Are you proud of yourselves, anti-Prop. 8 mob?
I’ve blogged several times about how the anti-Prop. 8 mob hounded the El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles over the $100 donation of its longtime manager, who happens to be a practicing Mormon.
Now, read this — a closer look at how the mob ruined the manager’s life:
A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8
Pat yourselves on the back, tolerance bullies.
(Hat tip – Jane Q Republican)
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
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsMaine votes down gay marriage
November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
759 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dBabalu Blog
» Greece is BurningBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
ilovemycountry,
I have an ideal place for you to live. There is no bigotry there; no discrimination. It is a called a prison.
No one is treated worse than another. They all get the same sized space to live in, the same food to eat, the same amount of heat and light, the same exercise opportunities, the same television viewing, and the same access to things for laundry and hyigene.
There was a country that strived to be just like that. It was called Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot in what they called the Year Zero. The “progressives” in that country tried to stamp out bigotry by butchering 1.8 million of their fellow citizens, just over 25% of the total population. They didn’t tolerate the kind of bigotry you decry either.
I currently don’t go to any christian church. Yet the concept of religous freedom and the right of people to express thier views no matter where they come from, even the much hated christian bible or the koran, is worth paying the price. Because when we start censoring speech in the name of any-thing, including political correctness or to avoid “offending” someone, the first amendment is dead.
The point is the idea of marriage is not so immutable as many would like to believe, and that the Church does not get to monopolize the definition just because it has been in the business for a number of years.
Don’t believe me? Try praying in school.
But 5% of the population does get to. Got it.
Please note the exceptions in the last say – 6,000 years.
Polygamy–certainly not agreed upon.
Consanguinity –certainly not agreed upon.
Age of Consent–Certainly not agreed upon.
Interracial–Certainly not agreed upon.
chap, all still a man and woman.
Setting aside just what % of the country is homosexual, more than 5% of the country believes in gay marriage. You don’t have to be gay to support it.
My question was which definitions of marriage do not involve at least one man and one woman.
And I’m talking about “marriage” and not which sexual practices have been tolerated by which societies.
No, you asked me to show how the concept was not immutable over the last 6,00 years. And I really don’t see how, if we agree it is not immutable, that the notion of only one man and only one woman is all that more or less sacred than say, manogamy.
The question would not even be coming up unless that 5% were asking for it. (I have heard up to 10% but its the same concept)
Chap,
Marriage predates government as we know it today and occurs in every major faith. I contend government has no right to be involved in marriage or be even allowed to use the term.
I can say I am married. My fellow believers and my church can declare me married. If the State wants to say I am in a civil union, fine by me. I made my vows to my wife and my God, not to the State. If a man and woman marry in an other faith, I would agree they are married, having given their vows to their god.
The only reason I care if the state or business recognizes my status, whatever they care to call it, is if it provides me with some secular advantage in terms of taxes, insurance, health care etc.
If some church marries two gays and the state accepts it, that’s the State’s business. To the State I will render unto Caeser and recognize that civil union in the same secular context as my own. To the church that declared them as married, I say, it is not a marriage; it is sinful conduct.
THAT IS MY RIGHT.
chap, the only part of marriage that has remained the same is the man and woman thing. Based on that, child marriage is much more realistic than gay marriage. I see no reason to change that definition at this point beyond some PC fad that the weak minded have fallen for to avoid being called a “bigot”.
Nobody has said religous people “own” marriage. But that still doesn’t mean that the minority gets to dictate to the majority what is socially acceptable.
That being said, religious people certainly have a right to fight for their beliefs. Based on scripture or not.
To make the claim that somehow or another that, because of a nonexistant “separation of church and state”, it’s a marital free for all is, well, absurd.
I’m confused on a couple of things, Chap. Please help me to understand something.
1) If the concept of a one man/one woman predates the Chri8stian and Jueish churches, why are you so mad at the church for wanting to maintain it, when it is societal?
