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
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsMudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Um…. no.
If this is only a RECENT development, you then beg the question…How can it then be prevelent?
Whoooaaaahh. Coming from someone who has made every retarded attempt to use out of context and paraphrased bible passages to attack Christians who DONT AGREE WITH YOU as somehow being intolerent homophobes.
Omu- IVE ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS, yet you refused to respond to mine.
By the way, You speaking of gender these days (as A MAN) as being non existent is so freaking sexist and laughable it is damn near off the charts. Like hell “same-sex” marriage pushers will be allowed to use the Women’s rights argument on my watch.
You are a dim bulb.
I feel like a law professor with a 3rd grader in his class. (Hint: You are the 3rd grader.)
Yes, he did imply that.
It is quite simply surreal to watch anti-gay mouthpieces flail and clutch at straws in order to justify their bigotry. I mean, you’ve just listed a number of ways that marriage could go without even explaining how it relates to allowing gays to get married. I mean, seriously, what’s going on in your head?
And to be honest, I feel sorry for those that wish to deny gay people happiness. What kind of sad, bitterness you must all feel that the only way for you to feel big and important is to beat down on gay people.
That’s how Americans have ruled on the demands of militant homosexual groups here – Americans “just said ‘No’”. America put it’s foot down – it’s time for those into the homosexual lifestyle to accept that judgment and move on.
In fact, those into “alternative lifestyles” other than homosexuality have for years been citing homosexual advances as leading the way:
USA Today – Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy
Hey deviates
Get ride of the civil rights laws and you may have a case. LEGAL PRECEDENT CAN NOT BE IGNORED .
Another genius remark.
Omu, I honestly don’t mind you speaking out in favor of gay marriage.
However, I’m very surprised at your level of hypocrisy on this issue.
Read: On November 11th, 2008 at 8:19 pm, purplepeep
“For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law.” from purplepeep link. Does that sound familiar?
Then why does religion have to permit same-sex marriages?
Step off the victim platform before you turn blue (literally).
What part of “Life Liberty and Property” are gays being denied? As far as happiness…happiness begins with the PERSON.
This whole argument is absurd.
Gay marriage has been legal in Mass. for quite some time. Why then is the polygamy movement not getting off the ground? Why has the cause for polygamy not advanced even a footstep since Mass. began allowing gay marriage? We’re no closer to polygamy today then we were 10 years ago. The slippery slope argument becomes more and more of a joke as more time goes by, more gays get married, and more nothing happens. The longer you hold on to this nonsense, the sillier you look.
You INTEND to legally sanction gay marriage but not polygamous marriage, but your efforts will have unintended consequences that you neither envision nor endorse. That’s the point of conservative objections to rational constructivist restructuring of existing institutions.
Yes, I am confused. I assumed everyone above the age of, oh, say 12, understood the relevence of an argument by analogy.
the right to marry whomever you want = the right to marry whomever you want.
Can you wrap that butternut squash you call a head around that?
We’ve yet to engage in an extended correspondence, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that your brain is fully functional, just stuck in neutral.
You appear to be undeterred by the fact that:
A)marriage is traditionally defined as being a union between one man and one woman; and
B)a majority of Californians voted to enshrine said definition in the state’s governmental charter.
You reject both tradition and the will of the people in favor of an abstract logical position. I, in turn, challenge the logical coherence of your position. It is perverse in ways you fail to acknowledge.
By obliterating the existing standard of traditional marriage, you open the door for others who also object to the “arbitrary,” traditional marriage standard of one man and one woman. If the man/woman thing is unnecessarily arbitrary and violates the civil rights of individuals to enter into the kind of relationships they want, why then isn’t the part about one man and one woman also unnecessarily arbitrary?
You support gay marriage on the basis of civil rights, and in that regard, you are making an argument that is also applicable to polygamous marriage, whether you wish it to be so or not.
Your position undermines the basis for an existing traditional bedrock institution, and you have an imperfect understanding about what could ultimately fill the void if you actually succeeded in eliminating it.
