"An Affront to the Constitution"

It's an election year, so, quick, let's amend the Constitution.

Absurd as it sounds, that is the thinking of the Senate Republican leadership, which is rushing to draft, debate and endorse a whole new section of the Constitution by the week of June 5.

Why the hurry to tinker with the 219-year-old document?

Poll numbers for Congressional Republicans are in a bad place, so bad that there is serious talk about the prospect that the party could lose the House or Senate, or perhaps both chambers, in November. And the approval ratings for President Bush, the party's campaigner-in-chief, are trolling in Nixon-during-Watergate depths that suggest he may not be able to rally the conservative base as he did so effectively in 2002 and 2004.

Hence the hurry to dig up the next big-bang issue for the GOP.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, thinks he has struck political paydirt. He wants to amend the Constitution to declare that, along with freedom of speech, assembly and worship, Americans also have the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Frist wants the Constitution to declare not just that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" but that "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

So much for state's rights. And you can forget about that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness business.

The Grand Old Party's in trouble, so someone is going to have to pay, and in this case it's same-sex couples who dare to fall in love and then seek the same basic protections for their relationships that everyone else expects.

The rush to amend the Constitution in time to bring the marriage debate front and center for the fall campaign – now that the immigration issue has blown up on the party – had Senate Republicans so preoccupied Thursday that they bent the rules to the breaking point.

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, scheduled the session where the committee voted 10-8 to approve the amendment in a room where access by the press and the general public was restricted. When Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who ardently opposes the amendment, suggested that perhaps the work of amending the Constitution ought to be conducted in a more open manner, Specter growled, I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I."

For good measure, the chairman added, "If you want to leave, good riddance."

Feingold thanked the senior Republican for the lecture and departed, explaining that, "Today's markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment."

Feingold added, "Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.

"The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor."

Comments (344)

1. Viva hate!

   Posted by BlueTexan at 05/18/2006 @ 11:49pm

2. When in danger and in doubt, holler scream, run and shout.

   The GOP leadership is going back to their standard playbook and pulling out the ol' "defense of marriage" ploy to go with their "anti-statue of liberty play."

   Hopefully the GOP faithfull will one day wake up and say, "We don't get fooled again!"

   Fight the good fight, Russ.

   Posted by nyknicks12 at 05/18/2006 @ 11:55pm

3. Conservatives supposedly believe in states' rights and federalism. This proposed amendment flies in the face of that principle.

   It is bad enough that the Senators would ban gay marriage at the federal level. However, it is even worse that they would prohibit any state from recognizing it.

   Not only worse, but coming from alleged conservatives, it is monstrously hypocritical.

   Along with fiscal responsibility and a respect for civil liberties, this is another good conservative principle plowed asunder by the yuppie fascists who mislabel themselves conservative. Barry Goldwater must be revolving in his grave.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/19/2006 @ 12:31am

4. So to prevent gay relationships from receiving official sanction, a bunch of dudes lock themselves up in a room to talk about prevent other dudes from doing the same.

   Good to hear it. And good to hear that everything else on the checklist has been crossed off, so that we have reached such trivia on the congressional calendar. War: bad--let's move on. Immigration: bad--let's send the Guard. Economy: bad--let's give more to the rich while the Chinese and Japanese are still lending. Marriage: threatened by gays--let's lock 'em out permanently while decrying their immoral, unmarried lifestyles.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/19/2006 @ 12:37am

5. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/19/2006 @ 12:31am |

   Conservatives only believe in states' rights when it applies to those states easily manipulated by big industries; red states typically lacking diversity of employment and ethnicity. The big states such as California get assaulted in the courts by the Decider's lawdogs for legislating emission standards unacceptable to the automobile industry.

   You're correct in ignoring that xenophobic punk Pontignoramus (I think it was you suggesting such sanity on another post)...he can make one appreciate the likes of Liberty and NaCl-- who at least present well substantiated arguments (the data can be disputed, but at least they bring it along). This idiot is all foam and slobber.

   Posted by Oustbush at 05/19/2006 @ 12:58am

6. Frist and Specter should get out of everyone else's bed . . . and then shake out the sheets to get rid of some of The Nation's neo-fascist discussion forum denizens that are in there.

   It's unbelievable that these jackasses want to amend the Constitution for this. The people who wrote it in the 18th century were light years ahead of these sexually deranged obsessive/compulsives.

   Posted by fromredbird at 05/19/2006 @ 01:23am

7. Whoo-hooooo! This'll get corruption, incompetence, and terrorism off the front page!

   Thank God for gays. Without them, you could forget how absofucking stupid millions of Red Staters are.

   Posted by bookmanjb at 05/19/2006 @ 06:36am

8. A joke of an amendment doesn't require a "brave bold stance" (a la Mr Feingold) to defend against it.

   This is pap, as Mr Nichols noted, to pander to the Right's base...but it isn't GOING ANYWHERE and everybody knows it. So no need to praise Russ!

   Posted by Mask at 05/19/2006 @ 07:10am

9. John,

   "So much for state's rights. And you can forget about that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness business."

   Why all the sudden do you give a damn about States Rights...when it comes to a national amendment defining marriage...but just the opposite, you opose the idea of allowing individual states to determine what constitutes marriage or not? I.E. my state of Oklahoma has ALREADY amended our state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 07:57am

10. .

    An Affront to Common Sense

    The rush to amend the Constitution in time to bring the marriage debate front and center for the fall campaign – now that the immigration issue has blown up on the party – had Senate Republicans so preoccupied Thursday that they bent the rules to the breaking point.

    Penalizing employers who hire illegals is the solution to the immigration problem. Where and how has that been blown out of the water? It will be a solid Republican issue this November.

    As to gay marriage, that is something the Left has pushed, not the Republicans. It is the Left that has proposed that gay marriage is real and legal and a right. But for its encouragement the issue would not exist.

    Having brought the matter front and center, what excuse is there to now shove it back into the closet? Isn't it better to let the country look at it, debate it and get it settled, rather than endure a decade of whooping and screaming, retching and quetsching?

    Feingold objected to the size of the committee room. Since when is the care with which senators considers a matter determined by the size of the room? It is ridiculous. Nothing was withheld from the media. The debate on a constitutional amendment is in any event not going to be restricted to any committee or its precincts, whatever the decor, size or acoustics.

    Feinglold is a silly man.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 05/19/2006 @ 07:58am

11. When the going gets tough, the tough...leave???? You're too funny, Russ!

    Posted by woodyee at 05/19/2006 @ 08:29am

12. I just checked Feingold's web site and his theme song for his run for the Presidency is "I Won't Back Down" by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.

    Posted by woodyee at 05/19/2006 @ 08:30am

13. The Democratics need to push this ammendment through as fast as possible. It would never be ratified so to allow it to linger would be playing into the republican game plan. Democratics should let it be known that they will not allow the republicans to use the conctitution as a campaign issue. Take it off the table, its waste of time. We can fix it in January.

    Posted by John P. Boy at 05/19/2006 @ 09:01am

14. Cause

    Around the beginning of the week, James Dobson reminded the administration quite publicly that his bum was lonely for republican lips.

    Effect

    Dr. Bill and the boys trowel on the Chapstick and "craft" an amendment banning gay marriage.

    Welcome to the No Shame Zone.

    Posted by drhammer at 05/19/2006 @ 09:27am

15. We are missing the point here. The senate committee does not really expect a same sex marriage amendment to the constitution to pass in the full senate -- they simply want to get the religious right voters to rally behind a divisive non-issue and maintain the Republican majority in November. Didn't they do something similar two years ago? It's cynical, it's exploitative, and it has Karl Rove written all over it.

    Posted by ebroadwe at 05/19/2006 @ 09:33am

16. land of the free... uh, yeah..rright....

    go america! a beacon of hope for ' my old europe'

    i SO look up to you guys having REAL democracy and FREEDOM.

    Posted by Maarten at 05/19/2006 @ 09:38am

17. TODD writes,

    Why all the sudden do you give a damn about States Rights

    If you are seeking apparent inconsistencies, here's one to ponder from "conservatives": The laissez-fair, hands-off, "get the government off our backs" (Reagan's words) cons are now ... deploying State authority to make interventionist regulations in the only "free market" that actually exists: The free market of love.

    I cannot get my head around how this represents anti-Statist consrvatism as a bedrock principle. Then again, conservatives hurtle at accelarating warp speed into new relativist territories with each passing day, trashing principles and all else along the way.

    That having been said, TODD, I very much appreciate your commentaries for coming from the heart without the half-assed sanctimonious bullshit and surreal posturing that characterizes the efforts of LVLIBERTY1 and JOHN MAASCH among other "Dawn of the Dead" extras lumbering like zombies across the landscape.

    And from what I have seen here I also don't believe that you would even think of doing ill toward a gay person due to their preference, even if you feel opposed to their preference (again, in contrast with some other transparent bullshit artists who mouth the platitudes of tolerance and smolder with hate and the opportuity to act on it in one way or another).

    If I am wrong in my assessment, let me know and I will change my views accordingly; but, unless told otherwise, you put the "OK" in "SPORTSGUY".

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 05/19/2006 @ 09:44am

18. Ebroadwe,

    You hit the nail on the head and scroll up to watch the the lap dogs like NACL, Woodyee and OKSportsguy racing down the field as wide receivers apparently still not knowing that the QB is going to hand off to the RB!

    NACL, OK, Woodyee......get a clue you're being manipulated and you will be until you stop falling for the same old play.

    Posted by freedomplease at 05/19/2006 @ 09:45am

19. I wonder if the definition man and woman stops at the phenotype, the genotype or the surgical retype

    Considering that all conservatives exist completly on the surface of any issue... I guessing appearances will mean everything.

    (and getting into a discussion of chromosomes might lead to a deep understanding of (gasp)... evolution)

    Posted by Will C. at 05/19/2006 @ 09:46am

20. Conservatives - forget about all the good news coming out of Iraq - just for a moment.

    Dont stop supporting the troops - in fact, keep supporting 2500 more , you know - by not believing the truth about what is going on there.

    Dont worry about those illegal immigrants accepting jobs with the companies who want to illegally hire them - with impunity. The companies who are never aware the immigrants are illegal, when they hire them for mandatory overtime at less than the minimum wage.

    We gotta be concnerned about our values, and our #1 value is not to raise our children is as irresponsible a manner as Dick Cheney. We dont want any more fathers raising daughters to become lesbians. We need to send gay people a message, that everything they do is a threat to homophobic people.

    So, Conservatives, remember: if you stay home on election day, the US government may not be able to keep burning bricks of freshly minted $100 US bills, hot off the press, in Iraq, supporting troops by sending them to kill innocent people in their homes, blinding people at checkpoints with lasers because its better than shooting holes in them, on a nation building mission with no exit strategy. The US government may not be able to keep not building any new refineries - as it was once said that Bill Clinton didnt do.

    But foremost, Conservatives gotta vote for more incompetence so that gay people do not threaten homophobic peoples insecurity.

    Posted by conshame at 05/19/2006 @ 09:51am

21. Glen,

    "And from what I have seen here I also don't believe that you would even think of doing ill toward a gay person due to their preference, even if you feel opposed to their preference (again, in contrast with some other transparent bullshit artists who mouth the platitudes of tolerance and smolder with hate and the opportunity to act on it in one way or another).

    If I am wrong in my assessment, let me know and I will change my views accordingly; but, unless told otherwise, you put the "OK" in "SPORTSGUY"."

    Your assessment is correct. I'm not in bigot in the sense that I don't teach my children to pull gay kids behind buildings and pummel them.

    I teach my children the values of our law book...the bible...

    To love the person but not the sin.

    I love gay people; I don't however accept the sin and would not want to live in a state that does (i.e. a state that sanctions gay marriage)

    Therefore, this is one of the reasons I choose to live in Oklahoma, the state in general aligns with my religious beliefs.

    And we will fight, and have I might remind you and all the readers (just look at how the marriage amendment got added to our ballot as a ballot initiative via a grass roots effort. And the measure passed by an overwhelming 78% of the electorate), to keep it that way.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 09:53am

22. You have to hand it to good old Arlen -- no one looks more sincere mouthing pious platitudes about the constitution, however ready he may be to gut it when political expediency requires. The key is to always observe the sacerdotal ritual before proceeding to the business at hand. As for the republicans-till-death types so abundunt on this forum, I can only say that your fidelity to the Grand Old Party is touching: only a true zealot could find something to defend in this utterly cynical attempt to rally their ever godly base.

    Posted by ray hicks at 05/19/2006 @ 09:58am

23. NACL

    Penalizing employers who hire illegals is the solution to the immigration problem. Where and how has that been blown out of the water? It will be a solid Republican issue this November.

    What's blown up in the Republican's faces is the parts of the House bill that 1) criminalize illegal immigration, 2) criminalize any assistance given them, 3)have no provision for at least a guest worker program.

    Posted by brunowe at 05/19/2006 @ 10:02am

24. Why does Dick Cheney teach his daughters the values of lesbianism?

    Doesnt he realize, that God burns lesbians alive forever?

    How can Christian Conservatives stand by, and let an innocent girl get burned alive forever by God?

    Why dont you guys go tell Dick Cheney that his daughter has to stop double-dildo-ing other girls - for her own good?

    Posted by conshame at 05/19/2006 @ 10:02am

25. IS HOMOPHOBIA ASSOCIATED WITH HOMOSEXUAL AROUSAL? by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal Questions Whether It Is Latent Homosexuality Or A Response to Anxiety Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia --the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

    Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

    Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

    Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: "The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [non-homophobic] men did not."

    http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/glb/glbtphobia.html

    Posted by conshame at 05/19/2006 @ 10:08am

26. Lemonhead,

    "sanctimonious bullshit and surreal posturing that characterizes the efforts of LVLIBERTY1 and JOHN MAASCH among other..."

    I for one, do not care about gay marriage per say..it has always been between a man and a woman. I think civil unions are great and do not discriminate. The constitution and marriage, in my opinion, should not have anything to do with one another. I wouldn't put any marriage issue in the constitution, rather,in stautes. You never know, some nut might want to put polar bears in the constitution next.

    Conman,

    The way Cheney and his daughters describe their relationship is great and since they have no trouble with each other, let them be. Has nothing to do with you and maybe if more parents and children handled their "coming" out or their realizations of who they are in a similar manner, we wouldn't have so many of these annoying," I proud to be gay parades" to put up with year after year, the most irriatating events ..

    And Conman, I, too, as a hetero man love lesbian porn...:) what does that make me? Gay?..ridiculious posts.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/19/2006 @ 10:45am

27. Sure - just let Dick Cheney make the decision to raise lesbian daughters.

    Where was Dick Cheneys Church? Where was his pastor? Where were his Christian friends?

    Do you realize, that Dick Cheneys daughter is going to be burned alived by God, forever! She will cry out and beg God to just let her die in the fire, but God is not going to make it that easy on her!

    I cannot believe that Conservatives are so hypocritical, that they would stand by and say nothing while their close friend Dick Cheney, lets his daughter get burned alive forever by God.

    Is it Christian values, to let your close Conservative Christian friends send their daughter to the lesbian part of Hell?

    Jesus died for gay peoples sins - but they have to repent. Being a lesbian is not repenting. They have to believe. Acting as though Hell were some made up fairy tale is not believing. Real lesbians like Dick Cheneys daughter go there, where God burns them alive, forever. All because you so-called Christians, so-called Conservatives, look the other way and say nothing.

    Posted by conshame at 05/19/2006 @ 10:52am

28. This is the march of the liliputians. Senators Frist and Specter have lost any sense of what the national interest is, much less what real leadership means. I am not surprised to see them pull a stunt like this, they care about expedience and little else. . . It is just a shame that bigotry has to raise its ugly head once again. I thought we could rely on men like Michael Savage for that rather than our elected officials. I guess I was wrong!

    Posted by hhemwm at 05/19/2006 @ 10:53am

29. Just for the record…

    I'm not personally in favor of amending the constitution. I like the idea of federalism and ultimately consider myself a federalist.

    We could solve a lot of these hot button topics and issues that we will NEVER get national resolution on by letting states decide which side of the issue they are on for themselves.

    If a state wants to allow abortion, or gay marriage let them.

    If another state wants to outlaw abortion or gay marriage let them.

    Then let people choose which state lines up with their belief and value system.

    If I don't want to live in a state that allows gays to marry (which I don't) I won't.

    If a gay couple wants to get married then naturally they would move to an area that allows homosexual marriage.

    Please don't start arguing this is comparable to the failed and evil "separate but equal" mentality of the 50's and 60's as there is nothing in the bible that says being black is wrong. . There are many entries in the bible speaking out against homosexuality. The two are not comparable in the context of religious belief system. Some secular people my buy that argument but those of faith don't.

    When all is said and done, as long as our state can ensure that we don't have to acknowledge or sanction gays that were married in another state and move to ours, I don't see the need to amend the U.S. Constitution.

    On the other hand if through some loop hole… which I have heard would be the argument but do not know enough knowledge on the technical law to speak on…that some person/persons married in one state could try to force acceptance and acknowledgement of their marriage on another state that they move to, then I would see the need to amend the constitution.

    My point is…if you are gay and want to be married, God Bless you! Just do it in another state and DON'T expect to move to MY state and have my state acknowledge it. Because our state DOES not allow gays to marry and WE WILL not acknowledge gay people that were married in another state that does allow gays to marry.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 11:01am

30. Conshame,

    "Jesus died for gay peoples sins - but they have to repent. Being a lesbian is not repenting. They have to believe. Acting as though Hell were some made up fairy tale is not believing. Real lesbians like Dick Cheneys daughter go there, where God burns them alive, forever. All because you so-called Christians, so-called Conservatives, look the other way and say nothing."

    Not that you really care...

    But I think you are missing the point about salvation...

    It's a free gift. But the person must accept it. You can not force someone to accept salvation and live eternally. They must want the free gift.

    If you are on volcano that is about to explode and I show up in a jeep with the offer to rescue you, you must first choose to accept the keys from my hand to drive off the mountain. I can not force you into the jeep.

    I can however…through politics…change my state constitution to define what constitutes a legal marriage.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 11:05am

31. So, gay people - like Dick Cheneys daughter - will still be able to practice gay sex. We are not talking about ammending the Constitution to stop Dick Cheneys daughter from muff diving.

    We just want to stop lesbians like Dick Cheney from being monogamous.

    Jesus died for our sins - but, does that mean that nobody goes to Hell anymore, to be burned alive by God? No. Last I heard, Jesus only died for the sins of people who believe. And, as I understand they have to repent also.

    So, God wants to forgive everybody - that is why He had to get that great guy, Pontius Pilate, to crucify His Son. God cant forgive anybody without crucifying His Son.

    But there is a catch. Jesus only died for the sins of people who believe, and repent.

    Being a lesbian, like Dick Cheneys daughter, is not repenting. Raising a lesbian daughter, by choice, is not repenting. Acting as though you can do whatever you want without God burning you alive forever is not believing.

    Wait a minute - hasnt Dick Cheney been, like, a weekly caller into the Rush Limbaugh program? Why hasnt Rush Limbaugh told his close personal Christian Conservative friend Dick Cheney, what is at stake? Is it perhaps because he was too busy stuffing his face with thousands upon thousands of Oxycontin tablets? (thats synthetic heroin) Why hasnt Rush or any of Dick Cheneys Conservative Christian friends, ever talked to the man(?), and told him: your daughter is going to be burned alive forever by God unless you talk to her.

    Posted by conshame at 05/19/2006 @ 11:15am

32. I meant Dyke Cheney - sorry

    Posted by conshame at 05/19/2006 @ 11:16am

33. TODD,

    Indeed, you undoubtably pass the "test" of: If someone lost consciousness on the sidewalk in front of your house, would you help the person without prejudice? And that's an important test.

    Where alarm bells go off for me, and where we are very clearly is disagreement is here:

    To love the person but not the sin. I love gay people; I don't however accept the sin and would not want to live in a state that does (i.e. a state that sanctions gay marriage)

    It seems to be me your are coming very close to saying (finessing your way around) seperation of Church and State. That is, you are coming very close to collapsing your perscription of "sin" into what should be the State's laws. The slipprty-slope danger here can be readily exemplified by sharia law. In some parts of Nigeria, for example, Muslims are trying to impose sharia on non-Muslims, non-believers, and non-sharia Muslims in order to erase a distinction between religious law and a pluralistic State with secular laws that gaurantee rights (inluding private rights to worhip and faith).

    I also wonder whether "sin" is so iron-clad, cross-situational, trans-historical: Did many people consider inter-racial relations and marriage as a "sin" even in recent decades? The Catholic Church has made it too easy to make this argument, by the way, by rolling back the consumption of red meat on Fridays as a sin to being a sin only on those occasions during Lent.

    That's our side of the fight: A robustly secular State, so that it is not beholden or captive to religions --- while gauranteeing their speech and assembly rights that can in fact usefully inform public debate.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 05/19/2006 @ 11:19am

34. The BIBLE? The bible says lots of things that fundamentalist Christianity doesn't seem to be concerned with, foremost of which is observation of the command that you love your neighbor as you love your God, with all your heart and all your soul. Condemning people to hellfire for living and loving in a manner that doesn't satisfy your own narrow interpretation of scripture is a far cry from the invocation of Corinthians 1:13, which claims that Love "bears, believes, hopes, and endures" all things. Nor, according to the same verses, does love behave unseemly, puff itself up, or become unkind. Now, the argument that I always see brought forward when this is pointed out is that this is just man's interpretation of scripture. Agreed. So is yours, Todd. Maybe you're wrong. If it's possible for any man to be wrong, maybe you're wrong. Leave them folks alone. If it's between God and gays, that's between God and gays. You and your fellow political bullies hiding behind the bible don't have anything worthwhile to say about it.

    Posted by Mikeyeshu at 05/19/2006 @ 11:25am

35. To your credit, MAASCHer, your posting of the moment is much less retrograde bullshitting than usual:

    I for one, do not care about gay marriage per say..it has always been between a man and a woman. I think civil unions are great and do not discriminate.

    But, you have in fact taken a stand on gay marriage here by positing that you are AGAINST it but IN FAVOR of civil unions. Notice that the Mass. Supreme Court ruled that this is discriminatory: Civil Unions do not have the same package of rights as a marriage (I cannot cite chapter and verse on this, by the way). Hence, to recognize unions, but not marriages, is to endow people with less rights on the basis of identity, a form of discrimination in their appraisal

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 05/19/2006 @ 11:29am

36. And Conman, I, too, as a hetero man love lesbian porn...:) what does that make me? Gay?..ridiculious posts.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/19/2006 @ 10:45am

    Suggest you go back and re-read the post you're calling "ridiculous", John. Have you not had coffee yet today? No disrespect intended (as you know we disagree, but I get along with you okay), but your reading comprehension on Conman's post was atrocious.

    Nowhere did his post imply that enjoying lesbian porn makes a man gay.

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 11:44am

37. Whoop - meant "Conshame" above...

    So much for my own reading this morning... More coffee, please..

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 11:45am

38. Glenn,

    "That's our side of the fight: A robustly secular State, so that it is not beholden or captive to religions"

    Well my friend....with all due respect...you are failing miserable with your pursuit of this goal in Oklahoma; which I can speak for from a position of knowledge; I live here.

    We have laws currently that:

    1. Outlaw gays from marrying. You can not get married to another person of the same sex in Oklahoma. 2. We have "blue laws" that make it illegal to purchase alcoholic beverages on Sundays. 3. We have laws allowing companies (our company is one that practices this) that allow companies to extend additional days off to tithing members of churches.

    There are several others that as you claim "fines around" the separation of Church and State.

    Let me remind you, that there is nothing in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution that contain the verbiage "separation of church and state" perhaps you are getting this confused with Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

    There is an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing my right to worship in the way I choose and it further guarantees that no on can take that right away.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 11:48am

39. My point is…if you are gay and want to be married, God Bless you! Just do it in another state and DON'T expect to move to MY state and have my state acknowledge it. Because our state DOES not allow gays to marry and WE WILL not acknowledge gay people that were married in another state that does allow gays to marry.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 11:01am

    So, Todd fully supports dividing the United States of America into "God-states" and "Secular states".

    What's wrong with this picture?

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 11:48am

40. New Dawn,

    "So, Todd fully supports dividing the United States of America into "God-states" and "Secular states".

    What's wrong with this picture?"

    Seriously..it's called federalism and it can work!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 11:50am

41. New Dawn,

    I had coffee but it hasn't helped...I know what he wrote, I was just trying to elict a response...se, I can't spell or type...screw it..

    Glenn,

    I am for civil unions that do not discriminate...does that help clear my position on gay marriage.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/19/2006 @ 11:52am

42. Some other interesting Oklahoma laws...

    Oral sex is a misdemeanor and is punishable by one year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

    Anyone arrested for soliciting a hooker must have their name and picture shown on television.

    It's statutory rape for a man over 18 to have sex with a female under the age of 18, provided she's a virgin. If she's not a virgin, it is okay, but the said person must be over 16. If both parties are under 18, then the law does not apply.

    It is illegal to have sex before you are married.

    It is illegal for the owner of a bar to allow anyone inside to pretend to have sex with a buffalo.

    Dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property.

    Whaling is illegal.

    It is illegal to have the hind legs of farm animals in your boots (BWAAHahahaahahhah).

    People who make "ugly faces" at dogs may be fined and/or jailed.

    Tattoos are banned.

    No one may spit on a sidewalk.

    It is illegal to wear your boots to bed.

    If ones dog is run over by a car, the owner must pay for the dog's disposal. (Bartlesville)

    It is illegal to cause "annoying vibrations" in the city limits. (Bartlesville)

    Molesting an automobile is illegal. (Clinton)

    Women may not gamble in the nude, in lingerie, or while wearing a towel. (Schulter )

    Obviously, some of these are stupid and outdated, but you get the point...

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 11:53am

43. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/19/2006 @ 11:52am

    Hee hee hee... No sweat, pal... It's contagious at times...

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 11:54am

44. New Dawn,

    "Obviously, some of these are stupid and outdated, but you get the point..."

    Your perception of our laws is a moot point.

    If you want to change them, move to Oklahoma where you would have a voice and an opinion. People that don't live here don't have a vote.

    It's kind of like all those people from France that complained when G.W. won re-election...

