Gay Patriot Header Image

New York in Context

Five years ago, when the highest court in New York State refused to mandate state recognition of same-sex marriage, I disagreed with gay activists who criticized the decision, writing, “It is the job of courts to interpret the law, not set social policy“, adding

Despite the unfortunate rhetoric of the releases of HRC and NGLTF, I am delighted to see that their leaders are now looking to these legislators to make that case. Let’s hope this defeat convinces them to spend more time promoting gay marriage in legislatures and other popular fora rather than in courts of law.

Now that they have done so; they have finally achieved the result they wanted.  Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.

The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.

We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.

It’s amazing the speed with which our elected legislatures have moved to consider state recognition of our (gay) relationships.  Just six years ago, the Connecticut legislature voted to recognize civil unions, without a court mandating it to do so.  I blogged on the significance of that vote here.

With the success in New York, it’s time (well, it’s long past time) to move the debate from the courts to the legislatures, as has happened in that state.  And once it’s gone through the legislatures, indeed, even as it’s going through the messy process of law-making in other jurisdictions, it’s important we consider state-recognized marriage as more than just personal validation, more than a trophy in the culture wars, but also as an ancient and honorable institution which imposes duties on those who seek its protections and gain privileges from the state.

In sum, we need to talk not just about why the state should recognize our unions, but why same-sex monogamous unions are good in and of themselves.

B. Daniel Blatt

Share

207 Comments

  1. No forget to state the obvious that the LSM’s will totally avoid that it was a REPUBLICAN controlled state senate that passed this bill so that CUOMO & the beautiful Sandra Lee could sign.

    Comment by Zeke — June 25, 2011 @ 2:56 pm - June 25, 2011

  2. Whoops spell check: Don’t forget to state….

    Comment by Zeke — June 25, 2011 @ 2:56 pm - June 25, 2011

  3. Can someone explain how this is different from civil unions please? These state marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships still aren’t entitled to federal benefits, right? I mean, it seems to me that years ago most people supported the idea of civil unions but that wasn’t good enough for gay activists. So years later and millions of dollars spent NY state has essentially achieved the exact same thing that civil unions/domestic partnership legislation would have achieved. Yes? What am I missing?

    Comment by Jane — June 25, 2011 @ 3:29 pm - June 25, 2011

  4. I agree about the lack of meaningful/useful/informative discourse in the public square over the past two weeks. I’m still reeling from the hyperbole and hate of both sides. Perhaps I should have been reading/debating at “gay patriot” instead. I hope I don’t have to see the word “bigot” until I’ve at lest got my eyes back in there sockets and all the blood is wiped off my desk.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 25, 2011 @ 5:11 pm - June 25, 2011

  5. Richard, you are definitely anticipating my next post–not sure when I’ll get it up due to events and obligations this weekend. Working title is “Hyperventilating on gay marriage” about excesses on both sides.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 25, 2011 @ 5:23 pm - June 25, 2011

  6. Looking forward to it, Daniel.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 25, 2011 @ 5:53 pm - June 25, 2011

  7. Dan, what is your take then, on Prop 8 & same-sex marriage in California? Around the same time voters approved Prop 22 in 2000 which was a statute stating “marriage is only recognized between one man & one woman, ” the California legislature approved domestic partnerships for gays.

    Of course, we all know that the California Supreme Court declared Prop 22 to be unconstitutional and same-sex marriage was allowed briefly until Prop 8 shut it down again.

    So how could same-sex marriage could have been approved in California through the Legislature? The legislature would have been accused of overriding the voters in 2000 if they approved same-sex marriage before the courts intervened.

    From what I know of all the major gay organizations, same-sex marriage won’t be put to vote in 2012, because it goes against their “not putting basic rights to a vote” argument. So, if same-sex marriage does return to California, it will be through the courts (if they uphold that Prop 8 was unconstitutional).

    I look forward to Dan’s response.

    Comment by James — June 25, 2011 @ 9:25 pm - June 25, 2011

  8. From what I know of all the major gay organizations, same-sex marriage won’t be put to vote in 2012, because it goes against their “not putting basic rights to a vote” argument.

    Well, that’s their problem, because that is how the California Constitution and the system based on it works.

    What you’re basically asking us to do is to legitimize gay and lesbian people wanting to bypass and ignore the established constitutional hierarchy and structure.

    Nope, sorry. Gay-sex liberals can follow the same rules as everyone else — although their whiny attempts to do so nicely put their lies about “equality” out there for everyone to see, given that they DON’T want to follow the laws equally.

    Do you agree, James, that gay and lesbian people should be allowed to bypass the Constitution and impose their will?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 10:33 pm - June 25, 2011

  9. James,

    Since marriage is not a ‘basic right’ It kind of makes the ssm argument, well stupid. More to the point, California actually proves Dan’s point. The Legislation took a step using their delegated powers. The courts overreached in California, violating their delegated powers, or as Dan put it “It is the job of courts to interpret the law, not set social policy“.

    Prop 8 was, simply, the expression of the people as the final arbiters of law.

    There is nothing to prevent the people to modify the constitution (for example) to give all people named Dan a $50 a month stipend. Clearly if the legislature passed a law to that effect, it would be shot down as being clearly discriminatory, but the constitution is a different beast.

    I’m not Dan, but that’s my two c-bills.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 25, 2011 @ 10:42 pm - June 25, 2011

  10. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the conservatives in New York found a judge to put a hold on the new law, just as liberals did regarding Proposition 8 in California? That would be interesting…

    Comment by Dottie Laird — June 25, 2011 @ 11:34 pm - June 25, 2011

  11. The NY victory should be about more than personal validation and a trophy in the culture wars? Please, Dan! That’s what the push for gay marriage is all about: legislated self-esteem for gays (See! The state recognizes my lifestyle, so I’m normal!), and spitting in the face of social conservatives. That’s all it’s ever been about. It had NOTHING to do with respecting the “ancient and honorable institution” of marriage. Dan, if that respect truly existed in you and other SSM supporters, you wouldn’t be trying so hard to redefine marriage for your own personal validation.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 25, 2011 @ 11:38 pm - June 25, 2011

  12. I agree with the decision because it’s a State’s right issue and I’m thinking now it’s getting momentum and people are realizing that it’s not a big deal.

    Comment by Nick — June 26, 2011 @ 12:10 am - June 26, 2011

  13. @ North Dallas Thirty,

    I specifically asked Dan (B. Daniel Blatt) for his opinion about how same-sex marriage could be best legalized in California (if not through the courts). I didn’t ask for your opinion, so no, I decline to answer any of your follow-up questions to my post to Dan.

    If you want to engage in petty name calling (like “gay sex liberals” & “Obama Party”) like you usually do, go right ahead. You’re no different than lefties who use the phrase “teabaggers” and try to paint conservatives as backwards. Unfortunately, it’s this kind of childish and inane rhetoric (from both sides of the political aisle) that deters or prevents people with different views, to have a civil debate or discussion.

    Comment by James — June 26, 2011 @ 12:32 am - June 26, 2011

  14. “In sum, we need to talk not just about why the state should recognize our unions, but why same-sex monogamous unions are good in and of themselves.”

    And not just talk, but be examples.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 26, 2011 @ 4:22 am - June 26, 2011

  15. James, perhaps you should read my posts before asking me a question. I’ve already answered that question. So, go scan this blog’s archives on gay marriage, review what I’ve written and you should find the answers to your questions.

    Do seem sometimes you’re trying to bait me rather than engage me.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 26, 2011 @ 4:34 am - June 26, 2011

  16. An incident just last evening reminds me that those of us in LTRs, need to do a better job of communicating the ideals of committed monogamous relationships. We are in Mykonos for the summer and were at a party yesterday with a variety people in attendance of all ages and persuasions. A younger man we have known for several years, who lives on the island, asked if we were on grinder. I asked what is grinder?……talk about feeling old. I asked the young man why in the world would he think we were on a hookup site? Did he not know we are monogamous couple? Suffice to say we had a conversation.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 26, 2011 @ 4:48 am - June 26, 2011

  17. I didn’t ask for your opinion, so no, I decline to answer any of your follow-up questions to my post to Dan.

    Perhaps, then, it might be more appropriate to send an e-mail rather than being a dick?

    Comment by TGC — June 26, 2011 @ 4:52 am - June 26, 2011

  18. “10.Wouldn’t it be ironic if the conservatives in New York found a judge to put a hold on the new law, just as liberals did regarding Proposition 8 in California? That would be interesting…”

    Actually, that’s exactly what I’m hearing in my district. Not sure if it’s frustration and disappointment talking so it will need a few days to see if it sticks. Here is the talk;

    “A primer on how this law is overturned:
    1. the 1st amendment prohibits exactly the type of government blessing of religious views that the religious carve out allegedly grants. Government does not and cannot grant or endorse a religious belief, or validate it by state action.

    2. the tenth amendment and the NYS equivalent prohibits government forays into powers which are not enumerated in the constitution because doing so is a usurpation of individual liberty, again, even though they sell this as an increase in personal liberty, it is the opposite and will be found to violate the clauses which limit government and prohibit government taking a personal liberty and making it a government edict.

    3. Mormons and Muslims will demand that the marriage dictates of their religions deserve similar protection in the form of a government edict validating those traditions which differ from state law. In particular the polygamy issue, but more concerning is when a majority muslim community can seek government approval of the use of Sharia law to settle disputes, and they can point to this law in which some religious groups may get a state granted exemption form a state law. This creates a very big equal protection argument in line with 14 amendment jurisprudence and is more than likely to be settled by overturning the law entirely as opposed to government becoming the arbiter of religious questions”

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 6:54 am - June 26, 2011

  19. “That’s what the push for gay marriage is all about: legislated self-esteem for gays (See! The state recognizes my lifestyle, so I’m normal!), and spitting in the face of social conservatives. That’s all it’s ever been about. It had NOTHING to do with respecting the “ancient and honorable institution” of marriage.”

    I have to agree it’s the case for much of the “activist class” as I call it or “Gay Inc” as others call it, Seane-Anna. That said, there is definitely a generational component at work in my opinion. I don’t see the non activist younger generations nearly as motivated to poke social conservatives eyes out.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 7:12 am - June 26, 2011

  20. Richard Bell,

    “I’m still reeling from the hyperbole and hate of both sides.”

    The hate is only coming from one side. The “hate” you see from the other side is the sound of an historically persecuted minority standing up for themselves, and demanding to be recognized as full and equal tax-paying citizens under the law.

    Bullies always cry “foul!” when their targets have the audacity to fight back.

    Comment by Richard R — June 26, 2011 @ 10:16 am - June 26, 2011

  21. Richard R,

    “The hate is only coming from one side. The “hate” you see from the other side is the sound of an historically persecuted minority standing up for themselves, and demanding to be recognized as full and equal tax-paying citizens under the law.”

    Richard, I assure you, on a biological level my eyes don’t know the difference, they only know they are being poked out of their sockets.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 10:28 am - June 26, 2011

  22. “historically persecuted minority”?

    First, Richard R, gays are NOT a minority except in the literal sense of being very small in number. And as for “historically persecuted”, do you mean homosexuality being regarded as a sin and being illegal? Well, if that makes homosexuals persecuted, then pedophiles, polygamists, and prostitutes, to name a few, were also “historically persecuted” and remain persecuted today, since their sexual behaviors are still illegal in all* states and still viewed as sinful by the vast majority of people.

    *Prostitution is legal in Nevada.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 26, 2011 @ 10:37 am - June 26, 2011

  23. The hate is only coming from one side.

    The obtuseness of this statement is breathtaking.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 26, 2011 @ 10:52 am - June 26, 2011

  24. No worries Eric,

    Andrew Sullivan told him so, so Richard R *knows* it to be true.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 26, 2011 @ 12:56 pm - June 26, 2011

  25. Oh, and Richard R must believe I’m allowed to drive on the opposite side of the road, since the current driving layout oppresses a ‘historic minority’ left handers.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 26, 2011 @ 12:58 pm - June 26, 2011

  26. And as for “historically persecuted”, do you mean homosexuality being regarded as a sin and being illegal? Well, if that makes homosexuals persecuted, then pedophiles, polygamists, and prostitutes, to name a few, were also “historically persecuted” and remain persecuted today, since their sexual behaviors are still illegal in all* states and still viewed as sinful by the vast majority of people.

    Seane-Anna, when an overwhelming majority did view homosexuality as a sin, it made sense that most people would believe that same sex marriage is not a good idea. And I could almost understand lumping it with pedophilia, etc. Those days are long gone. If you really don’t want marriage between adults and children (which, unfortunately, still exists), polygamy, bestiality, etc., then perhaps you should focus your efforts there, and stop using homosexuality as a scapegoat.

    Same sex marriage did not happen solely because gay persons wanted it, because as you and others have noted, some have supported it for self-esteem reasons, shove it in the face of religious persons, etc. But because now, a majority of straight persons believe it is right and just. However, an overwhelming majority oppose pedophilia, etc.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2011 @ 1:11 pm - June 26, 2011

  27. interesting article on the ‘slippery slope’ argument on Legal insurrection: Why stop at one-and-one?

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 26, 2011 @ 1:44 pm - June 26, 2011

  28. omg Sean-anne did you just beclown yourself? ”

    “historically persecuted minority”?
    First, Richard R, gays are NOT a minority except in the literal sense of being very small in number”

    OK people while we often use metaphors you CANNOT just say/believe something that dumb. than follow it up with they weren’t persecuted because it was legal to kill them than. hehe you’re really just rip snorting mad today, I’m so glad that you are Nd30′s prize lapdog. It really suits you both.
    It was legal to kill aborigines, it was legal to kill blacks, and slaves, it was legal to kill your wife if she talked back, it was legal to kill your kids if they did as well. It was legal to kill a woman that was raped in the city if you didn’t hear her scream that doesn’t make it right.

    Stop pretending your attitude isn’t anything but pure ugly hatred. You’re not a libertarian, you’re not a federalist, you’re a republican or a democrat you’re just a Moralist caught up in a never ending rage fest where you see it as your duty to attack gays and lesbians.

    Comment by Tim — June 26, 2011 @ 1:55 pm - June 26, 2011

  29. So Tim’s all for me driving on the wrong side of the road?

    I hope he doesn’t teach his boyfriend how to drive…

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 26, 2011 @ 2:02 pm - June 26, 2011

  30. Livewire, the article is interesting. An another example why it was better that same sex marriage is passed through legislatures as opposed to the courts. I suppose if we ever get to the point where a majority of people support polygamy, legislatures may pass that too. I don’t see that happening any time soon, especially since we’ve had this in the past, and it was outlawed.

    Perhaps the slippery slope began when marriage was first instituted. Or when different classes of people could marry each other. When marriages were no longer arranged. When people, who could not or would not procreate, were allowed to marry. In other words, we have to be the ones who decide what is best for society. On not rely on “well, this will lead to that” arguments. If we believe A is a good thing and B is not a good thing, then we should push for A to happen, and push for B not to happen.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2011 @ 2:03 pm - June 26, 2011

  31. >>If we believe A is a good thing and B is not a good thing, then we should push for A to happen, and push for B not to happen.<<

    Do you really think that gays would "push" not to allow polygamy to be approved in a legislature or in a court? I doubt that people who have just gotten the right to marry would bother with that since they got what they wanted and screw the rest of the world.

    Comment by Dottie Laird — June 26, 2011 @ 2:41 pm - June 26, 2011

  32. Courts cannot change culture. Unless hordes of women suddenly determine they want to live under polygamous arrangements, Magic Nanny cannot wave her wand and make that happen.

    Why are polygamous societies so vehemently homophobic? Quick — how many of them permit gays even to live, much less to marry?

    I’ve been asking that question, in one way or another, for years, and I still can’t get any of these Chicken-Little slippery-slopers to answer it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 26, 2011 @ 2:58 pm - June 26, 2011

  33. Dottie,
    “Do you really think that gays would “push” not to allow polygamy to be approved in a legislature or in a court? I doubt that people who have just gotten the right to marry would bother with that since they got what they wanted and screw the rest of the world.”

    In my view we have entered/are entering a libertine age. I think going forward it will be less about “push” and more about a lack of resistence.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 3:05 pm - June 26, 2011

  34. “Mormons and Muslims will demand that the marriage dictates of their religions deserve similar protection in the form of a government edict validating those traditions which differ from state law. In particular the polygamy issue”

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the mainstream Mormon church, has not practiced polygamy since 1890. Are you referring to fundamental Mormons who still practice polygamy? If not, I could not find any other marriage practices that are not valid in the state law in the LDS.

    Comment by Naamloos — June 26, 2011 @ 3:19 pm - June 26, 2011

  35. Naamloos,

    “Are you referring to fundamental Mormons who still practice polygamy? If not, I could not find any other marriage practices that are not valid in the state law in the LDS.”

    Sorry, I’m only repeating a discussion/presentation I overheard so I’m not sure.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 3:26 pm - June 26, 2011

  36. “In my view we have entered/are entering a libertine age.”

    In the view of legions of militant Islamists, we are, too. If they get their way, you won’t have to worry about gay marriage.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 26, 2011 @ 4:29 pm - June 26, 2011

  37. Lori,

    I can’t speak to the anti-homosexual polygamists. I can speak to the existance of polyamourous relationships that are pretty stable. (of course I have little room to talk on stability)

    They exist in the same state of ‘non-government recognition’ that same sex couples do.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 26, 2011 @ 4:33 pm - June 26, 2011

  38. I just hope that one day Timmeh will learn the difference between then and than.

    Comment by Timmeh — June 26, 2011 @ 5:26 pm - June 26, 2011

  39. Pat said,

    “If we believe A is a good thing and B is not a good thing, then we should push for A to happen, and push for B not to happen.”

    Yes, exactly. It’s so simple, so rational. But yet it’s too much for Seane-Anna to grasp. If you’re not able to grasp the difference between adult homosexuality and pedophilia, then you’re woefully unqualified to be participating in the debate about same-sex marriage.

    Comment by Richard R — June 26, 2011 @ 5:32 pm - June 26, 2011

  40. Livewire, I understand what you’re saying. And I’m not trying to attribute to you the same position as the hysterics.

    The very existence of people, in our society, who live a certain way by no means portends any great tidal-wave of societal change. There are all sorts in this country, and we don’t all live alike.

    My point to the doomsayers is that the cultural conditions that make a society hospitable to same-sex marriage run totally counter to those that would set the table for a widespread public demand for polygamous relationships enshrined in law.