Plural marriage advocates will ride on your coat tails and use the form of your arguments to achieve their goals.
You see, a preponderence of conservatives reject homosexual marriage because it is contrary to tradition. On what basis do you reject polygamous marriage?
Polygamy is the next civil rights battle.
Setting aside religion, FeebB, I think the important point here is that the American public have always decided not to permit redefining marriage to include homosexuality.
How many FLDS compounds do you have there? I’m guessing zero so there is no one interested in pressing the issue. Try it in Utah and see what sort of court challenges you will get.
For how many years was same-sex marriage illegal before it was forced on the populace by tyrant “judges”? The homosexual demands are just the opening of a Pandora’s Box of social ills, to pave the way for other abnormal behavior to be legally sanctioned by out-of-control courts.
This statement is based on nothing.
First, do you mean legally? Culturally? Etc? Please explain your baseless statement.
Then, please explain how this statement, even if true, is relevant. If the legal framework is in place for an initiative to occur, then the fact that the initiative has not yet occurred is irrelevant.
You must be a divorced person…
Literal LOL – snort out loud. Funniest comment all day!
Nope, I’m just not into the cuckold lifesytle.
Rebellion seems to be the hot topic tonight!
That should be “Henpecked lifestyle”. With al the alternative ones around these days it’s hard to get ‘em all right!
Two words for that Blue 52…
Bite me…
OMU,,,, you claim that Jesus never condemned homosexuality and yet the New Testament says that every scripture of the bible including the old is inspired by God (Second Timothy 3:16) and yet Revelation ch. 21 verse 8 it says that all who participate in various sins such as adultry, murder, immoral, liars will have their place in the lake of fire. Not only homosexuality but these other types of sinners will face this prospect unless they are born again. Unless you are born again and have the Holy Spirit guiding you will not understand or make clear what the verses mean. I don’t know how much longer the Lord will bless this nation if they keep sending up the stench of sin to Him and His patience is limtited before His curses will come about. Remember how Sodom and other similar cities benefited from this. As for the shellfish, didn’t you know that Jesus revealed to Peter that now Christians can eat what was considered unclean. Therefore foods such as ham and shellfish are free to eat.
Actually the anti prop 8 crowd has moved on. They are all in Minnesota trying to steal the election away from Norm Coleman, who won fair and square. This is a replay of the 2000 Broward County fiasco where suddenly registrars of voters announced that they missed hundreds of Gore votes by “clerical errors”. Rest assured that the anti prop 8 crowd and their lawyers have traveled to Minnesota to steal that election.
Save your breath. Rebellion will not listen to reason, truth, or anything. They are full-mode into turning scripture on its head for fleshly desires. Sometimes I think that God has already given some over to that depraved mind we read about. There may be no turning back for these people, especially when the numbers and support of the lifestyle is growing. The last thing they want is anything to make them feel guilty, which scripture does quite well.
Hey trolls
Go home and have sex with any man, women, pit bull or vacuum cleaner that you want, but don’t ask our society to indorse your perversions with the institution of marriage.
Orthodox Christian faith notes that Jesus is God – from eternity to eternity. i.e., He is the “I AM” God who issued the comdemnation of homosexual activity as an “abomination”.
Also, Jesus quite clearly states as the world spirals into moral decay it will be “As it was in the days of Lot, even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed’ and cites Lot’s fleeing from Sodom in particular (Luke Ch 17).
Jude 1:7 -
“Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.”
Dear Michelle:
BO will sink lower than Sodom.
The “Free Mumia” crowd will soon be celebrating his Presidential pardon and the convicted cop killer can perhaps become BOs press secretary. I hope you will start writing and talking about this upcoming disaster do that BO will pay the greatest political price possible starting now.
So, how do you explain what happened at the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, MI? Is this your idea of “funny”?
When they do it to us, its funny.
When we do it to them, its a hate crime.
As if any further evidence of how truly and absolutely consumed by a bizarre hatred the Christianists are, you are now going back in time, inventing a word for homosexuality and placing it in the Bible.
