“American women are so fortunate to live in the greatest country on Earth.”
Amen, Mrs. Schlafly!
The feminist tirades against Sarah are mostly so tiresome, but one line of their complaints is really funny. After 40 years of telling wives and mothers to get out of the home (which Betty Friedan called “a comfortable concentration camp”), put their children in day care (tax-funded, of course) and join the workforce, these same feminists now tell Sarah to stay home with her children.
Sarah doesn’t need feminist approval for her lifestyle; the only person whose OK she needs for her double career as mother and politician is her husband’s, and he seems very happy with Sarah.
Sarah Palin is an exemplar of a successful, can-do woman, and the feminists simply don’t know how to deal with her. I hope she will usher in a new era where conventional wisdom recognizes that feminist negativism is ancient history and American women are so fortunate to live in the greatest country on Earth.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Bloodthirsty Liberal » How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?
- The Median Sib » Blog Archive » The “P.O.W. - W.O.W.” Ticket
- Christine Pelosi has diarrhea of the mouth « Decidedly Right
- “American women are so fortunate to live in the greatest country on Earth.” — The 2008 Elections
- Guys and Gals Gaga and Giddy Over Governor Sarah Palin « Pronk Palisades
- “American women are so fortunate to live in the greatest country on Earth.” | Tagroom :) Tagging The World
- Link Love for Sarah Barracuda - 43 Days and Counting! at Haemet
- Look Who’s the Hypocrite NOW | Faith and Facts
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Feminist Nonsense, Sarah Palin
JustOneMinute
» The Prescient Joe Biden
AmSpecBlog
» A Good Time Not to be a DemocratRiehl World View
» More Climate Change Fraud: Et Tu New Zealand?Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney CaseThe Other McCain
» Alan Colmes, having fun at #1Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas SpecialMudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Goldwater Knight said:
Clicked on your link….Sorry, will not watch…not interested. I think I stated above that our perception of the gay community is due to the radicals.
I have nothing to say to support people who wish to use their ‘gayness’ in an effort to shock and disgust people.
Not all gays are bad. Just as not all whites, blacks, or any other group of people are bad.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO DISCRIMINATE
We have no other choice as human beings.
I’ll trade the lawyer for a cook.
Goldwater Knight,
Thank you for conversing with me on this subject.
I appreciate the ability to discuss ‘hot’ topics. It is not always welcomed on many blogs.
Men and women are intrinsically different. It’s a far left ideology that says they’re not. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses compared to the opposite gender. Their roles are only partly determined by society. They are just as much based on inherent qualities related to such things as brain function, hormones, and physical attributes and appearance. To say a woman can do whatever a man can is nonsense. It’s also nonsense to say they are equal. Let’s not mention there’s a good case women are the superior sex. Like, why do so many more men want a sex change to become a woman, than vice versa? And why is the smile of a beautiful woman the most potent force in the world? But like I said, I’m not going to go there.
I have watched the women’s movement evolve for quite a while. Sarah Palin has disrupted the gains made by the feminist in that she has not “payed her dues” according the the feminist standard. Women advanced themselves by being the “token woman” and the current feminists are still as attached to this concept as Wright is to Black Liberation Theology. As the token woman, the last thing one wants is to be replaced by the next token woman, so women at the top maintained that position by not mentoring younger women. As the years have passed, women have made it on their own, creating a variety of situations which balance career and family. Current feminists are more concerned with maintaing THEIR power and THEIR control than truely advancing women’s issues. The public tolerates they feminists, but doesn’t like them. Sarah, they love because she is authentic and she resonates with ordinary people. Sarah never saught, asked for or demanded the admiration she is getting and the elites and the feminists are angry that after all they have done to advance themselves, they are upstaged by someone who about serving the interests of others.
FamilyMan said;
I can see your point about discriminating.
And, as humans we do every day.
This topic is one in which we discriminate differently.
