s author Thomas Jefferson, yet another (rather nominal) Virginia Episcopalian, whose complex views on religion are probably closest to the Deists. Would any “evangelical Christian conservatives” be caught dead saying this: “Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. (1820)”

Given that the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) all were written before the Second Great Awakening (1790-1840s), which is usually considered the start of what became modern Evangelical Christianity, it find it dubious to call these great men “evangelical Christian conservatives”. Conservatives they may well have been, but I’d say they would have little in common with the authoritarian evangelical Christian conservatives of today’s America.