2) If you agree what changing marriage to mean 2 men or 2 women is the same as manogomy; why could the same argument not be made that allowing gay marriage will least to incestual marriages or child/adult marriage?
flyoverman, thats what New Zealand did. It simply disolved the legal concept of marriage and made them all civil unions. Thats why if you read a New Zealand news report, they call all New Zealand relationships, “partnerships”.
I thought conservatives were about personal responsibility and principal. People want to vote their religious convictions? Fine. People want to donate money to causes following their religious convictions as well? Hey, knock yourself out. It’s your money. And it becomes public record. And actions have consequences.
People want to use public records to shine light on people’s bigotry and hypocrisy? More power to them. People want to vote with their pocketbooks to reward supporters and punish those who would hurt them? It’s a free country, isn’t it?
If someone is willing to go on the record as supporting a cause that hurts people they claim to “love”– people who have faithfully given their money and business to the venture the person works for–, he or she has NO RIGHT to whine about being held up for their hatred by those he or she has harmed.
Nope, I asked you to name one concept that didn’t involve at least one man and one woman.
huggybear wrote:
And you don’t have any idea what that reason is if you think that standards that are democratically entered into law are somehow invalid because the motives of those who voted them in are rooted in faith.
You’re ignorant of the situation in California. There isn’t a single right that married couples have that registered same-sex couples in domestic partnerships/civil unions don’t have. The only difference is that one is called “marriage” and one is not.
No, more like “end of meaningless and dishonest debating device.” That works with people who don’t know what the Bill of Rights says about religion. It won’t work with me or with most participants here.
*y-a-w-n*
Even Jesus Christ was not against banning divorce. Think up something smarter than that, if you can.
TRANSLATION: The rape victim deserved to be raped.
Yes they do, such as appearing like brownshirted nazi thugs who attack an old woman for standing up for her ideals. Hitler would have been proud of those hate filled gay thugs.
The bigots and hate filled scum here are the GAY nazis, not an old woman.
Polygamy
Consanguinity
Age of Consent
Interracial
Socially destructive behavior can be proved or not proved.
Same sex marriages has already shown itself to be destructive.
And why leave livestock out of it? If I marry a goat, isn’t my “Nanny” perfectly capable of raising “kids”?
Yeah, pretty much. Christians *always* deserve it.
Sounds like a plan. Marriage was instituted by God; how depends on your faith. Having my ceremony results recorded at the courthouse means nada to me.
If the State wants to sanction unions between a lobster and a black bear, let them.
Are you proud of yourselves, anti-Prop. 8 mob?
I think the answer is “yes”.
These are leftist thugs, pure and simple. they are bullies, and the only way to defeat them is to stand up to them. I feel sorry for the lady but, in my opinion, for the bully-boys her tears are a sign of weakness. They will be encouraged, not shamed, by her reaction.
The only way to win is to stop crying, stand up and fight. A good first step would be for straights to reclaim Thursday nights…in big numbers.
And stop weeping.
Pure thuggish behavior from a bunch of morally bereft people. Bullying poor people. Can you imagine the ruckus that would be created if a religious group went after homosexuals for supporting prop 8. It escapes me why we should bend over backward accommodating these people. The vehicle of civil unions is already in place offering them the same benefits and privileges as married couples. This is about a minority group not happy enough with tolerance of their behavior. It would appear that we have to not only tolerate them, but we must embrace it and approve of their lifestyle as well…
The trials of Jobe. At least it will be peaceful without all those protesters when we get to the other side.
chapoutier wrote:
Oh, brother.
Your question is beside the point. The only issue is, does the government have the authority to define marriage?
If the answer is “no,” then there ought to be anarchy, and there should be no legal interference with anyone who wants to marry any other person regardless of gender, age, or familial closeness, and there should be no limit to the number of marriage partners.
If the answer is “yes,” then government — and the electorate that supports and instructs it — ought to have the right to determine what limits there should be on the institution in a legal sense. That’s what Californians have done.
