Curse you, Adam Corolla! As my faithful readers know (thank you, both of you!) I generally only weigh in on topics where I can find an angle that somebody smarter than me hasn’t already written. This is another one of those ideas that I’d been kicking around for a while but never got around to writing, and Mr. Corolla beat me to the punch. In a recent podcast he pointed out that Gay Marriage is hardly an end point to the debate:
“It’ll be legalized, hopefully, and then you’ll think we’ll be done with it, and then they’ll say, ‘we want to get married at the Crystal Cathedral,'” Carolla said on a recent podcast. “And the guys at the Crystal Cathedral will go ‘no, we don’t agree with it, and according to our faith, a man doesn’t lie down with another man, and a chick who looks like a man doesn’t lay down with another human who drives a Subaru. We don’t condone this.’ There’s a gonna be a march, and then there’s gonna be a thing and it’s gonna go to the Supreme Court again. This much I know … there will be more fighting. it will continue.”
I raised the incrementalism argument when I wrote about this subject last summer, and now with the subject becoming bigger in the news I’m seeing more of the incrementalism that conservatives are rightly concerned about. Here was my take:
Gay marriage was a subject I had never really had an opinion about until around twelve years ago when I read Jesse Ventura’s first book, “Do I Stand Alone?” Mind you, back in 2000 Jesse was still a new governor in Minnesota and a breath of fresh air in the system, not the full time conspiracy theorist he’s become today. On the issue of gay marriage he looked at both sides, and his assertion was that it was wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults from legal benefits from a system that they have paid taxes into based on their gender preference. On the other side, the term “Marriage” has an important spiritual meaning in religions practiced by many Americans, and their views should be respected as well. His solution was civil unions – granting legal rights for gay couples while still respecting the people whose religious views would be offended.
This seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides, and one that I supported then and still continue to do so. In fact, contrary to the leftist notion that conservatives are opposed to “gay rights” polls show that the majority of Conservatives as well as Republicans support civil unions.
Now, this was an opinion that I adopted thirteen years ago, and it still is my opinion today. But look at how the public perception, and particularly in the mass media has “evolved” since that time. Back in 2000 my stance would be considered moderate to somewhat left of center1 in most quarters, depending on the person I’m standing next to. But today? The fact that I don’t wholeheartedly support “Marriage Equality“, or whatever the latest term is to make the leftist position sound centrist makes me some bigoted extremist who is probably ready to throw a white sheet over his head and burn rainbow painted crosses on Harvey Milk’s grave. I go into my arguments in a lot more depth at my link, but while I haven’t changed, the left certainly has. Each step where leftist thought is met “halfway” (or anywhere) automatically becomes the new center to them, and anything to the right of that new line is right wing extremism.
I laid out before two of my concerns as to how we’re already seeing negative impacts of recognizing gay marriage –forcing gay marriage to be taught in schools, as opposed to trivialities like reading and writing, and in preventing children in foster homes from getting placed with families.
When conservatives raise the flag of what will be next down the road, such as redefining marriage for multiple partners, the left just tut-tuts about how they’re overreacting, just as they did when gay marriage was mentioned back in 2000. The problem is that California has already considered polygamy. Jeremy Irons also raised the touchy subject of this possibly leading to incestuous unions, which gets the same chuckle and a head shake reaction. But I ask, why not? Can someone from the left tell me where this issue will be 5-10 years from now? Does this end with “Marriage Equality”? or whatever you’re telling us is now the new center? I look at how our schools are infantilizing our kids today – suspensions for chewing a cookie shaped like a gun, or as a friend whose son is in the Maryland public school system recently told me, the horror of a teacher using a lighter for a science experiment resulted in notes being sent to all of the parents whose kids might have been traumatized by the event. When Baby Bob starts out in school if he calls another kid on the playground “gay”2 is he going to be forced into a modern leftist re-education camp known as “sensitivity training?” And as his parents, will Sister Babe and I also be held accountable for this vile hate speech coming from our child? Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but look at what’s happening up in Canada:
The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval. Very quickly, traditional religious teaching on homosexuality will be penned up within church sanctuaries, and “faith-based” ancillary institutions will be crowbarred into submission. What’s that? I’m “scaremongering”? Well, it’s now routine in Canada, where Catholic schools in Ontario are obligated by law to set up Gay-Straight Alliance groups, where a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was forced to pay compensation for declining a lesbian wedding reception, and where the Rev. Stephen Boisson wrote to his local paper, objecting to various aspects of “the homosexual agenda” and was given a lifetime speech ban by the Alberta “Human Rights” Tribunal ordering him never to utter anything “disparaging” about homosexuals ever again, even in private. Although his conviction was eventually overturned by the Court of Queen’s Bench after a mere seven-and-a-half years of costly legal battles, no Canadian newspaper would ever publish such a letter today. The words of Chief Justice Burger would now attract a hate-crime prosecution in Canada, as the Supreme Court in Ottawa confirmed only last month.
