73 Comments

1. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Why….

Many gays have turned on Obama, the Democrats, and the establishment gay organizations that continue to walk in lockstep with the left. — B. Daniel Blatt

….am I reminded of what is written in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

And how the Nazis used them in the 1920s and 30s…..only to ship them off to concentration camps later on.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[History repeats itself. That's one of its problems.]

Oct 13, 2009 - 11:42 am 2. Marina:

DEMOCRATS HATE GAYS? REALLY? What a surprise from the socio-commie-nazis. There’s not a single socialist country where the (male) homosexuality weren’t a CRIME. And the American gays really thought the LEFT will make them free??? (Ehhh, like the American Jews thoutht that…, yeah, right…)

Had that community ever heard what Cuba does AND DID to its gays (what the poster boy Che Guevara did in particular)? Or Venezuela? Or Vietnam? Or what did the USSR do? Or the former USSR-occupied countries of Eastern Europe? How could the gay community trust a party that protects communist dictatorships and its moral principles? How can this community trust a party that goes to bed with Ahmadinejad (and we all know what HE does to his gays). How can this community betray the other gays in the world, that suffer not from “bad Mormons”, but from the real danger? (And how can the American Jews… oh, yeah, forget it).

How can ANY community standing for freedom belive that a party supporting dictatorships abroad will protect freedom at home? How can we trust a party that TELLS US WHAT TO EAT AND WHERE TO SMOKE? Who could believe such a party had ANY notion of what FREEDOM is?

But, nevertheless, the majority of the American gays still stands behind the Dems (“at least they are not Christians!”). And so does the majority of the American Jews (“at least they are not Christians!”). Oh, great, now we have the key! “Do with us whatever you want, but please, don’t be Christians!” (Hitler wasn’t, so wasn’t Stalin – at least in their active political periods). BLIND prejudices are spooky. Both ways.

Oct 13, 2009 - 11:50 am 3. GregGS:

That is a not true the third reich was awash in homosexuality the SS etc. The nazi’s where not some Christian anti jew and homosexual bunch, they were anti religion/God, and at christmas had had their children sing songs praising hitler, they were cultist of the dark side and had no moral social mores at all.
The rise and fall or the 3rd reich is not the definitive book on the nazi’s. If any amount of anti homosexual
attitudes arose in the nazi party it was just against the fem acting ones.

Oct 13, 2009 - 12:02 pm 4. Scott:

But you can generally count on the homosexual vote veering to the left. If it were a commercial it would be 9 out of 10 homosexuals recommend .

The issue that is at the root of all homosexual complaints is validation by the rest of society. It just won’t work, because while you have the right not to be discriminated against based upon your sexual preference others also have the right to disapprove of your lifestyle. If as a homosexual you are denied employment, promotions, or access to public places because of your sexuality then that is discrimination and you should be legally protected. Individuals however are not forced to like or approve of homosexuality as it is their 1st Amendment right to do so.

That’s what the whole marriage thing is about, not rights but validation, as for example CA where prop 8 was passed already has provisions for homosexual unions that provide the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples have. Those same rights can be granted elsewhere where such unions do not exists with a little legal paperwork, basically the same legal paperwork that already married heterosexuals are recommended to fill out.

Also the Leftists in every nation where they have power then turn upon the homosexual element of that nation. Go to Cuba, Venezuela, China, or Russia and see how homosexuals are treated. Then you have the Leftist’s allies the Islamist, last I checked they were all about killing homosexuals. Homosexuals damn and revile the “Christian Right” but at least they only call you sinners & behave like jackasses, the “Multicultural Left” will sacrifice you to the Islamist and Sharia Law that demands death for homosexuals. Just give it another 30 years or so in Europe and you’ll see what I’m talking about if things continue as they are.

I don’t care if you’re “openly gay” or not. If more homosexuals could just accept that not everyone is going to accept them, get on with their lives, and quit trying to ram the homosexual agenda down everyone’s throat they’d meet with more acceptance, and thus happiness. We don’t need our elementary or even middle school aged children being taught about homosexuality, bi-sexuality, or transgenders as part of the curriculum. Let parents take care of that or at least save it until they are in high school. Leave the meaning of “Marriage” as one man one woman (basically leave it to the religions and their own view on it) and push for for the civil union (provided by the government) that provides the same legal rights as a current marriage to two individuals of legal age regardless of sex. Basically anyone who gets what is now deemed a “marriage license” is bound by the civil union which is the legal part, and a “marriage” becomes a religious ceremony which is performed by a clergyman. Thus homosexuals can still get “married” if their church and clergyman are willing, but the legal contract part that must be dissolved through a legal divorce is covered for everyone by a civil union. Simple enough, a compromise that satisfies the rights of everyone, and really doesn’t require a massive overhaul of what is currently in practice.

Oct 13, 2009 - 12:10 pm 5. Sebastian Shaw:

President Obama is pandering to gays since he has broken almost every promise before him; they are an electorate the Dems cherish for votes. But once in office, Democrats are flimsy little pansies given they have no moral compass to guide them through various dilemmas. Obama is looking to buy time. Period. I’m not sure he was that convincing. He says the same speech over & over again.

Oct 13, 2009 - 12:32 pm 6. Chuck Pelto:

TO: GregGS
RE: The Nazis and Homosexuals

That is a not true the third reich was awash in homosexuality the SS etc. — GregGS

My reading of Shirer’s work indicates that initially the Nazis welcomed homosexuals.

Later, they rejected them.

If the SS was full of them, they apparently kept it something of a ’secret’—can you say, “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.”….I knew you could.

Please cite some sources for your reports that (1) the SS was full of homosexuals and (2) Shirer is for squadoo.

In the long run, Obama will throw homosexuals under the proverbial ‘bus’, as he throws everyone else who has lost their usefulness there.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]

Oct 13, 2009 - 12:42 pm 7. Ruebacca:

As a conservative I must commend the gays for actually wanting their real problems addressed. Could you imagine what a better country this would be if Blacks were the same way.

The Democrats don’t solve problems. Democrats intuitionialize problems and milk them for all it is worth. How much money have the dems raised in 15 years over DADT? It’s a cash cow.

“Watch-out bible clingers want to put you back in the closet.” Bogyman politics will keep gays in the Democratic camp.

Oct 13, 2009 - 12:55 pm 8. Nonny:

I think a good rule of thumb for the gay community would be “get rid of any law that contains the word ‘gay’”

For example, a good gay marriage law would not include ‘gay’. It would merely assert the lack of requirement to be of opposite genders.

Yeah, I’m that nonny.