I have yet to hear or read a proponent of same-sex marriage state for the record that s/he is dead-set against polygamy. I suspect the reason for that is that they would be admitting that they are, in reality, in favor of some limits to marriage rights.
CORRECTION: In post #121, I wrote:
What I meant to write was, “Even Jesus Christ WAS against banning divorce.”
Mea culpa.
I’m not someone who usually ascribes to the slippery slope theory, but if you allow gay marriages, then why hold them to the same standards as heterosexual marriages?
Why couldn’t two brothers or two sisters get married? Why not allow marriage of underage children (assuming that there is an assurance of the marriage not being consummated – like the San bushmen of the Kalahari desert who take wives as young as 7, but are not allowed to have sex with them until the elders of the tribe say it is acceptable).
Who gets to decide then, what a marriage can or can’t be. Should it come down to a vote, or should it be ruled on by non-elected officials (judges)?
Seems to me that the people of California have voted on this and that those who disagree with the results of the vote should work to try again (peacefully and legally).
foureyes (#119), I’m having trouble following your logic.
First, you are calling contributing to a political cause, pro-Prop 8, hatred. How is it hatred? Did Prop 8 say to kill all same-sex couples who want to be married? Did it say to make them unemployed? No, it restored the definition of marriage to the traditional one in the United States.
Were anybody’s rights changed? Nope: Civil Unions in California were not changed. So were was the hate?
Second, to actions having consequences, there is a difference between peaceful disagreement and intimidation and inciting violence against both a women and her employer. Withholding a tip is appropriate, not going there is appropriate, writing a letter to the paper and management saying why one is not going to the restaurant is appropriate. Terrorizing the place is not.
Actually, I hear that exact argument a lot in this discussion. Which further illustrates the arrogance of the proponents of gay marriage.
“Allow us to change this one aspect of the definition of marriage and no one will ever EVER change any other aspect of the definition”.
They can never admit that changing the of marriage definition to allow same sex marriage would lead to other types of ‘marriage’.
Because you can’t argue FOR limits if you’re going to argue it’s “discriminatory” to limit the definition of marriage to one man, one woman.
NOTHING can stop people – who are an even smaller minority than gays – from saying they have a right to “marry” based on their sexual preferences…be it polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia. If it’s discriminatory to say marriage should be A but not B, you cannot say marriage is A & B but not C, P, or Q….
I have often asked for a valid reason as to why marriage would not be extended to any number of types of marriage. The best response I ever got was the “ick” favor or just a solid, “that will never happen”. Given the hisory of gay marriage, both of those arguments are invalid.
Sure you can. I’d even bet you do. I am sure you would agree it is discriminatory to say marriage can only occur between people of the same race. Does that mean you now have opened the floodgate to allowing all sorts of absurdities, like marriage between a 5 year old and a 50 year old or marriage between a man and a goat? Of course not.
It is funny that people only begin to worry about the slippery slope when enough of THEIR preconceptions as to what is the proper definition of marriage have been satisfied.
Not nearly as fuuny as people saying “We demand you change the definition of marriage to something it has never been. But we promise that no one else will ever use this precidence to change it to something else. Trust Us!”
Why not? Its there a reason such marriages would be considered off limits? If so what is it?
Why is it that they were considered off limits even after interracial marriages were finally allowed?
Who defines “absurdities”? You? The voters maybe – oh yeah, that’s what happened…
I note you didn’t answer.
Oh, I see your problem now, Chap.
Marriage never has had a provision against interracial marriage. Those were societal constructs imposed by select groups. There is nothing about the definition of marriage that prevents people of two races or clans or families for marrying. By removing a bigoted governments laws against interracial marriage, marriage was returned to what it has always been, the joining of one man and one woman.
Understand?
I’m puzzled that gays are focused on going after Mormoms. If every Mormon in California had voted against Prop 8 it wouldn’t have significantly changed the results. There just aren’t that many of them.
Blacks and hispanics voted for Prop 8 in a big way. Why don’t the gay activists go after them?