    We didn't care. French people don't have a vote in who gets elected for the President of the United States.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 12:05pm

45. Todd -

    We've gone over this before, Todd, but you don't really listen to people who disagree with you - you just wait to talk.

    I lived in Edmonton, Todd, for years, went to OSU, worked in the hospital in OKC, knew Oklahomans for years, and I must say - you are one of the most backward, outdated people I hve ever had the misfortune of dealing with in Oklahoma, online, or anywhere else.

    You complain about not wanting to live in a state that condones or endorses your fairy-tale book's concept of "sin".

    I would not and do not want to live in a state that condones or endorses bigoted, mysogynistic men like yourself.

    ND

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 12:17pm

46. There are many entries in the bible speaking out against homosexuality. The two are not comparable in the context of religious belief system. Some secular people my buy that argument but those of faith don't.

    Last time I checked, our law isn't designed to conform with the Bible. For example, the first two Commandments bar idolatry and blasphemy; our Constitution wouldn't permit either as statutes. Further, worshiping you please isn't impinged upon by non-discrimination against homosexuals.

    Posted by brunowe at 05/19/2006 @ 12:31pm

47. A thought for those who believe homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice":

    With so many intolerant, far-right caveman types around, who the Hell would choose to be gay?

    Posted by drhammer at 05/19/2006 @ 12:47pm

48. ND,

    "I would not and do not want to live in a state that condones or endorses bigoted, mysogynistic men like yourself."

    Great...then don't...

    That's why Federalism is a great answer to this huge problem of social issues that we will never have national consensus on.

    You live where you feel comfortable and I'll live where I feel comfortable.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 1:17pm

49. hey religious homophobes, in your church you can do whatever you want. you can follow everything that your bible decrees. marriage in the civil sense is a contract. there it is not permissable to discriminate today. we used to permit discrimination, against blacks, jews, women etc. we no longer do so. that people vote to discriminate does not matter in the legal sense. the courts decide. ALL the people in Oklahoma could vote to reinstate lynchings, or to discriminate against the handicapped, for instance. that would make it neither right, nor constitutional. you can rant all you want, the trends have been toward less discrimination in all civil venues.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/19/2006 @ 1:19pm

50. Brunowe,

    "Last time I checked, our law isn't designed to conform with the Bible."

    Last time I checked...our somewhat is.

    Can you offer up any other explaination for why our state outlawed gay marriage other than the act of gays marrying is offensive to our religious beliefs?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 1:22pm

51. Johanne,

    "ALL the people in Oklahoma could vote to reinstate lynchings, or to discriminate against the handicapped, for instance. that would make it neither right, nor constitutional."

    It's already been done. Our constitution has been changed.

    What do you plan to do about it?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 1:23pm

52. TODD writes,

    Can you offer up any other explaination for why our state outlawed gay marriage other than the act of gays marrying is offensive to our religious beliefs?

    ... And that is precisely the point, TODD: what other reason is there but a religious one for not recognizing the gay relationship as marriage-able? And in so doing, is the State being used an instrument to ram religiously circumscribed morality down people's throats? What if Oklahoma (or anywhwere else) passed laws SOLELY to serve religious beleifs --- for example, strict prohibitions on eating the products of pigs, on killing cows, on taking medicine? Strike you as wise?

    Do not play the federalism card on this. Clearly, different states within the Union can enact their own laws across a wide spectrum of matters, but all the while keeping religion out of it as the alpha-and-omega of the conceptual basis of the law: "sin" is not sufficient on this view as being gay is not universally held to be a sin (nor is it, in fact!). On the other hand, it can be construed as an affront to the human and civil rights of gay people to be denied recognition with all the legal rights (e.g., inheritance of property) that it entails with regard to marriage.

    Finally, a person cannot get up and move to new states at the drop of a hat to chase the latest new wrinkle in law; many people can't afford a bus ticket, a down payment on a new dwelling, or have professional or family obligations, among other reasonable constraints on movement. But, the point is, a citizen should not have to flee because a state has opted out of secular pluralism in the service of one particular religious sect's interests.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 05/19/2006 @ 1:36pm

53. I love gay people; I don't however accept the sin and would not want to live in a state that does (i.e. a state that sanctions gay marriage)

    So you do in fact, support the government enforcing your religion?

    I remember you saying on these threads before that you do not want the government involved in religion because you do not want them telling you how you can and cannot worship.

    Doesn't your state outlawing a sin do just this?

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 1:50pm

54. The gov't shouldn't really be in the "marriage" business. Civil unions are fine, assuming that all the rights and privileges are of a secular nature (breaks on taxes, legal rights, etc.). The problem is that they are now...and the word "marriage" has a serious religious connotation. To make this work, anyone not married in a church would have thier status changed to a "civil union". The church can do marriages that are strictly "social" but have no legal/economic benefits. They'd have to also have a civil union if they wanted legal/economic benefits. I'll bet ya that the anti-gay folks would be lining up for civil unions all right! Then there's the problem..."I don't want my taxes paying for that!"....So you'd hav to have a tax form where you actually PURCHASE THE GOODS AND SERVICES YOU WANT...

    Posted by wereverywhere at 05/19/2006 @ 1:55pm

55. You definitely want the gov't out of religion. Anything as good as that will be screwed up by the clowns we have in Washington...

    Posted by wereverywhere at 05/19/2006 @ 2:02pm

56. Can you offer up any other explaination for why our state outlawed gay marriage other than the act of gays marrying is offensive to our religious beliefs?

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person

    Alert the media - Todd's right - there is not (nor should there be) any constitutional statute that endorses bigotry, in Oklahoma or any other state.

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 2:06pm

57. The gov't shouldn't really be in the "marriage" business. Civil unions are fine, assuming that all the rights and privileges are of a secular nature (breaks on taxes, legal rights, etc.).

    Precisely. The only thing that the government should be recognizing is a civil union, no matter what the orientation of the couple (otherwise we may as well kick the whole freedom & equality and justice for all thing to the curb).

    Noone can force a church/religious group to sanction any Marriage between anyone except for it's members/followers.

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 2:06pm

58. Werever

    Couldn't agree more....there should be a "ratings form" with every tax form to list (using check boxes on "funding areas" or some such) what people think should be, and should not be, receiving federal funds...a real democratice perspective of the "people's voice"

    Todd

    Are we saying then that OK is a democratic theocracy?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/19/2006 @ 2:07pm

59. Can you offer up any other explaination for why our state outlawed gay marriage other than the act of gays marrying is offensive to our religious beliefs?

    Yeah, I can. The state shouldn't be legislating religious doctrine.

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 2:08pm

60. It's already been done. Our constitution has been changed.

    What do you plan to do about it?

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 1:23pm

    Another great reason to hate fundamentalist christianity! They like to force their religion on everyone in the state. They are now trying to do it to everyone in the country.

    Seems like a blatant violation of the first ammendment rights of Oklahomans to me. Thank god the state I live in isn't as ignorant and depraved as Oklahoma.

    Unfortunately, with the mood of the country tending towards bigotry and discrimination against the rights of gays, I don't see any chance of a successful lawsuit to overturn such ammendments. Dozens of states have them now.

    But if the ACLU wants to give it a try, I for one will donate lots of money to help win the case and preserve and protect the rights of gays from vicious and intolerant religious fanatics.

    For those christians who do not try to force their religion on others, I thank you. For those who do try to, I have one message: Shove it up your tight ass and have a nice day :-)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 05/19/2006 @ 2:10pm

61. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 05/19/2006 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person

    I'm no shrink but you seem to have had at least one bad experience with the likes of Todd before, haven't you?

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 2:16pm

62. LEFTOFCENTER

    thx...

    I had envisioned it as a tax form where you actually designate what you want at least some large portion (like 50%) of your money to be spent on. This would let everyone put thier money where their mouth is. I think I'm turning into a Libertarian. Is that bad?

    Posted by wereverywhere at 05/19/2006 @ 2:21pm

63. Glen,

    Is marriage a right or a privilege?

    Don't you have to apply for a marriage license in your state and doesn't the state have to grant you a marriage license?

    Don't you also have to apply for a driver's license in your state? Doesn't the state grant you that license based on whether or not you meet the requirements for the license?

    Isn't it fact that if you can't read or meet a certain set of vision tests the state will not approve your request for a driver's license in your state?

    States are free to determine what criteria people must meet before they get a license to drive or a license to marry.

    There is no guarantee to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when it comes to privileges.

    Privileges are privileges, rights are rights. People are not guaranteed the right to marry.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 2:34pm

64. LofC,

    "Are we saying then that OK is a democratic theocracy?"

    Draw what ever conclusions or infer what you want. I don't really think people care what you call it.

    I can tell you that the facts are...

    Oklahoma does not allow gays to marry (our state constitution has been amended).

    If you interpret that to mean that we are a democratic theocracy or a theocratic democracy, so be it.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 2:38pm

65. Wereverywhere,

    "The church can do marriages that are strictly "social" but have no legal/economic benefits. They'd have to also have a civil union if they wanted legal/economic benefits."

    Great idea.

    If the state would give up the word "marriage" which I agree does have the religious connotation, I would be happy to drop the state "marriage" and continue with my religious ceremony only.

    I was married my wife under the eyes of God in the church becuase I love my wife, not for any financial benefits associated with being married under the state laws.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 2:44pm

66. Isn't it fact that if you can't read or meet a certain set of vision tests the state will not approve your request for a driver's license in your state?

    States are free to determine what criteria people must meet before they get a license to drive or a license to marry.

    The problem is that vision has a great deal to do with the ability to drive safely. Please inform me what being gay has to do with the ability to have a good marriage (as opposed to verifying age, citizenship, not be married already, etc.)

    Last time I checked...our somewhat is.

    Can you offer up any other explaination for why our state outlawed gay marriage other than the act of gays marrying is offensive to our religious beliefs?

    Which is why those laws have an un-American tinge to them. Our Constitution isn't Bible-based, and to bar marriage solely because of religious beliefs smacks of theocracy.

    Posted by brunowe at 05/19/2006 @ 2:53pm

67. ILP,

    "But if the ACLU wants to give it a try, I for one will donate lots of money to help win the case and preserve and protect the rights of gays from vicious and intolerant religious fanatics."

    and James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and myself (o.k. I don't have near the deep pockets that those boys do) will donate lots of money to defend our postion in court.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 2:54pm

68. ILP,

    "Shove it up your tight ass and have a nice day :-)"

    I love you too = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 2:55pm

69. OKSPORTS

    The biggest problem, I think, would be just the wording. People will freak if "marriage" is replaced with "civil union" even if they are identical from a legal standpoint. Maybe "civil marriage" would work. dunno. It would have to "grandfathered" too. Anyone now married only from a church would be considered to have both. And how would the ministers now licenced be handled?

    Posted by wereverywhere at 05/19/2006 @ 3:00pm

70. Feingold just grandstanding---setting up Presidential bid. Both Senators, Feingold and Specter are opposed to the amendment. Specter was just tired of Feingold's tactics. Good for him. I do not support the amendment. I do support civil unions instituted by states. However, I do not support any court forcing gay marriage upon the majority of citizens who do not support it (Mass.).

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/19/2006 @ 3:06pm

71. Wereverywhere,

    "And how would the ministers now licenced be handled?"

    Well that's another issue altogether. Some denominations such as the Southern Baptists have split off of the world wide Baptist denomination over the issue of gay marriage. The Baptist World Alliance wants to sanction gay marriage the Southern Baptists don't.

    http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-23-2004-55823.asp

    The Methodist denomination is going through the same thing:

    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/methodist_split.html

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 3:11pm

72. Feingold just grandstanding---setting up Presidential bid.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/19/2006 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person

    That's right, LM....and Mr Nichols merely engaging in his "Russ Boosterism". Feingold, like Kerry, making moves that will endear them to the liberal base for 2008, since they know that Hillary will win the moderate (possibly even conservative) Democrats.

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2006 @ 3:14pm

73. Brunowe,

    "The problem is that vision has a great deal to do with the ability to drive safely. Please inform me what being gay has to do with the ability to have a good marriage (as opposed to verifying age, citizenship, not be married already, etc.)"

    It doesn't...

    I'm merely pointing out that states are free to choose what ever criteria they so choose (that as you and I know will be based off of what those in the voting constituancy want) as the items needed to be met before qualifying for a drivers license or a marriage license.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 3:27pm

74. ILP,

    "Another great reason to hate fundamentalist Christianity! "

    And by the way...

    This statement is a great example of the hypocrisy that exists among those that are on the "left" side of this or many arguments like these.

    You used the word "hate" in the context that it's a good thing to hate fundamental Christianity, and by association, those that practice fundamental Christianity.

    Yet at the same time you make the argument for why people should hate fundamental Christianity primarily on the basis that you interpret fundamental Christianity as filled with hate and bigotry towards gays.

    So it's not o.k. for Christians to be intolerant of gays, that's considered bigotry and myopic, and by some on the left as "hate speak" yet it's o.k. for you as a leftie to "hate" fundamental Christianity.

    That's extremely hypocritical my friend.

    Nothing personal of course, just pointing out the irony.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 3:34pm

75. States are free to determine what criteria people must meet before they get a license to drive or a license to marry.

    yes, they are not however able to deny licenses to a particular group, say episcopalians or gays.

    let's forget about the word marriage. let's call civil marriages "Arthur" for instance. both heteros and homos have equal access to "Arthur", and the religious can have Arthur and marriage, OK?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/19/2006 @ 3:45pm

76. in "A Hard Days Night" Ringo was asked what he called his hairdo. Arthur, he replied

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/19/2006 @ 3:47pm

77. Johanne,

    "both heteros and homos have equal access to "Arthur", and the religious can have Arthur and marriage, OK?"

    No. not o.k.

    I don't agree with your logic.

    Where in the constitution does it say that states can not license or deny licenses for PRIVELEDGES to any particular group (gays, Episcopalians, tree huggers, or cowboys)?

    Why do you assume that heterosexuals and homos have equal access to "Arthur"? That I guess is the point of contention.

    You seem to believe they have equal and an inalienable right to "Arthur"

    We (those on the other side of the fence) believe "Arthur" is a privilege not a right and states have the right to assign what ever criteria that needs to be met to gain access to "Arthur" even if such criteria eliminates all people that fall under a particular group.

    And again...

    The bottom line is your logic is already flawed in the state of Oklahoma and the other states that have already outlawed gay marriage.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 4:06pm

78. I know gay persons who're together, raising children and doing a damn good job of it. This is an area where the right wing should stay out! Is anybody telling them what to do in their bedrooms? Pull back the covers and you might find more of them at it than any other faction of society! Personaly, as long as it does not interfers with my life, I don't give a hoot what others do with their sex lives. That medical science has found genetic proof that one is born gay obviously hasn't dawned on these hypocrits!

    Posted by uglyduckling at 05/19/2006 @ 4:13pm

79. You used the word "hate" in the context that it's a good thing to hate fundamental Christianity, and by association, those that practice fundamental Christianity.

    This is kinda like saying hate the sin, hate the person by association, no?

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 4:14pm

80. That medical science has found genetic proof that one is born gay...

    You forget that science doesn't matter...

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 4:17pm

81. Thejman,

    "This is kinda like saying hate the sin, hate the person by association, no?"

    Who advocates hating the person and hating the sin? I sure don't.

    I and the word of God that I follow teaches to love the person and hate the sin.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 4:18pm

82. The bottom line is your logic is already flawed in the state of Oklahoma and the other states that have already outlawed gay marriage.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person

    You know Todd, I've been wondering just how well that anti-gay-marriage thing has been working out in OK? did it so strengthen the concept of "marriage" that all the hetero couple finally quit divorcing? Did those laws finally put an end to the rash of gay marriages that were going on in OK? Did all the gay couples in OK finally recognize the error of their ways and separate? Maybe they all saw that you were right and they were wrong and they all turned straight? Did all the gay people suddenly leave OK thus insuring that people like you would never have to tolerate them ever again?

    Just wondering.

    Posted by Lillian at 05/19/2006 @ 4:20pm

83. Hate the sin - but dont hate the sinner?

    OK: Christians, you better hope prayer doesnt work.

    Altogether now,

    Dear Lord, We pray that you please burn alive all Conservatives in Hell forever. Please do not ever let them die, but continue to burn them alive for all eternity and force them to stay alive.

    Lord, we ask this out of love and compassion - not hate.

    Lord, we ask that you protect us from any temptation to derive any satisfaction from Your enemies burning alive forever.

    We ask this with regret - because we dont hate Your enemies. But, rather we ask so that your Law may be fulfilled. The Conservatives have violated the commandment to love their neighbors as themselves - they dont try to put themseves in the shoes of your servants such as Dick Cheneys daughter - who just cant help herself when she sees another girls hot azss.

    In your name, and without hatred, and in Your Name, in Gods Name, in the name of Love and Compassion - please burn all Conservative supporters of George Bush alive for all eternity.

    So Mote It Be,

    Amen

    Posted by conshame at 05/19/2006 @ 4:22pm

84. Todd,

    Just applying your logic. It isn't possible for ILP to hate Fundamentalist Christianity but not those who practice it, but you can hate the sin & not those who practice it?

    C'mon now.

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 4:23pm

85. I must say that there are of course alot of Good Christians - even fundamentalists.

    Good Christians such as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton (to some extent), Al Sharpton, Howard Dean - all good Christians and most of them white too.

    So, may I please modify any previous rhetoric to this effect.

    Many of my closest friends are Christians.

    Posted by conshame at 05/19/2006 @ 4:24pm

86. You haven't asked ILP what he meant by his statement. Sounds to me like he just doesn't like fundamentalist Christianity, but I could be wrong (I'm not trying to speak for anyone, just please don't jump to conclusions).

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 4:26pm

87. He said "...hate fundamentalist Christianity!" not hate Christian fundamentalists.

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 4:27pm

88. Just as you might say "hate homosexuality, not the homosexual".

    Posted by thejman at 05/19/2006 @ 4:27pm

89. The bottom line is your logic is already flawed in the state of Oklahoma and the other states that have already outlawed gay marriage.

    that makes it neither right, nor constitutional. how does Oklahoma rank in education, child mortality, etc?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/19/2006 @ 4:38pm

90. Lillian,

    "did it so strengthen the concept of "marriage" that all the hetero couple finally quit divorcing?"

    non sequitur....what does the issue of outlawing gays marrying have to do with the quality or success of heterosexual marriages?

    "Did those laws finally put an end to the rash of gay marriages that were going on in OK?"

    The amendment to our state constitution was designed to put a stop to any gays trying to marry before they tried...and we were succesful.

    " Did all the gay couples in OK finally recognize the error of their ways and separate?"

    No, but they did get the message that if they want to marry they will need to move to a state that does allow gays to marry.

    "Did all the gay people suddenly leave OK thus insuring that people like you would never have to tolerate them ever again?"

    I am seeing evidence that gays are moving out of areas like OK and are moving to more "gay friendly" places.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/0 3/09/MNGFH5H4RP1.DTL

    God Bless them as they leave = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 4:43pm

91. "Just applying your logic. It isn't possible for ILP to hate Fundamentalist Christianity but not those who practice it, but you can hate the sin & not those who practice it?"

    Possibly but he's still being hypocritical in that he's hating those that are intolerant and in his opinion hate simply because they are intolerant.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 4:45pm

92. I just checked Feingold's web site and his theme song for his run for the Presidency is "I Won't Back Down" by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.

    Posted by WOODYEE 05/19/2006 @ 08:30am

    No Heartbreakers involved in that album Wood. Can't be funny when you can't get your facts straight.

    Seriously..it's called federalism and it can work!

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 11:50am

    So Iraq is really just an experiment for how you'd like this country to work, with each ethnic/religious group separated into its own region? Dibs on Hawaii and Florida for the Secular Humanists!

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/19/2006 @ 4:45pm

93. Johanne,

    "that makes it neither right, nor constitutional."

    Right is a relative term. To you it may not be "right". To us, I can assure you, it is right, and the reality is that whether it's "right" or "wrong" according to those that live here is what matters, your opinion, while fine to offer, doesn't change our laws.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 4:47pm

94. yeah, like the south wanting to keep its slaves, and make the new territories slave states too, the cause of the civil war.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/19/2006 @ 4:51pm

95. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 4:06pm: Where in the constitution does it say that states can not license or deny licenses for PRIVELEDGES to any particular group (gays, Episcopalians, tree huggers, or cowboys)?

    I'm glad you asked, Todd. Its called the 14th amendment. You know, the one about equal protection and all that other leftwing claptrap. I won't bore you with the whole thing, but here is the relevant sentence:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/19/2006 @ 4:53pm

96. Todd, you seem to take a "Federalist" position that individual states have a right to pass whatever laws they wish, regardless of how discriminatory they may be in the eyes of the rest of the country.

    To take your line of thought to the next level, and give you a "slippery slope" example from the past, would you have supported, say, Alabama's right to enforce racial segregation in the schools? One could make the case that given George Wallace's election, a majority of voters there supported segregation. They claimed state's rights in disobeying the federal government's order to integrate the school. Would you have supported them?

    Posted by breasonable at 05/19/2006 @ 4:57pm

97. ...And if not, why?

    Posted by breasonable at 05/19/2006 @ 4:58pm

98. will c,

    couldn't agree more. there is virtually no debate, anywhere, let alone the senate floor, about what actually constitutes a 'man' or 'woman'. it's so funny when you hear the conservative think tanks cite research which suggest that children evolve better in homes with a 'man' and a 'woman'. what they might say is, "homes with a homo sapiens sapiens w/ penis and a homo sapiens sapiens w/ vagina'. or, as you say, xy chromosome yy chromosome.

    i live in the castro, san francisco. there are queer couples w/ children all over the place. and in many of those couples, one member brings home the bacon, and one takes care of the kids. their roles are no different than straight couples; the only difference is that both members have the same reproductive organs. and this isn't even approaching the issue of transexuals or transgenders.

    it's time for a more complex debate on this issue...

    Posted by darladoon at 05/19/2006 @ 5:06pm

99. It's about time that a politician on the left speaks out about "back room" deals, conducted in private, by the elite and corporations. Re: Energy Task Force. The MSM has completely caved and hardly reported Downing Street Memo. They let the American people down by not reporting the full truth. I hold them liable for the fake "War on Terror"-what a sham. The effects of this "administration", like its court nominees, will be there for a long, long time. It will not be easy to ged rid of bush, or the negative effects he has had on this nation, people, or environment. The only winners are the corportions and very wealthy. When he wanted a war in Iraq, it happened immediately. If he wanted to stop illegal aliens, that could also happen. Obviously, he is in no rush for that. But a war with Iran, North Korea, is all right with him because of his "vision". After all doesn't he still get his marching orders from "God"?

    Shouldn't we all be treated the same? Why should gays, lesbians, and transgendered be treated differently? These idiots like Santorum, Frist, etc. who mis-diagnoed Schiavo, would like themselves to be our moral "guiding light".

    I, for one, am tired of the responses of this Rebuplican-led Congress, and this inept "president". 750 "signing statements" that he does not have to abide with laws paseed by Congress. Bush does indeed feel that he is above the law.

    Bush could not find his ass with both hands. I certainly do not like him/cronies/minions telling me how to live my life or make laws that favor one over the other.

    IT IS TIME TO BECOME A DISSENTER.

    Posted by lickspittle at 05/19/2006 @ 5:09pm

100. i have read all of the posts, and i simply cannot believe how much homophobia still exists in this country, and even on the nation's forum. it's really pathetic.

     the issue is simple: prohibiting same-sex couples from obtaining the same rights as straight couples is an act of discrimination. period. there is simply no rational argument against this statement. those wishing to punish same-sex couples are, simply put, morally outraged. that's it. and many of these morally outrages are old, white, and wealthy men. they simply don't like the idea that men stick their penises in other men's asses or mouths. they are outraged by it to the point that they want to do everything in their power to prevent even the idea of it from entering their personal space.

     well, i hate to break it to ya, but men have ALWAYS fucked other men. and men will ALWAYS fuck other men. so, why would you care if men lived together? cooked together? took vacations together? or, gasp, hold hands together? why do these morally outraged men care whether men spend their lives with other men? it doesn't effect their lives at all. it simply has nothing to do with them.

     and the same lessons could be applied to other 'subversive' actions, such as smoking pot. why does anyone care if i spark up a joint right now, on my patio?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/19/2006 @ 5:26pm

101. CONSERVATIVES WANT:

     WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS

     TORTURE CAMPS

     JAILINGS WITHOUT TRIAL OR EVEN CHARGES

     GIGANTIC BUDGET DEFICITS

     BUT NOT DONE WITH THAT!!!! LET'S TRY TO OUTLAW GAY MARRIAGES

     Conservatives need to here this: F-U-C-K Y-O-U!!!!

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/19/2006 @ 5:29pm

102. hear this...

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/19/2006 @ 5:47pm

103. they simply don't like the idea that men stick their penises in other men's asses or mouths.

     a bit graphic but OK, Darla. until very recently oral and anal sex was prohibited for hetero couples, married or otherwise.

     if marriage is such a wonderful institution, the Bush gov't spends millions to promote that idea, why not have more of it, and include same sex couples. what they do in the bedroom is irrelevant.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/19/2006 @ 5:47pm

104. oh Darla, enjoy that spliff

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/19/2006 @ 5:48pm

105. Breasonable,

     Number one making an argument based on a "slippery slope" is in itself a fallacy; but I'm sure you knew that.

     "would you have supported, say, Alabama's right to enforce racial segregation in the schools? "

     I would not tell Alabama how to run their state. As long as what they do doesn't infringe on my rights where I live, I'm happy.

     "Would you have supported them?"

     I wouldn't have an opinion, the outcome would not have affected me or my family. We don't live there.

     If it were happening in my state, I would not be in favor of racial segregation.

     However comparing racial segregation and gay marriage is like comparing apples and oranges.

     Show me biblical scripture that mentions ethnicity or color of skin and wether the color of skin corolates with righteousnes or not.

     Show me, on the other hand, where God sanctions gays marrying?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 5:51pm

106. Because,

     "Conservatives need to here this: F-U-C-K Y-O-U!!!!"

     No thanks, I'm not gay = )

     And if your so determined because, then get off of your lazy ass and do something about it!

     You sound like a winning 8 year old brat, shouting expletives because you aren't getting your way.

