We live in a country with a legal system based on the preponderance of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt before a man is convicted of a crime. We cherish this, rightly so. We are innocent until proven guilty. This too is a fundamental truth. We conservatives insist on factual knowledge, on experience, on logic, reason, and a fundamental truth to things. Liberals, as we all well know, live in a sort of amorphous dreams and wisps of imaginary problems, buttressed by the flimsiest logic known to mankind. Socialism, communism, progressives, liberals, social justice … oh, they use so many terms it’s hard to keep track; you know of whom I speak.
But, then, beyond all this stuff about economics and foreign policy and patriotism and entitlements and the debt and deficit and the budget, or, non-existent budget, and the current politics of our times … there’s the gay thing. The homosexual issue. Oh, I contend we are so very different that it requires an appeal to something beyond mere math, such as might be contended with a budget. The gay thing simply stands apart from every other political problem facing the nation. And so, as the gay guy who is quite conservative in every sense of the word you might imagine on any issue before the public – immigration, bank bailouts, dealing with Europe, the Fed, the IRS, the DHS – hell, all the D’s (how appropriate, so bad that they only get D’s, eh?) and well, I’d make Barry Goldwater proud – I will try to explain the dilemma.
I make my father proud too. He was a Goldwater Republican. Still is, I guess. He’s gone Reagan. Oh well, no one is perfect. But it was Goldwater who said, in 1994: “You don’t have to like it, but gay Americans deserve full constitutional right including military service and marriage.”
That’s what Mr. Conservative said while Mr. Third Way Liberal Clinton with his pants down was signing into law DADT and DOMA. Irony, yes? Yes, then there’s the gay thing. Well, my father and I have a great relationship, and he and I wrote a book together.
His life as he wanted to tell it, and my two cents. Well, that’s the “gays are anti-family” bit, yes? Isn’t that is what is said? Yes, “homosexuals are anti-family.” So be it. Maybe homosexuals are. But, alas, to reality, gay men are not. My own father doesn’t think so, I assure you.
Indeed, in my appeal, I posit this simple notion – I’m as opposed to “homosexuality” as the opponents of gay guys are. That is, this construct called “homosexuality” and its “lobby” “agenda” and “pro-gay liberals” is a myth, it’s a thing that doesn’t exist. And yes, I’m against it. But then, well, then there are us gay guys. And we don’t fit the “homosexual” mold. That’s the problem. That’s my appeal to the jury of my peers. The evidence against us is not real, and the facts are for us. We are, I hope, at least deserving of a reasonable doubt.
Let me start off with the sex. Yes. Most of you find the sex abhorrent. OK, fine. I’ll accept that. Let us then stipulate that minimally 95% of the male population is not gay. That leaves 5%, at most. Is this the real number? We don’t know. Out of all the things counted and quantified, studied and examined, the real numbers of gay men is not on the list. No one knows. Every study must, of course, reference Kinsey’s 10%. It’s a number long discredited, no one believes it, and yet, it must be referenced. Pro-or-con. This I agree, some gays use it, some heteros do. Then, there’s the 11 – count them – 11 studies by phone that were done over the decades. Gary Gates, of UCLA Williams Center – and a gay demographer, the gay websites helpfully tell me – concludes there are exactly, I kid you not: 2,491,034 gay men in America. This is the supposed latest number. Except the Gallop poll of just a few weeks ago which says that the “number” of “LGBT” [who would admit] on the phone was 3.5% – they did not break it down as to which were L, G, B, T nor provide an absolute number.
Some people use 1%, others 1.4, 1.5, 2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.9, 4, 6 – Here’s but one “study” of the number. Here’s a mind shocker – most heterosexuals think 25% of the population is gay and just 6.5% are gay according to Roberto Lopez at American Thinker conservative blog a month ago no source was given. Here’s yet another strange estimate
So, indeed, no one has a blessed clue as to how many of us there are. Once you face that, then you can conclude that any other study which purports to show that this number of gay guys are or are not doing this or that is utter bunkum. But you know, liberals are the bunkum artists, and conservatives deal with facts. So, the fact is, no one knows how many gays there are, on earth.
It is supposed that this is an American issue. That Obama is for gay marriage, and good Republicans–are–not. Except, gays – known as ‘gays’ in the local lingo worldwide, and English word run amok – are in every country on earth. Did you want to go to the Gay Pride event in Minsk, Belarus? Well, it’s there for those with the desire. How about Japan? Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto – more, Sapporo – oh my. And Helsinki in Finland and Cape Town, Durbin and Johannesburg, South Africa, to Santiago, Chile and Buenes Aires, and Caracas, Rio, Sao Paalo, Bogata, Mexico City, Casablanca, Rome, Tel Aviv, Ankara, New Delhi – Teheran – gay people have the audacity for liberty to hold a gay pride march in Tehran! I suppose they’re attacking Allah instead of Jesus. What is that about the toughness of Tea Party conservatives with a 2nd Amendment under some rhetorical attack? Compare: gay guys got up in Teheran and said “the hell with this.” Oh, innocents.
In India there are the Untouchables. 150,000,000 souls considered, well, untouchable. The Brahmin doctors in the public hospitals for free health care refused to treat the Untouchables. And where are gays in the caste system of India? Beneath the Untouchables! Oh yes, that’s how despised we are. And what happens in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Calcutta, and lesser places? Gay pride marches. And you folks think this is an American issue? You think this is remotely related to any public policy issue the USA faces? Really?
If gay folks, the vast consortium of LGBTQ (I know, it’s confounding, I’m sorry, I’m not in charge) amount to a mere 5% or less of the population we are a mere 350,000,000 people out of 7 billion. Do you really all think we chose this to fight you all incessantly in every country on earth because Obama decided to come out for gay marriage? Or, that it’s not natural in some way? We appeal to your reason, and you switch to emotion. I can’t fight you on that – you know what you know, and believe what you believe, so be it. We are the pariahs of mankind, of that there is no doubt. But, well, here we are. We say we’re born gay, many of you demur, and essentially call us liars and then say it either happened to us, or we chose it, or a confab of both.
Let us face the reality too that there is, among heterosexuals, a clear division in the LGBT rainbow. Lesbians are not so bad. Oh, face it, Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt have made millions off of displays of lesbianism. As a 20 year old I did color proofing for High Society magazine, please. Bisexuals are, well, lapsed heterosexuals, and they have wives and girlfriends, and a dash of intervention and all will be well. Transgendered are, strangely, heterosexuals.
