Democrats & Liberals Archives

New Entries for Ray's Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phrases

Freedom Fighter See George Bush… No… really… if you want to see a Freedom Fighter, see George Bush.

Freedom Fighter continued. 1.) A person who fights "freedom" by authorizing warrant-less wiretaps on his own law abiding citizens. As in.: George Bush is a freedom fighter who claims his "divine right" to rule without legal constraint by authorizing warrant-less wiretaps without Constitutionally mandated legal checks and balances. 2.) A person who fights freedom by declaring American citizens as enemy combatants with no legal or human rights. As in.: George Bush is a freedom fighter who declares his "divine right" to rule by making anti-torture legislation necessary and then signing it with the fingers of his left hand crossed behind his back and the middle finger of his right hand pointed at the American flag which represents the FREEDOM that millions have died to defend. 3.) A person who fights freedom by claiming the bigoted "divine right" to deny gay people the same rights as real people. 4.) A person who fights freedom by taking a literalistic approach to his oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United State of America" to mean that he only has to protect the piece of paper while he shreds its meaning. 5.) Thomas Paine - real freedom fighter - not a chicken hawk.

Gay Marriage 1.) A description of the "happy" relationship between Republicans and the rich and privileged elite in which they practice the "missionary position" (see: Missionary Position)of using corrupt Christian leaders to politically manipulate the American people into voting against their own best interest over insignificant, trumped up, bigoted, social issues such as two men wanting to paint a little white picket fence. 2.) A situation that will lead to a total breakdown in the fabric of our society if two homosexual men are allowed to commit the ultimate semantical faux pas of calling their sacred, intimate, loving, committed, sexual relationship a "marriage." 3.) Something that will cause large numbers of people to marry pigs. 4.) Something that will allow small numbers of people to act as if they are actually people deserving of the same rights and privileges as other people. 5.) Something that some Christians view as a sin which should therefore be against secular law and which Karl Rove views as an opportunity. 6.) Something to mobilize the conservative base to get out and vote for a pathetic, deadbeat, bald faced lying, incompetent excuse for a President.

Posted by Ray Guest at July 1, 2006 4:45 AM
Comment #163849


That’s kind of funny—looks like you spent a lot of time on it. You seem particularly exercised about the gay marriage thing.

I don’t hate gays, I’m not homophobic, and I’m ‘tolerant’ of a homosexual lifestyle in that I can disagree with it, but still allow a person to make their own decisions. I don’t equate ‘tolerance’ with ‘agreement’.

I simply don’t want to change the definition of marriage. I believe there should be restrictions to marriage. Almost every person in here believes it too. Just ask them.

Should adult siblings be able to marry each other? Should parent/adult child marriages be acceptable? Should a group of people be able to be married together? Should members of the same sex be able to be married?

These questions all are focused on what the restrictions of marriage should be. Nearly everyone feels that one or more of the above restrictions should be in place.

That we might differ on which restrictions to place on marriage does not make us hateful or intolerant. It simply means we have favor different restrictions on marriage.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 1, 2006 5:57 AM
Comment #163851


I actually wrote a serious article on the gay marriage issue recently and answered many of these concerns - in fact you and I had this discussion there. I don’t care what the majority thinks. The majority of lemmings follow each other off from a cliff - it doesn’t make them correct. The article is titled: “I Don’t Get It, Is There Something I am Missing” and is in the archives for June 7, 2006. I will copy my last response to you here:


You wrote:

There are, however arguments made to counter your thoughts. Regarding age, of course no one supports child abuse. But in the cultures that allow 13 year olds to marry, or even younger, they would not consider it abuse. They would consider it a loving relationship. Now you and I might disagree with them, but the question is whether we are willing to call their culture illegitimate.

I wrote: Yes, since we have identified child abuse as harmful their culture would have no bearing on our law. We might respect their culture from a scientific cultural relativistic perspective. We can respect their law in their country - but in our country we can make a law against marrying 13 year olds that does not involve forcing our personal moral values on someone else. The justification is based on the harmfulness of child abuse. we are not legislating morality, we are protecting children. The state can and should do that in defense of the children’s right to “life, liberty, and… …” the rest.
Somewhere up there someone (might have been tony or JBOD) raised the issue of homosexual siblings getting married… Someone, raised the issue of outlawing marriage between people with matching genetic flaws… Interesting legal and moral quandaries…
The genetic flaws issue is tangentially related here. As science progresses we will have to work that out in the near future. If we let them marry then we will probably have to allow incestuous couples to marry and reproduce, but how can we stop non-related people with matching genetic flaws from marrying. That issue will be there regardless of what we do about same sex marriage…
Homosexual siblings marrying is going to be about as rare as hens teeth and twice as weird. Still with no public health concern - it should probably be legal - why not - who is it going to hurt - who’s rights are infringed by it.
So, my basic point is that; as long as it isn’t violating someone else’s rights, it should be legal. Many of other types of marriage that mention here and also the common Republican concern of people marrying pigs, if gays are allowed to marry are deranged, sick strange and weird, but extremely rare, and would not present a problem for our society. Marriage to pigs could be outlawed on the basis of protecting the pig from abuse, beyond that if no one is hurt, no one’s rights are infringed, it is none of our business. A few weirdos on the fringe is no reason to deny equal rights to an entire category of human beings. That should be a Republican value. It is a Democratic value. For a fuller discussion of this issue see my article and thread in the archives. Posted by: Ray Guest at July 1, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #163852