Just glad to have been able to discuss the issue.
The Natural Superiority of Women by Ashley Montegu, published in 1953.
Ashley Montagu
Good point. Palin is using her power in a way that doesn’t further her own glorification, or the glorification of her cause. This has liberal women flummoxed, and it’s so funny to watch.
Paul-Cincy said,
Oops……guess since I misstated their name, you can see how I have never been a follower of their mandate.
Just never saw how saying I was entitled to something was better than actually working hard and achieving it.
Sarah Palin is the very picture of what the women’s movement originally sought.
She has proven one can work hard, succeed and at the same time, have a loving marriage and raise a family.
Just the same as men have done through the centuries.
The problem I see with NOW is their failure to see that a female with a rounded focus is far better than one with a single focus.
Marriage and Family can bring about balance in ones life.
Balance in ones life leads to more reasoned and balanced decisions, whether they are at home or in the workplace, regardless of ones sex.
Not necessarily. On measures like spacial reasoning, strength, empathy, etc, the variation among women (and the variation among men) is bigger than the difference between the average of the two groups.
I don’t claim that “women are equal to men” because that’s stupid. But it’s equally stupid to assign women to subservient, domestic, weak roles based on the average abilities of women. Let every individual do whatever job they’re physically and mentally qualified to do, regardless of what’s in their pants.
On September 21st, 2008 at 12:15 pm,
I may have been showing my prejudice. I could have said, to say a man can do whatever a woman can is nonsense. Or is it better, to say a man can BE whatever a woman can be is nonsense?
Spacial reasoning, strength, empathy … excellent. This is the level of analysis which shows real differences. Although I tend to think differently from you, that in these measures the intersex difference is greater than the intrasex. Or, at any rate, the intersex difference is quite significant. Just a hunch. Like, because of strength, any of the top 100 male tennis players can beat the #1 woman. The bottom line, just as you say, is to take people as they are, let they do what they can and will do.
I’ll just throw in that women bear children and then suckle them. And men can’t do that. Just as a P.S.
K2
The act of having sex or making love is incredibly intimate. I don’t share my private times with my wife with other. It is none of my business how you share yours. I’m saying it’s socially and legally dangerous to mandate our acceptance of each other. We, as humans tend to surround ourselves with people that mirror our world. Forcing that cultural tendency with laws that affect us financially and structurally is unconstitutional.
Without a doubt. I would prefer employing a married person for that reason.
Geez….the Palin bashing just won’t stop…
take a look at what a UK politician (yep, female) said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080921014654.oudqyxrc&show_article=1
Just proves politicians just don’t get it!
Wonder how they will receive Palin if (and I hope it is when) she becomes VP.
I agree with most of your post. Where we differ is I think what they ultimately want is to force a kind of universal agreement with their personal choices. This will never happen, not out of malice (at least on my behalf) but simply because most heterosexual men just can not understand those kind of feelings toward another man. (again, I am speaking just for myself) If they were to be intellectually honest, they would except the fact that they can not understand my position any more than I can not understand theirs instead of using terms like “homophobic.” I have no fear of homosexuality, I just do not care one way or the other and THAT is what pisses them off. I do not care. I also do not care about flatworms– that does not mean I am afraid of them.
Apologies for responding to a post that wasn’t addressed to me, but I’m not understanding where details about individuals’ sex lives come into this. Are you saying that no one should go around telling everyone about their sex life? I definitely agree with you there (I get totally grossed out when celebrities do this), but being gay and wanting your partnet to be acknowledged as such isn’t the same as telling people about your sex life (if that’s what you were getting at, I’m not sure). Just like introducing people to a wife or husband or heterosexual girlfriend or heterosexaul boyfriend isn’t telling people about your sex life.
SpeakEasy Using terms like “homophobic.” are used to deflect the attitude by many people that homosexuality is a sickness. By calling people homophobes they return the insult implying they are the only ones that are sick. I don’t care what a person does in private.
