On Facebook, a college classmate living in Virginia offered this beautiful commentary on the results earlier this week in North Carolina and I reprint it with his permission:
Regarding North Carolina, my second thought is… I have been with Eric for nearly seventeen years. Whatever we have we got from ourselves, our families, and our friends. Whatever we still need we will get from those same sources. At this point, I honestly cannot imagine feeling any more married than I already feel. There is nothing in the current heterosexual reality that I feel inspired any longer to pursue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM
Video linked to by liberals makes my food fall out.
you should try to chew with your mouth closed then đ LOL
I know, right? Tax benefits, inheritance, immigration, end of life decisions, all those things don’t even matter! It doesn’t matter that we will never get those things from our families and friends because they don’t mean anything!
“you should try to chew with your mouth closed then”
Nicely done!!! :-p
#1… Committed and responsible couples know the situation they are in and take the necessary steps to protect each other. “I was powerless.” Playing the victim. Marriage is no guarantee of happiness or of a life trouble free of “in laws”. This video shows a bad situation made worse by being irresponsible. The same situation could have happened with heterosexual couples who decide to live together without being married. Of course, they had a choice to be married but the couple in the video had the choice to protect each other legally. They choose not to.
Eric, it would be fun to see you laugh while drinking a beer. . .and not get all wet.
In your case, PeeJ, why would you expect anyone to respect or care about you, given your behavior and what you say about others?
FYI folks, just in case you were ever inclined to think of PeeJ as a decent person, just check out his multiple identities and follow his comments.
#6 … Um …. committed and responsible GAY couples in North Carolina can’t get married. That was the point of the video.
Um, hello?
I saw that vid earlier today. On the one hand…. It almost feels too slick to be genuine. It kind of has Romney-itis! Sometimes I really hate being so cynical. It probably is real.
That said, either way, it does have a very salient point, especially for those non-married couples living in North Carolina. .
#4… “inheritance, immigration, end of life decisions”
Can all be taken care of without marriage. As for taxes, marriage at the state level does not mean tax issues on the federal level are taken care of. Unwinding the financials of a non-married couple can be tricky and costly. SSM at the state level won’t fix that. Now, before you write your next check to Obama, ask yourself this, “Will Obama’s recent ‘evolution’ change the the laws regarding taxes, inheritance, immigration and end of life decisions? Has he even made a promise to change the laws regarding inheritance, immigration and end of life decisions?”
… and they are not responsible and committed because they didn’t get married in California during the three-month window when it was legal four years ago? …
Huh?
Sonic Frog >>
The same thought went through my mind. I’m not going to lie.
#9.. um… My partner and I have been together for 30 years. We have all inheritance and end of life decisions all taken care of. We have for the last 28 years. Instead of spending money on a promise ring, they should have spent the money on a lawyer. Like I said, committed and responsible couple know their situation and protect each other.
When we adopted only one of us could be the legal parent. When we took the boys overseas, we had papers drawn up and filed with the state department and the embassies of the countries we were visiting to make sure that if something happened to one of us, our family would be protected. That is what responsible people do, they protect themselves. Were we upset that we had to spend an extra $400 to get the paperwork done? Yup. Did we spend the money. Yup. That is what responsible people do, they protect themselves.
Critical point, TnnsNe1.
All of these could be taken care of quite easily and with much broader support as just changes to existing law.
Yet gay liberals and the Obama Party, in particular Barack Obama, refuse to even consider such simple, basic steps that would supposedly make gay couples’ lives so much easier.
#9 – You’re assuming I give a shit about it.
I’m sure you’re hardly surprised by that, given that you don’t seem to give a shit about the economy.
BDB – a wonderful sentiment from your classmate. They’re lucky to have good families.
Cine – I looked at the video. If genuine, it’s a travesty. (If you really want your stomach to churn, read some of the comments). That said, Tom knew his family was a nest of pricks and they really should have had papers drawn up.
Seems to me that state-recognized unions really are necessary – not to provide some sort of approval – but to guarantee partner rights in bad situation.
Private legal contracts can be contested (successfully – I think there was a particularly egregious case in OK a few years back); state recognized unions are virtually never successfully contested.
If the two guys in the video had been allowed a state-recognized union, Shane would have been well within his rights to tell the “mother” to go to hell where she belongs.
Yes. it is a sad story for Shane and Tom. However, if you think by their being married, their lives would have been much better your are very wrong. In my long life I have seen situations just like that. In fact in one case it was maybe even wrose because they were married. Marrage will not change how people think or act.
I was in the hospital twice within the last 5 years. The first time my daughter spend the night with me and then next time my gay friend spent almost the whole time with me. No questions asked.
NDT is obsessed with me! He even maintains a file of links to my past comments on a snark blog. That’s touching but I’m just not that into you, kid.
BTW, I am especially amused that you compulsively point to my nym change which was quite public as shown in that lovelink you posted above.
Again, I’m flattered but you’re really creeping me out.
Comment by TnnsNe1 â May 11, 2012 @ 7:29 pm – May 11, 2012
“
It sucks butthey should have gotten a lawyer.” That’s really touching. You sir are a heartless enema nozzle.#16 … Not assuming anything about you, Eric, as you weren’t addressed in the comment. Unless you’re also TnnsNe1. However, you are assuming I don’t care about the economy. Please, provide links and back yourself up. Or at least spill a little more gossip about somebody’s private life on here, as you’ve proven to be better at it than me. And, make sure you finish when you’re eating so you don’t get crumbs all of over your keyboard.
SoCalRobert – I don’t care to read the comments. I can only imagine, as that is why I no longer visit Queerty or Joe. My. God. (or even Towleroad for the most part) Unfortunately, there are many on the left, including Dan Savage, who do gays in general a disservice when they speak use such hostile and spiteful names for those who don’t agree with them.
TnnsNe1 – Congratulations on 30 years together with your partner and being parents.
So let me see if I have this straight. PeeJ thinks it’s ‘heartless’ for people to not take advantage of institutions given?
I’m also amused PeeJ thinks it’s ‘stalking’ to point out what he’s said in the past.
#18: Tom – see my comment regarding nullification of contracts.
The OK case was included in a documentary called “Tying the Know” where a will was tossed out by a judge.
Had the couple been in a state-recognized union, the will would’ve been virtually incontestable. The point isn’t to make the in-laws like you; it’s to grant partners the legal right to manage their affairs in difficult circumstances how they want to.
A benefit of a union, as in marriage, is the expectation that partners uphold their obligations to each other.
My other half was in a Seventh Day Adventist hospital a few years back for a hot appendix (Sunday night surgery). The staff was kind and helpful; the surgeon came out after the procedure and sat with me to tell me what was what… all this in “bigoted” Kansas. They were great – no restrictions on visitation.
Should that not have been the case or, in the worst case, had I needed to make care decisions, the “piece of paper” would have been worth a lot.
Cut all the crap, I have all the legal paper work done that we can do, and after 30+ years you realize that when you can’t get social security benefits or pay the same estate taxes as any married couple after supporting schools and services for them all these years we are still getting screwed and if their isn’t parity under the law we shouldn’t have to pay for the services we don’t get! Any self respecting gay man who supports the GOP for their fiscal restraint and independence/personal liberty has been a fool asleep for years!
Got into an argument today with a liberal about Obama’s announcement. She started off by calling the voters in NC haters. That was it for me. Then she went on to ask about what I want for my gay son. I said, here in CA he has Domestic Partnership, we’ll get a Rabbi and throw him whatever kind of wedding he wants. In the eyes of family and community he will be married.
She said – well he won’t be married in my eyes. To her if Government doesn’t ok it, it is not a real marriage.
For those of us who are believing Catholics, the matter is moot. We are to remain celibate (which I am), so the option of a faux “marriage” is irrelevant.
But I don’t expect the selfish likes of cinesnatch, rusty, et al, to grasp the concept that sometimes there are more important things than themselves and what they want.
I should have been a tad more specific: for those of us who are GAY and also believing Catholics….
To me this video is more of a cautionary tale relating to the importance of basic estate planning, making wills and creating durable POAs, etc., rather than being an effective argument for SSM. While I am empathetic to the pain the surviving partner is going through, I am incredulous two people would start a business, get a mortgage and otherwise establishing a life together without planning for the future! Even more amazing, they fully know that one side of the family is openly hostile to their relationship!
The passage of the amendment in N.C. should be a clarion call for all same-sex couples to protect themselves legally. Not to do so is, IMHO, very uncaring.
