RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/06/25/gay-activists-trying-to-write-equality-into-a-national-creed/trackback/
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
0.554 Powered by Wordpress
I’d go with exploitation.
According to Wikipedia, the phrase “all men are created equal” was Jefferson’s rebuttal to the Divine Right of Kings, which we don’t have.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 25, 2010 @ 5:07 pm - June 25, 2010
i question the veracity of this article. here’s an actual interview with the kid, from a few months ago, where he states his rationale for refusing to stand for the pledge. in his own words, he refuses to stand for the pledge because absent gay marriage there isn’t “liberty and justice for all.”
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/11/interview-10yearold-who-refuses-to-say-pledge-of-allegiance-until-gays-have-full-equality.html
chill out dan. your best efforts aside, this isn’t a conspiracy by the gay left.
Comment by Chad — June 25, 2010 @ 5:55 pm - June 25, 2010
Chad, please tell me where I make any effort to promote the notion of a conspiracy by the gay left.
If you have evidence of the article’s inaccuracy, then provide it, if not it seems you’re disputing it in order to attack. And are you disputing my point that he offers an original thought and is not repeating the trite bromides of the gay left?
I’m also trying to parse how the absence of state-recognized gay marriage deprives anyone of liberty. But, then maybe folks like you have a definition of liberty at odds with its meaning.
And please also appreciate the tone of my posts. Your readiness to insult does not become you.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 25, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - June 25, 2010
I always find it very odd when you have children in a gay pride parade and then also have like the Dom and Sub float or one of the more sexualized groups in there. I remember thinking that at Columbus as I see great things like churches, families and politicians all marching and then there is the weird sex float coming along. I think the organizers need to make a decision about the message they want to send to the greater public.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — June 25, 2010 @ 6:30 pm - June 25, 2010
oh dan. you’re in no position to lecture me about tone, especially after your comment. and what, exactly, was insulting about my comment?
[Okay, I wrote my comment in haste, wondering at your own snarky tone and your mean-spirited accusation. I grant that, in this case, I may have chosen a word poorly, but you did intend to wound with your suggestion I believe this is part of a conspiracy by the gay left. I don't believe the gay left conspired with him in any way to cause him to repeat their bromides.]
as for the conspiracy reference–read your headline. you ask, “gay activists: trying to write equality into our national creed?” that question wasn’t purely rhetorical. you also explicitly state that phillips is a mouthpiece for someone on the gay left, since he’s “mouthing the same slogans.” in other words, you accuse phillips of CONSPIRING with the gay left. are you seriously denying this? typical blatt-backpedal.
[Huh? Where am I backpedaling? I don't accuse him on conspiring. I just accuse him of repeating bromides and wonder where he learned such clichés. See the first sentence in the ¶ you quote above. Don't see that as conspiring, just see someone else as using him. So, if technically that's a conspiracy between him and his self-righteous parent or other relative who pushed him to act the way that he did, then it's a "conspiracy" between him and sanctimonious care=giver, but not with the gay left.
And i gave the post the title I did largely because (as you should know if you read this blog), I am amused by how all gay activists have somehow convinced themselves "equality" is part of our national creed and is an ideal as sacrosanct as liberty.]
and in attacking this kid’s motives, you rely on a single article, which doesn’t even quote him directly. and when confronted with his actual words (which certainly cast doubts on the veracity of the article you rely on), you ignore them. why? because then your narrative falls apart? because then you can’t villify those mean-spirited, manipulative gay leftists?
[Doesn't quote him directly? Do you have evidence that he did not speak the words placed in quotation marks in the article I cite? Where am I vilifying the gay leftists in this post? Where do I call them mean-spirited? I merely note that, as you note above, he's mouthing the same slogans, you know, trotting out the same, tired old clichés, that's not calling them mean-spirited, but unimaginative.]
you should watch the video, since it’s obvious you didn’t before you typed up your snarky comment. the interview casts doubts on pretty much every ugly implication you’ve made about will’s motives.
[All the interview does is make me wonder who wrote the script that he's speaking. There's nothing original or insightful or imaginative in what he's saying. It sounds as if he he had rehearsed everything he said before facing the cameras. --Dan]
Comment by Chad — June 25, 2010 @ 6:45 pm - June 25, 2010
one last comment, about this:
“I’m also trying to parse how the absence of state-recognized gay marriage deprives anyone of liberty.”
if this is true (and i don’t think it is, since nothing in your original post even approximates this statement), then you failed in this post.
