When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
255 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George Wells
10 years ago
I find it curious that Retire05 claims to know so very much about gay culture. She will tell you all about gay bath-houses and the goings-on in the most notorious gay bars as if she personally frequents these establishments, and she also claims intimate knowledge of the gay community’s reverence for “infildlity.” It should be noted that her tabloid sensationalism accurately characterizes an extremely small fraction of the homosexual population – there are always a few hundred or even a few thousand exhibitionists who relish attention and who behave outrageously to get it. You should not mistake the actions of these few sociopaths for behavior characteristic of the average gay American. Retire05’s comments may accurately reflect the behavior of a marginalized cultural extremity, but are not relevant to the effort to obtain equal rights for the 10-25 million gay Americans who remain largely invisible to her.
Regarding “infidelity,” it is true that “fidelity” was never presented as a desirable option to the gay community. For the vast majority of heterosexuals, “fidelity” has been held in reverence historically, religiously and legally. The punishments for infidelity have been severe and serve as a powerful disincentive. But until quite recently (and certainly more recently than Retire05’s “information”) there has been no corresponding social disincentive regarding infidelity in the gay community. There has been no incentive for gays to remain faithful precisely as is provided exclusively (until recently) by the heterosexual institution of marriage. This is perhaps the strongest conservative argument in favor of gay marriage: Gay Marriage strengthens gay families, giving societally supported protections to each family member. As the AIDS epidemic taught us all too well, a considerable social value is realized when individuals couple monogamously and remain faithful, and this includes gay couples.
Retire05’s experience with gay culture is admittedly a sad one. She appears to have never met decent, well-adjusted gays who spend their time contributing meaningfully to the American experience instead of following selfishly hedonistic pursuits. As gay Americans become increasingly well-integrated into the society at large, Retire05’s experience will become rare, and like her hostile views on homosexuality, only significant in the historical context.
I find it curious that Retire05 claims to know so very much about gay culture. She will tell you all about gay bath-houses and the goings-on in the most notorious gay bars as if she personally frequents these establishments, and she also claims intimate knowledge of the gay community’s reverence for “infildlity.” It should be noted that her tabloid sensationalism accurately characterizes an extremely small fraction of the homosexual population
In typical activist mode, you attack the messenger, not the message. A “few thousand” exhibitionists? Perhaps you should read the history of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States. But then, the history of the epidemic, and how it came about, doesn’t fit with your “we are just like you” mantra.
For the vast majority of heterosexuals, “fidelity” has been held in reverence historically, religiously and legally.
There has been no incentive for gays to remain faithful precisely as is provided exclusively (until recently) by the heterosexual institution of marriage.
I see; so because we evil, bigoted, hateful, discriminating conservative legislators and voters didn’t give you the right to completely change the thousands of years old definition of marriage, you queers had no reason to be faithful to one partner? Really? You really want to stick with that excuse? What happened to the whole meme that you should be able to marry someone of the same gender because of love, respect, duty, responsibility and wanting to spend the rest of your life with just one person? Are your relationships so shallow that fidelity to that relationship is contingent on a piece of paper, i.e. a marriage license? If you can’t be faithful to someone you care about without legal recognition, that relationship will not be worth the paper it is legalized on. It is just that simple.
her hostile views on homosexuality
Yeah, I’m hostile toward gays (LOL). That’s why I volunteered at the AIDS hospital in Houston when most people still believed you could catch HIV/AIDS from a toilet seat. Who I am hostile toward are people like you, who shoots the messenger because the message is true and you can’t handle it since it goes against the whole propaganda campaign you have aligned yourself with.
Take your propaganda elsewhere, and tell it to someone who doesn’t know better. Tell it to someone who has never held the hand of an 18 year old as they died from AIDS because they were infected by a 40 year old who was totally aware they were infected and were infecting another. Frankly, I think we should have not given gay men such a pass and that anyone who knowingly was HIV positive and had unprotected sex with someone else should have been charged with attempted murder.
Deny the gay “culture” was the cause of massive infection rates in Los Angeles, New York, Houston and Washington, D.C. all you want. History, and CDC stats, don’t lie no matter how you want to rewrite the story.
George Wells
10 years ago
@retire05 #56”
“…your “we are just like you” mantra.”
Sorry, not MY mantra. Go ahead and look – you won’t find those words or similar ones anywhere in anything I’ve written. Gay people ARE different, and I celebrate that. Equal rights don’t depend upon sameness. In fact, it is only in the context of “differentness” that equal rights take on any significant meaning.
I am “attacking” YOU because YOU choose to evaluate the current gay rights movement in the darkest light that you can find: an ugly epidemic of sexually transmitted disease that does NOT infect the majority of gay Americans. That choice is a deliberate attempt to avoid the arguments for gay rights that are based upon the principles of equality that are enshrined in our Constitution. It is the same strategy that you employ when you press the discussion toward “sodomy.” It is your “appeal to the “ick” factor” – a logical fallacy – that I attack. The readers here deserve better.
I agree that HIV-positive people who knowingly infect others are guilty of something (not “murder,” anymore, as the infectious condition is largely survivable at this point) but I am no more responsible for their behavior than you are. And bringing it up is just another of your irrelevant smoke screens. You might be more convincing if you stay on topic.
“What happened to the whole meme that you should be able to marry someone of the same gender because of love, respect, duty, responsibility and wanting to spend the rest of your life with just one person?”
Oh, of course we should. I was merely pointing out that an ancillary consequence of NOT allowing gay marriage, of NOT providing the societal incentive to bond as you mention above has exacerbated the problem (AIDS) – conservatives have unwittingly contributed to and are thus complicit in the tragedy that is AIDS. Odd that this never occurred to you as you ministered to the victims of that epidemic and saw how they had been abandoned by family and friends… had NO social support. If you were there out of compassion, what happened to it?
“If you can’t be faithful to someone you care about without legal recognition, that relationship will not be worth the paper it is legalized on.”
I agree 100%, and the statement is true regardless of whether the individuals are of the same or opposite gender. But if you are making the argument that “marriage” should not have any value to a gay couple, then what value would you assign to it in the case of straight couples? It has the same value to gays as it does to straights.
I was faithfully and monogamously “bonded” to Paul for 38 years BEFORE we got married in Maryland last May. Our relationship did not depend upon receipt of state sanction. But now that we ARE married, we receive many of the benefits that accrue from that status – and from which we were previously excluded – and we look forward to the day that Virginia officially ends its fight against our equal rights. It will be here soon.
George Wells
WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT AS GAIS,
you share this AMERICA WITH OTHER, WHY DO YOU WANT TO DIVIDE YOUR GROUP,
DON’T YOU HAVE SEEN ENOUGH OF DIVIDING by this admistration as soon as they took power,
they now have divided your group, just by the way you talk here, it’s easy to notice,
did AMERICA WAS MADE TO BE DIVIDED IN THE TWO CENTURYS PAST?
THESES TIMES ARE TESTING FOR ALL AMERICANS, BUT THEY WILL PASS IF WE PRAY HARD ENOUGH,
THINK OF AMERICA AND YOUR FREEDOM WHICH THEY TRY TO TAKE AWAY CHUNK BY CHUNK BY DIVIDING PEOPLE AND INCITE THEM AGAINST EACH OTHER,
SO YOU ARE GAI, AND MANY OTHER ARE GAI, YOU CAN LIVE FREE AND BE CONTENT OF WHAT YOU HAVE, ALL OF AMERICA, OR LIVE LIKE A HALF AMERICAN LIKE OBAMA IS PUSHING ON YOU.
BY GIVING YOU MAKE BELIEVE CRUMBS, to keep all of you quite
BYE
Bees, I mean you no disrespect when I say that I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
The progress of the gay (not “GAI”) rights movement has been ENORMOUS (nor “crumbs”). When I was a young adult, gay bars were routinely raided by the police and the patrons were arrested. There were laws that supported such actions. Those laws are now gone, not by popular vote of a decent citizenry, but by judicial intervention. Without the effort of individuals who are dedicated to the achievement of equal rights for all gay Americans, we would still be subject to that kind of treatment.
Perhaps you are suggesting that “dividing Americans” into two groups – one that wants to jail homosexuals and one that does not – is a bad thing, but I would disagree. If the Constitutional provisions guaranteeing equality for all Americans are to have any value or meaning, surely they are worth fighting for.
George Wells
hi,
I apologise for mistaken the word,
I was refering to all the divide this leader has created in this country,
since his first arrival on the scene,
BLACK AGAINST WHITE, POOR AGAINST RICH, IMMIGRANT AGAINST CITIZENS,
AND YOU ALL AGAINST OTHER SIDE, SAME IN POLITIC PARTY AGAINST EACH OTHER
THERE IS SO MANY SIDES NOW THAT IT’S NO MORE A SQUARE, BUT A MESS,
LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID TO THE TEA-PARTY WHO SUFFER FROM THE IRS WHO HAD ORDER TO VILIFY THEM AND USE THEIR JOB POWER TO HARRASS THEM AND TREAT THEM AS CRIMINAL,
THAT’S WHAT I MEANT,
BYE
George Wells
10 years ago
Hi Bees:
Racial “divide” has existed forever and is the product of natural selection, not an invention of President Obama. The fact that he is at least fractionally black has inflamed some people who categorically hate blacks, but there is no escaping that, is there?
Anyone guided and encouraged by the noble tenets of our Constitution to fight against discrimination and oppression would be ill-advised to restrain themselves for the comfort of those who would oppress them. It IS a mess, but only because there are so many people who are motivated by greed to maintain unfair advantages over their fellow man.
I am “attacking” YOU because YOU choose to evaluate the current gay rights movement in the darkest light that you can find: anI am “attacking” YOU because YOU choose to evaluate the current gay rights movement in the darkest light that you can find: an ugly epidemic of sexually transmitted disease that does NOT infect the majority of gay Americans..
Bull. You are attacking me because I don’t buy into your “gay movement for equality” b/s. It is just that simple. You want to ignore the dark side of homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, in order to push your agenda. I am not going to let you do that now any more than I did the last time you popped up on this blog and started blathering your agenda.
Do not think it went unnoticed that you referred to the “I am “attacking” YOU because YOU choose to evaluate the current gay rights movement in the darkest light that you can find: an ugly epidemic of sexually transmitted disease that does NOT infect the majority of gay Americans” by including women in the mix of “gay Americans.” That way, it reduces the number of gays who are HIV positive and deludes the truth: that 35 years after the discovery and diagnosis of the “gay cancer” and millions of dollars spent on awareness programs, HIV stats continue to rise shockingly in gay men. In 2010, the latest CDC stat, of the 46,350 new cases of HIV, 29,800 of those cases were in gay males, a 3,100 rise from 2008. MSM (male sex with male) accounted for 52% of ALL people living with HIV in 2009.