I meant to click preview and I clicked post before I cleaned up the punctuation formatting errors.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 1, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #163853

“I simply don’t want to change the definition of marriage. I believe there should be restrictions to marriage. Almost every person in here believes it too. Just ask them.”

1 - show me the legal definition of marriage found in the Constitution.

I would propose this one: a legal union of consenting adults. (Yes, some people might choose to marry more than one person… whatever. To make a case for banning this, you need to show negligence or actual damage.)

2 - restriction to marriage: consenting adults (see above)

Idea for gay couples who live in states that ban gay marriage: form a LLC with your partner. It won’t give you every right, and it should come down to this, but it might work temporarily…???

Posted by: tony at July 1, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #163854

Sorry - but that should read “should not come down to this” above

Posted by: tony at July 1, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #163856

Actually, that whole “people marrying pigs being the inevitable result of gay marriage” issue that Republicans use to justify denying equal rights to gays could and would also be outlawed on the basis of public health. After all, it was swine flue that killed millions of Americans in the pandemic of? - was it 1913? So, the point is, that these other kinds of marriages, are red herrings, that are used to distract from the real issue of equal rights here.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 1, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #163857

Ray -

I thought it was just that some REPs had a thing for pigs.

Posted by: tony at July 1, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #163862

I have wondered a lot about this, too. I don’t see gay “marriages” (as opposed to civil unions or whatever is allowed) as being some kind of “threat” to other marriages. I don’t think you will see a bunch of divorces so one of them can run off with another of the same sex. I just don’t know where the “threat” I so commonly hear of can possibly be.

I also don’t know where the “definition” of marriage is. When I got married I didn’t have to fill out anything to “prove” I was complying with the definition. And what is it about bigamy? Why can’t three people (or more) marry? Is this some religious implant or something?

Anyway, good blog - it perks interest ;)

Posted by: myles at July 1, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #163863

Thanks myles,

I thought that I would ignite a firestorm with the freedom fighter thing… I guess gay marriage is a lot sexier - specially if it is two females - then it should be polygamous with me - right after I reincarnated - right after my wife killed me…

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 1, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #163864


Face it, you don’t like President Bush. It didn’t seem to bother many Dems when other administrations wire tapped terrorist phone calls, and it didn’t matter when other admins passed marriage protection acts. Homosexuals have all the constitutional rights and protections as every other citizen. I would challenge you to show me in the Constitution any thing to the contrary. What many gay people want is access to many government benefits. As a conservative, I believe that the government doles out too many benefits as it is. Anytime, any group feels entitled to more of our peoples money I feel a little offended. The less money the government takes in, the less intrusive it can be. We, the people, can decide how intrusive our government can be. Cutting the purse strings is the only effective solution. Money is their fuel, starve the fire. Then, I would bet, all Americans would feel a lot more freedom.


Posted by: Keith at July 1, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #163869

” What many gay people want is access to many government benefits. ” So tell me Keith…this is wrong because???? You specifically acknowledge their rights in one breath, then reject them in another. It would seem that you do have a different mindset and attitude towards gay people. Why is it you think they should not have access to the benefits that the rest of American citizens do? And what do you suggest the litmus test should be to determine just what a person’s sexuality is when qualifying for these benefits? But of course you’re right….charity has just gone over the edge in recent times..except, without question , the inheritance tax issue for all those poor billionaires ! Hmmmm…makes you wonder what their sexual persuasion might be……

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 1, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #163870


I knew it. I was about to reply to your reply kinda predicting what would come re: your freedom fighter section, but first I refreshed and behold - there it was! The same ad hoc reply we see so often: “…but Clinton [et al.] did it too!!”


I, for one, didn’t like wire-tapping or marriage “protection” acts from any other source, either. I agree, there is nothing in the Constitution about it, so where is all this “authority” coming from? From the self-righteous, paranoid, fragile egos of puritanism, I suspect.

