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.

Comments

1. #701
   On November 12th, 2008 at 7:58 pm, Khyris said:

   AniMEL,

   Just wanted to say thanks for being a thoughtful, informed, and intelligent poster. That wasn’t being said and it needed to be.

2. #702
   On November 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm, FamilyMan said:

   Hopeless trolls.

3. #703
   On November 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, AniMEL said:

   Omu, I’m not anti-gay, I’m a lesbian. I agree that redefining marriage itself will, in fact, put us on a slippery slope. I’m perfectly fine with civil unions; I think we should leave marriage alone.

   Nobody is saying that you think polygamy should be legalized. But you have yet to give a solid argument as to why gay marriage should be allowed and polygamy and incest shouldn’t. I have to admit, it’s a difficult argument to make, that’s why I agree with them.

4. #704
   On November 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pm, AniMEL said:

   Oh, FamilyMan, quit bein’ so grumpy! You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar, man, lighten up!

5. #705
   On November 12th, 2008 at 8:22 pm, Khyris said:

   I will take that challenge:

   Omu, it is not that you openly support polygamy, it is that the legal methods you wish to see pursued WILL support polygamists as well, as they are equally applicable. Again not confusing sex with marriage, although the two are closely related, polygamy is a marriage between parties in respect to their chosen lifestyle. This has nothing to do with the (il)legality of sexual acts involving minors, rape, incest, etc. A Polygamous marriage necessitates none of these. In fact, group-sex is not illegal if it were at all pertinent, even though polygamists generally only interact with one partner at a time. A recognized polygamous marriage COULD even be 100% abstinant. Again, the sexual habits have nothing to do with the recognition of marriages based on arbitrary lifestyle choices.

   If you make the legal argument that any party A may join with whomever they feel satisfies their lifestyle choice and force others to call it a valid marriage, then there is a legal precedent that can be used and reused in exactly the same formula for other lifestyle choices. To declare that word definitions may be altered on a whim to satisfy the convenience of any negatively affected party is legally volatile. If society wishes to change the definition of a word, it must happen naturally over time, not by judicial fiat as happened in CA before this proposition.

   I’m not speaking in terms for nor against gay marriage… nor looking to get dragged into this right/wrong debate… just trying to clarify the concerns presented in this aspect.

6. #706
   On November 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm, corkie said:

   On November 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pm, AniMEL said:

   The APA has stood firm on a child’s inability to give informed consent to sexual contact, and I very strongly doubt they will ever change that position.

   AniMEL, I appreciate your civility, but your statement is a bit disingenuous.

   The APA has not stood firm on an any age of consent. They have never defined the word “child.”

   But you do agree that chronological age is irrelevant when presented with a subject whose “mental capacities” differ greatly from the norm.

   I assume this means you would be ok lowering the age of consent for a subject which possesses much greater “mental capacities” (for example, a six sigma outlier)? If not, then your asymmetrical application of a mental capacity criterion seems quite arbitrary.

   Can you please explain the foundation of your doubts that the APA will not “change that position?” I’m sure your familiar with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV. To make matters worse, they quickly reversed their language in IV thereby changing their “position” when politically pressured – NOT as a result of research.

   You might want to reconsider hitching your wagon to the APA train. You might not like the direction it takes in the future.

7. #707
   On November 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm, flmom said:

   AniMel, I’m so glad you recognize most here are not anti-gay, and the issue we are arguing is also not anti-gay. In fact, I think the gay community would best serve their agenda by advocating that all states recognize civil unions for those gays in a committed relationship, viz-a-viz gaining health benefits that married couples enjoy, visiting sick partners in the hospital,etc. I would hazard a guess that there are not many straight people out there that would deny gay couples these simple humanities. To me, this is a win win situation, the gay community have the validity of their union recognized and the straight couples get to keep their definition of marriage intact.

8. #708
   On November 12th, 2008 at 8:36 pm, purplepeep said:

   AniMEL said:
   Purplepeep, what makes me a Christian is my faith that the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross paid the penalty for my sin. The debate comes in where I say I no longer believe homosexuality to be sin. That’s what we have to agree to disagree about. I used to teach on the issue, I know it all too well.