On top of that, a strange thing happened on the way to the clinic. The number of syphilis cases is rapidly increasing in the MSM group, while remaining flat in the heterosexual group. You would think by now that the gay male community would realize there is danger in casual sex life style.
Why is that, George? Why, after almost 35 years, is HIV still climbing in the gay men subgroup when it is decreasing in the heterosexual groups? Are you going to tell us that the gay “culture” doesn’t have something to do with those states, because I contend they do.
Odd that this never occurred to you as you ministered to the victims of that epidemic and saw how they had been abandoned by family and friends… had NO social support. If you were there out of compassion, what happened to it?
My compassion remains. While I don’t agree with how a prostitute makes her living, I would not want to deny her a warm hand of friendship if she were dying from cancer. Unlike gays, who seems to have one goal (pushing their false marriage “equality” meme on the rest of the nation) I care for those who are ill and perhaps dying. I don’t have to approve of the sin to be compassionate toward the sinner. And no matter what you claim (like your reference to Justice Burger which I call b/s on) sodomy is not acceptable. Mother Nature stands in your way of being on the right side of nature which is to guarantee the survival of the species.
But now that we ARE married, we receive many of the benefits that accrue from that status
And exactly what did you gain that could not have been achieved by a simply visit to an attorney to draw up certain documents?
George Wells
YES THAT’S A GOOD POINT TO FINISH YOUR COMMENT,
I was not refering to races divide which he also tryed to divide,
but the bigger groups of one specific target,the leader try to divide,THEY ARE many specific groups,
the poor against the wealthy he pound on often, the other groups also like the REPUBLICANS they attack
WITH HATEFULL REMARKS WICH YOU DID NOT ENCOUNTER BEFORE THAT ADMINISTRATION,
NEVER TO THAT HIGH LEVEL OF HATE, WE HAVE MANY PROOFS OF THAT ATTITUDE IN THESES
LAST YEARS, RESULTING IN A DEFEATIST DEPRESS CITIZENRY TO POUND ON EACH OTHER
SO TO FREE THEIR MIND FROM SUCH NEGATIVE , BOMBARDING THEM UNSTOP,
BYE
George Wells
10 years ago
@retire05 # 58:
“Why is that, George? Why, after almost 35 years, is HIV still climbing in the gay men subgroup when it is decreasing in the heterosexual groups? Are you going to tell us that the gay “culture” doesn’t have something to do with those states, (my correction: stats) because I contend they do.”
You continue to help me press my case for equality. I already explained the connection between the marginalization of the gay subculture and its consequent sociopathic behavior re: the connection between denying gays the right to marriage (and in particular it’s stabilizing influence) and self-destructive behaviors of the sort that were instrumental in the spread of HIV to the American public. The number of HIV infections continue to rise because:
1. The number of gay people continues to rise with the population and,
2. HIV and AIDS are not the deadly villains they were 30 years ago and,
3. With 33 states still refusing them marriage equality, most gays still lack the social encouragement to marry that heterosexuals enjoy.
What REALISTIC advice has ever been offered to gay men concerning their sexual conduct? Abstain, abstain, abstain? Well now, that really works for Catholic priests, doesn’t it? Unless you forcibly suppress the sex drive (surgically or pharmacologically), suggesting abstinence is a fools gambit. And with nothing but a bunch of preachers explaining to them that they will burn in Eternal Hell for their “sins,” gay men understandably threw in the towel, concluding that their best option was to at least have a good time while they were here. At the time most gay males became sexually active, their knowledge of the risks of unprotected sex were pregnancy related, and for gay males, that issue was moot. Nobody knew about HIV and AIDS until it was everywhere. AND! Even when it WAS understood within the scientific community, conservatives fought every effort to get the message out to gays, refused funding for research, and hoped that gay people would all just die. It was “God’s will, remember? Ronald Reagan notoriously went years as president before ever uttering a word about AIDS. So deep and complete was the stigmatization of gay people that “decent” folk dared not speak these words. And yet you now fail to understand the residual effects this treatment has had on the gay community? YES! Gay culture DOES have EVERYTHING to do with (your) stats! But that culture did not evolve in a vacuum! It evolved in the ugly, repressive, persecutive environment that YOU created for it – the closet YOU forced it into. I am baffled that you are so blind to this obvious cause and effect. Wake up!
“And exactly what did you gain that could not have been achieved by a simply visit to an attorney to draw up certain documents?”
Not that I think it has any bearing on this discussion, but for the enlightenment of others I offer the following: My health insurance is now provided through my husband Paul’s employer – the Federal Government – who required a copy of our marriage certificate to establish my eligibility. An attorney could not have drawn up a document to obtain a similar benefit. There are more, but you don’t really want to know about them, because they contradict your belief that gay marriage is unnecessary and meaningless.
And by the way, if you google “Betty Wells, artist,” you will find out about my mother, who illustrated at the Burger Supreme Court for many years and who painted Warren Burger’s – and his wife Elvera’s – portraits. It was during sittings of each at Mom’s art studio that questions regarding gay rights were asked. Why ever would you think I would lie about such an experience? Does my account not comport with everything you already understand about the conservatism of the SCOTUS? Or is the only “logic” you have left in your campaign against gay equality the cry “BULL! and “LIAR!” ?
When I was a young adult, gay bars were routinely raided by the police and the patrons were arrested. There were laws that supported such actions. Those laws are now gone, not by popular vote of a decent citizenry, but by judicial intervention. Without the effort of individuals who are dedicated to the achievement of equal rights for all gay Americans, we would still be subject to that kind of treatment.
Wow. Powerful stuff, George. I suspect many well-meaning conservatives are unaware of this important historical truth. This is possibly due to (one of) the widely disseminated contemporary anti-gay marriage arguments which rests largely upon an amnesiac and rose-tinted conception of contemporary gay life, that everything is good enough now, so why are these greedy people asking for more? This argument ignores both the struggles and suffering that have attended any gains and the fact that the examples of “good enough” offered are gains not shared across the board. Americans should have the same rights everywhere in America, so offering the gay experience in Massachusetts as an example of why there is no work left to be done in, say, Alabama is plain ridiculous.
Specfic to this thread, I salute your equanimity in the face of virulent hatred and bigotry. At least you have the satisfaction of knowing that the open-minded who come across this will take something away from your reasoned comments.
I already explained the connection between the marginalization of the gay subculture and its consequent sociopathic behavior re: the connection between denying gays the right to marriage (and in particular it’s stabilizing influence) and self-destructive behaviors of the sort that were instrumental in the spread of HIV to the American public.
Let me see if I understand you correctly; you’re blaming the promiscuous, out of control sexual actions of gay men, spreading HIV/AIDS as they go, on the fact that their actions were frowned upon by the majority of American society? Really? You really want to stick with that excuse?
The number of HIV infections continue to rise because:
1. The number of gay people continues to rise with the population and,
so what? Are you saying that gays are just as promiscuous and engage in unsafe sex as they did 35 years ago when the HIV/AIDS virus was still called the “gay cancer?”
2. HIV and AIDS are not the deadly villains they were 30 years ago and,
And it is still incurable. It is still, for all intent and purposes, a death sentence.
3. With 33 states still refusing them marriage equality, most gays still lack the social encouragement to marry that heterosexuals enjoy.
What state can you name that asks the question “Are you gay” on any marriage license?
It evolved in the ugly, repressive, persecutive environment that YOU created for it – the closet YOU forced it into. I am baffled that you are so blind to this obvious cause and effect. Wake up!
Bullshit. That is simply a lie. No one forces any gay man to engage in risky, unprotected sex. Not me, or any of the other straights you seem to hold in such little regard.
What REALISTIC advice has ever been offered to gay men concerning their sexual conduct? Abstain, abstain, abstain? Well now, that really works for Catholic priests, doesn’t it?
As a Catholic, I was against the admission of homosexual men into the seminaries when the Jesuits first decided to allow them. I was proven right due to the abuse that eventually was revealed. Thanks for making my point for me.
Unless you forcibly suppress the sex drive (surgically or pharmacologically), suggesting abstinence is a fools gambit.
Why? Are you saying that we are nothing more than animals who cannot control our urges? Just animals who have no other option but to succumb to animal instincts?
At the time most gay males became sexually active, their knowledge of the risks of unprotected sex were pregnancy related, and for gay males, that issue was moot.
So what is their excuse 35 years, multiple millions of dollars on research and information, later?
Nobody knew about HIV and AIDS until it was everywhere. AND! Even when it WAS understood within the scientific community, conservatives fought every effort to get the message out to gays, refused funding for research, and hoped that gay people would all just die.
Really? Actually, it was names when it was pretty much contained a handful of major cities. Of course you blame conservatives. Tell me, George, what was the political philosophy of Don Francis? You’re a sick, hateful sodomist, aren’t you?
Why ever would you think I would lie about such an experience?
Because you are a gay, left winger who is prone to lying.
When I was a young adult, gay bars were routinely raided by the police and the patrons were arrested. There were laws that supported such actions. Those laws are now gone, not by popular vote of a decent citizenry, but by judicial intervention. Without the effort of individuals who are dedicated to the achievement of equal rights for all gay Americans, we would still be subject to that kind of treatment.
Wow. Powerful stuff, George.
Of course, George didn’t bother to tell you how the gay bars were used like the San Francisco bath houses where gay men could go to have unprotected sex with multiple partners in one visit, or how they were nothing but breeding grounds for the transmittal of HIV/AIDS. He won’t tell you the shady part of the gay bar scene, with their back rooms filled with gay men having sex with other gay men without even bothering to ask what they name was.
No, he’ll whitewash those facts.
Tom
10 years ago
Does anyone doubt that Puritanism is alive and well in America?
I have heard that some gay bars were like the ones you frequented and are telling us about now, but the few I ever visited were singularly boring and not at all worth the risk of arrest. They were in Norfolk, Virginia, not San Francisco. If gay bars (or any type, for that matter)(anywhere) featured illegal activity, they were right to be shut down, and the patrons engaging in those activities should have been arrested. But in Virginia, the laws forbade homosexuals from GATHERING (as well as copulating in private), and it was THOSE laws which were used to justify the arrest of innocent patrons of public establishments and which were eventually and rightfully overturned.
You are correct that I AM making a selective presentation. I am describing the persecution of individuals who were engaged in innocent activities. I DO make a distinction between them and the others you keep reminding us of who recklessly engaged in unlawful activities. You seem to be making an argument that ALL gays should be punished, that the misbehavior of some warrants second class status for all. But to deprive an entire class of people their equal rights – TODAY – because a fraction of their number engaged in harmful activities – DECADES AGO – violates so many principles of justice it boggles the mind. Fortunately, the views on gay rights are “evolving” for the majority of Americans. How sad that you’ve missed the boat…
Wow. Powerful stuff, George. I suspect many well-meaning conservatives are unaware of this important historical truth.
