Anti-Prop. 8 mob: It’s over. You lost. Move on.
I think it’s time for Democrat leaders to counsel the anti-Prop. 8 mob to stop the protests and accept the will of the people of California.
Tell them to leave the churches alone. Tell them to stop blocking traffic and impeding businesses and harassing elderly couples and targeting donors.
It’s over. You lost. Move on.
With almost 11 million ballots tallied, Prop. 8 had 52.3% of the vote, with 47.7% against. Although many ballots remain to be counted, the 500,000-vote spread is viewed as insurmountable.
You know how those Obama supporters have launched their treacly “healing” website, “from 52 to 48 | 48 to 52 with love?”
Maybe Prop. 8 supporters should do the same thing.
If you are a Californian who voted for Prop. 8 and want to send a healing message to a sore loser who voted against it, feel free to send me a photo, e-mail, or comment and I’ll create a separate “from 52 to 48″ post.
***
Previous:
Schwarzenegger pours fuel on anti-Prop. 8 fire
Unhinged losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics
Who supported Prop. 8?
First graders take school field trip…to teacher’s gay wedding
Public school politicking and Proposition 8
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
- Baptist Church to picket burial of Obama’s grandmother » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- Left Of Center
- Radical gay group terroizes Mount Hope Church, Lansing, MI | blogs4God
- Dan Cleary
- Traditional Values Still Fighting On Even Under an Obama Presidency « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Ignorantia Juris » Archive » Hmmm
- California Communist Party aka Democrats (plus Arnold) « Bob’s Bites
- Obama and his followers make McCain and Palin still look good! « Riggword Weblog
- Legislators throw the democracy baby out with the Proposition 8 bath water | Neolibertarian at large
- Prop 8, YES - NO | BigMouthFrog
- Stocks drop, Bum Ninjas “rock,” Big 3 don’t see the clock « Mark Epstein
- Memo to Michelle Malkin- Move on, please…. | Political Byline
- Michelle Malkin » Who will quell the anti-Prop. 8 rage?
- Proposition 8 Protestors Getting Out of Control « Trust, But Verify
- The Daily Conservative
- The Strident Conservative
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Power Line
» The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
Mudville Gazette
» When the wind won't blowMudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part I)Legal Insurrection
» Hacked E-mails or Else!Pundit & Pundette
» About last night's voteJustOneMinute
» "Unequivocal"?NewsBusters.org
» WaPo's Dana Milbank: 'The Senate Really Has 100 Blanche DuBoises'
and the arguments of homosexuals looks like a mob of brown-shirted thugs…racist thugs.
very true. and he say’s he’s not gay…but he sure is filled with hatred just as they are for anyone who dares disagree!
ROFL – Omu, you should re read the posts so you know where you are coming from.
I believe Right4Life was specifically speaking about a pejoritive term/word used in the south to belittle AA’s. Longhorn said “Boy”. It would appear, Right4Life is AA.
It was a “trash” statement – even if Right4Life wasn’t. So what is your point?
(So was his statement about about a HOT girl in the elevator but only if she were doing it to HIM)
please, in the other thread about this subject, you admitted to hating anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda.
But it wasn’t inspiration from Jesus when the passages on shellfish, crops etc. were written? C’mon, such a glaring contradiction is entirely unfair.
Leviticus 18-22 ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
yes, obviously it was. but this same Jesus declared the ceremonial parts of the law over when He came to earth in the new testament.
Of course not, you just wouldn’t mind seeing Christian clergy arrested for refusing to perform a gay “marriage” or for speaking out against a sin (as is their God given right protected by the First Amendment)
We believe you, we really do
I don’t hate those that seek to make life as hard as is possible for innocent gay people, but I certainly dislike them a great deal. Hatred is for those very people, not for me. As cheesy as it sounds, I believe in love and I don’t believe in denying it to anyone based on something as silly as gender.
Folks:
I am saddened that our culture/society/nation has descended into the abyss so far that voting on laws/constitutional amendments about the legal definition of marriage are even contmplated, much less necessary.
The definition of marriage, for Crissake!
I should add, these laws/amendments quite possibly might not be sufficient; because, ultimately, several arrogant, appointed, unaccountable elitists can decide to nullify the will of the majority of the voters.
That just pure enrages me.
Judges are not “interpreting” the law, in the sense of explaining to us rubes what the words are saying.
I know English at least as well as any judge.
They are abusing their authority, and advancing the cause of their opinion, of their worldview…a worldview that is completely, 180-degrees, diametrically opposed to that of traditional Americans.