Yes, let me explain that by pointing to the two most historically prominent transgendered people we can reference: Christine Jorgensen and Chaz Bono. Christine was a guy who became a girl who then found a guy and as a gal and guy have been happily married for decades. So, gal and guy – that’s heterosexual, yes? Now, Chastity Bono was a gal, who because a guy, who then went out and found a gal – so, guy and gal together. Last I looked, and correct me if I’m wrong, when guy and gal are together in holy matrimony or at least socially acceptable shacking up that’s heterosexual, yes? Yes. So, I will admit, wholeheartedly, that I am utterly flummoxed why Transgendered people are lumped with gay guys. Gay men are not gender confused, I assure you. Well, so, the three, L, B and T, are shall we say, OK, to some degree. Ah, but then there’s G – the gay guy. We are the butt of the problem (oh, pun intended, we are adults here.)
Yes, the gay man. And what does he do? Well, as the “homosexual” he is hellbent on destroying the nation, civilization, God, marriage, kids and anything else good and wholesome. There is no good in the “homosexual.” Well, the way that guy is described I don’t like him either. Now, then, there’s the gay guy. I can’t speak for us all. Alas, we don’t get a memo from Gay Agenda Central. In fact, almost certainly much to your surprise there is a very vigorous Republican-Liberty versus Democratic-Control debate going on on gay websites. You don’t know that because “homosexuals” might be pushing an agenda to make everyone gay instead of discussing something silly like whether the currency is being inflated out of all reason. No, gay men must perforce have an exact same opinion on say, the tax code, with nary a difference to be found, like among good heteros such as yourself and say Nancy Pelosi. Who you smooch apparently doesn’t affect your IRS meter – but, if you’re a gay guy, well, I guess it must be true that you’re for something else, whatever the gay guy position is on the IRS code is supposed to be. I don’t know it. Do you?
Meanwhile, let us be realistic that there are still American politicians calling for criminalizing gay sex. Yes, Rick Santorum and Allen West and Tony Perkins and many many others have spoken about the need to outlaw gay sex. I suppose that’s to stop heterosexuals from having gay sex. It certainly didn’t stop gay men. Why, that’s why we were arrested in police raids on bars – for liberty. Oh, don’t worry, gay men paid for those raids, with our tax dollars.
We also must face the fact that this ridiculously small percentage are the only gay folks, we’re not trying to make anyone gay, and we know well we can’t, for, well, you’re born gay or you are not. And the vast majority of you are not gay, and never will be. And yet, it seems the fear that if a nice word is said about the few gays folks every heterosexual will run down to the local gay bar to find some sex. It’s strange, this belief, but that has to be it. We “choose” to be gay, so, if something nice is said about it, everyone else will choose to be gay, and then what? Only, well, no one chooses, and no one turns gay. And so the fear or worry is completely unfounded.
Strangely, groups like NARTH, AFTAH, FRC, AFA, NOM – oh, fine groups I’m sure, even if a tad gay obsessed – they are sure that we make up 1% of the population, that we are richer and more well off than everyone else, that we are gay because our father, mother, uncle, man down the block, predisposition and choice made us gay (or any combo) and that we are also demented, sick, ill, childish, absurd, unnatural and worse. And so, people who would seem to be unfit to make a go of life are also just doing stupendously! I’ll let you figure that one out.
Then too, there are the various reasons we are gay. Conservatives, as I know them, wish to know causes and fact, and to drop dogma and wishful thinking – until it comes to gay folks. Then they jump onto the merry go round of why guys are gay with wild abandon. Have you seen the list? It’s incredible. My my, so many reasons, for a tiny bunch, but 1 reason for 95%. It seems gay men have such powerful minds and wills that we are able to turn off instinct and nature itself; science has not seen fit to study the anomaly.
Actually, since gay men are the majority of the 5% LBGT, I’ll say 3% gay men – OK – AFTAH says it’s because our mothers were strong and our fathers absent – OK, so there would be no black teenage pregnancy problem in America today – they’d all be gay for having strong mothers and absent fathers. Not to worry, Ann Coulter and others blame gay guys on the black teen pregnancy problem. I suppose we get them pregnant after our hours and hours of gay sex. I don’t know.
The late Charles Socarides, a doctor, with NARTH, is sure it’s the weak father and cloying mother – only, he has a gay son, a “homosexual lobbyist” even, and well, there’s tension there, yes?
The Family Research Council is sure there’s predisposition and a choice – I suppose we are predisposed to choose. The predisposition is not further explained, except, it’s not genetic or natural. So, somehow, we’re both naturally predisposed and unnaturally predisposed – and we choose to be gay too later on. I don’t know. I’m not in the business of purveying the mush, merely to present it. They also put out an information package pointing out that gay men die at the age of 41. This is news to me as I approach my 55th birthday. It’s their mush, ask them.
The Catholic Cardinal of Chicago, Mr. George, says that his gay nephew is a fine man while homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and evil and destructive to society. I will leave to you all and the Cardinal the division of proportion of how much “fine man” and how much “evil” the nephew might possess. Or, I submit, one or the other proposition – fine or evil – is off the wall. But you can’t be a “fine” and “evil” at the same time, can you?
It is well known that liberals despise the military and avoid serving. It’s not so well known that it was Log Cabin Gay Republicans and serving soldiers who challenged DADT and had won in the lower courts and were going to win higher up when Obama decided to join the bandwagon. He fought the case at first, after he lost he changed his mind. Oh don’t let his evolving and following be confused for leadership. The man hasn’t led on anything ever – now you think he’s at the forefront of gay issues? Egad. We rightly claim he’s a bumbling idiot, and then on the gay thing you think he’s changing America. He’s just another heterosexual who’s “Evolving.” Every heterosexual is evolving on the issue, you can’t get away from the discussion.
Meanwhile, gay men up and joined the military, lied as best they could to do it, at the behest of DADT and heterosexuals in general, and you still hunted them down and chased them away. The nation was in need of linguists – we had 400 linguists in the languages we needed – oh, I’m sorry, they were gay – what could they do to help the nation? – after all – it must be true that these Americans who learned Dari, Pashtun and Urdu were hellbent on destroying America by demanding a shred of decency and the ease of the legal regime of marriage. Or, the homosexual does one thing, and the gay guy another.
Which brings me to marriage. The Supreme Court is considering two cases. Two so far. There’s more in the pipeline. Even if we lose this round there’s plenty more cases, we are determined fellows. In Helen Branson’s mid-1950s book “Gay Bar” attests: gay men were for marriage, and used the word, in the 1950s. This has been a goal since the beginning. Every group, every plea, every court case, every begging has been directed towards a decent recognition of our relationships and our humanity. That’s the gay goal. It’s not political, it’s social. Meanwhile, there is the construct of the homosexual goal of destroying the place. Nothing could be father from the truth. All evidence shows it.