[Um, Chad, sorry to be so snarky, but you did come to my blog and reply to my post and respond in comment #2 and this one in a mean-spirited manner, but sometimes you do need to learn how to read. That was meant as a response to your comment. --Dan]
Comment by Chad — June 25, 2010 @ 6:53 pm - June 25, 2010
I can deal with this brainwashed child very easily.
Q: So you believe that it is wrong for you to say liberty and justice for all until everyone can marry whoever they love?
A: Yes
Q: So then you will not say liberty and justice for all until pedophiles and those who want to marry multiple people, their cousins, or animals can marry, right?
A: (confused look)
Q: But you said it has to be “for all”. Why are you now hedging?
A: (confused answer about how these things are wrong)
Q: But saying that other people don’t have the right to marry who they love is bigoted and hateful and means you don’t support liberty or justice. You said so. You said “liberty and justice for ALL”.
A: (screaming, whining, crybaby fit)
Where is this smart sexualized child? Let’s see him spin out of that. Heck, let’s see his gay lefty defenders like Chad spin out of that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2010 @ 6:53 pm - June 25, 2010
Oh, and Chad, before you start, you have to follow the ground rules you and the gay-sex left have established.
1) You must prove how your own relationship is negatively affected by people marrying children, animals, multiple people, cousins, etc.
2) You are not allowed to use any form of moral disapproval
3) You are not allowed to invoke majority rules or laws
4) You have no right to deny anyone else marriage to the person they love or the companion of their choice.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2010 @ 6:58 pm - June 25, 2010
When a fourth grader is the grand marshall of a parade and spokesboy for a cause, I wonder what the group has against the philosophy of kindergarten denizens.
Frankly, I don’t take most folks seriously until they are smarter than the average fifth grader.
However, I do think that the winner of the Little Mr. Pimp Contest should have chin time with Obama.
Comment by heliotrope — June 25, 2010 @ 7:19 pm - June 25, 2010
Ok. Let’s look at his own words:
Who’s asking him to swear anything?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 25, 2010 @ 7:59 pm - June 25, 2010
@North Dallas Thirty: You forgot the part where you flex your muscles and shout “Look at me! I made a 10 year old boy break down and cry! I’m the greatest!”.
There are some battles you simply cannot win.
Comment by Serenity — June 25, 2010 @ 10:50 pm - June 25, 2010
Sorry. They made the decision to throw the kid in there so he’s fair game. If you don’t want to answer tough questions, stay home and hide under the bed.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 25, 2010 @ 11:19 pm - June 25, 2010
@North Dallas Thirty: You forgot the part where you flex your muscles and shout “Look at me! I made a 10 year old boy break down and cry! I’m the greatest!”.
Sorry, but if he wants to play adult games, he can take adult consequences.
Of course, he doesn’t; as is typical for liberals, he wants to play adult games without any adult responsibilities. So in that scenario, it’s hilarious to watch him brag about how grown-up he is and then start screaming and whining and crying when he has to defend his arguments like a grownup.
There’s no real sympathy for stupid children who pick fights and get their asses kicked. Just because your mommy was dumb enough to give it to you doesn’t mean everyone else does, Serenity.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2010 @ 11:26 pm - June 25, 2010
Oh, and Serenity, by the way; no one believes that your attempt to play the victim card is anything more than an admittance that you can’t produce an intellectual argument.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2010 @ 11:27 pm - June 25, 2010
“Look at me! I made a 10 year old boy break down and cry! I’m the greatest!”
I always thought of Serenity as more of 10 year old girl, but whatever…
Comment by V the K — June 25, 2010 @ 11:49 pm - June 25, 2010
Having a 10 year old lead a gay pride parade strikes me as odd. Hopefully, this won’t be a trend.
Comment by Jim Michaud — June 26, 2010 @ 12:52 am - June 26, 2010
dan dan dan…you are a lost cause. Given the opportunity to extricate yourself, instead you double-down on a bad argument based on inaccurate information. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[Okay, I wrote my comment in haste, wondering at your own snarky tone and your mean-spirited accusation. I grant that, in this case, I may have chosen a word poorly, but you did intend to wound with your suggestion I believe this is part of a conspiracy by the gay left. I don't believe the gay left conspired with him in any way to cause him to repeat their bromides.]
What?!? You started so admirably by admitting your fault and error, but couldn’t resist the opportunity to project blame elsewhere. I intended to wound? You exaggerate my opinion of you; I simply don’t care enough about you to try to wound you. If you think otherwise, then please refer to my first comment and tell me what, exactly, was so damaging to your delicate sensibilities.