Of course, if you belong to certain approved identity groups, none of this will make any difference. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who famously observed that Africans of the ancient world had made more contributions to philosophy and mathematics than all “them Greek homos,” need not zip his lips – any more than Dr. Bilal Philips, the Toronto Islamic scholar who argues that homosexuals should be put to death, need fear the attention of Canada’s “human rights” commissions. But for the generality of the population this will be one more subject around which one has to tiptoe on ever-thinner eggshells.
And back to Adam Corolla’s original point, at what point does any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage ceremony get labeled a “Hate Group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Leftists like to claim that their goal is to have the state out of the business of marriage. While I think many of them actually believe that, I also think that the ultimate goal is the opposite – to get the church out of the business of marriage. Many leftists follow different religious faiths to various degrees, but at the end of the day Leftism is their one true God that will have no other Gods before it.
So my question to all of the gay marriage proponents today is this: If I adopt your position today and accept it as the new center how are you going to “evolve” over the next decade to turn anyone holding your opinion today into hateful right wing bigotry? Will we see any clergy on college campuses who don’t endorse gay marriage attacked in the same manner that’s happening at George Washington University today? Will Polygamy be perfectly acceptable as the recent article in The Economist argues? Scroll down to the comments if you want to start reading some ideas that are just downright creepy. I’ll be curious to see where the leftist feminist groups will weigh in over the practice of polygamy that is so harmful to women. Or do we start normalizing pedophilia in the name of tolerance?
Do my last few ideas sound over the top and kind of crazy? I’ll be the first to admit that they do, but a decade ago I would have said the same about today’s debate. I like to be proactive, so assuming I give in and surrender to this new normal, I have one question for all of you leftists reading this. Can I just get a heads up as to why you’re going to hate me again a decade from now?
1. For my more conservative readers, I’ve lived in the DC area since 1999. If my civil unions idea seems radical leftist to you keep in mind in this town everyone half a step to the right of Michael Moore thinks their views are mainstream and moderate.
2. And no, we’re not going to be encouraging Baby Bob to call anyone gay or any other forms of name calling. From what I hear this is still a favored taunt used by little kids on the playground, and I’m guessing if gay becomes an outlawed term kids will find other colorful insults to hurl at one another.
@Tom:
Well, Tom, we can always rely on you to show us how that is done. Or are you throwing your two cents worth into this conversation because you know George is gay and that turns you on?
@retire05:
The gift that keeps on giving. What turns me on actually, since you’re obviously one of those conservatives who really worries about what happens behind closed doors, is watching you embarrass yourself. You’re so good at being a hateful, close-minded dolt, sometimes I wonder if it’s a put on.
@George Wells:
George, I copied those definitions of the word ‘gay’ from an on line dictionary. I would say that they are the ‘traditional’ definitions of the word gay. It had additional definitions that included homosexuals. But I would state that adding the homosexual definitions did not change the original definition and did not, in fact, change the meaning of the word. It only added a situation that the word can be used to describe instead of a less desirable word, and to me sounds as if it actually is a contrary use of the word.