You know what, arguig that gay marriage should not exist based on the will of the voters is one thing. And I think a much tougher nut to crack, from my side’s perspective.
Agruing that gay marriage should not be allowed because there exists some inherent definition or platonic form of “marriage” is entirely another and frankly I am getting confused as to which you are arguing.
Lets ask all those nice folks bak in the pre 1950s’ if they thought it was just a societal construct or an inherent component.
I’ll bet they would answer the same way you are now vis-a-vis gay marriage.
Apologies for my poor typing. This keyboard sucks.
Are you have a reading comprehension problem?
I did not say “in the last 50 years”, and I even admitted that it was the laws of a bigoted government that caused that. I said that tradinioal marriage EVERYWHERE does not now, nor has it ever had a provision in it concerning interracial marriage.
And trying to tie gay marriage to civil rights is an ignorant and offensive tact to take.
I am sorry. I must not have gotten my copy of the “Definitive Treatise on the Definition of Marraige.” What provision, exactly are you citing?
No, its not. And it is a hell of a lot closer an analogy to gay marriage than the whole bestiality and or pedophilia crap people throw around here.
Actualy you have never given a decent argument as to why that is.
No where in the Bible does it mention race in what is considered a marriage. That was a concept created by ignorant governments.
If you are going to insist against the will of the people that marriage include the perversion of homosexuality, then why not pedophilia, or beastility.
With the conduct of the gays in relation to Prop 8, you will forgive us if we do not trust your word on anything.
wait..
well super. I have tried to post twice now and they are not showing up.
Chap,
What then is your definition of marriage?
The union of two consenting adults? Anything in there about how closely related they can be (even if procreation between the two is not possible)?
Let’s start with a working definition then.
Alright…I will just give the cite. Dueteronomy 7 1-4. Does that proscribe interracial marriage?
chap none of those nations exist anymore.
The double-loop perversity of the Gaystoppo:
“We demand that you recognize us to be as legitimate as you, based on the term (“marriage”) that you invented, even though we hate you.”
A core problem with homolibbies is that they obsess far too much on what other poeple think of them.
If they had any maturity, they’d just ‘dis us regular folks, and enjoy the marriage-equivalent legal protections they already have.
It seems the only path these people have to an identity is to be a “member in good standing” of the Jamboree of Perpetually Hurt Feelings.
probably not, since apparently moses was married to a black lady…
My point about beastiality is that if the definition of marriage includes at least one man and one woman – and you say it does not – then absent either you do not have a marriage. But you say that we should change the definition, so where do we stop with the new definition? Pedophilia as we think of it exists today some places as marriage (and includes male and female), and has existed other places in times past – and therefore has precedent going for it. I have simply made the intellectual argument for beastiality as an option in our new definition, but you claim it’s absurd. Why? Bigotry? Who are you to say it shouldn’t be part of the definition? And so I’m asking – if we are re-defining marriage who gets to say what it is? Is it the majority? Then tough luck prop 8 Calis.
Your disgust at beastiality in a discussion of gay marriage only comes from thinking I am associating the two.
And no, I am not in favor of beastiality, I am saying your argument for re-defining marriage has no particular rationale for a limit on the new definition. Except for what you think is “absurd”.
Chap,
One would have to assume that the nations cited were ethnically different in order to also assume that this proscribes against marrying them. It had more to do with their beliefs than their ethnicity.
So then you’d be down with laws banning a Nonchristian from marrying a Christian?
It probably had more to do with the fact that these nations were busy trying to commit genocide on each other. To include the jews. Nothing to do with race.
the bible already proscribes that.
When I was younger, two brothers farmed together. One of them died unexpectedly. They had not planned well, and the surviving brother had to sell the farm. The standing joke was that if they had been married, the survivor could have kept the farm. which leads to my question:
If two brothers want to get married – lets say for tax/business purposes only – they have no interest in having sex with one another, would you allow that?
If not, why not. What rationale can you offer against them marrying?