In fact, gay folks have jobs or own businesses. We have to, there are no public programs for us, no. We aren’t the unwed mothers on welfare. We’re not the people getting disability – even though many are quite sure being gay is some disability indeed, we still have to make our own money. So, we do. The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce claims 1.4 million members. Say ½ are gay – that’s a lot of business folks, yes? I would think that gay folks pay roughly $100 billion in taxes. It’s a guess. And AIDS, always the big gay concern, costs about $2 billion total. And the defense of DOMA by Congress is costing $3 million. And other than that, gay men don’t get any services as gay men, but we sure pay for you folks – we add $98 billion to the pot for unwed mothers and abandoning fathers. We’re a net plus to the nation, obviously.
The clearest evidence that you can see on the difference between “homosexuality” and gay guys? Think about the next time you fly and get a hotel and rent a car and eat out. Look carefully at the young man who is tending your needs. The desk clerk, the waiter, the man who takes your credit card and brings your kid a glass of water – they are gay men. That’s the people you fear – the people who make sure you food is hot, your water is cold, your wine is chilled and your bed is comfy – while you all fly hither and yon denouncing homosexuals gay men are politely helping you do it. And it is this reality versus the myth that I bring to your attention. Why Conservatives go from fact, reason and logic based people on matters of public policy and then switch to pure emotion and religious dogma without a shred of fact, logic or reason on gay folks is something I don’t understand.
I don’t say these things to tell you gay folks are wonderful or that we are innocent of sin, or that you have to like us – but I tell you because you are as against the “homosexual” as I am, but I wish to speak to you as a gay American, who is not the “homosexual” of your thinking, and tell you, we are simply so unimportant, and so different, that the whole “left-right” divide disappears. With gays it’s a whole new territory.
@Redteam:
Wow, that’s a shocker. Now if you don’t mind, since I’m just a “sodomite” per Retire05, it’s obvious I must now follow my craven instincts and go find my “butt buddy” so we can spread some HIV. Goodnight.
@George Wells: #302 George, you said: .
George, this may be the single dumbest statement I have seen you make. Loving one person is “no’ incentive to remain anonymous? Really? Maybe you meant something else, surely.
@MataHarley: Mata, The English language is confusing for sure.
I remember learning that lesson in Sunday school when I asked the teacher why the word ”you” in the Bible was sometimes written as ”you” and other times written as “YOU.”
Turns out it was a translator’s attempt to keep people straight on which ”you” was meant.
A collective you was “YOU,” while an individual you was “you.”
Correct, Nan G. Which is why those who use another as their primary language have such difficulty learning English. Not to mention the various spellings/meanings of words (i.e. there/their etc).
@Tom
I notice you didn’t bother to point out what she said that you don’t consider to be accurate. Just because you don’t like it, does not change the accuracy of it.
@MataHarley: Mata, I don’t understand your propensity to criticize Retire’s grammar or anyone else’s. While I think you write well, I don’t think it is particularly better than her’s. But, saying that, I don’t think there is much reason to always want to be grammatically correct. I usually try to be close, but sometimes use phrases just to make a point, knowing that the grammar may be incorrect. By the way, the plural of you is y’all down here in Looseyana.
My point is, when you or anyone is trying to make a point, the point may not always be that they are trying to be grammatically correct. So drop the ‘grading’ tendency and interpret the meaning.
Shouldn’t that comment be best directed to retire05, who did just that? But I’m missing your criticism of her.
@Nan G: Yep and they could have resolved that much more easily if they had just used Y’all instead of YOU.
At last… a sense of harmony. Yes, RT… I do believe that the more government inserts their own moral legislation, the more discrimination is the result.
Religious institutions… just as they have been doing for centuries. The only reason government attaches a definition is to decide who gets, or doesn’t get, something that is the result of legislation.
BTW, INRE @retire05’s comment about sexual proclivity and health risks, the same could be said about STDs between hetero couples as well… i.e. looking up the history of syphilis and gonorrhea. Being comfortable about cures for those was only in the 60s.. right about the time of the hippie sexual revolution. Such “health risks”, which the government wants to regulate, is not confined – and never was – to same sex activities.
@MataHarley:
Nope, no way, Y’all would take care of that problem.
Redteam, ah… the reemergence of the much needed and appreciated humor. :0) Oddly enough, I remember getting lectures from some former authors here about who “no one” used “ya’ll” anymore. Actually, use it quite often myself in casual conversation. How unPC of me… LOL
@MataHarley:
No way. Why should a non-religious person be bound by something some religious order wants to perpetrate. Not no, but hell no.
No way. Syphilis and gonorrhea are not generally deadly as is AIDS. Syphilis somewhat, but gonorrhea not at all. Given a non deadly STD to someone is not quite the same as giving a deadly one to dozens, is it?
Redteam, when you asked who should be the ones to issue marriage licenses, I said religious institutions. You say “no way”. ?? Marriage was born of a religious rite. Would would a non-religious person want to be bound by a religious rite if it did not have some beneficial result with a government definition? This is not only government, but can also extend to the private sector who has also adopted those government definitions… i.e. better insurance rates for married couples vs those who cohabitate as a couple or family, etc.
Answer.. they wouldn’t. But there are those with religious beliefs who do want to express their bonds via a ritual. It might be a church or some other ceremony. It’s their choices, as well as the church’s, as to whether it’s symbolic, or in the eyes of God via their beliefs. That should not be a “permission” granted by government at any level, IMHO.
My point was not to isolate whether gonorrhea or syphilis was better or worse in relationship to AIDS.. tho I might question your minimizing syphilis as not being as much of a killer. It’s just that they were around and identifiable long before AIDS, ergo enjoying a medical treatment much sooner in our lifetimes.
The larger point is that dangerous sexually transmitted diseases are not confined to only same sex activities.. and never have been. So if one wants to question irresponsibility of those transmitting diseases via relationships outside of monogamy, you (that would be the inclusive plural, generic “YOU”, of course) need to be consistent that all of the STDs can be killers and it is a sign of personal bias to single out only homosexuals with that argument.
@MataHarley: Whoops, sorry if I only directed it one way. But I don’t mean to be more critical of you than her, it’s just that I responded to your most recent comment on the subject. Blogs are not notorious for correct grammar usage, as most people don’t care, they just want to make a point.
I agree, Redteam. I generally care less about what someone says in opposition views, but very much care about *how* they say it. That’s why I often enjoy interchanges with rich, Tom, Greg and others. But it just makes me laugh when I see the perp filing grammatical criminal charges.
@MataHarley: one of the best commenters on the site is ilovebeeswarzone and lord knows the grammar is not good, but he (or she) has some great things to say and some very interesting ways of saying them. I think nothing about the way it’s said, only the message.
@Redteam, perhaps I should clarify that I care not for grammatical perfection, nor a “message” that agrees with my own. I do care very much about the tone of delivery. But when someone wants to drag the debate down to guttural, I am happy to respond in kind with criticism… even if we share some points of view.
