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
@kraken #199:
Thanks for the careful analysis. If BOTH sides of this issue would occasionally suspend their deaf-and-dumb acts and work together to find equitable compromises, this would be a better world.
George Wells
you remind me of the RUSSIANS living in CRIMEA,
saying if both sides would get together and talk of a solution,
both sides of what? what again? SAY IT,
THEY MEAN CRIMEA , BUT CRIMEA BELONG TO UKRAINE,
WHY SHOULD THEY WANT TO TALK OF A COUNTRY THEY DON’T OWN, AND NO VOTES , NO PAPER , NO WORDS CAN CHANGE IT, IT’S UKRAINE , NOT THEIR OWN , IT’S A COUNTRY ,
TO A PEOPLE NOT IN THEIR COUNTRY, WITH NO ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR HOST, HAVING LET THE INVASION HAPPEN TO THE COUNTRY WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO SHARE WITH THEM,
THEIR SOVEREIGNTY UNDISPUTED,
YOU ARE TRYING TO SELL THE IDEA THAT THIS COUNTRY IS HALF YOURS, AND YOU WANT TO GET TOGETHER TO TALK ABOUT THE SIDE ,YOU PRETEND TO OWN,
YOU HAVE LOST SIGHT OF WHAT YOU WANT TO FIGHT FOR,
THIS LAND IS MY LAND, THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND , THIS LAND IS ALL THE PEOPLE’S LAND,
YOU HAVE TO ADAPT AND LIKE ANY WHO COME FROM OTHER LANDS YOU ALL MUST COMPLY WITH THE MAJORITY AND STOP ASKING FOR PRIVILEDGES ONLY FOR YOU, BY TAKING IT OUT FROM THE MAJORITY’S WILL,
AND IF THEY RESTRAIN YOU FROM WHAT YOU WANT, THEY ARE RIGHT,
WHY? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST TOLERANT PEOPLE ON EARTH,
AND THEY DON’T WANT WHAT YOU WANT,
EVEN IF A GOVERNMENT IS ON YOUR SIDE, HE IS SOON TO FADE AWAY, AND NO MATTER WHAT, IT’S THE PEOPLE
YOU ARE LEFT WITH TO SHARE THE TOLERANT AMERICA,
THE CRIMEA RUSSIANS SHOULD BE DEPORTED FOR HAVING COMITED TREASON TO THEIR HOST UKRAINE, BY TAKING OVER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PART WHICH BELONG NOT TO RUSSIA,
BUT UKRAINE,
AND TO ASK ANOTHER COUNTRY TO INVADE IS AN ACT OF TREASON, AND AN ACT OF WAR FROM RUSSIA,
Search as I have, I cannot find anything in the U.S. Constitution that dictates/mandates rules for businesses. Freedom to conduct your business guided by your own personal beliefs is a tenant of free men. If I don’t like the business decisions someone makes, I am free to purchase goods and services elsewhere. It is not like we are a nation with no competition for a business.
Well, many self described progressives will accuse anyone right of center of being a monster if they happen to oppose gay marriage. Yet, Muslims not only abroad but in America as well, openly make homophobic statements routinely, and in other countries physically assault and execute homosexuals in many instances, not to mention outlaw homosexuality altogether.
Yet, the gay movement will attack Christians while ignoring the beliefs of Muslim. The Sisters of Perpetual Outrage, located in California, will act unreasonably at a Catholic Mass, yet do not have the courage of their convictions to infiltrate Friday prayers at a mosque. Gays will sue Christian businesses, yet there has never been one law suit filed against any Muslim business.
Typically progressives are silent on this because they’ve embraced the Muslim community as yet another victim group they can appeal to with regards to disproportionately disenfranchised disparities,
I have remarked on this many times. Progressives and Muslims make strange bedfellows simply because the Muslims do not support Progressive policies but with join in with them for political expediency. That will not last. Read any international news source that reports on Islamic countries and you will come to the conclusion that Muslims are becoming more radicalized, not less. Eventually, that radicalization will come to the United States, just as it has Great Britain, as their numbers grow. Then what? Will the Progressives hope the alligator eats them last?
“Then what? Will the Progressives hope the alligator eats them last?”