As for “them” wanting more govt. benefits, which ones are you talking about? What big feed trough will be opened to them? Social security benefits going to the spouse, and being able to file tax forms as a married couple? Yeah, those are budget-busters, for sure…

Posted by: myles at July 1, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #163873

“Face it, you don’t like President Bush.”

Holly Crap! Ya think!?!?!?!?

Sheeeeesh… a 1st grade argument for a kindergarden President. Wow. What’s Rove’s response after this? I know you are but what am I?

Posted by: tony at July 1, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #163881


I detect some humor going on here. I appreciate the effort. But, to be frank, I’m really starting to lose my sense of humor in regard to what’s going on in this country. I’ll save the regular members of this blog another Crow rant. Most of you know my positions on things.

I suppose when times are darkest, humor keeps us all sane. American humor is unique (thank god for Mark Twain and Will Rogers) and refreshing. I think it will be critical in getting through the next five-ten years.

Forgive me, but what used to be a belly laugh is now a smile, and what used to be a smile, is now a cynical ‘tsk’.

The stakes are too damn high. And they’re getting higher.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 1, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #163883

I have a question: Can a hermaphrodite marry a transvestite?

Good Post, Ray. I laughed.

Posted by: gergle at July 1, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #163885

JBOD, Some of my best friends are black. I just don’t think they should drink from the same fountain as me or marry white women:) I’m not racist for believing that am I? I just have different restrictions on marriage and drinking fountains.

Posted by: gergle at July 1, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #163892


If you are really concerned about the benefits that gays will receive from our compassionate Republican government, then cut benefits for heteros - why discriminate against gays?

You are correct. I do not like or trust Bush. What Clinton did with wiretapping was quantitatively and qualitatively different from Bush, but conservatives were talking out of the other side of their mouth at the time and Democratic leaders like Daschle were fighting for civil liberty.

All wars are on people. The drug warriors tell us that their crusade will make us safe. What they don’t tell us is that the powers they exercise with wild abandon to fight that war threatens us worse than any drug. The land of the free and the home of the brave has become the garrison of the busybody state. Quoted from the conservative “The Future of Freedom Foundation” Website: Future of Freedom
Swap war on terror for war on drugs and you have eloquent words befitting any good liberal today. I am a short guy. Size matters. Women like tall men. Men look up to tall men too. Size really matters when you are subverting the Constitution of the United States. The massive, unlimited, unchecked, unbalanced, pervasive, multi-pronged nature of Bush’s subversion of the Constitution is orders of magnitude worse than anything Clinton done.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 1, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #163894


Sure a hermaphrodite could marry a transvestite. There is nothing wrong with that - as long as they are not gay…

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 1, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #163896

gay marriage: if gay marriage will threaten American families, then for sure we need to have an amendment against adultery. Doesn’t adultery cause more problems in American families or am I just a “thinker”?

Posted by: thinker at July 1, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #163898


“Sure a hermaphrodite could marry a transvestite. There is nothing wrong with that - as long as they are not gay… “

Okay, THAT was funny!

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 1, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #163902

Well, as someone who flew to Canada to get married, let me provide a case and point: my husband’s job gives domestic partnership benefits. Not only is the money he contributes taken out after tax, but he is also taxed on the money his employer contributes. Yeah, being doubly taxed on health insurance…we have it so good, why would we want it to change? I have yet to hear one rational, founded argument against gay marriage, and if you want to see what happens, just look how Canada, Spain, The Netherlands, etc. have fallen off the map.

When I was younger I used to hear white people say “I’m not bigoted against blacks but I just don’t agree with interracial marriage. I mean, think of the kids.” They were bigots, and yes, Senator Hatch, half of the Senate is as well.

Posted by: Jacob at July 1, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #163903

Heck, a split personality hermaphrodite should be allowed to marry themself. Double your benefits, double your fun.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 1, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #163911

Oh, and another point, quoting from a very unlikely source. When I was a Senate Democratic floor page in high school, Jesse Helms was in full swing. During the debate on a bill, in response to repeated red herring questions from the other side of the aisle (yes, we do that too sometimes), he finally responded (I paraphrase): “Look, why don’t you just ask me what would happen if someone in the balcony dropped a dozen skunks into the Senate chamber…what would we do?” All these arguments against gay marriage given are so preposterous and pure “what if?” no more likely than Cheney being elected president in 2008 with Bush as his VP. Yeah, you know since gay marriage was legalized in Canada, the incest advocacy groups have really been putting on the pressure. How do people keep a straight face when they say these things?

Posted by: Jacob at July 1, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #163912

Marraige is entirely a state issue. Not the business of the federal government. Niether the states or the feds have charge of sanctifying marriage or anthing else for that matter. That is the provence of a higher power. Equal rights under the law means exactly that . If one citizen that is of age and qualified is able to get a drivers license then another of age and qualified may do so also. Same with a marriage license. It is not complicated. You do not have to like gays or respect their lifestyle. Just mind your own business.