There was no word that accurately described homosexuality in the days of the Bible. So that you would re-write the Bible and include that word is undeniable proof that you are simply egregiously biased.
As for Sodom and Gomorroh. I’m pretty certain that even a rudimentary reading of that story shows that the cities were destroyed for the sin of being unwelcoming.
No, I’m not. I never mentioned polygamy, or even considered it as part of my argument. My support is for allowing gay people access to marriage – it has nothing to do with polygamy. This is pretty simple – why isn’t getting through to you?
You err because you don’t know scripture. Go read it.
Are you inventing the word “Christianist”?
Due to this board’s rolling over every hundredth post, you might have missed post #400 by Prime Director who stated why polygamy comes up rather well (IMO).
LOL. Laddie, I suspect you’re right inasmuch that demanding angels bend over and grab their ankles isn’t the best “welcome” to one’s town. Well, maybe in San Fran…
“The men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”
(Genesis 19)
Sorry, but from the days of ancient Judaism to now, there is no ambguity at all as to the nature of homosexuality being an abonation. It’s a thematic consisent throughout Scripture. Unless, as you say, you wanna have a go at “rewriting” at least several millennia of written history to make it “homosexual-friendly”. Even then you’d still be incorrect and mired in massive denial.
OMU,, you claim all these Christians “hate” because they follow the commandments, because they follow their Lord and Saviour. If this is the case, then you obviously hate Christ because you seem to have trouble following His Commandments. You probably already know that Christians are hated anyway because He warned us that He said “they will hate you because they first hated Me”, OMU, you are just fulfilling prophecy. True Christians by the way don’t hate sinners, they just hate the sin and they are trying to get folks to understand the joy of Salvation.
You’re still not getting it. Gay marriage and polygamy are, in fact, two different things. They’re two different things. How many more times do I need to repeat this?
I’d take you up on that. Buddy, the polygamists still wouldn’t get any traction, especially in Utah. Mormons have been trying to drop the polygamy stigma for years.
And hey, the courts would reject the challenges, because polygamy is still illegal, no matter what happens with gay marriage, forever and always.
Are gays asking that people be allowed to marry whomever they want?
No.
They’re asking if they can have the right to marry each other. Everybody that argued against interracial marriage coughed up the same, laughable nonsense that you are. And like them, you’ll be on the wrong side of history, with your big, long, unbelievably stupid posts that you’re entirely too proud of.
Is that what your problem is? You think marriage is about society endorsing couples?
That’s one of the most retarded things I’ve ever read.
You just say that because you are a poly-phobic hater who want to deprive polypeople of their civil rights!
Condescension and ad nauseum is not an argument. No one is denying that homosexual marriage and polygamy are not the same thing. What we are saying is that neither of them are part of the traditional view that has also been the legal view to date. If a minority and the court has the ability to stretch one boundary, all boundaries are thereby weakened. Perhaps it will be as you say and only gay marriage will slip through the broken gate, but can you guarantee it if a court is willing to set a precedent on this?
You’re okay with breaking one traditional norm (gender) but somehow believe that another (quantity) will then be considered protected. This is the point we are making.
Again, this is not an argument on my behalf on whether or not there should be gay marriage. However, one thing that Prop 8 was intended to address was a clear definition of how California would view marriage. Perhaps this is why there is no context included about what to do about the already married gay couples.
None of this, of course, justifies the behavior that was the original topic of this posting by the homosexual protesters. You’re quick to lump all Christians into a stereotype of hatred, but see no irony in how these protesters are acting. It’s certainly not out of love.
Should we now paint all homosexuals by the actions of these few, much as you have maligned all Christians?
OMU does seem to sterotype all Christians into this hating everything that is not Christian, now I can just see him trying to out argue the Lord in what Sin is and what isn’t. His Pride is so high that he can’t even see it. Remember OMU, the Lord already said the world will hate us and you can’t seem to figure out why.
You’re talking about two different boundaries. One boundary, the one that’s keeping polygamy at bay, is the rule of law, and you’re right. If you push the boundaries of laws, you risk breaking them.