I can’t speak for Kraken, but Muslims are not showing up on MY home-town radar, and American conservatives ARE. In 2003, Scalia argued (unsuccessfully) for the criminalization of gay sex. Had he prevailed, what do you suppose HIS end game would have been? We can’t have 5-10 million criminals running around, now can we? THAT alligator had its jaws clenched around the necks of every practicing homosexual in America, and we never know for sure from whence the next alligator will issue. But at least MOST of us don’t think that it will be from the Middle-East. Most of us BELIEVE that it will be come from the Republican Party, in the form of Rick Santorum or any one of the many other Republicans who believe as Scalia did. We cannot fight effectively on ALL fronts at the same time, so we concentrate our resources on what we perceive to be the most dangerous current threat. We will address the Muslim issue when we get the chance, and if not dealing with it now is a mortal mistake, that’s OUR problem, not yours.
But thanks for the advice.
Kraken
10 years ago
I can’t speak for Kraken, but Muslims are not showing up on MY home-town radar, and American conservatives ARE. …Most of us BELIEVE that it will be come from the Republican Party, in the form of Rick Santorum or any one of the many other Republicans who believe as Scalia did.
Search as I have, I cannot find anything in the U.S. Constitution that dictates/mandates rules for businesses. Freedom to conduct your business guided by your own personal beliefs is a tenant of free men. If I don’t like the business decisions someone makes, I am free to purchase goods and services elsewhere. It is not like we are a nation with no competition for a business.
As I said, I believe people ought to be able to associate, or indeed even disassociate, freely.
But in looking into the Constitution further, I also find that freedom of religion is protected by the 1st Amendment. Since the entire issue over gay marriage is in my mind, a religious issue, since the institution of marriage is a religious institution, I’m not sure I understand why gay people need to ask government’s permission to get married in the first place.
George Wells
10 years ago
@Kraken #205:
“But in looking into the Constitution further, I also find that freedom of religion is protected by the 1st Amendment. Since the entire issue over gay marriage is in my mind, a religious issue, since the institution of marriage is a religious institution, I’m not sure I understand why gay people need to ask government’s permission to get married in the first place.”
I agree with parts of this, although I would dispute that a “civil” marriage is a religious institution, and I would also point out that in 33 states, the Christian churches who support gay marriage are forbidden by law to conduct them. If the State DID get out of marriage altogether, then everyone would lose their 1000+ marital benefits, and I doubt that anyone would go along with that.
If you are so morally enraged by the Muslim World’s treatment of gays, what are YOU doing about it?
I’m not battling Somalia or Syria or North Korea or Iran or Putin or China or Global Warming or Ozone Depletion or Starvation or Homelessness or Income Inequality or Tax Form Complexity or Abortion or Health Care Costs or Rape in the Military or Extinction Rates or Pathogen Resistance to Antibiotics or Teen Pregnancy Rates or Drug Abuse or Drunk Driving or Corruption or Organized Crime or Drug Cartels or Nuclear Proliferation or Rotting Infrastructure or Terrorism etc. etc. etc. etc. Who has the time to cover everything?
George Wells
10 years ago
@Kraken #205:
“That’s unfortunate because most Republicans and conservatives are simply opposed to the institution of gay marriage, not necessary against homosexuals themselves, and many could be persuaded through rational argumentation.”
I would have to dispute that.
For decades, Republicans have opposed the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, opposed the decriminalization of homosexual sex, and not once introduced any legislation that would give a right to gays that straights already had. Gay marriage hadn’t been invented yet.
We’ve been arguing for equal rights all along, and some of those arguments were was surely rational (we DO have a healthy share of intellectuals on our side), but so far, those arguments have largely fallen on deaf ears. The outrageous behavior some of you love to point fingers at is at least in part a manifestation of our collective frustration with YOUR collective intransigence. I would also point out that the moment a Republican makes a pro-gay-rights statement, he is branded a RINO and essentially disowned by his own party. Do you really think that rational argumentation is going to make a difference?
Kraken
10 years ago
If the State DID get out of marriage altogether, then everyone would lose their 1000+ marital benefits, and I doubt that anyone would go along with that.
What marital benefits would they lose?
If you are so morally enraged by the Muslim World’s treatment of gays, what are YOU doing about it?