Posted by: BillS at July 1, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #163916

If REPs truly stayed out of people’s bedrooms and stopped killing people, they’d have no platform to stand on.

Posted by: tony at July 1, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #163920

In a world where bad new reigns so heavily—spousal abuse, child abuse, elderly abuse, suicide bombers, drive-by shootings, road rage, unemployment, you name it—why should anyone have to spend a single second worrying about two consenting adults who just want to love and be with each other?

Posted by: Stan at July 1, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #163922


Answer honestly. Would you require ANY restrictions at all for marriage, and if so, what restrictions? Some cultures allow 10 year olds to marry. There was just an article where one of the states in the United States has allowed girls as young as 12 or 14(cant remember which) to marry. Would you favor that?

The race issue is very different of course. Marriage is an action while skin color is genetic. If you can show me how marriage is anything but a choice, then the analogy might work.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at July 1, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #163923

As far as freedoms go, I find it ironic that in order for the original states to ratify the constitution, it was necessary to add 10 amendments—the Bill of Rights. In today’s world, I think we would have trouble finding states willing to ratify the Bill of Rights. We Americans seem so anxious to give away our freedoms, we almost favor a totalitarian form of government.

Posted by: Stan at July 1, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #163925


I appreciated your comments. You make a very good point about bigots. Much of the “gay marriage” rhetoric sounds quite similar to the “white seperatists” of the past trying to differentiate their views from those of the KKK or other white supremicist groups.

Basically, if it quacks like a bigot and walks like a bigot, it’s a bigot.

I got a chuckle out of this: “Can a hermaphrodite marry a transvestite?” Yet at the same time it reminded me of a recent conversation I had with an old friend who happens to be lesbian and has been in a monogamous relationship for 20+ years.

She had called just to enquire how my oldest son was doing as her son and mine had been best friends nearly all throughout school (BTW her son is a well adjusted heterosexual), but the conversation inevitably turned to the gay marriage debate.

She presented me with a scenario that had never occurred to me. What if she were to undergo a sex change operation? She said (I’ve not researched this) that at least some states have a process of then changing her legal status from female to male. So if she were to undergo what really amounts to mutilation of her genitals she, er well then she would be he, could then marry the woman she’s loved for 20+ years.

How messed up is that?


Posted by: KansasDem at July 1, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #163936

Good point.

I and others have already articulated what we think, the basis of marriage limitations should be - public health - personal harm - infringement of someone else’s rights… Clearly marriage of ten year old minors would be restricted all three counts… So… that red herring stinks, but it does not distract from the truth…

The race issue is not different. Marriage is an action… so what… Skin color is genetic… so what… Many believe that homosexuality is genetic… It is the same. Personally, I think that there is a genetic component. I also think that there is a learned component from childhood experiences… so what… Environmental toxins may be related too… so what… However we become the way we are, sexuality is more deeply ingrained than skin color and we have no personal control over what happens to us in that regard. Whether genetic or otherwise - it just happens to us - but you want to discriminate against human beings on the basis of a deeply ingrained trait over which they have no choice… How is that different from racism?

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 1, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #163939

19 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriages. Most by overwhelming majorities. If two men or women want to live together fine. Men and women have been living together for ages now in unmarried relationships. The constitution starts out with WE THE PEOPLE. The people in 19 states have spoken.

Posted by: Rich at July 1, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #163942


First, I am a conservative. That means that I dislike any governmental intrusion into areas that they have no constitutional perview. This may make me a Libertarian if that makes it simpler for you to understand. Gays and straights should be treated the same. What is different is that I would prefer no government benefits for anyone. At least not as many as are doled out currently. No social engineering through taxation. No class envy taxation. If a gay person wants to leave millions to their same sex partner, then let them. Without any of the income being taxed again.

It’s sometimes hard not to give a kindergarten argument when a pre-school supposition is afforded.

I didn’t mention Clinton in my argument. There are more presidents who have tapped communications than he, and I would bet that other presidents would have supported a marriage act. But even still, how does your argument add to the discussion???


Posted by: Keith at July 1, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #163948


Cute response… but still you miss the point. You simply want to disregard an argument based on “you just don’t like him.” Or maybe you feel we “must like Bush” in order to have a valid point?

Whichever, I’d appreciate a discussion based on performance and merit, not based solely on personal affection for someone neither of us have met.

Posted by: tony at July 1, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #163963

“There was just an article where one of the states in the United States has allowed girls as young as 12 or 14(cant remember which) to marry.”