The other boundary, what you would call ‘marital tradition’ perhaps, is some stupid relic from a discredited, pointless cult that has nothing to do with reality. That is the boundary that gay marriage is pushing up against, and the only thing that jeopardizes is the church’s dampening toeholds on power and relevance. Your religious traditions have nothing to do with me, my girlfriend, gay people that want to get married, or the law of the land. If that boundary is broken, nothing will happen and nobody will care.
Not ‘will be,’ is. Not to repeat myself, but gay marriage has been and is legal in parts of the country, and the sun still came up, and George Bush’s approval ratings continued to plummet, and polygamists were still socially outcast law-breakers. That is the precedent. Gay marriage has ’slipped through,’ and nothing else. Can you even deal with this reality? Gay marriage is being openly practiced in New England, and the world is still spinning. How many years are you people going to keep this slippery slope nonsense up in the face of irrefutable evidence?
Woo, another bigot! Guess that poll that showed that 92% of Americans believe in God must really sting when you’re trying to talk down to them as a “discredited, pointless cult”. Say hi to your buddy Richard Dawkins for me and wish him a Merry Christmas!
Did I say you explicitly endorsed polygamy or did I say
Refresh my memory: which did I say?
ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE? On the basis of the 14th amendment, I’ll wager i.e. on the basis of a constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law. Why does the 14th amendment equal protection clause apply to a homosexual’s right to marry another homosexual but not to a polygamist’s to enter into a plural marriage?
If you’re referring to your argument, it is beyond simple; its non-existent.
An argument includes at least one premise and a conclusion. You dispense with arriving at a conclusion through premises and simply restate your conclusion over, and over…
Hah, again with the vain attempts at turning my logic against me. It didn’t work the dozen or so other times you tried, it’s still not working.
I never once stated any opinion on polygamy. And do you know why? It’s because, contrary to what Salt believes in all his delusions, gay marriage and polygamy are unrelated. I’m having considerable trouble understanding why the Christian right cannot make this entirely simple distinction.
In fact, I’m fairly certain that all of the arguments againsty gay marriage is just thinly veiled biogtry. I know for a fact not one Christian genuinely believes that their pastors will be locked up, that the institution of the family will collapse or that bestiality, incest and polygamy will all the legalised if we start allowing gay marriage. There’s simply nothing at all to back up any of those talking points, so either the anti-gay Christian base is rampantly delusional or they are just using this nonsense to disguise their horrible, horrible hatred of other human beings.
There’s an impassable chasm between immutable characteristics like ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation and the totally voluntary ‘lifestyle choice’ of belief in fairy tales and immortality. Bigotry is when you seek to divide up people based on the immutables. On the other hand, you’ve chosen to believe in a bunch of fairy tales and hocus pocus, and I’ve chosen to question your intelligence. You can either respond by trying to convince me that there’s any, even one, good reason for you to you believe what you believe, or you can clam up and pretend like I’m oppressing you. But that’s not bigotry. That’s having an argument.
I support gay marriage on the basis that I do not think gay couples are second class to straight couples. It’s really that easy. In fact, calling it ‘gay marriage’ is slightly misrepresents my idea because I don’t see it as being “gay” marriage, I just see it as a marriage. It’s not even creating a new right, it’s just allowing other couples access to it. Not once when I was formulating my opinion on gay marriage did I take polygamy into account. And I hate to belabour the point, but it’s because gay marriage =/= polygamy.
I’ve tried over and over to simplify this for you. If it still does not make sense, then I guess you are a lost cause.
As of right now in California, Prop 8 is the rule of law.
Is there even a reason to discuss this with you when you obviously feel it’s more important to discuss your opinion of religion?
Paranoid much? People voted for Prop 8, not a church. Do you believe all of them are religious?
You’re not even arguing the merits of the legal case here, just a continuing screed against Christianity which may or may not have been the underlying reason why Prop 8 was passed. Just because some news media said that the vote was influenced by Hispanic, Christian voters? I assume you do not hate Hispanics and would not make such a claim, but you seem to be just fine with railing against Christians.