I doubt that. Any time people violate the laws, they may get raided. Right or wrong, at the time it was illegal. I think the police should always attempt to enforce the laws. If you don’t like the laws being enforced, have the laws changed.
Americans should have the same rights everywhere in America, so offering the gay experience in Massachusetts
can you explain why homosexuality is described as ‘the gay experience’. Would you suggest that heterosexuality should be described as ‘the straight experience’. Why is it an ‘experience’?
Here are the top 3 def’s of experience for dictionary. com:
1. a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something: My encounter with the bear in the woods was a frightening experience.
2. the process or fact of personally observing, encountering, or undergoing something: business experience.
3. the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time: to learn from experience; the range of human experience.
Wouldn’t it more closely be a lifestyle and not an experience? If it were something that happens/happened naturally, would it be an experience?
I agree with Retire, that there is nothing you and your partner couldn’t accomplish legally without the fakery of pretending marriage? Marriage is and will always be a union of a man and a woman. Two men or two women can live together in a partnership, but they can never be married. They also can not have children or extend their line of ancestry.
3. With 33 states still refusing them marriage equality, most gays still lack the social encouragement to marry that heterosexuals enjoy.
If you think the US is unfriendly toward gays, how do you feel about Muslim countries, such as Iran? You ever think of moving there and insisting on your ‘rights’? If you think the US is unfriendly, just consider moving over there.
One other question George, would you insist that someone making wedding cakes should have to make one for a gay wedding if they told the gay people it is against their religion? Do you think Muslims should be forced to provide wedding cakes for gays?
“Does anyone doubt that every society that has ever normalized sodomy had failed? Hello, Mayans? Hello, ancient Rome? Hello, Spartans?”
OK, which society HASN’T failed??? They all eventually change to the point that their original construction is gone. Monarchies, Dictatorships, Republics – they all eventually morph into completely different entities, and not because the principles of governance are particularly flawed (though none of them are perfect, to be sure) but because the forms of governance are only as good as the people who run them.
A good constitution is a great start, and I think that we have a good one, but the ideological friction between our modern principles of equality and the ancient proscriptions of the Old Testament is a problem that we need to resolve. A good start would be for YOU to stop being so selective in upholding only those admonishments of Deuteronomy that support your fight against gay rights. IF the Bible is God’s will, it is ALL God’s will. How else could you choose correctly?
If gay bars (or any type, for that matter)(anywhere) featured illegal activity, they were right to be shut down, and the patrons engaging in those activities should have been arrested.
So that rather clearly says that you think the police were right to raid the gay bars and shut down the illegal (gay sex) activities. Now I can see where you think it was wrong for the gay activities to be illegal, but illegal they were at that time.
But in Virginia, the laws forbade homosexuals from GATHERING (as well as copulating in private), and it was THOSE laws which were used to justify the arrest of innocent patrons of public establishments
But you do admit that, at the time, those activities were illegal. Maybe not right, in your opinion, but still illegal. Speeding 5 miles over the speed limit is illegal and can get you a ticket. maybe not right, but it is illegal. Just your feeling that it shouldn’t be illegal, at the time, was not sufficient for law enforcement to ignore the law.
You are correct that I AM making a selective presentation. I am describing the persecution of individuals who were engaged in innocent activities.
No you are not, you are, in fact, by your own admission admitting that they were engaged in activities that were illegal, at that time.
Fortunately, the views on gay rights are “evolving” for the majority of Americans. How sad that you’ve missed the boat…
I think you are very mistaken. More people are willing to agree to let some of them have some rights, but it doesn’t mean that they ‘accept’ it. While I am in agreement for them to have civil unions and live together in partnerships, there is no way in hell I would attend a gay wedding. I think more people share that feeling than that gays are ‘evolving’.
Good to hear from you!
Actually, I lament the focus on the baking of wedding cakes because the subject lends such a silly air to the discussion. I rather prefer to up the ante and put the question in a critical-to-life form, precisely because people think that withholding critical-to-life services (emergency room doctors, for instance, or fire fighters) is a very serious issue, while cakes and cookies are not.
But to your question: I said before that IF a person chooses to work in a field where a service or good is provided to members of the public, then that person should be prepared to serve any and all members of that public. PERIOD. Once exceptions are allowed – discrimination for whatever reason is condoned – you tell ME, where is the line drawn? It would be all too easy to get to the point where water fountains and restaurants had signs that said “No Gays.” Not to mention that societal acceptance of that type of discrimination is taken by many as encouragement to perpetrate violence against the target underclass.
In reality, the issue is more of a legal battle than a practical one. A baker who is FORCED to make a cake he doesn’t want to make is likely to urinate in the batter, and at least MOST people understand this and would be reluctant to order such a cake for that reason. But still, in THIS country, where our Constitution guarantees equality with such eloquence as it does, yes, a Muslim or any other baker should have no legitimate reason to refuse a service or product to one person that he or she is willing to provide to another.
To your other question, of course (silly boy!) I don’t EVER consider taking the good fight to a Muslim country. Or to Uganda, or to any other Death-To-Fags! hell-hole. Those countries and the people in them have their own battles to fight. I’ve served my country honorably and with distinction, worked a successful career, paid my taxes and social security, and worked long and hard for the causes that are important to me. And in these my twilight years, I am comforted that my efforts are bearing abundant fruit, whether because of by contributions or in spite of them. No sir, MY country is VERY friendly – more so every day – and victory is near. I’m happy as a clam!
Good question George. Every society that has failed did so because of liberalism and socialism. When they get to the point that the government has more obligations to give away free stuff than people are willing to work to give the money to the government to give away that free stuff to the voters that support that government, then the society ceases to exist as a free society. We are way down that road here. The final straw is likely to be when about 10 million more illegal aliens are given the right to vote, because surely they will vote for the liberals that will vote to give them free Social Security and medicare and welfare.
I said before that IF a person chooses to work in a field where a service or good is provided to members of the public, then that person should be prepared to serve any and all members of that public. PERIOD.
What would be your response if you came into my wedding cake store and I told you it was against my religion to attend a gay wedding, but you insisted so I told you: You have to pay in advance, there will be no refund, you may not be happy with my service. ?
It would be all too easy to get to the point where water fountains and restaurants had signs that said “No Gays.” Not to mention that societal acceptance of that type of discrimination is taken by many as encouragement to perpetrate violence against the target underclass.
The water fountain thing is not applicable because it does not involve humans, only equipment. I don’t see a woman not wanting to attend a gay wedding as a ‘likely to perpetrate violence’ situation.
I don’t EVER consider taking the good fight to a Muslim country.
I can certainly understand that, but I thought your concern was for all the gay people who are being discriminated against and surely they are facing much more violent discrimination there than they are here. You would get more bang for the buck, seems like.
One other question George, since you are so concerned about everyone’s right to do what they want to do, how do you feel about people walking around with sheets over their heads with KKK on them?
(Yawn) …What is your point? Yes, I told you what the Virginia Law was, and Yes, the police were acting in accordance with that law. I did not say otherwise. I also said that the Supreme Court threw out those laws because they violated equal protection guarantees found in the Constitution. Remember that Germens followed Hitler’s laws during WWII – posterity does not always grant a free pass to those who blindly obey bad laws. Like the War Crimes Court, I too make a distinction between legitimate, just laws and the other type. Fortunately, unjustly homophobic laws are now dropping like flies. The present progression of gay rights leaves no doubt as to what the ultimate conclusion will be. 50-state gay marriage is inevitable. You have my sympathy.
What is your point? Yes, I told you what the Virginia Law was, and Yes, the police were acting in accordance with that law. I did not say otherwise.
The point was that you did say the people were violating the law but then you said that the enforcement of THOSE laws were used to justify the arrest of innocent patrons.
My point was that the people were violating the law and should have expected to be arrested if they expected police officers to uphold the laws. They were not ‘innocent’ persons. They were violating laws.
In 66 you said:
But in Virginia, the laws forbade homosexuals from GATHERING (as well as copulating in private), and it was THOSE laws which were used to justify the arrest of innocent patrons of public establishments
George Wells
10 years ago
Redteam:
“since you are so concerned about everyone’s right to do what they want to do”
Stop it! I never said that, nor implied that. I’m happy to argue over issues and to defend the things that I say, but your fictional characterization of me deserves nothing.
To the other question – I thought that I answered that. I would UNDERSTAND that you would urinate in my cake (from what you said in response to my request) so I would thank you politely and take my business elsewhere. I’m not a litigator. But others are, and they would be free to have their cake tested, and you might get thrown in jail when the tests come back positive for uric acid. That would be how the law works.
50-state gay marriage is inevitable. You have my sympathy.
There will never be ‘gay marriage’ anywhere. There is no definition of marriage that includes same sex partners. As I said, I have no problem with civil unions. I don’t need any sympathy, it is not I that will be living a lie.
I would remind you that decades ago, Virginia law allowed for the forced sterilization of various unpopular minorities. That law was overturned, and the VICTIMS of those sterilizations were eventually financially compensated for those LAWFULLY conducted sterilizations. I’ll say it again: Nobody gets a free pass for obeying a bad law. At some point, responsibility of conscience has to be accounted for. Part of the success the gay rights movement is having today undoubtedly comes from the growing awareness among the general public of exactly how unfair those old homophobic laws actually were. What goes around comes around.
George Wells
10 years ago
@ Redteam #77:
Be my guest. Live in denial. Good night!
But others are, and they would be free to have their cake tested, and you might get thrown in jail when the tests come back positive for uric acid. That would be how the law works.
Suppose in this contract to supply a wedding cake, it said that you agree to accept the cake that I prepare for you. There are other natural ingredients that don’t involve uric acid. I think if I were running a wedding cake company, I could figure out plenty of legal ways to discourage certain customers. You know that many stores have signs that say that they can refuse to allow you in if you’re not wearing a shirt or shoes. There are contracts with terms that have to be acceptable to both parties.
George Wells
ON 60
retire05 HAS A GOOD IMPORTANT POINT, about the HIV problem,
the happening of this sickness meant something that theses conducts of having sex with many different humans was an anathema, and it made the GAY think hard and confronted that when there is an epidemic sickness in a community< they have been engage in activity against nature itself who came out fighting it with an ultimate warning,
it told us that it was un_natural to have same gender sex, THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION,
and it made you rethink of still have sex but with one in a mariage union,
so you started to demand the same right as the other unions, you even ask for the blessing of that union
to be legal, but it "s still dangerous that hiv to come back to take lives,
because the danger is not out of the way as long as the sexual activity continue,
if it was countain to homosexsuals it might even be a bigger virus rendered more potent,
because of his longevity, and having been more accustomed with time,
we know those affected where not all changing partner,
OK, which society HASN’T failed??? They all eventually change to the point that their original construction is gone. Monarchies, Dictatorships, Republics – they all eventually morph into completely different entities, and not because the principles of governance are particularly flawed (though none of them are perfect, to be sure) but because the forms of governance are only as good as the people who run them.