     19 states have now amended thier state constitutions banning gay marriage...get over it, you aren't superman, and you won't change the world.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 6:00pm

107. Profanity aside, the more divisive the issue, the more the opposition gets fragmented - USUALLY.

     The key to GOP strategy, knowing that they represent a minority of wrong-headed thinkers, is to divide the majority with divisive issues, and rule the US government with an otherwise ludicrous platform of discrimination, hatred and violence.

     This strategy is finally starting to weaken.

     For instance, GOP firstly wants to discriminate against women seeking abortions. Then, they want to discriminate against immigrants. Then, continue to discriminate union members. Again, they want to re-emphasize their attack on Gay families. Scrambling to attack somebody, literally anybody, the GOP construes to launch an unprovoked military strike against Iraq.

     Now, the GOP has discriminated against too many Americans, and attacked to many foreign nations, such that no matter how divisive and inflammatory the GOP think-tank issues become, the GOP leaders simply cannot find enough Americans to support their platform of ever growing discrimination, hatred and violence.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/19/2006 @ 6:02pm

108. "winning" = "whinning" above.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 6:04pm

109. Todd - I am winning, not whinning.

     As you conservatives suffocate under your hyperbole, contradictions, hatred, and outright lies: the other 71% of Americans and 99% of foreigners are grateful to see the complete and utter collapse of THE most tyrannical Republican administraion in US history.

     And, I have been doing a lot about it. Starting by pointing out that Real Americans don't attack the Constitution with BLATANTLY discriminitory and otherwise ludicrous Amendments.

     Further, those Americans like you that do attack the Constitution are a direct cause of the problems in this country. And, the solution is simple, to marginalize you and relegate you to the shrinking, hate-filled minority you are.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/19/2006 @ 6:09pm

110. Because,

     "And, the solution is simple, to marginalize you and relegate you to the shrinking, hate-filled minority you are."

     Let me fill you in on the reality of the situation...

     I am not in the minority...

     On the contrary, I'm in the majority, you my friend on the minority...

     Here are the facts:

     CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 29-May 1, 2005. Adults nationwide.

     "Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" N=492, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

     In the following table, "Y" means "Should Be Valid"; "N" means "Should Not Be Valid"; and "U" means "Unsure".

     Poll Date Y N U 4/29-5/1/2005 39 56 5

     that's 56% saying NO gay marriages should not be recognized 39% yes they should and 5% undecided

     additionally....

     CBS CBS News poll conducted February 24-28, 2005 asking[5]:

     "Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."

     Legal marriage / Civil union / No recognition / Unsure

     All political parties 23% 34% 41% 2% Republicans 8% 37% 54% 1% Democrats 29% 35% 34% 2% Independents 30% 29% 37% 4% Trend over time November 18-21, 2004 21% 32% 44% 3% July 11-15, 2004 28% 31% 38% 3% May 20-23, 2004 28% 29% 40% 3% March 10-14, 2004 22% 33% 40% 5%

     and additionally...

     The same CBS News Poll highlighting regional, political party affiliations and age differences in views. May 20 - 23, 2004. Nationwide: Demographic Marriage / Civil union / No recognition All 28% 29% 40% Republicans 13% 33% 53% Democrats 32% 28% 36% Independents 37% 27% 33% 18-29 years 43% 32% 25% 30-44 29% 25% 44% 45-64 26% 29% 41% 65 & older 12% 32% 51% Northeast 35% 31% 33% Midwest 26% 23% 47% South 23% 26% 48% West 31% 36% 28%

     and additonally...

     Pew Research The Pew Research Center/Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey poll asking[6]:

     "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?" (Margin of error three percent) Date Favor Oppose Unsure July 13-17 2005 36% 53% 11% December 1-16, 2004 32% 61% 7% August 5-10, 2004 29% 60% 11% July 2004 32% 56% 12% March 2004 32% 59% 9% February 2004 30% 63% 7% November 2003 30% 62% 8% October 2004 30% 58% 12%

     "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples? (Margin of error three percent) Date Favor Oppose Unsure July 13-17, 2005 53% 40% 7% August 5-10, 2004 48% 45% 7% July 2004 49% 43% 8% March 2004 49% 44% 7% Octobr 2003 45% 47% 8%

     So....you can say I'm in the minority, if it makes you feel better about yourself and your position, however the facts and the statistics don't support your assertion nor your position.

     The facts don't lie my friend = )

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 6:21pm

111. Posted by DARLADOON 05/19/2006 @ 5:06pm

     I also live in the Bay Area (San Jose), Darla, and sadly, people like Todd will not now nor ever be swayed by any argument that their interpretation of the Bible does not support, regardless of hypocrisy, facts, or constitutionality.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 6:26pm

112. ND,

     "I also live in the Bay Area (San Jose), Darla, and sadly, people like Todd will not now nor ever be swayed by any argument that their interpretation of the Bible does not support, regardless of hypocrisy, facts, or constitutionality."

     Amen...

     We are on the same page now = )

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 6:28pm

113. "would you have supported, say, Alabama's right to enforce racial segregation in the schools? "

     Todd posts: "I would not tell Alabama how to run their state. As long as what they do doesn't infringe on my rights where I live, I'm happy."

     Which can be interpreted as "I don't care about anyone being persecuted, so long as I don't have to personally deal with it."

     Some compassionate humanitarians Todd and his ilk are.

     Personally, I find that type of thinking morally repugnant.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 6:30pm

114. ND,

     "I also live in the Bay Area (San Jose), Darla, and sadly, people like Todd will not now nor ever be swayed by any argument that their interpretation of the Bible does not support, regardless of hypocrisy, facts, or constitutionality."

     Amen...

     We are on the same page now = )

     Todd

     Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 6:28pm | ignore this person

     I wouldn't be too proud about your willing blindness to your own hypocrisy, contempt for facts, or lack of understanding of constitutionality, Todd.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/19/2006 @ 6:36pm

115. The facts don't lie my friend = )

     Todd

     Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 6:21pm

     But the fact is we're not talking about polls. We're talking about the Constitution. And if we're talking about the Constitution regarding gay marriage, we're nearly at the end of the line for conservatives. They've given up hope of actually running this country, and it really didn't take them very long. They've had complete control of the country for all of 4 years. And we've got nothing but failure to show for it.

     This is a plea for help, an acknowledgment that things are too complex for their simpleminded theories produced by their omnipresent "think tanks". Now is the time for us to talk them back off the ledge, sit them down in a cushy chair in the corner, take their keys, license, and money, give them a little ice cream, start the car again, and throw the stick into reverse.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/19/2006 @ 6:40pm

116. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person

     Todd:

     "did it so strengthen the concept of "marriage" that all the hetero couple finally quit divorcing?"

     non sequitur....what does the issue of outlawing gays marrying have to do with the quality or success of heterosexual marriages?

     Really? Then why was the Oklahoma bill called the "Protection of Marriage Amendment"? What was the purpose of the law, if it wasn't to protect (and strengthen) the concept of marrigae from sinful gays?

     "Did those laws finally put an end to the rash of gay marriages that were going on in OK?"

     The amendment to our state constitution was designed to put a stop to any gays trying to marry before they tried...and we were succesful.

     So, at the time, there were NO attempts by gays to marry in Oklahoma.

     " Did all the gay couples in OK finally recognize the error of their ways and separate?"

     No, but they did get the message that if they want to marry they will need to move to a state that does allow gays to marry.

     So, Oklahoma still has gay people, living together as couples.

     "Did all the gay people suddenly leave OK thus insuring that people like you would never have to tolerate them ever again?"

     I am seeing evidence that gays are moving out of areas like OK and are moving to more "gay friendly" places.

     http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/0 3/09/MNGFH5H4RP1.DTL

     Well, that two-year-old article "alluding" to the possibility that openly gay couples "might" be moving out but I think we can safely say that "most" Oklahoma gays stayed.

     So, other than to discriminate against gay couples, what is the pupose of the law again?

     Posted by Lillian at 05/19/2006 @ 7:01pm

117. Feingold just grandstanding---setting up Presidential bid.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/19/2006 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person

     That's right, LM....and Mr Nichols merely engaging in his "Russ Boosterism". Feingold, like Kerry, making moves that will endear them to the liberal base for 2008, since they know that Hillary will win the moderate (possibly even conservative) Democrats.

     Posted by MASK 05/19/2006 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person

     Oh for heaven's sake, Feingold was grandstanding but Specter WASN'T? In fact, to any sentient human capable of rational thought, this is an obvious example of the ENTIRE Republican party crassly grandstanding for the conservative religeous part of their base in a feeble attempt to win back some support!

     You see Mask (and Len) this is a perfect example of the kind of posts that are so exasperating! You jump at the opportunity to point out the mote in the Democrat's eye, while completely ignoring the PLANK in the Republican's eye.

     Posted by Lillian at 05/19/2006 @ 7:15pm

118. Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: "The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [non-homophobic] men did not."

     http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/glb/glbtphobia.html

     Posted by CONSHAME 05/19/2006 @ 10:08am

     Ha, ha, ha! That is so funny. I can imagine The Nation's neo-fascist posters at home reading the Republican legislation and getting a woody. One of them even calls himself "Woodye". Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

     I was once in Oklahoma City for three weeks and I found the women quite forthcoming. Maybe it's hard to find straight guys in that church-on-every-corner town.

     That imbecile Pat Robertson, with all his assertions of God using the weather to punish America, should have noticed by now that OK City has always been Tornado City.

     Posted by fromredbird at 05/19/2006 @ 10:39pm

119. Todd - 2 points:

     1. Your claim earlier that banning gay marriage has "nothing to do with" the quality of straight marriages is disingenuous. Supporters of the ban claim constantly that allowing gay marriage would undermine the sanctity of straight marriages.

     Ex.; James Dobson: "Just as no-fault divorce laws have undermined heterosexual marriage by eliminating the "till death do us part" component of that institution, the legalization of same-sex marriage would undermine it by eliminating the "husband and wife" component."

     2. The old "slippery slope" argument is another one commonly used by proponents of the ban - namely that if you allow gay marriage, under the same legal reasoning polygamy or bestiality is legal.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/19/2006 @ 10:46pm

120. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 5:51pm: I would not tell Alabama how to run their state. As long as what they do doesn't infringe on my rights where I live, I'm happy.

     I'm confused. You seem to have taken a more stringent attitude about the way Iraq ran its country. Iraq was not infringing on your rights where you lived. So you should have been happy. But you were not?

     Why do you care more about the people of Iraq than your fellow citizens in Alabama?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/19/2006 @ 10:51pm

121. take your religious beliefs and shove them ....or better yet move to afghanistan, the Taleban part, you'll fit right in, american you're not

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/19/2006 @ 10:53pm

122. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 6:21pm: The facts don't lie my friend

     Exactly. And when you asked:

     Where in the constitution does it say that states can not license or deny licenses for PRIVELEDGES to any particular group (gays, Episcopalians, tree huggers, or cowboys)?

     I pointed you to the 14th amendment:

     No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

     Shall I take your lack of response to indicate a concession that the equal protection clause of the constitution does indeed preclude the denial of "PRIVELEDGES to any particular group"?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/19/2006 @ 11:00pm

123. Todd bot

     It is a shame that you are man of such low faith. The nazareene dies on the cross and sin is eliminated. But for some reason you seem to think that it is only eliminated if I, how did you put it...(ha ha ha ).. take the jeep.

     I don't need the jeep. The volcano was snuffed out.

     but you think god was too weak to do that. or so vain that he put on that little crucifiction charade just to create of whole new mega church of worshipers.

     Sorry, but God never wanted a world of slaves. There is something in this universe however, that does.

     But it ain't god

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 05/19/2006 @ 11:05pm

124. Orwell,

     "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

     Shall I take your lack of response to indicate a concession that the equal protection clause of the constitution does indeed preclude the denial of "PRIVELEDGES to any particular group"?"

     Great point orwell....

     We did it anyway...

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/19/2006 @ 11:15pm

125. so much for tood bot being a patriotic american

     Posted by Will C. at 05/19/2006 @ 11:26pm

126. sorry tood bot... that's todd bot

     Posted by Will C. at 05/19/2006 @ 11:26pm

127. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/19/2006 @ 11:15pm: We did it anyway...

     Ahh, another chestnut from the classic hamster brigade theme song compilation.

     Since you support this action by your state, shall I conclude that you reject the validity of the 14th amendment? Or, do you simply feel that you gotta do what you gotta do, constitional or otherwise?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/19/2006 @ 11:36pm

128. Orwell you were and are of course correct. Todt the death guy is making a losing argument he probably doesn't himself believe. his points are banal in the extreme, I mean driver's licenses. total bullshit. until the 60s the folks in Alabama thought it proper to lynch negroes, they also institutionalized disenfranchising negroes. we have come a long way since then, even in Alabama. this discrimination against gays, which is barbaric, will seem just as unbelievable in say ten years as the status quo then.Todt is a fossil.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/19/2006 @ 11:40pm

129. JOHANNESROLF:

     TODT!!! I love it! I wish I had thought of that...

     Posted by jorcheim at 05/19/2006 @ 11:48pm

130. JOHANNESROLF--

     you may think it's graphic, but i think it's completely normal. and trust me, man, these fucking old, rich, white men are PARANOID that gay sex is somehow sweeping the (christian) nation. they actually think that gay marriage is a THREAT to straight marriage! i mean, this is so incredibly preposterous that it's almost terrifying! that someone would actually believe this is just beyond all rational thought...

     Posted by darladoon at 05/19/2006 @ 11:52pm

131. Since Conservatives are so concerned that Gay people arent good parents, I propose the following Constitutional Ammendments:

     1. No parent shall experiment at any time with gay or lesbian sex

     2. No parent may stay out all night and leave the kids at home

     3. Parents may not fight with each other where kids can hear

     4. Pornography shall not be allowed in houses where kids live

     5. No parent may smoke or drink

     6. When purchasing sexy lingerie, sex toys, alcohol, motel rooms, ustomer must show proof that they have no children

     7. Pregnant women may not eat unhealthy food

     8. Verbally abusing a pregnant woman shall constitute child abuse

     9. No parent shall participate in Oral or Anal sex of any kind

     10. Parents shall not French Kiss or engage in Foreplay within sight of a child

     Coming soon to Oklahoma!!

     Posted by conshame at 05/20/2006 @ 12:11am

132. when you say promote, do you mean bill boards, door to door salemen, sky writing, full page ads in the hamster gazette....

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 12:49am

133. and why would god get all pissed off when we used the winky that he gave us.

     You're not thinking straight liberty

     (step away from the angel of light)

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 12:51am

134. that's like saying here have a jeep

     but you you better not take it for a test drive

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 12:53am

135. you may think it's graphic, but i think it's completely normal. and trust me, man, these fucking old, rich, white men are PARANOID that gay sex is somehow sweeping the (christian) nation. they actually think that gay marriage is a THREAT to straight marriage! i mean, this is so incredibly preposterous that it's almost terrifying! that someone would actually believe this is just beyond all rational thought...

     Posted by DARLADOON 05/19/2006 @ 11:52pm

     For some, life is inconceivable without threatening enemies. That's what gives them community and they'll have their threatening enemies even if they have to invent them out of thin air or create them by their own actions.

     Posted by fromredbird at 05/20/2006 @ 01:07am

136. "God's wrath"

     Haven't heard that phrase since about 1500 BC. But then, I do tend to avoid crowded tents on the weekends. Clowns, whether in makeup or in cheap suits shrieking in severe southern accents, scare the crap out of me.

     Adults who still use an old book as a crutch to hate other people need to at least acknowledge their hate. At the very least they need to acknowledge that they are no more capable of judging the saintliness of others than anyone else. All of which is to say that, on issues judged by Christian conservatives to be "moral", these self-appointed God's jurors need to shut the hell up until the day that they are taken to heaven by God's chariot.

     LL, promise me that on the day that the chariot arrives at your door that you give me a ring. I'll bring a bundt cake and a brass band to celebrate your elevation to Glory. 'Til that time, you can tell us without the use of your old book why consenting adults might not be permitted to explore their love for each other in whatever ways they determine are most fulfilling.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/20/2006 @ 01:14am

137. they can't shut hell up

     they're standing in the doorway screaming... Ya'll come on in now

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 01:18am

138. 33 years and his only marginal relationship with a woman was with his mother? 12 close friends, all single guys with varying ambitions? Shepherd? Lamb of God? Water into wine rather than into beer? A dinner party on his last night on earth in which he suggests that his guests eat him to memorialize him?

     Who needs the Da Vinci code? The Bible was not exactly subtle.

     Is this offensive? I am sure it is to some. But get this straight: it is no more offensive than your irresponsible hatred toward others whose behavior confounds your (and, frankly, my) understanding. Just let it go. Water off your back. Embrace diversity, after all we are all created from the same essence, no? Judge not, lest blah blah blah.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/20/2006 @ 01:29am

139. are you talking to me

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 01:32am

140. Our whole world is falling into the hands of the cavemen again. Back into the closet for gays, abstinence for young people, religion, religion, religion..And we are afraid of the Muslim fundies. Ours are just as cruel and sick. They refuse to recognize certain facts..people have strong sex drives, both hetero and homo. They do and no amount of praying it away will change one iota of that. The bible thumpers have done more harm than good to the world. Frist and Specter are like two old ladies shocked by the realities around them. Feingold is still the only democrat showing any guts. What are the others afraid of? Don't they care about freedom and the constitution? Appeasement and wait and see got the world Hitler. God knows what allowing Bush and his crew to get away with all their mischief will lead us to.

     Posted by Richardini at 05/20/2006 @ 04:31am

141. thanks Jorchy.

     Darla, perhaps you misunderstood my use of the word graphic. I was using it in the the sense of frankness of expression. as you could tell from my post I am in complete agreement with you.

     just another angle on gay sex: I have two gay friends who have been celibate for the last ten, almost 20 years, in part because of fear of AIDS, and as a result of having seen the majority of their peers die of that disease. it's not always easy to be a human being and gays are no exception.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 09:22am

142. point of clarification, my two friends live at opposite coasts.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 10:38am

143. To LL:

     Friday night and we have all the leftwing extremists who want to promote perversion.

     Perversion? Nothing like begging the question, LL. Or arguing in circles. Why is homosexuality perverse? How do you know? Because the Bible says so? And on what authority does the Bible rest? If I may anticipate your argument, you would say because it is the word of God.

     Suppose I don't accept that. You may say that I don't count because I am going to Hell, but you would be wrong. You see, this is a democracy, meaning a saved person and damned one have an equal voice in public policy. I count as much as you.

     So, if you want to persuade me that I'm wrong, please find some common ground. As a citizen, I am under no obligation to accept Christianity as my faith, and let alone your private view of what that means.

     Even if Biblical injunction persuaded me that homosexuals burn in Hell, I would still support gay marriage. Why? Because church and separate in America. Which means in order to deprive one of liberty to arrange his private affairs as he sees fit, I should have some practical, worldly reason for doing so. When it comes to homosexual, I can't think of one. I can no more think of a good reason to ban two homosexuals from uniting than I can to ban two Muslims or two Jews or two atheists or any two other people who don't share your idea of God from uniting.

     Well I say let the leftists continue, let them have all the perveted homosexual relationships they want. It should only take 1-2 generations to remove this stain on our nation as they combine the failure to reproduce with contracting AIDS and other STDS to a point where the whole debate will become moot. They won't be here to make it an issue any longer.

     As if AIDS were caused by homosexuality. Any scientist would tell you, it's caused by a virus. In North America, it was spread by the activities one homosexual man in particular, a Canadian air line steward name Gaeton Dugas. This information is documented in And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts. I highly recommend the book, LL. In addition, in Africa AIDS is a heterosexual disease. That pokes a hole in your wretched God's curse theory, doesn't it?

     Because the converse is that if they get their way, God might be forced to treat our Nation like he did with Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe he'll first send a warning by destroying Sodom Francisco to see if people will repent. If this country doesn't change, it deserves God's wrath and judgment.

     Is that is another "scientific" judgment?

     When we discuss whether or not there should be gay marriage, we are discussing public policy in a state that separates church and state. If you want to believe, evidence to the contrary, that AIDS is a Biblical curse from a wrathful homophobic God, that's OK with me. I'll defend to my death your right to worship God in your image. However, once again, your religious beliefs (or mine or the next person's, for that matter) are not the proper basis of public policy.

     Sorry, LL, you'll just have to come up with more worldly reasons to ban gay marriage or otherwise proscribe homosexuality if you want to argue that point with me. Otherwise, it seems we have no common ground on which to base a discussion.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 12:08pm

144. I am just barely amused that anyone here takes this barbaric, disgusting bible thumper seriously.Libert meet Adolph Eichman, you have a lot in common. the banality of evil for one

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 12:24pm

145. Liberty, self-proclaimed mouthpiece of God's will, verbally craps:

     Friday night and we have all the leftwing extremists who want to promote perversion.

     Well I say let the leftists continue, let them have all the perveted homosexual relationships they want. It should only take 1-2 generations to remove this stain on our nation as they combine the failure to reproduce with contracting AIDS and other STDS to a point where the whole debate will become moot. They won't be here to make it an issue any longer.

     Because the converse is that if they get their way, God might be forced to treat our Nation like he did with Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe he'll first send a warning by destroying Sodom Francisco to see if people will repent. If this country doesn't change, it deserves God's wrath and judgment.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/20/2006 @ 12:44am

     Funny our resident doublespeak demon has the guts to chime in on this subject....

     "Promote perversion"... Liberty - you claiming to be a man of God instead of the man of intolerance and hate that you actually are deep down in your twisted black guts is the biggest perversion I can find here...

     And tell us, bigot.. Tell us if you recall a few months back when you made the "gays non-breeding themselves out of existence" remark and then tried to say you were just being tongue-in-cheek about it (pun intended). You are a liar whose true colors are showing, but we all already knew you were bigoted, hypocritical scum - why stop at lying? Do you lie inside, swallowing back bile, when a gay parishioner comes to you for solace and comfort? I'd bet a finger that you do.

     God doesn't hate fags, Liberty, but there is sure as hell a commandment against bearing false witness (which all of us here have seen you repeatedly violate):

     "...Men who sin against this Rule will most likely sin against several of the others, for to bear false witness says ego, pride, jealousy, contempt, and a lack of self-discipline."

     All of the gay couples I know love one another . You got a problem with that because it involves two penises, even though that is none of your business, has nothing to do with you, and doesn't affect you and yours.

     And have you ever seen someone die of AIDS, you fucking inhuman scumbag? I have, and I tell you this - no benevolent, caring, loving, God would ever allow such a thing to happen to someone who was guilty only of being in love with someone of the same sex.

     You are positively vile. Just vile, an abomination of your very own stripe.

     Methinks you're going to be awfully surprised when your own judgment comes, false prophet. God punishes men who take his name in vain, too, and of that, you are most certainly guilty every time you claim to speak for him with your hate.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/20/2006 @ 12:26pm

146. To the other JR:

     If LL want to set up straw men like that, I'll be more than happy to knock them down. It's like shooting fish in barrel.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 12:27pm

147. Jack, that image came to my mind too, but I think the pleasures of that kind of fishing are overrated. I do however enjoy your posts.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 12:31pm

148. To JohannesRolf:

     LL is trying to save my soul and I'm trying to make him a better citizen and teach him some Socratic reason.

     Either one is problably a hopeless task. Perhaps both he and I both should spend the afterlife in Hell rolling boulders up mountains.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 12:41pm

149. Jack, you gotta whole lotta soul, and he doesn't. I would never stand in the way of anyone's rhetorical pleasures.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 12:56pm

150. your soul's not in danger

     god's not a psycho

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 1:06pm

151. but that angel that liberty worships...

     definately a psycho

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 1:07pm

152. HMAN,

     It's Saturday and still no Karl Rove indictment as predicted by truthout.org for Friday. Wow. A left wing site is delusional. What a tough bet to win that was.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2006 @ 1:14pm

153. What business does the government have in officially recognizing same-sex marriages? Society has absolutely no interest in fostering same-sex marriages. In contrast, the fostering of stable conventional marriages, with the ideal of producing and nurturing physically and emotionally healthy children, is about as vital an interest as society as a whole can have.

     Gays have always been with us, and always will. It's part of the human condition. But society has no more interest in recognizing, let alone subsidizing, such relationships than it does in recognizing and subsidizing friendships, private clubs, or other free association activities.

     Tolerance for gay lifestyles? Fine. Gay marriage on the same par as conventional marriage? Nope.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2006 @ 1:18pm

154. hail caeser!

     sure society has an interest in fostering same sex marriage. Society always has an interest in reenforcing and strengthing it's institutions that promote and condone love.

     Love is the foundation of life itself

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 1:22pm

155. To Ponitficus:

     Gays have always been with us, and always will. It's part of the human condition.

     That being the case, what business does the government (or "society") have in banning same-sex marriages?

     And do you believe that a constitutional amendment should prohibit not only the federal government from recognizing them, but any state as well? If so, why?

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 1:27pm

156. theinteresrting part of that statement is that heteros also have always been with us, and always will.

     It's part of the human condition

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 1:32pm

157. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/20/2006 @ 1:18pm: In contrast, the fostering of stable conventional marriages, with the ideal of producing and nurturing physically and emotionally healthy children, is about as vital an interest as society as a whole can have.

     We'll just ignore the fact that millions of gay couples are, in fact, nurturing physically and emotionally healthy children. Society's failure to accept their families only makes such nurturing harder. If you really cared about children, you would certainly support recognition of all families.

     And if you really cared about nurturing physically and emotionally healthy children, then you would support federal assistance in food, schools, and medical care for those that are living in poverty. If you really cared about children, you would certainly support doing everything we can to insure that every child has enough to eat, is healthy, and is educated.

     But in any event, Ponty, given your claim that state-sponsered marriage serves solely to foster the production of healthy children, I assume that you also support banning marriage for post-menopausal women. What business does the government have in officially recognizing marriages involving woman incapable of having babies?

     And, we should probably require fertility tests prior to issuing a marriage license. What business does the government have in officially recognizing marriages involving those that are incapable of having babies?

     And since we are interested only in stable conventional marriages, we certainly should ban second marriages. What business does the government have in officially recognizing marriages involving people who have already demonstrated by their prior divorces that they are not committed to stability?