Oct 13, 2009 - 1:13 pm 9. Marina:

“Liberals” (= socialists & communists) all over the world hate gay people (just read correspondent legislations in any socialist / communist country. As I’ve told once, it’s natural. SOCIALISM / COMMUNISM are the systems were “everybody is equal” = NO INDIVIDUALITY. I.e. socialism / communism hate people who differ. And gay people DIFFER, a lot. No matter what politically correct people say, I’m sure the majority of the s.c. hate crimes agains gays are committed by typical DEMOCRAT voters (just like with anti-Semitism, that suddenly had been revealed as a predominantly DEMOCRAT phenomenon).

Libs have no choice. They promote the EQUALITY IN RESULT (unlike us, who wants the EQUALITY IN OPPORTUNITY). For socio-commie-nazis everybody has to be / have / etc. the same, no matter what you are / do etc. To support gays – very different IN RESULT – is to deny this pseudo-equality. A “liberal” that is pro-gay either lies or is in denial.

Oct 13, 2009 - 1:22 pm 10. Delia:

How do you separate yourself? LABELS.

“The gay commnity”?

Oh come the frick on!

THIS is what makes all of this crap a joke. Black this and Gay that… Did it occur to people that self-imposed bigotry is a pox on society?

Oct 13, 2009 - 2:12 pm 11. Marina:

So, the LEFT HATES GAY PEOPLE. Why then do the Dems “support” the community?

1. To show: “Look, we are not like those retards from the Christian Right! We are PROGRESSIVE!” – Yes, but that’s really nothing. The real reason is:

2. TO DESTROY ORGANIZED RELIGION. You go to a church in a state where gay marriages are allowed. They don’t want to marry you, because it’s against their RELIGION. You go to the court and the church loses its tax-exempt status (as it happened in Michigan, I think).

You can do the same trick with the ORTHODOX SYNAGOGUE (oh, the Left hates it as much as it hates the Christians!).But NEVER WITH A MOSQUE! Surprise…

The Proposition 8 protests in California demonstrated it perfectly. “Burn Bibles, burn TaNaKhs, burn Books of Mormon, … Qoran?… ehhhhhh … not so fast…”

So, the libs hate gays but use them to destroy disturbing religious institutions. Yeah, sweet. The question is, DOES THE US GAY COMMUNITY BELIEVE IT’S PRODUCTIVE TO BE USED IN SUCH A WAY? To be used to destroy organized Christianity in a predominatly Christian country? Don’t you people think it’ll backfire one day and will be so damaging and devastating for the gay movement that it’ll bring all your achievements back to the “50 years ago”-level? WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS????????? And it’ll be neither conservatives, nor libertarians, it’ll be LIBERALS who will turn your life to hell: “Oh, finally we may hate them openly”. And then you’ll ask: “Now how could THIS happen?”. Very, very sad.

Oct 13, 2009 - 2:26 pm 12. spindok:

Fight on Gay folks.

I think I can understand how you have no real representation in our two party system. Neither do you have a set place in the liberal-conservative divide.

Everybody wants your vote, but even more they want your considerable power. Then the elections are over…

Principle means nothing to the apparchniks and they are the ones with real control. You will win eventually because you are in the right. We are equal citizens, and the gay community is among the most productive in our society.

Do not compromise. This is the USA which has yet to fulfill its destiny and promise. It will some day and we have come very far from past decades.

So you have the support of this hetero-american-libertarian-jew for what that is worth.

We live, work, and create together here in this amazing place. I cannot detail how my own life at work and in the community involves so many people different than myself and how well that works nearly always. That is the American dream. Most people can relate to that in the US.

Keep it up. Progress is difficult.

Spindok

Oct 13, 2009 - 3:35 pm 13. Lou Santacroce:

So, lemme see if I’ve got this right. I’ve come to a conservative web site, and I’ve just read an article about how the left — and specifically the Democrats — are using gays as cannon-fodder to achieve their neferous ends. The article is followed by 11 comments — presumably by conservatives — all of whom seem to be sticking up, in one way or another, for gay people? Either things are REALLY changing or BOTH sides are engaging in double-speak. So, let this heterosexual say it loud and clear: partial equality is no equality at all, whether you’re gay, black, liberal, conservative or whatever. My church can refuse to marry a gay couple on religious grounds if they desire (they also refuse to marry believers to non-believers) and your conservative party can refuse membership to my moderate ass, but these examples of more-or-less private clubs are about as far as I’m willing to let it go when it comes to exclusion (i.e., nothing based on race, ethnicity, etc.). When it comes to the basic civil rights the rest of us enjoy, include everyone or, if not, exclude them from taxes as well as liberties. Okay, so it’s not a perfect solution; what is?

Oct 13, 2009 - 3:40 pm 14. Chris in Toronto:

Marina, you are a breath of fresh air!

For many gays with whom I’ve had political discussions, it boils down to wanting to hurt the institution that hurt them. Usually, this institution is a Christian Church. It is often about vengeance.

They are too blinded by their lust for vengeance to see that everything you say about individuality and the left is true, and that they will ultimately pay for their shortsightedness. They have effectively bought the left’s propaganda against conservatives in general and Christians specifically. Admittedly, some conservatives enunciate views about gays, as can be seen even on pajamasmedia threads about gay issues, that are despicable, which only serves to reinforce the leftist propaganda and makes our job of selling conservatism even harder.

To those on the left, these views are said to be spouted by “social conservatives”. My belief is that these are the views of a vocal minority of conservatives. I did some research into the California Prop 8 issue and found that at least as any “liberals” as “conservatives” supported the measure which “added a new section (7.5) to Article I of the California Constitution. The new section reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” [source: wikipedia] This was in ultraliberal California. For this reason, I always refer to these people—those who would use the power of the government to regulate morality—as “public moralists”. And, while not all public moralists espouse the same ideas of morality, they all are in favour of having the government legislate morality. And as a conservative, there is no way I can support that.

Oct 13, 2009 - 3:57 pm 15. Leatherneck:

When are the Gays not upset with something? Come on, stop the Drama, and keep the reprobateness off the street. Kids should not see two men being evil.

My post is not welcome within the New Order of the Ages, as it is full of morality.

Have a nice American day.

Oct 13, 2009 - 4:01 pm 16. Truly Scrumptious:

Obama is not going to do anymore for the LGBT community. Most African American men have issues with gays with a definite “ewwww” factor involved. The ambassadorship to New Zealand is going to be the only thing we get from him.

With Republicans, many admit they despise us so we know where we stand with them.

Democrats claim to be our friends, take our money, then stab us in the back every chance they get.