I would say there are lots of societies that have not failed. Those in western Europe (Great Britain and France) and the Nordic countries. There is a difference (although you will have spin to add) between changes and total societal collapse and failure.
A good start would be for YOU to stop being so selective in upholding only those admonishments of Deuteronomy that support your fight against gay rights. IF the Bible is God’s will, it is ALL God’s will. How else could you choose correctly?
And a good start would be for YOU to stop trying to put words in my mouth. Where, in any post I have made, have I mentioned anything Biblical, especially Deuteronomy? I haven’t. So why do you try to indicate that I have? That one thing alone, makes you, if not a liar, someone who spins the truth.
I don’t EVER consider taking the good fight to a Muslim country.
I see; the courage of your convictions ends at the water’s edge. You are quite willing to push your agenda in a nation where you know there will be no repercussions from that push, but hey, if it were to involve your own personal safety, you are willing to let Muslim nations hang gays from construction cranes.
I would UNDERSTAND that you would urinate in my cake
What an odd statement. Obviously you think that Christian bakers are just as vile, just as vindictive as the gay community. Did you take that view based on what YOU would do? Obviously. Yet, you seem not to see the problem that thinking someone else would urinate into cake batter is, in itself, a problem.
I would remind you that decades ago, Virginia law allowed for the forced sterilization of various unpopular minorities.
And I would remind you that was a “progressive” policy, the same political philosophy you subscribe to. Those that were sterilized, including those citizens the “progressives” thought were defective (the mentally ill, Native Americans, the poor), all supported by the same woman who created Planned Parenthood. Eugenics was a “progressive” philosophy, not a conservative one. Now we (as a nation) rid ourselves of those [considered by the duplicitous left] undesirables by putting abortion clinics in black neighborhoods and near reservations. The largest abortion clinic in the nation owned by Planned Parenthood is in Houston, located in Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee’s district which is 90% minority. The whole ironic part of the tie between the gay community, which is generally left, if not far left, wing and abortion is that most gays support abortions. If a gay “gene” is ever discovered, and can be determined by DNA of parents or ambiotic fluids, women will then be able to abort their unborn if they don’t want a gay child. At that point, you will see the gays, en masse, come out against abortion. Hypocrites, all.
Part of the success the gay rights movement is having today undoubtedly comes from the growing awareness among the general public of exactly how unfair those old homophobic laws actually were.
No, the success of the gay “rights” movement is that it is built on lies, including the twisting of the truth in Lawrence vs. Texas.
What goes around comes around.
And you want to call others vindictive or biased? What a joke you are, George.
Tell us, George, do you support polygamy? How about incestuous marriages? Are you on board with those types of marriages?
Britain, France, and some Nordic countries, you say? Countries that have legalized gay marriage. Interesting…
You really took my breath away with that one!
What exactly are you working on here? This thread is about the civil rights issue centering on the question of whether or not discrimination based on sexual orientation shall be allowed in the provision of public services for reasons of religious freedom.
What bearing on this question does my lack of interest in the gay rights movements in Muslim countries have?
And what difference to this issue would it make whether or not I supported polygamy, or if I supported incestuous marriages? (Some states allow first cousins to marry, some don’t. So what? I can’t guess if it is this issue you are asking about, of if it is brother-sister couplings that you want an opinion on.) In any event, I don’t see the connection between this question and the desire to discriminate against gays on the grounds of religious freedom. I assume that you are bring your shopping cart of anti-gay gripes here simply because you can’t find a better place to air them, but considering the topic at hand, they aren’t worth comment.
Nanny G
10 years ago
@George Wells: This thread is about the civil rights issue centering on the question of whether or not discrimination based on sexual orientation shall be allowed in the provision of public services for reasons of religious freedom.
So, next you will be FOR forcing Animal Control agencies to put black cats up for adoption just before every Halloween?
All black cats and kittens are pulled from adoption in October every year….have been for decades now.
Why?
Discrimination against some religious groups who perform rites using the blood of such felines.
And, I’m not talking PRIVATE animal adoption agencies!
I am talking government owned ones!
Well, both, actually.
Your ”logic” is tested by the rule: what if everybody did it….in every situation…..including that one.
So, is it worth it to get a cake designed and set up by someone who would rather not when you realize that precident leads directly to dead cats and kittens?
Britain, France, and some Nordic countries, you say? Countries that have legalized gay marriage. Interesting…
You really took my breath away with that one!
You asked for societies that failed, not the ones that are currently failing. Take a look at Denmark. It is a failing Danish society. They are losing their identity, as a society, not only due to homosexual marriage but due to Muslim immigration and their failure to reproduce their own numbers. But fear not, George, when the Muslim finally become a majority in Denmark, gays will have to flee that country because the Muslims will be attaching a rope to their necks which will be attached to a construction crane. France is headed down that same wrong road.
What bearing on this question does my lack of interest in the gay rights movements in Muslim countries have?
Simple; if you believe in something, that belief should not end at the water’s edge where you are still comfortable. It makes you what you are; an opportunist.
And what difference to this issue would it make whether or not I supported polygamy, or if I supported incestuous marriages?
If you have to ask that question, it leaves us with two options; #1, you are playing stupid or #2, you are stupid.
Which is it?
IF THE GAYS ARE SO LIBERATED ABOUT SEX,
who’s to denyed THE FACT, THAT SOME OF THEM ARE HAVING SEX WITH ANIMAL,
WELL THEY THINK THAT ALL IS OKAY IN SEX PLEASURE,
so it would not be surprising to hear that has happened,
because those at the bottom of the GAY CHAIN ARE GIVEN THE OKAY OF FREEDOM FOR ALL TO DO WHAT THEY WANT,WITHOUT HAVING READ THE 10 COMMANDS OF GOD IN THE SCRIPTURE ,
George Wells
10 years ago
Bees! Good God! What ever makes you think that people who have sex with animals have to be gay????
Are all pedophiles gay? No.
Characterizations to the contrary are an insult to gay people who aren’t pedophiles (the vast majority of gay people are not pedophiles) and are also insulting to pedophiles who are heterosexual (the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.)
By the way, none of the Ten Commandments say a word on the subject of gay rights.
By the way, none of the Ten Commandments say a word on the subject of gay rights.
The Ten Commandments are God’s laws. He assumed man had enough sense to figure out for themselves that some things are wrong without him having to make a rule about it.
Wow, that’s a great cop-out! If all that God needed to set us up with knowledge of His will were those Ten Commandments, then why bother with all of those pages of the Bible? – the “inspired word of God”?
Bees’ remarks suggest that the only thing gays need to understand God’s will is to read the Ten Commandments. I was responding to what Bees said and mine was a rational response.
How nice that you, YOU!… are party to what God assumes about us!
Of GOD, redteam says in #90: “He (GOD) assumed man had enough sense to figure out for themselves that some things are wrong without him having to make a rule about it.”
If GOD made such a sweeping assumption as you say He did, then why ever did God or any of his followers go to all the trouble writing down so many rules in the Old Testament? And you think I have a screw loose?
If GOD made such a sweeping assumption as you say He did, then why ever did God or any of his followers go to all the trouble writing down so many rules
God gave all people a free will, some use that to choose to be a homosexual, most don’t. He knew there would be people that did not choose correctly, that’s why he made a hell.
George Wells
HI,
I was also thinking of an important fact.
that is: with this administration, who does everything they can
to control the lives of the PEOPLE ,so to follow their not youres but their own plan,
which is socialist marxist, it should warn you, to not engage too much asking for new laws,
because they will control your lives soon after, with all the thousands of pages of LAWS, AND ENTITELMENTS,
and like i mentioned on another comment before,
you and your group , might end up getting crumbs by losing your liberty and become dependant of the new law you want them to favor you with, and at the end, you might not find that you gain something for giving some piece of freedom, that you enjoy now, and your group also could regret it dearly,
after you get it and can no more go back,
surely you don’t think that they will give you your law for nothing, think again,
they are the kind who expect something for what they give, as if it come from their pockets,
we know any little bit cost, and it cost more if it come from them, it come from the pocket of the people, and they might make that law you want by also be infringing in the other PEOPLE ‘S freedom, the non gay,
BYE
George Wells
10 years ago
@Redteam #92:
“ALL homosexuals have a screw loose.”
And this childishly insulting remark is relevant to the issue of religious freedoms being infringed upon by anti-discrimination pressures how?
People resort to hurling insults and screaming “LIAR!” when they have no better logic to offer. It is comforting to me that you and retire05 resort to these tactics so frequently, as it demonstrates the logical indefensibility of your positions. Thank you for this encouragement!
I am sorry that you are so afraid of a society in which all law-abiding people enjoy equal rights, and that you believe that the cost of achieving that goal will be unacceptably high.
No, my “group” won’t regret equal rights, any more than women did when they won the hard-fought battle for the right to vote, or any more than black folk regretted winning freedom from slavery and everything they’ve gained since. Does the oppressing majority lose something when equality is granted? YES! It loses an advantage it did not deserve in the first place. Justice is served.
George Wells
what equalIty? is it a yes man on paper? IN EXCHANGE FOR YOUR VOTES, done by an administration you can’T trust to upheld,?
IT would be wiser of you to clean your group of those who abuse already a right they don’T HAVE,
IMAGINE IF THEY HAD IT ON WRITTING, FOR ALL TO BE ABLE TO GET YOUR PRIVATE SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND OF ALL YOUR GROUP,
THAT CLEANING TASK IS HEAVYER BUT REQUIRED BEFORE YOU CLAIM ANYTHING ELSE,
THAT IS THE EDUCATION OF THE FRINGE ON YOUR GROUP, ON
WHAT IS UNACEPTTABLE PUBLIC BEHAVIOUR WHICH INFRING
IN THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS who want to BE SPARED OF PUBLIC,
PHYSICAL
DEMONSTRATION OF THEIR SEXUAL STATE OF MIND PERVERSION,
THAN YOU CAN ASK FOR WHATEVER RIGHTS YOU THINK TO NEED, IN THIS FREE COUNTRY,
beside you cannot equate your demands ,using those other rights,
with the WOMAN’S RIGHTS WON ,FROM A LONG TIME AGO,
AND OF THE BLACKS CIVIL RIGHTS, WON ALSO A LONG TIME AGO. THERE WAS NO PERVERSION INVOLVED IN THESES TWO,
THEY WHERE NOT even CLOSELY RESSEMBLING TO YOUR CAUSE,
you come here to seek opinions, here we are giving it to you,
you come here to seek opinions, here we are giving it to you,
No, Bees. George comes here to push his agenda. He cares naught for our opinion. He comes here to try to convince us that his demands not for tolerance, but for total acceptance, are just. He comes here to inform us that a practice, that has been rejected by a majority of humanity for millenniums, is normal to be accepted whether we want to or not.