So let me see if I have this straight. PeeJ thinks itâs âheartlessâ for people to not take advantage of institutions given?
Those aren’t “institutions.” it is precisely the lack of institutional inclusion that forces same sex couples to jump through hoops in an attempt – guaranteed to be not completely successful – to acquire the same rights that are granted automatically by the marriage institution.
This site, like many other “conservative” (scare quotes because the meaning has changed dramatically over the last twenty or so years) locales, frames the question thusly: “Why should we redefine the institution of marriage.” Without mentioning that the “institution of marriage” has been redefined many times over the years [references upon request] that framing is rhetorically biased. A much better way of posing the question is “why shouldn’t we change it?”
Your answers will be graded on facts and logic, only a small weight will be given to grammar, structure, punctuation and spelling.
#20.. Call me what you will but my partner and I know our situation and we have protected each other as well as we can given the current set of circumstances.
Maybe this will help with your thought process :
Gay men who are sexually active need to use condoms, right? The situation requires it to remain safe. We all wish AIDS wasn’t an issue. It is. Therefore, you do what you need to do to protect yourself and the ones that you love. As soon as this couple found out the reaction of the “in-laws”, legal steps should have been taken to protect themselves.
Not the best source but a quick one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California
This couple was in CA correct? Why were they not registered as domestic partners? Even if the legal documents are contested, as the surviving partner you have a leg to stand on.
Cinesnatch : Thank you.. We also have 2 grandchildren and one the way. And yes, we have had to file some addition legal work to make sure that our rights as grandparents are protected. After we adopted, the laws in our state changed allowing unmarried people to jointly adopt. We went to court and finalized the adoptions for the other parent. At that point, our sons legally became brothers. It stinks but it is much better than the alternative of losing access to our grandchildren.
And, David Bair, given that Barack Obama put no legislation to support his new-found heart-felt support for gay marriage has, any self respecting gay man, to borrow an expression, who is giddy about the Democrat for this commitment is, again to borrow an expression, a fool asleep for years!
PeeJ, basic estate planning and the drawing up of POAs, etc. IS NOT jumping through hoops! In fact, it should take no more time or effort than planning the simplest wedding. If this is the message you are spreading, you are doing a great disservice to anyone listening to you. Shame on you.
Congratulations Bastait Fan, I am also celibate. And I also have a friend who has Down’s Syndrome and rides a shortbus everyday, so please stop using the term in the derogatory fashion you intend it. Thanks.
#24… Planning for the best possible results given the circumstances of today does not mean that I don’t want things to change in the future.
I am sure you want AIDS to go away, in the meantime I hope you have safe sex. Get how that works?
Even married couples should have end of life issues, health issues and estate issues clearly spelled out. I don’t recall any issues in the video regarding retirement benefits. But all the gay couples married in those state that allow it will not receive survivor benefits from Social Security. In fact, as long as you are both alive, unmarried gay couples will draw more Social Security than married couples will. Obama’s state’s stance won’t change that either. So, I am not sure what your beef is with that. However, I am sure that you are pleased that GOP member G. Bush signed into law the provision that allows for a better tax treatment for 401(k) style pension inheritance. Or doesn’t that count because he is evil?
Because it has millenia of trial and error, human learning, and bad experiences that have led thousands of cultures, disparate in virtually every respect, to embrace male-female coupling as the one to be esteemed, held in highest regard, encouraged, and privileged.
Yours, PeeJ, is the rant of the child that says because you don’t like it, it’s wrong.
Humanity has survived and thrived for millenia without your insight. You need not be so arrogant as to think that everyone who came before you is an idiot.
And amazingly, other groups that are prevented by law from marrying their preferred sexual partners must do the same thing.
Why? Because, given limited resources, society has decided, again through millenia of trial, error, mistakes, and insights, that the relationships it wants to encourage are adult, unrelated opposite-sex ones.
Probably because those couplings are the ones that replenish, perpetuate, and maintain society in exchange for societal support.
Do you know why spousal Social Security benefits exist in the first place, David Bair?
Because the expectation is that only one of the people in the marriage will work, and the other will stay home and take care of the children.
Not going to be a problem for you, dear.
Also, if you are eligible for your own Social Security benefits, you would have to choose between them and your spouse’s — and the odds of your spousal benefits being greater than your individual ones are pretty much to the left of nonexistent, given that they’re always less than half of the spouse’s individual amount.
Second off, the GOP’s plan for Social Security is that you would have and invest your own money, in which case you can move it, will it, give it to your partner, or do whatever you like with it. If that were the case, your spouse’s benefit wouldn’t disappear when they died and you selected your individual benefits; you could have BOTH your own benefits AND the spousal ones. The Obama Party completely opposes this, since they use the money you contribute as a slush fund and benefit from your dying without collecting it.
Meanwhile, as for estate taxes, your Obama Party is the one that demands the death tax because it believes you shouldn’t be allowed to give your money to whomever you want; it should all go to the government.
Republicans have pushed to repeal and remove the death tax and allow estates to be passed on to whomever you like; the Obama Party adamantly and viciously opposes it.
Furthermore, in all these cases, the Republican solution benefits both married AND unmarried couples, which is better for society. The Obama Party solution maintains what you insist is an “unfair” tax structure for those who choose not to marry.
And that leads us to this:
Haven’t been following the annual deficit figures since your Obama Party took over in 2007, have you?
But again, you don’t care, do you David Bair? You don’t care about anything if you get a gay-sex marriage certificate. You don’t care about laws, you don’t care about the economy, you don’t care about taxes, you don’t care about defense; all you care about is having your minority status pandered to, and if that happens, well, then you can steal people blind and still be an Obama Party leader and hero of the gay and lesbian community.
Why should gays like yourself who are clearly bigoted single-issue voters be respected?
But I donât expect the selfish likes of cinesnatch, rusty, et al, to grasp the concept that sometimes there are more important things than themselves and what they want.
Bastiat Fan, the concepts of supporting SSM (or civil unions or its equivalent) and the concept that there are more important things than themselves and what they want are not mutually exclusive. Far from it. In any case, most of us believe that not entering committed relationships is not an example of demonstrating something more important.
In fact, plenty of Catholics, straight and gay, who are just as committed to their faith like you are, support same sex unions. So the matter is far from moot.
Leah, my understanding is that CA DPs are equivalent to civil unions in other states. The NC vote also prohibits civil unions. I’m not saying that those who voted for this amendment are haters, but it does go beyond simply believing that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I am glad that you would recognize your son as married, even if it is not state sanctioned. But even today, I can’t imagine many daughters saying to their parents, “Joe and I are going to have a non-sanctioned ceremony, but I will call him my husband and we will be married in our eyes,” and the parents saying, “Okay.”
Because it has millenia of trial and error, human learning, and bad experiences that have led thousands of cultures, disparate in virtually every respect, to embrace male-female coupling as the one to be esteemed, held in highest regard, encouraged, and privileged.
YES! You fell into my trap! BWAHAHAHA.
See, when I said [references upon request] I meant it. Thousand of years, eh? Explain please the polygamy in the biblical patriarchs. Explain please the sale of one’s daughter. Explain please, the right of the king to fuck your wife before you do. Explain please the 11th through 13th century church rituals for performing same sex unions. [Cf. Boswell] Explain please how the definition of marriage as one man and one woman of the same race was “redefined” in 1967.
But really, again, why shouldn’t we once again “redefine” marriage?
Please stop evading, just answer the question.
Because it has millenia of trial and error, human learning, and bad experiences that have led thousands of cultures, disparate in virtually every respect, to embrace male-female coupling as the one to be esteemed, held in highest regard, encouraged, and privileged.
YES! You fell into my trap! BWAHAHAHA. Really now.
See, when I said [references upon request] I meant it. Thousand of years, eh? Explain please the polygamy by the biblical patriarchs. Explain please the sale of one’s daughter, which is apparently part of the traditional definition. Explain please, the right of the king to screw your wife before you do. Explain please the 10th through 13th or 14th century church rituals for performing same sex unions. [Cf. Boswell] Explain please how the definition of marriage as one man and one woman of the same race was “redefined” in 1967. Explain please how marriage was refined to make the woman no longer chattel. Hey, you kids don’t know it but as recently as 1970 or so it was impossible for a single woman to have a credit card. Married women at that time couldn’t have their own bank account. Don’t even get me started on arranged marriages.
But really, again, why shouldn’t we once again “redefine” marriage?
Please stop evading, just answer the question.