Honestly, who is worse?

Oct 13, 2009 - 4:41 pm 17. Hod Coburn:

Re: Delia, #10,
Right on! I’m sick and tired of all the hypenated Americans, the “this and that communities” etc..
Can we not be just Americans, with our differences of opinion, and lifestyles, and tolerate one another?
What consenting adults do in their own homes is none of my business, nor do I choose to make it so.
What others belive in, I don’t care, as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs on me. Nor would I attempt to force my beliefs on others. In a nutshell, tolerance. And tolerance can never come from legislative acts, only from individuals.
More reliance on individual action, less on government decrees is what is needed. When government defines acceptable behavior, individual freedom suffers.

Oct 13, 2009 - 4:41 pm 18. JFM:

Chris in Toronto

Marriage is not a right, it is a contract between three parties (the third being society) whose aim is the bringing and care of children, both things very important for society’s survival. But homoxeula union is a private thing. Period. Consider that in Sparta where homsexuality was a virtual duty there was no gay marriage. Consider that gay Roman Emperors who lived openly with their lover didn’t create a gay marriage (no it wasn’t due to the fear of riots).

Told in other terms: I have good reasons to accept some of my money being spent on providing lsegal security to my neighbors if that helps them to have the children who will keep society working when I am old (eg my future doctor) instead of becoming street urchins or not being born at all. I have no; reasob to accept that my taxes are spent on gay marriage (marriage isn’t frere you kow). They can live together freely, they can have a private celebration and I will defend their right to this.

Oct 13, 2009 - 4:52 pm 19. Ranchera:

I cannot believe that Obama is ever going to do anything for the G&L community because he is a closet Muslim. And as a black man too, he will alienate the Black community that is very homophobic in general. Plus, during the socialist era in Germany and in the Soviet Union, gays were very represed. The US is now under the control of Socialists who want to enpower the muslims. Now, given all these factors, why would Obama do anything to help them? What would they do for him now that he is in power?
This ‘new America” that Obama is taliking about is not ready to deal with these issues.
“Prometer antes de meter y despues de metido, nada prometido”

Oct 13, 2009 - 5:22 pm 20. arhooley:

Leatherneck,

Your post certainly is full of morality. So was the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.

Oct 13, 2009 - 5:48 pm 21. Banned by Huffpo:

Sadly (and it truly is sad), the Democrat party uses gays, blacks, and other minorities to get their vote. Then craps on their collective faces once they’re in office.

The term “useful idiots” comes to mind.

Oct 13, 2009 - 5:58 pm 22. Banned by Huffpo:

Sorry, forgot to close with

“Mmmm, mmmm, mmmmm, Barrack Hussein Obama. Mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmmm.”

Oct 13, 2009 - 6:00 pm 23. Clayton E. Cramer:

There’s not a single socialist country where the (male) homosexuality weren’t a CRIME.

That’s because there have been almost no countries anywhere that didn’t make homosexuality a crime. What astonishes me is how something that was a capital crime in 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was ratified), and was a felony in 32 of the 37 states when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, is now a constitutional right.

Oct 13, 2009 - 6:53 pm 24. Clayton E. Cramer:

When it comes to the basic civil rights the rest of us enjoy, include everyone or, if not, exclude them from taxes as well as liberties.

There is no “basic civil right” to marry whom you wish. States have all sorts of rules regulating who you can marry based on age, how close of a relation you are, whether you (or the other party) are already married. The government recognizes marriage because it has an interest based on issues related to child support and inheritance–issues related to the biological children of a relationship. I guarantee that no homosexual couple will ever have biological children as a result of their relationship. (They may have biological children from a heterosexual relationship, and our laws handle that.)

Homosexual support for same-sex marriage is driven by the need for societal approval. The only even slightly plausible arguments for correcting “inequality” is in the federal tax code (where there is a slight advantage to being married), and the inheritance tax (which ought to go away, regardless of sexual orientation).

Oct 13, 2009 - 6:58 pm 25. robotech master:

To 24. Clayton E. Cramer

While I agree with much of that I think the fact remains that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all. Marriage has long past its usefulness and is now nothing but another means for the government to dictate control over the ppl.

The left wing is using the whole marriage debate to rewrite laws to say what they want them to say and basically bypass both state and the federal constitution. The rulings set out in CA are insane and are borderline treasonous. It would be one thing for CA to revoke marriage law and have them re-pass marriage laws that are more “equal”… however instead of doing that they choose to rewrite the law clearly against what it was passed as and what it clearly said… that is insane.

The gay marriage debate has nothing to due with gay marriage and everything to due with 1. creating an unelected elite of judges and politicians who can create new laws out of thin air and force ppl to follow them.
2. Overriding the spirit and letter of both the state and US constitutions to weaken them so more laws can be created and changed at will.

The bottom line is gays are basically setting themselves up to be the next jews.

Oct 13, 2009 - 9:41 pm 26. Now and Then:

The gymnastic attempts to appear relevant to the gay community (yes, there is such a thing) is proof enough how delusional the conservative mind is. You’re just pushing the Foxian formula . . . “Hey, they hate us, so we’ll just say they hate Democrats and love us and soon enough, they will!” This is the myth you’ve been talked into by Griff Jenkins and his applause-sign producer. You know it’s entertainment, right?

Black people will not support conservatives who call the first black president a racist. Gays will not support conservatives who think gay marriage will lead to bestiality. You’re done with these voter blocks. Don’t believe me? I just heard that 70% of NASCR drivers support the public option.

Oct 13, 2009 - 10:37 pm 27. JFM:

Your post certainly is full of morality. So was the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.

St Bartholomew’s Day followed years of constant harassing of Catholics wherever Protestants were the majority not to mention Admiral Coligy’s plans to betray his country.

There’s not a single socialist country where the (male) homosexuality weren’t a CRIME.

That’s because there have been almost no countries anywhere that didn’t make homosexuality a crime.

It was a crime (one who sent you directly to Gulag) in Soviet Union and other socialist states decades after it was no longer one in those gum-chewing, gun toting, bible pounding states in flyover country.

While I agree with much of that I think the fact remains that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all

Marriage is by definition when two persons ask { society/state} to act guarantee their union and their rights to one another. So what you say is an absurdity. If you don’t want the state in your union then it is very simple just live together ublmarried. If you call teh state then it has teh roght to set its conditions; like refuing to extentd its warranty to unions it finds not profitable (gay unions) or downrifght harmful (incestuous unions) for societys survival

The only even slightly plausible arguments for correcting “inequality” is in the federal tax code (where there is a slight advantage to being married), and the inheritance tax (which ought to go away, regardless of sexual orientation).