Chap,
The bible (especially the old testament) has lots of stuff in there that I do not do. Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and sister (Isaac had two grandmothers, but only one grandfather). God not only condoned this marriage, but blessed it with a child when they (Abraham & Sarah) were both at an advanced age. This does not mean that I would ever condone marriage of close relatives.
Just catching up on the thread but I want to make sure I have my Gay Marriage Thread Bingo Card properly filled in. Has there been any mention of bestiality, Kurtz, natural law, the wedding photographer in New Mexico or Folsom Street yet?
Does your card include the terrorism by the gay community, attempting to co-opt the Civil Rights movement, and deliberate lies about the intentions of the Gays?
Maybe mookie will answer(doubt it).
Given that you support gay marriage, why then would you not support other types of marriage such as incestual or group marriages???
Hmmm….let’s see…yup, got the terrorism but I don’t have the deliberate lies nor the Civil Rights.
Chap has you covered on the other two, Mookie.
Following up on some comments…
I am not here to take part in whether the vote was right or wrong. I’m here to argue that there is nothing philosophically wrong with people protesting others. And based on the article, I can’t feel too sorry for Margie Christoffersen. She voiced her opinion and it had consequences. Welcome to freedom of speech.
Stan W : Equating boycotts and making people accountable for what they say is not the same as rape and “blaming the victim”. And to equate the two is to cheapen rape. What’s thuggish about protesting? There is no difference between this protesting — whether you like it or not — and what many pro-life protesters do at abortion clinics. If Margie Christoffersen’s not ready to stand up to those who would hurt her business, then maybe she should keep her opinions and donations to herself. Again…Words and actions have consequences.
Sonofdy: Just how does yelling and protesting equate with Nazis? To equate those who protest and break no laws with brownshirts is to cheapen those who have actually endured the horror of Nazism.
Kevin K: You can call it whatever you want but to me it’s hatred. If it makes you feel better to say you “love” those you deny rights to then so be it. It’s kinda like racists who say they aren’t against other races, it’s just that they’re “pro-white” or “pro-black”. Dress it up however you want but it’s hatred. Or maybe insecurity. Or maybe fear. But it’s not benign.
In addition, Margie Christoffersen is not just a “worker”. She’s the daughter of the owner. And judging by the age of her mother, it’s not long before she’s the owner herself. Don’t try to portray her as a struggling worker driven out of a job by an unruly mob. According to the article, no one was arrested and no one was physically hurt by the protests.
This was peaceful protesting in action. It’s the bedrock of our right to protest. After years of attacking the left as being all about victimization, it amazes me that those on the right are now the ones crying about victimization.
Grow a set and stand by your convictions. Whether it drives you out of business or not is beside the point. Wasn’t Michelle the one who talked about “principle”?
My basic point is this: we all have limits on who we think should be allowed to marry. Does anyone here think there should be no limits? Close relatives, underage marriage partners, number of marriage partners (simultaneous or otherwise), racial or religious bans. Should anything goes (marriage anarchy) be the law?
What limits do you have, and what rationales can you cite for them?
I have my limits and I cite religious instruction, tradition, and health reasons. These pretty much limit marriage in my viewpoint to one man and one woman, both adults, and not closely related.
Dude, I will spot you the civil rights thing, though “co-opt” is hardly the verb I would use.
But don’t be saying I am spreading deliberate lies about anything, let alone what the intentions of “the Gays” may be.
God, this question again? Can’t you come up with something different for a change?
For me, the answer is simple. Being gay is not a crime.
You said that she deserved what she got for voicing her opinion. That is blaming the victim, pure and simple. She exercised her First Amendment rights and had a bunch of terrorists decend on her. What would you think if the Mormons fouind out the supporters of Gay Marriage and sued them out of business? Changes your tune, doesn’t.
And to equate the thuggish behaviour of these gay idiots to the peaceful protests at abortion clinics shows a juevinile mind and a childish debate method.