I am glad that you would recognize your son as married, even if it is not state sanctioned. But even today, I canât imagine many daughters saying to their parents, âJoe and I are going to have a non-sanctioned ceremony, but I will call him my husband and we will be married in our eyes,â and the parents saying, âOkay.â
I can. The heterosexual couple in question were die hard Libertarians w/ multiple exclamation points. They wanted no state sanction to anything they did and after a minister performed marriage in the park – witnessed by the Best Man and the Best Woman – they refused to turn over a copy of the church sanctioned marriage license to the Clerk of the Court nor the Justice of the Peace …
With pleasure. Male/female.
With pleasure. Male/female.
With pleasure. Male/female.
With pleasure. Learn how to correctly translate Greek.
With pleasure. Male/female.
With pleasure. Male/female.
Why not? Male/female.
By now, you should be seeing a pattern: despite these vast disparities in culture, races, ethnicities, languages, and people that you cite, throughout all the changes in status of women and men, through epic historical sweeps, battles, wars, revolutions, plagues, technological advancements, and whatnot…..marriage has stayed male/female.
Why? Because, silly, that’s the only relationship that produces children, and thus the only one where society thought it necessary to set up a structure to care for and support those children.
The logic is simple, and has passed down from age to age: you are supposed to be an adult who can take care of yourself. Why should society waste money on taking care of you when there are helpless innocents out there that need it far more?
By the way, for those who know Koine Greek, Boswell’s entire argument that PeeJ tries to cite as proof of churches blessing gay marriage is a) based on Boswell’s belief that the words “agape” and “eros” in Koine Greek are interchangeable and b) something that Boswell himself believed to be incorrect, his argument being that a “same-sex union” was different than “homosexual marriage”.
In short, PeeJ is citing a dubious translation incorrectly to prove his point.
Yeah, that Boswell! What a nobody, chair of the history department at Yale, meticulously researched and fastidiously documented, why would anybody pay attention to such a twit? Let’s let the brilliant minspds at Liberty U tell us what to believe.
So, you’re a biologist, an expert on climate science AND a Greek scholar! Who knew?
Oh, you don’t need to go there, PeeJ; you can stay much closer to home.
FYI, that would be this Mark Jordan.
Now go ahead and call him a dumb bigot, PeeJ. Demonstrate your ignorance and arrogance for us.
PeeJ is also bring incorrect again. He stated that a single woman could not have a bank account and a credit card before 1970. My wife had her bank account long before we were married in 1957. Also she had a credit card soon after. Where is he getting his information?
PeeJ is also bring incorrect again. He stated that a single woman could not have a bank account and a credit card before 1970. My wife had her bank account long before we were married in 1957. Also she had a credit card soon after. Where is he getting his information?
Nd30: gay guardian of traditional marriage.
Bastiat Fan,
Is it also the practice of ‘believing Catholics’, to insult those who disagree with them? Or is it just ‘GAY’ Catholics that do that?
Was that a mistranslation in my red letter bible? Was it intended to be “Do unto others AS THEY do unto you”? I guess I’ll have to reread Luke 6:31, or was it Matthew 7:12?
Anyhow, doesn’t matter anyway. I’m sure Jesus was only kidding when he said if someone sues us in court for our coat, we should give them our shirt as well. I mean, heck, what kind of sissy would do that? Suffering any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, and committing our concerns to the Lord’s keeping is just way too passive. Better to pass an amendment that no one can sue us for our coats.
I know, God the Father said we would be persecuted for His sake, but Uncle Sam said in the First Amendment that we should have not one of our little godly toes stepped on. After all, I’m a Christian, and that title demands respect.
And I know that when Jesus said be holy for I am holy, being holy didn’t mean being set apart and different from the world, it meant being heterosexual, or at least celibate if your gay. I know this because he said in John 13:35 ‘By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if your heterosexual.”
Loveing our enemies and praying for those who persecute us, was just a bit of good advise. If the ‘world’ saw us doing stuff like that, we’d look like a bunch of pansies. Better to display our rightous love by blocking the government from recognizing gay-sex marriage. I wouldn’t want to face my Maker without having passed His blessings (which fall on the just and the unjust) through my perfect theological filter before allowing it to pass to ungodly heathens. Cuz I know MY ways are His ways, and His thoughts are exactly like mine.
I know I am gay but if I never selfishly express the affection and devotion I have for my partner physically, God will see me as rightious. That will be my ace in the hole so I can treat others like refuse. (That’s the way they treat me after all, so fair’s fair.) Anyways, I think the prophet Isaiah had it wrong when he said my rightiousness is like used menstrual rags in God’s sight.
I know for a fact that when Paul said in Romans 13:9 “The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one command: âLove your neighbor as yourself.â; when Paul used that radical ‘etcetera’ of a phrase “…and WHATEVER OTHER COMMANDMENT THERE MAY BE…” he simply forgot to exclude that commandment in Laviticus about men “lying in the lyings of a woman”.
I know all the Law and Prophets had nothing to do with loving God and loving my enemy the way God loves me. Quite the contrary, it has everything to do with where I put my willy. After all Christ didn’t die to trump all the sin of the world, expressed in horrors of cruelty that are so readily seen to be sin and in horrors of religiosity that are not so readily seen to be sin. And He didn’t die to trump sinâs sequelae â death, “the wages of sin,” and hell itself.
No, Jesus didn’t die so sinners might be saved from sin, death and hell. Jesus really died so an anatomical technicality might be tweaked and trumped and to atone for a loving expression of an unasked for psychosexuality.
Also when Paul said in the very next verse “Love does no harm to a neighbor.” I have to remember that burdening that same-sex couple accross the street by requireing them to take numerous extra steps and spend hundreds if not thousands more to get 82% of the protections hetersexuals get with a $35 marriage license isn’t really harming them. It’s for there own good (and those godly toes of ours), they’ll thank us for it someday. And if they really see it as that much of a burden, well…well they’re just gonna have to suck it up and deal with it; because if they keep making a fuss about it there REALLY gonna make me unleash my rightous fury.
And that next verse? “Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”, What a bleeding hearted comment. I think that was a mental laps on Pauls part. Everyone knows that the law is the fulfillment of the law. The law is like a sword and I intend to live by it. err..wait…
***
All levity aside, let me close with this. In my opinion, and I freely admit that at the end of the day, it is and only ever can be an opinion; if this kind of behavior from vocal Christians is what passes for Christianity in the 21st century, I believe we have bigger problems then two men or two woman tying the knot. If God is weeping again for this world, I don’t believe it’s because two people with the same anatomical plumbing are sharing in a deep an abiding love. I believe it’s because His people, who are called by His name, are treating the ‘least of these’ with such disregard and disdain.
Again, just my humble opinion.
‘I tell you the truth, in as much as you’ve done it to the least of these my brotheren, you’ve done it unto me.’
Amen Sandhorse
BF, I was raised catholic, attended catechism, was confirmed, attended the Jesuit institution, Gonzaga. . . .
I have reached a point in my life to call myself a recovering Catholic, having been able to forgive the Church for it’s sins.
I have many folk in my life who are very close to the Church who welcome me as a HOMOSEXUAL. They do not judge, but LOVE.
I have many friends who are priests, some elders in their 80’s and some new folk who have found their spirituals paths, and they all honor me and love me. I do not hide who I am and share my life, including my partner with them.
I also have many dear Sisters who absolutely adore me. I spent 1 year working with a Sister from Providence aiding homeless folk who were HIV positive in Seattle and spent 6 years volunteering in a hospice in Portland with the Sisters of Providence leading the program.
And they all support me, and if they don’t agree with SSM, they still support me as a child of God and brother in Christ.
Oh, and while living in Portland, I used to have afternoon tea with Archbishop Leveda. I even fixed a wonderful meal for him for Epiphany in 1993 and shared it with several others. I have been out of the closet since 1985.
I’ll preface addressing the comments and especially P.J.’s remarks (NO, will not go there regarding his choice of forum name)… I’ve had my share of parochial school education and variety of experience with spiritual leaders including Catholic school nuns (kind, inspirational and decent) and Baptist religious teachers and principals (one arrogant who loved wielding the paddle for kicks and giggles; another pair with some major anger issues who directly fractured my relationship with God for years until I attended a Catholic college). I became aware of my sexuality during the first years of Catholic education. I personally evolved during the 2000s to the view that same-sex marriage can indeed be supported as such without detracting from the institution and in fact enhancing it. This was my “activism” decade and I value the growth and lessons I’ve gained.