Make no mistake; George does not care for your opinion. Nor does anyone of his ilk, that is willing to push an agenda on the majority that does not want it. And like the insatiable hydra, his movement will never be satisfied. They will always demand more. From what started out as a movement to allow consenting adults to have the right to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes, it has morphed into a demand for laws to be changed, special rights to be bestowed, organizations to be destroyed or redirected from their original mission and goals and children to be indoctrinated into their abnormal life styles.
That, and not obtaining our opinion, is George’s purpose.
retire05
yes i believe you are right< because he block all what this side bellieve,
that is telling about his mindset to stick to his beliefs, and not including
the opinions of the oposition,
it tell of how liberal he is in to his neck in not forAMERICA BETTERNESS,, but his own self, agenda,
LIKE OBAMA , NOT WANTING TO DISCUSS THE DEMANDS OF TED CRUZ, WHO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, NOT HIMSELF ALONE,
BUT THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO COMPROMISE ARE SELFISH AND NOT SMART ENOUGH,
TO SEE AHEAD OF THEIR ACTIONS THAT IS CALLED THE CONSEQUENCES ALWAYS THERE TO
MAKE THEM WRONG,
BUT NOW HE DOING IT BY HIMSELF PLAYING AROUND THE OBAMACARE TO DELAY AND CHANGE THE RULES WHICH HE CANNOT PREVENT THE OUTCOME TO BE CRASHING MISERABLY,
SAME AS THIS ONE,
THERE IS MANY MORE PRIORITIES TO BE FIX FOR THE WHOLE OF THIS AMERICA,
YOU DON'T HEAR OF THE ELDER AND CRIPPLE AND RECOVERING FROM SICKNESS PEOPLE WHO WHERE CANCEL THE HELP AT HOME COVERAGE BY OBAMA, IS IN IT MORE IMPORTANT THAN
THE GAY DEMANDS, WHICH EVEN IF THE LAW PASS, THEY STILL WILL HAVE THE PEOPLE'S OPINION
UNCHANGE AND ENHANCE BY THEIR DISPLAY OF OBVIOUS SELFISH DEMANDS, to be saved from the people who say no to their demand to bake a cake, and their new found ability to suing their neignbord and brandish their laws,
at their business door, telling them : I won, AND YOU BETTER DELIVER OR I’LL RUIN YOU,
Redteam
10 years ago
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, that is very well said. Yes, they might not want all the laws that may be passed to protect them, it may protect them ‘too well’.
Well, tell me how you would prefer to hear it more maturely. Whether said in a childish insulting manner or adult insulting manner, wouldn’t the message be the same? Did you have a problem understanding my meaning just because it is said in a ‘childish manner’?
as it demonstrates the logical indefensibility of your positions.
You think I’m trying to ‘defend’ my position? It’s not me indulging in homosexuality, that’s a ‘defensive position’.
I find it curious that Retire05 claims to know so very much about gay culture. She will tell you all about gay bath-houses and the goings-on in the most notorious gay bars as if she personally frequents these establishments, and she also claims intimate knowledge of the gay community’s reverence for “infildlity.” It should be noted that her tabloid sensationalism accurately characterizes an extremely small fraction of the homosexual population – there are always a few hundred or even a few thousand exhibitionists who relish attention and who behave outrageously to get it. You should not mistake the actions of these few sociopaths for behavior characteristic of the average gay American. Retire05’s comments may accurately reflect the behavior of a marginalized cultural extremity, but are not relevant to the effort to obtain equal rights for the 10-25 million gay Americans who remain largely invisible to her.
Regarding “infidelity,” it is true that “fidelity” was never presented as a desirable option to the gay community. For the vast majority of heterosexuals, “fidelity” has been held in reverence historically, religiously and legally. The punishments for infidelity have been severe and serve as a powerful disincentive. But until quite recently (and certainly more recently than Retire05’s “information”) there has been no corresponding social disincentive regarding infidelity in the gay community. There has been no incentive for gays to remain faithful precisely as is provided exclusively (until recently) by the heterosexual institution of marriage. This is perhaps the strongest conservative argument in favor of gay marriage: Gay Marriage strengthens gay families, giving societally supported protections to each family member. As the AIDS epidemic taught us all too well, a considerable social value is realized when individuals couple monogamously and remain faithful, and this includes gay couples.
Retire05’s experience with gay culture is admittedly a sad one. She appears to have never met decent, well-adjusted gays who spend their time contributing meaningfully to the American experience instead of following selfishly hedonistic pursuits. As gay Americans become increasingly well-integrated into the society at large, Retire05’s experience will become rare, and like her hostile views on homosexuality, only significant in the historical context.
@George Wells:
In typical activist mode, you attack the messenger, not the message. A “few thousand” exhibitionists? Perhaps you should read the history of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States. But then, the history of the epidemic, and how it came about, doesn’t fit with your “we are just like you” mantra.
I see; so because we evil, bigoted, hateful, discriminating conservative legislators and voters didn’t give you the right to completely change the thousands of years old definition of marriage, you queers had no reason to be faithful to one partner? Really? You really want to stick with that excuse? What happened to the whole meme that you should be able to marry someone of the same gender because of love, respect, duty, responsibility and wanting to spend the rest of your life with just one person? Are your relationships so shallow that fidelity to that relationship is contingent on a piece of paper, i.e. a marriage license? If you can’t be faithful to someone you care about without legal recognition, that relationship will not be worth the paper it is legalized on. It is just that simple.
Yeah, I’m hostile toward gays (LOL). That’s why I volunteered at the AIDS hospital in Houston when most people still believed you could catch HIV/AIDS from a toilet seat. Who I am hostile toward are people like you, who shoots the messenger because the message is true and you can’t handle it since it goes against the whole propaganda campaign you have aligned yourself with.
Take your propaganda elsewhere, and tell it to someone who doesn’t know better. Tell it to someone who has never held the hand of an 18 year old as they died from AIDS because they were infected by a 40 year old who was totally aware they were infected and were infecting another. Frankly, I think we should have not given gay men such a pass and that anyone who knowingly was HIV positive and had unprotected sex with someone else should have been charged with attempted murder.
Deny the gay “culture” was the cause of massive infection rates in Los Angeles, New York, Houston and Washington, D.C. all you want. History, and CDC stats, don’t lie no matter how you want to rewrite the story.
@retire05 #56”
“…your “we are just like you” mantra.”
Sorry, not MY mantra. Go ahead and look – you won’t find those words or similar ones anywhere in anything I’ve written. Gay people ARE different, and I celebrate that. Equal rights don’t depend upon sameness. In fact, it is only in the context of “differentness” that equal rights take on any significant meaning.
I am “attacking” YOU because YOU choose to evaluate the current gay rights movement in the darkest light that you can find: an ugly epidemic of sexually transmitted disease that does NOT infect the majority of gay Americans. That choice is a deliberate attempt to avoid the arguments for gay rights that are based upon the principles of equality that are enshrined in our Constitution. It is the same strategy that you employ when you press the discussion toward “sodomy.” It is your “appeal to the “ick” factor” – a logical fallacy – that I attack. The readers here deserve better.
I agree that HIV-positive people who knowingly infect others are guilty of something (not “murder,” anymore, as the infectious condition is largely survivable at this point) but I am no more responsible for their behavior than you are. And bringing it up is just another of your irrelevant smoke screens. You might be more convincing if you stay on topic.
“What happened to the whole meme that you should be able to marry someone of the same gender because of love, respect, duty, responsibility and wanting to spend the rest of your life with just one person?”
Oh, of course we should. I was merely pointing out that an ancillary consequence of NOT allowing gay marriage, of NOT providing the societal incentive to bond as you mention above has exacerbated the problem (AIDS) – conservatives have unwittingly contributed to and are thus complicit in the tragedy that is AIDS. Odd that this never occurred to you as you ministered to the victims of that epidemic and saw how they had been abandoned by family and friends… had NO social support. If you were there out of compassion, what happened to it?
“If you can’t be faithful to someone you care about without legal recognition, that relationship will not be worth the paper it is legalized on.”
I agree 100%, and the statement is true regardless of whether the individuals are of the same or opposite gender. But if you are making the argument that “marriage” should not have any value to a gay couple, then what value would you assign to it in the case of straight couples? It has the same value to gays as it does to straights.
I was faithfully and monogamously “bonded” to Paul for 38 years BEFORE we got married in Maryland last May. Our relationship did not depend upon receipt of state sanction. But now that we ARE married, we receive many of the benefits that accrue from that status – and from which we were previously excluded – and we look forward to the day that Virginia officially ends its fight against our equal rights. It will be here soon.
George Wells
WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT AS GAIS,
you share this AMERICA WITH OTHER, WHY DO YOU WANT TO DIVIDE YOUR GROUP,
DON’T YOU HAVE SEEN ENOUGH OF DIVIDING by this admistration as soon as they took power,
they now have divided your group, just by the way you talk here, it’s easy to notice,
did AMERICA WAS MADE TO BE DIVIDED IN THE TWO CENTURYS PAST?
THESES TIMES ARE TESTING FOR ALL AMERICANS, BUT THEY WILL PASS IF WE PRAY HARD ENOUGH,
THINK OF AMERICA AND YOUR FREEDOM WHICH THEY TRY TO TAKE AWAY CHUNK BY CHUNK BY DIVIDING PEOPLE AND INCITE THEM AGAINST EACH OTHER,
SO YOU ARE GAI, AND MANY OTHER ARE GAI, YOU CAN LIVE FREE AND BE CONTENT OF WHAT YOU HAVE, ALL OF AMERICA, OR LIVE LIKE A HALF AMERICAN LIKE OBAMA IS PUSHING ON YOU.
BY GIVING YOU MAKE BELIEVE CRUMBS, to keep all of you quite
BYE
@ILOVEBEESWARZONE:
Bees, I mean you no disrespect when I say that I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
The progress of the gay (not “GAI”) rights movement has been ENORMOUS (nor “crumbs”). When I was a young adult, gay bars were routinely raided by the police and the patrons were arrested. There were laws that supported such actions. Those laws are now gone, not by popular vote of a decent citizenry, but by judicial intervention. Without the effort of individuals who are dedicated to the achievement of equal rights for all gay Americans, we would still be subject to that kind of treatment.
Perhaps you are suggesting that “dividing Americans” into two groups – one that wants to jail homosexuals and one that does not – is a bad thing, but I would disagree. If the Constitutional provisions guaranteeing equality for all Americans are to have any value or meaning, surely they are worth fighting for.