I’m not sure if that’s true. Are you saying that I could make a dictionary and whatever I put in it would be determinative? I don’t think so. If I make my dictionary and I define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, and then someone else comes along and adds an additional sentence that says 2. A marriage is a legal union between two men. Those two separate statements are mutually contradictory and can not both be true. Take another example. Define the word ‘one’. 1. a single item. seems clear from that what the word means. but suppose someone came along and added 2. a dozen or more of an item. Can both definitions be true? No. So, try as you may, call it what you want, but the word ‘marriage’ can never mean a union between two men, or two women, because the original meaning is a union between a man and a woman. So a new word is necessary. I certainly don’t consider the word ‘gay’ to be representative of really happy people.
Nan G is a ‘him’? hmmmm…..
@Tom:
That’s all you’ve got? Major fail.
Why do you feel the need to get involved in something where you are not wanted and your opinion is not valued? You’re just another liberal loser that thinks you are so much smarter than anyone else. Newsflash!!!
You’re not. You’re actually rather dimwitted.
@retire05:
I don’t see the need, actually, since you’re having your a*s handed to you. I don’t see the need because this ship has sailed. Your worst nightmare, gay marriage, is all but an inevitability at this point. I’m glad you lived long enough to see how futile your intolerance ended up being in the end. Your legacy will be no different than the legacies of other preachers of intolerance. In 20 years people will look back on you the same way we look back at the people sicking dogs on marchers at Selma. Congratulations.
@Tom:
Tom, you seem you have a very skewed vision of reality. There is not now and never will be a ‘gay marriage’. There may be something that some people refer to as that, but a union of two men will never fit the definition of marriage, which is a union of one man and one woman. Some may call a fart, perfume, but it will still stink.
While you’re at it, point out where you think someone handed Retire his a*s. I missed that somehow.
@Redteam:
And the semantics of the word “marriage” mean so much to you why now? Your moral cowardice is beyond dispute, but I find your existential terror at the thought of two men marrying to be so much more intriguing. Perhaps you can fill us in on the debilitating personal downside to you of two strangers you never have to interact with in your entire life marrying so we can all understand why you find it so important to force yourself into other peoples’ business and be the jackass who tries to make Americans pursuing their right to happiness miserable.
Reto5 in #201 asks Tom” if he throws his 2 cents in because he knows George is gay and it turns him on?”
And she wonders why she gets ZERO respect from the Conservative authors of F. A. Pretty obvious.
@Tom:
Really? By whom? I suggest that if you want to continue to participate in whatever the hell it is you are smoking that is certainly illegal in most states, that you do not put your mouth, or your fingers, into play while under the influence.
Possibly. It has, after all, been the goal of the statists for well over 100 years. You see, Tommy Boy, a moral society cannot be led like sheep to the slaughter.
ROTFLMAO. You stupid shit. I was at Selma. And I was part of the group the police were siccing the dogs on. Or didn’t you realize that all races actually marched with Dr. King? Not that I expect you to apologize after you let your mouth overload your ass. You don’t have that much class.
Redteam
hi, no one hand his ass to retire05 yet, he is the one who does it
on those trolls, he can outsmart them all the times
bye
@Richard Wheeler:
Who the hell do you think cares what you think? Don’t you have somewhere to go where you can brag on yourself since that seems to no longer impress anyone here?
YES OBAMA we must roll back the clock,
before you destroy every values of the AMERICA,
the AMERICANS use to feel good with it, and create beauty and needed advances tools
made in AMERICA, yes they did it themselves, and no one dare to say otherewise,
@retire05:
Irrelevant. Look where you ended up. You’re just an intolerant bigot in the end. Whether it’s this, or your thoughts on Muslims, Mexicans, immigrants in general, or Trayvon Martin, we know what you are, and Dr. King would have too.
@Tom: you have a bad case of potty mouth, hope you’re not representative of the homosexual community.
There is no terror of two men marrying because two men can’t get married. Why would they want to claim something that is not and can not be true. Two men can have a union, but not a marriage. Seems as if you are having difficulty with the definition of the word.
@Richard Wheeler: Who is ‘she’?