That said, while I will speak up for marriage I will also advocate civil unions as a willing concession to those I feel who have thoughtful concerns about the effect on the institution of marriage these kind of changes would have (as opposed to mentally unbalanced grandstanders like Bachmann, Santorum, STFUckabee et al.). And my father and some friends DO have these genuine concerns WHILE being clearly supportive and affirming of my orientation. And in the meantime, should I be so lucky to be emotionally ready to have a LTR, I will do whatever I need to legally to protect my partner and make VERY CLEAR my wishes against any meddling politicians or judges. It’s called dealing with reality and the hand we’ve been dealt as unfair as I might consider it. It is futile to throw a tantrum for what hasn’t happened and use that energy instead to have genuine dialogue and show true leadership in advocating for I feel would be just.
Meanwhile, I have to point out to P.J. and others who are so gleefully taking it to a personal level with Dan (Ooh, cute PP&J with that melon pic. – sorry P.J. just giving you a taste); YOU ALL HAVE SOME MAJOR ANGER ISSUES that you are acting out on everyone who aren’t exactly like you and quite frankly it closely resembles the acting out I had directed at me from the so-called Christian school authority figures who created months and years of hell for me. I have to question whether some of you would even be able to handle the fulfillment of any of the changes in attitudes and law that you purport to want to see happen. Or if you get a genuine “share” of rights and responsibilities from Americans, will continue to push forward and continue marginalizing those who value their spirituality and also the good traditions that made this nation exceptional?
Sandhorse and Rusty, excellent posts. I couple of weeks ago, there was an interesting exchange with a poster, Questioner, related to this topic. He converted to Catholicism, and explained and attempted to justify his anti-gay (if you are not celibate) stance. Basically, it came down to this, to my understanding. First of all, he agreed there are many ways to interpret the Bible (as the hundreds or so sects of Christianity indicate). For this cause, there has been an accepted method of succession, for example, apostle Matthias succeeded Judas after his betrayal. The successor of Jesus, who would be the ultimate authority on matters of doctrine, is the pope. And, of course, popes have taken a negative view of homosexuality. He firmly believed that any future popes would retain this stance, but for sake of argument, he did admit that he would change his anti-gay stance if a pope did declare that homosexuality should no longer be considered a sin.
Despite our huge difference of point of view, he was very respectful and understanding of my position. I stated that I had no way of knowing for sure if homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, but my belief was that it isn’t, far from it. And I wouldn’t have committed to my partner if I thought that was the case. Interestingly, in my case, when I was celibate, I used it as an excuse of not living life. I was more selfish and played the victim then. But I guess we all have our different paths.
I think non-Catholics had this perception of Catholics by Questioner back in 1960, which is probably why many thought the U.S. would become a puppet of the Vatican if a Catholic was elected president. But we see that most Catholics today do not share this point of view. Which is probably why we see priests and sisters not part of the anti-gay parade any more. I have/had colleagues who are priests and nuns who know I’m gay and have met my partner. I imagine that most of them oppose SSM (or perhaps do not care), but many do ask about my partner instead of playing up the love the sinner hate the sin tripe. One of the older, and seemingly more conservative sisters did say that same sex marriage would be a good idea. But I guess that would mean she’s not a real Catholic, although she could probably rip someone to pieces if that was ever suggested to her.
26 – “We are to remain celibate (which I am), so the option of a faux âmarriageâ is irrelevant.”
Bless you.
Wow, your comments show me how self hating you’ve become. We don’t need SSM. We are fine with what society gives us, as if society was God’s creation.
Society has become more accepting of gays because we have fought hard against discrimination. And if we don’t keep fighting we could loose our rights.
Some, I mean almost everybody, in your party don’t even want civil unions. So if they take that away from us, you are gonna take the position that we don’t need that either.
Is that how you show loyalty to your homophobic party. Becoming passive is not the way “forward.”
You, conservatives, the way you have learned to be half accepted by your republican party is to be completely nonthreatening by becoming asexual.
You people use religion to justify you submission to a dominant right wing ideology.
Civil rights in this country have been gained with a fierce struggle. Don’t ever be so naive to think they are giving to us by God.
So passive conservatives fight for our rights as we are fighting for all of us. Don’t expect the republicans to give you anything to make your life better. And don’t give me Christian crap about celibacy.
BF, I think it’s interesting that you’re a Catholic and a Bastiat fan. I see how the two go together, but the Pope generally doesn’t. Christian churches generally are stuck in a first-century economics, namely that manna falls from the sky and it’s inherently “unfair” if anyone has more than another – and a first-century political ethics, namely that the Roman tax collector and State apparatus become OK once you convert them to Christianity. I see both of those tendencies as untrue and unethical, or essentially unchristian. Human physical wealth does not fall from the sky, it is created by the effort and courage and vision of specific humans, and rightly belongs to its creator, until he chooses to give/trade it away. That’s fairness. Raping him of it by government force (the Roman tax collector) violates the 8th Commandment as well as the Second Great Commandment, no matter how much the rapist and/or onlookers dress it up as Christianity. And taking over the Roman apparatus is turning yourself into a Roman, not into a Christian. Therefore, small government. I see that and I suspect you do too, but the Popes don’t.
As for President Corky McShortbus – It’s a vivid metaphor for Obama’s essential stupidity. I’m sure that most readers understand that you mean no insult to the mentally handicapped. I personally would disregard any Obama fan trying to make something else out of it; the shame (of what he’s trying to make it into) falls on him.
Disagree. Sandhorse’s struck me as gall and no wine (if we’re ‘getting Biblical’ here). If its real point was something enlightened or helpful, it was buried under all the sarcasm and indirectness. A little more context (i.e. what of BF’s specific ideas was being addressed) might helped. I found it impossible to tell what Sandhorse believes, except (1) support for gay marriage and (2) resentment of BF for some reason.
Always fun to see PeeJ get spanked.
Pat,
I actually did see some of that dialog involving Questioner.
Without meaning any disrespect to other people of faith; let me just say I feel very blessed that my relationship with my Creater does not need to be mediated by a third party. I don’t see how any fallen man could be the ‘successor of Jesus’. The only successor of Jesus I know of is the Holy Spirit, the Helper He said would come. And who, in essence, is also God.
I believe one of the many things Christ’s sacrifice did for humanity was open direct access to God. Hence the curtain to the temple being ripped in two. Now we were free to commune with God and God with us, the Holy Spirit is free to convict us and, unlike man’s; God’s admonishment is perfect. I do not believe God intended for any spiritial leader or religious body to take it’s place. Certainly we can rebuke our brothers and sisters, but it is advised repeatedly that we are to take great caution when doing this.
I think Paul understood the damaging effects petty legalism among Christ’s followers would have in the eyes of an unbelieveing world. Consider reading Romans 14, but instead of the topic of dietary laws and observences of holy days; replace the topics with heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Paul understands that unbelievers of good will can see petty, mean-spirited Christians majoring in minor matters and find themselves wanting no part of it. Is this what Christs ‘Good News’ stands for?
Dr. Ralph Blair wrote in his lecture to Courage Trust at the Anglican Church in London:
“Today, most Christians donât get upset over what others eat or what they do on Sundays. Today, Christians are much more likely to get upset over homosexuality. So lest anyone think that issues of diet and days in those days are not analogous to gay issues today, we must be reminded of the extreme importance of the dietary laws and the Sabbath commandment for Jews of that early period. The dietary laws are clearly set forth in the Torah (Lev 11:1-23; Deut 14:3-12). As Dunn notes: “the Maccabean crisis had made observance of these laws a test of Jewishness, a badge of loyalty to covenant and nation ⌠âeating unclean food and violating the sabbathâ ranked together as the two chief hallmarks of covenant disloyalty.” They did so then no less than todayâs conservatives make their case by citing scripture to make an antigay position a test of evangelical faith, a badge of loyalty in Evangelicaland.”
He continues..
“For us these days, homosexuality is indeed a bigger issue than diets and days. But itâs a bigger and a deeper issue because â unlike all other controversies in the history of the church â it goes to the very heart of a personâs most personal interpersonal experience. A personâs self-awareness of his or her need for an intimate psychosexual connection of profound love and intimacy with another human being is one of the very strongest needs anyone has. It is definitely not among the “great many things [that] are not essential parts of life and conduct but belong to what we might call the extras of life.” [William Barclay] If, as Paul urges, integrity of Christian fellowship requires the shelving of all disputes over external customs (albeit based in the Law), how much more must all disputes be shelved when it comes to a homosexual brotherâs or sisterâs ingrained, intractable, and internally experienced need for intimacy? Says Barclay: “Paulâs advice is clear. It is a Christian duty to think of everything, not as it affects ourselves only, but also as it affects others.”