George Wells
hi,
I apologise for mistaken the word,
I was refering to all the divide this leader has created in this country,
since his first arrival on the scene,
BLACK AGAINST WHITE, POOR AGAINST RICH, IMMIGRANT AGAINST CITIZENS,
AND YOU ALL AGAINST OTHER SIDE, SAME IN POLITIC PARTY AGAINST EACH OTHER
THERE IS SO MANY SIDES NOW THAT IT’S NO MORE A SQUARE, BUT A MESS,
LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID TO THE TEA-PARTY WHO SUFFER FROM THE IRS WHO HAD ORDER TO VILIFY THEM AND USE THEIR JOB POWER TO HARRASS THEM AND TREAT THEM AS CRIMINAL,
THAT’S WHAT I MEANT,
BYE
Hi Bees:
Racial “divide” has existed forever and is the product of natural selection, not an invention of President Obama. The fact that he is at least fractionally black has inflamed some people who categorically hate blacks, but there is no escaping that, is there?
Anyone guided and encouraged by the noble tenets of our Constitution to fight against discrimination and oppression would be ill-advised to restrain themselves for the comfort of those who would oppress them. It IS a mess, but only because there are so many people who are motivated by greed to maintain unfair advantages over their fellow man.
@George Wells:
Bull. You are attacking me because I don’t buy into your “gay movement for equality” b/s. It is just that simple. You want to ignore the dark side of homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, in order to push your agenda. I am not going to let you do that now any more than I did the last time you popped up on this blog and started blathering your agenda.
Do not think it went unnoticed that you referred to the “I am “attacking” YOU because YOU choose to evaluate the current gay rights movement in the darkest light that you can find: an ugly epidemic of sexually transmitted disease that does NOT infect the majority of gay Americans” by including women in the mix of “gay Americans.” That way, it reduces the number of gays who are HIV positive and deludes the truth: that 35 years after the discovery and diagnosis of the “gay cancer” and millions of dollars spent on awareness programs, HIV stats continue to rise shockingly in gay men. In 2010, the latest CDC stat, of the 46,350 new cases of HIV, 29,800 of those cases were in gay males, a 3,100 rise from 2008. MSM (male sex with male) accounted for 52% of ALL people living with HIV in 2009.
On top of that, a strange thing happened on the way to the clinic. The number of syphilis cases is rapidly increasing in the MSM group, while remaining flat in the heterosexual group. You would think by now that the gay male community would realize there is danger in casual sex life style.
Why is that, George? Why, after almost 35 years, is HIV still climbing in the gay men subgroup when it is decreasing in the heterosexual groups? Are you going to tell us that the gay “culture” doesn’t have something to do with those states, because I contend they do.
My compassion remains. While I don’t agree with how a prostitute makes her living, I would not want to deny her a warm hand of friendship if she were dying from cancer. Unlike gays, who seems to have one goal (pushing their false marriage “equality” meme on the rest of the nation) I care for those who are ill and perhaps dying. I don’t have to approve of the sin to be compassionate toward the sinner. And no matter what you claim (like your reference to Justice Burger which I call b/s on) sodomy is not acceptable. Mother Nature stands in your way of being on the right side of nature which is to guarantee the survival of the species.
And exactly what did you gain that could not have been achieved by a simply visit to an attorney to draw up certain documents?
George Wells
YES THAT’S A GOOD POINT TO FINISH YOUR COMMENT,
I was not refering to races divide which he also tryed to divide,
but the bigger groups of one specific target,the leader try to divide,THEY ARE many specific groups,
the poor against the wealthy he pound on often, the other groups also like the REPUBLICANS they attack
WITH HATEFULL REMARKS WICH YOU DID NOT ENCOUNTER BEFORE THAT ADMINISTRATION,
NEVER TO THAT HIGH LEVEL OF HATE, WE HAVE MANY PROOFS OF THAT ATTITUDE IN THESES
LAST YEARS, RESULTING IN A DEFEATIST DEPRESS CITIZENRY TO POUND ON EACH OTHER
SO TO FREE THEIR MIND FROM SUCH NEGATIVE , BOMBARDING THEM UNSTOP,
BYE
@retire05 # 58:
“Why is that, George? Why, after almost 35 years, is HIV still climbing in the gay men subgroup when it is decreasing in the heterosexual groups? Are you going to tell us that the gay “culture” doesn’t have something to do with those states, (my correction: stats) because I contend they do.”
You continue to help me press my case for equality. I already explained the connection between the marginalization of the gay subculture and its consequent sociopathic behavior re: the connection between denying gays the right to marriage (and in particular it’s stabilizing influence) and self-destructive behaviors of the sort that were instrumental in the spread of HIV to the American public. The number of HIV infections continue to rise because:
1. The number of gay people continues to rise with the population and,
2. HIV and AIDS are not the deadly villains they were 30 years ago and,
3. With 33 states still refusing them marriage equality, most gays still lack the social encouragement to marry that heterosexuals enjoy.
What REALISTIC advice has ever been offered to gay men concerning their sexual conduct? Abstain, abstain, abstain? Well now, that really works for Catholic priests, doesn’t it? Unless you forcibly suppress the sex drive (surgically or pharmacologically), suggesting abstinence is a fools gambit. And with nothing but a bunch of preachers explaining to them that they will burn in Eternal Hell for their “sins,” gay men understandably threw in the towel, concluding that their best option was to at least have a good time while they were here. At the time most gay males became sexually active, their knowledge of the risks of unprotected sex were pregnancy related, and for gay males, that issue was moot. Nobody knew about HIV and AIDS until it was everywhere. AND! Even when it WAS understood within the scientific community, conservatives fought every effort to get the message out to gays, refused funding for research, and hoped that gay people would all just die. It was “God’s will, remember? Ronald Reagan notoriously went years as president before ever uttering a word about AIDS. So deep and complete was the stigmatization of gay people that “decent” folk dared not speak these words. And yet you now fail to understand the residual effects this treatment has had on the gay community? YES! Gay culture DOES have EVERYTHING to do with (your) stats! But that culture did not evolve in a vacuum! It evolved in the ugly, repressive, persecutive environment that YOU created for it – the closet YOU forced it into. I am baffled that you are so blind to this obvious cause and effect. Wake up!
“And exactly what did you gain that could not have been achieved by a simply visit to an attorney to draw up certain documents?”
Not that I think it has any bearing on this discussion, but for the enlightenment of others I offer the following: My health insurance is now provided through my husband Paul’s employer – the Federal Government – who required a copy of our marriage certificate to establish my eligibility. An attorney could not have drawn up a document to obtain a similar benefit. There are more, but you don’t really want to know about them, because they contradict your belief that gay marriage is unnecessary and meaningless.
And by the way, if you google “Betty Wells, artist,” you will find out about my mother, who illustrated at the Burger Supreme Court for many years and who painted Warren Burger’s – and his wife Elvera’s – portraits. It was during sittings of each at Mom’s art studio that questions regarding gay rights were asked. Why ever would you think I would lie about such an experience? Does my account not comport with everything you already understand about the conservatism of the SCOTUS? Or is the only “logic” you have left in your campaign against gay equality the cry “BULL! and “LIAR!” ?
@George Wells:
Wow. Powerful stuff, George. I suspect many well-meaning conservatives are unaware of this important historical truth. This is possibly due to (one of) the widely disseminated contemporary anti-gay marriage arguments which rests largely upon an amnesiac and rose-tinted conception of contemporary gay life, that everything is good enough now, so why are these greedy people asking for more? This argument ignores both the struggles and suffering that have attended any gains and the fact that the examples of “good enough” offered are gains not shared across the board. Americans should have the same rights everywhere in America, so offering the gay experience in Massachusetts as an example of why there is no work left to be done in, say, Alabama is plain ridiculous.
Specfic to this thread, I salute your equanimity in the face of virulent hatred and bigotry. At least you have the satisfaction of knowing that the open-minded who come across this will take something away from your reasoned comments.
@George Wells:
Let me see if I understand you correctly; you’re blaming the promiscuous, out of control sexual actions of gay men, spreading HIV/AIDS as they go, on the fact that their actions were frowned upon by the majority of American society? Really? You really want to stick with that excuse?
so what? Are you saying that gays are just as promiscuous and engage in unsafe sex as they did 35 years ago when the HIV/AIDS virus was still called the “gay cancer?”
And it is still incurable. It is still, for all intent and purposes, a death sentence.
What state can you name that asks the question “Are you gay” on any marriage license?
Bullshit. That is simply a lie. No one forces any gay man to engage in risky, unprotected sex. Not me, or any of the other straights you seem to hold in such little regard.
As a Catholic, I was against the admission of homosexual men into the seminaries when the Jesuits first decided to allow them. I was proven right due to the abuse that eventually was revealed. Thanks for making my point for me.
Why? Are you saying that we are nothing more than animals who cannot control our urges? Just animals who have no other option but to succumb to animal instincts?
So what is their excuse 35 years, multiple millions of dollars on research and information, later?
Really? Actually, it was names when it was pretty much contained a handful of major cities. Of course you blame conservatives. Tell me, George, what was the political philosophy of Don Francis? You’re a sick, hateful sodomist, aren’t you?
Because you are a gay, left winger who is prone to lying.
@Tom:
Of course, George didn’t bother to tell you how the gay bars were used like the San Francisco bath houses where gay men could go to have unprotected sex with multiple partners in one visit, or how they were nothing but breeding grounds for the transmittal of HIV/AIDS. He won’t tell you the shady part of the gay bar scene, with their back rooms filled with gay men having sex with other gay men without even bothering to ask what they name was.
No, he’ll whitewash those facts.
Does anyone doubt that Puritanism is alive and well in America?
@Tom:
Does anyone doubt that every society that has ever normalized sodomy had failed? Hello, Mayans? Hello, ancient Rome? Hello, Spartans?
Perhaps therein lies the appeal to you.
@retire05 #63:
I have heard that some gay bars were like the ones you frequented and are telling us about now, but the few I ever visited were singularly boring and not at all worth the risk of arrest. They were in Norfolk, Virginia, not San Francisco. If gay bars (or any type, for that matter)(anywhere) featured illegal activity, they were right to be shut down, and the patrons engaging in those activities should have been arrested. But in Virginia, the laws forbade homosexuals from GATHERING (as well as copulating in private), and it was THOSE laws which were used to justify the arrest of innocent patrons of public establishments and which were eventually and rightfully overturned.
You are correct that I AM making a selective presentation. I am describing the persecution of individuals who were engaged in innocent activities. I DO make a distinction between them and the others you keep reminding us of who recklessly engaged in unlawful activities. You seem to be making an argument that ALL gays should be punished, that the misbehavior of some warrants second class status for all. But to deprive an entire class of people their equal rights – TODAY – because a fraction of their number engaged in harmful activities – DECADES AGO – violates so many principles of justice it boggles the mind. Fortunately, the views on gay rights are “evolving” for the majority of Americans. How sad that you’ve missed the boat…
@Tom:
I doubt that. Any time people violate the laws, they may get raided. Right or wrong, at the time it was illegal. I think the police should always attempt to enforce the laws. If you don’t like the laws being enforced, have the laws changed.
can you explain why homosexuality is described as ‘the gay experience’. Would you suggest that heterosexuality should be described as ‘the straight experience’. Why is it an ‘experience’?