With respect, much of the above discussion is a distraction…blah, blah, blah, rights, blah, blah, blah, civil, blah, blah, blah bigot, blah, blah, blah… – cleverly and masterfully created by the socialists/statists/etc, as they always attempt to do, and are often successful at – from the basic, bedrock issue.
I think we are fast approaching the point, if we are not already there; that our culture war is going to become a visceral, existential war of cultural survival; as important, and as hot, a war as is the struggle that one engages in for one’s own, personal survival.
The opposite-world-view-holders are existentialist, materialsist, and nihilist.
They deny, and ridicule, and have an apparently visceral hatred for, the idea of the existence of a person’s soul. They believe man is it; and that this life is it; and that there is absolutely nothing after we die.
Hence, their preoccupation, their ferocious pursuit for unfettered money, power and sex; which, it could be argued, are themselves just manifestations of, and convertible into, each other.
Beacuse that is all – all – that they have.
They have nothing – nothing – in common with traditionalists, with religious folk, who believe in the existence of a soul, and of a force, or presence, or being that is all-powerful; and that transcends mere mortal man and his intellect.
Why else would existentialists/socialists/statists/materialists/collectivists have polar-opposite positions on virtually every, if not indeed every topic discussed at this blog, or in society and politics in general?
The topics:
belief and reverence for the eternal essence and identity of, and noble, desirable purpose of marriage, versus the belief that marriage can mean whatever one wants it to mean;
capitalism versus socialism;
individualism versus collectivism;
the belief in the right of individuals to bear arms versus the ferocious support of tyrannical gun control;
“fair” or “flat” taxers versus “progressive” (read confiscatory) taxers;
believers in an individual’s responsibility for his actions versus the excuse-makers;
the belief that punishing good behavior leads to less good behavior, and that rewarding bad behavior leads to more bad behavior, versus having no conception of the meaning of the immediately preceding phrases;
the belief that there exist some moral absolutes, i.e., a sense of “right” and “wrong”, versus a belief in moral relativism and situational ethics;
the belief that the zygote, let alone the embryo or the fetus, by virtue of its 46 chromosomes, is an individual, deserving of the respect of, and protection by, society and the state, irrespective of the inconvenience to the parents, and yes, even to the woman, versus the belief that the zygote/embryo/fetus is just a “clump of cells” or “not a sentient being” or “cannot live outside the womb”;
the belief that Man is imperfect, and that perfection is not possibble on this Earth, versus the belief that Man is perfectible, if only power, sex, and money are applied in the proper manner and in sufficient amount;
…and on and on and on….
Time does not permit the listing of any more examples of oppositely held positions.
But, I think my point has been made that I do not believe for an instant that there is any true, sincere middle ground between the two worldviews.
Smoke and mirrors can be used to create the false appearance that middle ground has been reached; sort of the way U.N. “resolutions” and “talks” create the false appearance that the U.N. has actually done something.
But, the papered-over conflict will soon erupt again, and again, and again….
There is no genuine middle ground between denial of the soul and belief in the soul.
There is no genuine middle ground between believing that killing a conceptus for convenience – for convenience, for Crissake! – is no big deal; and believing that it is a horrible, reprehensible act (again, remember that word convenience).
There is no genuine middle ground between a sense of right and wrong, and a sense of responsible, fair, prudent and honest judgment (which mistitled “judges” hardly ever seem to demonstrate these days); and the silly, meaningless, anything-goes ideology of multiculturalism.
There is no genuine middle ground between humbly and realistically viewing Man as imperfect, and in need of “outside” assistance, versus arrogantly viewing Man as a malleable, perfectible thing.
The two worldviews are irreconcilable.
They cannot coexist and leave each other alone.
The struggle will not end until one dominates – not necessarily completely eliminates – the other.
The struggle is getting visceral, dirty, and personal.
Imagine now, we traditionalists, who, after all, built our present nation/society/culture – which, by the way, took centuries of struggle – , are being told, warned, dictated to, that we have to change.
Dictated to by those who are essentially cultural, moral and societal parasites; who, at every opportunity, tear at the fabric and stability of our society and culture, and take from our society, while contributing nothing helpful, while adding nothing.
The opposite worldview-holders believe that laws and proper, respectful behavior are simply “there”;
that our democratic republic and our Constitution are just “there”;
that money for social engineering is just “there”;
that food and clothing, products and services, etc. are simply “there”, awaiting only proper, “fair” (re)distribution;
again, and on and on and on….