Inequality is when you do the same thing than your neighbour (ie marry a person ofb the oppsoiste sex) and don’t get the same benefits. If you domething different (marry a person of same sex) and you get differnt results it is not unequality. The Navy Cross is only awarded to Navy personel. Don’t want to enlist because these are not your tates? Tough luck for the Navy Cross. same thing for marriage.

Also give me a single good reason I should accept that my taxes are spent (if gays pay less other people not to mention direct legal costs) on gay marriage. They can freely live together but where are the benefits to others? Where are the children who will allow society survival?

Also to all people defending gay marriage. On name of what then do you ban incestuous unions? Given that you didn’t think that marirgde is something who was created for settling issues about child support and inheritance by the children, given that you are denying the state the right to ve selective about how it spends our taxes (ie no longer restricted to “profitable” unions then in the anme of what do you ban incestuous unions?

Oct 13, 2009 - 11:33 pm 28. Rick,Greenville,SC:

To the gay community: Welcome to the real world of “o”: your usefulness is over, now get under the bus! You folks need to wake up! In the end, the right-wingers you despise will look out for you more than your democrat left-wing buddies. . .wait and see

Oct 14, 2009 - 3:19 am 29. datechguy:

Until these Gay Democrats are willing to name a Republican they would support all of their bluster signifies nothing.

Oct 14, 2009 - 5:22 am 30. qrstuv:

#13: “So, lemme see if I’ve got this right. I’ve come to a conservative web site, and I’ve just read an article about how the left — and specifically the Democrats — are using gays as cannon-fodder to achieve their neferous ends. The article is followed by 11 comments — presumably by conservatives — all of whom seem to be sticking up, in one way or another, for gay people? Either things are REALLY changing or BOTH sides are engaging in double-speak.”

There is a third possibility — your preconceived ideas about conservatives are wrong.

That can happen easily if you have never heard us directly but instead “learned” about us from the “news” and Hollywood.

Oct 14, 2009 - 5:26 am 31. Fritz J.:

What I’ve always found amazing is that many groups of people continue to vote for a party that promises them the moon, but never delivers on those promises. Gays are just one example of that and in my opinion would be much more successful at getting favorable legislation passed if they could present a credible threat to vote against those who promise much but don’t deliver nothing except empty words. As long as Gays, or Jews, or Blacks, or other groups fail to hold Democrats accountable for their broken promises, they will continue to get broken promises. The only thing politicians from either party understand is the threat of being voted out of office.

Oct 14, 2009 - 5:41 am 32. Chris in Toronto:

To #30 qrstuv:
True. But try to get a lib to follow that line of thought! Their eyes may be opened by this issue (or another issue with similar circumstances) but that effect will last only while you are in their presence! Soon, they will revert to the assumption-blanketed view of conservatives as evil oppressors dedicated to the destruction of freedom.

I’ve experienced this phenomenon several times.

Oct 14, 2009 - 5:45 am 33. DarkHelmet:

I don’t believe there is a monolithic conservative opinion on homosexuality. I’ve known conservatives with attitudes ranging from active support to complete indifference to paranoid hostility. Christian attitudes also cover the full spectrum from enthusiastic affirmation to ‘none of my business’ to ‘burn in hell.’ That said, I believe G/L folks would be wiser to hitch their wagons to conservatives and Christians rather than liberals and non-Christians for the following reasons:

At the root of conservatism is a belief in the individual as an end, not a means. At the root of modern liberalism is a belief that individuals are means to an end — Utopia or whatever worker’s paradise is currently in vogue. Conservatives believe that human nature doesn’t really change much, and that institutions need to conform to the contours of our innate psychology. Liberals believe that man is infinitely plastic, and can be stretched and squeezed to conform to a constructed vision of a good and just society.

Finally, conservatives will fight and die to defend their own freedom, and therefore (intentionally or not) your freedom. Liberals will bargain away their freedom and yours for a transitory peace.

Put it this way: when the hungry tiger comes prowling liberals will flee the tiger, each trying to run faster in order to be eaten last. Conservatives will hunt the tiger to protect themselves and their own, and you will benefit from their resolve.

These are generalizations, of course, but if you doubt me, compare GW Bush’s approach to the Taliban with Obama’s. In the long run that is a much more profound difference than squabbles over the specific legal arrangements of two people sharing a household.

Oct 14, 2009 - 6:45 am 34. Never for Obama:

Well put, DarkHelmet!

Oct 14, 2009 - 7:26 am 35. Bill Johnson:

Help me understand why we care so much about maybe 5% of our population? Do we not have bigger fish to fry? Like a government that is out to screw 100% of us?

Oct 14, 2009 - 7:31 am 36. ken in sc:

A ban on homosexual acts is still in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. It would take an act of congress or a court decision to remove it. Clinton’s possible executive order would have ended up in court if challenged.

Oct 14, 2009 - 8:02 am 37. Chris in Toronto:

Excellent and succinct, DarkHelment!

Oct 14, 2009 - 8:27 am 38. Lynn:

I think what is lost in this whole debate is that marriage, the union between a man and a woman is being attacked as if something is wrong with it and should be changed. I notice that often when people want to change the meaning of the word marriage they point out everything that is wrong with the institution, but that still, in my opinion, is not a reason to change it.

We have always tried to strengthen and defend our institutions especially when they have added to this countries merits. I absolutely do not find it reasonable to change the definition of marriage in this country because it does not include a group of people who do not fit because of the fact that their union is not between a man and a woman uniting to become husband and wife.

Oct 14, 2009 - 8:43 am 39. Vinny B.:

Maybe things aren’t moving as fast for the gay community as they would like but it is because of the obstructionist Republicans who would round up gays in concentration camps if they could get away with it. Bush was the biggest homophobic President in history and when he wasn’t trying to kill as many Arabs and Muslins as he could he was always plotting with Karl Rove to marginalize gays as much as he could. Obama has been the gay community’s biggest champion and people should understand how difficult it is to deal with recalcitrant Republicans who are trying to bring us back to the 17th century. I think once the Democrats get a more solid el;ectoral majority you will see some major advances for gays, as well as all other minorities who continued to suffer under Republican tyranny.

Oct 14, 2009 - 8:46 am 40. Sebastian Shaw:

Dark Helmet has a good perspective about gay people & Conservatives.

The Democrats will always use the gays as cannon fodder & they need to wake up that they are nothing but pawns, just another group to keep in the Democrat Party when their votes are needed.

Oct 14, 2009 - 8:59 am 41. robotech master:

To 27. JFM

“Marriage is by definition when two persons ask { society/state} to act guarantee their union and their rights to one another. So what you say is an absurdity.”