@Tom:
Tom, you have a real problem with the English language don’t you? Seems as if you can’t write a note about what someone else is doing without resorting to childish name calling. Where did you learn that uneducated technique? I’ve seen no evidence of Retire being bigoted. Seems as it’s easy for you to throw that out without offering any evidence. You are one of the ones that are trying to call things something they are not, such as ‘gay marriage’, there is no such thing and for you to use that term shows you lack of knowledge of the language. You’re not winning any friends and influencing any people here.
@Redteam re: #203:
Wow you have a serious misunderstanding of etymology! First and foremost is your belief that word meanings must me mutually consistent. There is no such rule in the English language. For example, “Flammable” and “inflammable” mean exactly the same thing. It’s illogical and counter-intuitive, but it is what it is. The dictionary is FULL of words that have multiple and unrelated meanings. Take the word “goose” – it’s either a large waterfowl or a poke between the buttocks. (Thought you might like that example.) I would guess that the bird meaning came first, but the second meaning doesn’t confuse the first, as the usage context usually gives a clue as to which is meant. When “African-Americans” chose to call themselves “blacks,” they added a meaning to the word “black.” (I imagine you objected to that as well). If you chose to use only the first definition of words (as found in a dictionary), you would find communication with other people rather difficult.
“Are you saying that I could make a dictionary and whatever I put in it would be determinative?” Of course not. You would have every right to write a dictionary and to put in it whatever you want, but it would not be determinative. Legitimate dictionaries, the ones accepted as authoritative, have large staffs working year-round vetting new meanings of words. They collect examples from media (most often print) where new usages have occurred, and they weigh each according to the prestige of the author. If enough vetted examples of the same new usage appear, the new meaning is added. As I explained before, in some cases older meanings get “demoted” and some are eventually labeled “archaic.” You need to understand this process before you talk about how inflexible word definitions are. They’re not.
“Define the word ‘one’.” Silly example, as there would not be found prestigious authors making integer errors of the type you suggested. There are multiple usages of the word “one,” but not to mean “two” or “a dozen.” You jumped the shark.
Finally, you got me regarding Nan G’s gender. In truth, I really have no idea what gender ANY of you are. Does it really matter?
@Redteam:
Tell that to the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. As I attempted to explain to you, your semantics don’t trump reality.
@Redteam:
How shocking. You assume I’m homosexual.
@Redteam:
It’s not “childish” to label someone a bigot when it’s the truth. And it’s quite necessary in a debate of this sort when it infects and explains everything Retire05 writes.
Then I presume you haven’t read the comments section of this blog for very long. If I cared enough to enlighten you, I could post dozens of examples. Oh, hell, just point your eyes up there to post 201. That’s the person you’re so keen to defend. There’s the “childish” schoolyard taunt you’re so selectively eager to point out.
@All:
Did retire05 say if he/she called women “sodomites” if they performed fellatio?
I must have missed his answer.
Or maybe he wants to change the definition of “sodomy” to just include men. hmmmmmm….
Thanks
@Tom: Doesn’t trump reality, maybe you should consider that yourself. The fact that someone writes into a law that two men can get married in that state does not mean that they are ‘married’. Married meaning a union between a man and a woman. Laws mean little, for example the constitution, the trump card for the nation says that congress can make no law restricting the owning of guns by citizens, but they do it regularly, so a law saying someone that can NOT be married is ‘married’ does not mean that they are. It only says they have usurped a word to make themselves ‘feel good’, not one that is descriptive.
@George Wells: I have not, myself, looked up the definition of sodomy but I understand it to mean penis penetration of something that is not made for penal penetration, therefore, anal or oral could be descriptive of the act. Just curious, why would you conclude that Retire would want to limit the definition of sodomy to just males? I don’t see where he proposed that, as far as I know females have both anal and oral cavities.
@Tom: I believe just reading through this thread I could show at least as many examples of your bigotry as you could Retire05. I’m sure you don’t see yourself as bigoted, few people do and resorting to calling someone a bigot is just an example of immaturity. You certainly can state that someone’s point of view is bigoted, without labeling the person. you said:
yes it is, it may only be the truth from your point of view. whether an opinion is bigoted or not is, just that, an opinion.