[Huh? Where am I backpedaling? I don't accuse him on conspiring. I just accuse him of repeating bromides and wonder where he learned such clichés. See the first sentence in the ¶ you quote above. Don't see that as conspiring, just see someone else as using him. So, if technically that's a conspiracy between him and his self-righteous parent or other relative who pushed him to act the way that he did, then it's a "conspiracy" between him and sanctimonious care=giver, but not with the gay left.]
You are arguing semantics related to the word “conspiracy” in a vain attempt to distract from the weakness of your argument. No, you did not use the word “conspiracy” but you did say “who put this boy up to his little stunt” and “he’s just mouthing the same slogans as every gay activist in every city in this country” in a post entitled “Gay Activists: Trying to Write Equality into our National Creed?” Your attempt to suggest that he’s being guided by a self-interested relative is no matter because that person is still part of the gay left in your view. Stop trying to distract from the weakness of your argument by debating semantics.
[Doesn't quote him directly? Do you have evidence that he did not speak the words placed in quotation marks in the article I cite? Where am I vilifying the gay leftists in this post? Where do I call them mean-spirited? I merely note that, as you note above, he's mouthing the same slogans, you know, trotting out the same, tired old clichés, that's not calling them mean-spirited, but unimaginative.]
Do you read your own links? I ask, because your own link says, “Efforts to reach Will and his father were unsuccessful.” You have a lot of egg on your face right now. Do you really want to continue to insist that your own source is more accurate in characterizing will’s position than will’s own words? You may find his views “tired” and “cliché”, but that doesn’t reflect on will–that shows your own disdain for the arguments in support of same-sex marriage.
[All the interview does is make me wonder who wrote the script that he's speaking. There's nothing original or insightful or imaginative in what he's saying. It sounds as if he he had rehearsed everything he said before facing the cameras. --Dan]
Oh? That’s a rather brazen accusation. Are you seriously suggesting to me that Will talked his way through this entire interview like he was working from a script, and that both his parents and CNN were privy to his scheme? Can you prove this in any way? Can you provide any other evidence showing that Will, rather than being motivated by a desire to give effect to the phrase “liberty and justice for all” is really a closeted, egalitarian-promoting pinko?
Personally, I think you should stop digging.
Comment by Chad — June 26, 2010 @ 2:49 am - June 26, 2010
And then there’s this garbage…
[Um, Chad, sorry to be so snarky, but you did come to my blog and reply to my post and respond in comment #2 and this one in a mean-spirited manner, but sometimes you do need to learn how to read. That was meant as a response to your comment. --Dan]
Dan, I see right through your feigned apology. There’s nothing sincere about your apology, and you are a liar. Again, refer to my comment #2 and tell me what, exactly was mean-spirited. If correcting your errors is now considered mean-spirited, then you have eviscerated all meaning from the word.
[Perhaps the "apology" is merely a rhetorical trick, but it's absurd to have you call me a "lair" for using a "trick" regularly used in discourse. The "that" in the passage you quote above references something I said in comment #3 replying to something you said in comment #2. In this post, I did not address "how the absence of state-recognized gay marriage deprives anyone of liberty", using those words only to respond to you. You claimed I had failed to make that point in the post.
I don't see yet where you have corrected a single error I wrote. What I thought mean-spirited was your suggestion that I believed some gay left conspiracy was afoot.]
I need to learn to read? You are rude and you have no class, even by the loose standards of cyber-decorum.
[No, perhaps, I'm guilty of rhetorical overkill, but recall, Chad, you're the one who came to my blog and suggested I engage in conspiracy theories. And then I take the time to respond to your comment--which I had not invited--and you go on to proclaim I failed at making an argument in the post I wasn't even trying to make in that post. --Dan]
Comment by Chad — June 26, 2010 @ 3:19 am - June 26, 2010
OMG. Chad, your comments are an unreadable waste of time. Get over yourself. And if Dan were that bad, then you would have no reason to come here. There. Someone had to say it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 26, 2010 @ 3:27 am - June 26, 2010
ILC, if my comments are an unreadable waste of time, then why did you bother to respond?
Comment by Chad — June 26, 2010 @ 3:29 am - June 26, 2010
But I didn’t, dimwit. That’s the point.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 26, 2010 @ 3:32 am - June 26, 2010
(If I had responded to your comments, I would have
, with lots of pink space
. Now you know.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 26, 2010 @ 3:33 am - June 26, 2010
and in an effort to show how much you disregard my posts, you respond….with two separate comments, one of which includes pink space.
while referring to me as a “dimwit”, with no sense of irony whatsoever.
well done.