Bees and I go way back from when she first arrived here, including many off forum conversations. I have admired her improvement in grasping English as a second language, even when I don’t agree with her. And she knows I have gone to bat on her behalf with those that have criticized her grammar as well.
@MataHarley: Mata, no argument on any of this, but what happens to atheists who want a marriage? It’s kinda the same as someone that doesn’t want the government involved.
The only point on the sexual diseases’s. So far as I know (or care) the only fatal ones were AIDS and Syphilis, and AIDS (I suspect because of the groups involved) seemed to be much more deadly. I’ve not made a search or study of STD’s though, and I’m not interested enough (I’m certainly not concerned about me ever having one) to ever do a study, so I’ll just defer to your knowledge on them.
Good comments on ‘bees’.
@Redteam: I find you, Reto5 and Bees lockstep in views. Only the delivery varies.
I find Conservatives like Aye,Mata, Word and Aqua much better spokespersons for Conservative thought since they are open minded and willing to hear opposing thoughts. They are the reason I’m here and from them I’ve learned much.
@Redteam:
With syphilis, it can take a long as 20 years for a person to die from that disease. Not so with AIDS. That is what had researchers, and the CDC under Dr. Don Francis, so baffled. The AIDS virus mortality was so rapid they equated it to a fast growing cancer. Also, research found that even in the secondary/advanced stages of syphilis, penicillin treatment plans cured the disease. With AIDS, although there are drugs that aleviate the symptoms, and help prevent pneumonia, there is still no cure.
@Richard Wheeler: Richard, so much for your analytical ability. While I think my views are close to Retire05, I’m quite certain ‘lockstep’ does not apply. Just curious, why do you put those others in the ‘conservative’ class? Do you think I’m a conservative? What am I not ‘open-minded’ about?
@Richard Wheeler:
Actually, a couple of those you mentioned would be closer to Libertarian, than core conservatives. And don’t be foolish and think that just because some are willing to try to make me look bad that they agree with you. They’re not one and the same.
Then why bother responding to the rest since you are not here for their opinion, as well?
@retire05: I know they rarely agree with me. Not a problem. Actually that’s a good thing. Believe they are exceptionally fair minded and able to articulate clearly Conservative Principles.
R.T Don’t think you open minded about much of anything.You are a self described constitutionalist.I do not consider you a Conservative.
@Richard Wheeler:
No, a couple of them wander off the “conservative” reservation quite frequently. Mostly because of Libertarian held views.
Are you saying there is a vast difference? I’m sure Jefferson would be shocked, shocked, I tell you.
@retire05: Don’t believe any mentioned believe natural born citizen clause eliminates Rubio’s POTUS bid or BHO’S legitimacy.
@Richard Wheeler: Richard, so I’m gonna have to lower your already low ‘analytical ability’ score to ‘flunk’. How can someone believe in the preservation or conservation of the constitution and not be conservative.
Open minded? I believe all US citizens are entitled to all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. I am not for carving out exceptions for some groups, such as homosexuals, because when you start doing that, you start ‘taking away from someone’. Every US citizen is entitled to the right to vote, as long as they have proof (ID) of that citizenship. When you allow some groups to vote without ID, you are giving permission to fraud. Not once, in any state I’ve lived in, (8 total) have I been permitted to vote without ID. How some states can still allow that fraud is beyond me. Affirmative Action is outright discrimination. You can’t rectify a perceived injustice by committing another injustice.
While I don’t make notes (other than mental) on others politics and beliefs, I do notice that they are different. I don’t remember what your’s are, (haven’t corresponded very much with you), but I can tell you that Mata is not conservative, very libertarian. Retire05 is conservative. So, yes, I tend to have more in common with other conservatives.
@Richard Wheeler: #338
Not quite sure what you mean the way you stated that, but clearly Rubio is not a natural born citizen, nor is BHO or Barry Soetoro, nor Ted Cruz.
You may have missed it, but I’ve said that consistently.
@Redteam:
Not sure I agree with you completely on this, Redteam. Cruz, like John McCain, was not born on U.S. soil, but was born of an American parent. Rubio, I’m not sure if his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, or not.
It’s ironic that when John McCain ran for POTUS, the Senate took up his eligibility. It was finally determined that, although born on Panamanian soil, he was a “natural” born citizen of U.S. citizens. See, the question was that since he was born in a Panama hospital, not on U.S. military base soil, the Dems wanted it cleared up. No such questions about Barry Soetoro from the Dems although not one of them had any proof of “natural” birth before they nominated him.
Is is also notable that Mitt Romney’s father, who also ran for POTUS, but lost in the primaries, was not born in the U.S. but Mexico. No one questioned, at the time, his eligibility to run.
I’m not sure I understand your question, RT. Atheists are certainly not going to be seeking out a church ritual to bless their union. That doesn’t mean they can’t have a ceremony of their choosing in order to declare to the world their union. Neither one requires “government permission”, and is basically just a celebratory announcement to society… just as in the past when “marriages” were really a matter of a church record and perhaps a blurb in the local rag.
My my… lots of personal analysis via a forum where you wouldn’t know “nothing” about someone else, eh? LOL
Libertarians and I don’t get along because they are more isolationist on foreign policy, and I don’t believe in open borders. And if being conservative means that you support government regulating morality by definitions that allow discrimination to fester, I guess I’m not a conservative either. Especially when those “conservatives” are happy to take their own definition benefits, but disapprove if someone else may get those benefits if they find their lifestyle morally objectionable, yet are committing no crime.
Lastly, if Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative, I sure as heck am not a “conservative” by that definition. They are no better than the Dems for spending and growth of central government, as history has proven.
I am, and have been for quite a long time, a political waif. I find some common threads with many of all political handles, and fit none of the molds for any. Oddly enough, this is indicative of more than a few in this nation. So you shall not find me offended that I don’t fit into any of the pigeon hole classes anyone chooses to create and define based on their own opinions.
@retire05: Cruz did not have two American citizen parents, Romney did, Rubio had none, Obama, we don’t know about, but if his father is BHO Sr, then he only had one. Takes two.
@MataHarley:
You don’t want the government defining marriage, all I’m suggesting is that atheists likely don’t want churches defining marriage.
lots of personal analysis? where? My only observation was about you and Retire, both of whom I’m familiar with. Retire05 for at least 8 years. You, not as long. But I’m glad you agree you’re not conservative, just proves Richard wrong in his observation, as I told him.
I know of nothing in conservatism that supports that interpretation. Conservatism to me means the constitution is right and all interpretations of it should be in accordance with the founding fathers intent. I know of nothing in the constitution that attempts to regulate ‘morality’.