The existentialists seem intent in killing the goose (work with me on this metaphor) that provided the golden eggs of modern society, that the existentialists think were simply “there”.
What they are trying to do to us is no less violent in its ultimate goal and result; than if they were to attack our city, our houses, our very persons, and tried to burn and pillage us.
The future is not going to be pretty.
I believe we traditionalists ultimately will win, and win decisively – but it’s not going to be pretty.
My apologies for the length of my essay.
My apologies for the sometimes strong words and feelings.
But, dammit, I’ve wanted to say this for a while.
Here is a link to an article in the National Review that refutes much of the criticism regarding Ronald Reagan, funding for AIDS and his attitudes towards homosexuality.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200406101057.asp
Omu, have you already made up your opinion, or can I confuse you with the facts?
part AA, part Indian, part white..more white now…I’m a mutt!!
oops native american
Omu Said
Most idiotic statement made on this thread I’ve read.
Most gay men do not want marriage, and if they do, it is a perversion of marriage, such as what swingers do. Bath houses in San Francisco during the 80s and even now is about having as many sexual partners as possible. It is the heightened sexual arousal of new conquests, such as sex addicts are know to crave. Mayer Frankenstein and the governor were prime contributors to the AIDs epidemic. They refused to close down the bath houses even when they were told this by credible scientists. These idiots thought it would be hateful and anti-gay to close the bath houses down. But the advantage of being a democrat is that one can rely on the media to put the blame on the leading republican. Closing the bath houses needed to be a function of the mayor of San Francisco with the support of the Governor.
Has this happenend in Massachusetts? Did it happen while gay marriage was legal in California? Eh, no it didn’t. There’s no reason to believe priests will be imprisoned as a result of legalised gay marriage. You are delusional to think so!
Well – live and learn. Did some searching. I had no idea this was specific to African Americans. I learned my lesson and I sincerely apologize.
but the catholic charities in MA had to exit the business because the state took away their FREEDOM to not place children with gays….
and that was before gay marriage…gay marriage will only make it worse…
no prob!
That is simply revising history, I’m afraid.
Nancy Reagan was not homophobic, no. It was her hairdressers that begged her to sway her husband on doing something about AIDS. Ronald Reagan may have been a good conservative, but his reaction the AIDS crisis was utterly disgraceful and it makes me sick to my stomach that the people who suffered the physical effects of this horrific illness, as well as the most dreadful stigma, could not rely upon their president for any help during their crises.
ROFL.
You are mistaken. I don’t know of a PERSON let alone Christian (maybe there are a few) that will go out of their WAY to make life hell for another. (Innocent…oh yes, poor innocent gays
)
What I do see is Christians attempting to keep a hold on being able to practice their own religion and not having the STATE tell them what to do. For this they are called Hateful, Homophobic, Intolerant and Bigots.
Keep it coming. (by the way OMU you have not answered ONE of my direct questions)
You are woefully ignorant and willfully dense. Clergy and Christian businesses have been sued or thrown in jail for speaking out against a sin and it has already happened and I know for a fact EQ has given you links to such cases. If I have time later tonight I can dig them up for you again…
AGAIN WITH THIS. You are joking? Why is it Reagans responsibility to be sure people wear condoms? What about heterosexual couples who got the disease. Are homosexuals more important?
By the way, BATH-HOUSES in San Francisco, I see as a quoted item often for Reagans responsibility for not closing them (ya, if he did, I can only imagine the fallout from that – being discriminatory). But know this. What did Jerry Brown and Diane Feinstien do to close the bath-houses.
This is such a ridiculous argument.
This attitude is shameful. What have gays collectively done to warrant such hatred?
There are many questions and counter arguments being thrown in my direction. I cannot read (let alone reply to) them all. If you could ask them again, I’d appreciate it.
Ohhh, omu. Even as you bleat, gays are trying to do just that.
I like this post from the Fark thread:
No one would be forced to perform a marriage for anyone that they didn’t want to. You know how I know this? Because gay marriage was legal in California for a few months, and wouldn’t ya know it, nobody was forced to preside over a marriage that they didn’t want to. It’s worked like that in other states that have allowed gay marriage, too.
All the other stupid myths espoused by conservatives about gay marriage, that it would magically undo laws against polygamy and incest, for example, have been similarly disproved by these few states’ gay marriage experiments. That’s right. There are gay people walking around in your country, married, and no religious conservative is affected. There’s no portal to hell opening up in the sky, there has been no divine retribution. So what are you complaining about? What are your arguments now, if all of your past arguments lay discredited in a heap?