     And we should certainly preclude anyone who drinks, takes drugs, or has a criminal record from marrying, as these people are clearly incapable of producing and nurturing physically and emotionally healthy children.

     And finally, we certainly must ban marriages of poor people, who will not have the financial resources to nurture physically and emotionally healthy children. Why would the government want to recognize a marriage in which the children will be raised on food stamps?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/20/2006 @ 2:49pm

158. Pontificus - You're arguing that the good of Society must inform our public policy. Now what interest should Society have in protecting the weak? None, right? So shouldn't Society quietly do away with disabled babies at birth? Euthanize the elderly? I mean, come on, what earthly good can these senile old folks do for Society? Uncomfortable with that thought? Well perhaps Society has objectives in addition to pure self-preservation.

     You appear to be opining that allowing gay marriage would have a deleterious effect on hetero marriage and the fostering of "physically and emotionally healthy children". Please walk us through the logic of how allowing gay marriages impacts hetero marriages and threatens our children.

     Posted by Fishbite at 05/20/2006 @ 2:57pm

159. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/20/2006 @ 1:27pm

     Gays have always been with us, and always will. It's part of the human condition.

     That being the case, what business does the government (or "society") have in banning same-sex marriages?

     I just don't see any reason why society should provide some recognized status for homosexual relationships. Society has no particular interest in recognizing such relationships, any more than any other relationship between people. As I said, only a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to provide society with what it needs, which is children. Thus, society only has a vital interest in providing some sort of exalted structure for heterosexual marriages.

     With regard to non-productive heterosexual unions, traditional divorce grounds have always provided an out in the case of sterility. Laws and conditions regarding marriage have always been created with an eye towards fecundity and the rearing of healthy children. There's no other purpose for marriage at all, at least in terms of a compelling societal interest. I think non-fecund relationships between men and women are beside the point.

     Putting homosexual relationships on the same par with heterosexual relationships, which fulfil a vital (some would say the only real vital) societal need, is just absurd. It's political correctness gone to the degree of absurdity.

     And do you believe that a constitutional amendment should prohibit not only the federal government from recognizing them, but any state as well? If so, why?

     I think that marriage should be defined as a societally recognized relationship between a man and a woman, and that the sole reason for such recognitions is for the creation and rearing of healthy children.

     I guess states should have the right to redefine marriage if a majority of voters in each state want to do it, so I guess I'm against a federal amendment. But no state should be forced to recognize a homosexual marriage, so I'm not sure how allowing each state to go its own way would work, or even if it would be practical.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2006 @ 3:40pm

160. I read some transcripts from the Robert Bork confirmation hearings in 1987 when Specter grilled him. The man really has no principles at all. Twenty years ago he defended our liberties. And now he defecates on the Constitution from the surveillance program to gay rights. Kudos to Feingold for not passively sitting through a disgraceful sham.

     Intrepid Liberal Journal

     Posted by trebor007 at 05/20/2006 @ 3:47pm

161. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/20/2006 @ 3:40pm: Only a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to provide society with what it needs, which is children. Thus, society only has a vital interest in providing some sort of exalted structure for heterosexual marriages.

     But then why should the state sanction the marriage of post-menopausal women? This is not some after the fact discovery of sterility. It was known when they were married that these women could not bear children, and hence, do not have "the potential to provide society with what it needs, which is children". If your justification for the "exalted structure for heterosexual marriages" is child rearing, then clearly post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/20/2006 @ 3:55pm

162. Posted by FISHBITE 05/20/2006 @ 2:57pm

     Pontificus - You're arguing that the good of Society must inform our public policy.

     Of course.

     Now what interest should Society have in protecting the weak? None, right? So shouldn't Society quietly do away with disabled babies at birth? Euthanize the elderly? I mean, come on, what earthly good can these senile old folks do for Society? Uncomfortable with that thought? Well perhaps Society has objectives in addition to pure self-preservation.

     Our Constitution is based on traditional Judeo-Christian morality, which requires us to protect the weak and the infirm. As a Christian nation, we have to take it on faith that it's for the good of society. It's one of the things that differentiates us and makes us stronger and better than the Soviets, Communists, and the Nazis and other failed regimes.

     You appear to be opining that allowing gay marriage would have a deleterious effect on hetero marriage and the fostering of "physically and emotionally healthy children".

     Not at all. I just don't see why society should bother to confer any special status on homosexual relationships at all.

     Please walk us through the logic of how allowing gay marriages impacts hetero marriages and threatens our children.

     I don't think it does adversely impact traditional marriage. I just don't see why society should give homosexual relationships any special status, particularly not the same status as child-bearing relationships.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2006 @ 3:57pm

163. Posted by ORWELL2005 05/20/2006 @ 3:55pm

     But then why should the state sanction the marriage of post-menopausal women? This is not some after the fact discovery of sterility. It was known when they were married that these women could not bear children, and hence, do not have "the potential to provide society with what it needs, which is children". If your justification for the "exalted structure for heterosexual marriages" is child rearing, then clearly post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry.

     Well, this issue only comes up in the homosexual marriage debate. Strictly speaking, it's a little absurd for society to recognize marriages between 90-year-olds, for example, so it's a valid point. But the fact that society agrees to honor such relationships doesn't alter the fundamental purpose for which marriage was created, so the point is at the end of the day, irrelevant.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2006 @ 4:02pm

164. "Society has no particular interest in recognizing such relationships, any more than any other relationship between people. As I said, only a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to provide society with what it needs, which is children."

     this is absolute nonsense. society, first of all, is not an agent. individuals are agents. and (millions of) individuals most certainly have interest in recognizing (homosexual) relationships.

     and your second statement is just baffling: are you actually saying that straight marriages inherently contain offspring? that is just preposterous. women are the only individuals who can produce offspring, and they can achieve this is in a variety of manners. straight men are simply not necessary.

     and this discussion completely glosses over the questions of:

     a. what is a man? b. what is a woman?

     is "a" a homo sapiens sapiens with a penis? is "b" a homo sapiens sapiens with a vagina?

     or is it further complicated when chromosomal differences are introduced?

     pontificus, you are completely unprepared to handle this debate. your arguments are steeped in early 20th century thinking. you need to expand your mind.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/20/2006 @ 4:04pm

165. To Pontificus:

     Thank you for your reply.

     Putting homosexual relationships on the same par with heterosexual relationships, which fulfil a vital (some would say the only real vital) societal need, is just absurd. It's political correctness gone to the degree of absurdity.

     That is a judgment, but you give no valid reasons to support it.

     I just don't see any reason why society should provide some recognized status for homosexual relationships. Society has no particular interest in recognizing such relationships, any more than any other relationship between people.

     The question was posed by another, but since it applies to me personally, I'll ask it. I had a vasectomy twenty years ago; two years ago, I married a post-menopausal woman. What interest does society have in our marriage? It certainly isn't the one you give.

     With regard to non-productive heterosexual unions, traditional divorce grounds have always provided an out in the case of sterility.

     You obviously don't live in California, where the only grounds for divorce are irreconcilable differences and incurable insanity. It has been that way for about forty years. Sterility doesn't seem to enter into the picture.

     I think that marriage should be defined as a societally recognized relationship between a man and a woman, and that the sole reason for such recognitions is for the creation and rearing of healthy children.

     I am not going to disagree that raising children is an important matter. It is still not a valid argument against gay marriage.

     My wife and I are acquainted with a lesbian couple who have fostered many hard-to-place children and adopted some. They are excellent parents to these children. Should they be denied to marry? Even as it is, they are fulfilling the capacity that you seem think is most important.

     Which brings up a point: does the government have an interest in recognizing any marriage at all?

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 4:06pm

166. John Maasch asked: "And Conman, I, too, as a hetero man love lesbian porn...:) what does that make me?"

     What you love is "pretty" "femmy" women engaging in sex, while inviting in a pizza boy or some such foolishness. I suspect that watching sex between two real life butch lesbians wouldn't be such a treat for you.

     Posted by susanb red at 05/20/2006 @ 4:09pm

167. good point Susan, that definitely needed to be said.

     very fine posts by all, in answer to the totalitarian Ponti, his views are not 20th century, they are positively antedeluvian. there are plenty of couple who get married and choose not to have children, no state marriage license for them? you must be joking.and you don't have to be post menopausal to make that choice.

     and here is where the threads overlap, gay marriage and freedom of choice in reproductive decision are part of the same issue, freedom to choose. and those that rail against abortion "on demand" are the same agitating against gays.

     in a free society, freedom of choice is paramount.Ponti sounds a lot like Hitler and his crew, with their aryan claptrap about mmaaking aryan children for the fatherland. also his persecution of gays fits right in with the Nazi program, you too liberty, just substitute Der Führer for god or Jesus and it's the same program.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 4:40pm

168. To LL

     I have said before that marriage is a religious institution brought to America by Christians. We therefore retain the right to stipulate that a religious covenant cannot be changed by man.

     You mean Native Americans didn't have such an institution as marriage? That's news to me. I think it would be to a lot of Native Americans, too.

     The notion that marriage was brought to America by Christians is a lot hooey. For that matter, the idea that it is Christian is a lot of hooey. Marriage has existed in every culture, Christian and non-Christian alike. Christians do not have dibs on it.

     To allow Christians to define for the state what marriage is would be tantimount to the establishment of a state religion. Only a very twisted interpretation of the Constitution would permit that.

     Even though my thoughts on homosexual relationships are obvious, I also acknowledge that the Constitution will end up supporting Civil Unions by Homosexuals, followed soon after by Polygamy. Those organizations that call themselves Christian and yet authorize Homosexual or Polygamist marriages are stepping outside of Scripture.

     So they stepping the Scripture (or at least your personal interpretation of it). Again, it is not, as you wrongly assert, for Christians to define marriage in a secular society of laws that separates church and state. And no one is obligated to accept either one particular religious or even one person's idea of what that means.

     I can certainly offer scientific reasons for condemning homosexuality as even to someone with a low IQ, it is obvious that this is unnatural. There is no amount of rationalization that can defend it as a natural act.

     Elaborate, please. It would seem that homosexuality is natural to homosexuals.

     I am heterosexual. For me, that is natural. I had no crisis of identity about it because I naturally fit into the societal norm. It wasn't a choice. I did not wake up one morning when I was in my teens and say "Gee, I think I'll orient my sexuality as straight. That would be just cool."

     There is no historical record of a major civilization that began engaging in widespread homosexuality and did not fall into decay and corruption followed by a complete dismantling. Much of homoxeuality's history is marked by it's widespread use in paganism.

     There are two problems with that remark. First of all, there is no record of a major civilization collapsing as a direct result of homosexuality. Second, there is no case on record of a major civilization not collapsing after a period of time for one reason or another. Your reason is simply a post hoc fallacy.

     In the United States, the two leading causes of AIDS are homosexual sex and IV Drug use. Innocent men, women and children have been infected by the immoral actions of others.

     I will agree that IV drug use is immoral, but what is inherently immoral about homosexuality? You've demonstrated how heterosexual behavior can be immoral and lead to AIDS; how is that different from homosexual behavior? AIDS is spread by as a result of risky sexual behavior, not homosexuality per se.

     I worked with some gay men in San Francisco in the mid eighties. One of them explained that what the AIDS epidemic did was to change the gay community from one of anything goes sex to one of committed relationships. In other words, the response in the gay community to a disease that was spread by risky sexual behavior was to reduce risky sexual behavior.

     That could be a better argument for gay marriage than against it.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 5:29pm

169. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/20/2006 @ 4:02pm: But the fact that society agrees to honor such relationships [heteros that can't produce children] doesn't alter the fundamental purpose for which marriage was created, so the point is at the end of the day, irrelevant.

     Irrelevant? The only argument you provided for banning gay marriage was that such marriages where inconsistent with "the ideal of producing and nurturing physically and emotionally healthy children".

     If you now claim that argument is irrelevant, you are left with... nothing. (Of course, you started with nothing, so that is not surprising.)

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/20/2006 @ 5:40pm

170. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/20/2006 @ 4:40pm: I have said before that marriage is a religious institution brought to America by Christians.

     I am not sure why you would want to brag about being repeatedly wrong, but feel free...

     I can certainly offer scientific reasons for condemning homosexuality as even to someone with a low IQ, it is obvious that this is unnatural. There is no amount of rationalization that can defend it as a natural act.

     Strange thing, LovesFacism, but most species of mammals engage in homosexual behavior. So, it seems to be quite natural, if by "natural" you mean that which occurs in nature.

     So, I am interested in your scientific reasons for condemning homosexuality. Could you provide some of them?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/20/2006 @ 5:46pm

171. these guys, Ponti and Liverty are just haters. the rest is just noise. nice skewering Orwell and Jack

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 5:58pm

172. "I have said before that slavery is a religious institution brought to America by Christians."

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 6:00pm

173. I have said before that genicide is a religious institution brought to America by Christians."

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 6:01pm

174. genocide

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 6:01pm

175. "In the United States, the two leading causes of AIDS are homosexual sex and IV Drug use."

     this is a lie. unprotected sex, homo or hetero, and IV druguse are leading causes of the SPREAD of AIDS, not the cause. these guys know NOTHING. I long for the very long, technical discussion on AIDS that took place here a while ago.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 6:14pm

176. Correction to a paragraph in replya to LL (5:29 p,):

     So they are stepping ouytside the Scripture (or at least your personal interpretation of it). Again, it is not, as you wrongly assert, for Christians to define marriage in a secular society of laws that separates church and state. And no one is obligated to accept either one particular religious belief or even one person's idea of what that means.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 6:32pm

177. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/20/2006 @ 6:14pm

     So I can hear the hamsters explain to me that HIV drugs cause aids but that as HIV drugs have become more available and as a result the deaths caused by HIV have dropped...

     that's proof that HIV is a hoax.

     (that was the craziest argument I ever got into here)

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 6:43pm

178. LL,

     Another long paste. Another failure to address the point. The issue, brought up by you, was the CAUSE of HIV/AIDS. You point to the fact that HIV affects more gays than straights. I could point to the fact that gays dress better than straights and be just as certain I had proved my point.

     You are shifting the argument away from your original unsubstantiated claim. You claimed that gay sex causes AIDS. This is no more true than to say not using sunscreen causes skin cancer.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/20/2006 @ 7:22pm

179. And my wife and I were married--ask my parents or in-laws. No superstition was necessary for our ceremony. We relied on love and legality, neither of which required an old book for confirmation.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/20/2006 @ 7:24pm

180. Your comments reflect popular ignorance JR according to the CDC

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/20/2006 @ 7:09pm

     I'm not exactly sure how this…

     this is a lie. unprotected sex, homo or hetero, and IV druguse are leading causes of the SPREAD of AIDS, not the cause. these guys know NOTHING.

     doesn't jive with this…

     According to the new data, the impact of HIV continues to be greatest among men who have sex with men (MSM), regardless of race. This group represented 44 percent of diagnoses during the four-year period.

     High-risk heterosexual contact accounted for 34 percent of new cases, followed by injection drug users at 17 percent.

     The latter comment from the CDC also supports JR's assertion that sex and drugs aren't the leading causes of AIDS but rather are the leading causes for their spread.

     HIV is the leading cause of AIDS

     So a... maybe you can explain again to us why you're not the only guy in the room who's ignorant

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 7:27pm

181. "The disease is a disease caused by high risk behavior."

     The disease is often SPREAD by certain behaviors.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/20/2006 @ 7:40pm

182. "unnatural behavior"

     I cannot accept this from a man who lives far too much of his life according to supernatural whims. Supernatural is not natural, yet your people rule the country. Go figure. And, by the way, nice job.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/20/2006 @ 7:43pm

183. To LL:

     Of course we can define it because marriage is a religious agreement/ceremony. Civil Unions are what governments issue. You can have a marriage ceremony but not have the government recognize your union. That takes a license and contract agreement between the two parties and sanctioning by the state.

     False. My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony, not in a church. We have a marriage license, not a civil union certificate.

     You also misconstrued my statement about Christians bringing marriage to the US. Of course many cultures have a form of marriage. But our tradition in the US is based upon the Judeo-Christian sacrament of marriage as a religious ceremony.

     If marriage were defined as you say, you would have a better point. But then it would be a strictly religious institution with no support from the govrnment.

     Of course, marriage is not defined as you say.

     Where you learned civics, LL, God only knows.

     From your response to Mr. Rolf:

     According to the new data, the impact of HIV continues to be greatest among men who have sex with men (MSM), regardless of race. This group represented 44 percent of diagnoses during the four-year period.

     Pointing out that AIDS is most prevalent among homosexual men does not prove that homosexuality causes AIDS. Being a homosexual man no more causes AIDS than being Black causes sickle cell anemia. Moreover, in both North America and Africa, the disease is spread the same way: through risky sexual behavior. The sexual orientation of the carrier is irrelevant.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 7:53pm

184. SUSANB RED,

     "John Maasch asked: "And Conman, I, too, as a hetero man love lesbian porn...:) what does that make me?"

     What you love is "pretty" "femmy" women engaging in sex, while inviting in a pizza boy or some such foolishness. I suspect that watching sex between two real life butch lesbians wouldn't be such a treat for you. "

     My statement was a point of foolishness on another thread and on your statement regarding "real life butch...", you are entirely correct.

     I believe you missunderstood the entire thread and post.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/20/2006 @ 8:09pm

185. The disease is a disease caused by high risk behavior. It is not hereditory, nor is it a danger to most people who do not engage in the high risk behavior. The evidence backs that up and no amount of dancing around the issue and trying to justify high risk behavior will change it.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/20/2006 @ 7:37pm

     Who's dancing?

     Wear a condom... use a clean needle

     We could institute that program tomorrow

     But then you wouldn't have a booger man to scare the kiddies with or the pain and suffering associated with this particular booger man

     you evangelics can't have that now can you

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 8:11pm

186. To Will:

     I could be wrong, but I think your post misses the mark.

     True, your solutions would make some otherwise behavior less risky.

     However, in the case of homosexuality, LL is arguing that it is in and of itself risky. That is no more true of homosexuality than of heterosexuality.

     The reason that AIDS in North America is more prevalent among homosexual men is that in the seventies, one particular homosexual man, an attractive young buck who traveled a great deal (he was an airline steward), spread the disease almost single handedly. Again, this is documented in Randy Shilts' book, [i]And the Band Played On.[/i] It didn't help that at the time, anything goes sex was fashionable. This was true not only of homosexuals, but heterosexuals as well. It's really only by chance that AIDS became identified with homosexuality.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 8:28pm

187. [i]Sorry.[/i]

     True, your solutions would make some otherwise [i]risky[/i] behavior less risky.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 8:29pm

188. "The disease is a disease caused by high risk behavior. It is not hereditory, nor is it a danger to most people who do not engage in the high risk behavior. The evidence backs that up and no amount of dancing around the issue and trying to justify high risk behavior will change it."

     again, more nonsense. very little was known about AIDS until much later than many hundreds of thousands of people were infected. and the infected were most certainly not engaging in "unnatural" behavior! in fact, homosexuality is somewhat prevalent in the animal kingdom, bonobos for one engage in homosexual acts all the time (hint: sodomy is not exclusive to gay men; as i assume you are trying to make the argument that AIDS was most commonly spread via sodomy between men).

     second, neither were the infected presuming they were engaging in "high risk" behavior. as i stated, little was known about AIDS, and one acquired it, until around 1982. mainstream culture didn't really find out until around 1986-1987!

     and it should also be stated that the leading cause of the worldwide spread of AIDS currently is NOT sodomy between gay males. not even close.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/20/2006 @ 8:34pm

189. "he reason that AIDS in North America is more prevalent among homosexual men is that in the seventies, one particular homosexual man, an attractive young buck who traveled a great deal (he was an airline steward), spread the disease almost single handedly."

     you must be referring to bruce chatwin. and this CANNOT be verified. though chatwin did in fact have AIDS, you cannot trace the evolution of the disease in north america to this man.

     and it should also be stated that chatwin was bisexual.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/20/2006 @ 8:36pm

190. To Darla:

     I never heard of Bruce Chatwin.

     Randy Shilts documents the case of Gaetan Dugas. He is AIDS "Patient Zero."

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 8:43pm

191. never heard of chatwin? you need an education, boy.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Chatwin

     Posted by darladoon at 05/20/2006 @ 8:50pm

192. Jack

     I understand that. And I know what liberty is trying to say. And of course I'm poking fun at what he actually said... which was retarded.

     But to solve the problem you must understand the basic morphology of HIV. It's a retrovirus. It doesn't maintain viability for very long after drying out. In Africa where men aren't routinely circumcised, the virus can maintain viability under the foreskin after the glans retracts. It is this basic mechanism that allows HIV to be spread easily via hetero sexual contact in Africa.

     Most men are circumcised in this country. Any infected secretions would dry out and render the virus inert in a short time. Of course vaginally and anally, the virus can still maintain viability.

     As it does via injection.

     So to protect people from HIV, either everything is clean to start with or you wear a condom.

     but to think that people are just going to be scared into giving up sex and or drugs anytime soon or that "Just say no" is a working solution to the problem is not only criminally negligent...

     But also highly unchristian

     Posted by Will C. at 05/20/2006 @ 8:52pm

193. LoveShack, you wrote:

     I can certainly offer scientific reasons for condemning homosexuality as even to someone with a low IQ, it is obvious that this is unnatural. There is no amount of rationalization that can defend it as a natural act.

     I replied:

     Strange thing, LovesFacism, but most species of mammals engage in homosexual behavior. So, it seems to be quite natural, if by "natural" you mean that which occurs in nature.

     So, I am interested in your scientific reasons for condemning homosexuality. Could you provide some of them?

     I am still waiting for your "scientific reasons for condemning homosexuality". I presume you haven't responded, because you're once again shooting blanks.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/20/2006 @ 8:53pm

194. To Darla:

     Thanks. I was just looking at this. Wikipedia is a good resource, don't you think.

     Anyway, Chatwin clearly isn't our man. From Wikipedia:

     In the late 1980s, Chatwin developed AIDS. He was one of the first high-profile sufferers of the disease in Britain and although he hid the illness - passing off his symptoms as fungal infections or the effects of the bite of a Chinese bat - it was a poorly-kept secret. He did not respond well to AZT, and with his condition deteriorating rapidly, Chatwin and his wife went to live in the South of France at the house that belonged to the mother of his one-time lover, Jasper Conran. There, during his final months, Chatwin was nursed by both his wife and Shirley Conran. He died in Nice in 1989 at age 48.

     He developed AIDS around the same time Gaetan Dugas died.

     I see on Wikipedia also that Dugas' status as Patient Zero is now disputed. Even if he was not Patient Zero, Dugas, by his selfish behavior, did a great deal to turn the disease into an epidemic among gay men in North America. He boasted of having about 250 different sex partners a year. When doctors told Dugas to refrain from sex, he harshly refused.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 9:08pm

195. To Will:

     I won't go so far as to call it unchristian. LL would disagree, I'm sure.

     Nevertheless, your point is taken. We can lecture other people until we are blue in the face about avoiding risky behavior, but when push comes to shove, many people will do it anyway.

     To think that talking about sin and morality or passing laws against this or that is going to save the world (the one on earth, anyway) is just foolish. If we want to save lives, we'll have to realize that not everybody is going to refrain from behavior we find objectionable and start passing out the condoms and needles.

     However, back to the subject at hand, which is gay marriage: wouldn't it encourage gay men to stay together in committed relationships, reducing the risk of AIDS, if the state recognized their union and gave them the same benefits as married couples?

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/20/2006 @ 9:32pm

196. fine posts all around except of course from our american Taleban.

     When doctors told Dugas to refrain from sex, he harshly refused.

     by this time he presumably knew he was dying. under those circumstances his desire for sex at any cost to someone else is not so hard to understand, if not condonable.

     in concentration camps, the drive for sex was unbelievable, those who are about to die want desperately to have sex, which after all is the opposite of death, it is life.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 10:32pm

197. PONTIFICUS

     Our Constitution is based on traditional Judeo-Christian morality, which requires us to protect the weak and the infirm.

     Which part of Judeo-Christian theology dealt with the independence of the judiciary, federalism, the power of the purse being retained by the legislature, separation of powers, freedom of religion (may I point out that the First Commandment prohibits worship of gods other than Yahweh), etc.

     (n.b., no dispute on the obligation to protect the weak and the infirm, even from this atheist).

     Posted by brunowe at 05/20/2006 @ 10:50pm

198. "Our Constitution is based on traditional Judeo-Christian morality, which requires us to protect the weak and the infirm."

     this of course is by no means confined to judeo christian thought, so don't be so arrogant Ponti. I haven't noticed much charity in your posts.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 11:01pm

199. there is only one commandment in christianity, love thy neighbor. it does not say love thy neighbor unless he is gay, or a muslim, an immigrant legal or otherwise. you can look it up.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/20/2006 @ 11:03pm

200. LL,

     Backhanded compliment? I had my fist clenched and my knuckles bared. And I wasn't thinking about apple pie and puppy dogs and baseball either.

     I don't think that anyone who is consumed with the supernatural can tell anyone else what is or is not natural. The natural world does not exist for those who embrace the supernatural in and of itself. But if we're going to be debate the naturalness of this person getting frisky with that person, then how do we explain any couple?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/20/2006 @ 11:25pm

201. wouldn't it encourage gay men to stay together in committed relationships, reducing the risk of AIDS, if the state recognized their union and gave them the same benefits as married couples?

     Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/20/2006 @ 9:32pm

     All men cannot just be created equal

     All men must be treated equal.

     otherwise we are not who we say we are

     Posted by Will C. at 05/21/2006 @ 01:32am

202. Let's definitely change the Constitution to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. Hell, while we're spreading the intolerance let's restrict it to one time only per person. That's right, force the hypocritical right wing wackos to vote for an amendment that disallows second and third marriages. If they want to shove their interpretation of their bible down our throats, let's give them a little scripture to choke on themselves.

     Posted by hmnpwr at 05/21/2006 @ 01:40am

203. Posted by BRUNOWE 05/20/2006 @ 10:50pm

     (n.b., no dispute on the obligation to protect the weak and the infirm, even from this atheist).