    Only the sharia-fication of our country would do that. And if sharia ever becomes enshrined in law, there will be no more need for those who fear gay marriage to worry about it becoming legal.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 26, 2011 @ 5:52 pm - June 26, 2011

  41. Do you really think that gays would “push” not to allow polygamy to be approved in a legislature or in a court?

    Actually, gays and lesbians are already pushing for plural, incestuous, and other types of relationships to be recognized as “marriage”.

    And they’ve already demanded the repeal of age of consent laws.

    So if anything, they’re already pushing for plural, sibling, and child marriage to be approved in a legislature or court.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2011 @ 5:55 pm - June 26, 2011

  42. Lori,
    “In the view of legions of militant Islamists, we are, too. If they get their way, you won’t have to worry about gay marriage.”

    Actually, I’m much more liberal than those “legions of militant Islamists”. I’m of the opinion that all males and females not married (Marriage defined as one man and one woman.) should be abstinent. Married couples should be faithful. There is no such thing as safe sex. It only takes one instance to contract an STD or become involved in an unwanted pregnancy. Condoms do not guarantee participants will be “protected”. Abstinence is a concept easily understood by the young. Abstinence is also effective with teens and young adults who may be under the biological urges of maturation if they are encouraged. Keeping this in mind, we need to be holding up an ideal of abstinence for all of society to unselfishly move towards together in order to maintain a healthy and cohesive society. Of course I realize this is a minority view (Literally.) and I don’t think anyone need be upset or feel threatened by it.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 6:00 pm - June 26, 2011

  43. “Actually, gays and lesbians are already pushing for plural, incestuous, and other types of relationships to be recognized as ‘marriage’.”

    How about SOME are pushing for this sort of nonsense, while others — almost certainly a great many — are not?

    One very basic principle of conservatism is individuality. We are, each of us, individuals first and whatever else we may be only thereafter. To apply one standard to straights (who are always counter as individuals), but quite another to gays (who “ALL” do things just because some do) is worse than an injustice. It is ludicrous on its face.

    As for Richard Bell’s opinions, he should be glad he lives in a country where he is still permitted to have them. He can certainly urge abstinence on others, but he cannot force it on them. Nor should he, or anyone else, be able to do that.

    He needn’t get snippy about whether a forty-eight-year-old woman feels upset or is threatened by it. He’d be better off watching his mouth. I “get upset and feel threatened” by people — either from Right or Left — trying to destroy our inheritance of freedom. If he had half a brain, he’d have the sense to be concerned about that, too.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 26, 2011 @ 7:24 pm - June 26, 2011

  44. Lori,
    “He can certainly urge abstinence on others, but he cannot force it on them. Nor should he, or anyone else, be able to do that.”

    Holding up an ideal is not forcing anything on anyone. People can still choose for themselves.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 7:35 pm - June 26, 2011

  45. Lori,
    “He needn’t get snippy about whether a forty-eight-year-old woman feels upset or is threatened by it.”

    I appologize and I confess, I’m more interested in the welfare of pre-adults that I am forty-eight-year-old-women.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 7:42 pm - June 26, 2011

  46. And because you’re “interested in their welfare,” Mr. Bell — just like every other statist busybody — you would attempt to regulate the behavior of consenting adults?

    I’m not much interested in your welfare either, now that you mention it. But I am very interested in the legacy of liberty we inherited from the founders of this country. You, evidently, are not. And as usual, you would hide behind “the welfare of the children” to attack it.

    If you believe in abstinence for youngsters (and you have no grounds for assuming I don’t), then preach it, brother. But most adult gays and lesbians do not need condescending lectures based on your ill-informed assumptions about them.

    People who can’t handle living among individuals should move to a planet where there aren’t any. Better that than trying to remake the State so that it crushes the individuality out of everyone.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 26, 2011 @ 7:54 pm - June 26, 2011

  47. Lori,
    “46.And because you’re “interested in their welfare,” Mr. Bell — just like every other statist busybody — you would attempt to regulate the behavior of consenting adults?”

    I’ll try this again. Holding up an ideal doesn’t force anyone* to do anything they don’t want to do. It is something anyone can choose to do or not.

    *(an·y·one ( n -w n , -w n). pron. Any person. Usage Note: The one-word form anyone is used to mean “any person.”)

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 8:24 pm - June 26, 2011

  48. Enough with the condescension. I have a degree in English, so I don’t need you to point me to a dictionary.

    If “holding up an ideal” primarily pertaining to youngsters is so important to you, then what are you doing here? Posting on a blog read almost exclusively by adults? Should you not be working with young people, helping them to form a different attitude about sexual behavior? Perhaps helping them to form a stronger sense of themselves, so they might be better able to resist the pressure to be promiscuous?

    Indeed, by your very presence here you give every indication that you care more about the behavior of adults than that of children.

    Many of those who read this blog and write or comment here are also very concerned about the sexual mores of this country. If you have bothered to read the posts and comments, you must know this. So why is a thread on how the State will regulate marriage (and it is over “how,” rather than “whether”) the place where you feel you must plant your flag?

    Gays and lesbians are individuals, just like everybody else. Deal with it. You can not automatically attribute the opinion of some to others, or the behavior of a few to all. And not everybody here needs a lecture about abstinence. Those who do probably won’t listen, and those who don’t are perfectly capable of behaving themselves without any help from you.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 26, 2011 @ 8:40 pm - June 26, 2011

  49. *Waves white flag of surrender*

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 26, 2011 @ 8:51 pm - June 26, 2011

  50. Enough with the condescension. I have a degree in English, so I don’t need you to point me to a dictionary.

    Well, I always hated English. Never understood why I should give a crap about diagramming a sentence. So, I suppose the lack of a degree is the reason why I don’t find any condescension in what he’s saying. Reckon somebody mucher am smart gets it though.

    Comment by Timmeh — June 26, 2011 @ 10:43 pm - June 26, 2011

  51. >>…gays are NOT a minority except in the literal sense of being very small in number.<<
    Pardon me, but isn't that the textbook definition of a minority? And didn't people come to America from countries that had one-person or elite-class rule with no say in their government so they could have a say here? Majority rule, and all that?

    Comment by Dottie Laird — June 27, 2011 @ 12:13 am - June 27, 2011

  52. “Why are polygamous societies so vehemently homophobic? Quick — how many of them permit gays even to live, much less to marry?”

    Well, Lori, the Pathans of Afghanistan, for one. Being Muslim, the Pathans allow polygamy but also have a largely gender segregated society where men spend huge amounts of time with other men. This constant male bonding has led to the practice of male homosexuality and also pederasty. The Pathan language even has a word for the boy lovers of older men: asahs or ashahs. Some speculate that the Pathans’ sexual practices are a legacy of the armies of Alexander the Great. I don’t know about that, but I do know that the Pathans are a polygamy-allowing culture that also allows “gays to live”, if not marry. So that answers your question, Lori.

    As for your other question, “Why are polygamous societies so vehemently homophobic?”, you’ve provided not a shred of evidence supporting that assertion.

    If you’re claiming, Lori, that there’s some sort of causal link between polygamy and homophobia, then how do you explain the strong condemnation of homosexuality that, until recently, prevailed in the monogamous West? And what about the fact that in many, maybe most, “polygamous” cultures, polygamy is simply an available option and NOT the way most people live? Most men in “polygamous” cultures have only one wife, if only for financial reasons, thereby making their “polygamous” societies FUNCTIONALLY monogamous. Maybe functional monogamy is what makes societies so “vehemently homophobic”. What say you?

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 27, 2011 @ 12:43 am - June 27, 2011

  53. “So that answers your question, Lori.”

    No, Seane-Anna, that does NOT “answer my question.” It shows how one isolated sub-culture — a remnant of Alexandrian times — has evolved. It does NOT show how life is in the staggeringly-predominant Islamic world. And you know that.

    You are trying to forge a link between heterosexual monogamy and homophobia, despite the irrationality of such a link. There is no correlation between pretending homosexuality does not exist, forcing homosexually-oriented people to lie about their orientation, or forcing them into celibacy. Go back to your fevered “gotcha” research and try again.

    You really are one for the books. I have never seen a “heterosexual” as homo-obsessed as you. Whatever your little personal torment may be, it must be a doozy.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 27, 2011 @ 2:17 am - June 27, 2011

  54. Should read: there is no correlation between the above conditions forced on homosexuals and heterosexual monogamy.

    There is little that could produce such a link besides a deep, deep, nightmare-sweaty fear of homosexual desire. Usually harbored by those who have such a desire themselves.

    The more I hear from you, the more certain I am that you are, indeed, a latency case. Argue on, and convince me even more.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 27, 2011 @ 2:22 am - June 27, 2011

  55. Have we ever had a chick fight on GP before?

    Comment by TGC — June 27, 2011 @ 2:47 am - June 27, 2011

  56. Honorable process? This looks more like Gay Stalinism than democracy. From National Review:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270490/same-sex-marriage-comes-new-york-now-william-c-duncan .

    As such, I’m glad the National Organization for Marriage, pledged $2 million to reverse SSM in New York.

    The treatment of gays against gay marriage is also abhorrent. But that’s another Stalinist issue, for another day.

    Comment by Ben — June 27, 2011 @ 8:22 am - June 27, 2011

  57. The New York legislative example is a lot like Obamacare. Their meetings were not open, the bill was rushed through and so forth.

    I favor open debate. The issue here is a great cultural shift and it looks to me like the “social justice” crowd pulled a fast one.

    When I oppose gay marriage, it does not take long for some of those who are pressing for it to let some pretty nasty accusations fly. Because of that, I have become even more convinced that gay marriage is a Trojan horse for mandating societal acceptance of all things gay.

    Yesterday, I saw an everyday looking sort of man in his fifties walking in a street market wearing a tee shirt which read: Cum With Me. I have read some nasty stuff that was supposed to be “cute” on tee shirts and I have no way of knowing the man’s sexual persuasion, but I do know the public square has been invaded by juvenile, insensitive stupidity.

    My point is that the many liberals and libertarians adopt less than reassuring tactics to press their issues.

    I am glad to see gay marriage get out of the courts and into the legislature. But lets try giving the existing culture the chance to consider the issues on their merits.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 9:23 am - June 27, 2011

  58. And once it’s gone through the legislatures, indeed, even as it’s going through the messy process of law-making in other jurisdictions, it’s important we consider state-recognized marriage as more than just personal validation, more than a trophy in the culture wars, but also as an ancient and honorable institution which imposes duties on those who seek its protections and gain privileges from the state.

    You’re all talk. If marriage is really such a vaunted institution that people wanted to defend and glorify, you wouldn’t be able to marry a total stranger while drunk in Las Vegas. You wouldn’t be able to divorce 4 and 5 and 6 times. You wouldn’t be able to have marriages annulled as if they never happened. Funny how those issues don’t inspire any kind of action in so-called ‘traditional marriage’ supporters… but the idea that more people want to get married sends them into fits just because of the genitalia involved. I wonder why that is?

    (HINT: It’s because of homophobia and/or a general lack of empathy for their fellow human beings. How Christian of them!)

    Comment by Levi — June 27, 2011 @ 9:28 am - June 27, 2011

  59. The New York legislative example is a lot like Obamacare. Their meetings were not open, the bill was rushed through and so forth.

    I favor open debate. The issue here is a great cultural shift and it looks to me like the “social justice” crowd pulled a fast one.

    When I oppose gay marriage, it does not take long for some of those who are pressing for it to let some pretty nasty accusations fly. Because of that, I have become even more convinced that gay marriage is a Trojan horse for mandating societal acceptance of all things gay.

    Yesterday, I saw an everyday looking sort of man in his fifties walking in a street market wearing a tee shirt which read: Cum With Me. I have read some nasty stuff that was supposed to be “cute” on tee shirts and I have no way of knowing the man’s sexual persuasion, but I do know the public square has been invaded by juvenile, insensitive stupidity.

    What are you saying here? That if society accepts ‘all things gay,’ then the public square will have been ‘invaded by juvenile, insensitive, stupidity?’

    I don’t even know what that means – ‘accepts all things gay.’ What are gay things? T-shirts that say dirty stuff are ‘gay things?’ What permits you to assume that the gentleman in question was gay? It’s actually far more likely that he is one of your brothers in Christ. Maybe t-shirts that say dirty stuff are ‘Christian things,’ then?

    I think your problem, Heliotrope, is that you conflate homosexuality and perversion. Gay people work hard, in all sorts of occupations, they serve in the military…. why can’t these be ‘all things gay?’ They’re people. Some gay people use profanity, so do some straight people. Being gay or not has absolutely no bearing on how vulgar someone chooses to be while walking around in public.

    My point is that the many liberals and libertarians adopt less than reassuring tactics to press their issues.

    I am glad to see gay marriage get out of the courts and into the legislature. But lets try giving the existing culture the chance to consider the issues on their merits.

    Courts are just as valid a method of legalizing gay marriage as the legislature, but I’ve gone on and on about that in the past. The only thing I’ll say is that the first state to legalize gay marriage, Massachusettes, did so after a ruling by their Supreme Court. That was a watershed moment and it’s entirely likely that gay marriage wouldn’t be legal anywhere if not for that decision.

    Comment by Levi — June 27, 2011 @ 9:47 am - June 27, 2011

  60. Wow same crap different day, 1st Courts aren’t allowed to rule on gay marriage because “they just don’t understand what rights are”, than Legislators can’t make rules like this because, what are they? elected to make rules like this? followed by I’m not homophobic I just want people to consider my views as more valid than theirs. Always followed by let’s let the people decide, after all rights should be open to a vote of the people.
    These are always followed or proceeded by, “it’s a slippery slope what about marrying animals and sisters, and polygamy. Because everyone knows every gay male out there wants to marry their sister and that it’s fear of mormons and muslims that drive polygamy fears.
    Never once is it ever mentioned that the crux of the matter is ADULT PERSONAL CONSENT. No it’s always fear tactics at the lowest common denominator. They always try to scare uneducated people with the fear that this will invalidate their marriages and make their children gay.
    So I have little time to deal with educated people who should know better and even less time to deal with people who not only do know better but return to the same tired ideas that have been disproved time and time again. You want to the government to only back religious marriages but refuse to accept that marriages are CIVIL contracts not religious.

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 9:50 am - June 27, 2011

  61. (HINT: It’s because of homophobia and/or a general lack of empathy for their fellow human beings. How Christian of them!)

    Levi

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future. The entire scope of human history has been a march of liberalism, and this jingoistic, laissez-faire, God-fearing path you fools are prescribing is only knocking us off the right track.

    Levi

    but that the idea that you can force democracy on a people as alien to the concept as Arabians was utterly ridiculous.

    Levi

    if you could excise the Bush administration from recorded history, there would have been no 9-11

    So the racist, fascist, truther is accusing others of lacking empathy? ROFL.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 27, 2011 @ 10:15 am - June 27, 2011

  62. Timmeh continues to fail law.

    Baker v. Nelson. Your precious courts have ruled. They ruled 9-0 The Constitution is silent, so the definition of marriage falls to the legislatures.

    Maybe when your boyfriend takes government his seniour year of High School… he can explain it to you.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 27, 2011 @ 10:20 am - June 27, 2011

  63. So, has “Gay Inc” lied to us about only wanting the “rights” it was being “denied” and that the aftermath of “marriage equality” wouldn’t change our lives? What say you, LGBT activists? Are your intentions to get revenge on heterosexuals, religious orgs and other institurions and traditions that made this country great?

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 27, 2011 @ 10:38 am - June 27, 2011

  64. Levi @ #58

    You’re all talk. If marriage is really such a vaunted institution that people wanted to defend and glorify, you wouldn’t be able to marry a total stranger while drunk in Las Vegas. You wouldn’t be able to divorce 4 and 5 and 6 times. You wouldn’t be able to have marriages annulled as if they never happened. Funny how those issues don’t inspire any kind of action in so-called ‘traditional marriage’ supporters… but the idea that more people want to get married sends them into fits just because of the genitalia involved. I wonder why that is?

    (HINT: It’s because of homophobia and/or a general lack of empathy for their fellow human beings. How Christian of them!)

    Also sprach zarathustra-Levi. How quaint. Pick out all that is wrong and base in marriage law and use it to argue for gay marriage. Stunning. Brilliant. Typical.

    It’s because of homophobia and/or a general lack of empathy for their fellow human beings. How Christian of them! We lack empathy for polygamists, arsonists, radical Islamists, child molesters, incestuous types, serial rapists, serial spouse cheaters, sex addicted Congressmen, people who drive the wrong way on one way streets, free lance distributors of AIDs, gangsters, gang-bangers, and cannibals among many others.

    Levi, you have forfeited all credibility of criticism of any religion of any kind by your firm statement that all people of religion are essentially stupid. What more is there to say. You can not argue my religion against me, because you have declared yourself to be totally biased and controlled by your self-proclaimed bigotry. So, spin on it. And know that I pray that your mind will be opened by God and that you will gain insight and wisdom.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 11:04 am - June 27, 2011

  65. Levi @#59

    What permits you to assume that the gentleman in question was gay? It’s actually far more likely that he is one of your brothers in Christ.

    This is in response to this:

    I have read some nasty stuff that was supposed to be “cute” on tee shirts and I have no way of knowing the man’s sexual persuasion….

    Oh, well. Levi does love to get bent out of shape.

    I think your problem, Heliotrope, is that you conflate homosexuality and perversion.

    Perversion? It depends. All homo-eroticism (look it up, Levi, before you blast away) borders on perverse and much of it succeeds in being perverse. Look up “perverse” as well.

    Homosexuality is an anomaly. It only succeeds in directing sexual drive in a manner that does not fulfill biological function. Some homosexuals, like too many heterosexuals have perverse sexual drives. Live with it. It is a fact.

    I don’t even know what that means – ‘accepts all things gay.’

    It is pretty simple, even for your mind. Gays range from your hated conservative “self-loathing” types to total flamers who belong in a side show and under close surveillance. “All things gays” means the full spectrum of gay expression of gayness.

    Levi, you have a wonderful sense of just how to cripple your every attempt to argue. Your love of always going over the top is remarkable. Perversion. Wow! Have you total tolerance for everything? Would you video tape a drunk raping a small child and post it to You Tube? I ask, because you use the word as a weapon.