Where is the tolerance of the left now?
You know nothing of my religious traditions. I could be an atheist for all you know.
However, you would be historically inaccurate to suggest that religious traditions have nothing to do with the law of the land.
Apparently voters in California cared enough, so this argument is moot.
We were discussing California and Prop 8.
Polygamy is also legal in “parts of the country”, but Massachusetts and Utah were not the basis of this topic.
Do tell me the relevance of Pres. Bush to Proposition 8. Or is this just the typical liberal shot when logical arguments break down?
You make a false assumption here. I couldn’t really care less about gay marriage. What I am interested in here (which I have stated a couple times) is on the legal nature and the potential precedent that could be set by a court.
This is not a logical argument.
Sharia law is still practiced in the middle east… and the world is still spinning. The Communist Chinese still oppress the populace… and the world is still spinning. People will kill other people tomorrow… and the world is still spinning.
Do I think Gay marriage will end the world? Of course not. As I have already repeatedly said, I care more about the fact that it is done through due process. I believe what you are attempting to say, albeit poorly, is that gay marriage will not affect my life.
Here’s a shocker for you: I agree. Again, I don’t really care about gay people marrying (or polygamists for that matter).
What I do care about is a judiciary branch that seems to always be increasing the scope of its authority and a populace that seems just fine with that so long as things go their way.
How many comments will be posted where you continue to ignore the topic of this thread? Namely, the disgraceful behavior of those that are targeting Christians for having the “audacity” to vote on a proposition?
And here I thought we were having a discussion.
Attempting to discredit my points by simply coloring me as delusional is also not an argument. I was not the person that brought up polygamy, either. I just made a point on why others here have.
Are you interested in having a discussion? Or are you only interested in repeating your conclusion over and over and labeling anyone who challenges the conclusion as crazy?
You’re being obtuse. Is it intentional?
No. In an earlier post, you wrote that polygamy is prohibited by the rule of law, while gay marriage is prohibited only by a religious marital tradition. No one could possibly intend to be that obtuse.
Gays ask for gay marriage because they want same sex spouses. Polygamists ask for plural marriage because they want multiple spouses.
The rule of law in CA says marriage is between one man and one woman. You say that this law is unconstitutional, because any law prohibiting gay marriage is wrong. But the polygamist says the same thing about prohibitions against polygamy. Why is your position reasonable but the polygamist’s unreasonable?
Its funny. You say gay marriage is an equal rights issue on par with the crusade to end racial discrimination during the civil rights era. But the very people in whose name you evoke the civil rights legacy deny the legitimacy of your movment.
Its easy to try and make an inapt analogy in the name of some spurious claim of civil rights.
Allow me:
I guess that means same sex bathrooms is a civil rights issue, too.
OMU and the others who think likewise,,,, What bible verses and commandments make them RIGHTWING???,, I am ammused when the athiests cast that term around?? You think you are impressing the Lord??. Think again, on Judgement Day you silly excuses won’t hold water and ignoring me won’t help either. Blaming George Bush on that Great Day won’t hold water either. The Lord Jesus will simply say ” Depart from me you who practice lawlessness”. Whether the Lord comes back today or waits two thousand more years its best to be prepared before He does and not to be in the middle of sin when you have been warned repeatedly.
And which amendment guarantees equal protection under the law? The same one that potentially guarantees plural marriage: the 14th amendment.
Don’t feel bad about not knowing anything about the constitution. Apparently, the vice president elect doesn’t know much about it either.
We’re talking about a difference in kind, not degree. Traditional marriage is a reunion of the separated biological dyad, a coming together of complements in a symbolic image of wholeness and fecundancy. Gay marriage is sterile, incomplete and narcissistic.
That was my point all along.
Failure to take this into account is an indictment of your position.
The right to marry who you want = the right to marry who you want.
If gay marriage ain’t all that bad, then why is plural marriage? Why are you so threatened by the notion that gay marriage is legally compatible with polygamy. I’d really appreciate an answer.
(btw, the equivalent to the “not equal” sign on your keyboard is the tilda ~)
Fine. Just don’t assume that you’re entitled to the last word.