More to the topic on hand, the liberals have always been dedicated to their ideals and party foremost. When one is compromised, such as equality for women, fall back on the first– the party. It is no coincidence they agree with Marxist and Socialist dogmas. I can not recommend Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” enough, regardless of your base beliefs. It is very well researched and instructive in an intellectual way.
I think the radical feminists have turned around and bitten themselves in the butt!!
Agree FamilyMan. Contrary to popular belief, there are no witch hunts for gays in the military– and there are gays in the military. The ones who serve in spite of their orientation do so quietly, not throwing it into the faces of everyone around them. I do not want to hear about ANYONE’s sex life at work– I don’t care if they are as wholesome as the Quaker Oats.
The open displays of sexuality in San Fran and elsewhere among homosexuals does more to hurt their cause, by violating obscenity laws, than it does to help.
I agree. What I’m trying to point out is the need of a government, to maintain a structure, marriage must have a well defined boundary. Stepping outside a well defined line creates chaos. There are “slippery slopes” as soon as the definition of marriage is changed. I believe this to be a constitutional issue and not a moral mandate. Please don’t consider my opinion a personal attack.
Radical Feminism is just like Radical Islam. It is not enough to just be– you must force others to accept your ideology as superior. Sad.
I want you to start calling me Loretta.
And I want to have babies.
A teenager in the late 60s, came of age in the 70s and never liked being pegged as anything. Worked my way through college in between having my daughter and getting out of a bad marriage. Never had time to think of where I was in society aka feminist, just where I was going. I worked hard amongst men in a mostly male dominated industry at the time and enjoyed every minute of it. I learned a lot from guys and the current Mr. Kravtz, and have a great respect for them…love em. I learned that there are opportunists and power mongers in both sexes and absolutely hate those emails and TV commercials that belittle men just to make women look superior. At parties, I find men’s conversations usually more interesting (than womens’ – sorry I could be going to the wrong parties) but sometimes notice a slight chill or lack of eye contact when I offer my 2 cents. Not sure where I’m going with all this rambling, just that IMHO there’s too much made of the differences between the genders. I roll with the punches regardless if it comes from a hairy hand or one with painted nails….
Just like racial dialog is good, so is gender dialog…
Successful women are not a threat to me. Gay people are not a threat to me.
This country isn’t being invaded by illegal gay people or successful women.
This thread is about women’s opportunities in this great country. Speaking from a guys viewpoint, I would like to point out that living with women who are passionate about their lives, makes for a fuller relationship. A women may work in or out of the home, and can bring back into a marriage more diversity. I can’t imagine having a partner who is subservient and submissive. How boring. A strong woman’s will is just as important to me as every curve on their beautiful bodies. I don’t care if they’re 19 or 90, fat of thin, black brown or white. Strong American women are gorgeous creatures.
I think I need a cold shower.
We all make this country great by following in the tradition set forth by the founders. Individual freedom. Personal responsibility. community. And yes we “all” are fortunate to live here. Though it is not recognized enough in my view, behind every great man is an incredible woman. I am fortunate indeed and am working every day to deserve such a great companion and friend.
But not more important. Let’s get real. The only way I can say that is I’m single. If I was married I’d never say such a thing. I’d be totally cowed. Which is maybe a reference to female cattle, I dunno. Gender is complicated.
I agree – besides, it makes it sound like the only reason to have opposition to homosexuality is fear, which I don’t think is true. It’s kind of patronizing, as though people couldn’t possibly come up with a rationale besides that gay people scare them. My late grandfather thought homosexual behavior was a sin, but I don’t believe for a second that he was scared by the idea.
It’s okay, I don’t.
All I’ve heard from the lefty circles of feminists is that the only reason Hillary lost was because she is female and ‘men won’t vote for women.’
So now all the feminists are flipping out realizing that CONSERVATIVE men will vote for a woman. And to say it’s because she is cute if beyond ridiculous. If that’s all she was, conservative men wouldn’t even consider her for VP. But it helps.