     I don't think there is any basis in principle for an atheist to protect the weak and the infirm. Oh yeah, I'm sure you would never consider yourself a danger to the weak and infirm. Except, well, maybe you might find it acceptable to pull the plug on those you judge 'hopeless', whereas a Christian has no such luxury of elasticated principles. Just like leftist college administrations would never consider themselves to be a threat to free speech. Unless it's 'hate speech', of course, a term which coincidentally seems to encompass most viewpoints they disagree with. And they're all for diversity, of course, as long as it's diversity that they agree with.

     That's why many atheist countries (e.g., Netherlands) are having trouble protecting the lives of those judged not worthy of medical treatment. It's also why Lenin figured that it was completely justified to execute those who were detrimental to the advancement of society, and why Hitler thought that he could make the world a better place by eliminating the 'inferior' races. It's the lack of a belief in God that makes the atheist left so dangerous. Yet another reason why you can't be trusted to govern.

     The point is, as an atheist, the principles you think you live by aren't worth spit. I'm sure you think your principles are all about 'the good of society', but everyone's ideas of what would be best for society are different. Hitler and Lenin definitely had the good of society in mind, too. They just had a different idea about going about it than other atheists do.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/21/2006 @ 9:42pm

204. HMAN,

     I know you're hiding out there somewhere. Come back you coward, and eat crow. truthout.org couldn't even muster the honesty to bring themselves to admit they were wrong. They said 'yeah, Rove hasn't been indicted yet, but that doesn't mean we were wrong, it just means we were wrong about the timing.' Nice dodge.

     Fitzpatrick still won't say that he thinks Plame was covert, i.e., there is no crime to base an indictment on, even if he thought Rove was involved. And Libby's 'perjury' and 'obstruction of justice' charges, I'll wager, will evaporate into thin air.

     But you can go on for the next 3 years saying that Rove's indictment is 'imminent', then you can hope everyone forgets about it. Be my guest.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/21/2006 @ 9:51pm

205. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/21/2006 @ 9:51pm: Fitzpatrick still won't say that he thinks Plame was covert

     Ah Ponty... His name is Fitzgerald. And he did say that Plame was covert. He said it at the press conference following the indictment of your boy Scooter.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/21/2006 @ 10:01pm

206. Maybe you should try seeking out sources other than the fat drug addict that you adore.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/21/2006 @ 10:02pm

207. Posted by ORWELL2005 05/20/2006 @ 3:55pm

     But then why should the state sanction the marriage of post-menopausal women? This is not some after the fact discovery of sterility. It was known when they were married that these women could not bear children, and hence, do not have "the potential to provide society with what it needs, which is children". If your justification for the "exalted structure for heterosexual marriages" is child rearing, then clearly post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry.

     You're picking a minor exception and trying to overturn the rule. You've got an agenda, and common sense doesn't apply. I've said it countless times; society only accords the privilege of marriage to those whose unions fit a compelling societal interest: the creation and bringing up of healthy children. Sure, their are sentimental exceptions made. That doesn't mean we should change the definition of marriage out of all relation to reality to the needs and desires of the moment of some special interest group. After all, if we redefine marriage for gays, why not for polygamists? Or simply for those who want to 'marry' their best friend so they can share health benefits?

     Homosexual unions are, by definition, an evolutionary dead end. Human society, except perhaps in Europe, is not interested in evolutionary dead ends or demographic suicide. Heterosexual unions are the only means known for creating life, and the best known way to raise children. Maybe your opinions are different.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/21/2006 @ 10:10pm

208. Posted by ORWELL2005 05/21/2006 @ 10:01pm

     Ah Ponty... His name is Fitzgerald. And he did say that Plame was covert. He said it at the press conference following the indictment of your boy Scooter.

     That's flat out incorrect. Provide a link or admit you're wrong.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/21/2006 @ 10:11pm

209. Always happy to educate you, ORWELL. Please provide a later link which contradicts this, if you have one. Which you don't.

     Saturday, Oct. 29, 2005 12:13 p.m. EDT

     Patrick Fitzgerald Retreats From Plame 'Covert' Claim

     Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald dropped a mini-bombshell Friday afternoon while he was explaining his indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby to the press.

     It turns out that the central premise of his investigation - that Valerie Plame Wilson enjoyed protected "covert" status at the CIA - may not be true.

     "Let me say two things," Fitzgerald told reporters. "I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert . . . And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."

     Fitzgerald did insist that Mrs. Wilson's "association with the CIA was classified," which would make leaking her occupation a crime. But he declined to bring any charges to that effect, casting even more doubt on the claim that her CIA job was a closely guarded secret.

     http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/29/122517.shtml

     Posted by pontificus at 05/21/2006 @ 10:14pm

210. Oh, I guess I can see why you're confused. You've been reading the mainstream media. That would explain it.

     Friday, Nov. 4, 2005 12:08 p.m. EST

     Press Still Insists Valerie Plame 'Covert'

     A week after Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald announced that his investigation had been unable to establish that Valerie Plame was a "covert" CIA agent at the time she was "outed" by columnist Robert Novak, the press continues to refer to her using the bogus term.

     In the last six days, there have been 261 references to Plame's "covert" status in mainstream media accounts, according to a Lexis Nexis search. The wave of erroneous reporting continues despite Fitzgerald's clear denials during his press conference last Friday after announcing Lewis "Scooter" Libby's indictment.

     Asked about Plame's "covert" status, Fitzgerald told reporters:

     "I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward . . . We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion." [END EXCERPT]

     Fitzgerald explained instead that Plame's CIA association was "classified," a security status enjoyed by almost everyone who works at the agency.

     Gosh, if we prosecuted everyone who leaked classified information, we'd have to throw the entire New York Times staff in jail. Can't have that, can we?

     Posted by pontificus at 05/21/2006 @ 10:18pm

211. ORWELL,

     All of the benefits accorded by society to those who marry are for the purpose of making it easier to have and raise children. Gays do not have children. Polygamists do. If anything, polygamists should get the right to marry before gays. At least they're creating children.

     And no matter what they tell you, refusing to grant someone a privilege because they don't fit the criteria, and refusing to change the criteria to suit their wishes, does not constitute discrimination. Unless you're a spoiled child. And I guess in a sense, leftists are all, collectively, the spoiled children of capitalism. I'll have to remember that one, it rings true when you look at the Kerrys, Kennedy's, Fonda's, Pelosi's, etc.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/21/2006 @ 10:31pm

212. Right. He did say "I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert".

     In the same press conference [tinyurl.com], he also said:

     Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. ... It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

     Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

     So, her status as a CIA officer was classified. i.e., secret.

     And, according to dictionary.com, "covert" means:

     secret or hidden; not openly practiced or engaged in or shown or avowed

     Her status as a CIA officer was classified. Which means it was secret. Which means it was covert.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/21/2006 @ 10:35pm

213. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/21/2006 @ 10:31pm: All of the benefits accorded by society to those who marry are for the purpose of making it easier to have and raise children. Gays do not have children. Polygamists do. If anything, polygamists should get the right to marry before gays. At least they're creating children.

     Right. And using that line of reasoning, polygamists should get the right to marry before post-menopausal women as well. Clearly sanctioning marriage for infertile old people contributes nothing to the purpose of "making it easier to have and raise children". Do you also favor a constitutional amendment banning that marriage of old people?

     And no matter what they tell you, refusing to grant someone a privilege because they don't fit the criteria, and refusing to change the criteria to suit their wishes, does not constitute discrimination.

     I don't know who "they" is. But the 14th amendment of the constitution tells me:

     No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

     And that might be just a tad more authoritative than you, Ponty.

     And I guess in a sense, leftists are all, collectively, the spoiled children of capitalism. I'll have to remember that one, it rings true when you look at the Kerrys, Kennedy's, Fonda's, Pelosi's, etc.

     So the Decida is now a Leftist.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/21/2006 @ 10:50pm

214. Posted by ORWELL2005 05/21/2006 @ 10:35pm: Right. He did say "I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert".

     Just to clarify, what Mr. Fitzgerald meant by this was that for the purposes of this indictment, the covert status of Ms. Plame was irrelevant. The indictment was for lying and obstruction of justice. It was not for outing a covert agent, and hence, her covert status was irrelevant.

     This is even made clear in Ponty's NewsMax story which adds the "[in the indictment]" editorial qualifier to the quote:

     "I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert . . . And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/21/2006 @ 10:56pm

215. It's the lack of a belief in God that makes the atheist left so dangerous. Yet another reason why you can't be trusted to govern.

     Well there's a bit of howling bigotry--and comparing atheism to Hitler and Stalin, a mind-boggling non-sequitur.

     Of course I noticed that you had no substantive response to my observations on the Constitution, not that I was surprised.

     whereas a Christian has no such luxury of elasticated principle

     Of course completely overlooking that Christian churches stretch from right to left on the issues of the day, but you probably don't consider anyone outside of your little lunatic fringe to be a Christian.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/22/2006 @ 12:39am

216. Posted by ORWELL2005 05/21/2006 @ 10:35pm

     Her status as a CIA officer was classified. Which means it was secret. Which means it was covert.

     But using that rationale (classified=covert), you're making practically every CIA employee a 'covert' agent (since almost all CIA employees are 'classified'), when plainly, that is not the case. And didn't Fitzgerald specifically refuse to say whether he considered Plame "covert" (in the eyes of the law, not the dictionary)? It seems like you're taking a direct statement and twisting it to mean just the opposite of what Fitzgerald intended to say.

     I know George Orwell said that in order to be a leftist one must develop the capability of holding two simultaneously incompatible views, but I think you're taking him a little too far.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/22/2006 @ 08:26am

217. Posted by BRUNOWE 05/22/2006 @ 12:39am

     Well there's a bit of howling bigotry--and comparing atheism to Hitler and Stalin, a mind-boggling non-sequitur.

     Bigotry? I don't think so. Bigotry is intolerance for other people's views, or groups of people other than one's own. Bigotry is what John McCain was exposed to when he attempted to speak at the New School, and was heckled by 'tolerant' leftists. Bigotry is what the left practices every day in college campuses across the country.

     Lenin and Hitler, and Pol Pot, were atheists who took their beliefs to their logical conclusions in terms of public policy. It's not intolerance to point that out, just because you don't like the idea.

     Of course I noticed that you had no substantive response to my observations on the Constitution, not that I was surprised.

     I didn't think it was relevant. The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution by a number of years. It's in the Declaration that the basis of the Constitution is laid out, and the Judeo-Christian basis of the Constitution is set forth. I know you atheists like to ignore that, but that's your problem.

     Of course completely overlooking that Christian churches stretch from right to left on the issues of the day, but you probably don't consider anyone outside of your little lunatic fringe to be a Christian.

     LOL. I'm sure the atheist left would consider the framers of the Constitution to be a 'lunatic fringe' if the framers were alive today. It's a little ironic to hear you say that.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/22/2006 @ 08:36am

218. Homosexual unions are, by definition, an evolutionary dead end. Human society, except perhaps in Europe, is not interested in evolutionary dead ends or demographic suicide. Heterosexual unions are the only means known for creating life, and the best known way to raise children. Maybe your opinions are different.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/21/2006 @ 10:10pm

     Hamsters don't believe in evolution

     Posted by Will C. at 05/22/2006 @ 09:19am

219. "whereas a Christian has no such luxury of elasticated principle."

     Maybe. But the Good Book has hundreds of principles from which to choose, many of which are contradictory. Once you have chosen the ones that suit you, they are easy to follow in an "unelasticated" fashion.

     Posted by drhammer at 05/22/2006 @ 09:25am

220. TJB,

     "You are shifting the argument away from your original unsubstantiated claim. You claimed that gay sex causes AIDS. This is no more true than to say not using sunscreen causes skin cancer."

     Agreed, gay men didn't cause aids, however the overwhelming evidence points towards homosexuality and IV drug use as the main cause for the continued spreading of aids.

     Hey homo's stop sticking your penis into other men's anuses and help rid the world of aids by not spreading it.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 10:00am

221. PONTIFICUS –

     I was not hiding out. If you are looking for posts from me on the weekend, you won't find many. I hardly visit here on the weekend; I prefer to waste time during the workweek.

     As for the crow – mmmmmm - it doesn't taste as bad as I would have thought. Truthout.org and Wayne Madsen have some explaining to do. They are certainly making many bloggers look stupid. Maybe as time goes on we will learn more about what happened. In any event, I think it is way too early to say Rove is out of the woods yet.

     As for your challenge to provide links re: Plame as a covert agent, we have been over this too many times for me to waste a lot of time on it now. I gave you these links a few weeks ago; you ignored them then, so I do not expect much different by posting them again.

     Tatel's Opinion [tinyurl.com]

     In a 5 February 2005 concurring opinion, Circuit Judge David S. Tatel made two references to Plame's covert status. First, on page 28 of the opinion, Judge Tatel referred to Plame as an "alleged covert agent." Second, on page 38, Judge Tatel stated that because Fitzgerald had allegedly referred to Plame as "a . . . who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years," in footnote 15 of a recent affidavit, Judge Tatel inferred that Mr. Fitzgerald must have at least "some support" for that conclusion.

     Fitzgerald's Affidavit [tinyurl.com]

     If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.

     Footnote 15 to Fitzgerald's affidavit. As I and others have been saying for months to you, it seems the primary elements for Fitzgerald regarding the leak charges are knowledge and intent - not Plame's status.

     I'll admit that trhutout.org and Madsen screwed up their stories. How about you dropping the "Fitzgerald has not alleged Plame was covert" rubbish?

     I know as a conservative it is hard to admit when you are wrong.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 10:01am

222. Plame was covert - period!

     You see, rightwing says "it just depends on what covert means". That sophistry didn't work with Clinton and the meaning of sex; it won't work with GOP and meaning of covert.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/22/2006 @ 10:10am

223. To Ponitificus:

     Are you writing satire? Your responses make a lot more sense if read that way.

     You're picking a minor exception and trying to overturn the rule.

     That remark is in reference to your "rule" that the "sole reason" for marriage is procreation. The "minor exception" is a couple that marry in their twilight years. Why is that exception any more minor than allowing gays to marry?

     You are doing worse than arguing in circles. You are making it up as you go along. First there is a "rule" that isn't a rule and then you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is an exception and what is not.

     Bigotry? I don't think so. Bigotry is intolerance for other people's views, or groups of people other than one's own. Bigotry is what John McCain was exposed to when he attempted to speak at the New School, and was heckled by 'tolerant' leftists. Bigotry is what the left practices every day in college campuses across the country.

     Lenin and Hitler, and Pol Pot, were atheists who took their beliefs to their logical conclusions in terms of public policy. It's not intolerance to point that out, just because you don't like the idea.

     The reference to McCain's reception at the New School earns you yet another Red Herring Award to add to your growing collection (in fact, your discourse on the Plame case, apart from being inaccurate, is yet another; when are you going to bring up Clinton's cock?)

     Speaking of inaccurate, Hitler did not espouse atheism. Even if he did, it has nothing to with the subject at hand.

     I didn't think it was relevant. The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution by a number of years. It's in the Declaration that the basis of the Constitution is laid out, and the Judeo-Christian basis of the Constitution is set forth. I know you atheists like to ignore that, but that's your problem.

     Do you take lessons in propaganda from Ken Mehlman or Rush Limbaugh? Not only is this irrelevant, it is inaccurate. The principle author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was a Unitarian and the religious references in the Declaration (e.g., "Nature and Nature's God") reflect that. If the subject itself isn't distracting, your inaccuracies are. The Constitution clearly separates church and state and the Declaration of Independence makes no mention of Christianity nor any specific mention of principles that can be narrowly defined as either Christian or Judeo-Christian.

     The Declaration of Independence takes no legal precedence over the Constitution. Even if it did, it doesn't make any mention of homosexuality or marriage (neither does the Constitution, for that matter).

     When you do address the matter at hand, you simply make a judgment to the effect that marriage is about only procreation and then simply reassert that statement in the face of clear refutation. A better thesis about marriage would be that it is about two people uniting to travel the path of life together.

     You simply have not proved your case. Maybe there are reasons why we should prohibit same-sex marriage, but I remain ignorant of them and neither you nor LL have provided any here.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 10:52am

224. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/22/2006 @ 08:26am: And didn't Fitzgerald specifically refuse to say whether he considered Plame "covert" (in the eyes of the law, not the dictionary)?

     No Ponty. He said the issue was irrelevant to his indictment. As your own source material asserts.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 11:01am

225. I didn't think it was relevant. The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution by a number of years. It's in the Declaration that the basis of the Constitution is laid out, and the Judeo-Christian basis of the Constitution is set forth.

     The Declaration of Independence isn't law--it's a political manifesto. Further, as Jack Rabbit pointed out, Jefferson wasn't a Christian (JR--wasn't TJ a Deist rather than a Unitarian?). Further, I don't see how you can possibly dismiss provisions of the Constitution (which I mentioned) as irrelevant to an interpretation of the Constitution. Again, please point out the Judeo-Christian bases of federalism, separation of powers, lifetime terms for judges, the legislature having the power of the purse, etc. It's been a while since I've read the Federalist Papers but I don't recall any theological arguments in them either.

     Lenin and Hitler, and Pol Pot, were atheists who took their beliefs to their logical conclusions in terms of public policy.

     They took their brands of totalitarianism to the logical extremes--there is nothing intrinsic in atheism that calls for genocide.

     It's the lack of a belief in God that makes the atheist left so dangerous. Yet another reason why you can't be trusted to govern.

     Sorry, but that time of broad overgeneralization is bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational attachment to one's prejudices. Prejudice is "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"

     Posted by brunowe at 05/22/2006 @ 11:44am

226. TJB

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/20/2006 @ 01:29am

     What if that whole line of thinking is a misinterpretation? After all he might have just been telling them all "Bite me"

     Pontificator

     ...all of the benefits accorded by society to those who marry are for the purpose of making it easier to have and raise children.

     So then people who marry and choose to not have children should be classified as criminals by your argument? I know...we'll send the bible-toting jackboot squad to force them into having unprotected sex to ensure they have children! That'll make them more moral....

     what a loon....

     BTW: You do realize Jefferson was a secularist who had real problems with the idea that JC was divine...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/22/2006 @ 11:45am

227. Todd

     Howzabout if they just wear condoms before slammin it up the old brown eye! If the problem is AIDs let's deal with the actual transmission

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/22/2006 @ 11:48am

228. LofC,

     "Howzabout if they just wear condoms before slammin it up the old brown eye! If the problem is AIDs let's deal with the actual transmission"

     I'm just trying to help some poor gay bastards from killing themselves. If condoms where 100% effective your solution would work. As you know they are not. So this will not solve the problem.

     Let me ask you this LofC, forget whether being gay is right or wrong, whether the constitution (national or individual states) should dictate who can and can't be married etc.

     Let me ask you this, do you not find it ironic and an eyebrow raiser that statistically speaking the highest percentage of people with aids are in the homosexual community?

     Could this really just be chance and irony? Or is there something to that.

     Do you think that there is message someone is trying to send us in your opinion?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 11:52am

229. To Brunowe:

     Thomas Jefferson never formally joined any church, but his preference was Unitarian. His religious beliefs were, as you say, along the lines of an eighteenth century Deist (like Voltaire), however, since Unitarianism allows for a wide range of religious expression, many Deists found Unitarian services more than acceptable.

     Whatever Unitarianism or Unitarian Universalism is, it is not orthodox Christianity. It has more in common with the "heresies" of early Christianity, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 12:10pm

230. Todd - I do not have the statistics on hand, but I do believe I have read that since the 1980's, heterosexuals have the largest demographic increase in HIV+ and AIDS.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 12:10pm

231. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/22/2006 @ 11:52am: Do you think that there is message someone is trying to send us in your opinion?

     So, having given up on rational argument, the GodlySportsGuy descends into the supernatural. Apparently too timid to actually come out and say AIDS is a plague on gay people brought by God, Todd merely infers it.

     So, Todd. Your kind and benevolent god has inflicted aids on the world to wipe out the evil gays. Is that your point?

     But aids also kills a great number of innocent heterosexuals. It kills a great number of infants. Why would a kind and benevolent god inflict such sorrow on innocent children?

     Franly, your god does not seem all that kind and benevolent. He seems like something of an asshole.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 12:14pm

232. So, let us join with GodlySportsGuy and consider the supernatural interpretations of disease. Do you not find it ironic and an eyebrow raiser that statistically speaking the people with the highest rates of obesity, cancer, and heart disease are americans?

     Could this really just be chance and irony? Or is there something to that.

     Do you think that there is message someone is trying to send us in your opinion?

     The Flying Spaghetti Monster is playing with your head.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 12:14pm

233. To Todd:

     Your questions are directed to LoC, but I'll chime in. I hope you don't mind. I'm sure LoC will provide his own answers.

     Let me ask you this, do you not find it ironic and an eyebrow raiser that statistically speaking the highest percentage of people with aids are in the homosexual community?

     No. As pointed out, that is true of North America, but it is not universally true statistically speaking the highest percentage of people with aids are in the homosexual community.

     Could this really just be chance and irony? Or is there something to that.

     As a matter of fact, Yes, it is by chance that it is most prevalent in the gay community in North America. I've addressed this in previous posts. It could easily have been primarily a heterosexual disease here, too.

     Do you think that there is message someone is trying to send us in your opinion?

     The obvious answer is No, I don't. Any discussion that it is or isn't would be absurd, so we'll just have to discuss some other aspect of the problem.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 12:20pm

234. Orwell,

     "So, let us join with GodlySportsGuy and consider the supernatural interpretations of disease. Do you not find it ironic and an eyebrow raiser that statistically speaking the people with the highest rates of obesity, cancer, and heart disease are americans?

     Could this really just be chance and irony? Or is there something to that.

     Do you think that there is message someone is trying to send us in your opinion? "

     Yes, there is a message being sent. And what you point out only further gives credibility to God's word. Gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins. Being that America is full of so many gluttons, it is no surprise that we are reaping what we sow. We have hundreds of thousands of people dying of congestive heart failure due to the fact that the person didn't heed God's word and not be a glutton.

     Thank you for making my point.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 12:28pm

235. "Hey homo's stop sticking your penis into other men's anuses and help rid the world of aids by not spreading it."

     "I'm just trying to help some poor gay bastards from killing themselves."

     Todd is so full of love for his fellow human beings that he makes me want to fucking vomit.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2006 @ 12:31pm

236. You do not represent Christianity in any way, Todd, or the constitution for that matter.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2006 @ 12:31pm

237. Posted by BRUNOWE 05/22/2006 @ 11:44am

     They took their brands of totalitarianism to the logical extremes--there is nothing intrinsic in atheism that calls for genocide.

     True. But there's also nothing intrinsic in atheism that prohibits it. That's why atheists can't be trusted; they make up their own rules as they go along. Hitler, Lenin, and Pol Pot were all just as altruistic as you are; they just had different methods. In contrast, conventional Judeo-Christian morality requires that we treat all life as sacred. Why? Because God, through the Bible, has told us so. There's nothing rational about it; God said it, therefore it is true. As I said before, it's the lack of a belief in God that makes the atheist left so dangerous. Have you heard how in the Netherlands, it is legal to abort a fetus for reasons like, "Oh, it has a harelip; dispose of it." Yet another reason why you can't be trusted to govern.

     Sorry, but that time of broad overgeneralization is bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational attachment to one's prejudices. Prejudice is "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"

     You must be using some new age dictionary. From dictionary.com:

     entries found for bigot. big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt) n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

     In my dictionary, bigotry calls for intolerance. I'm not intolerant; I know you are wrong, but I'm perfectly willing to tolerate your incorrectness. If you come to my campus, I won't try to shout you down, as leftists have become famous for doing.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/22/2006 @ 12:34pm

238. Jack and Brunowe - Stellar posts.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2006 @ 12:36pm

239. Right, DRHAMMER. Even assuming the right is correct, and that gay life is a chosen lifestyle, it's all the more reason for them to receive unconditional support. People that brave ought not to be messed with.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 05/22/2006 @ 12:42pm

240. This is tongue in cheek - skip it if it will offend you (unless, of course, you're Liberty, Todd, or any of the other delusional supernaturalists here who keep misinterpreting God)...

     The Seven Deadly Sins (and homosexuality apparently nowhere to be seen amongst them...)

     We are lucky to have been provided with a list of sins that can apparently lead to all sorts of trouble - the Seven Deadly Sins.

     These should not be confused with the Seven Samurai (who could also cause lots of trouble and be deadly), the Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, or the Seven Sinful Ice-cream Flavours (chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, pistachio, anchovy, mint-choc-chip and pumpkin).

     Obviously, it would be bad to commit any of these sins (they`re deadly, remember), and as such it seems reasonable to suppose that our Lord and Creator would carefully avoid them too.

     Let`s see how well He does.

     PRIDE

     After creating various bits and bobs in Genesis, we are told "And God saw that it was good". So, He takes pride in His work, apparently.

     Also, when John baptised Jesus (good job he did, because we all know what happens to un-baptised people when they die...) God said, and I quote, "You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased". God, who is Jesus, loves and is pleased with Jesus, who is God. If you knew someone who claimed to love and be pleased with himself, wouldn't that hint at a self-proud person?

     WRATH

     Well, according to the Old Testament, God was a genocidal maniac of Biblical proportions (naturally). However, it could be argued that many of the mass-slaughters described therein were not done out of anger, but for some other Godly motives. Fair enough, but are there any specific examples of wrath?

     Samuel (24:1) tells us :"Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah'". Burning anger? Sounds like Wrath to me.

     Also from Samuel (6:6) "When they came to the threshing-floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the Ark of God." Presumably God would have preferred the Ark to fall into the mud, but Uzzah paid the price here...

     ENVY

     From the Ten Commandments : "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." Says it all, really. We don't even need to look for the evidence here, as we get it straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak).

     LUST

     Your school Nativity Play is a good example : the Holy Spirit impregnating virgins... Naughty, naughty - randy old God.

     GLUTTONY

     Why are we here? Many theologians would say "To love and worship God". Apparently, God just can't be content unless He creates five billion souls for the specific purpose of telling him how great he is. That's lot of people. That's just plain gluttonous.

     AVARICE

     Okay, he's let off this one - God has no need of money.

     Unfortunately his spokespeople, the televangelists, more than make up for this. Send me money and get to heaven! Either they're lying and just trying to get rich, or God actually does need money. Either way, it doesn't look good.