@Redteam:
No, ‘married’ means what it means. Your stubborn preconceptions have nothing to do with it. Do you feel your time wasted trying to arrest change in the world has been put to good use?
So I’ll ask you once again that question you avoided, how does it affect you?
@Tom:
Tell me how my answer will affect you.
Now you’re just being silly. married does mean what it means, a union between a man and a woman. I don’t have a preconception about it, stubborn or otherwise. ‘one’ means all whole digits between 0 and 2, it doesn’t mean three or more. You could write a definition to that effect, the same as you can pretend that two homosexuals can get married, but that doesn’t mean that they can. You can define a fart as perfume but that won’t make it smell like perfume.
Redteam
yes SIR
to all you said and thank you,
George Wells
now you are being dishonest,,
you mentioned words many words, insignificant words,
BUT THE WORD MARRIAGE is a SANCTIFIED WORD unlike the other,
it is a word close to GOD, and yes Redteam is right, when he said you cannot use it,
as much as you want to,
IT is like THE DEVIL TEMPTING GOD AFTER THE CREATION,
and he was thrown out of the presence of GOD, because he wanted to be like him,
he was made at the image of GOD, he was perfect and he became arrogant because he wanted
GOD PLACE, he had lot’s of power given to him,
he thought it was enough to be GOD, he never will, we know but he use his power on us imperfect human
to make trouble for us, to demand the impossible, the impossible like THE HOLY which belong to GOD ALONE, HE IS A JEALOUS GOD, HE WANT US TO ADORE HIM ALONE,
you know that already, it is within all human, as soon as they acquire
the knowledge of RIGHT OR WRONG, but human forget GOD”S WILL and get in trouble every time,
because HELL TAKE OVER WHEN GOD IS SET ASIDE SO TO NOT OFFEND, YES,
you previously refuse my word “EXCREMENT to refer to COMMUNIST MARXIST SOCIALIST,
but you demand to have the MARRIAGE as the normal couple of 2 oposit gender, which is a sacred word,
meaning sanctified by the representant of GOD
following GOD’S WILL.
I used many words just to make grasp the importance of the word ” MARRIAGE”
Tom
you should know by now that retire05 talk to you same as you talk to him,
he even is more polite than you address him,
you get what you give
@Tom: sir, you don’t have the right to tell me I’m not married. In fact, there’s no law to say I can’t be married. DOMA only says that the government says they will not recognize in family law that which exists in commercial law: the government already recognizes gay couples — and takes our taxes!
You are not arguing against the word “marriage” for us — you all are arguing against the very concept of gay couples by any name. Who are you kidding? The issue isn’t some word: Marriage — it’s gay couples under any name ever conceived by heteros including “sick demented lying deluded could-be-heterosexual whackos.” The list of adjectives could be longer.
Face your reality – you wish that no gay couples exist — and we do.. This is what flummoxes you — that we refuse to agree with your idea that we are sick and demented.
You heteros here are just miffed that we have the temerity to say we are decent folks. You want us to flagellate ourselves, agree that we are sick, and hide to make your life easier.
You are delusional.
This post was done April 10th — and now May 5th there’s still comments?
You heterosexuals — all of you — are obsessed with our existence — and can’t grasp our fundamental right to exist — and are upset with our hardy rugged individual real manhood Americanism in insisting we are gay — and you are not.
It’s mind boggling, and mind numbing.
I have followed this post with great interest — yet a detachment born of listening to heterosexuals discuss gay men with out a word from or by us.
So many things were said it is not possible to respond to them all. But in a sense all of you are arguing some fictitious construct of gay men. You are all against “group think” yet — when it comes to gay men you lapse into a group think of astounding proportions.
This article was published April 10th — now on May 5th there are still comments being made.
Never before have so many discussed so few so much — to no conclusion or point other than that you don’t like gay folks and we shouldn’t exist.
Alas, to you — we do exist — we will not relent. You all are arguing that which doesn’t exist, or is formulated in your own minds – and has little or nothing to do with gay men as I know them – and I know far more gay men than all of you put together.