The bottom line here is men have gained more in the last 100 years of the women’s movement than the fictitious power we thought we had. The true American woman is more self-confident, self-reliant and a hell of lot more interesting than any where in the world. The problem with the feminist movement is the tendency to weaken women by giving them undeserved props. Just as with all the anti-discrimination laws, originally had a good purpose, now threatens the powers they wished to gain.
The unfortunate thing about liberal feminists is that they try to be like men instead of just being themselves (I guess that’s one in the same for them).
That’s probably why people are attracted to Palin — because she is who she is, and not acting like something she’s not.
GladzKravitz,
Your story sounds like mine. I spent more time with males since females were too judgemental. I spent some time living in a neighborhood of pseudo stepford wives. What fun that was! They were jealous of anyone out doing them, which wasn’t difficult. The focus was to bring the other person down, not improve one’s self.
Alohaguy, what really scares them is that she is everything they’ve been saying a woman should be; but she doesn’t believe in abortion!
OT.
Ruh Roh.
FBI serves search warrant against UT student in Palin case
http://www.wbir.com/news/breaking/story.aspx?storyid=64033&catid=29
I’m sure the MSM will be covering this right away! NOT.
Yeah the son of a DEMOCRAT representative who also belongs to TENNESSEE Democrats fo OBAMA!
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that someone can not own a firearm, yet can still rationally support the 2nd Amendment? I have no issues with this. However, I do not see the parallel between this and the abortion debate. Are you implying that someone can claim to be pro-life and yet rationally support someone else being pro-abortion? You may need to elaborate what you meant in your analogy.
Baucham’s whole point is that pro-life proponents should not argue in the same way as pro-abortionists. To a pro-life advocate, there is no choice at all. A life is a life. That’s it. A pro-abortionist doesn’t consider a fetus to be a human life, but also cares not whether someone chooses to bring the fetus full term or not, hence the term “pro-choice”. Pro-life advocates should not allow ourselves to argue from a “choice” mindset at all, as Palin did.
I’d love to know how you’ve come to this conclusion. His main focus was to caution people about the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist who died in 1937, specifically the idea of cultural hegemony, whose tenets are coming to fruition in our country. Not researching Voddie Baucham is quite a shame for you. Voddie Baucham “is a husband, father, pastor, author, professor, conference speaker and church planter. He currently serves as Pastor of Preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, TX. He has served as an adjunct professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, TX, and Union University in Jackson, TN. He has also lectured at Southern Seminary.
Dr. Baucham holds degrees from Houston Baptist University (BA in Christianity/BA in Sociology), Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (M.Div.), Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (D.Min.), an honorary degree from Southern California Seminary (D.D.), and additional post-graduate study at the Oxford University.”
I never wanted to be a she-male.
Just say NO! to pantsuits!
Late to the game on this one, but a great article by Schlafly (as usual).
Men and women are intrinsically different. We have strengths and weaknesses that – as a generalization – pertain specifically to men and women. Within each category you get people whose interests and abilities strays from the spectrum, and that’s okay.
The problem here is that – as Schlafly says – for eons the feminist line was “Don’t have kids, or if you do, plunk them in daycare and get to work!”
And now, suddenly, that’s the wrong thing.
I really need to stop reading this stuff. I get sooo angry. I have always had issues with feminists, who I believe, are nothing more than a bunch of whinning, complaining, discontented, miserable women who should have been ignored. These women would rather blame a society for their unhappiness than look inside themselves. Feminism is a LIE and one of the many perpetuated on our society hatched by a bunch of fried druggies of the 60s. I wish we could just start over and forego that period. Feminism is an enemy to the family, women, men and let’s not EVEN mention our unborn babies. The women who hatched the idea of feminism are the true witches of our society.