   Thank you for your thoughtful reply, AniMEL. Yup, it sounds as if we would disagree on the sin-nature of homosexuality. But I think it is a thematic constant throught Scripture. And, like you, I believe I am quite well versed on the topic.

   If you are talking about just the tendency to be inclined or drawn to one particular sin – or sin in general – as opposed to an active, unrepentant involvment in it, that’s another thing. All have sinned and all are tempted to sin, even after they have found saving grace – and sometimes they fall. That’s part and parcel of the human condition.

9. #709
   On November 12th, 2008 at 8:57 pm, The_Livewire said:

   Yeah? I’m pretty sure you didn’t say what the flaw in my argument is with that paragraph. If Criteria A is about there being a man and a woman, yes I am saying that Criteria A is wrong. If Criteria B is that the two can’t be related, and Criteria C is that the two are of age, yes they’re okay. What’s the flaw there?

   The flaw with your arguement, as I see it, is you’re saying that Criteria A is wrong, and should be removed. I’m saying that it’s society that would decide to change that criteria, over time they may. By relying on a minority (the courts, in the case of CA, CT, and MA) to remove criteria A, they remove any defense of NOT removing criteria B and C for whatever reason.

   I take it from your reply, that you agree that the arguement ‘everyone except gays can do it’ is incorrect?

   In CA, the majority of the people have said that critera A needs to be retained. I’m not saying it’s good or bad that this decision has been made, just that it has, 30 seperate times.

   Now my opinion? It is opposed to yours. Marriage means a union between one man and one woman. Gay Marriage is best achieved through making a legislative equivalent. Call it what you want, call it Fred for all I care. It’s not marriage in the traditional sense, so why co-op the name?

10. #710
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm, The_Livewire said:

    Please explain to me how polygamy is the same thing as gay marriage. Please explain why you think you can do my thinking for me, and conclude that I must support polygamy because I support the right of same sex couples to get married. Not one of you can explain any of it.

    I have, with your own words. Choosing not to reply to my statements makes them none the less valid.

11. #711
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm, corkie said:

    On November 12th, 2008 at 8:36 pm, purplepeep said:

    If you are talking about just the tendency to be inclined or drawn to one particular sin – or sin in general – as opposed to an active, unrepentant involvment in it, that’s another thing.

    Let’s face it, purplepeep. You don’t have too look very hard to find active, unrepentant involvement in many types of transgressions. I’d certainly hate to think of it as an automatic disqualifier, but you make a good point.

12. #712
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:26 pm, SoCal said:

    TROLL = “Someone who doesn’t agree with me.”

13. #713
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:30 pm, purplepeep said:

    corkie said:
    Let’s face it, purplepeep. You don’t have too look very hard to find active, unrepentant involvement in many types of transgressions. I’d certainly hate to think of it as an automatic disqualifier, but you make a good point.

    Indeed, it’s not very hard to find any kind of sin in this world, Corkie!

    Some Christians struggle to let go of a “besetting sin” and it’s difficult to break a habit. I know of churches that have substituted grape juice for wine for communion because a believer came out alcoholism and the wine would be a stumbling block to him/her.

    We all would rather God overlook the sins of which we are particularly fond and with which we are comfortable. You quite likely know of the rich young man who came to Jesus and who had done “all the right things”, as far as he knew. Jesus said he lacked only one thing – to sell all that he had and then to follow Jesus. Unwilling to let go of his wealth, the young man had to walk away from Jesus.

14. #714
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:42 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    On November 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, AniMEL said:

    Omu, I’m not anti-gay, I’m a lesbian. I agree that redefining marriage itself will, in fact, put us on a slippery slope. I’m perfectly fine with civil unions; I think we should leave marriage alone.

    Can we clone AniMEL to have debates on this issue? Omu and DigDug have ignored her the whole 700+ thread because they hate seeing someone from the gay community not agree with their agenda.