“After a pregnant 14-year-old from Nebraska drove to Kansas last year to marry her 22-year-old boyfriend, who is now serving time for having sex with the minor, Kansas lawmakers decided it was time to set a minimum marriage age.”

Luckily one year prior to limiting “child marriage” the State of Kansas was able to put a stop to those nasty gay people getting married.


Posted by: KansasDem at July 1, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #163976

We put and thought out. Please keep on thinking and writting.
You are correct, we Jayhawkers did preserve marriage in 2004, in the minds of the ultra conservative ministers and their clueless flocks. I guess that is why I belong to one of those Liberal Churches who believe in Human Rights.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 1, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #163987

Wow. As a Christian conservative I’m sure I’ve already been labeled a jack booted thug that wants to put the gays in at Gitmo, so how about a gay woman speaking for me…..


Since she says a lot of things that may hurt libs feelings let me cut to the chase.
Consequently, I respect the majority of Americans and their opinion that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.

At the same time, as an American, I also believe that every American deserves the same rights and protections as every other. Most of you do, too. The very same polls that show how united Americans are against ‘gay marriage’ indicate a majority approving of civil unions.

That doesn’t surprise me. It is consistent with the American belief that we can have fair play and equality while recognizing the need to honor traditional institutions.

Posted by: JimmyRay at July 1, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #163990

ray guest:

You say the issue of age is a red herring, but its only so because of your presuppositions. First, in many countries it is NOT considered child abuse to marry a 10 year old; it is considered marriage. What you might think about it or what I might think about it is not consequential to THEIR culture. By the way, the 10 year old is of your making—-I talked about the 12-14 range.

You comment on health issues—don’t know what they’d be for a 14 year old. Do you?

Infringement of rights? You are saying you are FOR infringing on a 14 year old’s right to marriage. I’d agree with that, but its still infringement. You are trying to turn the issue on its head and say that it would be an infringement of a 14 year old’s rights to LET them marry.

Race is genetic. Marriage is a choice. Nothing further needs to be said. I did not talk about homosexuality being genetic or choice—I’ve heard gay people claim both situations, so I don’t know which it is, or if its different in different circumstances. I only talked about the choice of marriage. Since that is a choice, and race is genetic, there’s no discussion there. End of story.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 1, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #163995

In our country, a person of 18 years is given all rights of being an American citizen. Anyone younger than that is given less rights and are under the control of their guardian.

So - all rights should convey at the age of 18 - regardless of any predisposition. The 12-14 yr. old in America, even if married, is not a legal adult and does not have all rights afforded to adult US citizens.

Marriage is not a choice so much as a legal contract… therefore, if you allow some citizens to enter into this contract but not others solely based on their sexual orientation, then how is that legal or justifyable under our Constitution?

Posted by: tony at July 1, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #164001

KansasDem: As far as I know, all states honor a sex change, and actually amend your birth certificate, after which you can marry away based on your new gender. Several Muslim countries, in lieu of the “toppling the wall” technique actually force gay people to submit to sex changes.

As far as “we the people” and all this crap: the Constitution is set to stop the tyranny of the majority, not encourage it. Again, how many states were groovy with slavery? Might and numbers don’t make you right. They only serve to keep an untenable position alive in the face of opposition. You can sing “Tomorrow Belongs To Me” with a million Nazi buddies while you throw gay people in the furnace, but that won’t make this gay Jew any less in the right when I point my lone finger and cry “foul”.

Posted by: Jacob at July 1, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #164002

“Race is genetic. Marriage is a choice.”

Oh really? Well, people of different races weren’t able to make that choice in many states very recently and that was changed.

Marriage is a choice? Like employment? Housing? School? Insurance?

Posted by: Jacob at July 1, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #164007

“As far as I know, all states honor a sex change, and actually amend your birth certificate, after which you can marry away based on your new gender.”


I’ve spent a couple of hours researching that. Enquiring minds and all that. Surprisingly as you said, all states have procedures for reassigning sex not much different than one would change names.

Some states actually issue a new birth certificate, others issue only an “amended” birth certificate. Some states require as little proof as an affidavit, others require an actual court order. Not surprisingly only Texas was identified as being incredibly problematic.

I just find it odd that a person is so easily defined by what is between their legs.

I guess size does matter. Obviously NOT the size of one’s heart.


Posted by: KansasDem at July 1, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #164012


Of course race is genetic and marriage is a choice, but when two people of the same sex are prevented from consecrating a vow of marriage to one another it is exactly the same as if two people of different races were prevented from doing so. The only reason is because some people think it is morally wrong to do so. If homosexuality is so terrible then why didn’t Jesus condem it? Why didn’t he tell us to hate and/or discriminate against gays? Where does the constitution give us the right to limit the rights of a chosen group when it comes to marriage?