Your an idiot you know that…the reason its defined that way currently is because thats how the states chooses to define it… much as hitler choose to define jews as evil. You should really learn history.

Oct 14, 2009 - 9:05 am 42. JFM:

Mr Robotech

Could you clarify your rambilings, please?

You have free unions (two persons) and you have marriages (two persons + state). Just like when you ask a loan to abnk, state is allowed to set its conditions for the service provided. If you don’t like them don’t marry,n don’t ask for a loan.

Also a;llow me to be unimpressed by your gay-friendliness: I have seen too many of your likes make fuss about gay marriage while saying nothing about execution of homosexuals in Iran ad other islamic countries (specially by your idiols tyhe Plaestinians).

Also I spoke of free unions: while I deny the state the right to spend my taxes on a thing (gay marriage) who gives no benefit to society (only to teh persons involved) it also happens I am ready and willing to defend (that is weapon in hand if needed) gays right to live freely with the person of their choice.

oh, BTW, I suggest you voluntarily pay a couple hundred dollars more in taxes for funding gay marriage.

Oct 14, 2009 - 9:28 am 43. elaine:

Here’s a shocker: if the Democrats really wanted to do something for gays (repealing DADT, for instance), they could do it TODAY. They control both houses of congress (and have done for over two years now), and the WH (since Jan 20.) They have solid majorities in both houses; they don’t need a single Republican vote to pass pro-gay legislation.

So why have’t they done it?

Because they don’t give a damn about you or your agenda.

And the biggest shock of all? They never will.

It’s time you face reality and accept that you will never get what you want from lying politicians. They’ll promise you the moon and stars in order to get your campaign contributions, and then they’ll go back to ignoring you. It’s inevitable.

Maybe you should try voting for politicians who actually (and demonstrably, as evidenced by their voting record) believe in things which will help AMERICA as a whole, rather than the gay community specifically… like fiscal responsibility, a balanced federal budget, and an econmic environment wherein businesses can grow and expand without paying overly burdensome taxes. Because advances in these matters will advance us all.

Oct 14, 2009 - 9:47 am 44. Lynn:

The fact of the matter is that even if the Federal and States did not give legal or institutional sanction to the union of joining a man and woman in marriage to become husband and wife, it would still be marriage. It is not the federal or state government that created marriage, it is the result of that joining that caused the government to give it certain rights, responsibilities and protections. The government realized that this special relationship also contributes to the stability and strength of a nation. There is absolutely no reasonable argument to change the definition to include any other relationship.

In fact the Government recognizes that not all “marriages” that mankind may wish called “marriage” would or should be sanctioned by the government. I am sure there are people living in this country who consider themselves joined together as like a marriage and would like it to be officially recognized as marriage by the government. Some joining are even considered a crime such as brother-sister, father-daughter, mother-son, first cousins, adult-juvenile etc.

Changing the definition of marriage will not gain anything but dilute the word and confuse the meaning. I think this subject crosses the lines of conservative, liberal, democrat, republican and goes into the thinking about what marriage is at it’s core. If the majority of people in this country think that marriage should be changed to include other couplings then it will probably change but I don’t think that people who are in favor of it should rest easy thinking it will happen with the full support of either party. And I also think that like any other issue it is and will be politicized not because of officials sincere beliefs but for their own gain.

Oct 14, 2009 - 10:02 am 45. elaine:

Vinnie B said:

Maybe things aren’t moving as fast for the gay community as they would like but it is because of the obstructionist Republicans who would round up gays in concentration camps if they could get away with it.

Do you really believe that, or are you simply being overly dramatic to make a point?

The Republicans aren’t being obstructionist, because to be obstructionist you have to be blocking legislation which is already being considered. Where are the Democrat-drafted bills to overturn DADT or DOMA?

The answer is: there are none.

If the Democrats simply had the intention to pass gay-friendly legislation, wouldn’t they be drafting it now? Wouldn’t it already be in committee?

Of course it would.

The fact is, they’re not about to pass such legislation, not because of Republicans being obstructionist or their own fear they’d be run out of office (because let’s face it, if a politician is from the bluest of blue states or districts, they really don’t need to worry about being beaten by a republican for their seat.), but because all they care about is your campaign donations. Once they have that, it’s back to business as usual, which is doing NOTHING for gays.

Bush was the biggest homophobic President in history and when he wasn’t trying to kill as many Arabs and Muslins as he could he was always plotting with Karl Rove to marginalize gays as much as he could.

And as for the rest of your overwrought assertions, I’m pretty sure we not only didn’t have gays being rounded up during the Bush administration, we didn’t even hear him calling for such a thing. EVER.

How were gays marginalized during the Bush administration any more than they were during the Clinton administration? Were gays denied jobs, simply for being gay during the Bush years? Were gays the victims of record numbers of hate crimes? Were gays too afraid of coming out of the closet lest someone make their lives difficult at all?

The answer is clear. Gays weren’t marginalized during the Bush administration. For you to make such outrageous claims is ludicrous.

But hey… why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good hyperbolic overstatement?

So, please… keep defending Obama and believing that this time a lying, opportunistic politician is going to give the gay community exactly what they want. You’ll only have yourself to blame when reality doesn’t meet your expectations.

Oct 14, 2009 - 10:08 am 46. robotech master:

To 42. JFM

Once again I’m impressed by your complete retardation…

You define things as the government chooses… I define things as they are. You seem to have a hard time understanding that I could care less how the government defines something. The government is not a private business… it should not be setting rules that grant these type of “special” agreements period.

“Also a;llow me to be unimpressed by your gay-friendliness: I have seen too many of your likes make fuss about gay marriage while saying nothing about execution of homosexuals in Iran ad other islamic countries (specially by your idiols tyhe Plaestinians).”

You once again show your complete retardation.

1. I strongly oppose gay marriage.
2. I do say things about those issues… and have traveled to over countries such as iraq to kill said ppl.(and would greatly enjoy killing ppl in iran and wiping out the arabs that think they are palestinians)

“oh, BTW, I suggest you voluntarily pay a couple hundred dollars more in taxes for funding gay marriage.”

I refuse to pay any money for marriage gay or not… and for the huge government spending that results from this paper trail that costs 10s of millions of dollars to maintain and keep up with.

Get it through your thick head that I oppose marriage period gay or not because its a complete waste of money and only gives the government control over the ppl in way the constitution never intended.