“Words and actions have consequences”? So if several of us went to the resturant, waited for these terrorists to arrive, and we beat them to the gound with axe-handles, woould you think we were justified? After all, their actions have consequences? Or is it only people who refuse to think like you that deserve consequences?
So you admit you are seeking to impose your religious beliefs on others?
Only if you admit you’re trying to impose your hostile beliefs on religious persons. Or are you saying people with religious convictions shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
Prop. 8 was a democratically decided vote that garnered support from people from all walks of life. The 52% of people who voted for Prop 8 were not all Mormons or Christians or white or black or Hispanic.
You REALLY need to read the news more. I call them as I see them.
Try giving a good answer.
That has not always been the case. In fact incestual, child, forced and group marriages have all been legal at some time or another and in fact only gay marriage has always been illegal. Alright then do you support marriages of any kind as long as they don’t violate any CURRENT taboo? If so you do support incestual and other “questionable” marriages since things are not universaly illegal in this country.
Mookie,
You are right, being gay is not a crime. Personally, I think a person is born that way or not. My great aunt taught public school in western Nebraska for over 40 years. For 38 of those years she lived with another female teacher (their house had only one bedroom). Often, at Christmas, the only toys I got were from great aunt Mabel (poor childhood). When she died, all her possessions became the property of her only living relative (my grandmother – who did the right thing and gave them to the surviving partner). For this and other reasons, I support the right of gays or lesbians to join in civil unions.
Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious ceremony and should not be forced on people who do not support gay marriages.
What hostile belief is that, exactly? Please clarify.
Chap,
No, I am not trying to impose my religious beliefs on others. What limits to marriage do you support – or should there not be any limits?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#United_States
(i know, its wiki, but follow the links.) Mookie, your concept of the legality of the relationship being the determining factor in the legitimacy of the marriage would allow for incestual marriage.
Stan…You see her as a victim. I don’t. And there is NOTHING wrong with boycotts or protests when you disagree with others. Protesting — even if it’s loud and boisterous — is not terror and is not thuggish. And if Mormons want to protest those they disagree with and drive them out of business, I will support their rights too. I have no problem with those who yell at patients and doctors at clinics and I have no problem with people yelling at the owners and customers of a restaurant. You can disagree with others but still respect the tactic.
I never said violence is acceptable. There is a MAJOR difference between legal and vocal protest and beating someone up. When I talk about consequences, I mean lawful ones. To lump one with the other is not only disrespect peaceful protest but to misunderstand the simple difference lawful, legal protest versus violence. If any of these protesters laid a hand on Margie Christoffersen or vandalized her business I would be the first to support their arrest and prosecution. It’s called principle. And it knows no ideology on the right or the left.
http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
And in some states, mookie, your theory would support marriage of a child of the age of 12.
Your hostility toward the Mormons, Christians and others who believe marriage is a protected institution limited to one man and one woman.
Any time someone asks “So you’re trying to impose your religious beliefs on others” – it’s a clear sign of hostility toward those beliefs. Especially since – contrary to that bigoted Prop. 8 commercial – no Mormons or Christians showed up and forcibly made gays convert or threatened them with bodily harm.
Prop 8 supporters presented a case, people went to the polls and voted. If Prop 8 opponents wanted to win, they should have put forth a better argument than, “It’s bigoted, you stinkin’ bigots!” followed up by a hearty dose of thuggish protest.
I note the absence of violent protest in states where abortion measures failed as proof that the dangerous ones here are not the conservatives.
So – to reiterate: why are you seeking to infringe the rights of religious persons, and do you think religious persons should not have the right to vote?
chapoutier wrote:
sonofdy responded:
chapoutier ducked the question by asking another question:
This is a perfect illustration of what I am talking about. If you want to suggest there are no “real” rules to marriage and fundamental changes should be allowed, you’ll flail all over the place trying to find reasons why the types of changes YOU don’t want shouldn’t be permitted.