     SLOTH

     Back to Genesis again: "By the seventh day God finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work."

     Being omnipotent, god cannot get tired. If He has access to an infinite supply of energy (as we are led to believe), He could create a billion galaxies without so much as breaking into a sweat. It looks like He was just slobbing around...

     Score : 6.5 out of seven. Not so hot, is it?

     Now, we are told that Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat the Fruit in Eden, as this would make them more like God (having knowledge of Good and Evil, etc.). Could it be that the Seven Deadly Sins are a similar thing? After all, if you commit all seven, you will indeed be more like God (who, as we have seen, is guilty of all seven). Maybe this is just a bit of reverse psychology. If the churches tell us all about the Seven Deadly Sins, some of us are more likely to actually go out and commit them. From the church's point of view this would be a good thing. After all, they can't have us mere mortals subscribing to a higher moral code than God, now can they?

     © Adrian Barnett 1998

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2006 @ 12:44pm

241. Todd

     No...I don't think it s a "message".

     Per the CDC website....new AIDs cases (2004 data) numbers by mode of exposure

     ..............................................Male......Female.....Total

     Male-to-male sexual contact......17,691.......-.......17,691

     Injection Drug Use....................5,968.......3,184....9,152

     Cases of BOTH the above..........1,920.......-........1,920

     Heterosexual contact................5,149......7,979....13,128

     Other**(medical, etc.)..............298........279.......577

     So while your argument USED to have a basis in fact, the current state is that almost as many hetereo infections occur as do homo infections. Granted, that they (the gay community) no doubt contributed to the current state, but then was then, it is currently "now"

     So maybe now you "god squad" types will let planned parenthood and other organizations start handing out condoms again...because much as you'd like to you are NOT going to stop people from having sex. However, thru education and use of things like condoms we can stem the rate of new infections (after all, that IS why the "gay rate" is at near parity with the hetero rate...because it DOES work)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/22/2006 @ 12:47pm

242. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/22/2006 @ 10:52am

     To Ponitificus:

     Are you writing satire? Your responses make a lot more sense if read that way.

     Yeah, your mother wears army boots too.

     You're picking a minor exception and trying to overturn the rule.

     That remark is in reference to your "rule" that the "sole reason" for marriage is procreation. The "minor exception" is a couple that marry in their twilight years. Why is that exception any more minor than allowing gays to marry?

     You are doing worse than arguing in circles. You are making it up as you go along. First there is a "rule" that isn't a rule and then you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is an exception and what is not.

     My proposition is that the sole reason for marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising of children. I believe the history of marriage laws supports this proposition, especially since never in the history of this country has homosexual marriage been allowed. Sure, exceptions have been made to my proposition, but they are incidental.

     Disagree all you want with my definition of marriage, but it's not illogical or arbitrary at all. If marriage had ever been intended for two people of the same sex, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/22/2006 @ 12:52pm

243. Todd

     Could we expand gluttony to include general energy/resource use? In which case the entire nation is doomed. Guess I'd better get a marker and makes me a The End is Near sign and start walking around the block before its too late!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/22/2006 @ 12:53pm

244. On Todd's argument against condoms:

     If condoms where 100% effective your solution would work. As you know they are not. So this will not solve the problem.

     Seat belts aren't 100% effective in saving lives in auto accidents, but I still wear one when driving or riding in a car.

     On the other hand, if I want to avoid being killed in a traffic accident, I'll avoid using the road.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 12:55pm

245. Ponti

     on your 12:52, I though I addressed that in my own 11:45 back thread

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/22/2006 @ 12:55pm

246. Jack

     I know what'll be 100% effective. We just gotta get the "Todd Squad" to cut everyone's pecker's off! There, problem solved... This will also increase the economy as we'll need to artifically inseminate everyone from now on. Maybe we can cross-train preachers to do this as it'll be "gods work" and all.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/22/2006 @ 12:58pm

247. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY: Thank you for making my point.

     Your point being that your God hates gays and God hates Americans?

     Or your point being that your God is a vindictive bastard who is happy to see people die, even innocent children, to satisify his blood-lust against gays?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 1:01pm

248. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/22/2006 @ 12:34am: In contrast, conventional Judeo-Christian morality requires that we treat all life as sacred.

     So why is your boy, the Decida, killing so many people? Is the Decida not a believer?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 1:04pm

249. Posted by HMAN23 05/22/2006 @ 10:01am

     As for your challenge to provide links re: Plame as a covert agent, we have been over this too many times for me to waste a lot of time on it now. I gave you these links a few weeks ago; you ignored them then, so I do not expect much different by posting them again.

     Tatel's Opinion [tinyurl.com]

     In a 5 February 2005 concurring opinion, Circuit Judge David S. Tatel made two references to Plame's covert status. First, on page 28 of the opinion, Judge Tatel referred to Plame as an "alleged covert agent." Second, on page 38, Judge Tatel stated that because Fitzgerald had allegedly referred to Plame as "a . . . who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years," in footnote 15 of a recent affidavit, Judge Tatel inferred that Mr. Fitzgerald must have at least "some support" for that conclusion.

     Fitzgerald's Affidavit [tinyurl.com]

     If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.

     Footnote 15 to Fitzgerald's affidavit. As I and others have been saying for months to you, it seems the primary elements for Fitzgerald regarding the leak charges are knowledge and intent - not Plame's status.

     I'll admit that trhutout.org and Madsen screwed up their stories. How about you dropping the "Fitzgerald has not alleged Plame was covert" rubbish?

     I didn't ignore those articles. Both of them pertain to reasonable cause that Fitzgerald is investigating the exposure of a covert agent. But to date, he only has alleged that Plame's status was classified, a status shared by almost all CIA employees. Fitzgerald has alleged that Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice in his investigation of the covert agent claim. We'll see about those charges, in my opinion they are purely spurious and probably arise out of unintentionally false statements made in the heat of a very intense questioning. At any rate, from the known facts thus far we have no reason to believe a) that anyone is going to be prosecuted for exposing a covert agent or b) that Rove was involved.

     Did you read the quotes from December 2005 from Fitzgerald? He specifically refuses to allege that Plame was covert, and that's his latest word on the subject. You continue to insist that all of this adds up to an imminent indictment of Karl Rove for exposing a covert agent. I think it's bizarre.

     After all, nobody has accused you of being a space alien. I, myself, specifically refuse to allege that you are a space alien. I don't think anyone is going to take this as evidence that your spaceship will arrive any moment to pick you up.

     I know as a conservative it is hard to admit when you are wrong.

     Are you implying that this is a predisposition only shared by conservatives?

     Posted by pontificus at 05/22/2006 @ 1:07pm

250. Pontificus

     The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines [m-w.com] a bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions or prejudices" Prejudice is defined "as an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics".

     However, you have a point in that it would be more precise to define your position re atheists are prejudiced rather than bigoted. Feel better?

     True. But there's also nothing intrinsic in atheism that prohibits it. That's why atheists can't be trusted; they make up their own rules as they go along. Hitler, Lenin, and Pol Pot were all just as altruistic as you are; they just had different methods. In contrast, conventional Judeo-Christian morality requires that we treat all life as sacred.

     Atheists do no such thing. Ethics aren't formed just by religious beliefs but by the totality of one's life experiences. Incidentally, Hitler et al. didn't just make up their own rules as they went along, they had specific ideologies, none of which were corollaries of atheism. Oh, I think it's interesting that you define genocide as an expression of altruism.

     I would point out that Christianity has been used to justify slavery, burning of witches, religious persecution, censorship, the expulsion of the Jews from Western Europe, etc. This is not to say that it is inherently evil, only that acting on one's take on it doesn't seem to make one immune from evil acts.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/22/2006 @ 1:08pm

251. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/22/2006 @ 12:52am: Sure, exceptions have been made to my proposition, but they are incidental.

     Why, dear Ponty, is an exception for post-menopausal woman incidental? There are more post-menopausal women getting married in Massachusetts than there are gays. What makes one exception to the Ponty Rule incidental while a less prevelant exception is significant?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 1:09pm

252. Todd - According to the NIAID, more than 75% of all adult HIV infections worldwide have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 1:10pm

253. Hman

     He can't type when his fingers are in his ears and he's going "la-la-la-la-la"

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/22/2006 @ 1:16pm

254. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 05/22/2006 @ 1:16pm

     Actually, I think he goes "na-na-na-na-na".

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 1:18pm

255. Posted by BRUNOWE 05/22/2006 @ 1:08pm

     Atheists do no such thing. Ethics aren't formed just by religious beliefs but by the totality of one's life experiences. Incidentally, Hitler et al. didn't just make up their own rules as they went along, they had specific ideologies, none of which were corollaries of atheism.

     So what makes your 'totality of life experience' better than Hitler's or Lenin's? Who's the judge?

     I think I'll take the empirical morality of the bible on faith over the word of intellectuals who worship Che, Mao, and Marx.

     Oh, I think it's interesting that you define genocide as an expression of altruism.

     Yes, and I also was surprised to learn that Hitler, Lenin and Pol Pot were quite sure that what they were doing was in the long run, the best thing for mankind. Genocide in the name of altruism is not my definition, it's the definition that the Communists and the National Socialists used.

     I would point out that Christianity has been used to justify slavery, burning of witches, religious persecution, censorship, the expulsion of the Jews from Western Europe, etc. This is not to say that it is inherently evil, only that acting on one's take on it doesn't seem to make one immune from evil acts.

     I agree. But I would also argue that the atheistic religions of Bolshevism and National Socialism were responsible for the murder of at least 100 million people over the course of the 20th Century, and that pockets of murderous "atheistic religion' persist to this day in North Korea and Communist China. And your ethical-based-on-life-experience, atheistically moral left has had precious little to say about that, both now or when the murdering was going on in the last century.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/22/2006 @ 1:37pm

256. To Pontificus:

     My proposition is that the sole reason for marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising of children. I believe the history of marriage laws supports this proposition . . . .

     Disagree all you want with my definition of marriage, but it's not illogical or arbitrary at all. If marriage had ever been intended for two people of the same sex, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

     Not only do I disagree, but I believe you've been refuted twelve ways to Sunday.

     It would be foolish to deny that marriage has a great deal to do with procreation, but that is not it's sole function. It seems to have a great deal to do with sexual attraction and the choice of a life partner, not solely with procreation.

     This is a reasonable definition of marriage, alternate to yours and one I think is more universal. Your idea of marriage has quite a few moving parts to it, since you must make exceptions to your rule and justify why, for example, it is fit for a woman past her child bearing years to marry, but not for a gay couple. In neither case is the relationship based on procreation. You have not addressed this point.

     You're definition of marriage seems like a convenient argument for prohibiting same-sex marriage and nothing else. You simply did not consider that it also becomes an argument for prohibiting other marriages, for which you must make exceptions that are, whether you admit it or not, arbitrary.

     In addition to that, there are many legal benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with procreation. Married couples have survivor rights; gay couples, because they cannot marry, do not. Married couples can jointly file income tax returns at reduced rates or file bankruptcy jointly; gay couples, because they cannot marry, cannot. Married couples have vi station rights in hospitals; gay couples, because they cannot marry, do not. Do you have any remedy for these injustices?

     Moreover, the function of raising children is not always left to the biological parents. In Scandinavian societies of the Middle Ages, foster parenting was an institution. I pointed out that of all the couples I know, one of the most dedicated at raising children is lesbian. The evidence is anecdotal, but the point remains that there is no reason to suppose that no gay couples can be good parents. You have not addressed that point.

     In addition, it is also a fact that even without the benefit of marriage, lesbian couple choose to have children through the artificial insemination of one of the partners. Here, the responsibilities of child rearing are being assumed by a family that just doesn't fit your idea of a man and a woman having children. It doesn't have anything to do with the traditional idea of marriage as a man and a woman because until relatively recently it wasn't possible. How do you address this phenomenon of the modern world?

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 1:39pm

257. Posted by ORWELL2005 05/22/2006 @ 1:09pm

     Why, dear Ponty, is an exception for post-menopausal woman incidental? There are more post-menopausal women getting married in Massachusetts than there are gays. What makes one exception to the Ponty Rule incidental while a less prevelant exception is significant?

     Oh, I don't know...how about the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization in which homosexual marriage has never been allowed? Does that mean anything to you?

     Posted by pontificus at 05/22/2006 @ 1:42pm

258. Orwell,

     "Or your point being that your God is a vindictive bastard who is happy to see people die, even innocent children, to satisify his blood-lust against gays?"

     The point being that God is God and if he says don't be a glutton, don't be glutton, and if you are a glutton and violate God's word, be prepared to pay the price which = death (generally due to cardiac problems such as congenital heart failure)

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 1:53pm

259. Pontificus -

     I didn't ignore those articles. Both of them pertain to reasonable cause that Fitzgerald is investigating the exposure of a covert agent. But to date, he only has alleged that Plame's status was classified, a status shared by almost all CIA employees.

     You have ignored them – or at least the significance of them. Of course he is "investigating" the expose of a covert agent. But, as made clear by his affidavit, he is also alleging the fact that his investigation has determined that Plame was indeed covert. True, it is not an allegation as part of a formal indictment, but it is a factual allegation nonetheless. Anytime an attorney makes a factual allegation before the court, either in writing or oral, the rules of profession conduct dictate that he/she has a good faith basis to make such a claim or allegation. Submitting a sworn affidavit to the court takes this one step even farther. The laws relating to perjury bind Fitzgerald himself.

     Fitzgerald has alleged that Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice in his investigation of the covert agent claim.

     True. That was why Fitzgerald did not opine on Plame's covert status during his October 2005 press conference. Plame's status is not necessary to any of the elements of the crimes for which Libby was charged. The omission of a definitive statement from Fitzgerald on Plame's status is hardly weighty. He restricted himself to the facts surrounding Libby's indictment and nothing more. It would have been unethical for Fitzgerald to publicly comment on other potential crimes under investigation that are not part of a formal indictment – a point Fitzgerald made that day.

     We'll see about those charges, in my opinion they are purely spurious and probably arise out of unintentionally false statements made in the heat of a very intense questioning.

     A point I am sure his defense counsel will make.

     At any rate, from the known facts thus far we have no reason to believe a) that anyone is going to be prosecuted for exposing a covert agent or b) that Rove was involved.

     As for a), you are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong. Fitzgerald identified people with monikers like "Individual A," in the Libby indictment. This is often done when charges for other individuals are at least contemplated in the future. Furthermore, Rove's repeated trips to the grand jury as well as Armitage's would seem to indicate that Fitzgerald is working on other charges. Fitzgerald is not going to issue a press release saying he plans to indict others. Grand jury proceedings are secret. You seem to think that simply because nobody else has been charged yet, that means necessarily that nobody else will. Pretty circular logic. As for b), Rove not being "involved" was as much bullshit when Scott McClellan said it as it is today. Whether or not Rove is ever charged with a crime, he clearly talked to at least two reporters about Plame. He told Russert Plame was "fair game." He was clearly involved.

     Did you read the quotes from December 2005 from Fitzgerald? He specifically refuses to allege that Plame was covert, and that's his latest word on the subject.

     I am confused. December 2005 was Fitzgerald's affidavit, which I quoted. Did you mean to ask me if I have looked at Fitzgerald's quotes from October 2005 (which you posted above)? If so, I dealt with that above.

     You continue to insist that all of this adds up to an imminent indictment of Karl Rove for exposing a covert agent. I think it's bizarre.

     I have never said that Rove will be indicted for the specific crime of outing Plame. I do not know one way or the other what evidence Fitzgerald has on that crime, or about the issues related to knowledge and intent – the crucial elements for proving that crime and related ones. As for obstruction and perjury, I do suspect that Rove will be indicted. Information about Rove's testimony has leaked on that front; I can make my own judgment. Now, maybe truthout.org and Madsen led some to think it was happening last week – as I said, they have some explaining to do. I cannot imagine that they made the whole thing up. Perhaps with time, we will learn what really happened during the last two weeks.

     After all, nobody has accused you of being a space alien. I, myself, specifically refuse to allege that you are a space alien. I don't think anyone is going to take this as evidence that your spaceship will arrive any moment to pick you up.

     Inaccurate analogy. True, nobody has accused me of that - and that is the point. But, if a prosecutor submitted an affidavit to a court, alleging I WAS a space alien, then things would be different. The allegation might not be true, but the allegation was made. As Fitzgerald's affidavit makes clear, he HAS made the factual allegation that Plame was covert. You can argue against his conclusion if you would like, but it is preposterous for you to claim that he has not even alleged it.

     Are you implying that this is a predisposition only shared by conservatives?

     Shared by conservatives who blindly support everything Bush or his administration does. I have met a few true conservatives who do admit fault now and again. You do not fit into that category.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 1:56pm

260. LofC,

     "No...I don't think it s a "message".

     Per the CDC website....new AIDs cases (2004 data) numbers by mode of exposure

     ..............................................Male......Female.....Total

     Male-to-male sexual contact......17,691.......-.......17,691

     Injection Drug Use....................5,968.......3,184....9,152

     Cases of BOTH the above..........1,920.......-........1,920

     Heterosexual contact................5,149......7,979....13,128

     Other**(medical, etc.)..............298........279.......577"

     Here's some other evidence:

     People living with AIDS At the end of 2004, the CDC estimates that 415,193 people were living with AIDS in the USA.1

     Of these,

     35% were white 43% were black 20% were Hispanic 1% were of other race/ethnicity. Of the adults and adolescents2 with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,

     58% were men who had sex with men (MSM) 21% were injection drug users (IDU) 11% were exposed through heterosexual contact 8% were both MSM and IDU. "

     Additionally this source states:

     "During the 1990s, the epidemic shifted steadily toward a growing proportion of AIDS cases among black people and Hispanics and in women, and toward a decreasing proportion in MSM, although this group remains the largest single exposure group."

     So although the trend is shifting to others that are not homosexual, the MSM group is the largest single exposure group.

     My question to you LofC and the other homo-ecuse makers, is why are they the largest single exposure group?

     source: http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 1:57pm

261. To Hman and others:

     One of Pontificus' little tricks is to toss out red herrings in an attempt to get us off the track. Don't let him get away with it.

     The subject of this thread is not the Plame case or Clinton's zippergate. It is same-sex marriage and whether or not it should be prohibited by constitutional amendment.

     If he tries to throw us off the track by confusing our scent with the stench of very stale pickled herring, just remind him what we are discussing here rather than go into a detailed refutation of his irrelevant points.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 2:04pm

262. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/22/2006 @ 1:39pm

     It would be foolish to deny that marriage has a great deal to do with procreation, but that is not it's sole function. It seems to have a great deal to do with sexual attraction and the choice of a life partner, not solely with procreation.

     I think you have it exactly backwards. I think most responsible people who want children marry for that reason, and settle for what they can get in terms of sexual attraction and choice of life partner.

     This is a reasonable definition of marriage, alternate to yours and one I think is more universal. Your idea of marriage has quite a few moving parts to it, since you must make exceptions to your rule and justify why, for example, it is fit for a woman past her child bearing years to marry, but not for a gay couple. In neither case is the relationship based on procreation. You have not addressed this point.

     Allowing a sterile man and/or woman to marry is a type of sentimental exception to the marriage rule (much like the 'show her you'd marry her all over again' diamond selling marketing ploy), a point which I think most people intuitively grasp. Besides, such sterile couples who meet the ideal man/woman partnership fit the ideal man/woman child-raising unit. I don't think most of society is ready to put homosexual couples on the same par as the man/woman ideal, for example, in terms of adoption priority. Do you?

     You're definition of marriage seems like a convenient argument for prohibiting same-sex marriage and nothing else.

     You'll have to judge that for yourself, I suppose.

     You simply did not consider that it also becomes an argument for prohibiting other marriages, for which you must make exceptions that are, whether you admit it or not, arbitrary.

     Oh, I realize it does.

     In addition to that, there are many legal benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with procreation. Married couples have survivor rights; gay couples, because they cannot marry, do not. Married couples can jointly file income tax returns at reduced rates or file bankruptcy jointly; gay couples, because they cannot marry, cannot. Married couples have vi station rights in hospitals; gay couples, because they cannot marry, do not. Do you have any remedy for these injustices?

     Survivor rights can be provided for by affirmative use of wills. I believe that working couples who marry actually suffer a tax increase; my guess is the point of the tax code is to encourage the mother to stay home and care for children. That's also the point of tax deductions for children.

     As far as visitation rights for gays, that's something that should probably be provided for by some sort of legislation. Perhaps a 'civil union' law makes sense. But I don't support putting gay unions on the same level as conventional marriage.

     Moreover, the function of raising children is not always left to the biological parents. In Scandinavian societies of the Middle Ages, foster parenting was an institution. I pointed out that of all the couples I know, one of the most dedicated at raising children is lesbian. The evidence is anecdotal, but the point remains that there is no reason to suppose that no gay couples can be good parents. You have not addressed that point.

     Well, the Scandinavian middle age experiment is extinct, and most likely for good reasons with which we are not readily familiar. Society has gravitated, in all countries that I know of, to the man/woman ideal. This is an organic phenomenon, not some arbitrary, top-down decree. It's done this way because that's the way it has always worked best.

     In addition, it is also a fact that even without the benefit of marriage, lesbian couple choose to have children through the artificial insemination of one of the partners. Here, the responsibilities of child rearing are being assumed by a family that just doesn't fit your idea of a man and a woman having children. It doesn't have anything to do with the traditional idea of marriage as a man and a woman because until relatively recently it wasn't possible. How do you address this phenomenon of the modern world?

     Posted by pontificus at 05/22/2006 @ 2:06pm

263. I hear you Jack Rabbit. I know it's off-topic. I guess I just don't see the use in trying to engage in a rational argument with Todd "AIDS is the gay scourge from God" OK Sportsguy. Besides him and Pontificus, there aren't too many other conservative posters putting up much of a fight on this topic - probably because the proposed amendment runs counter to any notion of a conservative political philosophy. I am not sure how they square this doomed amendment with calling themselves conservative. Speaking of red herrings, it's ironic you mention that, because in my opinion, that is what this whole amendment nonsense is - a cheap political ploy to divert attention from the crimes of this administration and to throw red meat to the base in a desperate attempt to stave off electoral catastrophe in November.

     So I see what you are saying Jack. But, I actually prefer to shift the conversation back to important issues rather than argue scripture and dogma with a Bible brigade immune to anything fact-based.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 2:15pm

264. Well, the Scandinavian middle age experiment is extinct, and most likely for good reasons with which we are not readily familiar.

     It's an irrelevant point, but foster parenting, like arranged marriages, was often used to seal an alliance between two families.

     Society has gravitated, in all countries that I know of, to the man/woman ideal. This is an organic phenomenon, not some arbitrary, top-down decree. It's done this way because that's the way it has always worked best.

     Yes, societies gravitate. So why shouldn't societies gravitate to an acceptance of gay marriage? When all is said and done, the only reason you've come up with to prohibit same-sex marriage is that we haven't considered it until now. Why are we considering it now? Because in reevaluating our traditional rationales for the prohibition, we find that they are invalid and we are simply left with denying rights to a despised minority for the sake of denying rights to a despised minority.

     In my judgment, it is simply time to extend the franchise. If it makes some people feel better to call a gay marriage a civil union and giving it all the legal rights of a marriage between a man and a woman, that would be fine with me. However, being straight, I'm not effected. Before embracing this approach, I would want to ask my gay friends how they feel about it.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 2:23pm

265. Todd

     Like I said....the gay community no doubt contributed to the statistic. I make no excuses for that segment of the population, but neither will I relegate them to some pseudo-religous "non-human" classification.

     However, it is NEW CASES that we should be most concerend with right? Those with the disease will die of it. This is irrefutable. So the thing to focus on is no new cases. Thus my post stands on its own accord. New cases are split close to even amongst hetero/homo lifestyles. To curb new cases, "safe sex" is the only "real" solution...unless you plan to either; A) outlaw sex, or B) chop people's dicks off.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/22/2006 @ 2:32pm

266. I agree. But I would also argue that the atheistic religions of Bolshevism and National Socialism were responsible for the murder of at least 100 million people over the course of the 20th Century, and that pockets of murderous "atheistic religion' persist to this day in North Korea and Communist China.

     Bolshevism and National Socialism weren't religions. Secondly, the tenets of those ideologies aren't corollaries of atheism. Interpretations of Christianity are very malleable and can be turned to even Nazi-like ideologies (as in the Christian Identity movement).

     I think I'll take the empirical morality of the bible on faith over the word of intellectuals who worship Che, Mao, and Marx.

     Typical false dichotomy. There are many ethics one may take that are neither Biblical or Communist.

     So what makes your 'totality of life experience' better than Hitler's or Lenin's? Who's the judge?

     Well, I haven't come out in favor of genocide or a Bolshevik dictatorship. I can argue the existence of inherent human rights based on inherent human liberty (human free will, etc.). I can also argue that because every human being has those same intrinsic qualities that I do, that I have no inherent right to dominate him--therefore any right must be by consent of the governed and can't go so far as to cancel out those inherent rights.

     I also was surprised to learn that Hitler, Lenin and Pol Pot were quite sure that what they were doing was in the long run, the best thing for mankind.

     I'm also sure that the Inquisition thought the same thing.

     Oh, I don't know...how about the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization in which homosexual marriage has never been allowed? Does that mean anything to you?

     Slavery was allowed over much of that same period, as was arbitrary detention, etc. You're going to have to come up with a better reason than "it's always been done that way".

     Posted by brunowe at 05/22/2006 @ 2:43pm

267. Maybe Pontificator should go to Wikipedia and actually READ about homosexuality before pronouncing sentence. Wow, did you know some male penguins mate for life...building nests and using rocks for eggs? Turns out when given an egg, they raise it to be a normal penguin (and not a "gay one")

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/22/2006 @ 2:45pm

268. Todd -

     It's probably been fun for you to try and show people you can look at objective facts too, but try and go beyond America's borders in collecting your statistics. After all, it is the same disease and you want to be comprehensive right? See what that does to your premise.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 3:08pm

269. Hman,

     "It's probably been fun for you to try and show people you can look at objective facts too, but try and go beyond America's borders in collecting your statistics. After all, it is the same disease and you want to be comprehensive right? See what that does to your premise."