Posted by: mark at July 1, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #164017

“The constitution starts out with WE THE PEOPLE. The people in 19 states have spoken.”

So, you support the rights of the states that have legalized it and are opposed to the idea of an ammendment?
Great. Glad your aboard.

Posted by: Observer at July 1, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #164034

Jesus did condem it. He was there at the beginning When the book of leviticus was written and was there when the book of Romans was written. Both books condem Homosexuality.

Posted by: Rich at July 1, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #164035

“Jesus did condemn it. He was there at the beginning When the book of leviticus was written and was there when the book of Romans was written. Both books condemn Homosexuality.”

Show me a single passage where Jesus condemned it.

Posted by: tony at July 1, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #164036

What was it he said that condemed it Rich? What were his word of condemnation?

Posted by: mark at July 1, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #164041

lev 18-22Thou shalt not lie down with mankind as with woman kind it is an abomination.
lev 20-13 If a man also lie with mankindas he lieth with a woman, both of themhave committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them
Romans 1:26-27 Therefore God gavethem up to passions of dishonor for their females exchanged the natural use to that which is unnatural. 27 and likwise also the males, leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their craving toward one another males with males committing unseemlisness and fully recieving in themselves the retribution of their error which was due.
for mark

Posted by: rich at July 1, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #164043

Marriages are civil unions,contracts, with certain obligations when issued by the state. Holy matrimony is a recognition by a church or as some believe, God. People often confuse the two.I like Michael Kinsly’s idea. Get rid of the word “marriage” in all state licenses. Everybody gets a civil union. Leave marriage to the churches where it belongs. If gays can find a church that will marry them so be it. To get conservatives to go along with this we could call it “privatizing marriage”.

Posted by: BillS at July 1, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #164045


This is a new revelation. Not the passages you quote, but the author of those passages. My fellow Christians will be as surprised as I am to learn that Jesus, not Moses, wrote Leviticus and that Jesus, not Paul, was the author of Paul’s letter to the Roman’s.

Posted by: mark at July 1, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #164047


I agree, let the states handle the legal aspects of civil unions, churches the vows of marriage. Hmmm….separation of church and state, why didn’t sombody think of that before?

Posted by: mark at July 1, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #164049


The age issue has nothing to do with gay marriage, so, it is a red herring. Sexual abuse which would be inherent in marriage to a minor would be an obvious infringement on the rights, health and welfare of the minor, so we can and would not allow that - but it has nothing to do with gay marriage. Who gives a rat’s excretory system what other countries, or cultures do about marriage of minors and gays? It is a red herring. What does that have to do with what we do? Certainly the majority of American people are opposed to gay marriage. How does that make it right? The majority of American people were in favor of discrimination and separate but equal education for blacks. Did that make that right? It is right - right wing that is - but it is not correct - no matter how many people. I agree, of course, democracy rules, the American people have a right to be racist sexist pigs if they want to be, and in the absence of Supreme Court rulings to the contrary the “tyranny of the many over the few” will prevail - but that does not make it fair and just. After a few deep cleansing breaths so that I don’t bite my tongue off, in summary, both red herring issues; 1.) what other countries and cultures do or do not do, and 2.) marriage to children which can, should, would, and is legitimately regulated - neither issue has one single solitary incestuous mother loving thing to do with gay marriage - PERIOD.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 1, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #164050

Moses may have wrote Lev. And Paul Romans. But it was God who inspired them as is written by Paul in 2 Timothy. And as Jesus is part of the God Head I guess He had a part in the inspiration.

Posted by: Rich at July 1, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #164054

Ray Guest

Well said. Why is it that so many conservatives cannot put forth an arguement without tossing in a few red herrings to confuse the issue. Cold it be that they have no arguement?

Posted by: mark at July 1, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #164056

Well rich, it is God that is inspiring me to write that you should love your neighbor, not castigate them because the are different than you. And what is with this “I guess”, either you believe it or you don’t.

Posted by: mark at July 1, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #164057

rich: Every time the subject of gay marriage comes up we get someone quoting scripture. There is always some passage in the Bible that bigots can find to justify their hate. It has been used (abused) to justify slavery,countless wars,subjugation of whole peoples,etc. What we are discussing here is not the Bible. At issue here are the laws of the United States of America. Not the same thing, you may have noticed.
I am sure some one will quote other things in the Bible back at you. For example: eating shellfish is also an abomination,my wife,alas, was not a virgin when we married so she must be stoned to death,polygamy is allowed in the Bible,etc. Really. If you do not like gay marriage then you should definately not marry a gay man. Other than that it is none of your business. This hogwash that gay marriage will somehow threaten marriage is just silly. If your marriage is so weak that two other people getting married can hurt it then I suspect it won’t last anyway.