Oct 14, 2009 - 10:33 am 47. JFM:

Get it through your thick head that I oppose marriage period gay or not because its a complete waste of money

I do not. I do noty because when I am old I will be more than happy to find a doctor who is not senile and a fireman who is under 70 and thus able to take me out of my burning house. that is why I am very ready to fund an institution who, on average makes for more children and on average makes for a hgher proporion of what in Spain are called “mens of profit” instead of rascals, thieves or drug dealers.

Now,, given that you refuse to fund the new generations, I suggest when you are old, in case there is a scarcity of firemen and your house burns you refrain from calling them and heroically burn alive in order for the few ones available to be able to atend fires in the houses of those who funded the new generation.

And fater the harsh word I have to say thnat I find your position, refusal of any marriage logaical and defensible despite not sharing it (I still deny you the right to call a doctor or the fire deprtment when you are old). Agy marrioage is what I find illogicaL

Oct 14, 2009 - 11:05 am 48. Achillea:

There are a couple of hard truths that the LGBT community is going to have to recognize (and I say this as a Wiccan who supports SSM and the repeal of things like DADT):

“Until these Gay Democrats are willing to name a Republican they would support all of their bluster signifies nothing.”

Face it — Dems don’t pay you anything more than lip service for the very simple reason that they don’t have to. They’ve got you too scared of the ‘religious right’ boogeyman to vote for anyone who doesn’t have that magic ‘D’ after his name. Newsflash: It was Baptists (like Phelps’ odious crew) that got Prop. 8 passed, not Mormons.

“Help me understand why we care so much about maybe 5% of our population? Do we not have bigger fish to fry? Like a government that is out to screw 100% of us?”

Even if you were to throw off the blinders, the reality is there still aren’t enough of you for the Dems or the Reps to care. You don’t have the numbers to be kingmakers (or kingbreakers), no matter how much you may shake your fists, stamp your feet, and cry ‘you’ll be sorry.’

My suggestions to you is quit thinking you’re some powerful force that’s going to single-handedly find and fire that magic bullet that will get your particular pet agenda(s) passed. You’re just one more special interest group (and a smaller one than many). Link up with other groups and vote for candidates who are /genuinely/ interested in less government and more personal freedom.

Oct 14, 2009 - 11:22 am 49. robotech master:

To 47. JFM

Is that the best you got? If you got rid of marriage and large sections of the government the next generation is going to at least stand a chance… in your world the way you see the next generation is as indebted slave labor for you….

Marriage like so many other government controls does nothing to help but everything to hurt.

Oct 14, 2009 - 11:52 am 50. David W. Lincoln:

The Dems are worried about being rudderless revisionists in the eyes of those despised by the coastal jaded. So, they
have no other way out of wriggling out of the conundrum, Men and women are different, and there is more to this than men and women, other than by accepting it.

So, it is like the situation the soviets found themselves in when the vote about partioning Palestine came up. They saw it as a way to divide the US and Great Britain, and they can come back to soothe the Arab’s hurt feelings by backing Israel at that time.

For the Soviets were masters at buying the affections of people, with the moneys they received from outside the Soviet Union. The same goes today with the Kremlin. They money they send out of Russia tends to come into the Kremlin from outside of Russia.

Oct 14, 2009 - 12:44 pm 51. Edward A:

It wistful thinking for anyone to imagine that the majority of minorities in America will ever vote again the Republican ticket. Republicans have worked hard to display their disdain and rejection of minorities. The existing Republican party will continue to fade from the national scene.

Oct 14, 2009 - 12:47 pm 52. Leatherneck:

#20,

Just because I support morality, does not mean I support murder. Your mind works in a strange way.

Oct 14, 2009 - 1:47 pm 53. JFM:

If you get rid of the state, first Putin will nuke you and second you will still have to account for some bilogical facts like preganacies who leave lots of women unble to do anything, a cpuple years where the offspring requires constabnt attention ans at least ten before it ceases to be a burden. that is why we invented the couple and that is why after a tilme people began to ask the tribe to guarantee the union ie in case of one of the parts not fulfilling its obliogations it would have to deal not with the other’s realtives but with the whole tribe.

Also when you said in another post that marrikage gives control to government”. It seems that the single 4004-based neuron you have has still been unable to compute that marriage is a voluntray act. Ie if you don’t like the laws don’t marry and stop whinning.

BTW do you own a gun or are you one of those ancaps who hide under the bed when they hear noise at night and call the state to protext them?

Oct 14, 2009 - 2:58 pm 54. Marina:

If you remember, the election in Germany brought to power a coalition of CONSERVATIVES (CDU, CHRISTIAN Democrats) and Libertarians (“liberals” in the classical sence – s.c. Free Democrats, FDP). Christian Democrats have the Chancellor (Angie Merkel) and Free Democrats make their own guy (GUIDO WESTERWELLE) a Foreign Minister (= a Secretary of State).

Now, Guido Westerwelle is OPENLY GAY. He visits all the official state events with his partner and NOBODY on the CONSERVATIVE side has any problem with it.

Maybe I missed something, but I’ve never seen any big coverage of this fact in the US MSM. A FUTURE SECRETARY OF STATE IN GERMANY IS OPENLY GAY and nobody sees a big deal here. Of course, if the libs start to pay attention to it, they’ll have to admit that CONSERVATIVES HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH GAYS, even on the level of the state representation. Doesn’t really suit the “cons are nazis” agenda, does it?

O.k., but the fact really created a certain outrage. Guess where? ON THE LEFT! S.c. SOCIAL Democrats (SPD, “liberals” in the sence of “progressives”) tried to make Guido’s appointment impossible, just after the election. A highly positioned Socialist Peter Langner said in a speech of an official event of his Socialist Party: “I DON’T WANNA HAVE A GAY FOREIGN MINISTER”

http://www.pi-news.net/2009/09/spd-langner-will-keinen-schwulen-aussenminister/

Was there ANY coverage of this case in the “gay rights protecting” US MSM? I haven’t found a trace.

The outrage in the Conservative and Libertarian circles in Germany was so big, that Langner had to apologize. But the fact is that the LEFT just tried to probe the ground, so to say, to scan the public opinion: “Is it possible to destroy an opponent appealing to HOMOPHOBIA?”. And if it had been possible, they would had done it at once. Because there are no bigger homophobes in the modern industrialized parts of the EU, than THE LEFT.

Oct 14, 2009 - 3:00 pm 55. Moho:

I didn’t know there was such a thing as ’straight-face’.

Oct 14, 2009 - 4:02 pm 56. Bilgeman:

#51 Edward A:
“It wistful thinking for anyone to imagine that the majority of minorities in America will ever vote again the Republican ticket.”