    I think pursing Sarah Palin’s family is a perversion. Shall we all wallow in how butt ugly Chelsea Clinton is for no reason other than to trash her, her family and all Democrats who don’t agree that hers is a face that stops clocks and makes innocent babies cry? Have I demonstrated the “kinder” side of perversion succinctly? Probably not. You lack finesse, discrimination, critical thinking powers and any sense of fairness.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 11:33 am - June 27, 2011

  66. You’re all talk. If marriage is really such a vaunted institution that people wanted to defend and glorify, you wouldn’t be able to marry a total stranger while drunk in Las Vegas. You wouldn’t be able to divorce 4 and 5 and 6 times. You wouldn’t be able to have marriages annulled as if they never happened. Funny how those issues don’t inspire any kind of action in so-called ‘traditional marriage’ supporters..

    Oh, but they DO.

    Try marrying “a total stranger while drunk” in a Catholic or Lutheran church – or any reputable church, for that matter. They won’t do it. Indeed, in most churches I’m aware of, the pastor will not marry you until you have completed pre-marital counseling.

    They don’t allow you to do it, Levi. Only liberals like yourself ever thought these quickie marriages were a good idea, and you screamed and threw tantrums until virtually every pre-consideration for marriage was removed.

    THEY didn’t do this, Levi. You did. YOU cheapened marriage.

    You wouldn’t be able to divorce 4 and 5 and 6 times.You wouldn’t be able to have marriages annulled as if they never happened.

    Look at the Catholic doctrine on divorce — as in, not allowed. Even annulment is granted only under the strictest of conditions, and certainly not because you just got bored with the person. Look at the Lutheran doctrine on divorce – as in, strongly, strongly discouraged except in cases of abuse and adultery. Look at the organizations like Focus on the Family, which devote an enormous amount of time and effort to divorce avoidance and lobby for more restrictions on divorce.

    They don’t allow you to do it, Levi. Only liberals like yourself ever thought these no-fault divorces were a good idea, and you screamed and threw tantrums until virtually every limitation on divorce was removed.

    THEY didn’t do this, Levi. You did. YOU cheapened marriage.

    You’re a hypocrite, Levi. You and your fellow liar liberals demanded all of these things because you wanted to be able to drug and get women drunk, force them to marry you, and then dump them without any worry when you got bored. YOU cheapened marriage. You and your fellow amoral and promiscuous liberals were the ones who destroyed all of these conditions, and now you whine and cry about how awful marriage is.

    And you know what? You justified it before by screaming how, if you didn’t support cheapening marriage, you hated women. Now you’re justifying it by screaming that, if you don’t support cheapening marriage, you hate gays. Period. It’s all about your lies and your attempts to remove any sort of morality or structure from society.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 11:34 am - June 27, 2011

  67. Light bulb moment. Thanks NDT, once again, the left does all the damage and then blames the right for their evil deeds. It has always been the left that has undermined marriage and the family, when the damage is done, the blame the right for not doing a better job of protecting it.
    btw, one reason the muslims have been silent about gay marriage is they know this simply opens the door for polygamy to come back with a vengeance. They’ll deal with pesky gays latter.

    Comment by Leah — June 27, 2011 @ 11:40 am - June 27, 2011

  68. I think your problem, Heliotrope, is that you conflate homosexuality and perversion.

    Actually, Levi, when one considers that gays and lesbians and their supporters like yourself state that molesting children is natural for gays, dressing children up as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs to sexually pleasure gay and lesbian adults is natural for gays, and that demanding sex from your subordinates and discriminating against those who refuse is natural for gays, then you’ve pretty much made the point that homosexuality and perversion are the same thing.

    Your weakness, Levi, is that you are so amoral that you don’t recognize right and wrong any more. That’s why you support child rape by gays and lesbians and insist that anyone who disagrees is “homophobic”. That’s why you support sexual exploitation of children by gays and lesbians and insist that anyone who disagrees is “homophobic”. That’s why you support workplace sexual harassment by gays and lesbians and insist that anyone who disagrees is “homophobic”.

    The fact that you would support your eight-year-old child being raped and given HIV by a gay person and consider it homophobic to think otherwise demonstrates just how far gone you are mentally, Levi.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 11:44 am - June 27, 2011

  69. In May 1997, Kerry appeared on Don Imus’ nationally syndicated radio show and, according to the Boston Globe, “opened up for the first time about his decision to seek an annulment of his first marriage (which was 18 years long and produced 2 children), jokingly describing annulment as ‘one of those special Catholic things.’

    yup man they really love marriage..

    Of course religious views on marriage should have ZERO INFLUENCE on civil marriages which is the real crux of the matter, there is no religion in our civil law and all your bs about pedophillia is really to just muddy the water because you don’t have a case. You’ve become little more than the worst kind of Ex-gay who blames all of his problems on club kids and sees zero problems about their own behavior. You’ve taken nudes and posted them online, you drink, you live with a man OUT OF WEDLOCK you have sex OUT OF WEDLOCK, you excuse yourself while saying that others are the problem whereas you know how to do things responsibly.

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 12:10 pm - June 27, 2011

  70. NDT,

    “would support your eight-year-old child being raped and given HIV by a gay person”

    What’s worse than that is “indoctrinating”* all public school children to find it acceptable.

    *(Our secretary of education used this word.)

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 27, 2011 @ 12:15 pm - June 27, 2011

  71. Tim – I actually agree with the first 90% of what you said, especially the need of both sides to keep a priority of preserving Adult Consent. However, the last point I have a problem because many in the Tea Party especially Ron Paul do advocate the government get out of the marriage business altogether… a point of view I’m coming around to. That’s why I’m glad the New York marriage bill included religious exemptions… that way each church/denomination gets to take a stand and directly deal with the consequences of their stance and the government has no involvement…. hmmm, sounds a lot like separation of church and state.

    Comment by PopArt — June 27, 2011 @ 12:18 pm - June 27, 2011

  72. Tim,

    You really have shown how mouth breathing bottom feeders operate. Your post @ #69 is classic.

    1.) Kerry/Kennedy/Pelosi/Matthews liberal CINO’s (Catholics in name only) are just hypocrites of convenience for what passes as minds like yours. What would suggest? An inquisition by the church and burning at the stake? When the above mentioned types speak about religion, they are no different from the world full of Jews who wandered away after the Bar or Bat Mitzvah to become race of moral relativists rather than a religion dedicated to the action of performing mitzvot. Catholics can usually find a willing bishop or cardinal to buy off in the same way Jews can locate a rabbi who will stroke their egos. So what? A little corruption destroys the institution? Why then do you people tolerate the likes of Frank, Schumer, Weiner, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Durbin or a thousand other liberal, Democrat corruptocrats?

    2.) You write: Of course religious views on marriage should have ZERO INFLUENCE on civil marriages…. and then you go after “out of wedlock” and “drink” and “nudes posted on line” like you are the head Puritan in Salem. Huh? Wassamatter? Can’t keep religion out of civil law?

    Timmy, my boy, you pass yourself off as the dean of tolerance and moral relativity. Is your hate for religion so great that you can not tolerate any struggle within religion?

    Lets put it more succinctly. You hate religion. You really hate the idiots caught up in religion who struggle with their religion. Those are the people who should be fed to the lions first. And you have the front row seat at the spectacle. See yourself for what you are. You are an extra chromosome loather.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 12:43 pm - June 27, 2011

  73. yup man they really love marriage..

    John Kerry supports gay-sex marriage.

    So all you’re proving by screaming this, Timmeh, is that gay-sex marriage supporters are liars and hypocrites. It shows how cheaply you treat marriage when all you can do is whine about how difficult it is to dissolve it.

    Also, Timmeh, if you were actually an intelligent person, rather than a knee-jerk anti-Catholic bigot, you would know that annulment is FAR different than the “no-fault divorce” process that gay-sex liberals like yourself demand. You actually have to prove REASON for an annulment, and you have to do it in a fashion that satisfies a tribunal, the diocese, and ultimately the Roman curia. Furthermore, this can be appealed by the other spouse at any stage in the process and reversed, as happened in the case of your other gay-sex marriage supporter Joseph P. Kennedy II.

    But how about you, Timmeh? You so cheapen marriage that you demand that you be allowed to get married dead drunk and without any pre-marital counseling, then divorce immediately thereafter. You and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters bring up Britney Spears as an example, but then support and endorse her actions as right and good and block any laws that would prevent them from happening.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 1:05 pm - June 27, 2011

  74. Why then do you people tolerate the likes of Frank, Schumer, Weiner, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Durbin or a thousand other liberal, Democrat corruptocrats?

    Because, Heliotrope, Timmeh is not opposed to corruption as long as he is allowed to be corrupt.

    That is the core of the nomenklatura Obama Party. They have no intention whatsoever of living by their own rules. That is why they project hypocrisy onto others; their own behavior, their own examples, are prime ones of hypocrisy.

    Timmeh literally has no moral standards whatsoever. None. That is what he acknowledges, and that is what he fights. He wants religion gone because he cannot stand to be judged or evaluated based on the merits of what he does; he wants freebies and kickbacks based on his sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 1:32 pm - June 27, 2011

  75. Daniel “It is the job of courts to interpret the law, not set social policy“.

    Agreed. And when Courts rule gays are allowed to marry that is exactly what they are doing – interpretting the over-riding law, the constitutions and their equality mandates which require gays be given the right to marry.

    I’m pleased about this momentus event in New York, but it unfortunately happened in a wrong and unethical way. Minority rights should never be put up for a vote, either by the public or the legislature. Changes in law like this are the sole purvue of the courts, justice and morality demand that only the courts establish the right to marry, having people vote on it is a stain on all that is good and right.

    Comment by Priya Lynn — June 27, 2011 @ 2:11 pm - June 27, 2011

  76. Priya Lynn:

    Minority rights should never be put up for a vote, either by the public or the legislature.

    What “minority rights” do you mean? There are natural rights given by God. There are civil rights determined by government.

    A sizable group of believers in Islam favor child marriage. How do you square that known fact with the concept that “minority rights should never be put up for a vote, either by the public or the legislature”?

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 2:35 pm - June 27, 2011

  77. Minority rights should never be put up for a vote, either by the public or the legislature.

    Thus Priya Lynn declares all laws restricting marriage for pedophile, bestial, incest, and plural relationship practitioners, all of whom are minorities and thus have the “right” to marry their preferred sexual partners, to be invalid and unconstitutional.

    Never means never, Priya Lynn. And of course, you can’t back away from that, because you’d be a hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 2:41 pm - June 27, 2011

  78. @PopArt, I know it’s like gosh there is a reason to keep things separate but because church goers think that the world revolves around them they get easily confused when reminded that marriage is a civil right not a religious ceremony. NO I’m not religious, in fact I am proudly anti-theist AND anti-deist, for many many reasons, but I do not oppose churches having their own ceremonies to mark such happy occasions, but the fact that I want a civil marriage OUTSIDE of their religion is like a step to far for them. I am a monogamist, I don’t sleep around, and I’d like to be with a partner that was the same. I think marriage will fundamentally alter that gay “scene” and re-enforce cultural values of commitment and a more stable set of choices for young gays. I don’t think it needs religious sanction at all, Nor do I think it will dramatically affect straights in any way except hopefully reducing the number of gay men trapped in heterosexual marriages because they think that is the only way to continue on the family line and tradition.

    Whether ND30 or Helio or ILC understand that I can’t say, I don’t think they really care, ND30 is an unabashed hypocrite I can say that with personal knowledge, however the other two are unknown to me and seem mostly to simply find fault with gays while giving anyone that demonstrates they are anti gay a pass. If they consider themselves religious or even christian than they are the perfect example of dogmatic belief destroying reason.

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 2:53 pm - June 27, 2011

  79. There is no god, nor are there any god given rights. Make a case that doesn’t involve invisible spirits.

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 2:57 pm - June 27, 2011

  80. If marriage is really such a vaunted institution that people wanted to defend and glorify, you wouldn’t be able to marry a total stranger while drunk in Las Vegas. You wouldn’t be able to divorce 4 and 5 and 6 times. You wouldn’t be able to have marriages annulled as if they never happened.

    Soooooooo……….why do you want marriage so damn bad?

    Comment by TGC — June 27, 2011 @ 3:09 pm - June 27, 2011

  81. Poor Timmy. Maybe you can ask your boyfriend if they’ve gone over in class yet where rights come from? If they aren’t ‘God Given’ you know, as listed in the DoI, then where do they come from?

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 27, 2011 @ 3:09 pm - June 27, 2011

  82. I think marriage will fundamentally alter that gay “scene” and re-enforce cultural values of commitment and a more stable set of choices for young gays.

    This is, of course, after Timmeh just screamed at how promiscuous, unstable, and uncommitted married heterosexuals are.

    And even more hilariously, after Timmeh just had his usual meltdown of how organizations that reinforce values of commitment and a more stable set of choices are evil and repressive and harmful.

    You can get a real idea of Timmeh’s mindset with this statement.

    Nor do I think it will dramatically affect straights in any way except hopefully reducing the number of gay men trapped in heterosexual marriages because they think that is the only way to continue on the family line and tradition.

    I love the blackmail. Unless we give gays whatever they want, men will continue to lie for their own selfish reasons and then blame society when they go off and cheat on their wives.

    Nobody seriously believes Timmeh and his fellow liars will stop lying if they have gay-sex marriage. And since they refuse to commit or be monogamous now, no one seriously believes they will be once they are married. After all, Timmeh vigorously defends men like Anthony Weiner who cheat on their spouses, so why shouldn’t we expect him to do the same?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 3:13 pm - June 27, 2011

  83. @The_Livewire so god wrote the Declaration of independence? is it a holy document? Gosh who knew that a slave owning, philandering francophone was so divinely inspired that you could quote is as scripture and proof of invisible deities. do you just get a badge somewhere after you are divinely inspired? do you glow?

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 3:18 pm - June 27, 2011

  84. Sorry, this is so delusional that it required even more analysis:

    I think marriage will fundamentally alter that gay “scene” and re-enforce cultural values of commitment and a more stable set of choices for young gays.

    Or, as the naive young woman says in so many OWN movies, “Once we’re married, he’ll settle down and behave himself.”

    As my uncle the pastor phrased it, “If he couldn’t do it without the marriage, what makes you think he’ll do it with?”

    And that’s the way Timmeh and his fellow gay and lesbian liberals are. All sorts of promises to be responsible, just like a child who wants a puppy; so many examples of how often they aren’t and won’t be, such as the AIDS epidemic, drug abuse, and rants about how monogamy is “hurtful” and “unnatural”.

    It’s hilarious. Timmeh thinks marriage will stop gays and lesbians like him from sleeping around….when they endorse and support straight people like Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner who sleep around, when they insist that any condemnation of married people who sleep around is prudery, when they themselves make excuses for married people who sleep around by saying that monogamy is unnatural, when they condemn organizations and groups that promote monogamy and fidelity, and when they themselves argued that there should be no penalty in divorce laws for those who sleep around?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 3:19 pm - June 27, 2011

  85. ND30 you have sex out of wedlock, defend yourself from your own judgment. You neither practice what you preach, obey your own religious tenets, or even remain celibate. You sir are simply a common hypocrite.

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 3:21 pm - June 27, 2011

  86. Gosh who knew that a slave owning, philandering francophone was so divinely inspired that you could quote is as scripture and proof of invisible deities.

    And isn’t it amazing how much smarter, more intelligent, cultured, and tolerant Thomas Jefferson was than Timmeh is?

    Timmeh is just a garden-variety backwoods bigot, convinced of his own rightness by his status as a member of the Coalition of the Oppressed, convinced that everyone is out to get him, and certain that anyone with religious beliefs or who expresses religious beliefs is an idiot.

    Once you recognize that how Timmeh behaves towards us is how he behaves towards everyone, it becomes more comprehensible as to why he is “discriminated against”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 3:23 pm - June 27, 2011

  87. Tim,

    Read your own words:

    I am a monogamist, I don’t sleep around, and I’d like to be with a partner that was the same. Fine. That would be the “better” side of the age old culture concerning marriage. It is a choice, of course, and surely you would be tolerant of plural marriage, open marriage, momentary marriage, trial marriage, etc. Right? Or do you have some collaborating authority to stand with you? That is a question, Tim. Think about it in your anti-theist, anti-Deist way. I await your philosophy and it roots and underpinnings. You indicate you don’t have such a partner. Try this:

    http://www.grindr.com/Grindr_iPhone_App/Grindr_-Meet_Guys_Near_You_on_your_iPhone.html#

    I think marriage will fundamentally alter that gay “scene” and re-enforce cultural values of commitment and a more stable set of choices for young gays. Why? Of which “cultural values” do you speak in informing what you think? Are you back at monogamy, fidelity and a true partner? What does marriage have to do with that? Can’t you and your monogamous partner live together and be faithful to one another without all the marriage (non-religious) hoopla? What is the point of marriage between two men who are missing one womb between them? You can stick Mr. Happy anywhere you like with only the worry of HIV or shredding as a negative consequence. What IS your issue?

    I don’t think it needs religious sanction at all, Nor do I think it will dramatically affect straights in any way except hopefully reducing the number of gay men trapped in heterosexual marriages because they think that is the only way to continue on the family line and tradition.You are on a crusade to save gay men from being trapped in heterosexual marriages? Huh? What is that all about? Is it like self-loathing gays being trapped in conservative values? Is that your point?

    And what’s up with the “only way” to “continue the family line?” Are married guys going to find surrogates for insemination so they can breed? I don’t follow this at all. Seriously, Tim, do you have an organized philosophy or are you just doing touchy feely Dr. Goodvibes recitations.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - June 27, 2011

  88. Timmeh’s basic problem is this, Heliotrope: the only way in which his behavior can be in any way justified is relative to the lowest common denominator of everyone else.

    And in the process, he hilariously reveals just how pathetic gay-sex marriage is.

    Timmeh can only demonstrate gays’ regard for marriage by comparing it to drunk heterosexuals who get married on a whim in Las Vegas.

    Timmeh can only demonstrate gays’ regard for commitment, fidelity, and monogamy by comparing them to serial heterosexual adulterers.

    Timmeh can only demonstrate gays’ regard for religion, cultural values, and social pressures by comparing them to hypocrites like John Kerry.

    Meanwhile, those provide the best counterpoint to Timmeh’s demand that marriage be redefined and cheapened — since they demonstrate what happens whenever liberals like Timmeh have done so.

    - States used to have restrictions and waiting periods on marriage. Timmeh and his ilk screamed that these were wrong — and now we have an explosion of drunk people marrying on a whim.

    - States used to have restrictions and punitive limitations on divorce, making it financially painful and particularly punishing for those who cheated. Timmeh and his ilk screamed that these were wrong — and now we have an explosion of people getting divorced on a whim.

    - States used to criminalize adultery. Timmeh and his ilk screamed that these were wrong and demanded that they be repealed — and now we have an utter epidemic of it.