Here are the top 3 def’s of experience for dictionary. com:
1. a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something: My encounter with the bear in the woods was a frightening experience.
2. the process or fact of personally observing, encountering, or undergoing something: business experience.
3. the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time: to learn from experience; the range of human experience.
Wouldn’t it more closely be a lifestyle and not an experience? If it were something that happens/happened naturally, would it be an experience?
I agree with Retire, that there is nothing you and your partner couldn’t accomplish legally without the fakery of pretending marriage? Marriage is and will always be a union of a man and a woman. Two men or two women can live together in a partnership, but they can never be married. They also can not have children or extend their line of ancestry.
@George Wells:
If you think the US is unfriendly toward gays, how do you feel about Muslim countries, such as Iran? You ever think of moving there and insisting on your ‘rights’? If you think the US is unfriendly, just consider moving over there.
One other question George, would you insist that someone making wedding cakes should have to make one for a gay wedding if they told the gay people it is against their religion? Do you think Muslims should be forced to provide wedding cakes for gays?
@retire05 #65:
“Does anyone doubt that every society that has ever normalized sodomy had failed? Hello, Mayans? Hello, ancient Rome? Hello, Spartans?”
OK, which society HASN’T failed??? They all eventually change to the point that their original construction is gone. Monarchies, Dictatorships, Republics – they all eventually morph into completely different entities, and not because the principles of governance are particularly flawed (though none of them are perfect, to be sure) but because the forms of governance are only as good as the people who run them.
A good constitution is a great start, and I think that we have a good one, but the ideological friction between our modern principles of equality and the ancient proscriptions of the Old Testament is a problem that we need to resolve. A good start would be for YOU to stop being so selective in upholding only those admonishments of Deuteronomy that support your fight against gay rights. IF the Bible is God’s will, it is ALL God’s will. How else could you choose correctly?
@George Wells:
So that rather clearly says that you think the police were right to raid the gay bars and shut down the illegal (gay sex) activities. Now I can see where you think it was wrong for the gay activities to be illegal, but illegal they were at that time.
But you do admit that, at the time, those activities were illegal. Maybe not right, in your opinion, but still illegal. Speeding 5 miles over the speed limit is illegal and can get you a ticket. maybe not right, but it is illegal. Just your feeling that it shouldn’t be illegal, at the time, was not sufficient for law enforcement to ignore the law.
No you are not, you are, in fact, by your own admission admitting that they were engaged in activities that were illegal, at that time.
I think you are very mistaken. More people are willing to agree to let some of them have some rights, but it doesn’t mean that they ‘accept’ it. While I am in agreement for them to have civil unions and live together in partnerships, there is no way in hell I would attend a gay wedding. I think more people share that feeling than that gays are ‘evolving’.
@Redteam #68:
Good to hear from you!
Actually, I lament the focus on the baking of wedding cakes because the subject lends such a silly air to the discussion. I rather prefer to up the ante and put the question in a critical-to-life form, precisely because people think that withholding critical-to-life services (emergency room doctors, for instance, or fire fighters) is a very serious issue, while cakes and cookies are not.
But to your question: I said before that IF a person chooses to work in a field where a service or good is provided to members of the public, then that person should be prepared to serve any and all members of that public. PERIOD. Once exceptions are allowed – discrimination for whatever reason is condoned – you tell ME, where is the line drawn? It would be all too easy to get to the point where water fountains and restaurants had signs that said “No Gays.” Not to mention that societal acceptance of that type of discrimination is taken by many as encouragement to perpetrate violence against the target underclass.
In reality, the issue is more of a legal battle than a practical one. A baker who is FORCED to make a cake he doesn’t want to make is likely to urinate in the batter, and at least MOST people understand this and would be reluctant to order such a cake for that reason. But still, in THIS country, where our Constitution guarantees equality with such eloquence as it does, yes, a Muslim or any other baker should have no legitimate reason to refuse a service or product to one person that he or she is willing to provide to another.
To your other question, of course (silly boy!) I don’t EVER consider taking the good fight to a Muslim country. Or to Uganda, or to any other Death-To-Fags! hell-hole. Those countries and the people in them have their own battles to fight. I’ve served my country honorably and with distinction, worked a successful career, paid my taxes and social security, and worked long and hard for the causes that are important to me. And in these my twilight years, I am comforted that my efforts are bearing abundant fruit, whether because of by contributions or in spite of them. No sir, MY country is VERY friendly – more so every day – and victory is near. I’m happy as a clam!
@George Wells:
Good question George. Every society that has failed did so because of liberalism and socialism. When they get to the point that the government has more obligations to give away free stuff than people are willing to work to give the money to the government to give away that free stuff to the voters that support that government, then the society ceases to exist as a free society. We are way down that road here. The final straw is likely to be when about 10 million more illegal aliens are given the right to vote, because surely they will vote for the liberals that will vote to give them free Social Security and medicare and welfare.
@George Wells:
What would be your response if you came into my wedding cake store and I told you it was against my religion to attend a gay wedding, but you insisted so I told you: You have to pay in advance, there will be no refund, you may not be happy with my service. ?
The water fountain thing is not applicable because it does not involve humans, only equipment. I don’t see a woman not wanting to attend a gay wedding as a ‘likely to perpetrate violence’ situation.
I can certainly understand that, but I thought your concern was for all the gay people who are being discriminated against and surely they are facing much more violent discrimination there than they are here. You would get more bang for the buck, seems like.
One other question George, since you are so concerned about everyone’s right to do what they want to do, how do you feel about people walking around with sheets over their heads with KKK on them?
@Redteam #70:
(Yawn) …What is your point? Yes, I told you what the Virginia Law was, and Yes, the police were acting in accordance with that law. I did not say otherwise. I also said that the Supreme Court threw out those laws because they violated equal protection guarantees found in the Constitution. Remember that Germens followed Hitler’s laws during WWII – posterity does not always grant a free pass to those who blindly obey bad laws. Like the War Crimes Court, I too make a distinction between legitimate, just laws and the other type. Fortunately, unjustly homophobic laws are now dropping like flies. The present progression of gay rights leaves no doubt as to what the ultimate conclusion will be. 50-state gay marriage is inevitable. You have my sympathy.
@George Wells:
The point was that you did say the people were violating the law but then you said that the enforcement of THOSE laws were used to justify the arrest of innocent patrons.
My point was that the people were violating the law and should have expected to be arrested if they expected police officers to uphold the laws. They were not ‘innocent’ persons. They were violating laws.
In 66 you said:
Redteam:
“since you are so concerned about everyone’s right to do what they want to do”
Stop it! I never said that, nor implied that. I’m happy to argue over issues and to defend the things that I say, but your fictional characterization of me deserves nothing.
To the other question – I thought that I answered that. I would UNDERSTAND that you would urinate in my cake (from what you said in response to my request) so I would thank you politely and take my business elsewhere. I’m not a litigator. But others are, and they would be free to have their cake tested, and you might get thrown in jail when the tests come back positive for uric acid. That would be how the law works.
@George Wells:
There will never be ‘gay marriage’ anywhere. There is no definition of marriage that includes same sex partners. As I said, I have no problem with civil unions. I don’t need any sympathy, it is not I that will be living a lie.
@Redteam:
I would remind you that decades ago, Virginia law allowed for the forced sterilization of various unpopular minorities. That law was overturned, and the VICTIMS of those sterilizations were eventually financially compensated for those LAWFULLY conducted sterilizations. I’ll say it again: Nobody gets a free pass for obeying a bad law. At some point, responsibility of conscience has to be accounted for. Part of the success the gay rights movement is having today undoubtedly comes from the growing awareness among the general public of exactly how unfair those old homophobic laws actually were. What goes around comes around.
@ Redteam #77:
Be my guest. Live in denial. Good night!
@George Wells:
Suppose in this contract to supply a wedding cake, it said that you agree to accept the cake that I prepare for you. There are other natural ingredients that don’t involve uric acid. I think if I were running a wedding cake company, I could figure out plenty of legal ways to discourage certain customers. You know that many stores have signs that say that they can refuse to allow you in if you’re not wearing a shirt or shoes. There are contracts with terms that have to be acceptable to both parties.
George Wells
ON 60
retire05 HAS A GOOD IMPORTANT POINT, about the HIV problem,
the happening of this sickness meant something that theses conducts of having sex with many different humans was an anathema, and it made the GAY think hard and confronted that when there is an epidemic sickness in a community< they have been engage in activity against nature itself who came out fighting it with an ultimate warning,
it told us that it was un_natural to have same gender sex, THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION,
and it made you rethink of still have sex but with one in a mariage union,
so you started to demand the same right as the other unions, you even ask for the blessing of that union
to be legal, but it "s still dangerous that hiv to come back to take lives,
because the danger is not out of the way as long as the sexual activity continue,
if it was countain to homosexsuals it might even be a bigger virus rendered more potent,
because of his longevity, and having been more accustomed with time,
we know those affected where not all changing partner,
@George Wells:
I would say there are lots of societies that have not failed. Those in western Europe (Great Britain and France) and the Nordic countries. There is a difference (although you will have spin to add) between changes and total societal collapse and failure.
And a good start would be for YOU to stop trying to put words in my mouth. Where, in any post I have made, have I mentioned anything Biblical, especially Deuteronomy? I haven’t. So why do you try to indicate that I have? That one thing alone, makes you, if not a liar, someone who spins the truth.
I see; the courage of your convictions ends at the water’s edge. You are quite willing to push your agenda in a nation where you know there will be no repercussions from that push, but hey, if it were to involve your own personal safety, you are willing to let Muslim nations hang gays from construction cranes.
What an odd statement. Obviously you think that Christian bakers are just as vile, just as vindictive as the gay community. Did you take that view based on what YOU would do? Obviously. Yet, you seem not to see the problem that thinking someone else would urinate into cake batter is, in itself, a problem.
And I would remind you that was a “progressive” policy, the same political philosophy you subscribe to. Those that were sterilized, including those citizens the “progressives” thought were defective (the mentally ill, Native Americans, the poor), all supported by the same woman who created Planned Parenthood. Eugenics was a “progressive” philosophy, not a conservative one. Now we (as a nation) rid ourselves of those [considered by the duplicitous left] undesirables by putting abortion clinics in black neighborhoods and near reservations. The largest abortion clinic in the nation owned by Planned Parenthood is in Houston, located in Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee’s district which is 90% minority. The whole ironic part of the tie between the gay community, which is generally left, if not far left, wing and abortion is that most gays support abortions. If a gay “gene” is ever discovered, and can be determined by DNA of parents or ambiotic fluids, women will then be able to abort their unborn if they don’t want a gay child. At that point, you will see the gays, en masse, come out against abortion. Hypocrites, all.