I expect that you will find Republicans to be all over the spectrum on fiscal policy, much as the Dimocrats are. Being a Republican is not equal to being Conservative. After all, Rubio is Repub and damn sure not conservative.
I’d say that defines about 85% of the nation. I see nothing wrong with it.
@MataHarley:
Not all libertarians support open borders or an isolationist policy for the U.S. Some do. Some like Ron Paul groupies. But I used a small “L” when I said you were more libertarian than conservative.
Do you support laws that make theft illegal? Theft is immoral. How about laws against battery of another person? Support those? Battery, if not used in self-defense, is immoral. Laws against child abuse? Support those? Child abuse is also immoral. Many, many laws are already based on our society’s concept of morality. Why should incest and sodomy be any different? Do you think a man should be allowed to marry his sister, aunt or mother, if he so desires? Isn’t that a moral value that we have determined, as a society, to be unacceptable?
As to discrimination; do you really think you can legislate what a person thinks? Trying to do that is as fruitless as “hate” crimes. A crime is a crime. Hate crime laws were initiated for no other purpose than to make some segment of our society think their elected officials were doing something for them so they would continue to vote for those elected officials. There will always be a certain amount of discrimination; skinny people make fun of fat people, tall people make fun of short people, blonds are constantly joked about, Northerners think all Southerners marry their first cousins and are stupid and ridicule them, OU and UT fans hate each other. If you want to end discrimination, then lobby to abolish Affirmative Action policies. When one groups is given preferencial treatment over another group simply due to the color of their skin, that is discrimination in its purest form.
uh… mmmm. Sorta, but not quite. What you said, verbatim, was “but I can tell you that Mata is not conservative, very libertarian.” Of course, that depends upon who’s making the definitions up, doesn’t it?
I am not “very” Libertarian in the same way you wish to label me as “not conservative” That is a subjective opinion, with the guidelines defined by you and your view of conservatism, and/or by individual libertarians and their own subjective opinion. But I assure you, have many registered libertarian friends, and they don’t consider me “libertarian” any more than you consider me “conservative”.
I always find it amusing that I can write my own words and opinions, but so many like to come in behind and play translator and explain who I am, using their own definitions for the box they are determined to keep me in. Most often, like the childhood game of Gossip, the translations that others offer on my behalf never resembles the original.
Your last statement is in direct alignment with my own. May I say how very “libertarian” of you? :0)
Unfortunately some elected officials who consider themselves “conservative” have freely admitted that government has a vested role in legislating morality. And you can see that here with some who you proclaim are “conservative”.
I guess that’s where we have to differ on what is “conservative”.
Oddly enough on this very topic of the right of the government to give permission to marry to some, but not to others, the 104th House of Representatives issued a report on DOMA as their collective talking points. Woe to them, it took front and center stage in the SCOTUS oral arguments for DOMA.
On pgs 15 and 16 of that report, you will note two distinct things:
1: They specifically state that “civil” (i.e. tort) act of “marriage” is separate from the religious rite and blessing by churches
2: That by having “civil” laws that only recognize man-woman marriages, it reflects and honors a collective moral judgement about human sexuality.
My instinctive response to #1 is why do we need the “civil” act of marriage at all, save for to discriminate as to who may reap benefits of more than 1100 federal laws that evoke marital status? And, as a side product of that, private industries who also grant special awards to those who bear that civil government status, such as insurance, medical/health, eta.
My more heated response to #2 is who the heck died and gave central government the unConstitutional power to create law designed just to “honor” and “reflect” moral judgement about sexuality?
And let me clarify here that there is a large difference between legislating crime definitions, which result in harm to another, and legislation based on whether someone views another’s lifestyle as incompatible with their morals – despite the fact they have perpetrated no criminal harm on another.
But I think more are waking up to the idea that it’s not as much anti-same-sex marriage advocates vs the LGBT movement, but that central government is, in fact, attempting to legitimize discrimination based on morality. As a Fox Poll released during the DOMA hearings reveals, it’s pretty close among what might be considered a “conservative” poll source, with 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it.
If you drilled it down more, it’s less about the “marriage” definition than it is about central government, having the audacity to decline benefits based on gender involved in the relationship. I know very few people who believe that same sex couples should be denied inheritance benefits, health control, etc that are afforded to man-woman couples.
Which dovetails right into this comment of yours:
If it’s not tied to federal marital status benefits, who cares if the two groups stand across the street from each other and argue about who gets to use the word “marriage”? After all, that’s like you and I arguing over whether I’m conservative or libertarian.
Since there’s no tangible difference in treatment as individual citizens and taxpayers, it is just a subjective opinion and means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.
I figured you would come up with that, retire… please @see my comment above to RT, specific excerpt:
You cannot equate your moral disapproval of homosexuality with theft, murder, etc. Except for offending your personal sensibilities – which is not a constitutionally protected right – they have done you no harm, nor infringed on any of your rights. Nor is your (collective, generic, plural “your”) status as a criminal based on your marital status.
There’s a lot in there that, if you reread what you just wrote, actually agrees with what I’m saying.
1: No, you can’t legislate human emotions, yet the GOP themselves admit they have a role as government in legislating morality (not to be confused with criminal or civil acts that infringe on another’s rights)
2: Never been a supporter of the odd phrase, “hate crime”. Possibly because it sounds so absurd.. i.e. are other crimes committed “love crimes”? A criminal (or civil) action that infringes on another’s rights should be regulated, and has no bearing on the government civil act, defining “marital status”. If two women or two men want to live in blissful harmony, share their assets and decisions, what business is it of yours or of the government? And even with laws, you yourself admit it will not stop them from doing exactly what they want. Just stops them from getting sundry bennies. And that includes the ol’ first cousin, marry your immediate family bit. If these consenting adults wish to engage in these bizarre relationships, no law is going to stop them… as you acknowledge. If it’s not consenting, it’s already covered under other laws for abuse, etc.
3: Of course humans are especially cruel to one another with verbiage, insults, mockery, etc. Nor do you see me supporting legislation to try and correct human behavior and their morality… or manners.
4: Never been a fan of affirmative action. Never will be.
Odd laundry list… somewhat completely out of the subject realm of the feds imposing licensing requirements for a civil act of marriage as part of honoring and reflecting the morality of human sexuality.
@MataHarley:
But I certainly can equate my moral disapproval of homosexuality with my moral disapproval of incest, even if committed by two consenting adults.
Ancient Egypt permitted incest. Ancient Rome approved of homosexuality. How did it work out for those societies? Whether you like it or not, Mata, a society usually determines is own morality, and in our nation, a representative republic, we do that by electing those who support our views. The Founders spoke often of the U.S. being a “moral” and “honorable” nation.