Gee, I’ve heard this about minorities and the Republicans since I started paying attention to national politics…about 1972 or so, and yet the GOP keeps managing to win more than it’s share of Presidential elections.
The wistful thinking appears to have more than one wellspring, what?

“Republicans have worked hard to display their disdain and rejection of minorities.”

This is a desirable feature of a national party. The Dems’ catering to every pro-abortion gay black left-handed Wiccan on welfare has done little more than enshrine and codify our society and it’s cultural divisions.
As Lincoln said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand”.
And so, if you want to continue living with the benefits of being an American in America, then at some point you have to reject the comfortable orthodoxy of your identity politics and hew to the common denominator of the mainstream.
If you cannot or will not do this, then this joint is due to be condemned and broken up into pieces, and you can take your chances with what replaces it.

“The existing Republican party will continue to fade from the national scene.”

Keep telling yourself that so that you won’t need to be reminded. The writing on the wall is very clear what 2010 will bring for the Democrats.

You’ll sound as foolish then as the boobs who claimed that the Dems’ days as the “party of governance” was at an end a few short years ago do now.

Oct 14, 2009 - 4:20 pm 57. robotech master:

To 53. JFM

You live in quest the fantasy world there.

Oct 14, 2009 - 4:30 pm 58. JCL:

Gays may be at odds with Democrats. In the end–they will vote for Democrats.

Oct 14, 2009 - 5:05 pm 59. Anonymous:

#51 “Republicans have worked hard to display their disdain and rejection of minorities. ”

This is a malicious lie told by leftists and believed uncritically by leftists.

Show me the disdain. (The only disdain I see from conservatives or Republicans is disdain for the elites.)

Show me the “rejection.” As a hint, a preference for the law to reflect majority opinion is a preference for process and the Constitution, not a “rejection” of something that a minority wants.

Remind me who coined the phrase “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations” and remind me which party still doesn’t see that bigotry in its own tightly cherished programs.

Oct 14, 2009 - 5:07 pm 60. Marina:

Dear Daniel

I have real compassion with you. You still have hopes: ONE DAY THIS COMMUNITY WILL WAKE UP, RECOGNIZE ITS ENEMIES AND STOP VOTE FOR ITS DESTRUCTORS. You poor, poor boy. I went through the same stuff with another community. I saw the minority of conservative American Jews waiting for the, “THE” awakening. And then I saw them giving up, one after another. I’m not sentimental, but I was crying the day Pamela Geller has written her first “And the Jews will be silent” instead of “When will they wake up?”. It was very sad seeing HER loosing hope, after ALL SHE HAD DONE to wake up this community. Unfortunately, if after 4 years of Jimmy Carter you still vote Democrat, you’ll never wake up (’cause Carter’s anti-Semitism alone was unable to accomplish all the dirty stuff now ascribed to him, THE PARTY STOOD WITH HIM).

The shocking discovery was that THEY KNOW all your arguments. They KNOW all the dark sides of their “elected ones”. THEY just DON’T CARE. The main thing is NOT TO VOTE CONSERVATIVE – they are TOO CHRISTIAN.
- So, vote Libertarian!
- Ehhh, no chance to win
- Then don’t vote at all!
- No no no, we have to be politically active to change something

And they go and vote for the people who HATE THEM MOST, but who promise “you’ll be able to change something if you’re with us”. The only change they get, years after years, is the screwing of the 1st Ammendment in the form of political correctness. But it seems to be enough for them, all of them. (And we all know how healthy it is to cover open wounds instead of healing them.)

Will the gay community ever wake up? Probably. When the Dems will think no one can vote them out of power anymore (ACORN, voting machines and other “lil helpers” will always be there). Then they’ll show what they really think about gays. And then the liberal gays will ask: HOW COME? But it’ll be the sheerest hypocrisy ever, because they know the answer TODAY, they just don’t want to consciously perceive it. (Yeah, just blend it out, it helps SO MUCH!)

Will they go and vote conservative? Hardly. After the 4 anti-Semitic years of Carter the majority of the American Jews went and voted for some third guy, with no chance to win (“But HE WASN’T CONSERVATIVE!”). And 4 years later they all voted Democrat again. But you know it, o.c.

NO HOPE HERE.

But, dear Daniel, ULTIMATELY it’s NOT BAD AT ALL. You know, of course, that giving up breaks your heart first, but then it makes you free. And if we want to rebuild the REALLY DEMOCRATIC society after the so called “Democrat” party is finished with it, we’ll build on common values and principles, not on nationality, or sexual orientation, or THE COLOUR OF OUR SKIN (traditional Dem-orientation).

You said it yourself (don’t remember where, sorry): conservatives are not as homophobic as they’re thought of (at least it was the idea). And neither are the Libertarians. And when those two major AMERICAN “WINGS” will rebuild the country, it’ll be far less homophobic than in the hands of the so called “democrats”.

Do I want you to give up on your community? No. Do I hope you will? Not exactly. Do I know you will? Yes. I’m sorry.
All I want is just to support you, ’cause “when the time comes” it usually helps, that’s all.

Take care. We are with you.

Oct 14, 2009 - 5:26 pm 61. Marina:

51. Edward A:
“the majority of minorities”

…

Oct 14, 2009 - 6:46 pm 62. Marina:

To Chris it Toronto

Very sad and very scary experience. Very sad in “their” payback and very scary in the THEIR SIDE RETALIATION PRETENDING BEING OUR SIDE.
LET’S BE READY FOR THIS!!!!!!

Oct 14, 2009 - 7:00 pm 63. Marie Claude:

funny how gays situation takes such a large place in your debates !

hmmm can’t they just have a civil union ? like a paper that warrents to the left companion the right to remain in the common inhabitation when the other dies !

JFM, it’s your fest, one can see

uh t’es un vieux tromblon rétrograde

St Bartholomew’s Day followed years of constant harassing of Catholics wherever Protestants were the majority not to mention Admiral Coligy’s plans to betray his country.

Coligny was a great army amiral, bred at François 1er’s court, devoted to the crown of France, his education was perfect, for his infortune, he converted to Protestantism. This is the cause of his assassinatio, and that started st Barthelemy too : his correligionnaires wanted to revenge him, but Catherine Medicis, (of the machiavelan florentine family) knowing what would happen, decided that all the protestants of Paris would be eliminated

Now you’re saying that he planned to betray his country, thus France, uh, may be cuz he was helping the Huguenots to emigrate to the US and to Brazil, where ships were chartered in Le Havre and Dieppe harbours, or for calling for the help of Elisabeth of England for supporting them ?
Well though when the queen of England (too happy to settle into France again) send her troops, Coligny and Condé were fighting english incursions together. This story ended with the Hamptoncourt treaty, Catherine de Medicis got mad at these two warriors for this english incartade.