Make no mistake, even before Palin made her entrance on the public scene, I’ve always known feminism hated real women. Thankfully I think the “truth” about this movement and it’s women is finally coming to light. We need to teach our young girls what being a woman isn’t. We have plenty of examples to choose from.
Did you know that Gov. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life?
Pity me.
I live & work in NYC & every day I have to endure the vitriol of a pack of 50 year old “girls” with roses tattooed on their ankles hysterical that they could loose their “right” to an abortion, while cursing the “phenomenon” that all the eligible males are choosing “younger forigen females”.
What!, is marriage now an entitlement program too??? How does one tactfully explain to one’s boss that switching from ovocon to boniva kinda means game over???
The modern feminist has lost the valid original intent of the woman’s movement. Feminist today appear to be weak because their need for protection by legislation. I prefer to be around women who are strong, gracious and intelligent. In marriage and business we can work as a team with each of us contributing our best attributes.
Indeed. There is no country on Earth where women are treated better than in America.
If the radical, America-hating feminists like the Code Pikos think it’s better somewhere else in the world, then why don’t they move there?
Their goal is not to improve America, their goal is to destroy America.
rambler, my problem, even today, is knowing the difference between jealousy and ‘they’re just not into me’..ha
Misscheryl, on another of MM’s threads, someone said something that may be of comfort to you (was to me).
They were mentioning how the boomers sort of screwed things up (being a boomer, I believe I’m allowed to state that I agree.) Anyway they went on to say that ultimately those 60s era/liberals will die off and hopefully some fresh thinking will begin to blossom….enter our sons and daughters…and of course, Palin, even at 44 yrs…
Send Me – your point is? If you are justifying feminism because Palin is a member of this organization – big.freakin.deal.
If you are denouncing Palin because she is a member of this organization…same response.
GladzKravtz, re:#144
I call it our 40 years in the wilderness…
Paul-Cincy
To the best of my knowledge, that’s not the case. Do you base your claim on any actual studies?
Amen to that. Feminism makes racism seem benign.
brooklyn red
Was that you who posted that?? It was a great read!
GladzKravtz,
What you describe applies not just to the feminist movement, but is also central to why Obama is considered the “Messiah” of “Black Liberation Theology”…after 40 years in the desert, they think he is “Joshua”…
Watch these three videos to understand:
It’s The Theology, Stupid – Part 1
It’s The Theology, Stupid – Part 2
It’s The Theology, Stupid – Part 3
RedPill You bet! And I’ll check out those videos. Thanks
Nope. But it is being destroyed be liberals, and “gay people” and “strong women” are prominent members of the liberal establishment.
GladzKravtz – thanks, that is helpful!
Strange, but I don’t recall agreeing to any of those things.
Hey careful Glads. I was one of those libs for a very short time. I grew up as soon as I got marriage and had babies. Most of the men in my generation think the way I do but we’ve been busy being responsible people and didn’t have time to be activist. The people who want conservative CHANGE are here now.
FamilyMan, I should be better at describing my thoughts…What I should have said was ultimately those who to this day still believe in the 60s era/liberal view will die off and hopefully some fresh thinking will begin to blossom…howz that?
GladzKravtz
Better. Thank you
I’m concerned a large part of those new fresh thinkers are Obama supporters.
On September 21st, 2008 at 3:50 pm,
Studies? Haven’t gone that far into it. But I’d say man to woman sex change is at least 10 times more prevalent than woman to man. Just on my perception and by anecdote. You know what Reagan said. Don’t be afraid to see what you see. That’s what I see. Don’t need a study.
PBS is trying to discredit Sarah Palin with a poll. Involves one question and no sign-up….extra easy.
Hope everyone goes to their site and votes for Sarah.
http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
I did. Everybody go there
In a recent article, Naomie Emery said: “…it may turn out that the main contribution she [Palin] makes to his [McCain's] effort is in goading the Democrats into spasms of self-defeating and entirely lunatic rage.”