If you’re satisfied that you’ve honestly done all you can, then just walk away.
Doubtful. The guiding forces of pro-8 voters are intolerance, ignorance and fear. If they believed in things like love and healing they wouldn’t have voted YES.
Personally, I’m against polygamy. I’ve got one wife (Indonesian), who’s a handful, much less add 2-3. I love her to tears, but 2-3 of her will have me carted out in a straitjacket. Gay marriage isn’t about love; it’s about government benefits. They want their handout too. We’ve already got some weirdos who want to marry their dogs. It’s all about tax benefits and “what the government can do for me”.
The bottom line Digshot, homosexuals are deviates and perverts. No that is not slander. Look up the meaning of the words. Six thousand years of human history validates the social disgust of the practice. Your endorsement of gay marriage is a cry for acceptance that can never be. A society lives within boundaries that are beneficial for it’s stability and homosexual practices fragment the necessary limits within the law.
Yup, typical for the Left. When they lose an election, it is their M.O. to declare Voter fraud and Tampering. When that is clearly not even possible for them to do, they resort to going to the courts and have the court legislate from the bench, overturning a legal election, throwing out the legal will of the people.
In California, the Left has basically turned the election Process, especially where the Propositions are concerned, into an absolute joke. Anytime they lose, regardless of how much money they spent in lies and dis/mis-information prior to the election, or how much time was spent threatening their opposition, intimidating their opposition, etc., they immediately file legal motions and briefs before the ballots have even been certified in order to overturn the outcome.
This is NOT the way this country was meant to be run.
While there are safeguards against discrimination of minorities, there is also the “Will of the People” that MUST be upheld.
Why is it ok for YOU to discriminate against the beliefs of so many? Why is it ok to treat the MAJORITY with the same disdain you claim is wrong against your side?
Since the minority of the people voted for McCain, should we then not be allowed to sue to have Obama thrown out as President-Elect? After all, I, for one, am completely and totally against his being elected, am being discriminated against because I did not vote for him, am being forced to live in a country run by a person i did not vote for nor wish to have as my President etc.
By the logic that the anti- Prop. 8 people…who don’t even LIVE in this state…are using, we should be able to have the results of the majority of people in this country thrown the hell out and allow McCain to assume the role of President-Elect.
Minority votes lose. That is what happens when you have an election. Allowing an election to be overturned just because you do not agree with the outcome FOR WHATEVER REASON cheapens the election process and negates the need for them entirely.
Your side lost. As it did across this country. GET OVER IT! Stop discriminating against those that do not have the same views as you. You are no better than the people you are demonizing. Just because you say it is wrong, does not make it wrong. People are entitled to their feelings and their beliefs…just like you are. Don’t like it? Don’t live here.
As for the shellfish, didn’t you know that Jesus revealed to Peter that now Christians can eat what was considered unclean. Therefore foods such as ham and shellfish are free to eat.
Hog wash!! Read the rest of the text. Peter was instructed to teach the message to the gentiles(unclean), not get a plate of oysters and a ham sandwich. Those items on the plate are not considered foods to this day, not because of any Jewish laws, but because God says they are not food. Noah knes the difference between clean and unclean animals. Noah was not a Jew.
And where was all this “48/52″ crap for the last 8 years? Where was all this, “oh we lost, but hey…we will all be OK, we will all get behind the President and we will respect the people who voted for George W. bush” for the last 8 YEARS!
Sorry, but this is just pandering crap.
You want to impress me? then apologize for every last thing that has been said and done against Conservatives, President Bush etc. over the last 8 years. Start “reaching across the aisle” to the Republican side. take the brakes off of things like Bush’s Tax cuts and put the rest of his judicial nominations through.
If you think I, for one, am just going to forget about the last 8 years of crap that the Left has been carrying on about just because they put an anti-Americanism, anti-Constitution, racist, Socialist in the White House, you have another thought coming.