The grand irony is that if someone had argued in 1948 that the Perez v. Sharp decision striking down anti-miscegenation law in California would be used (or, IMHO, abused) by the same California Supreme Court as the basis of legalizing homosexual marriage sixty years later, that person would have been called a lunatic.
But that’s exactly what happened.
Think about that before you insult people who fear the “slippery slope.”
Limits that have their basis in something other than religion or tradition.
For example, it is very easy to see why marriage between a child and adult should not be allowed. A child cannot give proper consent because it has not, in our legal system, developed the capacity to do so. It is an inherently abusive relationship.
Same with bestiality. It is one being imposing its will on another, another which is unable to comprehend or consent.
That is not the case with two gay men or two gay women.
L.N.,
Is my answer above sufficient for why the slippery slope argument is absurd?
Based upon your posts here, I find that IMPOSSIBLE to believe. You think she deserves everything she got, and offered no condemnation for a group of thugs who are nothing but a bunch of sore losers.
Actions have consequences, and the gay community as a whole has lost any credibility it might have had on this issue. The people of California voted it down TWICE, and thank to actions like these, no one gives a damn what the gay community or you think about it.
Because race is an inherited trait, chap. Homosexual behavior – just as other sexual behavior – is just that…behavior. Which can be changed or controlled or otherwise altered.
You can’t alter race.
The fact of the matter is this: if it’s “discriminatory” to say X group can’t marry because of their behavior (homosexual behavior), it logically follows that we cannot say Y, Z, D or F group can’t marry because of their behaviors.
If I were a polygamist, or into bestiality, or pedophilia, I’d be getting ready to argue my rights are being infringed upon because marriage is defined as being between only two consenting adults. MY sexual preferences – no matter how deviant or destructive – could not be discriminated against.
We’re in agreement. I think the government needs to get out of marriage altogether. Millions of couples marry and never step foot inside of a church. They don’t feel any need/obligation to have the church involved. So if a heterosexual couple can legally enter into a civil union that has all of the same benefits and recognition as a religious marriage, why not extend that to gay couples? Religion wouldn’t enter into the picture. If a gay couple find a church or priest or other religious figure willing to bless their union, that’s their choice. Leave marriage to the churches and let gay couples have civil unions just like heterosexual couples have.
FYI, one can think that she does not deserve what she is getting and still recognize the right of those to protest.
About “consent”, chap, it’s the next “taboo” set to fall.
Remind me again, why is it that I can’t be against incestuous marriages while supporting gay marriage?
So basically you are saying “We have to allow interracial marriage because its not their fault they are black”?
Also, whether homsexuality is inherent or not is at the very least an open issue. But even if it is not, so what? People choose their religion, yet discrimination on that basis is illegal, isn’t it?
I’ll repeat: if it’s discriminatory to say marriage is one man and one woman, because it makes a minority group feel violated on the basis of their orientation, you CANNOT honestly argue that the same won’t apply to groups who don’t fit the definition of marriage being between two consenting human adults.
You just can’t. And anyone who insists otherwise is kidding themselves, or fundamentally dishonest.
So what, you are advocating changing a very basic aspect of the definition of marriage. If you can so cavilierly change “one man/one woman” to 2 men or 2 women, why can’t the next group drop the word “consent”. As long as one party consents, all will be well. That would cover the children and animal aspect. Heck, you’d be able to marry your truck.
Once you start changing, it is very hard to stop, Chap.
Chap,
OK, now we are getting somewhere. What about limits between closely related people marrying?
I heard of a group in Pakistan that have the tradition of first cousins marrying. The report stated that this group, although only comprising 3% of Britain’s population were responsible for 30% of the birth defects. That is my rationale for prohibiting marriage of closely related men and women. I have no such rationale for prohibiting the marriage of two closely related people who can not procreate (without outside contributors). Do you care if gay first cousins marry, gay brothers, or gay sisters? From your response I would say you do not.
Limits that have their basis in something other than religion or tradition.
Because marriage, if nothing else, is a contract and you cannot have a contract without at least two consenting parties. But please, continue to justify this through absurdities.