Though the only betray that should look logical for you, IMO, would be when Coligny was helping the Dutch protestants to free from Spain suzeranity.

These times were confuse, each great military chief wanted to gain more influence and territory, to impose their beliefs, to the damn of royalty.

England wasn’t spared, where catholics tried to get some intervention from spanish and french catholics too.

This is a fact that St Barthelemy calmed down the fightings, but it’s only when Henri IV of Navarre, a protestant, that married Margot, Catherine de Medicis’s daughter, that peace really settled, Henri IV converted conveniently to catholiscism for becoming king of France, and managed with the Edit de Nantes that catholics and protestants could live again together.

Oct 14, 2009 - 9:07 pm 64. Bilgeman:

#60 Marina:
“And they go and vote for the people who HATE THEM MOST, but who promise “you’ll be able to change something if you’re with us”. The only change they get, years after years, is the screwing of the 1st Ammendment in the form of political correctness. But it seems to be enough for them, all of them. (And we all know how healthy it is to cover open wounds instead of healing them.)”

Quite.

Speaking of untreated open wounds and all…

Really, all that needs to be known about the “Gay community” is that their mental illness was declared to no longer BE a mental illness by the Board of Trustess of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 voting to remove homosexuality from the DSM-IV.

This vote was affirmed by the voting APA membership in 1974 by a plurality of only 32.7%.

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

All of the rhetorical questions you have asked in your comments can only be explained if one realizes that the “Gay community” is actually a political grouping of undiagnosed and untreated mentally ill people, to a greater or lesser extent of severity.

It is rather awe-inspiring when one considers what evil has been wrought by an intimidated or misled concurring referendum of less than a third of psychiatrists over 30 years ago, is it not?

And as politically perverted as “Science” has become, do you think there is any possibility that an honest effort would be made to revisit that decision and review any new scinetific evidence?

I wouldn’t wager my carbon emission allocation upon that.

Oct 14, 2009 - 10:08 pm 65. Emma:

“So, lemme see if I’ve got this right. I’ve come to a conservative web site, and I’ve just read an article about how the left — and specifically the Democrats — are using gays as cannon-fodder to achieve their neferous ends. The article is followed by 11 comments — presumably by conservatives — all of whom seem to be sticking up, in one way or another, for gay people? Either things are REALLY changing or BOTH sides are engaging in double-speak.”

It’s hilarious to me how some people believe that all Republicans are anti-gay, or all Liberals are pro-gay. There are only two political parties to choose from – what are the odds that any one person is going to agree with every stance their party takes? We’re not the Borg.

Oct 15, 2009 - 3:12 am 66. JFM:

Mrs Marie Claude

You forgot the part about defending gay’s freedom. I am not sure there is w or
for this in Vichyste.

Oct 15, 2009 - 4:03 am 67. Marie Claude:

JFM take your pill, before you get another attack

Oct 15, 2009 - 5:34 am 68. S. Weasel:

Hee hee…you called Sullivan left wing.

Oct 15, 2009 - 5:42 am 69. Lynn:

I would also like to say that I do not think that homo-sexuality, bi-sexuality, or trans-sexuality, can be completely explained by natural causes. There have been times in mankind’s history where same sex couplings have been sanctioned by a powerful segment of society, and in fact used to coerce young children into that lifestyle. Their (children’s) inclinations, I believe, is and can be heavily influenced by adult behavior around them.

Many people in this debate have reached adulthood and do not, and have not felt or been exposed intimately to the influence that sexual appetites of adults, and their behavior in satisfying these appetites. I also think that children being brought up in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual households are sometimes being used to promote the lifestyle and they (the children) and society have not had a chance to know whether they will be harmed by being taught that this lifestyle is the same as the heterosexual lifestyle. I can’t forget the little girls exclaiming “Why can’t my mommies marry?” Did those little girls know that they had daddies, or were they forgotten somewhere, anonymous donors for two mommies? Not really needed except for their biological material.

Although they were brought into the world with the biological joining of a man(father) and a woman (mother) they are led to believe that it is society that is wrong in questioning whether two mommies can marry each other and two daddies can marry each other. In fact their are situations where biologically a mother and father married but later on, one or the other, through surgery and hormones changed their original sex to become a man or woman. It appears that a man is pregnant, but the reality is, that a woman became pregnant and began the process of becoming a man.

I think the fact that children are being used in this debate is a signal that we should question whether calling a relationship between two women or two men, or other matings should be given the same definition of a man and a women uniting in marriage. People who have set up households with relationships other than married couples should not expect to be given the same definition (marriage). It is not the same.

Oct 15, 2009 - 7:10 am 70. texexpatriate:

It’s not just gays that are increasingly at odds with Democrats. All thinking people are increasingly at odds with Democrats.

Oct 15, 2009 - 11:23 am 71. syn:

“People who have set up households with relationships other than married couples should not expect to be given the same definition (marriage). It is not the same.”

Exactly; there is no such thing as ’same-sex union between opposite sex’

Imagine if you will redefining homosexual to mean ’sex between people’; may sound reasonable however would ultimately eliminate that which IS homosexual.

Democrats change meaning in order to justify a means to an end.

As a Conservative I can no more change the meaning of homosexual than I can change the meaning of marriage; all I ask is respect for meaning and purpose otherwise everything devolves into nothingness.

Oct 16, 2009 - 4:19 am 72. syn:

“the reason its defined that way currently is because thats how the states chooses to define it… much as hitler choose to define jews as evil. You should really learn history.”

This defies history; when the union of yin-yang was created there was no United States. Further, union of yin-yang occur long before the rise of Hitler.

Marriage is NOT a creation of the states; the imposition faced today is that the States wish to redefine what IS Marriage yet the States have no authority to do so.

Lastly, for several centuries the union of yin-yang was an arrangement-you did not marry the one you loved, you married the one with the best dowry for the sole purpose of insuring the offspring enjoyed excellent social advantage.

Since the turn of the 20th century Western societies ended that practice however in some parts of the world union between yin-yang are still arranged and in none of these societies would they ever arrange union of yin-yin (same-sex).

Oct 16, 2009 - 4:35 am 73. Paul -Indiana:

#58 JCL: Gays may be at odds with Democrats. In the end–they will vote for Democrats.
============================================================
That’s all too true. Poor people have voted Democrat for decade and they are still poor. Some groups never learn, or perhaps never accept the truth.

Oct 16, 2009 - 8:56 am