     It doesn't do anything to my premise. Gay people are still the number one group of people collectively that have the HIV virus in the U.S.

     I'm still waiting for an answer from anyone as to why?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 3:10pm

270. Todd - Why don't you tell us why. You are the one who brought up the stats. Or take your fingers out of your ears.

     Is it from your previous claim that "the overwhelming evidence points towards homosexuality and IV drug use as the main cause for the continued spreading of aids."

     Alright, limiting this discussion to the U.S. (which is nuts), I think the trends in the statistics actually show the opposite, given that the percentage of gay men being infected has trended down (a fact I think you even admitted earlier) the "continuing spread of AIDS" is more due to other demographics, mainly heterosexual men and women. If the trend continues, it will not be long before more heterosexuals have AIDS than do gay men.

     Will you have any point then?

     I do not know why the disease was initially so prevalent in the gay community here in the U.S. I'll let others jump on that. If I had to guess, I would think that any communicable disease will initially cluster around a demographic with some similarities; and given that AIDS is sexually transmitted, I could see how, if the first infected were gay, it would cluster and expand first amongst gays.

     How do you explain the overwhelming numbers (75%) of heteros passing it in the rest of the world?

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 3:41pm

271. To Todd:

     It doesn't do anything to my premise. Gay people are still the number one group of people collectively that have the HIV virus in the U.S.

     I'm still waiting for an answer from anyone as to why?

     I've answered this before, but since this thread is six pages long, I'll answer it for your benefit.

     Gaetan Dugas, a Canadian airline steward, who for several years was thought to be Patient Zero in the North American AIDS epidemic, appears to be the "reason". Even if he wasn't Patient Zero, he was a particularly prolific gay man who boasted of 250 different contacts a year. This was in the seventies, when anything goes sex was fashionable in both the gay and straight communities.

     Had Dugas been a particularly prolific straight man, AIDS might be a heterosexual disease here as it is in Africa. So, yes, I regard it as purely chance that it is a "gay disease".

     Your linking the Biblical concept of sin with practical consequences has more than a little merit. Any Hindu or Buddhist could also understand it as karma. However, in the case of the spread of AIDS, like any other STD, the "sin" (or source of bad karma, for those who prefer) is not homosexuality per se but risky sexual behavior such as anonymous or casual sex with multiple partners.

     As it was pointed out to me by a gay friend of mine in the eighties, one of the consequences of the AIDS epidemic among gay men was the abandonment of the culture of instant sexual gratification for more stable romantic relationships. In that respect, the AIDS epidemic is partly responsible for the demand to recognize gay marriages.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 3:44pm

272. Jack,

     "Your linking the Biblical concept of sin with practical consequences has more than a little merit. Any Hindu or Buddhist could also understand it as karma. However, in the case of the spread of AIDS, like any other STD, the "sin" (or source of bad karma, for those who prefer) is not homosexuality per se but risky sexual behavior such as anonymous or casual sex with multiple partners."

     So then are you suggesting that people should be practicle with thier sex practices and not have sex with multiple different partners..and if they do, they need to be aware that they will be much more likely to contract HIV?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 4:21pm

273. To Todd:

     So then are you suggesting that people should be practicle with thier sex practices and not have sex with multiple different partners..and if they do, they need to be aware that they will be much more likely to contract HIV?

     Yes. And they should also eat healthy in order to avoid heart attacks. It's just common sense.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 4:29pm

274. Jack,

     Then lets institute some laws to help people to have safer sex practices, I mean it's well documented that other peoples unsafe sex practices cause harm to the rest of the world through the continued spreading of HIV.

     Isn't this the same argument that liberals like to use to justify changing the market on SUV's and force auto manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars and trucks because the current gas hogs are depleting the worlds oil reserves which affects the rest of the drivers that don't own SUV's?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 4:38pm

275. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/22/2006 @ 4:38pm

     ohh brother . . . is this the level of debate I am missing out on Jack Rabbit?

     Are you having fun?

     :)

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 4:48pm

276. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/22/2006 @ 1:42pm: Oh, I don't know...how about the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization in which homosexual marriage has never been allowed? Does that mean anything to you?

     Yes. To me, it means that your original rationale for banning gay marriage, that marriage exists solely for the purpose of child-rearing, was just PONTIFIC-BS.

     Your real reason is apparently that you value the traditional form of marriage. I am not sure why you could not just have said this up front.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 4:50pm

277. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/22/2006 @ 1:53pm: The point being that God is God and if he says don't be a glutton, don't be glutton, and if you are a glutton and violate God's word, be prepared to pay the price which = death

     But GodlySportsGuy, AIDS is not only killing gays, it is also killing innocent babies. Since you appear to believe that God sent aids to kill off the gay people, you have to accept that the Godly aids is also killing off innocent children.

     I would think an all powerful god would be able to concoct a weapon that kills only the evil gays, without the collateral damage of innocent children. But, apparently, under your vision of religion, God is just too busy to use high precision weapons. Instead he kills off both the evil gays and the innocent children.

     So I will take your point to be that your God is a vindictive bastard who is happy to see people die, even innocent children, to satisify his blood-lust against gays

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 4:57pm

278. Orwell,

     "So I will take your point to be that your God is a vindictive bastard who is happy to see people die, even innocent children, to satisify his blood-lust against gays"

     If that's your perception then so be it.

     Your perception does not change the fact that the majority of people that are gluttons at some point contract congestive heart failure and die because of thier gluttony OR the fact that in the U.S. 58% of people infected with HIV are gay.

     You may not like it, but the facts are the facts.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 5:00pm

279. To Todd:

     Then lets institute some laws to help people to have safer sex practices, I mean it's well documented that other peoples unsafe sex practices cause harm to the rest of the world through the continued spreading of HIV.

     Isn't this the same argument that liberals like to use to justify changing the market on SUV's and force auto manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars and trucks because the current gas hogs are depleting the worlds oil reserves which affects the rest of the drivers that don't own SUV's?

     It doesn't quite equate. It's a lot easier to regulate business by mandating that they will make automobiles more fuel efficient than it is to regulate individuals to make them use safe sex practices.

     We can fund programs that encourage safe sex, including things of which you (or I) may not approve. Use of condoms reduces the spread of infection and is very helpful, but monogamy works a lot better. Both should be encouraged. It's better not to become addicted to drugs taken interveniously, but if one is so addicted, encourage those people to use clean needles by initiating a needle exchange program. And make it easy for them to seek help kicking their habits.

     On the subject at hand, one might also suggest that recognizing same-sex marriages would be a way to encourage monogamy among gay men. Just like among heterosexuals, it won't be 100% effective -- somebody's going to cheat on their spouse -- but it would be more effective than doing nothing.

     We are talking about saving lives. It's a war in which we can't afford to fight on one front.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 5:00pm

280. Jack,

     "On the subject at hand, one might also suggest that recognizing same-sex marriages would be a way to encourage monogamy among gay men. Just like among heterosexuals, it won't be 100% effective -- somebody's going to cheat on their spouse -- but it would be more effective than doing nothing."

     To clarify, I don't have a problem with civil unions which it seems grant the financial benefits of marriage that most gays are really after as long as they can't take or claim the word "marriage" which...even according to the dictionary (www.dictionary.com) is defined "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

     Notice it specifies man and woman.

     Not to mention the religous connotations of the word "marriage"

     So, I'm all for legal civil unions of gays, just don't let them tarnish my marriage by applying the same word and ceremony that wedded my wife and I with thier union.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 5:10pm

281. To Hman:

     Am I having fun? Why, yes as a matter of fact. Todd is a heckuva lot more reasonable than Pontificus or NaCl.

     To Orwell:

     I don't think homosexuality is a cause of AIDS. I don't think a belief in God is, either.

     Todd views the Cosmos with a mixture of science and religion; I have found him in past discussions to be more opened minded than you think. He's far and away the most reasonable conservative here.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 5:10pm

282. Todd,

     Then lets institute some laws to help people to have safer sex practices, I mean it's well documented that other peoples unsafe sex practices cause harm to the rest of the world through the continued spreading of HIV. Isn't this the same argument that liberals like to use to justify changing the market on SUV's and force auto manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars and trucks because the current gas hogs are depleting the worlds oil reserves which affects the rest of the drivers that don't own SUV's?

     Yes, it is identical. It is how you implement your so-called "laws to help people to have safer sex practices" that underscores that because you can torture logic until it begs you to stop, doesn't mean that your illogic is somehow correct.

     Specifically, sentient beings are, by definition, expected to chose a responsible path for their existence.

     Yet, conservatives intend solely to prevent sentient beings from making responsible choices that their government should allow them to make.

     Again, the conservative's desire to restrict access to birth control; their zealous desire to control a woman's choice to breed, or not; or restrict a gay couple's right to adopt a poor, destitute child - these are the a few of the hundreds of civil and human rights conservatives seek to deny Americans, thereby stripping their ability to make responsible decisions.

     Given this backdrop, your comparison to your right to destroy the environment to that of your right to destroy a woman's civil rights, are indeed, remarkably similar, indeed!

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/22/2006 @ 5:11pm

283. Jack,

     "Todd views the Cosmos with a mixture of science and religion; I have found him in past discussions to be more opened minded than you think. He's far and away the most reasonable conservative here."

     Wow...

     That's pretty close to a compliment, thanks man.

     I love you too bro = )

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 5:13pm

284. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/22/2006 @ 5:00pm: Your perception does not change the fact that the majority of people that are gluttons at some point contract congestive heart failure and die because of thier gluttony OR the fact that in the U.S. 58% of people infected with HIV are gay.

     But if God is just trying to kill off the gays, why didn't he choose some form of disease that would only kill gays? Why did he choose to also kill innocent children?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 5:14pm

285. Orwell,

     "But if God is just trying to kill off the gays, why didn't he choose some form of disease that would only kill gays? Why did he choose to also kill innocent children?"

     Good question...

     I have no answer, I'm not God; and although I have heard from God and his spirit directing me on tough questions about decisions I'm making or have made in my life, I can not honestly say that he has spoken to me and given me an answer to this question.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 5:17pm

286. Researchers have determined that heterosexuals in monagamous relationships have virtually no chance of contracting AIDS. All this goes back to my original point; homosexuality along with other sinful behaviors such as promiscuous sex among heterosexuals and IV drug use brings about natural consequences. AIDS is obviously one of those consequences. AIDS is one of nature's (or God's way as I prefer) of telling you what you are doing is wrong.

     Liberty - I am not shocked that the "research" found what you said considering that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. If I rarely drive, I probably have less of a chance of dying in a car accident.

     And how about any research about homosexual monogomous relationships? Wouldn't those show just the same low rate of incidence as heterosexual? Why did you confine your comment to heterosexuals?

     I notice also that you mention homosexuality as a whole, and "promiscuous sex" when you discuss heterosexuals. Why is that?

     p.s. I am sure Todd appreciates you picking up on my post to him, which he can continue to ignore.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 5:17pm

287. ORWELL, let me try to answer that...

     Because Todd's God is an angry, arbitrary, and rather capricious God. His God may strike down an innocent child as quickly as deliver bounty to the rapist.

     So, as it turns out, Todd's rahter conservative and vengeful God is the one soft on pedaphiles and rapists; not Liberals! Waddya know 'bout that?

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/22/2006 @ 5:18pm

288. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/22/2006 @ 5:06pm: It defies logic why liberals are so determined to support the perversion of homosexuality other than it serves as an "in your face" to people of traditional values in all the major world faiths.

     It does not defy logic in the least. There is nothing perverted about homosexuality. Homosexuality is a natural occurence across the animal kingdom. To oppose homosexuality is no more rational than opposing people with red hair or dark skin.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 5:19pm

289. Hman,

     "Alright, limiting this discussion to the U.S. (which is nuts), I think the trends in the statistics actually show the opposite, given that the percentage of gay men being infected has trended down (a fact I think you even admitted earlier) the "continuing spread of AIDS" is more due to other demographics, mainly heterosexual men and women. If the trend continues, it will not be long before more heterosexuals have AIDS than do gay men.

     Will you have any point then?"

     Only that the HIV was spread initially according to many different statistics by homosexual men.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/22/2006 @ 5:19pm

290. To Todd:

     I'm all for legal civil unions of gays, just don't let them tarnish my marriage by applying the same word and ceremony that wedded my wife and I with thier union.

     I will refer you back to something I said to Ponty earlier: that would be OK with me, but I wouldn't endorse that as a solution without sounding my gay friends out about it. Some, I know, still feel that's relegating them to second class status and don't like it.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 5:21pm

291. OK Jack Rabbit. I guess "reasonableness" is in the eye of the beholder.

     Wait until the subject is Iraq. Then report back on how reasonable grr kill Todd is on that discussion.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 5:22pm

292. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/22/2006 @ 5:10pm: Todd is a heckuva lot more reasonable than Pontificus or NaCl.

     I am sure that you realize that being more reasonable than Ponty and Salty is not saying much...

     Todd views the Cosmos with a mixture of science and religion; I have found him in past discussions to be more opened minded than you think. He's far and away the most reasonable conservative here.

     Earlier in this thread, Todd implied that God had sent us aids in an effort to kill of the gay people. You may think this is a reasonable position. I think it is demented.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 5:23pm

293. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/22/2006 @ 5:17pm: I have no answer, I'm not God; and although I have heard from God and his spirit directing me on tough questions about decisions I'm making or have made in my life, I can not honestly say that he has spoken to me and given me an answer to this question.

     Perhaps your original premise is wrong. Perhaps God did not send aids to kill off the evil gays.

     I know. Next time you and god are chatting, perhaps you could ask him?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/22/2006 @ 5:25pm

294. LIBERTY - again, rediculous and incorrect statistics about how heterosexuals catch AIDS.

     Most heterosexuals (monogamous or not) in developed countries continue to spread AIDS through sharing contaminated hyperdermic needles. This rate of infection is about equal to that of non-monogamous heterosexuals. In developing countries, the virgins can be infected by other virgins infected from childbirth. Other virgin (girls) are infected by older men to which they are involuntarily wed.

     Yet, in rare cases, they are also infected through medical malpractice (tainted blood, poorly sterilized instruments), or through medical procedures in a non-sterile environment (various emergency scenarios).

     Thus, your not-so-subtle suggestion that lack of monogamy, or some other "errant" sexual behavior as the culprit in an otherwise AIDS-free heterosexual environment is still more conservative lies designed to divide people, weaken the fight against AIDS, spread fear and panic, all the while strengthening the conservative's strangle-hold on honest, healthy, free thought and free expression.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/22/2006 @ 5:31pm

295. Liberty:

     Also I noticed that your own source indicated that there were several nonsexual modes of transmission.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 5:36pm

296. And of course, you wouldn't be ignoring the innocent babies born with AIDS, would you?

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 5:38pm

297. I just saw your posts Becauseisaidso; sorry to plagarize.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2006 @ 5:40pm

298. To LL:

     Researchers have determined that heterosexuals in monagamous relationships have virtually no chance of contracting AIDS. All this goes back to my original point; homosexuality along with other sinful behaviors such as promiscuous sex among heterosexuals and IV drug use brings about natural consequences. AIDS is obviously one of those consequences. AIDS is one of nature's (or God's way as I prefer) of telling you what you are doing is wrong.

     The point I am making is that monogamy, heterosexual or homosexual, reduces the spread of AIDS. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The fact is that homosexuality exists in species other than human beings. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is not indicative of "doing something wrong."

     It's already been asked if you can cite any studies of the spread of AIDS in homosexual monogamy. I haven't seen any, but I'll eat a healthy serving of crow if you can demonstrate that homosexuality per se is a cause of AIDS, rather than risky behavior.

     It defies logic why liberals are so determined to support the perversion of homosexuality other than it serves as an "in your face" to people of traditional values in all the major world faiths.

     I'll put this as politely as it deserves to be put: that is f---ing bullshit.

     First of all, I love the way you load the term perversion of homosexuality. What makes homosexuality inherently perverted? You haven't explained that yet.

     Second, you yuppie fascists, who just have some irrational belief that you are simply better than somebody else, are not worth annoying that way. We liberals/progressive/lefties supported civil rights in the sixties because we believe in extended the franchise of full citizenship to all, universally. That is what a liberal/progressive/lefty is.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 5:40pm

299. Correction to the last paragraph:

     Second, you yuppie fascists, who just have some irrational belief that you are simply better than somebody else, are not worth annoying that way. We liberals/progressive/lefties supported civil rights in the sixties because we believe in extending the franchise of full citizenship to all, universally, not to stick it to worthless jack asses like the Ku Klux Klan or segregationist politicians. That is what a liberal/progressive/lefty is.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 6:05pm

300. To LL:

     If liberals do not have the inate sense to know that homosexuality is not a natural lifestyle, it is hard to see how you can even logically address the issue.

     Your "inate sense" is a lot of nonsense. You can do nothing more than assert that homosexuality is a perversion. You have been saying so for so long that you don't feel the need to reexmine irrational beliefs.

     You are a lost soul, LL. I shall pray for you.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 6:15pm

301. to LL (re: 6:52pm post):

     I am not going to argue theology with you. Your religious beliefs are your business. I will say that I don't agree with them and leave at that.

     If you are saying straightaway that you believe that God condemns homosexuality and that you further believe federal law and the US Constitution should reflect that, fine. If it's that simple and straightforward, you don't need to beat around the bush about it. That's all you have to say. After all, I really don't think there's anything I could say to change your mind.

     Bear in mind that as in America, church and state are separate; therefore, no citizen is under any obligation to accept any one religion, including Christianity, let alone your personal view of what it is. There are theologians, even Christian theologians, who do not agree with you.

     Since it is my view that the state has no right to impose a particular religion on citizens, it is also my view that the state has no right to restrict citizenship or deny rights based solely on religious teachings. The word of the Apostle Paul may be good enough for you; as far as I am concerned, he's just another man entitled to his opinion and I don't have to agree with it.

     I will tell you straight out that I am not a Christian. If there a just God, and I believe there is, then he does not damn any one simply for not going to the right church or having the wrong skin color or any one of dozens of trivial characteristics that have nothing to do with the price of beans. That includes sexual orientation.

     There are no good reasons to hold that homosexuality is perverse. That is not due to any lack of innate intelligence. You say homosexuality is perverse as if it were a self evident truth. It is no more self evident than that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior; you, LL, may call it a truth, as is your right, but you would be hard pressed to call it self evident. On the other hand, there are good reasons to suppose homosexuality occurs naturally in many species, including our own. I, for one, did not have any kind of epiphany about my sexual orientation. I did not wake up one morning a just decide to be straight. It wasn't a "lifestyle choice" for me. Why should any one suppose it was for Allen Ginsberg or Matthew Shephard or Ellen deGeneres? Perhaps they went through a greater identity crisis than I did, but that was because of something imposed on them from without, not their own being.

     So, I am firmly convinced that homosexuality is not a choice of any kind and not intrinsically evil. One may choose to love or hate, but one cannot choose to be straight or gay any more than one can choose to be Black or White or male or female. Accordingly, since I believe in democracy, the concept that citizenship in the state ought to be universal and equal, I will stand with my gay brothers and sisters for the right to be treated as human beings of full value and dignity.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 8:13pm

302. To JR - Well said!

     Lvliberty1 is not satisfied with obeying the rules of his various spirits. He insists that everyone else must obey them too. Or if a majority in his region feels they should be obeyed, then the minority must obey them also. How can someone who feels this way call themselves American? Let's say that my favorite alien spirit master commands that I must prey to him in church every Sunday. If a majority of the citizens of my state approve, is it OK to make it illegal for folks NOT to attend church on Sunday?

     No matter how intensely Lvliberty1 may believe in his spirits and their commandments, these rules should NEVER inform civil society. He can smear himself in chicken blood and run naked through the aisles, singing praises to the golden calf (or whatever wacky shit they do in church these days). He can NOT require that everyone else engage in this.

     So... you don't want to have a gay marriage celebrated in your church? That's fine! You want to disallow gays from receiving the sacred amulet of ordination? That's great! You want to keep gays from getting a license from some bored functionary at city hall? Whoops - now you're insisting that your religious mumbo-jumbo must be applied to everyone. And that is not what this country is all about.

     Posted by Fishbite at 05/22/2006 @ 8:43pm

303. Sorry, Lvliberty1, but you're being obtuse. So what if a majority wants to preserve "their heritage and traditions"? That's a smokescreen for saying a majority wants to turn their religious beliefs into law. That doesn't wash in this country. And please stop with the bullshit about marriage being a judeo-christian sacrament. Where do you get this from?

     Posted by Fishbite at 05/22/2006 @ 9:35pm

304. To LL:

     I don't think you can reconcile your support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and your belief that marriage is a Judeo-Christian sacrament with your assertion that it has nothing to do with a desire to impose your religious values on people who don't accept them.

     Again and again, your justifications for this contradiction are clothed in a clerical collar: homosexuality is a sin and those who engage in it are unrepentant. Even your view of the AIDS epidemic is that it is a Biblical curse. Even when presented with the view that risky behavior spreads AIDS, not homosexuality in and of itself, you come back with a statement along the line of homosexuals reject God and are being punished for it.

     Would you try to convert an atheist by telling him that if he doesn't believe in God that he is going to Hell? Somehow, I don't think that would frighten him very much. All I've been trying to get you to do through seven pages of this thread is to make an argument for banning same-sex marriage that would persuade a secular person that it is the right thing to do. You have not even come close to doing this.

     Of course, you're right that we can change the Constitution through amendment. However, the effect of the proposed amendment at hand is to restrict rights of certain people and to make certain that no state grant those rights even if the federal government does not. If the first feature weren't odious enough, I'd still oppose it on the basis of the second.

     No matter how you try to frame it, LL, and say that it would also be a sin to push a theocratic demand on the state, it looks to me like what you are doing is pushing a theocratic demand on the state. I'll leave it to you to determine whether or not it is a sin. To me and many others here, it's just wrong.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/22/2006 @ 9:52pm

305. I am sure others have responded to this little bit of homespun wisdom by LL:

     All this goes back to my original point; homosexuality along with other sinful behaviors such as promiscuous sex among heterosexuals and IV drug use brings about natural consequences. AIDS is obviously one of those consequences. AIDS is one of nature's (or God's way as I prefer) of telling you what you are doing is wrong.

     You have discounted everything. Your opinion about everything is now without a trace of significance. Your words are worthless.

     Get your head out of your Goddamn, mother fucking Bible and exercise your fucking mind, you stupid, stupid shitfaced little worm. Such tripe. Such crap. Meet some people and judge for yourself you smallminded fellow. I'm done with you. I'll build you a fucking cross and nail the fucking spikes in myself. I'll build you a fucking crown of thorns. All to get you the fuck off this site.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/22/2006 @ 10:27pm

306. if you'll notice how PONTIFICUS has yet to define what:

     a) a man is

     or

     b) a woman is

     and he has yet to give a single, rational explanation for prohibiting gay marriage OTHER than that he believes gay couples are INCAPABLE of rearing "healthy" children. never mind that not only is the second half of that statement patently STUPID (is it a requirement that, in the rearing of "healthy" children, one member of a couple must have a vagina, and the other a penis? otherwise, how can you possibly decipher who is actually accomplishing the minimum requirements of "rearing healthy children"? would inspectors have to find out if there is, in fact, one penis and one vagina in the rearing couple?) and the first part of the statement, whether gay couples can actually reproduce, is also patently stupid. women can simply BUY SPERM. it's VERY EASY. or, if there are two gay males, they can simply ADOPT. OR they can have a female friend have a baby FOR THEM. believe it or not, it does happen.

     pontificus, i dare you to debate this topic further, because you are buried.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/22/2006 @ 11:37pm

307. and pontificus even calls homosexuals a "special interest group"! just like women or blacks were a "special interest group", vying for the right to exist, back in the 1800s, right?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/22/2006 @ 11:40pm

308. lvliberty--

     you still have not presented a rational argument for not allowing gays to marry.

     or perhaps you can define:

     man

     and woman?

     then the debate will get interesting, cuz up til this point, it's just total nonsense.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 12:01am

309. Ah, God's Own Party. Forget the oath to support and defend the piece of toilet paper called The Constition. Hate thy neighbor as long as you will the dirty fight. I thought my loathing for the GOP had become as intense as it could: I was wrong.

     Posted by bevku at 05/23/2006 @ 12:11am

310. and can we finally admit that at the core of this debate over gay marriage is one very powerful, self-evident fact: the primary issue is control (by straight males) over women's reproductive capabilities. i mean, lvliberty and pontificus, going around making the claim that it is a monogamous, heterosexual (and christian) union that enables (enables!) homo sapiens to evolve. this is just patently absurd!

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 12:20am

311. I truly feel sorry for those who want to pervert creation.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/23/2006 @ 02:25am

     And there it is again: the inability to grapple with God as the almighty creator and God the one who allows perversions of nature, or does he create them? Homosexuality, however you wish to refer to it, is, for the homosexual, natural. You may wish to see this as a defect just as you might have disregarded me as an infant who couldn't see correctly (I've worn glasses since I was two) or as you might have tossed me on the heap of perversions because I have scoliosis, leading to a back brace in high school and a surgerically implanted metal rod in my back after high school. Goodness, LL shrieks. What a freak, what a perversion of nature. Certainly God wouldn't do such a thing. He must have chosen to be half-blind and spinally crooked.

     And yet the choice was not mine as isn't for homosexuals. I could have attempted to fake my way through life without clear vision or attempting to stand up straight, but my parents thought better of that. In a sense I have conformed my natural perversions to societal standards. I can see better but my back aches everyday. But I take my glasses off and I am reminded of my perversions. I look in the mirror and see that long scar down my back and see my perversions. But my physical perversions and homosexual perversions have one key difference: I have changed my physical being but I was never asked to change my identity--the most precious thing that God can bestow on anyone.

     How 'bout this: God created all sorts of different people. You have made it clear to us that you have embraced some of these differences through your marriage. This ability is not something everyone has. So why does it stop with sexuality? You still see it as a matter of choice? Perhaps you could tell us when you decided to eliminate being gay in your own life. I don't recall ever having that internal debate, but maybe you were blessed with options.