Better just resort to ‘Because God says so!’, right?
Reagan never sought to help the victims of the disease, did he? He held back on AIDS funding, he never tried to correct the mis-information on the disease (that lead to horrific stigma). He just pretended it wasn’t happening.
I assume that certain activists who refused to cooperate with the CDC’s measures to curtail the disease during the 1980s also make you sick to your stomach.
My attitude being….because i disagree with your statement? What gives you the right to make a blanket statement as to the “innocence” of all gay people.
ROFL. You’re really reaching for straws now.
Keep fighting the good fight, Omu. The best part about this is that Prop. 8 will be overturned by the courts and the Church of the Perpetually Offended will have something else to be offended about.
Why werent gays using condoms? There were other diseases out there other than AIDS. Surely, they knew that?
Where is the personal responsibility here? You want the government to now get involved in peoples sex habits?
#319 – Mookie – your argument is an utter disaster.
They certainly do! How does this excuse what Ronald Reagan (the president) did (or, more aptly, did not) do?
mookie clearly lost her argument on this thread. The term “yawn” is a weak response to logic.
No, but is that not what you espouse?
I can only hope it is overthrown by the courts. A majority of people should NEVER have the right to deny rights to minorities.
HEY ALASKAN DOES THIS HELP YOU?
Illinois churches are protesting a new state law that bars them from ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals, contending it robs Christians of their First Amendment freedoms. Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the bill into law on 1/21/05 amid a demonstration led by the Illinois Family Institute (IFI). The measure adds ‘sexual orientation’ to the state law that bars discrimination based on race, religion and similar traits in areas such as jobs and housing.
WHAT? ROFL. Show me where I said this.
Feeblebabe, I’m not trying to argue. That would involve caring about what the other side thinks and in this case, I couldn’t possibly care any less. I’m just enjoying all the cries and whines of “they’re persecuting us!! They’re going to take away our church/religion/god/bibles/jerbs!!”
Correct, Feebbabe, it’s absurd that people would blame Reagan (or anyone else for that matter) intead of taking responisbility for the extremely obvious consequences of their own bad lifestyle choice.
You drive 90mph the wrong way, against traffic, on the interstate and you can’t blame Obama when you have a head on collision.
Family Man – AND THERE YOU GO.
Let it begin. We are officially having to fight for our RIGHTS to practice our religions.
Socialism cannot survive with Religion in the way.
Here we go!!!!
What???? Why would you ask that? My post wasn’t designed to excuse anyone of anything. Did you not realize that?
Surely you know that if I wanted to take the time to defend Reagan against accusations that he is to blame for AIDS then I would have been quite successful in doing so.
#328 – Glad you are having a good time. Let me let you in on a little secret. Perhaps your rights will be infringed upon one day…and they will use something like religion as a tool or vehicle in which to do it.
Mookie, they proved that you are a bigot. I’m surprised that you don’t care.
Cry me a river. Let me know when teh evil gheys stop you from going to church or praying or owning a bible.
That is not the POTUS’ job.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOLKS, I CAN DIG UP 30 OTHER EXAMPLES FOR YA.
Yes, the proved that I’m bigoted against three-ways involving father and sons. My heart is broken.
Overthrown?
Please do FM
YOU ALL WANT MORE?
“Most of the country is aware by now of the five Christians in Philadelphia who were charged with numerous ‘felonies,’ while peacefully demonstrating (against a homosexual event) in the ‘city of brotherly love.’ District Attorney Charles Ehrlich charged the defendants were ‘hateful’ and proclaimed that preaching the Bible is tantamount to ‘fighting words.’
Ha ha. Are you not smart enough to understand the difference between an example and a principle?
They proved that you’re a bigot in principle. Period. The example they used is immaterial.
Indeed, it’s funny to see the anti-gay side paint themselves as victims of some marauding, menacing gay empire. I hate to break it to you, but you guys ARE the empire!
What? You mean if someone takes up using heroin they can’t blame the POTUS? What’s the world coming to when people are held accountable for their own actions!!!??
Remind me again why I’m supposed to care?
MORE
“Christians in Placerville, California, who are against those who engage in sodomy have been making their presence known the past few weeks with very large truck signs. One of their signs read: ‘Homosexuality is sin.’ Mike Kobus, a Placerville business owner told the City Council, ’Signs expressing hate of a specific lifestyle are not a way to greet people.’ A sign which reads ’Homosexuality is sin’ is now considered an expression of hate? The pro-homosexual groups rallied and began their worn out chants about ‘hate speech’ and ‘violation of civil rights.’ As a result of this pressure, on 2/10/05, Placerville’s Mayor Robby Colvin brought forth a proclamation declaring Placerville a ‘hate-free zone.’