Au contrair: I have a right to insult you. (freedom of speech) You have a right to be offended. What you don’t have a right to is act on having your personal sensibilities offended.
Tell that to the parents of Ryan White who had a right to expect he would not be infected with tainted blood. Tell that to every parent who lost a child, including adult children, to AIDS. Tell that to a friend of mine whose gay son committed suicide after his gay lover dumped him.
Things such as inheritance can be handled with a simply will. Hell, people have left their entire estates to their dogs, and it has been held up in court. Insurance? Why should “domestic” partners be granted company backed health insurance when a man cannot add his mother to his health insurance unless she is a legal dependant on his income tax return?
In Windsor, the plantiff argued that the U.S. must honor the marriage laws of Canada. If the SCOTUS rules in her favor, then the U.S. will be required to honor the marriage laws of ALL nations, including the 50 that allow polygamy.
In the other case, the question is about overturning DOMA. If that is done, it should be by Congress, not by nine people in black robes.
@MataHarley: Mata:
Yep, got me there, I should not have used the word ‘very’, maybe ‘mostly’.
Strange, I consider that position to be conservative, not libertarian.
If the problem with who defines marriage is in the difference in benefits and someone can not inherit or have some other right, then correct the specific problem, don’t move a mountain in an attempt to correct a mole hill. If someone has a legal partnership and does not have the right to sign a slip of paper in a hospital, give them the right to sign that paper. But, again, don’t move a mountain when only a mole hill is in the way.
@MataHarley:
We should hope, that being a representative republic, that the legislation would mirror the will of the people. That has not always been the case.
The reason that I pointed out the “hate” crime legislation is because it is a clear example of legislators pandering to a certain segment of our nation.
Well, that presents a bit of a quandry for you, doesn’t? Since there will never be no involvement in marriage (i.e. licenses) then you will have to come down on one side or the other. So, do you favor legalizing same-sex marriage, nor not? Because wishing for non-governmental involvement is like me wishing my live oak grew dollar bills and not leaves.
You can elect anyone for whatever reason you want. What has that got to do with central government being empowered to legislate not criminal acts, but to reflect and honor morality about human sexual activities?
What we hope is that by electing those we feel more closely aligns our own perspectives, they will be less inclined to legislate our freedoms away. It is not a carte blanche ticket to unconstitutional rule.
You must be getting confused, retire. Your last sentence states exactly the point I was making… you don’t have the right to act on having your personal sensibilities offended by supporting the government legislating not crime but morality.
For a woman who insists we know “nothing” about you, you sure do volunteer a lot of extraneous and unnecessary data about yourself and life personally. And precisely what does the civil act of marriage licensing have to do anything in your schpiel above? How does it relate to White being the recipient of infected blood? Was there some sort of marital status requirement for that donor with the infected blood to be a donor?
What does marital status have to do with the contraction of HIV – which can occur by not only sexual activities (outside or inside of marriage), but needle sharing, transfusions etc? What does a heart broken gay’s suicide have to do with government sanctioned permission for some to marry, and not others?
What it sounds like to me is just another paragraph about how vehemently you hate homosexuals. uh… we get that.
Well that’s interesting, retire. Because now you are, like me, arguing that a government definition for marital status isn’t needed in order to deal with such issues… and yet it is.
As noted, there are over 1100 federal benefits and rights that are offered only to those that fit government’s definition of “marriage”. With your distinction between “domestic partners” and “marriage”, as well as the cumulative sum of your commentary here, again we get that you support relationships getting government benefits are limited only to those between a man and a woman. And here we thought you didn’t want any government handouts… LOL
However not all things can be “handled” simply, or equally, as you assert.. and that’s *because* there is a federal definition of “marriage” that prohibits that. Take away that definition, and the playing field is leveled. All taxpayers and citizens are treated equally, regardless of marital status. As it should be.
Suggest some reading here at NOLO. A list that is just the tip of the iceberg.
See what I mean about who’s making up the definitions, RT? I consider that position to be “conservative” too, but yet I’ve been labeled “mostly” or “little l” libertarian. Meanwhile, retire… who you consider conservative.. is working overtime to justify government legislation on societal morality INRE marriage.
Head scratcher, eh?
You are now coming into the viewpoint of an increasing majority… i.e. why the heck can’t they do these things?
Unfortunately, the mole hill was created by Congress in the form of 1100+ rights/benefits that refer back to “marital status”, as defined by them. Of course SCOTUS may alter all that come end of June.. we’ll have to see.
The way to correct all of it at once, into leveling the playing field of equality, is :
1: Legally add “domestic partners” (as retire wants to call it) will qualify for “marital status” rights and benefits along with man-women relationships…. i.e. civil unions whatever, but by a separate name with no limitations, or
2: Allow domestic partners to “marry” to fit into the current “marital status” definition, or
3: Just eliminate all reference to marital status entirely.
You’ll find most will go for #1… and add a new definition that equates to marital status but with a different name.
You’ll find others who will fight tooth, nail, kicking, screaming, biting fighting to the end to make sure that domestic partners can never marry, or experience the same benefits as traditional couples.
I think most people have never considered #3 at all.
Doesn’t present the least bit of a quandary to me, retire. I’m well aware that government will not get out of meddling in our personal lives and morality… especially since they have cheerleaders who want them to do so. Weird since you would think that those with strong immigration demands would want government out of the business of granting citizenship by marriage. But I digress…
Therefore my solution is the only one I can make being of a constitutionalist’s mindset… that since the government has decided to involve itself beyond it’s power, they cannot discriminate and benefits should be applied equally to couples in households/families, without regard to gender.
Whether they end up accomplishing this via marriage by a different name, or applying marriage for government purposes equally across the board, will only make a difference to those emotionally vested in a name/label. After all, traditional married couples have nothing to lose. Their enjoyment of benefits will continue unabated, and same sex couples will just get added to the mix. Loads more special people will get more special government bennies… ain’t that wonderful and so fiscally conservative? pffft
Since I have no problem separating what is a religious rite and blessed union before God from a government handout/right/benefit, the rose-by-any-other-name won’t bother me at all. Diplomatically, I suspect the legislative quest would be for another name for the same benefits to make it as palatable as possible to the masses.
However I have a suspicion that all Hades will break loose late June, and that SCOTUS will be inclined to rule that DOMA is unconstitutional in Windsor.
@MataHarley:
But wait….. didn’t you just say
Then you come up with this?
Where have I suggested ANY legislation dealing with marriage? Do you even know my opinion on what I think would be a remedy? Have you bothered to ask or are you just assuming?
Oh, well, you did reveal why you would misrepresent any opinion I might have when you wrote:
You’re not a libertarian, nor a conservative. You’re just a hateful bitch that loves to slander others in the same low class way as most Democrats, by accusing them of bigotry and hatred.