     Enough with this garbage thinking. It's just plain stupid to point your finger of perversion toward those engaging in activities you don't comprehend. Get to know gays and lesbians more seriously and your prejudices will melt away. Until you do this, you will continue to look like a castaway from the 17th century or a remnant of the Third Reich.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/23/2006 @ 11:23am

312. OK Jack Rabbit. I guess "reasonableness" is in the eye of the beholder.

     Wait until the subject is Iraq. Then report back on how reasonable grr kill Todd is on that discussion.

     Posted by HMAN23 05/22/2006 @ 5:22pm

     Not to mention the comment that wrote Todd off of my list of decent people long before this discussion:

     "First and foremost, my wife does what I tell her to do, like a good Christian wife should"...

     Subjugation, discrimination, and bigotry are dogma to many of those whose belief systems are built on their lifelong indoctrination into the tenets of a single holy book (much like radical fundamentalist Muslims)...

     We will never get through to people who call homosexual love "perversion". I notice their arguments fall apart when it comes to a monogamous homosexual relationship - they love to make it sound like gays fuck anyone, anywhere, anytime, like animals...

     Haven't we all heard the other arguments? "Well, if we let gays marry, what next? Pedophiliac marriage, bestiality??"

     Yeah, right, because my gay uncle and his life partner of 18 years are only one tiny step up from animals and criminals to them - their Bible tells them so.

     You are never goingto get through to these people - and if they had their way, God would reach down and burn all of the homosexuals tomorrow - I wonder who they're so scared of they'd persecute them next?

     Todd and Liberty's brand of religion is just an excuse to make the scary old world seem to make sense, to make themselves feel beterr about themselves (I'm better than those nasty old perverts - and I'm going to Heaven while they burn in Hell) - to have a "them" to look down their noses at.

     These guys brand of religion is a crutch for small, weak, fearful men unable to think for themselves.

     Thank God (pun intended) they have the good book to tell them how to think and feel - both of these fellows would be hopeless without it, each lacking anything resembling an unindoctrinated heart or mind.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 11:55am

313. Oh, and no matter how one contracts AIDS, it was not sent by God as a plague on homosexuals. It stems from a virus, quite similar to the flu virus.

     A virus.

     A virus.

     A virus.

     No supernatural entities need apply.

     One of you wackjobs care to explain what flu was sent by God to destroy? It's killed far, far more people than AIDS, mostly babies and old people.

     What the fuck did they do to piss off your God?

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 12:01pm

314. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/22/2006 @ 10:27pm

     I owe you a drink, TJ. Honesty is the best policy, period.

     Thanks for saying it like it is.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 12:13pm

315. lvliberty--

     oh yeah! you have officially lost this debate, and have proven to us all that there is simply no rational explanation for denying marriage to same-SEX couples. as you have proven, by your ignorance, and as i have proven, the study of SEX is simply not co-extensive with the study of GENDER. they are on completely different intellectual strata.

     what this means is that, however deep we probe into the irreducible, biological bases for existence (i.e. sex), there is nonetheless a completely different set of social forces at work, called gender, which compliment, and even alter, our perception of those bases. essentially, there is no way of knowing WHAT we are, without understanding both what's inside our biology (sex) and what's inside, for lack of a better word, our soul (gender). simply put, gender is the representation of our sex. for instance, i'm a man with a penis (and XY chromosome), healthy sperm (i hope). however, i am also somewhat effeminate. i drink tea, cross my legs, have mostly female friends, love to decorate, play with plants, raise children, etc, etc. so, what am i?

     to deny two women, with two vaginas and XX chromosomes, the ability to forge a legal union with the same status as two straight people, with XX and XY chromosomes, is morally reprehensible BECAUSE there is simply no basis upon which to determine whether they are INDEED comprised of OPPOSITE types. i mean, how the f*** would you determine that they were opposite types? it's not possible unless you dug out their chromosomes, and even then you would be at a loss because their respective genders might not necessarily reflect that.

     so, why don't you go home, have some wine, and think about that for a fortnight. you'll feel better, i can assure you.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 12:18pm

316. TJB,

     You have obviously lost it! Is there something about respecting the right of people to disagree that is too great for your mind to comprehend. In a civil society like ours, we often find ourselves at disagreement over some issue. What separates us from the barbaric is an ability to recognize that differences are just that.

     Too bad you cannot handle true debate because you are an intelligent person.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/22/2006 @ 11:42pm

     LL,

     Too bad you cannot handle true debate without resorting to fairy tales as fact, as you often sound like you mean well.

     Perhaps if you and your ilk didn't have unending wet dreams about all public policy being informed by your belief system, people wouldn't be willing to puncture their own eardrums with a straightened paper clip just to stop having to hear you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 12:18pm

317. Darladoon,

     " however, i am also somewhat effeminate. i drink tea, cross my legs, have mostly female friends, love to decorate, play with plants, raise children, etc, etc. so, what am i?"

     Are you arguing perhaps that you are really gay?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 1:01pm

318. todd--

     i am arguing that there is no way of knowing what i am, per my biology (my penis). the point is that the representation of this (my gender) contradicts my biology, at least en lieu of what traditionalists would argue.

     where i stick my penis is a totally different matter. i mean, would i have to stick it in something (a mouth, an anus of another XX chromosomal homo sapiens sapiens) in order to be considered gay? what if i stuck my penis in the arm pit of a M to F, pre-op, trans-gendered homo sapiens sapiens? would that make me gay? and if so, do you really care? how far do you want to take this debate? or, like every other republican, are you intellectually unprepared to delve into the interstices?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 1:12pm

319. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/23/2006 @ 1:01pm

     Darla -

     I wonder if how you answer this question will determine whether Todd thinks you should be able to marry or not?

     Oh, wait, no, I don't. I know the answer to that one...

     Because if you defined yourself as gay, everything else about you would suddenly be moot. You would cease to be defined by anything but that by Todd and his kind, and would therefore no longer have any right to wed someone you love.

     What a sick, sick argument.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 2:05pm

320. Darla,

     "where i stick my penis is a totally different matter. i mean, would i have to stick it in something (a mouth, an anus of another XX chromosomal homo sapiens sapiens) in order to be considered gay?"

     Yes

     "would that make me gay? and if so, do you really care?"

     yes and no, in that order.

     " what if i stuck my penis in the arm pit of a M to F, pre-op, trans-gendered homo sapiens sapiens?"

     That just makes you a wierd pervert, why do you ask?

     "or, like every other republican, are you intellectually unprepared to delve into the interstices?"

     We can delve into any small places you want. The intricacies do not change the fact that some people are gay, some are straight and some are just perverted.

     The interstices are also irrelevant. There are some gays who would still want to marry, and there are more people (statistically speaking) willing to fight to keep that from happening. Just look at the polls and the states that have already changed their state constitution outlawing gay marriage and/or acceptance of marriages sanctioned in other states that do allow gay marriage.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 3:01pm

321. just look at the polls from around 1850 (if there were any) which ask the states whether they approve of a black man's right to exist, or vote, or drink the same water that white people drink.

     does that mean that black men should not have the right to exist? or does that mean that the majority of people are simply incapable of writing or interpreting laws which do not discriminate upon the basis of gender, class, race, religion or SEX?

     california's anti-discrimination laws are quite clear on the matter. any form of discrimination, including matters of deciding who can or cannot marry, on the basis of SEX, is ILLEGAL. period.

     why? because ALL CALIFORNIANS are entitled to equal access, under state law, to health care, social security, etc, etc, etc, etc.

     trying to prohibit certain homo sapiens sapiens, who happen to prefer to put their penises in places where you don't want them put, is morally and legally reprehensible. the strongest argument you have for this prohibition, that because two penises cannot pro-create, is the weakest and most pathetic argument i have ever heard. it's similar to preventing people in wheelchairs from accessing, say, public restrooms. it's morally reprehensible.

     still, you have yet to propose a decent argument.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 3:27pm

322. Darla,

     "just look at the polls from around 1850 (if there were any) which ask the states whether they approve of a black man's right to exist, or vote, or drink the same water that white people drink."

     You are comparing apples and oranges, people that don't like the idea of gays being allowed to marry, are basing that on thier biblical value system.

     Show me any scripture that says being a certain color or ethnicity is evil or wrong.

     Now look up scripture that deals with homosexuality.

     To equate the PRIVELEDGE of homosexual marriage with the RIGHT to exist regardless of the color of your skin is offensive to many blacks and other minorities that have lived through persecution.

     You are not even comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and battleships.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 3:53pm

323. Todd posts:

     "Show me any scripture that says being a certain color or ethnicity is evil or wrong."

     I cite the KKK. They do exactly what you do, Todd - twist scripture to fit their own bigotry. Also Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, et al.

     Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

     Guess you really can't go into Darla's questions with scripture, either, or risk exposing your own twisted slant on it.

     One might even dare call your outlook a "perversion" of the words above.

     Unless, of course, as you and Liberty have both done here, you only pick and choose what suits you from your supposedly inerrant and non-contradictory book.

     I say again, the creator of the universe has bigger fish to fry than to worry about voyeuristically checking in on where consenting adults are putting their parts.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 4:07pm

324. Show me any scripture that says being a certain color or ethnicity is evil or wrong.

     Actually, pro-slavery advocates in the 19th century used the supposed disgrace of Ham and his desendants (supposedly they became the Africans) to justify it.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/23/2006 @ 4:14pm

325. sheesh, it wasn't a comparison, it was an analogy.

     the analogy is this:

     at one point in time, people discriminated against color.

     now, people discriminate against sexual preference.

     the analogy is quite clear, and people who support discrimination on the basis of sexual preference are, for lack of a better word, uneducated. people like yourself.

     now, anyone who cites (christian) scripture in political debate is just a total nutball! this conversation is over.....

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 4:17pm

326. ND,

     "Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

     You only further prove my point he did not say that being black is evil or "being black leads to hell"

     scripture does however state that the kingdom of heaven will not be entered by homosexuals.

     So comparing ethnic equality with homosexual marriage is not logical if the context is the Christian bible.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 4:22pm

327. Darla,

     "the analogy is quite clear, and people who support discrimination on the basis of sexual preference are, for lack of a better word, uneducated. people like yourself."

     attacking my intelligence does little to bolster your argument, as a matter of fact, attacking me personally by directing the statement towards my intelligence is simply an ad-hominem.

     There are many well educated, from a secular stand point (i.e. multiple degrees from main line secular universities), that still argue against gay marriage, are you suggesting that people like this somehow "cheated" thier way through their education, because they really are uneducated?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 4:26pm

328. just because you happen to disagree with something because that's "what you believe", or that's "biblically-supported", does not make your arguments RATIONAL or well-suited to POLICY decisions. these are your OPINIONS.

     you still have proposed a convincing and rational argument against gay marriage WHICH DOESN'T INCLUDE biblical references or personal religious beliefs. just because you feel like boys should not f*** boys doesn't make it moral, legal or ethical.

     i mean, come on dude, there isn't a single legal scholar out there who can convince anyone that gays should not have the right to forge a legal union, on par with straights, with their lovers. it simply defies logic (and humanity) to prevent gays from achieving equal status.

     the only reason (i can think of anyways) that you people are against it is because:

     YOU HAVE NO GAY FRIENDS

     so, my suggestion is to visit california, and stay for a few months.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 4:34pm

329. Darla,

     "these are your OPINIONS."

     and it bothers you that my opinion along with 78% of the opinions of the other voters here in Oklahoma changed our state constitution based on our opinion doesn't it?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 4:51pm

330. Darla,

     "so, my suggestion is to visit california, and stay for a few months."

     I've been there on vacation, many times...

     Beautiful place to visit...

     Would never raise my family there...

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 4:53pm

331. And while we are on the subject of marriage, who can or should be married, the meaning and reason for marriage etc.

     Here's some relevant information:

     "The End of Motherhood? But somehow the United States better mixes child rearing and the job market than do other advanced societies.

     May 29, 2006 issue - Russian president Vladimir Putin has inadvertently spotlighted one of today's momentous mysteries: collapsing birthrates in industrialized countries. Putin proposed that Russia pay women to have children to remedy a "critical" population outlook. Actually, he might have said "desperate." In 2000, Russia's population totaled almost 147 million; Putin says it's declining by 700,000 a year. With plausible assumptions, the U.S. Census Bureau projects it at 111 million in 2050. The median age (half the population above, half below) would be almost 50, up from 38 now. Could this Russia maintain a strong economy, national optimism or a capable military?

     Story continues below ↓ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- advertisement

     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------

     Russia's case, though extreme, isn't isolated. There's no more population "explosion." In wealthier countries, motherhood is going out of style and plunging birthrates portend population loss. This is a hugely significant development, even if we don't fully understand the causes--experts didn't predict it--or consequences. One way or another, the side effects will be massive for economics, politics and people's well being. Indeed, they may already have started. Is it a coincidence that Germany and Italy, two countries on the edge of population decline, are so troubled?

     Shrinking Populations Figures in millions. Projected figures from the Census Bureau.

     2005 2050 Germany 82.4 73.6 Italy 58.1 50.4 Japan 127.4 99.9 Spain 40.3 35.6

     First, some facts. On average, women must have two children for a society to replace itself. The actual number of children per woman is called the "total fertility rate," or TFR. Here are the 2005 TFRs for some major countries: Germany, 1.4; Greece, 1.3; Italy, 1.3; Japan, 1.4; Poland, 1.2; and Russia, 1.3. Low fertility rates don't instantly lead to population declines. They can be offset by immigration, longer life expectancies and greater numbers of young mothers. But ultimately, low fertility rates suggest falling populations (table).

     "The forthcoming and dramatic depopulation of Europe and Japan will cause many problems," writes Ben Wattenberg in "Fewer," his excellent book on the subject. "Populations will age, the customer base [for businesses] will shrink, there will be labor shortages, the tax base will decline, pensions will be cut, retirement ages will increase." All plausible. In 2000, one in six people in Germany and Japan were 65 or older; by 2050, the projections are for one in three. Of course, projections go wrong. But they could as easily underpredict population loss as overpredict.

     Up to a point, we understand plunging fertility rates. The usual suspects: improved incomes; health and life expectancies (as more children survive, parents have fewer babies); growing urbanization (families need fewer children to work the fields); women's access to education and jobs; contraception; later and fewer marriages; more divorces. But our understanding is only partial, because there's one big exception to low fertility rates: the United States.

     American fertility is roughly at the replacement rate, 2.1 children per woman. Nor does the U.S. rate merely reflect, as some think, a higher rate among Hispanic Americans. The fertility rate is 1.9 for non-Hispanic whites and about 2 for African-Americans, reports demographer Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. What explains the American exception? Eberstadt cites three differences with Europe and most other advanced countries: greater optimism, greater patriotism and stronger religious values. There's some supporting evidence. A survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago asked respondents in 33 countries to react to this statement: "I would rather be a citizen of [my country] than of any other." Among Americans, 75 percent "strongly" agreed; among Germans, the French and Spanish, comparable responses were 21 percent, 34 percent and 21 percent, respectively."

     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12888599/site/newsweek/

     Hmmm...

     Interesting....

     Notice the three reasons that the U.S. is one of the only industrialised nations NOT declining in population:

     "greater optimism, greater patriotism and stronger religious values. There's some supporting evidence."

     So...

     Is it mere irony that our nation is the only one with a positive TFR and we are more patriotic and more religious?

     Or is there a corrolation there?

     Could God's Word really be right that he blesses nations that keep his covenent and curses those that don't?

     Interesting....

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 5:05pm

332. 78% of oklahomans fear homosexuals. wow is that the scariest thing i've heard all week. so that would probably mean that there are almost no (openly) gay people there. otherwise, they could get killed or, at the very least, beat up pretty badly. man, is that depressing!

     so obviously it's true that you have no gay friends. and that would probably explain why you don't support gay marriage. otherwise, if you did have gay friends, why wouldn't you support it? i simply don't understand why you would want to use up time and energy to prevent people from being happy.....makes no sense to me at all.

     so your arguments against it are (mostly) thus:

     1. cuz the bible says so

     2. cuz gays can't pro-create

     3. cuz gays can't (properly) raise (healthy) children

     4. cuz you just happen to think that gays are, uh, going to hell

     all four of these arguments have been thoroughly shredded to pieces. the first and fourth are, well, your opinions. and the law doesn't really care about opinions.

     the second has been thoroughly refuted, because offspring are NOT a requirement of marriage. in fact, millions of straight people don't procreate, or can't procreate. when you sign a marriage certificate you don't agree to produce offspring.

     the third has been thoroughly refuted as well. gays are capable of the very same things that straights are capable of. they have jobs, pay taxes, vote, swim, eat, fuck, sleep, brush their teeth, just like straights. who they happen to want to 'fool around' with is none of your business, or my business.

     so, care to opine further, or have you pretty much thrown in the towel yet? you're losing pretty badly there buck-o.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 5:07pm

333. "greater optimism, greater patriotism and stronger religious values. There's some supporting evidence"

     well, where's the evidence?

     and this is NOT an argument against preventing gays from marrying. in fact, it might even HELP population growth to allow them to marry, according to your "research".

     i mean, let's face it, gays will always be gay. you can't reverse one's innate sexual desire.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 5:14pm

334. Darla,

     "so, care to opine further, or have you pretty much thrown in the towel yet? you're losing pretty badly there buck-o."

     Actually...

     We are winning, not loosing.

     We are the ones that have changed our state constitution outlawing gay marriage in this state. We even went further by specifying in our constitution that we won't acknowledge marriages of gays that were married in other states.

     You can argue against the logic for our actions all day long, but in the end, you my friend are the one expending lots of energy accomplishing nothing.

     I do not pretend that the changing of our state constitution was due to anything else other than our states traditional religious values held by the majority of the population.

     I have never claimed other wise.

     Others may have but not me = )

     My point is....

     If you are the one who thinks you are winning and we are "throwing in the towel" then why are we the ones that have the new amendment to our constitution outlawing gay marriage?

     I would argue on the contrary my friend, we are the ones fighting the good fight and getting what we are fighting for. You my friend are the homo-sympathizer arguing why what we are doing is wrong. But the bottom line is...we are doing it...and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 5:18pm

335. Darla,

     "i mean, let's face it, gays will always be gay. you can't reverse one's innate sexual desire."

     Nope you can't change ones sexual desire, but you can bet we can dictate whether they can marry one another or not = )

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 5:19pm

336. Todd -

     You intentionally, enthusiastically, and entirely miss my point in my last post (and isn't that a shocker).

     I say again, the creator of the universe has bigger fish to fry than to worry about voyeuristically checking in on where consenting adults are putting their parts.

     This sort of thing only seems to matter to men like yourself who preach scripture while endorsing bigotry; who pick and choose which scriptures fit their lives and their own selfish goals; who tell their wives what to do with no concept of what a hypocrisy this is against the concept of "free will" that has supposedly been approved and enforced upon us by divine will... men who don't have enough internal, creator-given decency to treat others right without how to do so being spelled out in book form for you.

     The most heinous, reprehensible, unforgiveable trespass you commit with your beliefs is this: to believe that your dogmas should in any way inform public policy or be responsible for the alteration of the Constitution of these United States of America.

     We American citizens of every race, creed, color, sexual orientation, or religion are to be equally represented in this country, Todd.

     You want to live in (and even dare suggest we break our great country into) a divided set of peoples and lands - America and Christian America. I say this: You, right now, live in America-America, where Christians, Muslims, Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostics/Atheists, Hindus, Chinese traditional religions, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, Rosicrucians, Pagans, Unitarian-Universalists, Rastafarians, and even Scientologists get an equal vote.

     You can say it until you are blue in the face, but our country is not founded upon your Biblical tenets. It is first and foremost founded upon the belief that "all men are created equal".

     Spin that.

     _____

     There is no valid or logical or rational or ethical argument to be made against gay marriage, Todd. Not you or one other single poster on this entire 7-page thread has advanced such an argument, nor could you with a gun to your head (or the threat of eternal damnation dangled over it).

     Newsflash, Todd: Sometimes two people love each other in this rough-and-tumble, ofttimes heartless and lonely world of ours.

     Regardless of their anatomy, they share the greatest gift the creator has given us (next to the ability to question any and everything). They share love, Todd, and that just drives you bugshit, and I can't for the life of me really figure out why. I don't think Jesus would agree with you on your stance here, period, nor do I think that your wife should be seen more than she is heard because your book (or your interpretation of it) tells you so.

     This is coming from a man who was raised with a Christian indoctrination, but who has since realized that there are greater truths in the universe, truths that there aren't even enough English words to describe - they would never fit in some book that I could hold in the palm of my hand, and subsequently use as sword and shield against the world of reality. You Christians aren't the only ones with a holy book or a set of beliefs, yet you lord yours over others (and have done so in the past many times by slaughter and the sword) with an air of inerrant surety that often galls and revulses the entire remainder of the human race.

     You believe yourself supremely informed by dint of your book, but you succeed only in appearing supremely arrogant. Who the hell are you to tell American Indians they're going to hell? How about Jews? Muslims? I can think of almost twenty religions off of the top of my head, and you continue to insist that anyone who doesn't see your particular light in the sky is doomed.

     Pride goeth before the fall, zealot.

     Since where gays put their parts has as little to do with you as their being married does, I can only conclude that you, and those like you, need to get a life and mind your own business.

     For as much as you guys put your concept of God on a pedestal, you sure make him sound like a petty dude to the rest of us with the arguments that you (and your book) put forth. You make him sound like a jealous, vengeful, wrathful, short-sighted, temperamental Peeping Tom.

     My concept of the creator, of "God", as you'd have it, is beyond these mortal trappings.

     Yours... not so much.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 5:22pm

337. "Actually...

     We are winning, not loosing.

     We are the ones that have changed our state constitution outlawing gay marriage in this state. We even went further by specifying in our constitution that we won't acknowledge marriages of gays that were married in other states."

     It sounds to me like you and yours are quite concerned about "loosing" and have tossed up legal barriers as a last ditch effort. So Oklahoma supports its right to create its own marriage laws but does not support other states' rights to do the same. Seems to me that this is not about exercising a state's rights as much as it is an attempt to leave the Union. Cessation over discrimination has been tried before at great cost. Good luck to you and the rest of your Sooners on this ridiculous effort. I hope that once the dust has cleared (oh wait, this IS Oklahoma--the dust doesn't clear, does it?), those still fighting for the Great Republic of Oklahoma still feel that discrimination was worth its demise.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/23/2006 @ 5:26pm

338. ND,

     "You can say it until you are blue in the face, but our country is not founded upon your Biblical tenets. It is first and foremost founded upon the belief that "all men are created equal".

     Spin that."

     Then WHY has our state constitution been changed to outlaw gay marriage based on religious moras and values of the people that live in this state?

     It's already happened, the deed is done, get over your yourself.

     Spin that!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 05/23/2006 @ 5:28pm

339. Be fun if the rest of the states stopped recognizing the marriages of those who were wed in Oklahoma.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/23/2006 @ 5:30pm

340. I would argue on the contrary my friend, we are the ones fighting the good fight and getting what we are fighting for. You my friend are the homo-sympathizer arguing why what we are doing is wrong. But the bottom line is...we are doing it...and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

     Todd

     Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/23/2006 @ 5:18pm

     Imagine my boundless surpise that Todd's final, inspired-by-God, benevolent, kind, caring, compassionate response contains such Jesus-like gems as "You my friend are the homo-sympathizer" and "But the bottom line is...we are doing it...and there's not a damn thing you can do about it."

     Supreme vilification, bigotry, arrogance, and sanctimonous sarcasm from a friend of "God". You even added "nyah-nyah" at the end. Shameless, scurrilous, and I would dare say, sinful.

     You are a poor rep for your "side", Todd. Aren't you supposed to strive to emulate the risen Christ? I can't even fathom such words coming out of the Christ's mouth.

     But you can. Fancy that. You should be ashamed of yourself, and you can spout any reply that you like here in this forum, but if you don't entreat your chosen holy representative in your church for absolution at least in private, we no longer need to expose you here.

     Because you shouldn't even be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 5:30pm

341. well, let them ban marriage. it's the fault of the older (dying) generations, all of whom will pass (or leave the state) in the next decade. nobody from my generation onwards will ever move there or do business there. the younger generations are, more than ever, embracing difference, diversity, eclecticism, playfulness, and compassion. they are certainly not embracing fear, hatred, and exclusion.

     oklahoma, south dakota, etc, are economically doomed in 10 years.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2006 @ 5:34pm

342. Then WHY has our state constitution been changed to outlaw gay marriage based on religious moras and values of the people that live in this state?

     It's already happened, the deed is done, get over your yourself.

     Spin that!

     Todd

     Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 05/23/2006 @ 5:28pm

     Nice cherry-picking of one point I made, since the rest of what I said floored you.

     You want me to spin what? That you intolerant faux-Christians have managed to take over a state with your bigotry? No spin need apply - that's clearly sick and wrong to any non-Christian American (who, let me reiterate, since you ignored it, make up the rest of our fine country).

     Sedition? Secession? Ignorance and ignoring of the U.S. constitution for the views of a clearly bigoted few? Why, that's positively unAmerican.

     Get over yourself, pal. You're hardly granting yourself the bragging rights that you so selfishly (and ignorantly) think you deserve. Thus far, you've only further exposed your bigotry and intolerance with every post.

     Good for you, Todd - You can keep Oklahoma and the other states that clearly, after all these years, haven't even gotten over the simple bigotry of racism, let alone their homophobia.

     You, Todd, only serve to contribute to the stereotype of the undereducated, ignorant, redneck, racist, homophobic hick that is so prevalent in many of the southern states to this very day. How tragically unfortunate for those great states (and remember, I've lived in Oklahoma) to be saddled with the shame of raising men like you and your ilk.

     Oh, and kudos on the skillful way you ignored everything else I said.

     If it weren't for your astounding ability to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la", your contributions here would be so much dust.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 5:42pm

343. Todd posts:

     "...attacking my intelligence does little to bolster your argument, as a matter of fact, attacking me personally by directing the statement towards my intelligence is simply an ad-hominem..."

     And he's absolutely right. Attacking his intelligence is pointless.

     Especially when his complete and utter lack of a sense of human decency is a much easier target.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/23/2006 @ 5:55pm

344. Just curious, Todd: those countries that have booming populations--are they even more religious, patriotic, and optimistic than the good ol' USA? I assume so.

     Later.

     I'm off to India, land of patriotism, optimism, and religion the likes of which this American can only dream of.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/23/2006 @ 6:10pm