No, the success of the gay “rights” movement is that it is built on lies, including the twisting of the truth in Lawrence vs. Texas.
And you want to call others vindictive or biased? What a joke you are, George.
Tell us, George, do you support polygamy? How about incestuous marriages? Are you on board with those types of marriages?
@retire05 #82:
Britain, France, and some Nordic countries, you say? Countries that have legalized gay marriage. Interesting…
You really took my breath away with that one!
What exactly are you working on here? This thread is about the civil rights issue centering on the question of whether or not discrimination based on sexual orientation shall be allowed in the provision of public services for reasons of religious freedom.
What bearing on this question does my lack of interest in the gay rights movements in Muslim countries have?
And what difference to this issue would it make whether or not I supported polygamy, or if I supported incestuous marriages? (Some states allow first cousins to marry, some don’t. So what? I can’t guess if it is this issue you are asking about, of if it is brother-sister couplings that you want an opinion on.) In any event, I don’t see the connection between this question and the desire to discriminate against gays on the grounds of religious freedom. I assume that you are bring your shopping cart of anti-gay gripes here simply because you can’t find a better place to air them, but considering the topic at hand, they aren’t worth comment.
So, next you will be FOR forcing Animal Control agencies to put black cats up for adoption just before every Halloween?
All black cats and kittens are pulled from adoption in October every year….have been for decades now.
Why?
Discrimination against some religious groups who perform rites using the blood of such felines.
And, I’m not talking PRIVATE animal adoption agencies!
I am talking government owned ones!
Well, both, actually.
Your ”logic” is tested by the rule: what if everybody did it….in every situation…..including that one.
So, is it worth it to get a cake designed and set up by someone who would rather not when you realize that precident leads directly to dead cats and kittens?
@George Wells:
You asked for societies that failed, not the ones that are currently failing. Take a look at Denmark. It is a failing Danish society. They are losing their identity, as a society, not only due to homosexual marriage but due to Muslim immigration and their failure to reproduce their own numbers. But fear not, George, when the Muslim finally become a majority in Denmark, gays will have to flee that country because the Muslims will be attaching a rope to their necks which will be attached to a construction crane. France is headed down that same wrong road.
Simple; if you believe in something, that belief should not end at the water’s edge where you are still comfortable. It makes you what you are; an opportunist.
If you have to ask that question, it leaves us with two options; #1, you are playing stupid or #2, you are stupid.
Which is it?
IF THE GAYS ARE SO LIBERATED ABOUT SEX,
who’s to denyed THE FACT, THAT SOME OF THEM ARE HAVING SEX WITH ANIMAL,
WELL THEY THINK THAT ALL IS OKAY IN SEX PLEASURE,
so it would not be surprising to hear that has happened,
because those at the bottom of the GAY CHAIN ARE GIVEN THE OKAY OF FREEDOM FOR ALL TO DO WHAT THEY WANT,WITHOUT HAVING READ THE 10 COMMANDS OF GOD IN THE SCRIPTURE ,
Bees! Good God! What ever makes you think that people who have sex with animals have to be gay????
Are all pedophiles gay? No.
Characterizations to the contrary are an insult to gay people who aren’t pedophiles (the vast majority of gay people are not pedophiles) and are also insulting to pedophiles who are heterosexual (the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.)
By the way, none of the Ten Commandments say a word on the subject of gay rights.
@George Wells:
The Ten Commandments are God’s laws. He assumed man had enough sense to figure out for themselves that some things are wrong without him having to make a rule about it.
@Redteam #88:
Wow, that’s a great cop-out! If all that God needed to set us up with knowledge of His will were those Ten Commandments, then why bother with all of those pages of the Bible? – the “inspired word of God”?
Bees’ remarks suggest that the only thing gays need to understand God’s will is to read the Ten Commandments. I was responding to what Bees said and mine was a rational response.
How nice that you, YOU!… are party to what God assumes about us!
@George Wells:
God assumes you have a screw loose.
@Redteam #90:
Of GOD, redteam says in #90: “He (GOD) assumed man had enough sense to figure out for themselves that some things are wrong without him having to make a rule about it.”
If GOD made such a sweeping assumption as you say He did, then why ever did God or any of his followers go to all the trouble writing down so many rules in the Old Testament? And you think I have a screw loose?
@George Wells:
ALL homosexuals have a screw loose.
God gave all people a free will, some use that to choose to be a homosexual, most don’t. He knew there would be people that did not choose correctly, that’s why he made a hell.
George Wells
HI,
I was also thinking of an important fact.
that is: with this administration, who does everything they can
to control the lives of the PEOPLE ,so to follow their not youres but their own plan,
which is socialist marxist, it should warn you, to not engage too much asking for new laws,
because they will control your lives soon after, with all the thousands of pages of LAWS, AND ENTITELMENTS,
and like i mentioned on another comment before,
you and your group , might end up getting crumbs by losing your liberty and become dependant of the new law you want them to favor you with, and at the end, you might not find that you gain something for giving some piece of freedom, that you enjoy now, and your group also could regret it dearly,
after you get it and can no more go back,
surely you don’t think that they will give you your law for nothing, think again,
they are the kind who expect something for what they give, as if it come from their pockets,
we know any little bit cost, and it cost more if it come from them, it come from the pocket of the people, and they might make that law you want by also be infringing in the other PEOPLE ‘S freedom, the non gay,
BYE
@Redteam #92:
“ALL homosexuals have a screw loose.”
And this childishly insulting remark is relevant to the issue of religious freedoms being infringed upon by anti-discrimination pressures how?
People resort to hurling insults and screaming “LIAR!” when they have no better logic to offer. It is comforting to me that you and retire05 resort to these tactics so frequently, as it demonstrates the logical indefensibility of your positions. Thank you for this encouragement!
@ILOVEBEESWARZONE #93:
I am sorry that you are so afraid of a society in which all law-abiding people enjoy equal rights, and that you believe that the cost of achieving that goal will be unacceptably high.
No, my “group” won’t regret equal rights, any more than women did when they won the hard-fought battle for the right to vote, or any more than black folk regretted winning freedom from slavery and everything they’ve gained since. Does the oppressing majority lose something when equality is granted? YES! It loses an advantage it did not deserve in the first place. Justice is served.
George Wells
what equalIty? is it a yes man on paper? IN EXCHANGE FOR YOUR VOTES, done by an administration you can’T trust to upheld,?
IT would be wiser of you to clean your group of those who abuse already a right they don’T HAVE,
IMAGINE IF THEY HAD IT ON WRITTING, FOR ALL TO BE ABLE TO GET YOUR PRIVATE SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND OF ALL YOUR GROUP,
THAT CLEANING TASK IS HEAVYER BUT REQUIRED BEFORE YOU CLAIM ANYTHING ELSE,
THAT IS THE EDUCATION OF THE FRINGE ON YOUR GROUP, ON
WHAT IS UNACEPTTABLE PUBLIC BEHAVIOUR WHICH INFRING
IN THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS who want to BE SPARED OF PUBLIC,
PHYSICAL
DEMONSTRATION OF THEIR SEXUAL STATE OF MIND PERVERSION,
THAN YOU CAN ASK FOR WHATEVER RIGHTS YOU THINK TO NEED, IN THIS FREE COUNTRY,
beside you cannot equate your demands ,using those other rights,
with the WOMAN’S RIGHTS WON ,FROM A LONG TIME AGO,
AND OF THE BLACKS CIVIL RIGHTS, WON ALSO A LONG TIME AGO. THERE WAS NO PERVERSION INVOLVED IN THESES TWO,
THEY WHERE NOT even CLOSELY RESSEMBLING TO YOUR CAUSE,
you come here to seek opinions, here we are giving it to you,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
No, Bees. George comes here to push his agenda. He cares naught for our opinion. He comes here to try to convince us that his demands not for tolerance, but for total acceptance, are just. He comes here to inform us that a practice, that has been rejected by a majority of humanity for millenniums, is normal to be accepted whether we want to or not.
Make no mistake; George does not care for your opinion. Nor does anyone of his ilk, that is willing to push an agenda on the majority that does not want it. And like the insatiable hydra, his movement will never be satisfied. They will always demand more. From what started out as a movement to allow consenting adults to have the right to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes, it has morphed into a demand for laws to be changed, special rights to be bestowed, organizations to be destroyed or redirected from their original mission and goals and children to be indoctrinated into their abnormal life styles.
That, and not obtaining our opinion, is George’s purpose.
retire05
yes i believe you are right< because he block all what this side bellieve,
that is telling about his mindset to stick to his beliefs, and not including
the opinions of the oposition,
it tell of how liberal he is in to his neck in not forAMERICA BETTERNESS,, but his own self, agenda,
LIKE OBAMA , NOT WANTING TO DISCUSS THE DEMANDS OF TED CRUZ, WHO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, NOT HIMSELF ALONE,
BUT THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO COMPROMISE ARE SELFISH AND NOT SMART ENOUGH,
TO SEE AHEAD OF THEIR ACTIONS THAT IS CALLED THE CONSEQUENCES ALWAYS THERE TO
MAKE THEM WRONG,
BUT NOW HE DOING IT BY HIMSELF PLAYING AROUND THE OBAMACARE TO DELAY AND CHANGE THE RULES WHICH HE CANNOT PREVENT THE OUTCOME TO BE CRASHING MISERABLY,
SAME AS THIS ONE,
THERE IS MANY MORE PRIORITIES TO BE FIX FOR THE WHOLE OF THIS AMERICA,
YOU DON'T HEAR OF THE ELDER AND CRIPPLE AND RECOVERING FROM SICKNESS PEOPLE WHO WHERE CANCEL THE HELP AT HOME COVERAGE BY OBAMA, IS IN IT MORE IMPORTANT THAN
THE GAY DEMANDS, WHICH EVEN IF THE LAW PASS, THEY STILL WILL HAVE THE PEOPLE'S OPINION
UNCHANGE AND ENHANCE BY THEIR DISPLAY OF OBVIOUS SELFISH DEMANDS, to be saved from the people who say no to their demand to bake a cake, and their new found ability to suing their neignbord and brandish their laws,
at their business door, telling them : I won, AND YOU BETTER DELIVER OR I’LL RUIN YOU,
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, that is very well said. Yes, they might not want all the laws that may be passed to protect them, it may protect them ‘too well’.
@George Wells:
Well, tell me how you would prefer to hear it more maturely. Whether said in a childish insulting manner or adult insulting manner, wouldn’t the message be the same? Did you have a problem understanding my meaning just because it is said in a ‘childish manner’?
You think I’m trying to ‘defend’ my position? It’s not me indulging in homosexuality, that’s a ‘defensive position’.