Comment by Chad — June 26, 2010 @ 3:36 am - June 26, 2010
Chad, I had started a reply to your long comment and despite the writing exercise this effort provided, thought better of it.
As I wrote, I realized two things, one, no matter how much I tried to argue with you, it wouldn’t matter, you’re not interested in my points. And two, being in a foul mood, as I have been on and off these past 8 or 9 hours, I realized that I was (in that comment) responding more to vent my frustration about matters unrelated to this blog post than to address the issues you raised and the accusations your leveled.
I made the point in the post–and attempted, as is my wont, to link it to broader issues of concern. That you couldn’t see that is your problem not mine.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 26, 2010 @ 3:58 am - June 26, 2010
You mean 10 year old prop.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 26, 2010 @ 4:20 am - June 26, 2010
i’m in a foul mood too. i think there’s a lesson to be learned here about blogging/commenting when in a foul mood. i seldom agree with you, dan blatt, and i think you are very wrong in this post, but i’m stepping back.
[Well, we do agree on not blogging in a foul mood. Had I been in a better mood yesterday, my response to your initial comment would have been similar in substance, but different in tone. That said, your use of the lower case here diminishes your attempt to find common ground. --Dan]
cheers.
Comment by Chad — June 26, 2010 @ 4:22 am - June 26, 2010
My, Chad seems to be spending in inordinate amount of time defending this little boy, if you can call it that.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 26, 2010 @ 4:24 am - June 26, 2010
wow…you try to be nice….
Comment by Chad — June 26, 2010 @ 4:28 am - June 26, 2010
Okay, children, I’m not going to get into the Chad vs. Dan argument above, but I for one applaud Will Phillips (yes, he has a name), the 10-year old kid for speaking out in favor of gay issues.
In this country, we have freedom of speech. If Carrie Prejean uses her fame to promote “opposite marriage,” and if I recall correctly that all of the gay conservatives on this site rallied to her defense for her freedom of speech, then Will Phillips deserves to be extended the same respect.
And, while a 10 year old being the grand marshal of a LGBT Pride event is very unusual, I don’t think it is a problem AS LONG AS he and his parents or legal guardian clearly understand and give their consent. And, as he is a minor, his parent(s) or legal guardians should have to accompany him at all times during the event.
Perhaps the only one who needs to be schooled is “Dallas North Thirty” who repeats the same knee-jerk argument that social conservatives use against gay marriage — because if I am allowed to marry another man, the next thing that will happen is that pedophiles will want to marry children, or that people will want to marry their dogs.
My sexual orientation was & is not a choice; I have always known that I was gay (even before I wanted to admit it). Sexual orientation is part of your identity — molesting children (which is illegal), or sleeping with 2 women at the same time (because “V the K” thinks that’s hot) is not part of your identity — it is an action. And for the “marrying an animal” argument, please bring me an animal that expresses interest in marrying a human — and then let’s talk.
Class dismissed.
Comment by James — June 26, 2010 @ 5:11 am - June 26, 2010
Just parsing language here:
So, being gay, in this case is being “trapped,” in a manner of speaking. No different, I presume than being “trapped” in being stimulated by the opposite sex.
I suppose “identity” means both “who” you are and “how” you are known by others.
Huh? Molesting children or a Tiger Woods type of sex addiction is not “who” you are and “how” you are known? Please ’splain, because I really, really do not get it.
So is coming out of the closet. If this logic works, a gay who doesn’t gay around is not gay.
Now I am really confused. Animals are chattel. Property. Slaves. You can raise them from little lambs or you can slaughter them and eat them as lambs. Marriage is about wants and love and desires and happiness. If a human wants to marry a lamb and it makes him fulfilled and happy and feel wanted and respected and equal to the neighbors, then what is the problem?
I just did. Your turn.
Comment by heliotrope — June 26, 2010 @ 6:52 am - June 26, 2010
My sexual orientation was & is not a choice
But gender is just a social construct.
Comment by V the K — June 26, 2010 @ 7:59 am - June 26, 2010
AM checkin – I see the slow kid still didn’t get it, last night.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 26, 2010 @ 10:15 am - June 26, 2010
ILC shows up to respond and make sure he hasn’t missed any of my unreadable comments.
he still, apparently, doesn’t understand irony.
Comment by Chad — June 26, 2010 @ 11:03 am - June 26, 2010
[That said, your use of the lower case here diminishes your attempt to find common ground. --Dan]
…whatever that means. this is a rather juvenile response. you’re so rude.