It is both comedic and worrisome.,
Jim Hlavac
no one said they don’t want you to exist as far as I know,
George gave us his comments and we all gave ours
no harms done, it was a give and take on each side free speech,
what you kept is only the negative part, we did not keep the negative part of George Wells, there was some positive exchange more than negatives, why didn’t you participate, you where here before
at the beginning,?
best to you.
@Redteam: Would challenge you to show ANY evidence of bigotry from Tom.
Ret05 volunteered in 2011 that she is a 70+ woman from Tex. Woud like your opinion of her #201. Thanks
@Richard Wheeler:
So how old are you, Richard, and should we ignore what you have to say because you are also in your senior years? Of course, being from California, and a progressive, pretty much discounts anything you think you have to add to this thread.
Why don’t you tell everyone again what a great guy you are? Perhaps there are some here that will be impressed. I doubt Redteam will be one of them.
@ILOVEBEESWARZONE re#228:
You said: “Now you are being dishonest.”
I appreciate that you are not exactly engaging in technical writing with your posts here, but I do have to challenge your use of the word ‘dishonest.” Your use of “dishonest” suggests that I am attempting to deceive, or that I am representing something other than what I know to be true. I am not doing that. I am presenting a careful argument in each case that the hypothesis presented by my opposition is not valid. There is nothing ‘dishonest” in that exercise.
In debate, there is sometimes occasion to take an opposing position exclusively for the purpose of keeping the discussion competitive. I am not doing that here. I AM guilty of including too many disparate ideas in one post, a fault shared by several of the others here, but I am sure that the motivation for this mistake is the desire for thoroughness.
Another mistake you made is suggesting that I “demand” something. Look back all the way – I have never used that word or any of its synonyms. You and your side repeatedly put THAT word in my mouth to purposely mischaracterize my “agenda.” Making an argument that you are “wrong” is not the same as “demanding” that you become “right.”
Finally, you have made perfectly clear what YOU think God intended concerning “marriage.” Retire05 and Redteam have made the same point. But none of you seem to have any appreciation that other people have different opinions of what God intended, and different opinions of what “marriage” means. If you mean to say that YOUR opinion is fine for YOU but that others can believe differently, that’s OK. But if you mean to say that what YOU believe is what everyone else has to live by, well, no. That’s why most words have multiple meanings.
retire05
he is looking to make trouble as usual,
@Redteam re;#223
I asked:
“Did retire05 say if he/she called women “sodomites” if they performed fellatio?
I must have missed his answer.
Or maybe he wants to change the definition of “sodomy” to just include men. hmmmmmm…”
I did not say that (she, not he – sorry, I never would have guessed from the “colorful” language) “Retire would want to limit the definition of sodomy to just males.” I ASKED if retire05 called most women sodomites for the obvious reason. The fact that no answer has been given confirms what I already know, that SHE is equating the term “sodomite” with gay men and using it as an insult rather than using the word correctly and without gender bias. That is a bigoted use of the word, and a person who makes bigoted statements is a bigot.
George Wells
yes well express,
you have an advantage with words, but it doesn take away my right to express my opinion,
of course you should have figure by now that I’m not pushing my OPINION for you to adapt to your life,
this is one of the few FORUM to have opinions put straight from the view of the commenter,
it’s a take or leave it for anyone,,
but as your opinion has values , which give me more on my side to give my opinions ,
you came and fed all of us your point of view, you have lead the show all along very well indeed,
and all of us have given to you, for keepsake or dumbing,
depending on your brain judgement alone,
ideas are precious for some to capture and dwell in for processing and adjust to each own inner self demand, it’s the treasure of one who own it and give it to challenge or to advise,
but the freedom is always there for anyone,
and no resentment for rejecting my ideas from you or me rejecting your ideas,
I learned from you, that’s what this FLOPPING ACES is for,
that is capturing what one has in mind about what another give directly from his mind,
I find it very interesting, to be part of it,
bye
@George Wells:
Oxford American Dictionary of Current English – 1999 Edition
Sodomy: sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation
Sodomite: a person who practices sodomy
Answer your question, George?