Posted by: BillS at July 1, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #164060

JBOD, yes Marriage is a choice. The only problem with your logic is, that the issue is whether gay people can make that choice. Skin color and sexual orientation are not choices.

My next door neighbor and best friend called me recently. I hadn’t talked to him in over 20 years. He says he is bisexual. His sister has a female “partner”. His brother and other sister are straight. I suspected he was gay when we were kids. My sister suspected his sister was gay when they were kids.

Neither of them chose this orientation. They were like that from small children.

Sure I would restrict marriage like any other social contract. I wouldn’t discriminate against gays, though. Science is against you here, Joe.

If it is the words that makes you more comfortable, call all civil unions and marriage equivalent and disallow distinguishing between them in law.

Posted by: gergle at July 1, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #164074


Skin color is kind of deeply ingrained, but, if you don’t like being white - I somehow confidently assume that you are white - you could get a skin transplant and a doctor could sew some black skin on you. Within twenty years, there will be a genetic solution to your “white” problem. A little viral mist in your nose - the harmless virus will carry the gene for melanin into your cells - and - whalah - you are black. Can you please describe the surgery that I should use in order to transplant homosexuality into you? Sexual orientation is much more deeply ingrained than skin color and accordingly discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is worse than discrimination based on skin color.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 2, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #164082

One really amusing tidbit I heard recently was during a state assembly committe hearing for either Kentucky or Tennessee where a sanctimonious state legislator asked someone testifying about gay rights “Well, sir, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, what do you have to say about that?” He replied: “Madam, you put your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, you didn’t put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible. What do you have to say about that?”

Religious arguments are ridiculous, because if people were really concerned about the Bible, they’d be pushing to ban divorce, which Jesus seems to have a lot more problems with. Furthermore, the Bible is not a reference manual for governement so what the Bible says is moot. This is not a theocrasy (yet), so theoretically I shouldn’t be subject to what the Bible has to say. God hasn’t seen fit to smote me yet, and I don’t think he needs your help. Frankly, with at least half of all marriages failing in the hands of straight people, I don’t think they need to protect marriage, they need to resurrect it.

Another fun idea: I would absolutely LOVE to contract a covenant marriage, and would do so without hesitation. I’ve yet to meet a straight couple who took this option (a viable one in my state); perhaps I’d ruin traditional marriage because mine would last and make the others look bad?

Posted by: Jacob at July 2, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #164086

Why is it that the left/liberal wing is so fascinated with gay sex? I dont understand it, and I think that’s what Bush-Cheney-Rove and the corporate profiteers behind them want: For us to be arguing (pro and contra) over gay marriage while they laugh all the way to the bank.

Gay marriage is a diversion from the true issues that affect this country. Keep your sex issues in the privacy of your own bedroom, I have no interests in knowing about them. Let’s talk about healthcare, failed school systems, the gap between rich and poor, the fact that blacks and latinos do not enjoy the same privileges as whites (including many of you who call yourselves liberals), let’s talk about Iraq and the companies that are benefiting from it, let’s talk about the fact that in most universities blacks and latinos dont amount to more than 5% of the student bodies…..I’m not interested in what gays do in the privacy of their bedroom.

Posted by: Anthony Mason at July 2, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #164108

“He inspired every word written in the Bible.”


Myself being agnostic I always figured it was inspired by something like moldy bread or the wrong mushrooms in somebodies dinner.


Posted by: KansasDem at July 2, 2006 4:14 AM
Comment #164117

Finally, of course, the discussion falls into the same pit where these always end up: bigots calling names and people trying to fall back on religion when they can’t find a logical argument.

Posted by: Jacob at July 2, 2006 5:01 AM
Comment #164121

OK - now let’s talk about Bush as the “freedom fighter” who was inspired by the abomination of his religion.

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 7:20 AM
Comment #164156

Anthony Mason,

I agree - sort of - except its the Repubs who are obsessed about gay sex - and there leadership uses it to manipulate them - that is the whole point of the gay marriage definition and the substantive article that I wrote on the subject. We should be talking about other issues - and I do. This is a political loser for us. We Dems can’t win. We are accused of not standing for anything. Personal liberty and equality are Democratic values, so we stand up for what we believe, then we are criticised for that. I can’t believe the Repubs are taking the freedom fighter thing laying down. I thought that was pretty good and would provoke some real debate.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 2, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #164177


I guess you missed it - my attempt to “add to the discussion” was my question to you:

What new feed troughs of government benefits will be open to that huge population of married gays and lesbians should their marriages be allowed by law? Is their disallowed union really doing so much to protect your little pile of gold from the great government giveaways?