Comment by Chad — June 26, 2010 @ 3:05 pm - June 26, 2010
Chad, I was trying to be “cute,” defusing some tension with an attempt at humor. Looks like I failed in that endeavor.
Do wonder at the use of lower case though.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 26, 2010 @ 3:08 pm - June 26, 2010
i’m a lazy typist. usually i don’t bother with punctuation either.
Comment by Chad — June 26, 2010 @ 3:29 pm - June 26, 2010
My sexual orientation was & is not a choice; I have always known that I was gay (even before I wanted to admit it).
Pedophiles are oriented towards children and bestialists are oriented towards animals.
Why is their orientation less valid? Why should society not support and bless their sexual choices, James? Gay and lesbian individuals like yourself shriek that society has no right to judge sexual choices and no right to impose laws regulating sexual conduct; why does it not apply here?
Sexual orientation is part of your identity — molesting children (which is illegal), or sleeping with 2 women at the same time (because “V the K” thinks that’s hot) is not part of your identity — it is an action.
But, as we see in the case of individuals like Jim McGreevey and “Bishop” Gene Robinson, as well as the countless other people with a gay and lesbian “identity” who chose to have sex with, marry, and produce children with people of the opposite sex, their “identity” seemingly has no effect on their behavior.
So bluntly put, James, why should society not grant marriage to children or bestialists, using your logic that everyone should be allowed to marry that with which they wish to have sex and that preventing them from doing so is wrong? Why are bestialists and pedophiles denied the right to marry the companion of their choice?
Now defend that, James, and remember, you must follow the rules of the gay-sex liberal left to which you belong:
1) You must prove how your own relationship is negatively affected by people marrying children, animals, multiple people, cousins, etc.
2) You are not allowed to use any form of moral disapproval
3) You are not allowed to invoke majority rules or laws
4) You have no right to deny anyone else marriage to the person they love or the companion of their choice.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2010 @ 6:52 pm - June 26, 2010
Next AM checkin – I see the slow kid still didn’t get it the next day either. LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 27, 2010 @ 12:11 pm - June 27, 2010
“My question is who put this boy up to his little stunt.”
Maybe not “put up to” but rather “lifelong immersion in a left-wing echo chamber”?
The boy and his parents are members of a Unitarian church which is intensely supportive of what he has done, as is the national UU organization.
This fits in with the longstanding Unitarian reluctance to support and defend America until it becomes more like Cuba.
Comment by pst314 — June 28, 2010 @ 4:12 pm - June 28, 2010
“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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Comment by Houndentenor — June 28, 2010 @ 7:04 pm - June 28, 2010
Government recognition of your bedmate != happiness.
Happiness in the context of the time, now obsolete, per merriam-webster. “1 good fortune : prosperity”
Comment by The_Livewire — June 29, 2010 @ 6:42 am - June 29, 2010
This blog seems to be proof positive that so called gay “conservatives and/or republicans and/or teabaggers” ARE self loathing, miserable creatures.
Then again, I seriously doubt most of the posters here are actually gay but are posing as such to contribute to the anti-equality rhetoric of the GOP.
If two consenting adults who are non-blood relatives want to wed then what harm does it do to anyone else? None. Any argument otherwise is based only on religious extremist views which are NOT constitutionally valid. Marrying a dog or a child is a ridiculous Christian Taliban red herring that should not be seriously entertained.
Of course there are the Limbaugh and Gingrich examples of the glory of hetero marriage that we might want to emulate. Tired of the spouse, he/she on her sick bed? Find a new one! Hetero marriage is so great you should have several!
Additionally, if a 10 year old has an opinion and chooses to share it – good for him. Good for his parents for allowing him to express his freedom of speech and his right to be a free thinker. Good for all of them for being a part of the parade – a parade commemorating the Stonewall Riot and the fact that there is no shame in being gay or being an ally of the gay community. Shame on you who would beat a child up for having the courage of his convictions because they don’t fit your narrow minded religious dogma.
I know most of you long for the Texas GOP platform to be embraced across the land but I, for one, will keep up the good fight to make the USA the land of liberty and justice for ALL OF US – including the self loathing gays on the right.
You are welcome.
Comment by Tim — June 29, 2010 @ 12:34 pm - June 29, 2010
Tim, your use of the term teabaggers indicates you have no interest in a civil discussion, but instead in slurring your adversaries.
Please provide evidence that gay conservatives are self-loathing as you insist.