    - States never used to reward single parenting and in fact had laws forcing those who had sex to take responsibility for the children they produced. Timmeh and his ilk screamed that those were wrong and demanded that single parenthood be rewarded – and now we have the utter social catastrophe that has been wrought by this in the black community, just to name one, locking generations of people into an endless cycle of poverty and misery.

    In short, every single time liberals have demanded a redefinition of civil marriage, its standards, and its obligations, they have created godawful social havoc and destruction.

    And look — I didn’t have to invoke any invisible spirits whatsoever, just cold hard social science facts.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 4:04 pm - June 27, 2011

  89. Tim,

    You make this charge:

    ND30 you have sex out of wedlock, defend yourself from your own judgment. You neither practice what you preach, obey your own religious tenets, or even remain celibate. You sir are simply a common hypocrite.

    You have no standing. You are anti-theist and anti-Deist which means you have no authority, no guiding principle, no moral code at stake.

    Your denunciation of NDT has no validity because you have no standing. You may hurl charges at him until Hell freezes over, but then even that has no meaning in your carefully insulated world of moral relativity.

    I suggest you take your petty grievances to the street. You can wear a long robe, sandals and tear pages from the Bible and wipe your butt with them and tell passers by that neither Heaven nor Hell awaits them; just worms. And at the end of the day, what have you accomplished?

    Better yet, take your determined self to Dearbornistan and tell the Muslims to go shove it. Surely you don’t lack the confidence to face a militant true believer who enthusiastically will slice all four of your cheeks off.

    Send them an e-mail. They will come to you. We are on the subject of hypocrisy here, remember? Don’t be a little coward. Stand up show us what a force of reason you really are.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 4:10 pm - June 27, 2011

  90. “Manhattan financier and social gadfly Euan Rellie tweets, “We’re all Cuomosexuals today.”"

    2016?

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 27, 2011 @ 4:17 pm - June 27, 2011

  91. #55 “Have we ever had a chick fight on GP before?”

    I don’t know, TGC, but isn’t it fun? Seane-Anna actually manages to dig up facts to “prove” her case — when what they prove is the exact opposite.

    The example she cites shows that homosexuality occurs naturally in every culture, even the most homophobic. That the particular sub-culture she cites has some historic basis for coping with the same-sex-oriented people in their society (which to her, counteracts all of the tremendous gravity, in the larger culture, toward homophobia) is actually an indication that NOBODY CAN GET RID OF SAME-SEX LOVE, whether they try or not. Some will try to stamp it out, and some will make some effort to accommodate it — but it will not go away.

    So what is she really trying to say? That the subculture she cites is so SINNNNNFUL they permit homos to live? I’ll think she’s sincere when she tells them that to their faces. She’s back in kindergarten, trying to prove she’s rubber and I’m glue, and her brains are so scrambled up she has no idea just what she’s trying to prove.

    Thorn in the side and all that. Whatever St. Paul meant by his, we know what hers is…

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 27, 2011 @ 4:45 pm - June 27, 2011

  92. Wow apparently I’ve been alive for a 120 years and have been advocating for liberalized marriage laws the entire time. Who knew.

    Who also knew that in states with more liberalized marriage structures, you have less divorce, less teen pregnancy? Maybe that’s because states with less religion think more and educate their kids about the real world instead of a make believe world where an invisible being will step down and fix all your problems so don’t worry about messing up?

    @Helio in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It is self evident that Atheist have morals because they abide by them.” Saying that I can only have standing by swearing to someone else’s while ND30 has standing DESPITE OPENLY NOT ABIDING BY HIS OWN STATED RELIGIOUS VALUES, is the height of ridiculous and an insult to the concept of freedom of religion. Since you say you can only find values by believing in magic I don’t really think you have any room to be judging others.

    and I do tell the same thing to all deists; muslims, jews, christians, pagans, Zoroasterians, the list goes on. Why would I treat give them any slack, do you?

    If I have no standing shouldn’t you be asking him the same questions?

    As for gays that are married to women, there are a variety of reasons why they do it but it almost always ends sadly, gays can never give a woman what she needs and so you condemn two to misery just so your Joan Cleaver ideas of a perfect family will look right. My former preacher left his wife of 15 years and 5 kids because he was gay. He is still dealing with the emotional scars that he gave his family. He loves them all dearly but even he couldn’t hold the fantasy together.

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 5:33 pm - June 27, 2011

  93. Anyone have a reference documenting just how much cash “Gay Inc” has for elections/lobby efforts?

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 27, 2011 @ 5:38 pm - June 27, 2011

  94. My former preacher left his wife of 15 years and 5 kids because he was gay. He is still dealing with the emotional scars that he gave his family. He loves them all dearly but even he couldn’t hold the fantasy together.

    Yup. He only had sex with his wife enough to have five children.

    And of course, now he’s blaming society for forcing him to do it and whining about how it’s not his fault that he got bored.

    The funny part is that no one would let him have this pass if he’d cheated or gone running off with a younger woman, nor would they let him get away with whining how unfair it was that society forced him to marry his previous spouse. He’d be a cad, a cheat, a liar, and an adulterer, and definitely NOT someone to be pitied.

    No wonder he’s playing the gay card. Once he does that, Timmeh will equivocate and make excuses since Timmeh needs his cheating and his lying to prove how awful heterosexuals and religious people are.

    This guy is typical of gays and lesbians like Timmeh. They lie, they cheat, they say anything to get what they want, and then they run away and leave the wreckage behind.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 5:44 pm - June 27, 2011

  95. Who also knew that in states with more liberalized marriage structures, you have less divorce, less teen pregnancy? Maybe that’s because states with less religion think more and educate their kids about the real world instead of a make believe world where an invisible being will step down and fix all your problems so don’t worry about messing up?

    Actually, it’s because they simply kill the children and don’t get married.

    Can’t have divorce if you don’t get married, and can’t have teen pregnancies if you kill the child. Simple and obvious facts, but as we see, Timmeh, antireligious bigots like yourself grasp at whatever straws you can find to justify your insane hatred.

    Also, Timmeh, shall we talk about what antireligious bigots like yourself also do – or more precisely, DON’T do – for your fellow man?

    Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

    Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

    “Actually, the truth is that they’re giving to more than their churches,” he says. “The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.”

    Maybe that’s because they actually live in and help people in the real world, instead of the make-believe liberal one where the gubmint will step down and fix all your problems so don’t worry about messing up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 5:56 pm - June 27, 2011

  96. Helio in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It is self evident that Atheist have morals because they abide by them.”

    Of course, Timmeh was just screaming an hour or so ago that Thomas Jefferson was an ignorant and superstitious “slave owning, philandering francophone”.

    So yes, it is obvious that atheists have “morals” — in the sense that complete and total relativism can be a moral structure.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 5:59 pm - June 27, 2011

  97. And while we are all having a good chuckle and enjoying our new, “Cuomosexual” status in this state today, something that really effects ALL the people goes by under the radar.

    “The teachers unions have gotten the legislature to pass a bill that would allow school districts to borrow, without voter approval, millions of dollars to keep pouring money into teacher pensions. This would erase much of the limits on soaring teacher benefits that we thought we would get with the 2% tax cap. If the Governor does not veto this bill, Cuomo’s claims of fiscal responsibility will be a complete joke.”

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 27, 2011 @ 6:09 pm - June 27, 2011

  98. poor Timmeh can’t even answer the question of where these rights come from.
    Declaration of Independence.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Yes Timmeh, Divinely given. Now you can’t answer where these ‘unalienable Rights’ come from.

    Congratulations Tim. You’ve conceeded that there’s no ‘right’ to marriage. Since there aren’t unalienable Rights, there isn’t a right to marriage.

    Maybe when your boyfriend goes back to start his sophmore year of High School, you can have him ask his teacher to explain it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 27, 2011 @ 6:12 pm - June 27, 2011

  99. Tim:

    I Googled this: ““It is self evident that Atheist have morals because they abide by them.” Jefferson is AWOL. Source please. I would like to read the context. I find it stunning in contrast to this: If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God. —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

    Even as his life drew nearer to a close, Jefferson pondered the evolving state of religion in the terms of the enlightenment: “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is. —Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

    You clearly know nothing of the complexity of Jefferson’s mind regarding religion.

    For the first time in your life before your eyes I present how Jefferson phrased your most cherished quote: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

    You have no standing to judge a religious man by the predicates of his religion. You may tattle to his rabbi, priest, imam, pastor, etc. That is the normal role of busybodies. You have firmly established your position as a true disbeliever. Therefore, any reference you have regarding the religious faith or adherence to religious tenets of another are malicious.

    It is more than passing strange that so many liberals carp about morality and right and wrong while denying any foundational belief system that makes the determination.

    You might judge yourself against Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom:

    I. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was his Almighty power to do . . .

    II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

    III. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the act of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such as would be an infringement of natural right.

    Do you find Jefferson backing you in trying to chase religious faith from the public square?

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 6:45 pm - June 27, 2011

  100. Seriously, I am ignorant here. Are there any studies or “tell-all” books by women whose husbands walked away to be openly gay after fathering a family?

    I smell a rat.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 6:49 pm - June 27, 2011

  101. Sure not a problem, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

    why are you seeking to impose your religious beliefs on another? Than taxing me to enforce it?

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 7:34 pm - June 27, 2011

  102. @Nd30 I know how much I give to charity and I am comfortable in knowing that it is a sizable chunk of income.

    But since you preach celibacy for gays yet have sex with men you’re a hypocrite.

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 7:36 pm - June 27, 2011

  103. @Nd30 for the record I still bear a fair amount of enmity to the man for causing me guilt over something he knew in his heart was natural. But that’s between him and me, you neither know the man or his family so everything you propose is merely your typical rush to judgement. Just as you’ve taken it on yourself to judge all gays as evil (except you and a few chosen friends) and to hold yourself to a lower bar than you demand of them. Again shear hypocrisy. You talk about being an american while demanding to impose your religious views on everyone else all the time waving a cross and flag.

    Comment by Tim — June 27, 2011 @ 7:40 pm - June 27, 2011

  104. why are you seeking to impose your religious beliefs on another? Than taxing me to enforce it?

    But tim, since you’ve admitted there are no ‘Rights’ then how do you complain? After all, you don’t have a right to not have someone’s beliefs forced on you. By your words.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 27, 2011 @ 7:42 pm - June 27, 2011

  105. Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the “outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.”

    http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

    Emphasis mine.

    Comment by TGC — June 27, 2011 @ 7:55 pm - June 27, 2011

  106. why are you seeking to impose your religious beliefs on another? Than taxing me to enforce it?

    What religious belief is being imposed on you Tim?

    Than taxing me to enforce it” is not a literate utterance. Do you me that a religious belief is forced on you and then you are taxed to enforce the religious belief?

    If so, how are you being taxed to support such religious belief?

    Remember Tim, you have the exact same civil rights a woman has, a man has, a dark skinned adult has. So what, pray tell, are you carping about? (Hint: does it have to do with how you service Mr. Happy? Is this about Mr. Happy’s rights?)

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 7:56 pm - June 27, 2011

  107. TGC,

    Nice work. You have tapped the mother lode of Jefferson scholarship. You can not take Jefferson out of his times. He possessed an incredible mind and was on the leading edge of intellectual curiosity.

    It is the small minds who reach back in time and try to hold the vanguards of intellectual achievement accountable for imperfect foresight and being consistent with the conventional wisdom of the time.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2011 @ 8:06 pm - June 27, 2011

  108. I have to admit, Helio, given your background and what you’ve shared with us, Timmeh’s posts quoting Jefferson stirred in me a bit of morbid curiosity on the order of watching a man wearing a flank-steak swimsuit jumping into a tank of sharks.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 8:33 pm - June 27, 2011

  109. Lori,
    “NOBODY CAN GET RID OF SAME-SEX LOVE”

    Perhaps you can enlighten me, Lori. Having been in the stonewall bar and a number of other places here in NYC with friends I have to say that it seems “love” has very little to do with same sex “hookups” and the word “fun” might be a more accurate term. Are you using the word “love” in the above statement as an encompassing “generic” term? Do mean mean to say “attraction”? What exactly are you saying?

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 27, 2011 @ 10:03 pm - June 27, 2011

  110. Also sprach zarathustra-Levi. How quaint. Pick out all that is wrong and base in marriage law and use it to argue for gay marriage. Stunning. Brilliant. Typical.

    It’s a legitimate point. If people are going to argue against gay marriage by talking about what a precious and meaningful institution it is, you would think there would be a little consistency and they’d be all over the actual problems facing marriage. Gays getting married is not a problem by any stretch of the imagination for marriage. So I’m left wondering why gay marriage warrants such a reaction. You can get traditional marriage supporters to come out and protest gay marriage, but they can’t be bothered to go down to the divorce courts or the drive-in wedding chapel? That doesn’t make sense.

    We lack empathy for polygamists, arsonists, radical Islamists, child molesters, incestuous types, serial rapists, serial spouse cheaters, sex addicted Congressmen, people who drive the wrong way on one way streets, free lance distributors of AIDs, gangsters, gang-bangers, and cannibals among many others.

    ???

    Pointless as usual….

    Levi, you have forfeited all credibility of criticism of any religion of any kind by your firm statement that all people of religion are essentially stupid. What more is there to say. You can not argue my religion against me, because you have declared yourself to be totally biased and controlled by your self-proclaimed bigotry. So, spin on it.

    Of course, there’s nothing I can say about your fancy religion that would matter to you. I’m one of those bad people you’ve been warned about since you were a kid, that doesn’t want to play along in your little fantasy land, so you just don’t want to talk about it with me, do you? As far as my bias is concerned, at least I was respected enough by my parents as a kid that I was permitted to figure out what I thought about the subject on my own. I don’t suppose I would be mistaken to assume that you inherited your religion from your parents at a young age? If anything, you’re the biased one. You likely never had a choice in the matter, did you?

    And know that I pray that your mind will be opened by God and that you will gain insight and wisdom.

    So you’ll forgo even attempting to change my mind, and simply pray that God does it for you? How lazy can you be?

    Comment by Levi — June 27, 2011 @ 11:20 pm - June 27, 2011

  111. It’s a legitimate point. If people are going to argue against gay marriage by talking about what a precious and meaningful institution it is, you would think there would be a little consistency and they’d be all over the actual problems facing marriage.

    They are, as I already pointed out.

    Catholic and other churches, as well as organizations like Focus on the Family, devote an ENORMOUS amount of time and resources to pre-marital and marital counseling. They openly tell and advocate to children and adults that they should not rush into marriage, that they should take their time and think through things carefully, and that divorce is an extraordinarily-damaging last resort solution. And they are loud advocates for strengthening marriage requirements and tightening divorce laws.

    You are the one, Levi, who supports telling children to have sex. You are the one who demanded that marriage laws be so weakened that you could get drunk and marry a stranger in Las Vegas. You are the one who screamed and threw all sorts of temper tantrums about there being actual civil penalties for adultery, and insisted that anyone who didn’t support divorce for whatever stupid reason someone brought forward short of adultery or abuse “hated women”.

    Why do you piss all over marriage and want it destroyed, Levi? Why do you and your fellow liberals so hate an institution that requires you to think of someone other than yourself and assume responsibility for your behavior?

    Oh, that answers the question.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 11:36 pm - June 27, 2011

  112. As far as my bias is concerned, at least I was respected enough by my parents as a kid that I was permitted to figure out what I thought about the subject on my own.

    I always find it amusing that people like Levi shriek that educating children on religious beliefs is wrong because they lack the emotional and intellectual maturity to consider them properly…..but then insist that children, who they have already stated do not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to properly consider religious beliefs, be left alone to “figure it out themselves”.

    It’s funny that Levi brings up his parents and their style right after I’d been reading this article. Answers a lot about Levi, I think, especially since we know he had wonderfully permissive and indulgent parents that essentially allowed him and his siblings to do whatever they wanted, never required anything of them, and certainly never required them to live up to any stodgy old moral code other than their own self-indulgence.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 11:53 pm - June 27, 2011

  113. “Do mean mean to say “attraction”? What exactly are you saying?”

    Richard, I am using the term in the context I’m assuming Seane-Anna meant it, in her anthropology lesson to us about the subculture in the Islamic world where same-sex couplings are permitted and those involved not killed. I’m assuming they are long-term, mutually-monogamous relationships.

    Then again, I think that way. I don’t go to bars for “hookups.” I am looking for a life-partner. I know many same-sex couples (some female and some male) that are every bit as committed and mature as are many hetero couples.

    I don’t degrade love by confusing it with sex. I can’t speak for those who do. As long as it is understood that they do not speak for me.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 28, 2011 @ 12:00 am - June 28, 2011

  114. So you’ll forgo even attempting to change my mind, and simply pray that God does it for you? How lazy can you be?

    Because, Levi, if you were in the least familiar with Christian theology, you would know that one of the fundamental tenets of it is that the Holy Spirit begins, carries on, and consummates the process of opening one’s mind and heart to God.

    In short, no man can compel belief. Faith in God is a gift of the Holy Spirit, freely offered to all through God’s Word. Only God can offer that faith and that belief to you, and only you can reject it.

    So what Heliotrope is in fact doing is consigning matters to faith. He is acknowledging that God’s power is greater than his own, and is thus leaving the matter that seems intractable to us up to God. To leave this in God’s hands is in and of itself an act of faith and trust, a statement that what Heliotrope considers a life-or-death matter is beyond Heliotrope’s ability to manage and is placed securely with God.

    Liberals like yourself depend on browbeating and attacking, of screaming and taunting, and of dragging people kicking and screaming. That only demonstrates the inabiliity of your arguments to convince and persuade, and leaves you with no other recourse than to demand compliance at gunpoint.

    Your own belief that people must be compelled by any means necessary to obey colors and distorts your own views of religion. Since the only reason you obey the laws is through threat of punishment and fear of consequence, you paint religion as being the same way.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 12:04 am - June 28, 2011

  115. Just as you’ve taken it on yourself to judge all gays as evil (except you and a few chosen friends)

    LOL….so even in his own statement, Timmeh is forced to admit that his statement that I consider all gays to be evil is a lie.

    Perhaps you ought to ponder on that, Timmeh. Could it be because I actually evaluate these gays you mentioned by their behavior and character – instead of judging them all based on their minority status, the process by which you’re most comfortable?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 12:08 am - June 28, 2011

  116. You have no standing. You are anti-theist and anti-Deist which means you have no authority, no guiding principle, no moral code at stake.