Your comment “What many gay people want is access to many government benefits” presupposes you know a lot of them, well enough to know their base inentions. Is this what they confide in you?


Have a great 4th of July!!

Posted by: myles at July 2, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #164213

Well beat me with you Bible. It must be very thin since you have removed all sections containing love, respect and tolerance and kept only those who condem those who are different from you “normal” people. You know who you are, you wear blinders and refuse to see others as people who just ask to be treated like you want to be treated.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 2, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #164237

Yes why don’t you guys read the bible. You all might find your thinking is stinking.

Posted by: Joe at July 2, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #164242

We must deny the homosexuals the same right that heterosexuals have to disrespect, dishonor and make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage.

Posted by: jlw at July 2, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #164338

Well put. Over 50% of mariages end in divorce and the ultra conservative, so called, Christians are telling their flocks that it is the fault of gays. Now I know who to blaim for my two failed marriages, all this time I thought it was things between my two former wifes and myself.

The Conservatives, the ultra ones who control the GOP, have this thing that they must hate someone or something. In my lifetime they have hated the Communist and the “Evil Empire.” Now they hate gays, liberals, moderates etc. They prove it is easy to hate if you just refuse to understand.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 2, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #164347

C.T. Rich,

Don’t forget the blacks and the Jews. They hated them too. Anthony Mason is correct though. While it is important for us to take a principled stand on this issue because it is the correct thing to do (I hate it that the conservatives have ruined the word “right”) - anyhow we must take a principled stand - but the Bush Regime is using this as a red herring and smoke screen to distract us from issues that literally threaten the survival of the human species.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 2, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #164383

“Now I know who to blaim for my two failed marriages,”

C.T. Rich,

Now that I know the gays caused my three marriages to fail I’m just as PO’ed as you are.

And here all along I thought it had to do with that ‘cocktail wiener” joke that was going around.

Size matters, just not the size of the HEART. Isn’t it odd if you pull apart the letters H E A R T you can easily create the word HATER.

I know that’s stupid. I just can’t understand the hatred towards gays and lesbians. Although I’m a bit put-off because I’ve never truly been hit on by a gay man. I mean did they hear that joke too?


Posted by: KansasDem at July 2, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #164392

Y’know, the easiest way to solve the whole gay marriage thing is to remove government acknowledgement of all marriages, gay and straight.

Let the churches decide what marriage is, but let the government licence all “domestic partners.” Grandfather all current marriages as partnership agreements and let any 2 or more adult “natural” persons (so corporations cannot use the law) define themselves as a partnership with all the rights currently granted to marriages.

I guess it’s too simple for the Religious Reich to understand

Posted by: Alan at July 2, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #164429

To All,
Have a save and wonderful Independance Day.
This should be a day to reflect what those wealthy, Christian White Men signed in 1776 and a lot of them established in the writting and ratification of our Constitution. They did not want any religious organization to force its values on anyone. Sometimes I question wheather the Constitution or the Bible and been been misused more. Maybe the Bible, since it has been around longer and for every 10 people who read it you can find 11 different intepertations.

Remember, governing has been left to those who show up.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 3, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #164530

On this gay marriage problem that seems to be dominating this chat i have a solution that might be interesting.

if gay marriage is about the benefits that government allows marriage then eliminate them. a marriage based on the benefits given is not a marriage anyways by anyone’s definition. the elimination of benefits creates as much equality as the extension of benefits.

as far as i am concerned getting government out of the business of marriage would be the ideal solution to a bunch of problems. think of the court cost and wasted time of divorce being saved.

Posted by: The Griper at July 3, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #378551 Burberry Outlet Air Max Shoes Coach Black Friday Coach Black Friday Coach Cyber Monday Coach Factory Coach Outlet Factory Coach Outlet USA Coach Purses Factory Coach Purses USA Coach Store Outlet Coach Purses On Sale Monster Beats Outlet Louis Vuitton Outlet Louis Vuitton Factory Marc Jacobs On Sale MCM Outlet MCM 店铺 cheap oakley sunglasses Michael Kors Outlet Michael Kors Outlet Michael Kors Factory Michael Kors Outlet Michael Kors Factory Online Coach Factory Outlet North Face Outlet Online Polo Outlet Store Ralph Lauren UK Sac Longchamp Pairs Coach Outlet Online Coach Factory Oultet Barbour Jackets Outlet Online Canada Goose Outlet Gucci Outlet Online Michael Kors Outlet Moncler Clearance Moncler Jackets Outlet Online North Clearace Outlet Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet Online Woolrich Clearance Michael Kors Factory Outlet Coach Outlet Online USA Beats by Dre Coach Purses Outlet Online Michael Kors USA

Posted by: polo outlet at May 20, 2014 4:38 AM
Post a comment