It must be noted that “Paul was generalizing” [Dunn] in his illustrations of days and diets. According to Dunn, his sensitive pastoral advice “is of much wider relevance than to this issue alone â of relevance wherever concerns to maintain old traditions come into conflict with” the less traditional. So the application of Paulâs principle to our issues of homosexuality is not a stretch at all.”
It’s not supprising that the world has a hard time reconsiling the dichotomy of a Christion faith that calls for a woman to be fired from her job because of her homosexuality, but rallies behind an adulterer, and serial monogamist to lead our country back to it’s ‘christian roots’. They cavalierly quote scripture to justify denying same-sex couples from the protections of established marital law, while carrying the standard of a man who clearly ignored Matthew 19:9. And more then once.
Indeed His ways are not our ways, and His justice is not our justice. Thank God.
But now I am rambleing. It’s a beautiful day out and I have serious yardwork to do.
J Rausch offered this
. Where the proponents of this view go wrong is in saying that marriage can do only one thing. Marriage multitasks. Yes,it binds biological parents to their children âsomething same-sexmarriage will not change. But marriage also unites nonbiological parents to children: adoptive parents,for example,and step-parents and, yes,gay parents. And it does much,much more. It acts as a portal to adulthood and domesticity for the young; provides support and care-giving to adults; offers a safe harbor for sexand encourages monogamy; bolsters financial and emotional security; creates family networks (those sometimes-pesky in-laws); connects couples and kids to their communities.
I think the best definition of marriage is the one that most married people sign up for in their vows: âTo have and to hold,from this day forward,for better,for worse,for richer,for poorer,in sickness or in health,until death do us part.â Extending the boundaries to include gay couples does not weaken that definition âit reinforces it. And to throw away the many social benefits that gay marriage provides because there is a single function that it canât perform is perverse.
http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/rss.jsp?rssid=809977&item=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-same-sex-marriage/2012/05/11/gIQAtmLoIU_mobile.mobile&cid=-1&fullSiteUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2Ffive-myths-about-same-sex-marriage%2F2012%2F05%2F11%2FgIQAtmLoIU_story_1.html
LW,
I do have much to do today. But let me just state, the ‘sarcasm’ as you put it, was meant to be an illustration. I was just attempting to exemplify BFs contridiction in parading his celibacy as a badge of rightiousness…
“For those of us who are [GAY] believing Catholics, the matter is moot. We are to remain celibate (which I am),…”,
while running roughshod over one of only two basic prescriptions of Christianity “love your neighbor as yourself”
“…I donât expect the selfish likes of cinesnatch, rusty, et al, to grasp the concept that sometimes there are more important things than themselves and what they want.”
I have nothing at all aginst BFs celibacy, if he truly feels called to that then I encourage him (or her) in that spiritial journey. I know God individually calls both heterosexuals and homosexuals to a life of celibacy, and by the grace of God they are sustained.
But no where is it stated that enforced lifelong celibacy is a requirement for anyone, and no where is it the perview of the chruch or the government. It’s always only between the individual and God.
So BFs smug condescension of others who believe differently is inappropriate.
#53… What do you call the roughly 150,000 registered Democrats that voted against SSM in NC? What do you call the 65% of the NC registered Democrats who could not be bothered to vote this week? Obviously, they don’t think we need SSM.
Sorry, my reply @60 was in response to ILCs (not LWs) remark @55.
I interpret this mean that PopArt is saying PeeJ is responsible for the melon picture. If this is true, I will ask again for it to be taken down.
TnnsNe1 – does it not strike you as somewhat…opportune that the proponents of Amendment 1 in NC put it on the primary ballot, when there was not a contested Democratic presidential primary, rather than on the November ballot? Could it be – horrors! – that they knew there would not be a large Democratic voter turnout for the primaries, which would make their amendment more likely to pass?
Cinesnatch – PJ is not Tintin; Tintin is not PJ or JennOfArk; JennOfArk is not PJ, or Tintin, though your own resident doofus ND has a really hard time with the concept of “individuals” and “individual responsibility;” according to him we’re all part of a giant mind-meld (created no doubt by “Obama talking points,” whatever those are) and what one of us says all of us said. But I realize I’m not being fair because the lad isn’t quite right in the head. But the fact remains, Tintin and PJ are two separate individuals.
So, PopArt is pretending is to know something he doesn’t.
that is a very astute observation Jenn.
the timing of the ballot initiative. oh and the folk behind the initiative have a pretty bright spotlight on them as of Tuesday.
That’s the thing, rusty. My observation was not particularly astute – it was particularly obvious. It could only be missed by someone who is more interested in winning some kind of partisan argument than with, you know, winning.
JennOfArk, will you please visit here more often?
Cinesnatch, I’m pretty sure I am not welcome. Mr. Blatt seemed more upset with my response to Bill Kristol in the last thread than he does with all the shameless ad hominems spouting from some of his regulars. I don’t think opposing viewpoints are particularly welcomed here, even when they are expressed without insults.
little backdrop:
The Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA) was a right wing conservative Christian political activist organization, founded by Lon Mabon in the U.S. state of Oregon. It was founded in 1986 as a vehicle to challenge thenâU.S. Senator Bob Packwood in the Republican primaries, and was involved in Oregon politics from the late 1980s into the 1990s.
Scott Lively was Mabon’s # 2
In 1992 the OCA returned to the issue of homosexuality, when it proposed Measure 9. This initiative would have amended the Oregon Constitution to prevent what the OCA called “special rights” for homosexuals and bisexuals, by adding a provision that the state “recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse.”
And now one of the best letter to the editor’s in Portland during the OCA 9 event
GENTLE ‘Friend’ might be suspsect. . .
to the editor: we have a friend lived to be 33 years old. He never married. He adored children, and they adored and trusted him. He died of a condition common to his kind, and his enemies claimed it was self-inflicted and deserved.
He preferred the company of men, but had loving friends, both men and women, in his community. His friend, John, was proud to have been loved by him and even recorded that in his personal papers.
He was most commonly attributed the characteristics of compassion, love, gentleness, perception and outspokenness. He earned his living in a variety of ways, most notably , as a craftsman, a minister and a teacher.
If our friend, Jesus, lived here in Oregon, his “lifestyle woud be subject, and he might have to be reassigned by the OCA.
The mind of Christ could not, would not ever have conceived of such a mean-spirited measure limiting or labeling gay and lesbians as abnormal, wrong, unnatural and/or perverse.
Len and Lorena Stanley. . .NE Portland 1992
Good thing Dan Blatt canât marry, he would just divorce his husband for being gay.
So nice of you to personalize it, Joe. đ
You think THIS is bad???
You haven’t spent any time with the Kossacks lately, I gather.
I wish I could actually insert a picture of a tiny, tiny violin here instead of just linking to one.
[Insert another response to further substantiate Jenn’s case.]
Turkey Joe is Gocart Mozart, or he’s lifting directly from him.
I think anyone who can’t admit when they’re wrong is bad. It leads people to remain ossified in patterns of thought that can’t lead anywhere productive. Proven liars seem to be more welcome here than anyone with an opposing viewpoint; at least that’s how it looks.
But you know, it’s not my shop; if folks would rather hear the same untrue and mediocre arguments repeated ad infinitum rather than engage, honestly, in fact-based discussion, well, it is what it is. So feel free to put away the violin.
Was he also part Native American?
#64.. Again, a liberal is making excuses for other liberals who really don’t care about SSM. Your comment does not address the 150,000 Democrats who voted for the amendment.
I guess the folks who got a SSM measure on the ballot this fall in my home state (a blue state) are evil because they know voting will be heavy and most likely the liberals will be turning out to vote.
Seems like the liberal folk in NC, a full 43% of the voters, could not spare 20 minutes out of their day to grant marriage equality to gay people. What does that say about the Democratic party? Answer : For liberals intentions are just as good as actions. Liberals will sit in coffee shops to bash conservatives on gay issues but don’t the time to vote. Some “friends”.
I love how JennofArk tries to beg for individual responsibility when she claps and cheers for Tintin’s attacks on Dan.
Such as helpfully copied here.
One has to remember how liberals like to lie and misrepresent themselves to take advantage of other peoples’ trust. JennofArk is following the exact pattern here when she whines about “civility” while praising Tintin’s pictures and attacks on Dan.
