Troubled times breed troubled people. Blogs like this one seem to bring out the best — and the worst — of them.

I think we are making a difference. It will take time to see just how much of one we’re able to effect.

Even you

Thank you for reminding me (again) that it seems all the good women are either taken or playing for the other team.

Since I am obviously a female, therefore a lesbian — a member of the demograpic least likely to contract AIDS), your spiteful and childish little question, Anonymous Coward, makes no sense.

A psychiatrist would, no doubt, be very interested in why you — a supposed heterosexual — are so obviously obsessed with homosexuality that you now feel compelled to return here, again and again and again, to expose your tortured little Id to the rest of us. Most of us were closeted once, so we’re well aware of what you’re doing.

Get help. Or take a pill. Or shoot yourself. I don’t give a damn which. It isn’t possible to have a reasoned discussion with anybody as messed up in the head as you are.

“You can dish out the insults, but you can’t take them.” Sure I can. Especially when they come from someone so unaware of how he comes across to others that he just goes on making a fool of himself, long after his real motives have become transparent.

I don’t need to say more. All we need to do, here, is just wind you up and you” do it all for us.

And, oh, by the way, libertarians are as much like whores and the like as conservative Christians are like fanatical Muslims. You can dish out the insults, but you can’t take them. AIDS got your brain?

You sound more like you belong in the Fred Phelps group than in any conservative organization.

No I am not saying that, and if you were capable of reading for comprehension you would know it. You are the liar, because you are deliberately twisting my words.

When I wrote that, I wondered if you were going to pull that crap. I put it in there anyway, just to see how dishonest you really are. Again, you proved the point better than I ever could.

When it comes to “legislating morality,” the gap in your understanding would make plenty of room for a good-sized planet. Part of that post described the way the founders did that…by what are now commonly known as libertarian (and used to be considered conservative) principles…which involved encouraging individual responsibility and removing the soft landing an overindulgent government might provide. This honors everyone’s individual freedom, recognizing that the government properly exists to protect our rights, not to attack them.

If you really knew anything about the origins of conservative American thought, you would be quite familiar with what I was saying. What you are showing, instead, is that you are either an ignoramus of titanic proportions or a total liar.

“The only difference between people like you and whores, pedophiles, animal abusers, perverts and the like is a matter of (small) degree.”

There is no difference between a nasty little creep like you and a coward, because that is what you are. You are a dirty, chickenhearted little coward who slithers over to a site you’re too ignorant to even bother to read, one hand down your pants, drooling all over your keyboard as you fantasize about what (you think) other people do sexually. Using an alias, of course.

The only difference between people like you and whores, pedophiles, animal abusers, perverts and the like is a matter of (small) degree.

Whiiiiine. Christians didn’t speak out soon enough to suit you regarding Uganda. Oh boo hoo. Not one person died there due the government, while millions are dying in Africa due to AIDS. How about queers just ceasing to have sex if they have HIV or AIDS? JUST. STOP. Instead, people such as you advocate that they can do any damn thing they want so long as it is with another “consenting” adult.

The liberals seem to push for policies that encourage irresponsibility by letting people (including heterosexuals) do whatever they want — at other people’s expense. I am not in favor of that for anybody, including gays. If each adult had to face the consequences of their own actions, without Big Brother there to soften the blow, we’d see a lot more moral and responsible behavior in society.

The difference between conservative Christians who want to legislate their religious beliefs (which are not even shared by every other conservative Christian when it comes to things like same-sex love) and conservative Muslims who want to impose Sharia law by force, is merely a matter of degree. The silence of many “Christians” when Uganda tried to impose the death penalty on gays shows that. It is up to those who really believe in limited government, here in the U.S., to stop that sort of thing from happening here.

Kudos to Gay Patriot for all they’re trying to do. This is a terrific site. I just wish that people like Anonymous would take the time to read some of the posts here before coming in and trashing us all. Most of the folks who post here are really on the same side, politically, as he is. He, and people like him, are simply shooting themselves in the foot by failing to realize this.

• Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: The number of states outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation increased 83 percent, from 12 to 22, between 2000 and 2009. The percentage of the U.S. population living in states banning discrimination based on sexual orientation soared from 24.5 percent to 44.1 percent, an 80 percent increase. In other words, today 134 million Americans are now living in states where discrimination based on sexual orientation has been outlawed, an increase of 65 million over the decade. (When local nondiscrimination laws passed by cities without statewide protections are included, the figure is over 50 percent of the U.S. population.) Fortune 500 companies that protect workers based on sexual orientation grew from 51 percent to 88 percent.
• Discrimination Based on Gender Identity: There was an even more remarkable increase in states outlawing discrimination based on gender identity and expression, which rose from just 1state in the year 2000 to 14 states representing nearly 30 percent of the population in 2009. The percentage of Fortune 500 companies that protect workers based on gender identity jumped even more, from just 0.6 percent to 35 percent.
• Relationship Recognition: Similarly exceptional gains were made in the area of family recognition. In 2000, no state extended the freedom to marry to same-sex couples; one state gave broad recognition to same-sex relationships and one offered limited recognition. Now in 2009, five states extend marriage to same-sex couples (with New Jersey and the District of Columbia pending at press time), six offer broad recognition, and seven offer more limited recognition. Overall, the number of Americans living in a state that offers some protections to same-sex couples nearly tripled, from 12.7 percent to 37.2 percent.
• Protection from Violence: The 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is the first federal law to specifically protect LGBT people.
• LGBT Elected Officials: The number of openly LGBT elected officials in America rose 73 percent between 2000 and 2009, from 257 to 445.
• Public Opinion: The percentage of the public supporting the right of openly gay and lesbian people to serve in the military grew from 62 percent to 75 percent. Support for marriage equality has grown from 35 percent in 2000 to 39 percent today; there has been an even larger increase in support for relationship recognition that involves many of the rights of marriage, from 45 to 57 percent.
• Safer Schools: In 2000, only one state had a safe school law that specifically cited sexual orientation and gender identity/expression for protection; by 2009 that rose to 13 states. The number of Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs in high schools grew from 700 to 4,700, a nearly six-fold increase.

change is a coming http://www.lgbtmap.org/home.html

So, Anonymous, you ARE simply posting in ignorance and not bothering to read the blog upon which you are posting. Yeah, “chicky,” that IS ignorance. That is precisely what it is.

A few people confront you with reason, and you respond by spluttering, setting your hair on fire and shrieking about dead people and animals. No one else here has to make you look bad, you’re doing such an effective job of it yourself.

Of course I guess that means if I read John’s mind, he’d ban driving, sky diving, hunting, smoking, flying, or anything else that would be risky.

But then I wouldn’t read John’s mind. I don’t do picture books.

And John, the only legislating morality comes in when affecting another. Stealing is depriving one of property, murder is depriving of life. There is a reason the constitution is a document of ‘negative rights’ as the president says.

Can the state offer incentives for certain behaviours? Yes. Drivers license for the privilege of driving, or requirements for government recognition of a contract.

Tell me, John. Do you think the state should be allowed to say what cosenting adult you can or cannot have sex with? Most of the posters here on the right think this country needs to focus on fixing bigger things than whether or not two (or more) adults are sharing a bed.

I fear though it’s a lost cause with you, as your knowlege of history is as lacking as Tano’s understanding of insurance, or Levi’s understanding of the constitution.

31, soooo, consenting adults can kill each other in private. And they can consent to watching kiddie porn. And taking smack and crack. And they can “consent” to torturing puppies in the privacy of their own homes. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt. We can and do outlaw things that we do not want to allow in our society. You just don’t want to, or don’t have the stomach for, outlawing homosexual behavior.

It IS possible to “legislate morality;” we do it every day, see the above paragraph for examples. That is a cop out, not to mention being factually untrue. Do you bother to think before you type something?

32, do you ever follow the “logic” of what others write? I was responding to the person who said “dead animals and children can’t consent.” The OBVIOUS conclusion to reach is that particular person would agree that it is ok if they could consent. Prostitutes and bigamists and and orgies presumably are all consenting adults, and therefore fine in that particular person’s mind. If you disagree, and think that homosexuality should be legal but that prostitution, bygamy, orgies and the like should be illegal, why, and on what basis? Like I thought. You DO think that they should all be legal. See? I was right.

Sorry, chicky, it ain’t “ignorance,” it is a principled stance against immorality. And I’m here because this blog was linked to by conservative grape vine. If you don’t want people to comment on crap that is put out on this blog, don’t post crap.

And exactly who says, John Doe Anonymous, that “our version of morality” condones such things? At this point you’re simply pulling crap out of your butt and flinging it at us to see if it sticks.

You have obviously bothered to read nothing posted on this blog, so your reason for commenting here is…what, exactly? You seem to find it impossible to read for comprehension (or, more likely, you’re simply too sloppy to bother).

Although you are probably the last one who would recognize this, you are a prime example of exactly why GoProud is needed, and why they should participate in conservative events. Ignorance like yours must be countered. Even when it’s as willful as yours so obviously is.

You can’t even claim that you don’t know better. That’s what makes you so pathetic.

Nope your horse doesn’t fly, and yes what consenting adults do with each other -is- fine. Unless you’re honestly arguing that one adult can’t consent to go skydiving with others in case they you know, die.

It is not possible to legislate morality, no matter what the liberals do. It’s possible to teach morality, we do it with our kids all the time. But it isn’t the state’s concern who I’m with (no matter how many) as long as it’s willing. It’s not the state’s concern how many toilets i have, how big they are, or how many guns I have or swords or axes, or whips and chains for that matter.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they also had laws against bigamy, homosexuality, and all manner of immorality. It is impossible to argue that those who wrote the Constitution did not understand, and that somehow they enacted unconstitutional laws contemporaneously with the Constitution, and only later (say 200 yrs in the case of Lawrence v. Texas) were those laws discovered to be unconstitutional.