Yet, you vote for a party whose members are constantly making bigoted statements about Southerners, Christians, Republican blacks, conservative women, etc.
Hypocracy seems to be your forte, George.
@George Wells:
George, I find that amusing. ”
the fact that no answer has been given” ” That is a bigoted use of the word” Let me get this straight, she didn’t give an answer so you assumed she thought something that was bigoted and therefore she is a bigot. So whenever you assume someone would give a bigoted anwer, that in itself makes them a bigot. First, that you ‘think’ it is bigoted, does not make it bigoted. It only makes it your opinion. You are trying so hard to accuse Retire of something that you think is a bad thing that you are even attaching names to something that you assume she might say. Isn’t that just a little bit of a reach?
@George Wells: There can be sodomy between a male and a female, between two males, but not between two females (unless one of them has a penis)
@Richard Wheeler: My opinion of #201, sounds about right. Tom was sucking up to George for some reason.
@Jim Hlavac: Jim, I’d say you are about 100% incorrect in your assumptions/conclusions. I couldn’t care less about whether two men or two women or 6 men or 6 women live together either in/out of a legal union. They just can’t be ‘married’ because ‘married’ is one man and one woman and I don’t take that from any context other than that is what the word means. You might want to add another meaning to the word, but any meaning other than a male/female relationship won’t work, same as you can’t define two items as being just one. Colloquial usage of a word does not change the meaning. An example, if you want to say two merged companies were ‘married’ then you are only equating it in the context that (male)/(female) companies merged. Not two male companies/or female. Why it seems so important that gays usurp the word to just be ‘in your face’ to married couples is beyond me. They will never be accepted as ‘married’ to 95% of the world.
@George Wells:
Ok George, what’s your point? Why are you being critical of Bees writing technique? Not everyone has been educated to write in the same techniques/mannerisms. Bees gets his message across very well and has a lot of insight. George, you seem to write well, but you don’t have much of a message. Maybe you should think about that just a little…….
Redteam
I went to a store looking for a wire to connect as an add on between my television and my earpad
which the wire was too short in lenght,
there was so many different ones, and the clerk said you need only the one with a male end on one side
and a female on the other side,
that’s when she saw I had picked A wire with male on each side,
she will never know why I start to laugh, unless she would follow this POST.
OBAMA said to the GRADUATE
trust me and don’t hear the other what they say, just me you can trust,
what a dangerous words, to graduates who need to be able to learn from his opponant
and make a sound judgement by themselves,
he continue the indoctrination, which the school teachers where well advise to start on them
as young as they are.
one of them came out to tell she and other had paid apartment and earning
to indoctrinate the very young children, order from the top.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Good point, Bees.
Think Homeschooling can protect young people from the likes of Obama and Bill Ayres?
Think again.
The GED test has just been rejiggered to align with Leftist talking points.
There are supposed fact-filled paragraphs to read before answering a question in essay (one’s own words) form.
Only problem is the paragraphs are filled with lies and propaganda.
Like….how many of the 19 highjackers on 9-11-01 were from poor, impoverished Afghanistan?
The paragraph implies almost all of them.
And that poverty is why they did it.
(If only we gave more foreign aid!)
The truth is most were Saudis and well enough educated to speak at least two languages and have been in college.
More here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/propagandizing_the_plebs_the_common_core_curriculum_meets_the_ged.html
@retire05 re: #239:
Thank you for telling me what I already know. And thank you ALSO for not answering the question I asked you, as your dodge again proves my point.
I asked if you use the term “sodomite” when you address other women (as most have performed fellatio) or do you use it only on gay men? That was the question.
Your dictionary definition is correct – is your usage selective? If it is, it’s an indication of bigotry. If instead you also address other women as “sodomites,” well, you must have a lot of friends…
@Redteam #242:
“Sodomy” includes all gender combinations.
The requisite penetration need not be accomplished by a penis in the flesh. A broom handle, a bottle, a carrot, anything of the same approximate shape may be used to sodomize another male OR female.
Maybe you should “bone”-up on sodomy!