Either I have a better memory than you, or I was just more diligent in reading comments prior to entering this fracas. But you distinctly said in Comment 111 that “No, I do not support polygamy, sibling incestual marriages or same-sex marriage.”
Feel free to correct all of us just reading all your comments, but leaving it to the States (as you said you wanted it to be) is supporting legislation of marriage by government. However you followed that up with being less than thrilled that it was challenged in the Courts. Hey… that’s the way the system works. A CA referendum made it in to law, and it’s allowable to be challenged, and potentially overturned, in our judicial system.
But I think we can also derive that you do not support “marriage” for same sex couples by your very direct statement.
If you support civil unions that offer the same benefits, feel free to clarify it for us now. But, you might want to frame it in the context of your stated disapproval of insurance benefits for same sex couples in your Comment #349 when you said: ” Why should “domestic” partners be granted company backed health insurance when a man cannot add his mother to his health insurance unless she is a legal dependant on his income tax return?”
Maybe I’m reading that wrong, but that doesn’t sound like anyone advocating for employee insurance benefits, when that same benefit is derived and predicated upon government’s “marriage” definition.
BTW, it seems rather ludicrous to point out that a parent/sibling relationship bears no resemblance to what is actually a spousal relationship, despite gender. That said, remember that O’healthcare mandated a higher age for kids on their parents’ policies. Being as they went that far, it’s not impossible to see mandates that allow for the opposite. Of course in the majority of cases, it’s entirely possible that the parent either has their own policy, or is on Medicare because of age or a disability. Unless, of course, we’re having a flip flop event of parents coming to live in the basements of their kids houses in droves.
Well, first we were treated to a round of how homosexuality was a “mental illness”, which you then tried to walk back and said it was just studies, not you, saying that. That was, of course, until Comment #269 when you decided to be a bit more honest, and said: I’m not the one who’se queer. And I believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder, as it was listed in the DSM-II prior to all the threats that the Gay Liberation Movement made against American psychiatrists.”
Of course, when George queried you on how far away is that from advocating institutionalizing, you tut tutted, and said that’s an “out patient” type treatment like ADHD, PTSD, post partum depression etc. Ya know, I don’t think that’s gonna work…
Then, of course, there’s all the vile language you’ve hurled at George using derogatory insults… but saying it’s not homosexuals you hate.. just him. But then there’s all those case incidents you bring up to characterize the gay community as a whole.. NAMBLA, etal… and how they are to blame for infected blood and deaths of children, how they are child molesters etc.
And I’m sure when you accused Tom of being a “faggot”.. oh wait, that was a “militant gay” as you deviated from your usual charming names… it was only a term of endearment on your part, and really has nothing to do with bias towards homosexuals in general (/sarc). Sorta fell flat when he mentioned his wife gets a chuckle from your insatiable anger.
Ya know, retire… you talk, but I ain’t feelin’ da love.
@MataHarley:
And from that you gleened this?
Perhaps that is a stretch that is a bit too far for even you.
Bu
You were the one blathering on about discrimination. Let’s see:
domestic: of the home, household or family affairs
partnership: a person who shares are takes part with another or others
You seem to think that is only applicable to same sex partners. Are you saying that a mother and her son/daughter cannot be domestic partners?
PTSD is also a recognized mental illness. What’s next? You claiming that I hate all veterans?
So now you’re gonna tell us that cases of ADHD and PTSD are always treated on an in-patient basis? Tell that to the VA because they’re surely doing it wrong. I don’t think that’s gonna work.
Of course, in your narrow mind, it is not possible to just dislike someone as a person. There must be that hate and bigotry that the Dems sell on a regular basis, right? I don’t know if you’re gay or straight, but I don’t have much use for you, either. Guess that makes me a hater in your narrow mind.
OK, so you want to ignore the dark side of homosexuality. Your choice.
Rightfully so.
Now, try answering a question put to you for just once:
So, do you favor legalizing same-sex marriage, nor not?
Paragraphs, punctuation and full context of framing responses have meaning, retire. You said you didn’t suggest “ANY legislation dealing with marriage”. Now you may want to parse and play word games, portraying that as you not suggesting any *new* legislation dealing with marriage. But that’s not what I said. And that was made clear in the paragraph after that sentence where I said:
And what did that relate back to? When I said:
What cannot be denied is that you have already stated that you think the marriage legislation should be at the State level, and that you agree with State marriage definition power. Again, if that’s in error, feel free to point out where I read your comments incorrectly.
BTW, I was using “domestic partner” since that’s a term you decided to introduce. Please don’t bother parsing two individual words to disguise what is conveyed by intent when using that phrase…. one that you decided to use for that very description.
Shouldn’t you be asking that of yourself in the mirror, when you got your knickers in a wad thinking George accused you, personally, of institutionalization? George was correct that some would like to use a mental illness definition as a reason to lock away homosexuals. Hang, combine your “it’s a mental illness” belief, and drj’s views on mental illness and background checks, they’d have to disclose their sexual orientation on an application for a gun purchase, and risk being denied. Silly stuff happens when people leap to conclusions.
However your characterization of the gay community at large.. something you pass off as “the dark side of homosexuality” , combined with your penchant for derogatory terms, reveals how much you obsess on that “dark side” to form your personal opinions.
Hey… I don’t pass on the “dark side” of homosexuals anymore than I pass on the “dark side” of so called conservatives. Neither do I let them formulate group think opinions as a starting point.
I’ve already answer that with clarity and embellishment in comment #354. Feel free to read it again at your leisure.
@MataHarley: #352
the correct word is spiel
Redteam, as it’s a root in both a German and a Yiddish term, it has more than one accepted spelling. And, like most Yiddish words which are translated in spelling phonetically, it is considered kosher if spelled spiel, schpiel or shpiel. German origin is your version. However being from a background with some Yiddish, and “New Yawker”, “schpiel” is the closest phonetically to how we all pronounce it. But if you prefer I use the German version, I’ll be happy to try and remember that in the future.
Now feel free to school your bud, retire, on her spelling of “dependant”, “post partum” which is one word, and “who’se” to be an equal opportunity educator. LOL
@MataHarley:
I do not believe that the federal government, Constitutionally, has any control over marriage laws. I believe those laws fall under the 10th Amendment and is not covered by the Enumerated Powers section of the Constitution. Is that clear enough for even you?
I used that term because that is what companies call it when they provide health insurance to gay couples. But since you are so worried about discrimination, surely you agree that the same benefits should be allowed to anyone who resides together and shares in the cost of the domicile, including all family members but somehow I doubt you would agree with that (I’m not saying you DO disagree, just that I doubt you would agree so don’t twist what I said as you are so good at doing).