    Heliotrope, I couldn’t disagree more. Most of us have a moral code, whether or not one is a theist, deist, or atheist. I think the talk about Jefferson demonstrates that. We pretty much get our moral code from our parents, and then it is refined through our own thoughts and experiences as to what we think is just. I would venture to guess that your moral code has evolved in the past 50 years.

    I believe that one thing that most of us have in common with out moral codes is that if one espouses a belief that others should follow, that they damn well should follow it themselves. For example, if one advocates telling teens that should abstain from sex until marriage, that perhaps he/she should follow that principle as well. For a person who not only not followed that principle, but has no intention to follow that principle in the future, using the word hypocrite is pretty kind to describe what that person is.

    Comment by Pat — June 28, 2011 @ 6:53 am - June 28, 2011

  117. Pat,

    You may well have a moral code. I applaud you for that. :-) More seriously, your moral code is influenced by your parents, your culture, and your experience. All things that Levi has chosen to reject. Thus Heliotrope’s statement is accurate as far as he is concerned.

    Levi on the other hand has shown he doesn’t have a moral code, well unless you consider racism, violence, support for terrorists, and lying to get what he wants a moral code.

    Come to think of it, Levi does have a moral code. Self gratification above all else. I guess that means that when Levi’s parents ‘let him decide’ he decided to never get past the age of six.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 7:50 am - June 28, 2011

  118. Pat,

    My moral code has grown in understanding and wisdom over the past 50 years, but the only place I think it has “evolved” is in considering civil unions for gays. Moral codes are lines. I have not “evolved” on the topic of plural marriage, gay marriage, child marriage, or marriage between different species.

    If I am lost in the woods in the heart of winter and confronted with dangerous conditions and I break into a cabin and eat canned food, I have trespassed and been a thief. My moral code was broken for the sake of survival. I have no choice but to throw myself on the mercy of the law and hope for understanding. I have the obligation to repair all damage and restock the cupboard. This is not moral relativity. This is understanding your moral code.

    Perhaps you draw your moral code from your parents and your society. But if you have no principles to study and no philosophy to comprehend you are mainly drifting along. It is faith and the respect of faith that explains and reinforces the principles and helps keep you focused.

    I fully disagree that one cannot learn from one’s mistakes. If you did drugs as a teenager, it is no reason to be silent on the topic with your own teenager. That type of silence by mea culpa makes no sense. Have you never met a reformed alcoholic?

    On the other hand, I agree with you about a hypocrite being a person who preaches against what he readily practices. Obama and deficits come immediately to mind.

    If you have a firm moral code, not an eely moral relevancy suggestion list, you have no problem with becoming a hypocrite. You not only know how to say “no” you also will not do it.

    I have a large container with lots of money in it. It is every coin and bill I have found and picked up over fifty years or more. I did not earn that money. I can not return it to its owner. But I can give it to a charity which I will choose in order to help others. A man of the church put that understanding in my head when I was a teen and it has informed me ever since. I actually look for dropped pennies in order to feed my soul and refresh my moral obligations.

    Your parents did not create their moral code. Nor did their parents. Try as you might, you will find your moral code was spelled out in religious faith and absorbed by the culture and society that informed your ancestors.

    The effort to deny that by so many liberals is really rather amusing. The folks who have tried in the recent past to “get beyond” religious codes have names like Lenin, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Chavez, etc. Think about that. Non-religion based moral codes are dictates at the threat of death and destruction. Every one of those people succeeded in creating Hell on Earth. How’s that for being free of religion?

    Pat, as a Christian, I wish the best of health and happiness for you and your partner. As a citizen of this republic, I have no interest in your activities undertaken in the privacy of your home. If you have made mistakes and learned from them, I do not consider you a hypocrite. If you “backslide” and seek my hand I will offer it. But none of that is due to “flexibility” in my moral code. It is all built into it, because I fully understand the meaning of: “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

    Finally, I take great exception to those who mock me when they attempt to use my moral code against me. They demand my perfection without any cost or inconvenience to them. I am a sinner and I make my confession openly and I ask for help and strength in confronting my weaknesses. What I don’t need is a smart aleck laughing at me as I stumble along.

    People without standing who ask what Jesus would do are jeering and sliming and placing themselves above the person they attack. They don’t care what Jesus would do, because they think Jesus is a side show for weak minded freaks. Furthermore, they are taunting the person they attack. There is no honor in that. It is not moral. You can not build yourself up by tearing down another person.

    Clearly, I have assailed a few commenters on this site. What they all have in common is the arrogance of dictating what is right and what is wrong, not by moral code but by their own opinion and self-perceived cleverness. Recently, I read of something being “exceedingly pointless.” Well, I know how to deconstruct the concept of whether something is “pointless” or not. But the arrogance of declaring it “exceedingly” pointless numbs the mind. We should be cautious in our proclamations.

    As to Jefferson, you might be interested in researching the so-called “Jefferson Bible.” He was actually very interested in purifying the moral code and messages of Jesus.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 28, 2011 @ 8:40 am - June 28, 2011

  119. Religious acceptance is all about how you boil the frog:

    One of the things that I’ve always found fascinating is how people can be so certain of their own religion’s “truth,” while dismissing other religions after just a passing glance. I think I know the answer, and it’s found in the old story about how to boil a live frog.

    The story has it that if you put a frog into cold water and then gradually raise the temperature, he won’t jump out of the water because he slowly becomes conditioned and doesn’t realize what is happening until he eventually dies. It’s similar with religion. Young children are slowly conditioned to Christian (for example) beliefs through indoctrination and gradually those beliefs become accepted as true. Most of those children grow up and eventually die without ever realizing what happened to them through their lives.

    If you throw the frog directly into boiling water, he will most likely jump out. It’s similar with adults who are faced with other religions. The vast majority of people immediately realize the beliefs are preposterous and they reject them as false or dangerous, and jump away, just like the frog. If those same people had been slowly indoctrinated into a different religion from early childhood, it is overwhelmingly likely that they would accept it as true.

    Comment by Richard R — June 28, 2011 @ 9:22 am - June 28, 2011

  120. You may well have a moral code. I applaud you for that. More seriously, your moral code is influenced by your parents, your culture, and your experience.

    Livewire, I agree. I would also, speaking for myself, Christianity as well. In fact, I would say most atheists indirectly get a good portion of their moral code from religion of parents, grandparents, or so on.

    All things that Levi has chosen to reject. Thus Heliotrope’s statement is accurate as far as he is concerned.

    I think Heliotrope was referring to Tim. In either case, I have a feeling that doesn’t change what you wrote.

    Comment by Pat — June 28, 2011 @ 9:23 am - June 28, 2011

  121. Richard R, I would say your analogy would very well apply to many other types of beliefs, ideologies, etc.

    Comment by Pat — June 28, 2011 @ 9:25 am - June 28, 2011

  122. Heliotrope, thanks for your thoughts. I agree with most of them, and will address the ones I have doubts about (or attempt to do so).

    My moral code has grown in understanding and wisdom over the past 50 years, but the only place I think it has “evolved” is in considering civil unions for gays. Moral codes are lines. I have not “evolved” on the topic of plural marriage, gay marriage, child marriage, or marriage between different species.

    That’s pretty much what I thought. Maybe “evolved” isn’t the best word here. I would say that the same has happened to most people, and society in general. Forget about civil unions. Homosexuals were looked very negatively upon.

    Perhaps you draw your moral code from your parents and your society. But if you have no principles to study and no philosophy to comprehend you are mainly drifting along. It is faith and the respect of faith that explains and reinforces the principles and helps keep you focused.

    This part I’m not so sure about, and perhaps I am drifting as you say. The problem here, as I look at it, may indeed be contradictory. As a believer of God, I believe He gave me a brain to think with. While I don’t have any firm conclusions, I extremely doubt that any of the religious faiths today have what God’s truth is and moral code He set for us to abide by. I suspect we all have a good portion, as there are many commonalities amongst the world religions. But there are many differences as well.

    As for your (and others’) moral code, I honestly don’t believe it just came down all at once. I believe it was carried down, starting from 2500+ years ago, adapted, modified, from person’s parents, experience, society, etc., until it was captured in a text. I believe we either disagree on this point, or if we agree, what to do with this moral code. I don’t believe everything that was codified 2500 years ago, or even 1900 years ago, necessarily applies today, but a good portion does. If this makes me a moral relativist, so be it. Perhaps I need a mirror check here, and see what needs to change.

    I fully disagree that one cannot learn from one’s mistakes. If you did drugs as a teenager, it is no reason to be silent on the topic with your own teenager. That type of silence by mea culpa makes no sense. Have you never met a reformed alcoholic?

    If I implied otherwise, let me clarify. I totally agree that one could learn from one’s mistakes, and try to instill that to a subsequent generation. For example, expanding on my above example. Suppose I had sex prior to being an adult (I didn’t (and then some) FWIW), and believe it’s a terrible idea (which I do believe). I have no problem with such a person being a strong advocate for telling teens to wait until becoming an adult. Perhaps even say they should wait until they are in a committed relationship. That’s fine. But this person should now at least attempt to practice what he preaches. If one advocates that teens should wait until they marry to have sex, but the advocate regularly has sex while not married, and has no intention of stopping, then, as I said, hypocrite would be a kind word here. It’s one thing to slip up, but another to hold onself to different rules than they push on others.

    This is not quite the same, but since we are talking about Thomas Jefferson, this reminded me about what John Adams had supposedly said or written. He was a devout believer of God, not a deist, as Jefferson purportedly was, but not into the whole organized religion thing. But he felt that it would have been terrible if the “masses” thought that way as well. Although his intentions may have been good, I was troubled by that.

    Your parents did not create their moral code. Nor did their parents. Try as you might, you will find your moral code was spelled out in religious faith and absorbed by the culture and society that informed your ancestors.

    Agreed, but we may disagree how this all started.

    Finally, I take great exception to those who mock me when they attempt to use my moral code against me. They demand my perfection without any cost or inconvenience to them.

    That’s fine, and I agree with that. We all make mistakes, and don’t always follow our own moral code. What I take great exception to are those who use their own moral code against me, when they don’t apply it themselves. Again, I’m not talking about a slip up, or mistake (which I would hope one would apologize for). But when it is done deliberately, continuously, and in a fashion that the person has no intention of stopping while expecting others to adhere to it.

    What they all have in common is the arrogance of dictating what is right and what is wrong, not by moral code but by their own opinion and self-perceived cleverness.

    Yeah, I think a bunch of us have been subjected to that.

    You can not build yourself up by tearing down another person.

    Although many do just that. Especially when their arguments are groundless.

    As to Jefferson, you might be interested in researching the so-called “Jefferson Bible.” He was actually very interested in purifying the moral code and messages of Jesus.

    It does sound interesting. When I get more time, I may just do that. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — June 28, 2011 @ 10:07 am - June 28, 2011

  123. Pat said (#121),
    “Richard R, I would say your analogy would very well apply to many other types of beliefs, ideologies, etc.”

    I agree. But religions are fairly unique in promoting extraordinary numbers of preposterous beliefs that are not supportable by empirical evidence.

    Why is Joe Smith’s tale of the gold plates any more or less preposterous than ancient tales of talking snakes, Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, and a god having a son born to a virgin, announced by a special star over Bethlehem attracting three wise men, who grows up to walk on water and converts it into wine, and then rises from the dead after being crucified? And that’s just barely scratching the surface.

    Comment by Richard R — June 28, 2011 @ 10:07 am - June 28, 2011

  124. I find it amusing that, in my experience, not a single one of the commenters here who espouse specific religious beliefs have ever termed someone else’s religious beliefs to be “preposterous” or belittled them for holding them.

    Yet that is really all the so-called “tolerant” folks like Levi, Tim, and Richard R can do towards anyone who does not hold their antireligious dogma.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 10:11 am - June 28, 2011

  125. Richard R,

    Radical Islam freaks me out. To my understanding, it is the only religion with no “golden rule.” (Do unto others as….)

    I have spent time in Aswan, Egypt with the Copts, in Istanbul with Muslim theologists, in Chang Mai, Thailand with Buddhist monks, in Peru with a respected Andes Shaman, with the Shinto of Myajimi Island in Japan, in Lahasa, Tibet with their monks, in central Bali with the elders of the Hindu temples and in many Christian churches, Catholic churches and Jewish synagogues around the world.

    In the great panoply of faith and religion, there is much more that binds us together than separates us. I have not just visited these places, I have worshipped in them. I have sought guidance and understanding of their practices. And everywhere, I have found great respect, friendship and understanding.

    Jefferson was easily irritated by the fire-breathing religious sprouts of his age who laid down “our way or the highway” rules. He knew very well the difference between being a shepherd and driving sheep. We must always be skeptical of the charismatic religious moral popper who adores his Cadillac and station in life.

    I agree that old shoes fit best. Your frog metaphor fills the explanation of why Christians may tend to stay with their particular sectarian church.

    But I do not think that people get lulled into the teachings of Christ or the other great religious thinkers. People instinctively know that good is better all around than a path of evil. Religion and great leaders of faith bring meaning and understanding to our lives.

    Unfortunately, some people literally divorce themselves from the fellowship of understanding our strengths and weaknesses which we learn and build upon from study and application.

    If I were an athiest, I would dutifully study St. Augustine, Buddha, the Vedas, and much more. There is no requirement that you have to buy transubstantiation, reincarnation, the virgin birth, etc. on the pain of death. The atheist can regard it all as so much Harry Potter morality tale fiction. But the point is clear. Religious philosophy is the strongest and most powerful unifier of humanity on the planet. Why would you try to tear it apart?

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 28, 2011 @ 10:15 am - June 28, 2011

  126. Heliotrope, I forgot to address the following:

    The effort to deny that by so many liberals is really rather amusing. The folks who have tried in the recent past to “get beyond” religious codes have names like Lenin, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Chavez, etc. Think about that. Non-religion based moral codes are dictates at the threat of death and destruction. Every one of those people succeeded in creating Hell on Earth. How’s that for being free of religion?

    I used to think that religion (either differences, or resistance of a culture to adopt another religion) was the cause of almost all war. If there were no religion, then some power-hungry humans would find another way to be destructive. Most of your examples demonstrate that. Hitler, I’m not so sure about. He didn’t have a problem with religion, except with adherents of Judaism. But many a great war as well as oppression had religion as its instigator. Today, at least in the Western world, things are much better. Even powerful atheists haven’t bloodied their hands as of late anywhere to the degree of the 1970s or prior.

    Comment by Pat — June 28, 2011 @ 10:48 am - June 28, 2011

  127. Religious philosophy is the strongest and most powerful unifier of humanity on the planet. Why would you try to tear it apart?

    Religion never unified humanity; it unified certain groups of humans, usually in direct and frequently lethal competition with other religiously-unified groups of humans. How many millions of people have died in the course of history because of holy wars? How many thousands of people were burned at the stake? Of course, it’s easy to unify people when they’re given the option of joining your religion or dying in agony….

    Religion was a useful way of organizing communities before we knew anything about ourselves and nature. Today, in the age of secular government and scientific discovery, religion is simply obsolete. There are much stronger arguments for human unification that have none of the drawbacks of religion; the aforementioned tendency of religions to wage war, the deference to undeserving authority that breeds ignorance, the delusions of grandeur that manifests in the minds of people who think they can communicate with the most powerful entity conceivable. We know enough about economics and science, we know how the environment and our physiology works, we understand the preciousness of our time here and our relative insignificance in the scope of the universe – these are the things we should be studying. This is the stuff that truly can unify the human race. Religions are left scrambling for relevance on these subjects.

    Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 10:59 am - June 28, 2011

  128. Lori,
    “I don’t degrade love by confusing it with sex. I can’t speak for those who do. As long as it is understood that they do not speak for me.”

    Thank you for making that clear. At this point in time I’m wondering if the heterosexual community and the LGBT communtiy aren’t taking it on the chin for the promiscuous behavior of mostly young males who can’t control themselves/see no reason to control themselves. But I’m evolving on this so…………………………

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 28, 2011 @ 11:06 am - June 28, 2011

  129. Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 10:59 am – June 28, 2011

    I really don’t know what I’d do, were it not for our vaunted theologian-in-residence.

    That was, quite literally, the most inane, ill-informed and passive-aggressive, anti-religion, faux-humanist screed I’ve read since Anton LeVay.

    Laudable use of grammar, though.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 11:12 am - June 28, 2011

  130. Levi,

    Your little screed is so predictable that any sophomore on dope could have written in his sleep.

    What you don’t know and understand about religion would fill the Grand Canyon in one load.

    Really, Levi, you are a walking cartoon character. You are so bigoted that you think you are wisdom incarnate.

    You can not be debated because you are a dedicated alchemist. You only know what you know and everything you spout supports your conclusion even when it is laughable stupid. Wow.

    And speaking of stupid comments, did you really post this nugget?

    We know enough about economics and science, we know how the environment and our physiology works, we understand the preciousness of our time here and our relative insignificance in the scope of the universe….

    Remarkable.

    Even more remarkable is you blathering about “the preciousness of our time here.” For you, Levi, this is the calendar: You are born, you grow, eat, work, play, learn and then you die. Then the worms eat you and you are long forgotten. Why do you even speak of “here” as if you have any choice. You are a moment of biology in a continuum of hopeless breeding and rotting. What the heck is precious to you or anyone else about you taking up oxygen in the cycle of biology?

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 28, 2011 @ 11:18 am - June 28, 2011

  131. I used to think that religion (either differences, or resistance of a culture to adopt another religion) was the cause of almost all war. If there were no religion, then some power-hungry humans would find another way to be destructive. Most of your examples demonstrate that. Hitler, I’m not so sure about. He didn’t have a problem with religion, except with adherents of Judaism. But many a great war as well as oppression had religion as its instigator. Today, at least in the Western world, things are much better. Even powerful atheists haven’t bloodied their hands as of late anywhere to the degree of the 1970s or prior.

    Helio’s list of supposedly atheist tyrants have much more in common with religions than he would ever be able to appreciate. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, whether you’re worshiping to an invisible man that lives in the sky or the head of your state. They both use tactics of fear, intimidation, and violence to force compliance, and the playbook used by people like Stalin and Hitler was inherited from centuries’ worth of religious leaders.

    I wouldn’t want a society where people were forced to be atheists. I like our system of government very much, where people are allowed to believe and express themselves as they like. The annoying thing about religious people in today’s America is they think that their wacky beliefs entitle them to certain privileges and rewards. Hopefully we’ll get to a point in the future where people can agree to keep all of the hocus-pocus to themselves, at least when we’re trying to make decisions as communities.

    Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 11:20 am - June 28, 2011

  132. There are much stronger arguments for human unification that have none of the drawbacks of religion; the aforementioned tendency of religions to wage war (Yes Levi, like those evil Soviets, North Koreans and Che), the deference to undeserving authority that breeds ignorance(By the way, note how Levi accepts Global Warming and 9/11 Trutherism, despite the evidence to the contrary), the delusions of grandeur that manifests in the minds of people who think they can communicate with the most powerful entity conceivable. (“I’m smarter than all of you, and should be allowed to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.”- Levi.)

    Just pointing out Levi’s engaging in what is called ‘projection’. We shouldn’t be surprised, Levi won’t address points when they’re raised, lies, and supports terrorists, child rapists, and murderers, by his own logic.

    Now hush Levi, adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 11:25 am - June 28, 2011

  133. Oh, one more.

    Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, whether you’re worshiping to an invisible man that lives in the sky or the head of your state. They both use tactics of fear, intimidation, and violence to force compliance, and the playbook used by people like Stalin and Hitler was inherited from centuries’ worth of religious leaders.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.

    -Levi
    So which is it, Levi. Is your authoritarian and Fascist belief system a result of your faith? Or are you just an agnostic terror supporter?

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 11:29 am - June 28, 2011

  134. I like our system of government very much, where people are allowed to believe and express themselves as they like. The annoying thing about religious people in today’s America is they think that their wacky beliefs entitle them to certain privileges and rewards.

    For the second time in a week, you’ve contradicted yourself in the span of a single comment, Levi.

    You claim to like a system wherein people are allowed to express themselves as they like, then deride the faithful for being “annoying,” because you’ve chosen to categorize their professions of faith as such.

    Again, little wonder you find so little support here.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 11:31 am - June 28, 2011

  135. Pat,

    Hitler was raised Catholic and had a Teutonic vision of Gott in Himmel. He believed in social Darwinism, astrology, phrenology, propaganda, racial purity, racial supremacy and other little quirks that crowded his moral code and his faith credentials. Look up Eric Bonhoeffer if you think Hitler did not bother other religions and also remember his blitz efforts to destroy churches in England.

    Power abhors a vacuum and when men of good will fail to prevail, the evil among us will always make an attempt to take power. Too often, they succeed. You can not educate greed, lust, arrogance, malice, deceit, brutality, fanaticism, treachery, jealousy, lying, hypocrisy, hatred, ingratitude away. You must practice your virtues to help arm you against apathy and backsliding toward vice.

    My main beef with liberals of today is that use government as an avenging god that will for their view of social justice on people who may be “free” but they are “wrong” thinking.

    Certainly we must protect our society from dangerous members who threaten our safety and security. But reeducation through “hate” crime legislation and college campus reeducation camps for wrong-thinking students is not to my liking.

    Jon Stewart seems unable to recognize that he preaches his comedy to his choir. That is why he will not permit conservative pundits who might be competition for his views on his show. Fine by me. I would never consider a government “fairness” doctrine to shut him up. He does very well selling his soap to his crowd. Good on him.

    I use the Jon Stewart example because Hitler would have crushed him in a nano-second. And what does Soros want to do to FOX News? That is my beef with liberals of today. They make virtues of time tested vices. That is because for them, the ends justify the means.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 28, 2011 @ 11:52 am - June 28, 2011

  136. The annoying thing about religious people in today’s America is they think that their wacky beliefs entitle them to certain privileges and rewards.

    Namely, what?

    Do tell Levi.

    That is at the core of your dyspepsia, so put it out there where we call all understand your problem.

    Warning: If you run away as something so simple and basic as this, it will be proof positive that you are smoking too much of what you are trying to peddle.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 28, 2011 @ 12:01 pm - June 28, 2011

  137. In general, I think little of David Frum. But he has abandoned his opposition to gay marriage and I find his reasons interesting: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/opinion/frum.gay.marriage_1_family-stability-marriage-hispanic-mothers?_s=PM:OPINION

    Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact. If people like me had been right [in opposing it], we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half. Instead — while American family stability has continued to deteriorate — it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s… Middle-class families have become somewhat more stable than they used to be….

    RTWT.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2011 @ 12:05 pm - June 28, 2011

  138. For the second time in a week, you’ve contradicted yourself in the span of a single comment, Levi.

    You claim to like a system wherein people are allowed to express themselves as they like, then deride the faithful for being “annoying,” because you’ve chosen to categorize their professions of faith as such.

    Again, little wonder you find so little support here.

    What’s annoying is when they insist on taking the views that they hold in their household (i.e., homosexuality is a sin) and then bringing that into the public square. If you believe that your God is telling you to a live a certain way and believe certain things, that’s fine, but you should have the basic human courtesy to acknowledge that not everyone believes in your God, and so relying on religious authority in political debates is inappropriate.

    Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - June 28, 2011

  139. Namely, what?

    Do tell Levi.

    That is at the core of your dyspepsia, so put it out there where we call all understand your problem.

    Warning: If you run away as something so simple and basic as this, it will be proof positive that you are smoking too much of what you are trying to peddle.

    The best, most recent example, comes from Michelle Bachmann, the recently announced candidate for President of the United States. She said on the subject of intelligent design that it should be taught in classrooms, despite its lack of any scientific basis, and that children should be allowed to choose between it and evolution. Her brand of religious fundamentalism requires her to be offended by evolution, and so she would prefer to undermine science education in America to protect her religion.

    Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 12:12 pm - June 28, 2011

  140. If you believe that your God is telling you to a live a certain way and believe certain things, that’s fine, but you should have the basic human courtesy to acknowledge that not everyone believes in your God, and so relying on religious authority in political debates is inappropriate.

    But isn’t telling someone to shut up because you disagree with them an infringement upon their rights to express themselves?

    You see where I’m going with this….

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 12:14 pm - June 28, 2011

  141. Jon Stewart seems unable to recognize that he preaches his comedy to his choir. That is why he will not permit conservative pundits who might be competition for his views on his show.

    That’s total bullshit. I’ve seen Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Marc Thiessen, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingrahm, and others appear on his show multiple times.

    Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 12:16 pm - June 28, 2011

  142. Levi, at the end of the day, you find Bachmann offensive, every bit as much as I find Obama offensive.

    The difference between us lies in that I advocate for him to be voted out of office at the earliest possible moment, while you seem to advocate that anyone who shares Bachmann’s views needs to be “dragged, kicking and screaming into the future”.

    Hence, the lack of respect your arguments tend to engender here.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 12:18 pm - June 28, 2011

  143. That’s total bullshit. I’ve seen Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Marc Thiessen, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingrahm, and others appear on his show multiple times.

    Levi, in this case, is correct. Unlike Olbermann, Stewart does indeed invite conservative guests on his show.

    He just refuses to employ one which, I suppose, is his prerogative.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 12:19 pm - June 28, 2011

  144. Her brand of religious fundamentalism requires her to be offended by evolution, and so she would prefer to undermine science education in America to protect her religion.

    You do have evidence of this, I presume? Otherwise, it’s about as credible as The Turner Diaries, and about as subtle an argument.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 12:22 pm - June 28, 2011

  145. What’s annoying is when they insist on taking the views that they hold in their household (i.e., homosexuality is a sin) and then bringing that into the public square.

    Yes, I forgot. Levi’s all for allowing the people to express their will, as long as he approves of it

    Her brand of religious fundamentalism requires her to be offended by evolution, and so she would prefer to undermine science education in America to protect her religion.

    Kind of like teaching Global Warming, when there’s no basis in science, eh Levi.

    Again, Michelle Bachman, by her success, shows she’s ‘clearly more intelligent’ than Levi. Therefore he’s afraid of her dragging him kicking and screaming into the future.

    So let’s recap. Levi’s for personal freedom, as long as he agrees with it. Teaching junk science as fact, as long as he agrees with it, and free expression of religion, as long as he agrees with it.

    So in a ‘Leviocracy’ Freedom would be unlimted, as long as he got to define freedom.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 12:24 pm - June 28, 2011

  146. She said on the subject of intelligent design that it should be taught in classrooms, despite its lack of any scientific basis, and that children should be allowed to choose between it and evolution.

    Oh, that just pegged the hypocrisy meter completely.

    As far as my bias is concerned, at least I was respected enough by my parents as a kid that I was permitted to figure out what I thought about the subject on my own. I don’t suppose I would be mistaken to assume that you inherited your religion from your parents at a young age? If anything, you’re the biased one. You likely never had a choice in the matter, did you?

    So Levi screams and cries that it is disrespectful not to allow children to choose and that children should not be forced to learn what adults think is important.

    But then Levi whines that children must not be allowed to choose and that children should be forced to learn what adults think is important.

    Notice this.

    Michele Bachmann, the supposed intolerant bigot and religious fundamentalist, advises teaching both and allowing people to choose.

    Levi and Richard R, the so-called open-minded and tolerant liberals, demand that only their dogma be taught and that there be no choice whatsoever.

    Intolerance of the belief of others is merely an expression of insecurity in your own. Isn’t it amazing how Richard R and Levi are so completely terrified of religion that they have to openly advocate for its complete banning from the public square and from any expression of public life in order to “protect people” from its corrupting influence?

    Also, note how Levi states this:

    What’s annoying is when they insist on taking the views that they hold in their household (i.e., homosexuality is a sin) and then bringing that into the public square.

    The free and public expression of one’s beliefs is a guaranteed constitutional right, protected by the First Amendment.

    Levi openly opposes any free expression of public worship and advocates that people be openly discriminated against in politics and government based on their religious beliefs.

    Levi and Richard R are bigots who are demanding that Christians and other religious people be denied their constitutional rights based on their religious beliefs.

    That shows you the destructive, hateful, fascist impulses that drive the liberal left and gay-sex marriage supporters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 12:27 pm - June 28, 2011

  147. Ok, I can’t resist some comic relief….

    What’s annoying is when they insist on taking the views that they hold in their household (i.e., homosexuality is a sin) and then bringing that into the public square.

    That whole, “freedom of speech” thing is a real bitch. In other words…

    Stay tuned for another episode of, “OW, MY BALLS!!!”

    Progressivism….it’s got electrolytes.”

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 12:27 pm - June 28, 2011

  148. Levi,

    Your little screed is so predictable that any sophomore on dope could have written in his sleep.

    What you don’t know and understand about religion would fill the Grand Canyon in one load.

    Really, Levi, you are a walking cartoon character. You are so bigoted that you think you are wisdom incarnate.

    You can not be debated because you are a dedicated alchemist. You only know what you know and everything you spout supports your conclusion even when it is laughable stupid. Wow.

    As you said earlier, there is more that is the same about religions than is different. Now I might not be able to quote scripture, I don’t know what the difference is between a Baptist and a Lutheran, I don’t understand the hierarchy of the Catholic church, but I know that all these religions are pushing the same con. Religious representatives present themselves as absolute authorities on issues that they by definition could know nothing about. They’re always trying to get something out of you (membership, at the very least) and they promise you the best thing that any mortal being could imagine; relief from the fear of death. Do I need to know the details? No, all I need to know is that I’m being sold something whose authenticity I will never be able to verify. So I’ll leave you to your studies about angels and holy wars, I’d prefer to go read something interesting about the real world, thanks.

    And speaking of stupid comments, did you really post this nugget?
    We know enough about economics and science, we know how the environment and our physiology works, we understand the preciousness of our time here and our relative insignificance in the scope of the universe….
    Remarkable.

    Even more remarkable is you blathering about “the preciousness of our time here.” For you, Levi, this is the calendar: You are born, you grow, eat, work, play, learn and then you die. Then the worms eat you and you are long forgotten. Why do you even speak of “here” as if you have any choice. You are a moment of biology in a continuum of hopeless breeding and rotting. What the heck is precious to you or anyone else about you taking up oxygen in the cycle of biology?

    I should ask you the same question. If you’re destined to spend eternity in the kingdom of heaven, then what good is this existence? Why bother? Why don’t more religious people celebrate when they’re diagnosed with cancer? You’re going to see God after all, aren’t you excited? I would think that after 15 million years or so of living in heaven and enjoying unimaginable bliss, you would probably forget every detail of the 80 or so years you spent on this rock.

    Contrast that to the atheist, who knows we’ve only got one life, who knows they won’t be getting any second chances. Do you suppose you could really argue that you value your time on this planet more than I do? I’m playing in the World Series, and you’re just starting Spring Training. In your view of things, virtually nothing that happens in this plane of existence can matter at all. You’re just trying out for God to see if he wants to spend the rest of eternity with you.

    Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 12:29 pm - June 28, 2011

  149. Eric, NDT.

    Perhaps what is most amusing about Levi, is that the self proclaimed ‘smarter than everybody’ apparently doesn’t understand that there’s this thing called ‘google’ that allows us to mine his own words and use them to show how much of a lying totalitarian he is.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 12:30 pm - June 28, 2011

  150. Comment by Levi — June 28, 2011 @ 12:29 pm – June 28, 2011

    Levi, you’ve been asked to square your belief in the freedom of speech with your insistence that such speech is somehow detrimental to what you perceive to be “the greater good,” assuming I hear your correctly.

    Kindly posit an argument sustaining why that is acceptable, rather than continuing to pursue a theological argument you yourself assert you don’t understand, nor wish to.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 12:33 pm - June 28, 2011

  151. Livewire, thank you for that quote; it demonstrates just how insane and fascist the pathetic Levi is.

    The people that founded our government dedicated whole sections to the legislature and the judiciary and none to public ballot initiatives, so those branches of government supersede those initiatives. They designed our system specifically so that the general public wasn’t just holding votes to make laws. You elect a slate of representatives that make the decisions for you.

    Let us be absolutely clear. Gay-sex marriage supporters like Levi are now stating that constitutional referendums and amendments are illegal under the United States Constitution.

    Levi adamantly opposes allowing people to vote on their own government and their own governmental structure.

    But what was the little hypocrite shrieking yesterday?

    Historically, small minorities have been able to oppress large majorities by controlling economics, politics, religion, and culture, and what finally put a stop to that was the advent of democracy – otherwise known as ‘making decisions as a group.’

    So yesterday the idiot Levi was demanding that the people be allowed to vote and make decisions as a group versus being led by a tiny oligarchy, and today he’s demanding that the people shut up and do what the oligarchy tells them.

    Levi really epitomizes most gay-sex marriage supporters. They’re nothing more than closet anti-religious bigots and wannabe fascists who think they know what’s best and that everyone should just shut up and do what they say. Gay-sex marriage is just a smokescreen for their hateful bigotry and insane desires to get rid of democracy and rule by fiat.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 12:36 pm - June 28, 2011

  152. Livewire,

    Google really isn’t necessary in this case, given that Levi is basically undoing himself here in this very thread.

    Kinda makes it easy. :-)

    Yes, we’re free to speak as we wish, just as he is free to tell us he disagrees. However, he seems to think the left has the freedom to tell us to shut up, and have the right to legislate that, which they most certainly do not.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 12:36 pm - June 28, 2011

  153. Now I might not be able to quote scripture, I don’t know what the difference is between a Baptist and a Lutheran, I don’t understand the hierarchy of the Catholic church, but I know that all these religions are pushing the same con.

    The classic definition of a bigot: you have no experience or understanding of the topic, but you know the answer.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 12:40 pm - June 28, 2011

  154. Now I might not be able to quote scripture, I don’t know what the difference is between a Baptist and a Lutheran, I don’t understand the hierarchy of the Catholic church, but I know that all these religions are pushing the same con.

    The classic definition of a bigot: you have no experience or understanding of the topic, but you know the answer.

    I wouldn’t say “bigot,” per se, NDT, but I would hazard to guess it is the purview of the ignorantly intolerant.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 12:49 pm - June 28, 2011

  155. Contrast that to the atheist, who knows we’ve only got one life, who knows they won’t be getting any second chances. Do you suppose you could really argue that you value your time on this planet more than I do?

    Absolutely.

    You see, Levi, if you cared about life and its values, you wouldn’t advocate for abortion, in which millions of lives are snuffed out annually.

    If you cared about life and its values, you wouldn’t argue for assisted suicide, stating that the disabled and the elderly should just kill themselves.

    And if you cared about life and its values, you certainly wouldn’t be following “progressives” like Al Gore who claim that humans are an infestation on this planet and call for less of them.

    In terms of narcissistic self-love, certainly, yes, you value your own life highly. But given your calls to rape and murder Sarah Palin and her family, it is ludicrous to say that you value life at all, and far more precise to say that you see life as a hindrance if it in any way inconveniences you.

    The hilarity of your statement is that religious folks get both the World Series and spring training. You only get one. Religious people know that BOTH the life here and the life hereafter are blessings, and are grateful that they get both.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 12:50 pm - June 28, 2011

  156. WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN—-Bertrand Russell

    Fear, the Foundation of Religion

    Religion is based, 1 think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and dis­putes. Fear is the basis of the whole thingfear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made.

    What We Must Do

    We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the worldits good facts, its bad facts, its beau­ties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception de­rived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a concep­tion quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contempti­ble and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 1:48 pm - June 28, 2011

  157. None of you actually make any arguments for religion, you just trash talk people that don’t believe it or point out how silly it sounds to worship a jewish zombie, and ask him to forgive you telepathically.

    There are a few arguments that might show there is the possibility of a being or beings out there that we would consider gods, there however is zero arguments on why you should try to worship such beings outside of fantastical promises of golden streets and mansions for all. My brother the preacher, uses the bible to argue in favor of war even genocide, he believes that it’s possible to get slavery right this time. My mother talks about how it’s all part of gods plan that her brother is getting a divorce, and whose daughters are living with a man who raises fighting dogs, and another who is prostituting.
    People just use religion to paint a smiley face on things they don’t understand, than over the years as theology becomes dogma, they attack anyone who questions them just like you are doing now.
    Would any of you question that Zeus and Odin were false gods? could any of you actually defend that position however? if one fanciful being with magic powers is ridiculous, why is yours logical?

    Rigidly held dogma be it religious or secular is dangerous, however science is not dogma, and conflating the two as some try to do is where most creationists go tragically wrong.

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 2:02 pm - June 28, 2011

  158. Rigidly held dogma be it religious or secular is dangerous, however science is not dogma, and conflating the two as some try to do is where most creationists go tragically wrong.

    Tim, despite the massive cut-and-paste job, you fail to address the issue at hand: that being the left’s insistence that while free speech is laudable, somehow actually speaking it is unacceptable.

    In other words, where you do a fine job laying out, yet again, for the umpteenth time, why you disagree with any sort of religious worldview, you fail massively in justifying why uttering any argument in support of it is somehow dangerous and ignorant.