It’s not the job of the president to ensure the citizen’s that he serves are doing ok?
You don’t have to care, Mooks; the message is: “Move on”.
Traditions, like marriage, are the result of a discovery process that encapsulates and transmits the collective will and wisdom of a people over many generations. Conservatives have no need to resort to a defense of marriage that relies on abstract logic because the process that produces this kind of bedrock institution transcends logic.
What’s that? Logic trumps tradition, does it? Sigh…. fine.
Consider the following, a simple modus ponens (if a, then b; a, therefore b.) If the following, argument A, is valid:
then the following, argument B, is also valid, because it shares the same form as argument A:
Can’t argue with logic. Its impossible to be for gay marriage and against polygamy.
You need a President to tell you not drive drunk, drink poison or play in traffic, Omu?
IS THIS ENOUGH? I CAN GIVE HUNDREDS OF EXAMPLES.
“A federal court ruled the city of Oakland had a right to bar two employees from posting a flier promoting traditional family values on an office bulletin board. Even though a flier was posted promoting the formation of a gay and lesbian employee association, when Regina Rederford and Robin Christy posted a flier promoting marriage and traditional families, theirs was ordered to be removed. The city manager and deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency declared the flier “homophobic in nature” and promoted ‘sexual-orientation-based harassment.’”
You’re not. Being a religious bigot is all fun and games for the gay agenda.
You didn’t see churches boycotting gay theatre companies and threatening violence to burn down gay bars when the California courts legislated from the bench and overturned the vote of the people. That lunacy is reserved for your side.
purplepeep bet me to it.
bet=beat…trying to type on a tiny laptop.
I’d like to see more! Keep ‘em coming!
Forget it. You’re not smart enough to care, bigot!
This isn’t about polygamy. It’s about allowing gay people access to the institution of marriage as it currently exists.
You are hopelessly confused, it seems. Allow me to break it down for you:
Gay marriage = NOT THE SAME THING AS POLYGAMY. Does this make sense?
I support gay marriage. My support of gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy.
The protests from gay people at this time are not about polygamy – it’s about gay marriage.
Is this making sense yet?
MAYBE ONE MORE TIME.
“Officials in Troy, Michigan have denied a group of Christians a permit to meet for National Day of Prayer observances—and may face legal action as a result. Troy city officials said this year’s planned meeting was strongly challenged by the Jewish, Muslim, and Indian community. Legal action is being sought.”
Agreed, let’s see more gay fascism and suppression of free speech at its finest.
I’ve run into a few people who are for across-the-board legally sanctioned hedonism, PD – homosexuality, incest, group-marriage, whatever. Don’t agree with them, of course, but at least they’re making a consistent argument.
When a politician supports gay marriage, does this automatically mean they support polygamy?
That sure is a big leap to make, right? Isn’t it unfortunate that so many hateful bigots need to clutch at straws and jump through hoops (like, for example, the ridiculous equation of gay marriage with polygamy) JUST to make life harder for gays and lesbians? It’s pathetic.
Actually, a few commenters here proved that Mookie is a much bigger bigot than you suggest.
She clearly would have supported Prop 8 if homosexuality was still illegal.
What does this have to do with gay marriage?
You know, it really is astounding that so many Californians fell for your outrageous mis-information.
It’s pathetic that you don’t understand the logic. I bet 30 years ago you would have supported Prop 8, too.
Exactly. Mookie and OMU, please try to make a consistent argument.
When I use a laptop the typos go exponentially, nlebou!
But even if Omu had the President personally call him every night to tell him not to but razors up his nose, should the President be held accountable when he does it anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_6_%281978%29
The “homophobe” Reagan was also against the Briggs Initiative, which would have outlawed gay teachers in school.
Rather than trying to refute any portion of the earlier posted National Review article, Omu responded
Omu’s response to these rebuttals is similar to young children sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “I can’t hear you.”
Hey Omu, they live off of hate. It’s what keeps them alive. They can’t survive unless they have something to be outraged against. It feeds their persecution complex.
I’m done for the evening but I really have to thank you folks for the laughs. Again, please let me know when the gays prevent you from praying, going to church, reading your bibles, etc. Omu, you’re doing the Lord’s work on this one. Stay strong.