And if anyone thinks they are even the least bit sincere with this crap, I have a bridge in the Sahara I need to get rid of…
I believe you have found your problem right there, laddie. What you define as your “own logic” is correctly viewed by others as nothing more than a series of emotional explosions. There’s no clear thinking, much less logic, to it at all.
As I’ve said, and Omu can’t refute, state recognized marriage is not a right, it’s a privilege.
Now that said, taking Omu’s complete quote, he’s pro gay marriage, pro polygamy, pro marrying your dog, pro marrying a cartoon character, since the smallest minority is a single person, and Omu is saying that a minority should not be denied any right.
Hey perverts
The NORMAL biochemical endrocine system response to homosexuals is one of repulsion. You cannot equate civil rights struggles of women and racial minorities with homosexuality. One is an unfounded bigotry of normal biological diversity and the other is a deviation from human normalcy.
The natural law for human survival creates the repulsion to mating with the same sex. Natural law will eventually overrule the illogic of civil rights laws. Discrimination is a normal and necessary part of being human.
FamilyMan, I understand your passion on the topic and I certainly agree with you, but prefacing reasonable remarks with things like the above detracts from the good points that follow.
Good morning purplepeep
The word pervert is an accurate description of homosexuality and not a slur.
per·vert (pr-vûrt)
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts
1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt.
4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort:
Good morning purplepeep
The word pervert is an accurate description of homosexuality and not a slur.
per·vert (pr-vûrt)
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts
1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt.
4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort:
opps
purplepeep
My intention was to provoke a discussion but not to insult. On second thought, you may be right, but the irrational passions of the homosexual advocates needs to be countered with an aggressive and passionate dialogue.
Sometimes the posting mechanism burps out a double post, happens to me about once a month or so.
Good morning, FamilyMan. I would say that terms such as “perversion”, “abnormal” and “deviant” can be correctly used to define any activity that is not the sexual norm.
E.G., “homosexuality is a perversion of the sexual norm” is a correct verifiable linguistic and scientific observation.
But that is an observation on the activity. When such adjectives are converted to proper nouns like “deviant”, “pervert” (or “perv”) they become personal attacks. (Especially if they come after a “Hey!”.)
It’s 100% on target to note that there is (always has been) biological, social and civilizational norms. But I don’t believe it’s helpful to re-form terms descriptive of a behavior to use them as a personal salutation. I think it is helpful to make that distinction.
I don’t think in the long run you are all going to win this one…
Perhaps it would be wise to allow conservative gays to have a political home. All the religious self-rightousness about god hating homosexuality turns off a LOT of people. I am VERY conservative, and I know it makes me shake my head.
I mean, Republitards have turned off blacks, mexicans, gays, and most other religions… just keep being holier than thou, and you might well be living in a liberal nation where your religious freedoms are curtailed.
THANK YOU purplepeep I understand.
My passions sometime overrule my civility.
Oh, that never happens to me!
(Hahahaha – if ya believe that ya wanna buy a bridge?)
SoCal
I’ve been attempting to argue against homosexual marriage on the legal grounds of NATURAL LAW. I agree it’s impossible to argue this issue using religious morals values. I’m constantly tempted to do so, but courts will never accept the premises.
we’ve been winning every vote so far.
not if that means compromising principles. forget it.
thats a stereotype of the homosexual community. they constantly accuse their opponents of being ‘hateful’ when it is really they who are full of hate.’
I thought it was because they didn’t practice what they preached. and your solution is?? pander more than the democrats? buy them off? its a waste of time, you’ll never outpander the dems.
and if you sell out your principles…then why even bother to have a republican party? they’re the dem-lites now…and see where it has gotten them.
Well, you are all making the decision, I guess..
Daily Kos site down, SoCal?
I wouldn’t know. I want to have conservatives win. Not losers like Bush and McAmnesty. And just choosing a black like Michael Steele to lead the Republitards so that blacks can be in charge everywhere just doesn’t seem right to me.
What the Republitards are doing isn’t working… The young people see you all as haters. They are looking for freshness.. and your stale old religious crap just ain’t cutting it.