TnnsNe1 – Perhaps you should spare your outrage for those who put the amendment on the ballot; my guess is they weren’t liberals.
There’s a lot in your post that just isn’t rational, for example “43% of the voters could not spare 20 minutes out of their day to grant marriage equality to gay people.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but there wasn’t an amendment on the ballot to “grant marriage equality to gay people;” gay marriage was already illegal in NC and there was no amendment on offer to reverse that. As for the 150,000 Democrats who voted in favor of the amendment, take it up with them; I’m not one of them and it’s rather foolish of you to take their party to task when the other party is the one promoting these types of amendments. Here’s another shocker for you: there are anti-abortion Democrats too. It’s not a monolith.
More interesting than the fact that not all Democrats believe all the same things is your desire to place the blame with them rather than with the party that has been promoting anti-gay bigotry for as long as I’ve been voting.
It’s always projection with you guys, isn’t it?
NDT – whatever. You’re still a liar. You post 1) a link to one of my blog posts that does not insult Dan and 2) a link to Tintin’s words and pretend they are mine.
Has it ever occured to you that when you have to lie (as you do, constantly) to make your point, then your point has no merit?
No, of course it hasn’t. Flail away.
LOL, yes, mocking Dan for “self-flagellation” and making ridiculous comparisons is not insulting. Not to mention endorsing Tintin’s attacks on Dan like I cited.
Even as you whine and cry about how mean everyone is to you.
Looks like JennofArk is one gigantic hypocrite and bigot.
You just described the entire American Left, JoA, including Obama.
You just described Daily Kos, etc. Congratulations.
“Self-flagellation” is not an insult. Certainly nothing like your continued (unsupported) referral to me as a “bigot”. BTW, when are you going to get around to supporting that? I mean, with something that I actually said, not something someone else said that you pretend were my words? Crediting Tintin for pointing out something on Dan’s blog isn’t an “endorsement.” You’re having dictionary problems again, aren’t you?
“JennofArk,” eh?
A tad heavy on the martyrdom schtick, but hell, it’s a free country.
ND30, by your logic, you endorse the attacks on Dan, because you have failed to post any comments on the offending websites.
You suggested that such comments would be erased, yet, my comments remain, proving you, my friend, are a … liar.
I don’t usually call people names on GP, but … if the shoe fits.
ILoveCapitalism, “I know you are but what am I?” is not a particularly compelling argument for anyone but PeeWee Herman. And I don’t recall lauding DailyKos, which if I did would be really weird, because I don’t read it and have never been a regular reader.
Try again – swing for the fences next time.
MySharia – sorry you don’t get it; that will have to be your problem because it certainly isn’t mine.
It is when the the one you’re crediting is a thoroughly repugnant little prick.
But you go ahead, Ms. OfArk. “Flail away.”
Sweetie, that’s a mirror you’re talking into.
Have you only recently been trolling?
I only ask because while you’re indeed petulant, you’re not nearly concentrated enough.
May I introduce you to our Troll Emeritus, Levi? Now THAT guy knows how to bring it, kids! đ
MySharia – oh really? So, if I write a blog post, and link to say, Fred Phelps, I’m endorsing Fred Phelps even if everything in my blog post is a repudiation of what Fred Phelps has said or believes? I mean, I would be “crediting” Fred Phelps by linking to his offensive garbage, and he is a thoroughly repugnant little prick, so my link would constitute an “endorsement”?
You folks’ brains don’t work so good.
MySharia – I assure you, when I look into a mirror, what I see looking back at me isn’t nearly as repugnant as you.
I’m crushed. Crestfallen. Heartbroken.
C’mon. Level with me. You’re 16, right?
If that’s the best you can do, I’m actually disappointed.
Jesus Christ on a Cracker. Even you’re faux-ignorance sucks!
Oy vey. What is this, amateur hour?
Oh, I so hate to *disappoint* a literal-minded moron who assumes “JennOfArk” is a nym adopted to affect martyrdom!
By the way, it’s “your” not “you’re”. “Even YOU ARE faux-ignorance sucks”?
Pro-tip: when you’re (note correct usage) calling someone else stupid, it’s best to not make usage errors.
As to the matter you raised on NDT… Let’s review. His first comment directed to you in this thread, was this:
Based on that, one would intuitively expect his link to go to a chunk of writing by someone named ‘jennofark’, that, at some point, praises the writer Tintin for some sort of material in which he knocks Dan.
Sure enough, follow NDT’s link (http://3weirdsisters.com/2010/12/18/obamas-11th-dimensional-chess-on-dadt-renders-new-salt-treaty-superfluous/) and you see it end in this remark:
A tart little put-down, which seems to agree with Tintin having done more. So why is NDT a “liar” here? I mean, huh? Or was the linked article written by someone else, is that what you’re suggesting here? So:
Please clarify. We’re all ears.
Well, I didn’t want to just presume that you’re a graduate of the Handjob Institute of Arcadia, so I assumed you were going for that whole historical thing.
Oh wait, you’re ahead of me:
In other words, it doesn’t count when you do it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Pro-tip: Don’t give pro-tips when you depend upon your local library for internet access.
JennOfArk: Typical phony leftie… accusing others of lies, to cover her own.
FIFY
What would be the point? Liars gotta lie, and as I noted earlier, you folks seem to really go in for that type of thing. I suppose it’s easier than thinking. Have at it. Redefine all the words you like, misinterpret and misrepresent, flail away flail away.
Fact is, I didn’t say anything ugly about Dan. I referred to something he wrote as “self-flagellation,” meaning, here he is, hating on himself in public by advocating against his own interests. That’s not an insult against his person, his identity, his orientation, or anything else. That’s my take – my description – of his actions in writing something that goes against his own interests.
Spin it how you like, it’s not the same as calling him a “bigot” or anything else. But feel free to continue lying about it and re-writing the dictionary. It’s how you roll.
MySharia – fine then, we won’t get into how your training at Diesel Driving Academy landed you nothing more than a stint as a lot lizard.
And so the leftie concedes – in defiant tone, not meaning the concession, but making it nonetheless – that he/she/it “has nothing”.
Shit, I thought lefties ADORED the proletariat.
Why all the judgmental classism?
Again, here’s the remark in question:
Let’s be clear. To any normal person, this is not a remark that lovingly says “Oh Dan, I’m worried about you. It looks like you flagellate yourself too much.” No… it’s a put-down of Dan’s entire intent/content/gift as a writer. It implies that Dan engages in a continual stream of “self-flagellation” where the latter is ridiculous, laughable and contemptible.
To any normal person, I stress again. JoA wants to pretend otherwise.
And I would like to stress that I don’t care, if that is JoA’s opinion of Dan. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. People are perfectly entitled to have a low opinion of Dan, if they want. I have a low opinion of JoA, myself. No, my point here is merely one of catching the leftie in her flat-out evasion and denial of reality.
JennofArk doesn’t like it when the poor, the gays, and black people get all uppity and talk back to their white massas.
After all, Massa Jenn knows what they should think and do, all of which inexplicably revolves around slavery to her — and if they don’t, she and Massa Tintin whip them good.
“Bigot” probably is being too kind to her. We should up it to the kind of things she and Tintin say about Dan.
Or… not.
NDT – more exposition, still no examples. Lie away, lie away.
BTW, have you convinced the OED or MW to change the definition of “referendum” to suit your purposes yet? Maybe you should tackle that before trying to get them to re-define “bigot” as “someone who makes me look foolish on the internet.”
Oh agreed, ILC. You and I are both better than that.
And that’s what makes us better than Jenn and PeeJ, because that’s all they can do.
Sure looks like it, NDT. I mean, just on name-calling alone and in this thread alone, JoA’s record is unmatched.
If laughing at comment #113 makes me a “barebacking Obamabot plantation gayt”, so be it. Too rich. I wish GP had someone as informed and witty on the right.
Actually, Jenn, you ran away from that thread when you were completely humiliated on your interpretation of “full faith and credit”.
Bigots like you seem to have a problem with facts. Peg append when all you can do is link and worship Tintin.
It doesn’t make you that, Cinesnatch. It just means that (1) you’re verrrry easily amused, let’s say. And perhaps (2) your heart may be in the wrong place.
Do you hate this blog or not? The other day when I suggested you did, you were very angry. But the evidence suggests you do. Every time somebody comes along, who “has nothing” – has no real case – but does have insults and hostility in hand, you clap and cheer at them. Really, Cinesnatch, it makes you look bad.