    Please feel free to address this, absent your preaching, for I find it offensive. :-)

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 2:11 pm - June 28, 2011

  159. None of you actually make any arguments for religion, you just trash talk people that don’t believe it or point out how silly it sounds to worship a jewish zombie, and ask him to forgive you telepathically.

    I, for one, have not “trash-talked” anyone, so I find your accusation baseless and over-wrought with emotion.

    As for the “jewish zombie” hyperbole, I’ll ignore your hatred and ask you to set aside the progressive dogma for a moment and address the question I posed in my previous comment.

    Thank you.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 2:15 pm - June 28, 2011

  160. Eric,

    Tim’s cut and paste and hatred filled diatribe reads like it was put together by a high schooler.

    So I think his boyfriend got on the computer.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 2:25 pm - June 28, 2011

  161. Rigidly held dogma be it religious or secular is dangerous, however science is not dogma, and conflating the two as some try to do is where most creationists go tragically wrong.

    And yet, Tim, you use science to “prove” that religious beliefs are wrong, and rigidly adhere to your absolutist dogma that religion is always wrong.

    Again, it’s a hilariously one-way street. You insist that science and religion should not be conflated, then quote and assert that science disproves the existence of God. As always, your arguments depend on complete and total relativity, in which you may use the very same assertions as fact one minute that you had just before denounced as fallacious.

    And this was beyond entertaining.

    My brother the preacher, uses the bible to argue in favor of war even genocide, he believes that it’s possible to get slavery right this time. My mother talks about how it’s all part of gods plan that her brother is getting a divorce, and whose daughters are living with a man who raises fighting dogs, and another who is prostituting.

    And why do you care, Tim?

    You don’t oppose war when Obama carries it out. You don’t oppose slavery when it’s done by Obama-approved parties. You don’t oppose divorce, you don’t oppose prostitution, and you certainly don’t oppose people doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own home.

    You advocate that society not in the least legislate morality or in any way judge people’s actions — and now you’re running around screaming that peoples’ actions should be judged?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 2:27 pm - June 28, 2011

  162. None of you actually make any arguments for religion, you just trash talk people that don’t believe it or point out how silly it sounds to worship a jewish zombie, and ask him to forgive you telepathically.

    And of course, gay-sex marriage, such as Timmeh supports and demands, has nothing whatsoever to do with antireligious bigotry or contempt and hatred for religious people.

    Nothing whatsoever.

    The funny part about this is that Timmeh and his friends like Richard R would never dream of writing this about Islam, and would blow a blood vessel if you spoke in any way disparagingly about Muslims or their faith.

    Perhaps Christians need to simply start treating gays and lesbians the same way that gays and lesbians endorse Muslims treating anyone who criticizes or offends their religious beliefs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 2:32 pm - June 28, 2011

  163. Tim’s cut and paste and hatred filled diatribe reads like it was put together by a high schooler.

    That may very well be the case, Livewire, but I find it curious that rather than actually address the issue of “free speech for me but not for thee,” Tim seems to pick up the flag that Levi dropped, but somehow thinks that reiterating his aversion to religion is contributing anything of substance.

    Progressives are a curious, if not predictable lot. I’ve yet to use a personal attack, yet the simple act of seeking clarification from them seems to them to be “trash-talk.”

    You’ll forgive me, but my inner Spock is piqued.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 2:32 pm - June 28, 2011

  164. @Eric, no while my belief is that religion that consist of invisible beings that will grant you wishes, fix your life, or have a plan is dangerous in the long term to the species I did not say you can’t hold those views. It’s freedom of and FROM religion. To justify laws based solely on writings of your holy book is no more desirable than passing sharia law

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 3:21 pm - June 28, 2011

  165. #128 – I think your hypothesis is right, Richard. There is a real reason for those concerned about morality to care about sexual behavior. The problem is that so many of them are content to pick out scapegoats — always the members of vulnerable minority groups — and vent and flail at them instead of taking on the powerful. Gays are an easy target, and most of us don’t fight back.

    When we do fight back, we tend to gullibly ally ourselves with other powerful and unscrupulous people — the professional Left — who actually have no more concern about our well-being than the bigshots on the social Right.

    I like Gay Patriot because this blog gives a voice to gays and lesbians who do not march in lockstep with power. There aren’t many others out there who offer such a forum. I’m glad you found this blog.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 28, 2011 @ 3:29 pm - June 28, 2011

  166. It’s freedom of and FROM religion. To justify laws based solely on writings of your holy book is no more desirable than passing sharia law

    True enough, just as banning speech is as destructive as the burning of books.

    If you’re trying to equate a candidate’s speech with the establishment of religion, thusly you must accept my right as a parking lot owner to deny service to a customer with an “Obama/Biden 2008? bumper sticker, no?

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 3:33 pm - June 28, 2011

  167. Eric, no while my belief is that religion that consist of invisible beings that will grant you wishes, fix your life, or have a plan is dangerous in the long term to the species I did not say you can’t hold those views.

    Funny, humanity has held those views since the beginning of recorded history — and presumably before — and yet, not only have we survived, we’ve thrived.

    Meanwhile, the gay and lesbian community a) does nothing to propagate or protect the species and b) engages in a behavior which vastly increases the likelihood of members of the species being sickened, disabled, and killed.

    The morality here is pretty stark. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the rest of the world’s religions have rather strict tenets against sickening or otherwise seeking to murder or harm another human being.

    In contrast, the tenets of the gay and lesbian community is that it’s perfectly all right to sicken or harm another human being if it makes you feel good in the process. Indeed, Timmeh has stated that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with children under the age of consent, and that gays and lesbians are in the right when they cover up and facilitate children having bareback sex with strangers in a bus station restroom.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 3:37 pm - June 28, 2011

  168. Hmm, almost looks like Tim kicked his 15 year old off the computer.

    Unfortunately Tim has already confessed his belief in the absolute goodness of an incorproeal being, Big Government

    To Tim, Tuskegee, Gunwalker, and drug lords seizing federal land for their base of operations are just the inconsequential actions of a different god.

    (In case I’m confusing people about Tim’s love of children, Tim’s stated that anyone who has an issue with 15 year olds crusing bus stops for sex with much older men needs ‘their moral compass adjusted’. Of coruse he likes to say that he’s being quoted out of context, that he was talking about two fifteen year olds, that anyone who calls him out on it is the real pedophile etc.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 3:43 pm - June 28, 2011

  169. @Livewire I’ve rejected your premise and interpretation of that thread since you started, your obsession with pedophilia is as always disturbing. You took issue at age of consent laws, I said if it’s the law it’s the law. The bible doesn’t have age of consent laws therefore even by your own reckoning your religion and it’s holy book are morally deficient

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 4:13 pm - June 28, 2011

  170. @ND30 for the majority of the human condition we have enslaved our females, conducted human and animal sacrifice, and cast magic spells at each other. We practiced slavery, genocide, ancestor worship, and the occasional bout of cannibalism. We survived and thrived. Again your argument bears no weight. Homosexuals have also been around since the dawn sometimes accepted sometimes not, homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality. Sexual relations between consenting adults is a normal part of human social interaction, regulating them based on modern understanding and knowledge makes more sense than holding to stone age rules involving stoning or burning them to death.

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 4:28 pm - June 28, 2011

  171. @Eric “If you’re trying to equate a candidate’s speech with the establishment of religion, thusly you must accept my right as a parking lot owner to deny service to a customer with an “Obama/Biden 2008? bumper sticker, no?
    Comment by Eric in Chicago”

    As a business owner your entitled to set your rules of business, however if you take government monies you are normally expected to follow their anti-discrimination rules. As far as I know there are no rules against denying a transaction based on political affiliation, or charging them a different rate as long as your rules are clearly posted.
    I’ve always thought that most of the hubbub concerning those unwilling to do business with gays was mostly inconsequential, and in all cases where the parties were forced to change their position they were taking public money or engaged in a public service.

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 4:46 pm - June 28, 2011

  172. As a business owner your entitled to set your rules of business, however if you take government monies you are normally expected to follow their anti-discrimination rules.

    So, that seems to be your line of defense: if a business owner accepts no government money, he’s entitled to deny service to whomever he chooses, correct? For any reason?

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 5:01 pm - June 28, 2011

  173. See? Tim again tries to denies his own words.

    Of course his boyfriend might be able to explain to him hyperlinks, like those that lead to his own words. He then feels that anyone who opposes his love of 15 year olds having sex in bus stops is ‘obsessed’ with pedophelia.

    Sorry Tim, the only ‘obsession’ is your love of children. And not in the healthy way.

    Oh, and let’s not forget this

    I said if it’s the law it’s the law.

    So Tim supports DOMA, and Prop 8. Good to know. Tim also supported slavery. After all, it’s the law. And his god (Big Government) is always right. He also supports that Kevin Jennings should have reported ‘Brewster’ and should have been procecuted. Clearly, if you oppose DOMA, by Tim’s own words, “You need your moral compass adjusted.”

    I do so enjoy watching Tim digging himself deeper.

    Keep spinning Timmy.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 5:10 pm - June 28, 2011

  174. Tim, you certainly have to see where you’re going here…

    I’ve always thought that most of the hubbub concerning those unwilling to do business with gays was mostly inconsequential, and in all cases where the parties were forced to change their position they were taking public money or engaged in a public service.

    I really don’t think the owners of a cafe in Birmingham were taking public money when they told black people they had to order take out from the rear.

    But that really isn’t the issue here, as far as I’m concerned. I’m discussing Levi’s assertion that where he supports free speech, he denigrates the speech of Christians, whom he clearly both despises and self-admittedly doesn’t understand, much like the modern American left. The man contradicts himself here, and doesn’t seem the least bit capable of understanding it, much less admitting it. He;’s been called on it in multiple threads, yet abandons the discussion when it reaches this point.

    It’s actually almost funny, were it not for the fact that the very President he supports (and the media that seems to embrace him) hasn’t uttered a single word to the contrary.

    I haven’t a clue as to Obama’s grades in college, but I damn sure know everything every Republican candidate has said or written since 1989.

    But that isn’t the topic here. The topic is the left’s obsession with denigrating religion, and ensuring that said belief is completely stricken from the public, while, in the same breath, professing to be in full support of free speech.

    As I’ve said, breathtaking.

    Here’s the problem with free speech for the left…

    The same Phelps asshats that get to piss all over military funerals seem to get a pass from you guys, but the second Bachmann or anyone else from the GOP dare mention their belief in God, a shitstorm ensues, generally led by whatever clown happens to be hosting MSNBC at the moment. Levi knows this, which is precisely why he disappears when a thread invariably comes down to this fact.

    Free speech is free, period, and is absolute. Either you’re for it, or you’re against it. All I ask is that you NOT be so annoyingly disingenuous as to try to parse it.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 5:17 pm - June 28, 2011

  175. Tim,

    You loathe religion. You have made that abundantly clear. To wit:

    worship a jewish zombie, and ask him to forgive you telepathically.

    Never, have I “forced” my beliefs on you. In fact, I would not know how to go about it, even if I cared to try to subdue you.

    Your Bertand Russell citation is certainly your right. Sometimes we all find what we want to say has already been said well by others. I assume Mr. Russell’s views mirror your own.

    Understand that Russell is but one in a long list of atheists and agnostics who have attempted to skewer religion. I think that you might appreciate Joseph Campbell who explored creation myths and religions in a fascinating way.

    Now, then, there is something more than a bit “off-putting” about a person who is obsessed with how stupid people are for not rejecting faith. Even more off-putting are people who pee on your plate with statements like: “worship a jewish zombie, and ask him to forgive you telepathically.”

    What great harm was done to you that you have this derangement over people who are faith based?

    Back at #39 Levi says Michelle Bachmann is intent on corrupting little minds by requiring “Intelligent Design” as part of the curriculum. He says that is one of the punishments religion is trying to foist on you non-believers.

    That is really pretty lame. The theory of evolution has a lot of science to explain and it takes up a lot of textbook. Intelligent Design can be covered in about one sentence. You can not prove or disprove either one. So, what is so darned dangerous about Intelligent Design?

    What is it about faith that rattles you so much? Why does a school kid reading the Bible during his lunch free time cause so much havoc? When libs see so much voo-doo Harry Potter in religion, why do they cringe when the Bible appears?

    I ruled that you have no standing to hold me or anyone one else to standards you do not respect. Did that get under your skin?

    Are you so afraid that other points of view may overwhelm you that forces you to feel compelled to strike out preemptively?

    Have tried to think out the roots of your loathing?

    I won’t try to mend you. But you just might learn how to get along with others if you try rational debate rather than tilting at windmills.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 28, 2011 @ 5:29 pm - June 28, 2011

  176. @Eric similar to those you try to conflate dogma and science, your trying to make the argument that all speech is protected and free and it’s not. While we aren’t as draconian as Germany, we set clear limits on what you can say and when,
    “Fire in the crowded theatre”, No.
    Inciting violence, No.
    Libel, No
    Harassment, most of the time.

    Now this is different than political speech, almost all political speech is protected, however it is usually subject to a higher degree of public scrutiny. Say we have 57 states, people are going to laugh at you, say that you’re proud to come from the town of John wayne Gacy, people are going to laugh at you. Say that you think the earth is 6000 years and that you talk with imaginary voices in your head, (Hillary, Palin, Bauchman) people are going to laugh at you.
    What you seem to want is for people to respect what you’re saying regardless of what you are saying or they believe and while you might get them to listen politely you can’t force them to respect you for saying it. But since the new theme of the republican party is anti-intellectualism a lot of dumb things are coming out of the candidates lately and they’ve been cheered by people who think it’s a sign of them being close to the people democrats see it as being close to the dumb people. Personally I never saw Bush as dumb or uneducated, I did think he was a horrible speaker and it hurt his presidency.

    No I’m not a democrat either I’m just an anti-theist and an anti-deist so by persuasion I’m going to do my best to stop people worshiping invisible beings and giving up free will. If you create a religion that doesn’t have god’s I’ll give it a look over. But no promises.

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 5:31 pm - June 28, 2011

  177. @Eric similar to those you try to conflate dogma and science, your trying to make the argument that all speech is protected and free and it’s not. While we aren’t as draconian as Germany, we set clear limits on what you can say and when,
    “Fire in the crowded theatre”, No.

    “Jesus is the Son of God,” No. Ok. Got it.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 5:43 pm - June 28, 2011

  178. I’m just an anti-theist and an anti-deist so by persuasion I’m going to do my best to stop people worshiping invisible beings and giving up free will.

    Sounds messianic to me. Who sent you on this mission?

    How far are you willing go in tilting at sundry windmills?

    How do you keep score?

    What is your second most pressing need?

    Do you suppose “science” can make a drug that will prevent people from worshiping invisible beings and giving up free will?

    Is this a calling?

    Can you think of a way to make money on your scheme?

    Are twisty mercury filled light bulbs part of your plan?

    Do tell.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 28, 2011 @ 5:51 pm - June 28, 2011

  179. @Helio I never really liked Joseph Campbell though I read a few of his books and papers. Nor Chomsky.

    Simply because someone come from a long line of atheists doesn’t mean their ideas are any less valid than trying to justify your life thru the recorded deeds of someone that lived 2000 years ago or basing your philosophy on Aquinas.

    If we were not typing our responses I might try to get into my antagonistic attitudes towards religion, perhaps another time. I’m quite aware of how I come off but I’m not trying to spread a religion. I am accused by these self styled “christians” of all kinds of things I don’t think any of them have ever met me.

    I do however love philosophy so get drawn into these long winded and pointless threads simply out of boredom with the normal conversations I’m forced to have for work. True I often have to much pique in my replies, Usually I repent over time and than relapse.

    Your answer that evolution shouldn’t be taught because there’s to much research and intelligent design is simple so it should be taught is pretty lame. Telling children lies like Intelligent design simply holds them back from real knowledge, and real life application of knowledge. It is in fact the death of innovation.
    A child can read whatever they want at lunch, just like they are free to believe any religion. However that doesn’t mean that we should teach them untruths to make their fantasy world fit together better. For the record Evolution does happen, did happen and is happening right now. Every breed of dog, every generation of bacteria is a living example of it in action. Is there more to learn, of course, but there are reams of evidence and applicable lessons to be taught and utilized today.

    You can rule however you want but as an informed outsider well aware of the bible, I’m more than qualified to make my own judgments. I’m not qualified to judge someone by a reading of the koran, but I can at least just their actions in regard to others.

    @ND30 is a hypocrite, one torn by the rejection of his family, he has repeatedly damned others for things he has done himself. Like having sex out of wedlock, posting nude pictures online, being gay, and according to him gays hold a special power inordinate to their numbers that lets everything they do corrupt the word many times over what a straight person could do which is a common sign of paranoia. When faced with a multitude of gays that do not conform to his attacks or beliefs he says that they are just hiding. He also has stated that gays are inherently evil, but that if they were ‘responsible’ like him they would be ok.

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 6:01 pm - June 28, 2011

  180. @helio ha-ha you already said I’m to caustic to messianic so I suspect I’ll be okay. Does it bug you that people can think the things you believe in make you look like a zeus worshiper to them? Or that Mormons believe the garden of Eden is in Missouri

    There is a spot in your brain that can be activated that cause you to feel a warm spiritual embrace so it’s possible.

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 6:12 pm - June 28, 2011

  181. I am accused by these self styled “christians” of all kinds of things I don’t think any of them have ever met me.

    Funny, but even the Shoah Foundation capitalizes the Nazis. Not out of respect, mind you, but out of recognition of the impact the murderous thugs had on humanity.

    I’m just sayin.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 6:13 pm - June 28, 2011

  182. Or that Mormons believe the garden of Eden is in Missouri.

    I’m going to let this little piece of bigotry stand on its own, given the increasingly hateful stance the tolerant left has displayed since Romney emerged.

    Of course, I don’t have to remind anyone of the sheer hatred people had towards JFK’s Catholicism.

    Oh, of course. They were Democrats.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 6:25 pm - June 28, 2011

  183. I’m just an anti-theist and an anti-deist so by persuasion I’m going to do my best to stop people worshiping invisible beings and giving up free will.

    But it’s the law Timmeh, that people can believe what they want. Since you’ve already said that anyone who disagrees with the law “needs their moral compass adjusted” when are you turning yourself in for re-education?

    And of course this:

    I am accused by these self styled “christians” of all kinds of things I don’t think any of them have ever met me.

    Doesn’t gel with this.

    @ND30 is a hypocrite, one torn by the rejection of his family, he has repeatedly damned others for things he has done himself.