The protests from gay people at this time is about trying to change something that the majority has already voted on. The vote did not go their way so they are exhibiting childish behavior thinking it will change what has already been decided by the majority.
Go away, bigot.
If you mean the devil then kuddos on the fine observation. He is a sin-peddler too…
Omu
THE LAW HAS BOUNDARIES
Without the absolute boundaries of marriage society can not be maintained. The “slippery slope” will exist when the legal precedent of gay marriage is allowed. How many variations of marriage will be requested. The Legal problem is once the absolute is passed civil rights laws must prevail and all forms of marriage will need to be allowed
I was all set to vote to not allow gay marriage, but my wife, whose best friend is gay and wants to marry, asked me to vote to allow marriage. So I did.
If the Missus tells you to jump off a bridge be sure you have someone call an ambulance beforehand.
Okay, so you have no problem with gay marriage per se? You’re only skeptical of where it might lead? Am I correct?
When all else fails for liberals, sue, sue, and sue more. They just can’t stand the democratic process we had here in CA, and they lost. Get over it, and move on.
You can’t shove the agenda of a few down the throats of millions of Californians. And to call us bigots, racists, and every other name in the book only dilutes the meaning of the word.
You’re doing yourselves no favors.
Variations of marriage
Man woman
Woman woman
Man man
Man woman woman woman
Woman man man
Man woman goat toaster
Man boy (NAMBA have already discussed to issue)
Get you mind strait troll. All societies set limits on deviant behavior for survival.
It’s a legal issue sport.
when Gavin Newsome was running for5 mayor he pandered big time to the glbt alliances . for there money and support . Then as soon as the judges in mass legalized gay marriage he saw it was time for a little political pay back to his backers. even knowing the people of Californian votes a few years earlier to define marriage as between a man and a women by close to 70%-30%. every illegal marriage license the city of san Francisco gave out was a clear violation of the law . did anyone get brought before a judge to face the charges? No the city spent tax dollars to have the city attorney fight the will of the people. If you really wanted marriage there were ways to go about it the legislation or the ballot . they chose neither chose to disavow the will of the people of the state and now once again when the people speak they whine cry and throw a hissy fit. I guess its true everyone has the right to make a complete jack@$$ out of themselves.
Get over it you lost deal with it .
Let them request as many variations as they want. Do we have to permit them? Of course not, why would we? There are laws against things like bestiality and polygamy, after all.
Tell me, in the few months that gays could marry in California, how many people came out in the open and insisted they should be able to marry their dog, their sister, or the local Roller Derby team? If the answer is none, then your entire argument falls apart. Do you see?
Family – I have been at it the better half of the day on the “LEGAL” issues which arise for those who wish to practice their own beliefs.
Omu has the brain capacity of a wet mop.
Digshot Are you really that blind? It’s 100% certainty that deviations will be demanded. Polygamy will be the first.
Are you implying that the only difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that there are laws against polygamy?
Digshot, you have a brilliantly logical mind.
I’ll have to remember that one. If my opponent’s answer is “none,” then his entire argument falls apart.
Did you learn that one in law school?
Perhaps you should go back and read my posts before you start slandering my charachter. I never said they were evil.
I’ve expressed EXACTLY how (in my posts above) how they CAN impede on others who desire to practice their religious RIGHTS under our constitution.
One ear and out the other.
I dont belong to organized religion myself. But I can appreciate their position when a STATE tells a RELIGION what they must believe and if they dont they will suffer monetarily (e.g. revokation of tax exemption status or lawsuits).
This is SOCIALISM. This is bullying. This is not about Homophobia or discrimination.
There is a problem when religions get involved in the governement. There also is a problem when Government gets involved with religion.
Look at Islam for example. It is Religion, Politics, Social, Economic and Legal all merged into one.
Wouldnt you agree? Religion and politics dont mix? I think so.
So why do homosexuals want to FORCE religion to accept them using a legal and political vehicle?
It doesnt make any sense.
Again, gay marriage was legal in California for months. It’s legal in Massachusetts, and has been for years. So where is the polygamy? Why isn’t it pervasive, why is it not even on the national radar, except in the feverish minds of paranoid Republicans?
It would have happened by now if it was going to happen.
Hah. I can but laugh at your incredibly weak, consistent attempts to turn someone’s logic on them. He OBVIOUSLY did not imply that – that’s what YOU ARE implying.
Honestly, I think that’s what we’re dealing with here.
I doubt any of them could make a coherent legal argument against NAMBLA.