Whoa, you wingnuts are projecting like the octoplex down at the mall!
(And no I don’t mean bad-ass, or any “good” kind of “bad”.)
LOL đ To my point.
Yup. Notice how bigot Jenn starts screaming that people are wing it’s, calling them lot lizards, denigrating their background and education, etc.
And she wonders why we call her a bigot. Lol.
Actually, NDT, I didn’t “run away” from anything. I got bored with you. You never “solved” anything on the full faith & credit issue; in fact you did a bang-up job in demonstrating your lack of understanding of it with examples of gun carry laws. Marriage has never had a full faith & credit challenge, so legal theorizing aside, you can’t point to a case where a court has rejected the argument. If in fact such an argument is just so outlandish as to be a nutty theory, perhaps you can explain why DOMA was passed in the first place. I won’t hold my breath.
There’s no mystery there, friend. You give the game away too early, making it clear that you’ll just lie and make it up as you go along as needed, so it’s clear up front that it’s impossible to have an honest, rational discussion with you. We already know how the storyline is gonna go – you’re going to fail to acknowledge when you’re wrong, you’re going to lie whenever you feel like it, and you’re going to be insulting to try to cover up the fact that you’re not supporting anything you say and you’re being proven wrong. A conversation with you is worse than trying to teach a pig to sing, because in that case, you merely waste your time and annoy the pig. With you, it’s worse because not only have you wasted your time, you’ve wasted it with someone both dumber and less honest than a pig.
Actually, Jenn, you didn’t read the link.
But of course not. We already established yesterday that you ignore facts that conflict with your bigotry.
And of course, being an arrogant bigot, you didn’t bother checking the source either. Lol.
Actually, she’s said plenty that’s worthwhile.
Tomatoe, tomato.
Just like Rattlesnake thought George Insane was being condescending, I thought he was being the opposite (self-deprecating) with his Master’s comment.
Just like VTK mocks Hollywood’s “courage” with The Cider House Rules, but won’t mock their “courage” with Ben-Hur.
It’s all perception. We choose to see what we want.
I read some of the JennOfArk’s comments and I find myself laughing and/or thinking to myself, “My God, that’s a great point.”
And you judge my verbalizations of this as anger and hatred.
No, I don’t hate GP. And, I would appreciate it if you would stop making this about “me,” because it’s not, ILC.
As anyone on here has learned just like the boy who cried wolf, your links aren’t worth reading, ND30. But unlike the parable, your proverbial wolf is never coming.
And, if I was filled with hatred, I wouldn’t publicly go to bat for Bruce and Dan on other websites. Now would I, ILC?
Actually, Cinesnatch, that “defense” was when you were getting hammered with it and were desperate to stop it.
But now that you’re here clapping for the people like PeeJ, Evan Hurst and Jenn that support it and insist every word is true, what’s clear is that you never meant it.
And that’s typical of you. People trust you, then you screw them over and abuse it.
Actually, ND30, when Bruce posted about the Twitterer, I voluntarily went over to Twitter and admonished her and she came to GP to apologize. That’s how it went. And, of course, outside of ILC and I think maybe one other person, it went unacknowledged. Bruce, so willing to call her to task for being nasty in an individual post, was unwilling to speak about what transpired after on GP. His choice.
And, I went on Sadly, No! repeatedly to ask them to take down the picture. That’s how that went, even way after you had forgotten about it long after the “hammering.”
The next line should be sung in your head to Janet Jackson’s 1980s hit, substituting “Dan” for “me”:
“What have you done for Dan Lately?”
Wow, this is one of the lowest threads I’ve seen in a while. What is with all of these childish insults?
Can you proponents of so-called gay “marriage” really not see how laughable you and your vain protestations are? If not, I feel truly sorry for you.
That’s what you get when the Progressive Left sends over its best and brightest to debate an issue.
ILC, I want to respond from way back in 55. I was dealing with a true blue Ranger fan partner for another game 7 last night. Anyway, Sandhorse explained it well in 60. I will reiterate that I respect anyone’s choice for celibacy. No problem there. However, Bastiat Fan called me narcissistic for supporting SSM. And continued his disrespect and disdain for those of us who support SSM in 131.
Sandhorse, in 57. Another good post. A lot of past and present day Christians agree with you, which is why a lot of Christian groups broke away from Catholicism. And why many Catholics don’t hold the view that the pope is the successor of Jesus.
The problem is that there are almost as many different translations and conclusions to be drawn by the Bible as there are Christians and Jewish people. I am in no position in saying mine is definitely right and everyone else is definitely wrong. If that makes me a moral relativist, so be it. IMO, one has to do some independent thinking to come to a conclusion on such an issue as SSM.
Bastiat Fan, I don’t know if your concern is sincere or another exhibition of moral superiority. But speaking for myself, I’ll get by without your feelings of sorrow. Thanks.
I’m beginning to wonder if you didn’t do it only for the sake of being able to make the above kind of comment.
To make an analogy: Even Jon Corzine gives to charity. There is a pretty deep reason why Jesus told people, give in secret. Or at least don’t publicly flaunt your giving.
On the contrary. Without endorsing every word of NDT’s, I have to say that his links are invariably pertinent. As I demonstrated above (#100).
Wow, just checking back in after the weekend is nearly done. Only to find, as Rattlesnake states, how ‘low’ this thread has fallen. The next time a certain GP regular states only liberals suffer from ‘moral relativism’, I’ll pull an NDT and link to this thread.
In the meantime, I stand by my post @ 48.
You’re absolutely right, Pat. I have nothing but contempt for you vain, foolish fags who think the world will end if you don’t get your precious “right” to a faux marriage. Oh, and since I’m gay, by leftist rules, I get to call you a fag. Oh, and yes. I AM morally superior to you. Get over it.
Bastiat Fan, you exceeded my expectations of you, and then some. I should also mention that your assumptions of me are not based in reality. Thanks, and please have a blessed, morally superior day.
Thanks Pat for the reminder. . .
To be kind is more important that to be right. Many times what a person needs is not a brilliant mind that speaks but a patient heart that listens.
Those who delve into the theology of marriage will encounter the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo, who articulated what Christians have come to call âthe goods of marriage.â These are enumerated in contemporary terms as partnership, permanence, fidelity and fruitfulness. Same-sex couples demonstrate all of these attributes just as opposite-sex couples do, unless one defines âfruitfulnessâ narrowly as the ability to procreate. But many heterosexual couples cannot or choose not to procreate, and the church marries them anyway.
Sister Jeannine Gramick is co-founder of New Ways Ministry in Mount Rainier, Md. Francis DeBernardo is executive director of New Ways Ministry, which is a member of the Equally Blessed coalition.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-catholic-case-for-same-sex-marriage/2012/02/13/gIQAl4cwDR_story.html
My, what nice sentiments, rusty.
Now let’s see what the good Father and Sister have to say about the fruits of their fellow gay-sex marriage supporters.
Now come. Certainly you must be able to find a quote of them commenting on this. After all, people like themselves so quick to quote Augustine and wax moral certainly would not let such hateful language as calling for peoples’ murder go past, would they? After all, that would make it clear that they have no intention of following said precepts themselves and instead are trying to exploit the decency of others to silence said others while they and their friends like Dan Savage scream epithets and call for deaths.
Rusty, nice article. It’s great to have support from people like Sr. Jeannine and Mr. DeBenardo. Unfortunately, LCWR (Leadership Council of Women Religious) were slapped down recently by the higher ups in the Vatican for not being anti-gay enough. We’ll have to see how it plays out.
NDT, I don’t think Sr. Jeannine or Mr. DeBernardo commented on FSF either. Further, I doubt their support for same sex marriage is dependent on whether or not Savage wishes Republicans dead. More importantly, there is no evidence that Sr. Jeannine or DeBernardo wish Republicans dead, or any harm, for that matter. I’m not sure why they would want to include that in support of their case. For example, when Mitt Romney argues against same-sex marriage, I wouldn’t expect him to cite LaBarbera, Gallagher, Mabon, Fischer, Robertson, or other anti-gay bigots to bolster his argument.
This will take an hour of your time. It is a progression which needs to be evaluated from its beginning to its end. It is unique and well worth the effort. But I am particularly interested in the rage that it will evoke. I understand agnosticism, but I question fear and loneliness.
Heliotrope, the “practicing the homosexual lifestyle” made me cringe, but I’ll watch it, maybe tomorrow morning, and give it a fair shot.