This is what we’re seeing from the LibFems.
FamilyMan, I’m deeply concerned over the amount of youths voting for Obama too but I think you will agree with me, those fresh brains ain’t thinking too ‘freshly’…grammar aside.
good plan if that’s the case TypicalWhite, but I’m inclined to believe even the Republicans don’t have that kind of vision. I’d like to think it’s origin is in a “higher power.” Democrats by nature are self-defeating lunatics. It was bound to happen. The pendulum will swing back in the other direction. That’s what history tells us.
GladzKravtz;
It takes a little “in your face” responsibility to make most of us change. When I read statistics showing 35% of those people between 16 and 35 years old have never been married, indicates to me a large self centered voting block. Yes I’m very worried about our countries future.
God help us, Republicans are morons.
Your “perception” is completely wrong.
Gladz
The larger portion of those marriage statistics are single males.. The feminist movement and birth control pills have given men the physical satisfaction with a women but not the compromises required in marriage. Admit it guys, when we’re 25 years old, responsibilities aren’t the first thing on our minds. Compromise and responsibilities are the cornerstone of conservatism.
I hate to say it but when your a young man, sex is sex and to a woman sex is love. Talk to your son and daughters and straiten them out.
My point was to show the irony of a person who’s running on a “pro-family” platform is also a member of a feminist organization. What is the main point of feminism? Pretty much that they don’t want others, especially men, to tell them what to do. That’s fine. Then you have men, who don’t particularly like for anyone to tell them what to do. So, when push comes to shove, if a husband and wife both want a career outside the home, and have kids, then what? Under the feminist/”masculinist” worldviews, neither has the responsibility to raise the children. So what’s the answer? Either latchkey children or daycare, which aren’t exactly the most wholesome methods of raising children.
Now yes, single parents have to do what they have to do, whether because of death or a deadbeat parent leaving. No problem there.
Just struck me…
Palin is a Woman who expects equal rights….
NOW is made up of Women who want to be treated the same as men…
My wife went through three S-Sections.
Each time, she was quiet, focused, and most probably scared. But, she didn’t show it.
I will forever be in awe of her. She carried, birthed, and breastfed each child.
I may be much stronger than a woman, but I can’t imagine how much courage it takes to go through what they go through.
For that, I cherish and adore my “Pookie.”
As for the rancorous feminists, the majority are most likely lesbians or man-haters who have no use for men. It may be that simple.
It probably disgusts them that Sarah debased herself with her “guy” and spawned five kids.
A single older woman from Viet Nam who I know says she is all but shut out of higher education curriculum development for universities here in California because of her straight sexual orientation. She and another straight woman she knows go to educational conferences that are primarily coordinated by and dominated by lesbians.
I guess only gay liberal women are deserving of praise and support by NOW. Straight, religious, successful married women are only worthy of scorn.
My wife and I compromised, which resulted in living below the poverty line for fifteen years. We raised three great adults as result. It was a good decision.
You know, I am all for banning ANYONE who uses the phrase, “Republicans are morons.”
I see enough of that all over the Internet. Don’t want to read it here.
Hope you let ‘Pookie’ read your comment. She’ll, “awe shucks“…
Brava! Well said.
This is the typical “slippery slope!” nonsense that comes up all the time. Gays aren’t asking for marriage to be changed in any other way beyond the recognition of same sex couples. Gays want, and deserve, to be included in the traditional marriage system. Polygamists have been trying to gain access to marriage for years, and the opening of the institution to two people of the same gender who love each other isn’t going to change that the answer they keep getting is “no!”.
Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands and Canada for some time now, and I’m pretty sure that marriage still means two people of adult age. I’m pretty certain that people aren’t marrying children or their pets.
Will someone please explain to me why the government got into the “marriage” business to begin with? This institution began as a religious, sacred union created by God for His Church. Once again, we have all these issues and problems because of government’s instrusion, trying to change the nature of what the Church began and it’s purpose.