    So Tim now waives any right to complain about people ‘accusing’ him of things, since he’s done it himself.

    It really is hard to have a duel of wits with an unarmed man.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 6:25 pm - June 28, 2011

  184. @Eric,

    Maybe the better example would be all the religious bigotry aimed at Romney’s fellow Mormon, Sen Reid.

    Oh wait, you can have any faith you want, as long as you tow the liberal dogma.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 6:27 pm - June 28, 2011

  185. There is a spot in your brain that can be activated that cause you to feel a warm spiritual embrace so it’s possible.

    Hey Tim, what was the “warm spot in your brain” that allowed you to vote for a candidate who didn’t think the people needed to know something so elemental as his f*cking grades?????

    Hey man, if you’re gonna dive off the deep end, the least you can do is back up your position, right?

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 28, 2011 @ 6:28 pm - June 28, 2011

  186. Telling children lies like Intelligent design simply holds them back from real knowledge, and real life application of knowledge. It is in fact the death of innovation.

    Pluto is or isn’t a planet. Lie?

    Dinosaurs clumped together in dead piles and turned into oil. Lie?

    Many people believe “the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence….” (Merriam-Webster) Lie?

    How exactly can any of the above bring about the “death of innovation?”

    How does intelligent design “hold children back from real knowledge?”

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 28, 2011 @ 6:34 pm - June 28, 2011

  187. Lori,
    “There is a real reason for those concerned about morality to care about sexual behavior. The problem is that so many of them are content to pick out scapegoats — always the members of vulnerable minority groups — and vent and flail at them instead of taking on the powerful. Gays are an easy target, and most of us don’t fight back.”

    Well said. I would only add that in my opinion much of the heterosexual community concerned about morality doesn’t fight back either. It’s a minority that scapegoats, the rest of us bury ourselves in busyness so no one will discover we are cowards.

    “I like Gay Patriot because this blog gives a voice to gays and lesbians who do not march in lockstep with power.”

    So I’m finding out.

    “I’m glad you found this blog.”

    I’ll take that as your way of welcoming me. Thank you very much, Lori, thank you for taking the time.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 28, 2011 @ 8:41 pm - June 28, 2011

  188. Say that you think the earth is 6000 years and that you talk with imaginary voices in your head, (Hillary, Palin, Bauchman) people are going to laugh at you. What you seem to want is for people to respect what you’re saying regardless of what you are saying or they believe and while you might get them to listen politely you can’t force them to respect you for saying it. But since the new theme of the republican party is anti-intellectualism a lot of dumb things are coming out of the candidates lately and they’ve been cheered by people who think it’s a sign of them being close to the people democrats see it as being close to the dumb people.

    Which is hilarious, given what the Barack Obama Party supports and endorses.

    But we don’t expect you or your fellow bigots like Richard R and Levi to be rational, Timmeh. You can scream how anyone who believes in invisible spirits and talks about God’s will and voices in their head is a moronic ignorant theocrat who is unfit for public office as you blabber about how smart Barack and Michelle Obama are for doing exactly that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2011 @ 9:30 pm - June 28, 2011

  189. “What’s annoying is when they insist non taking the views that they hold in their household (i.e., homosexuality is a sin) and then bringing that into the public square.”

    But, Levi, it’s perfectly ok for unbelievers like you to bring the views you hold in your households (i.e., homosexuality is great) into the public square. Sorry, Levi, but separation of church and state does NOT mean that only atheists are allowed to publicly speak and act according to their values. Levi, your desire for religious cleansing in the public square shows just how much of a Soviet view of religious freedom you have.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 28, 2011 @ 9:33 pm - June 28, 2011

  190. So, Tim, as an “anti-theist” you feel it’s your duty to “stop people from worshiping invisible beings and giving up free will”. So tell me then, when are you going to start using the protracted brutality Lenin said was necessary for that job?

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 28, 2011 @ 9:49 pm - June 28, 2011

  191. @Eric if your assumption is I voted for Obama than you would be incorrect

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 10:24 pm - June 28, 2011

  192. “But, Levi, it’s perfectly ok for unbelievers like you to bring the views you hold in your households (i.e., homosexuality is great) into the public square.”

    This is instructive. Observe how Seane-Anna bends and twists the narrative to suit herself. In her mind, we’re all just like Levi — we ALL support “gay marriage,” and we are all (as she called me) “Stalin wannabes.” This is how this woman’s poison works.

    She has been a liar since the day she was born. She bears NONE of us any goodwill, including those whose support she slobbers for. If she had her way, we would be fugitives and outcasts, with no recognized rights whatsoever.

    She has called the bloggers themselves liars and hypocrites. She is invited into the house time and again, and every time she sh*ts on the carpet and smears it on the walls. This is what sort of a person we’re dealing with here.

    She’ll pretend to side with gay Christians when it suits her, but keep in mind that she doesn’t really believe there are any such thing. We don’t exist to her. The next time any of us turns our back, the knife will be out again…

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 28, 2011 @ 10:41 pm - June 28, 2011

  193. @Sean-Anne I disagree with such pronouncements of violence, violence begets violence. Education is te best tool for social change, as the rise of the west has shown.

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 10:43 pm - June 28, 2011

  194. @Lori in social terms I would think Sean-Anne is a lackey more than leader. But she (?) feels brave being outraged so she continues her out landish attacks looking for words of encouragement.

    Comment by Tim — June 28, 2011 @ 10:45 pm - June 28, 2011

  195. “This is instructive. Observe how Seane-Anna bends and twists the narrative to suit herself.”

    First of all, Lori, I was addressing Levi and I think he’s perfectly capable of answering for himself. Secondly, the only “bends and twists” here are in your mind, which has more loops than a pretzel.

    Levi condemned religious people for bringing their values into the public square while having no problem with irreligious people who do the same thing. I called him out on his double standard. Only your loopy mind could see in that some sinister attempt by me to bend and twist anything.

    “In her mind, we’re all just like Levi — we ALL support “gay marriage,” and we are all (as she called me) ‘Stalin wannabes.’”

    Well, from what I’ve seen here at GayPatriot, gay marriage has more supporters than opponents among gays, including the conservative ones, so while I wouldn’t say and have never said that “ALL” gays support SSM, I certainly believe it’s fair to assume that most do. And yes, Lori, I called you and Vinci “Stalin wannabes” because you both made it known that the intent of your vitriol is to drive me from this blog. Your fervent desire to control who can and who can’t “haunt” GP is certainly Stalinesque in my book, but it’s only in your warped mind that calling TWO people Stalin wannabes equates to indicting a whole group.

    “She has been a liar since the day she was born.”

    Proof, please.

    “She bears NONE of us any goodwill, including those whose support she slobbers for.”

    Which begs the question: why would I “slobber” for support from people for whom I have no goodwill?

    “If she had her way, we would be fugitives and outcasts, with no recognized rights whatsoever.”

    Guess you missed the thread where I said that I believe in tolerance for gays. Ask Pat. He can tell you about it.

    “She has called the bloggers themselves liars and hypocrites.”

    Yes, I’ve called out the bloggers here when I’ve felt they’ve been guilty of dishonesty and/or hypocrisy. So have other commenters, and so what? Surely, Lori, you don’t think that gay bloggers should be allowed to get away with dishonesty and hypocrisy just because they’re gay?

    Lori, stick to comments that actually apply to you and let other people defend themselves. Go to bed and let your brain cell get some rest. Maybe in the morning you’ll be able to write a coherent, civil, and honest reply. But I won’t hold my breath.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 29, 2011 @ 12:51 am - June 29, 2011

  196. “Which begs the question: why would I “slobber” for support from people for whom I have no goodwill?”

    …Don’t know, Seane-Anna, but you obviously do. Next time you do it, I’ll remind you. I’m sure I won’t have to wait too long.

    And how perfectly enchanting to know you once told Pat — in a single thread — that you believe in “tolerance” for gays. Perhaps some of them actually give a damn that you “tolerate” them. I don’t know who the hell you think you are, but you’re nobody to me. I don’t care who you tolerate and who you don’t. Unless you’re the empress of the world, the whole concept of your “tolerance” of others is nothing but egotistical bullcrap.

    Condescending word. Let’s move on…

    “…because you both made it known that the intent of your vitriol is to drive me from this blog.”

    Again with the sort of strange mental fart that makes you think two people can be necessarily said to think the same thing. I can’t answer for what Vinci wants, but I hope you continue to “haunt” this blog. To see a really foam-at-the-mouth latency case at work is both entertaining and instructive. If they put people like you in the rubber-wallpapered rooms in which you belong, what would the rest of us do for laughs?

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 29, 2011 @ 3:30 am - June 29, 2011

  197. [...] New York in Context [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Hyperventilating on Gay Marriage, Part One* — June 29, 2011 @ 3:48 am - June 29, 2011

  198. How many millions of people have died in the course of history because of holy wars? How many thousands of people were burned at the stake?

    How many?

    We know enough about economics and science, we know how the environment and our physiology works, we understand the preciousness of our time here

    You know, I’ve been watching the series Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. A recurring theme on that show is that there’s a LOT we don’t know, but a lot we suppose we know. It’s also interesting to note that there’s also a lot of disagreement on the subjects covered. Most notable scientists have their fair share of detractors. Which makes one wonder how on Earth we’re supposed to believe that all scientists believe Global Warmism. It’s also interesting to note that this program shows what we don’t know about the big bang theory.

    She said on the subject of intelligent design that it should be taught in classrooms, despite its lack of any scientific basis, and that children should be allowed to choose between it and evolution.

    I remember going to private school in 6th grade. We were taught that there were several explanations for the beginning. We had intelligent design, the big bang, the spinning dust cloud etc. It’s been done before with no problems, why are liberals so terrified?

    Comment by TGC — June 29, 2011 @ 4:06 am - June 29, 2011

  199. Back at #39 Levi says Michelle Bachmann is intent on corrupting little minds by requiring “Intelligent Design” as part of the curriculum. He says that is one of the punishments religion is trying to foist on you non-believers.

    That is really pretty lame. The theory of evolution has a lot of science to explain and it takes up a lot of textbook. Intelligent Design can be covered in about one sentence. You can not prove or disprove either one. So, what is so darned dangerous about Intelligent Design?

    You and I both know that this is not what Michelle Bachman has in mind. Bachman would have teachers present ID as an equally likely theory when it simply is not. Evolution has science supporting it, ID does not. If we’re going to start wasting time in science classes talking about what can’t be disproven, well then I insist that my crackpot theories for human origins be presented! I believe that the real world is a computer simulation! I believe that we live in the Matrix! Or on the back of a giant turtle! Because that’s the point of science, right? Ignoring all of the data and believing whatever makes you feel good, right?

    What is it about faith that rattles you so much? Why does a school kid reading the Bible during his lunch free time cause so much havoc? When libs see so much voo-doo Harry Potter in religion, why do they cringe when the Bible appears?

    What bothers me is kids being indoctrinated into their parents’ religion. A kid reading a Bible at school probably started getting trained in his or her parents’ religion from the age of 2 or 3, which I simply think is a terrible thing to do to a human being. Religion and kids involves a lot of fear and guilt, and I wish people had better sense than to put their own offspring through that kind of psychological torture.

    I ruled that you have no standing to hold me or anyone one else to standards you do not respect. Did that get under your skin?

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

    Are you so afraid that other points of view may overwhelm you that forces you to feel compelled to strike out preemptively?

    Of course not. Especially in the past few centuries, humans have acquired an amazing amount of knowledge about the nature of the universe that had previously been assumed to be the work of God. Science is getting more and more specific while religion is getting more and more vague. And if history is any indication, you religion will only exist for a few thousand years at most before people move on to the next devotional fad. A million different gods have come before yours.

    Have tried to think out the roots of your loathing?

    It’s no mystery – I look at the world and human history and see religion as a very negative phenomenon.

    I won’t try to mend you. But you just might learn how to get along with others if you try rational debate rather than tilting at windmills.

    Uh oh, so you’ll be walking back that praying you said you were going to do for me? What ever shall I do?

    Comment by Levi — June 29, 2011 @ 4:36 am - June 29, 2011

  200. How many?

    Uh, lots.

    We know enough about economics and science, we know how the environment and our physiology works, we understand the preciousness of our time here

    You know, I’ve been watching the series Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. A recurring theme on that show is that there’s a LOT we don’t know, but a lot we suppose we know. It’s also interesting to note that there’s also a lot of disagreement on the subjects covered. Most notable scientists have their fair share of detractors. Which makes one wonder how on Earth we’re supposed to believe that all scientists believe Global Warmism. It’s also interesting to note that this program shows what we don’t know about the big bang theory.

    That is all very true. The fundamental nature of the universe, subjects like string theory and additional dimensions, all of that stuff is completely theoretical and likely beyond the human race’s capability to fully comprehend. But I think it’s to our benefit to try our best to find out, as opposed to making up silly stories when the math gets too hard.

    She said on the subject of intelligent design that it should be taught in classrooms, despite its lack of any scientific basis, and that children should be allowed to choose between it and evolution.

    I remember going to private school in 6th grade. We were taught that there were several explanations for the beginning. We had intelligent design, the big bang, the spinning dust cloud etc. It’s been done before with no problems, why are liberals so terrified?

    If you hadn’t noticed, the American education system is the laughingstock of the developed world. We should be teaching science in science classes.

    Comment by Levi — June 29, 2011 @ 4:44 am - June 29, 2011

  201. Uh, lots.

    There’s an intelligent answer.

    Of course, Levi will ignore the hundreds of millions killed by his belief system in the last 100 years in the name of Progress.

    Then again, Levi believes brain volume directly connects to intelligence, I’m sure he’d want that taught in public schools, despite it not being true. it’s not even a theory yet Levi’s stated it as fact. That’s the kind of ‘science’ Levi wants to teach.

    Just like Levi’s belief of global warming, despite evidence to the contrary.

    Note how Levi never jumps on President Obama’s gaffes, or VP Biden’s. Can we add mysoginist to his growing list of beliefs?

    Levi’s a coward, never answering questions where he knows he’s outclassed. The only reason he sputters out a reply to Heliotrope is that Heliotrope is so far above Levi, that he doesn’t realize he’s outclassed.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 29, 2011 @ 7:47 am - June 29, 2011

  202. Levi, I do believe you’ve been asked some rather pointed questions about your odd notion of free speech.

    Two long posts rehashing your disdain really don’t count as answers.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 29, 2011 @ 7:47 am - June 29, 2011

  203. This is funny.

    If we’re going to start wasting time in science classes talking about what can’t be disproven, well then I insist that my crackpot theories for human origins be presented! I believe that the real world is a computer simulation! I believe that we live in the Matrix! Or on the back of a giant turtle!

    I say go ahead. The more exposure children receive to alternate viewpoints in education, the more experience they receive in learning to weigh and review evidence and make decisions.

    Levi wants to intellectually retard children by burning any books and blocking anything other than that which he believes. Levi actually supports purging and burning books from libraries that discuss any alternate viewpoints and blocking children from accessing anything other than sources that promote and preach only liberal doctrine. Levi also wants to create guilt and fear in children by telling them that, if they disagree with liberal dogma, they are racist, homophobic, and awful people.

    Which is what makes this particularly funny:

    What bothers me is kids being indoctrinated into their parents’ religion. A kid reading a Bible at school probably started getting trained in his or her parents’ religion from the age of 2 or 3, which I simply think is a terrible thing to do to a human being.

    This is, of course, after Levi insists that children be indoctrinated into “approved” liberal dogma and never be taught or exposed to anything else. This is also after Levi supports and endorses children who propose or hold different viewpoints being shamed and ridiculed by their classmates and teachers.

    And this was particularly hilarious:

    If you hadn’t noticed, the American education system is the laughingstock of the developed world. We should be teaching science in science classes.

    What a surprise. Levi and his liberal ilk have banned any alternative theories, banned any alternative viewpoints, banned any sort of actual knowledge-based testing, and have created a world in which grades and performance are assessed solely based on self-esteem and ability to repeat liberal talking points — and as a result, our schools are the laughingstock of the world.

    Especially when you consider they turn out moronic idiots like Levi who claims that brain size equates to intelligence, or that islands tip over when there are too many people on them, or that Neil Armstrong landed on Mars and that South Vietnam still exists.

    The last is particularly hilarious when you consider that Sheila Jackson-Lee is an Ivy League graduate, which according to the idiot boy Levi, makes her smarter than anyone else who didn’t graduate from an Ivy League university.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - June 29, 2011

  204. Religion and kids involves a lot of fear and guilt, and I wish people had better sense than to put their own offspring through that kind of psychological torture.

    But of course, when you look at how Barack Obama, Levi, and their supporters torture children who disagree with them, what you realize is that they’re just disgusting hypocrites.

    Watch as the little coward runs away and refuses to answer. He knows damn well that “teachers” like this Barack Obama shill in the classroom are abusing children, yet he supports and endorses it. That shows you what a piece of leftist filth Levi is — he supports teachers who lie to children in order to punish them for expressing different views.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2011 @ 12:15 pm - June 29, 2011

  205. “I don’t know who the hell you think you are, but you’re nobody to me.”

    Then why do you keep responding to me, Lori? Huh?

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 30, 2011 @ 12:28 am - June 30, 2011

  206. “Then why do you keep responding to me, Lori? Huh?”

    Because it’s the closest I can get to kicking the living crap out of you. The latter would be much more fun, but since you won’t dare show your face in Phoenix it does provide some amusement. And it is amusing to watch you sputter and cry and throw tantrums like a four-year-old every time somebody refuses to bow to the Royal Me, Myself and I that is Seane-Anna.

    Just reading you is like reading President The One. “I” this, “me” that, “me, me, me, me, me.”

    Now, back to telling us all the conditions under which you’ll continue to allow the rest of the world to exist. I suppose it’s more fun than thinking you’re a grasshopper or a potato, but why don’t you try being Cleopatra for a while? I’ll bet that’s really interesting.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 30, 2011 @ 2:05 pm - June 30, 2011

  207. I don’t see the non activist younger generations nearly as motivated to poke social conservatives eyes out.

    This is true.

    I often read that future generations would be ashamed of us, and past generations, for defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But even assuming arguendo that future generations will have a different social understanding of marriage, it does not follow that they would consider previous generations to be bigots and haters merely because their social understanding of marriage was different.

    Baker v. Nelson. Your precious courts have ruled. They ruled 9-0 The Constitution is silent, so the definition of marriage falls to the legislatures.

    409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2D 65, 93 S Ct. 37 (1972)

    Of course, you should check out Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890)

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — July 4, 2011 @ 10:09 pm - July 4, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.