Please also address why “anti-equality” rhetoric is anti-gay and explain that you understand the tension that libertarian and conservative thinkers have discovered between the abstraction of “equality” and the ideal of liberty.
Once you have done all that, you should be ready to engage us in a discussion of the ideas undergirding our political philosophy.
I, for one, look forward to the conversation!
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 29, 2010 @ 12:43 pm - June 29, 2010
I will not apologize for the teabagger term as it was first used by the corporate funded teabagging movement. It is, in my opinion, a collection of thinly (and not so thinly) veiled racists at the worst and sore losers at the best who did not question a single bit of George W’s wild spending, civil liberty abuses, or foreign occupations but low and behold an African-American is democratically elected and soon after come the screeches of “we want our country back!” Back from whom? The entire tea party meme is so ill fitting and the conjuring of the Founding Fathers who embraced the age of the enlightenment is sinful from mental midgets like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who are great snake oil sales people but little else).
As for your other requests for evidence, you only need to look at the posts on this page for the proof you need. You also need to look a the party you associate with. The party that promotes the GOP Platform of Texas* and soon Oklahoma. These are your people. Not mine.
Why anti-equality is anit-gay? Seriously? Perhaps it is fine for the gay conservative to be 1/3 or 2/3 an American citizen but it is not good enough for me.
*I would like to see a post here address the gay conservative perspective of the Texas GOP platform and if it is fine since the white Christian heteros are the majority and therefor get to set the rules for all others.
Comment by Tim — June 29, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - June 29, 2010
Please, Tim, provide evidence to back up your claim about the Tea Party being a collection of racists. And please check the record, you’ll see many conservatives, including this very blogger, criticized W on spending. And that spending was not nearly as wild as is Obama’s. And, in W’s second term, until the Democrats took over Congress, the federal deficit was on the decline. That too is a matter of record.
Alas that you did not address any of the points I asked you to consider and since you came to my blog — and not me to yours — I see no reason to consider the remainder of your comment.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 29, 2010 @ 1:30 pm - June 29, 2010
If two consenting adults who are non-blood relatives want to wed then what harm does it do to anyone else? None.
And if three or more adults want to wed, then what harm does it do to anyone else?
And if two or more adults who are close blood relatives want to wed, then what harm does it do to anyone else?
And if a man wants to wed an animal, then what harm does it do to anyone else?
And if two or more children and adults want to wed, then what harm does it do to anyone else?
Answer the questions, Tim. And remember the rules:
1) You must prove how your own relationship is negatively affected by people marrying children, animals, multiple people, cousins, etc.
2) You are not allowed to use any form of moral disapproval
3) You are not allowed to invoke majority rules or laws
4) You have no right to deny anyone else marriage to the person they love or the companion of their choice.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2010 @ 1:20 am - June 30, 2010
NDT,
Don’t forget, Tim’s all over the underaged.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2010 @ 9:41 am - June 30, 2010
Livewire, SCORE.
Look what Tim says in that:
NDK and the rest, if you really can’t see a difference between a 15 yr old engaging in consensual sex and a much younger child being molested, you need to adjust your moral compass.
And this was the best one:
Could you maybe just accept this had nothing to do with you, no parties were harmed, no laws were broken
So we have Tim ON RECORD stating that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with underage children, that it doesn’t matter, no one was harmed, etc.
This is why people don’t believe the gay community.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2010 @ 1:51 pm - June 30, 2010
In your response to Chad you say he has to “follow the ground rules [he] and the gay-sex left have established.” And number one on your list is this:
“1) You must prove how your own relationship is negatively affected by people marrying children, animals, multiple people, cousins, etc.”
Where do you get that? What gay person ever promoted this as a rationale for same-sex marriage?
I believe this argument, in its reverse colors, has only been used by proponents of the illegalization of same-sex marriage.
If you are attempting to say that same-sex marriage proponents are arguing that opposite-sex marriage is not harmed by same-sex marriages, you’d be right. But if I’m a parent (whether married to a man or a woman), my *life* and the life of my *child* are harmed by:
1) a relationship involving my underage child and an adult because my child would be at a disadvantage of maturity
2) a relationship between my child and his/her cousin would likely result in dangerous biological anomalies because of genetics
And of course, I can explain away human-animal sexual relations. And no one has seriously presented polyamorous relationships as having the same legal standing as one-to-one committed relationships.
So please stop poking the straw man. Let’s talk about real issues, not make-believe ones.
Comment by Scot Colford — July 6, 2010 @ 8:33 pm - July 6, 2010