A cryptic post accompanying the link, helio, but I will check it out soon. I don’t tend to have a spirit of fear, so I can’t promise an emotional response, or that it will ‘evoke anger’. Perhaps this weekend I will get a chance to watch it. I’ll check in once I do.
For example, when Mitt Romney argues against same-sex marriage, I wouldnât expect him to cite LaBarbera, Gallagher, Mabon, Fischer, Robertson, or other anti-gay bigots to bolster his argument.
Comment by Pat â May 14, 2012 @ 4:12 pm – May 14, 2012
What an excellent point, Pat.
Since when Romney speaks, or when anyone who opposes gay-sex marriage speaks, you and yours ascribe to them the views of LaBarbera, Gallagher, Mabon, Fischer, Robertson, or other anti-gay bigots.
So what you’re doing is equivocating, Pat. You’re spinning and making excuses for why you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters shouldn’t be held to the same standards. You are trying to exploit the decency of others when you and yours are not decent.
What an excellent point, Pat.
Thanks, NDT.
Since when Romney speaks, or when anyone who opposes gay-sex marriage speaks, you and yours ascribe to them the views of LaBarbera, Gallagher, Mabon, Fischer, Robertson, or other anti-gay bigots.
When Romney speaks about opposing same sex marriage, I do not put him in the same category of those LaBarbera, et al. As for “yours,” you’ll have to ask them. I don’t get this lumping together thing you do. Just as it wouldn’t be fair for me to lump other conservatives on this site with you. At least we seem to agree that LaBarbera are anti-gay bigots.
So what youâre doing is equivocating, Pat. Youâre spinning and making excuses for why you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters shouldnât be held to the same standards. You are trying to exploit the decency of others when you and yours are not decent.
NDT, more assumptions about me not based in reality. And again, your lumping is once again unfair, just as it would be if I were to say “NDT and your fellow boot lickers of anti-gay bigots,” it wouldn’t be fair. So please knock it off. Thanks, and have a blessed evening.
My husband was at a medical meeting this evening so I took the time to watch the whole thing. I thought at first this was going to be some kind of conversion therapy rant, but instead it is about the travails and tragedies that plagued Sy’s life. Very, very sad and he made some bad choices. But I didn’t see particularly anything for one to be in a rage about. Sy Rogers had a truly horrible childhood, but he seems to have prevailed by the grace of God. I did some further research on Sy, and it seems to me that perhaps he never had a same sex attraction or a homosexual orientation at all, but rather a real case of sexual confusion wrought by the horrors visited upon him as a child. Anyway, very interesting video.
Heliotrope, I watched the video. (for those who want to view the video, you may want to skip this comment.) It did not evoke any rage. I am not sure what to make of it. Yes, his story is unique. The fact that he was molested as a child can certainly warp his growth and development. Perhaps these events “made” him gay. The problem is he was not happy as a homosexual, and he apparently was not happy as a woman. Good thing he did not have the transition surgery. He did say that he was unable to have a relationship with men that did not include either bullying or sleeping with them. Of course that was unfortunate. Under those circumstances, I could see one being confused with sexual attraction. So he may well had been “wired” for heterosexuality, but too many people screwed up with his wiring.
In the video Rogers quoted someone who said that 80% of homosexuals were sexually molested or emotionally abused as children. I don’t have the stats, but I question it. My anecdotal evidence is that virtually all of the gay people I know were not sexually abused, and further, did not particularly hostile parents regarding their homosexuality.
I wish he would have addressed homosexuality, in and of itself. He always tied it in with promiscuity, and godlessness. But what about those who live lives according to Christian values, except possibly the same sex attraction? I see that, in his case, Rogers couldn’t do that, because he saw his homosexuality as an escape, and could not act on it responsibly.
The one thing I do agree with is that gay people have to find their way with God regarding homosexuality, and not listen to others. However, I do believe that the answers do not lie in the Scriptures, at least not directly. There are just too many interpretations out there to come to a firm conclusion about what God thinks about homosexuality.
I have to get ready to work, so I’ll have to leave it here. There may be other thoughts floating around that I’ll post later. Thanks, Heliotrope.
Yes Pat! What someone else believes has no impact on our relationships with God. I am frequently reminded of some my father said when we were having a discussion about homosexuality; “God’s revelation is not complete”. God love us all Pat! đ
Pat and David,
Thanks for your thoughts. The man has a story and a mission and he appears to have brought all of the pieces together in his message. I doubt there is anything that would cause the scales to drop from the eyes of Levi (who I recall is hetero) and the many homosexual religion haters.
Well, gee, Pat, you already call people around here bootlickers, so who the hell cares? Clearly “fairness” isn’t your motivation, nor do you actually respect it as a principle; you’re just using it to shut other people up.
NDT, your link shows you slandering me and another poster calling on you to apologize. I will still accept it. And once again, your assumptions about me are not based in reality. In the meantime, have yourself a blessed afternoon.
Actually, Pat, my link is directly to one of your comments.
And in particular, it says as follows:
So as far as calling people here bootlickers, you’ve been there, done that, demonstrably so, without a single bit of concern about “fairness”.
And that’s rather the point. Your interpretation of “fair” is that you get your way and everyone else has to yield.
NDT, you’ll never get it. You slander me in that thread, in addition to the other filth you throw at me, and this is what you got? Are you really serious? You are a piece of work. And you continue to make assumptions about me not based on reality. Have a blessed evening. Thanks.
Heliotrope, some other thoughts. I am glad that things have turned out positively for Mr. Rogers. And this is going on 30 years strong. For my next point, I’m going to operate under the assumption that either Rogers is now straight (or at least has some heterosexual attraction). My question is, what if he didn’t become straight? Would he have tried to form a stable relationship, instead of sleeping around? Stay celibate and/or keep trying to become straight? What would he advise others in such a situation?
It appears that it was many members of his community that caused the problems Rogers had. Ironically, and unfortunately it was mostly fellow Christians. So, it was no wonder why Rogers turned away from Christianity.
So this addresses the point you had above, that why many gay persons are anti-Christian. It’s bad enough being told that homosexuality is an abomination, and then being bullied about it continuously. Yes, once one is an adult, get over it, etc. And that would be my advice to one who has had that experience. But you can’t always expect persons constantly being sh&t on as a child, teen, and young adult, and be able to fight their way from under it.
Rogers was able to overcome it, and it was help from Christians. Even the Christian gay couple got him started on the path back. Others aren’t so fortunate.
But once one begins to doubt one aspect of Christianity, then all others can come into doubt. Sometimes it turns into hatred. For many, this hatred continues, but for others it lessens and are able to forgive. The latter is certainly better, especially for the victim.
Why others, straight and gay persons who weren’t ostracized, have disdain for religion, I can’t speculate, except to say everyone has their own path and experiences and beliefs that led to it.
Pat, thanks for your thoughts. I think Rogers is pretty amazing in his own life story and his mission. I am glad you accept his sincerity and are able to give him an honest appraisal. Personally, I think he is doing a great job of education heterosexuals to back off the judgement of gays and accept them as brothers who battle to know God.
LOL. You mean pointing out how your attacks on Seane-Anna were based on your racist and misogynist beliefs about what she should think, given her skin color and gender?
Kinda watched Cy here and there. . .interesting. Like what has been given up on the man by the comments. Do like that he has moved on and is doing well.
Kinda makes me think of ‘the painted bird’ by jerzy.
oops. . .Sy
NDT, you were the only one with the twisted logic to be able to slander me the way you did. Your link is another example of how your assumptions are not based in reality. And you’re really getting creepy again. Please cease and desist. Thanks, and have yourself another blessed day.
NDT, as the link shows you were the only one with the twisted logic to be able to slander me the way you did. Just another example of how your assumptions are not based in reality. And you’re really getting creepy again. Please cease and desist. Thanks, and have yourself another blessed day.
Oops, sorry for the double post.
Hey Pat,
just wanted to point out a comment, #10 from this post.
I just remind myself to keep in mind the last sentence in my comment #10. and then smile
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/05/03/two-takeaways-from-grenell-matterobamas-foreign-policy-is-failing-and-being-openly-gay-was-non-issue-to-romney-team/
Thanks, Rusty. I feel like I’ve been attacked by someone with a flamethrower, and when I retaliate by throwing a bead (pun intended), the whining, shrieking, and tantrums get louder. Bullies never think they are wrong, no matter how many blogs (even conservative ones) they are banned from, and no matter how many people he turns off from this blog (including good, decent people).