Folks:
Related to what I said earlier (in the essay in #300 above – undoubtedly eyes glazed over…Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZZ), this issue is but a taste of what is to come, of what we will have to confront and struggle against again and again and again and….
In the words of John F. Kennedy, we are in for a “long, twilight struggle”.
God save, protect, and strengthen us.
I’m not a religious man. I’ve arrived at my social views through logic and the observation of the natural laws we find ourselves living under. My final social morality just happens to coincide with those of strong religious virtues. I do believe that Natural Laws are a creation of our Creator and therefor are in agreement with those of faith.
The law of nature is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be evoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right , although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.
Oh, well, who can argue with such a commanding display of reason, logic and facts such as that?! (You forgot to drop “Bu$hHitler” into your deep thoughts there – but I digress.)
granite
I agree. This is going to be a long fight. I’m up to it. How about you folks?
It won’t be for long. This is one of those tyranny of the majority type of problems. The California government and the American ideals of representative democracy worked when the courts identified an injustice and corrected it. Prop 8 is simply another injustice, and it too will be corrected.
What else is there to talk about? This is a religious issue, religious people made it so. Take some responsibility.
The reasoning behind those votes is universally religious, which is to say that it isn’t reasoning at all.
You want me to call Hispanic, Christian voters idiots? Fine. Anyone who voted for Prop 8 is an idiot.
As for the merits of the legal case, that’s not even an issue. Gay marriage opponents don’t have a leg to stand on in that realm.
I’m not going to tolerate panicky homophobes. Sorry.
The judiciary branch is specifically designed to handle issues like this.
Meh, what’s the point? Once you guys start talking about activist judges, you and I are just not even in the same dimension anymore.
oh please, sounds like democrat talking points. us stale old religous folks are the base of the party, good luck winning without us.
what BS. why bother to have a vote, when you have fascist judges to tell us how to live?
Gay marriage IS THE INJUSTICE. it would severely curtail the religious liberty of christians, and anyone else who opposes it.
what it does to REAL families, and REAL children. and its disasterous, as we’ve seen in the netherlands.
you’re an idiot. seriously stupid.
more BS and lies. you’re full of it. the only way you can ever win is by having your totalitarian view imposed by a bunch of black-robed thugs. you’re a fascist little thug.
Lad, as we have seen time and time again, Americans will handily reject the tyranny of the very tiniest of minorities.
As Michelle sez: “It’s over. You lost. Move on.”
How is that not obvious? Polygamy really would change the definition of marriage, I mean good lord how would taxes work? Would employees have to pay benefits for your five wives? Gays aren’t seeking to redefine what marriage is, they’re simply trying to be included in the system that currently exists. That’s to say nothing of the fact that polygamy is illegal and the myriad of reasons why that is so.
Not funny, ironic. If you think I’m afraid of calling black people out for opposing gay marriage, I’m not. Nor do I think that a black person automatically has more credibility on the issue of civil rights just because they’re black. Everyone who votes against gay marriage is wrong.
Who’s being obtuse now?
Digshot
This not about religion. This about NATURAL LAW.
How can you be ‘not a religious man’ and invoke the Creator with a capital C in the same paragraph?
You’re off the deep end.
I didn’t evoke the Creator. Read again.
e·voke (-vk)
tr.v. e·voked, e·vok·ing, e·vokes
1. To summon or call forth
I love the conservatives that say they’re not religious, but they’ve arrived at the anti-gay marriage position through some other means, like NATURAL LAW. Whatever. Let’s all have a laugh and see if you can explain why NATURAL LAW means gays shouldn’t be married. It’s because the endocrine system makes us repulsed by homosexuality, or something?
like thousands of years of what works, and what does not.
That’s right, you invoked him. Oh excuse me, Him.
Also, I love the part where we start copying and pasting definitions for no apparent reason.
Are you talking about traditional marriage here?
Natural law is an accepted part of our Constitutionally derived Jurisprudence.
sure enough. and gay marriage is a disaster for traditional families, children, and for religious liberty.
Digshot
I copy and past to try to ground you in reality.