15. #715
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:48 pm, flmom said:

    I’ve already asked if AniMel could clone herself, so far, no takers.

16. #716
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:49 pm, FamilyMan said:

    I really really don’t care who you sleep with but the radical gays are destroying any tolerance they have may have earned with their extremist demands.

17. #717
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:29 pm, AniMEL said:

    I dunno, guys…ask my parents, you might not want another one o’ me runnin’ around.

    

    I hear you, Corkie, I use the APA because on many issues they have been pretty consistent. Every psychologist I know says the same thing: no child is really capable of understanding the depth of sexual contact and are often severely damaged mentally by being exposed to it too early. As for six sigmas, yes, it’s entirely possible they would be able to meet age of consent criteria, depending on their understanding of the real world.

    FamilyMan, I have to agree with you. I just watched live footage of a crowd in Palm Springs attacking an elderly woman and it made me so mad I’m about ready to spit nails. Those guys make the rest of us rational folk less likely to be taken seriously, and it’s infuriating.

18. #718
    On November 13th, 2008 at 12:50 am, happy2behere said:

    LGBTs are human beings and as such are entitled to the same rights as other human beings. Society also benefits when people form stable long term relationships. In my mind, domestic partnerships fill the bill for the above.

    I wouldn’t even care if it was called marriage, except for one thing. I am afraid that there will be discrimination lawsuits against the churches for refusing to marry LGBTs. Therefore, I do not support “gay marriage” per se, unless there is a guarantee that religious institutions can keep their convictions without the threat of bankrupting lawsuits.

19. #719
    On November 13th, 2008 at 6:38 am, Omu said:

    LGBTs are human beings

    Reading through the comments in this thread would make you wonder if that’s true or not …

20. #720
    On November 13th, 2008 at 6:46 am, purplepeep said:

    AniMEL said:
    I dunno, guys…ask my parents, you might not want another one o’ me runnin’ around.

    It’s always a nice compliment when somebody asks something along the line of “Are there any more at home like you?”.

    I had nine siblings, so I’d have to shrug my shoulders and go “eh, yeah.” (And, no, my family wasn’t Catholic, lol.)

21. #721
    On November 13th, 2008 at 9:38 am, corona said:

    The thugs who attacked a 75-year old woman also stomped on a cross.

    The white sheet has been replaced by the rainbow banner.

22. #722
    On November 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pm, purplepeep said:

    corona said:
    The thugs who attacked a 75-year old woman also stomped on a cross.

    The white sheet has been replaced by the rainbow banner.

    In that vein, a couple things that may be of interest to you, corona:

    “The Pink Swastika”

    Also, in the 1980s an agenda was penned by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill – they called it “The Overhauling Of Straight America” which pretty much laid out the homosexual plan of attack.

    On reading it, you’ll see the propaganda/manifesto/agenda has been carried out to the letter. (Marshall Kirk would later, in the 90s, expand and expound on the attack plan in a book titled “After The Ball”.)

    If you google “The Overhauling Of Straight America”, you should find the text online somewhere.

23. #723
    On November 13th, 2008 at 7:12 pm, Sidana said:

    for all those that saying “there is no slippery slope”… .just epxlain why we are where we are now. Once upon a time they told us we would never have to worry about this question.

    Here it is. You can’t tell it won’t go to the other. I don’t care about your stupid goofy arguements about Taxes. What taxes? It hought only those making 250000 would be rich enough to pay it (yeah I know)

    You just don’t answer any of the questions as to why not. TAxes is not enough when someone is screaming “civil rights”. You can’t even define what those are, and why you have to have marriage to have yours filled.

24. #724
    On November 14th, 2008 at 12:16 am, AniMEL said:

    Purplepeep, I’ve read parts of what you’ve mentioned and it’s garbage. Yes, a large part of the vocal and visible gay community goes by that. There are plenty of us out there, though, that have enough common sense to know better.

    Sidana, you forgot about Obama lowering that number. Hell, I’M in his upper-echelon tax bracket now!