It reveals nothing except in your small mind. I accept that not all gays are Log Cabin Republicans and yes, there is a dark side, just as there is a dark side to illegal immigration. (And Mata accuses me of hating Hispanics in 3….2….)
Seems a simple “Yes” or “No” is above your pay grade.
Actually, Retire, “domestic partner” and “civil unions” laws differ from state to state. Interestingly enough, they also provide for their own discrimination. i.e. in CA law, they can use domestic partner as a phrase for same sex couples, however hetrosexual couples who choose not to marry are not allowed to use that for their own rights because they have marriage as an option.
Here’s a quick link to see States that have sundry legislation – same sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partners. None of their descriptions allows for your more generous parsed meaning for legal purposes.
Well, I’ve actually tried to avoid being more direct, which may prove more embarrassing to you. But you leave me no choice it seems. So here it goes…
Your transparent attempt to elicit a theoretical gotcha “yes or no” answer to a question, as you phrased it… “So, do you favor legalizing same-sex marriage, nor not?…. is simply one of the dumbest questions posed. It would be obvious to anyone who’s read my entire position on government and marriage in this thread. Ergo, if I don’t sanction government – at *any* level – creating a definition for marriage for heterosexuals, why the hell would I sanction the same for homosexual couples?
However I also don’t believe in discrimination. So that discrimination needs to be removed. How they choose to do so will, no doubt, be just as convoluted and screwed up as their initial meddling. And I’m quite sure it will annoy me just as much as it does now.
But since you again wish to dwell in the gutter with your observations, I might return tit for tat that perhaps reading comprehensive of the simple basics is well above your pay grade. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be asking such asinine questions.
@MataHarley:
Umm, don’t remember using “post partum” or even “postpartum.”
And feel free to kiss my ass if you ever have the priviledge of meeting me.
@MataHarley:
I don’t agree with you that that is what she is doing. A marriage is a union of a man and a woman. No amount of anyone claiming it means something different will make it actually mean something different. If you want a pair of homosexuals to have the same rights as persons in a marriage have, then pass a law that gives a pair of homosexuals the same rights as person in a marriage have. It’s not necessary to attempt to redefine what a marriage is to accomplish that.
That I have no problem with.
Can’t do that, two men can’t marry, two women can’t marry. One man, one woman.
Nope can’t do that. Changing the present rights that some have is not necessary to give rights to a different group of people. Another case of moving a mountain when it’s only a mole hill in the way.
Whoa, I thought I was the constitutionalist here, you’re the libertarian, remember?
You quoted Retire05:
Then you used this to disprove her:
Sorry Mata, but you mis-interpreted. Saying she did not support polygamy, sibling incestual marriages or same-sex marriage is not equivalent to suggesting legislation for anything.
If you’ll read further in the same comment where that sentence appears, you’ll see she has already said that she believes government legislation INRE marriage should occur at the State, not federal, level. That is still “goverment legislation on societal morality INRE marriage”.
Oh yes… I forgot I was supposed to live in a different pigeon holding cage… ‘scuse please. LOL
@MataHarley:
maybe so, but when I put it in the word finder of dictionary.com, it said no word found. Just for the record, I don’t usually ‘correct’ persons spelling or grammar, as I’ve stated. I only said what I did because it wasn’t immediately clear to me what you meant, so I looked it up. don’t take it as ‘correcting’ just aiding. I didn’t see anything in your bio about being a New Yawker.
LOL, do you have a problem with the American version?
Naw… no problem with the “American” version, Redteam. Just always had a penchant for Yiddish. Delicious and colorful words that roll off the tongue. Don’t quite feel the same way about German. Harsh sounding language by contrast.
Retire, I know humor isn’t your strong point, but my comment to Redteam, using your spelling errors (which could be a mixture of typing and/or spelling), was humorous reference about our conversation about the “message” vs “grammar” after he posted the “spiel” correction. Thus the moment to allow him for “equal opportunity” education. Oh yes.. to refresh your failing memory, your use of “post-partum” was in comment #280. Doesn’t matter… I got the drift of it.
Sorry dearie… don’t work that way. Perhaps your reality is that two-dimensional, but mine isn’t. I don’t have a vote for support, or non support, available to me since there’s no “Rep” or “Sen” in front of my name. Congress will continue to screw up on the own, without my input. Fact is, I am not required (by you or anyone) to agree with their self-created problem, or anyone’s self-perceived solution. As I said, if I don’t support government defining marriage for heterosexuals, it’s asinine to think I’d support it for homosexuals. Two wrongs never make it right, IMHO. And mark my words, another new “civil union/domestic partner/same sex whatever-fill-in-the-blank-here” definition they attempt to create will just lead to another group of people who fall thru the cracks.
I suspect how they deal with it depends on SCOTUS. Kennedy is likely to dodge the constitutional issue of government in marriage, and drop DOMA’s validity in favor of it infringing on State’s rights. That’s going to create quite the cluster*&# for federal regulations/bennies/rights which may then apply to “married” same sex couples only in States where it’s legal. The legislative chaos will be something to behold… watching them clean up yet another mess of their own device.
@Redteam:
Obviously, someone seems to think that you do, Redteam.
My deep apologies, sir. I promise that from now on I will not type so fast and use “who’se.” Instead, I will use
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/whoswhose.html
Because I know my spelling errors are of the upmost importance to you.
@retire05: Hey, it’s not me correcting your spelling. And actually as I said to Mata, I wasn’t really ‘correcting’ her spelling. I was just trying to figure out what the word was and decided to pass it on to her.
I accept that most misspelled words on here are more likely the typewriter and not the typer. (is that spelled right?) LOL
@MataHarley:
Well, that ain’t gonna happen, Toots. So you’re left with on one of two choices; either you support legislation that legalizes same sex marriage, or you don’t.
Ironic, isn’t it, how any question that doesn’t suit you is “asinine” but your questions are to be judged as worthy?
@Redteam:
I know.
Actually, it would be typist.
I think most people make errors not because they don’t know how to spell, but because most people can’t type as fast as their minds create the sentences.
@Redteam #310:
(sorry I’m a bit late here… I got married in Annapolis yesterday.)
You asked Mata:
“Who do you think should ‘define’ marriage? Why? Should marriage have a definition? To me, a marriage is one man and one woman. A partnership of anyone else is not a marriage, call it anything you want, but it’s not a marriage.”
I think that your question is a good one to ask YOU. Because after you asked Mata “Who should define “marriage,”” you bothered to explain how YOU would define it. When you then added “call it anything you want, but it’s not a marriage,” you crossed that line you accuse gays of crossing – of “shoving down your throats what we want YOU to accept.”
You have no more right to impose your values on me than I have to impose my values on you.