GO.LIVE.THERE!
Lefties keep trying to change America. Yet there are plenty of Socialist counties they love. Just MOVE to one of them?
Leave America alone.
Just move to one of them should have been a statement, not a question!
MissCheryl – I guess I should have hit refresh before making my suggestion.
Count my comment as an ‘I second that.’
I doubt that. Most gays have 100 sex partners in their lifetime. They probably want benefits and rights which make them able to steal jobs.
The “traditional” marriage system was recognized civilly as the means by which families have children and raise them in the best possible environment.
While not all marriages are perfect, it is most beneficial for children and adults to live in a traditional, nuclear-family structure.
Which is not what gay marriage is. It is a forced re-definition of that traditional, beneficial structure.
Omu, so why shouldn’t we give polygaists the right to marry? If we are going to redine marriage from it’s original meaning of two people of the opposite sex to include two people of the same sex, why can’t it be made to accomodate multiple persons?
You may laugh at the concept of the slippery slope, and in a sense you are right. Redefining marriage to include gay couples is not lik a slippery slope, but more of a cliff. With no definite bottom.
You can not tell me that the legal ramifications of gay marriage wouldn’t set a precedent. This is about the language of the law and the maintenance of a stable society. What legal principle would prevent further erosion of marriage standards?
In the last 20 years the number of traditional marriages per capita, where gay marriage is allowed has dropped by 50% Marriage has lost its meaning in those countries. Is that your purpose or do you just what to be accepted?
Omu
The only thing you will gain with legalizing gay marriage is survivor death benefits. Even heterosexual couples, if they both work, will completely lose all of one of their “contributions”.
What you don’t understand is that conservatives would rather have the entitlement money that is paid to health insurance and SS to save and invest for themselves.
It looks to me that your looking for a free ride sport.
The real statistics for sexual conduct are;
Male homosexuals have approximately 76 partners in a lifetime.
Lesbians have 35
Heterosexuals have 7
Ask Omu which union makes for a more stable society.
Omu, I don’t think the slippery slope argument is wrong.
In Placer County, the marriage licenses now read, “Party A” and “Party B.”
Not “Bride” and “Groom,” not “Husband” and “Wife.”
I don’t believe gay unions should be called, “marriages.” “Unions” should suffice.
Otherwise, the definition of marriage as it has been practiced for generations before us is being altered against the wishes of the majority of society.
If a subculture of society wants something that differs from the accepted definition of marriage, they create an institution that is unique to them. That I can accept.
What about taxes?
My mistake but I thought liberals like taxes. You do have a legal right to form a general partnership or combine your incomes as corporation. In ether case your taxes would probably be lower if your in the high income bracket. If your in the bottom 50% you would probably not pay anything.
I’m single. I’m not in a relationship.
Why should gays get a tax preference over me? Because they’re living with someone with whom they’re engaging in sodomy?
I understand the preference for married couples. It’s an institution created to encourage stable families for the rearing of children.
That doesn’t apply to gay people. The whole argument for gay marriage is ludicrous on its face. It’s just one more way to discriminate against single people.
Isn’t being alone enough punishment? Isn’t not having sex enough punishment?
I guess not. You people have no compassion at all.
Even in states where gay marriage/civil unions are legal, you cannot file your federal taxes jointly.
It’s not the fault of gays that you can’t get laid.
“Getting laid” isn’t the problem. My reasons for not being in a relationship is none of your business, nor do they relate to the question at hand.
You didn’t answer my questions, did you? Why should I have expected you to answer without insults? You have no compassion at all. Just your agenda. Typical.
GladzKravtz, re: 149, well 141 was me…
if you think about it 1968- 2008, forty years, right??? I used to think that when the last of the hippies died we could move on, so to speak… but they have left a few demond seeds to carry on it seems… can you imagine Pelosi in bell bottoms & tied dyed?