Exactly what I’ve just done, point out the problems that progressives would otherwise like to ignore do indeed exist, and waiting for progressives to call Muslims homophobic. Pointing out that Muslim treatment of gays is far worse than Republican treatment of gays, is hardly engaging in any and/or all of the battles that you list.
For decades, Republicans have opposed the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, opposed the decriminalization of homosexual sex, and not once introduced any legislation that would give a right to gays that straights already had. Gay marriage hadn’t been invented yet.
The ones conferred by the State. The Windsor decision gave us a few of those benefits that straight married couples enjoy, and Obama has given us some more by “executive order”, but the marital benefits that are controlled by states as opposed to the Federal Government are still denied to gays in 33 states, including Virginia. Paul and I have to file five different income tax forms: Federal Married, and for the state of Virginia: Federal single, Federal Single, state single and state single. Filing jointly will reduce the number from 5 to 2. This benefit pales in significance to the death penalty we get in Virginia for not being recognized as married. For the state to “get out of marriage completely”, it would have to also get out of granting financial benefits on the basis of marital status. It won’t do that for the reason I already explained.
Pointing out problems and waiting has accomplished what?
Indeed, times ARE changing. But I don’t credit those changes to pointing out problems. I think back to the marches and race riots during my youth, and wonder how much of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be with us today if the effort to gain equality for blacks had been limited to pointing out problems and waiting.
retire05
you have a good point as usual,
they try their game on CHRISTIANS LIKE THE ATHEISTS DO,
BECAUSE THEY TRUST THE TOLERANCE OF CHRISTIANS TO WAIT A LONG TIME TO
DECIDE TO PUT THEM BACK IN THEIR PLACE, AND TO MY MIND IS WAITING TOO LONG,
AND BECAUSE OF THOSE ATTACKS ON GOOD PEOPLE THEY DO NOT DESERVE THE LAPSUS OF TIME,
THE CHRISTIANS ALLOW THEM,
ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY FEAR THE MUSLIMS RIGHTFULLY, IT’S THEIR LIVES AT STEAK AND THEY KNOW IT,
SO THEY SKIP THE ONE THEY SHOULD ATTACK, TO TAKE ON THE TOLERANT ONE THEY KNOW AND TRUST TO BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER,
IS IN IT A COWARDLY WAY TO GET WHAT THEY WANT?
IF ONE CHRISTIAN LOSE HIS CONTROL ONE DAY AND BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF ONE WHO INSIST TO GET A CAKE, HE COULD HAVE KILLED HIM NON INTENTIONLY BUT WITH ANGER,
we know it take only one blow to kill a human sometimes,
HE IS THE ONE TO GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE,
WHILE THE OTHER ONE PICK ANOTHER TO EXASPERATE,
George Wells
10 years ago
@bees #210:
“CHRISTIANS (will) WAIT A LONG TIME TO
DECIDE TO PUT THEM (gays) BACK IN THEIR PLACE”
And where is THAT “place”, bees? Jail? The “closet”? Do you want 5-10 million gays to look, act, talk and pretend to be straight under penalty of what? Death? Incarceration? To live a lie their whole lives? What do you propose Christians DO with gays? (never mind that there are gay Christians and Straight Christians who support them politically.)
George Wells
DO YOU FEEL THAT THE GAY ARE THAT DESPERATE, SO TO START TO HARASS THE OTHER,
SO TO MAKE A POINT BY SUING THEM FOR SAYING NO,
THAT’S WHERE I SITUATE IN MY COMMENT, AND YOU PAINT THE APOCALYPSE IMAGE
OF THE MARTIRDOM OF GAYS,
I AM SURPRISE OF HOW FAR YOU ARE WILLING TO GO TO COVER THOSE ACTIVISTS,
George Wells
why do you think that the people is interested to see how the GAYS LIVED?
do you really think so?
the people relate to human who are citizens, the rest is to be define by one to be friend or enemy,
according to the values he or she has deep in their core,
YOU ON THE OPOSIT WANT ALL GAY TO BECOME A GROUP AND CLOSE THE DOOR TO THE REST
OF HUMAN AND TEMP [as temptation], THEM TO BELIEVE THEY ARE TOGETHER SO TO PROTECT THEIR OWN,
you so much feel insecure and for the wrong reason,
no one want you dead, no one want to hurt you,
all want you to be AMERICAN AT 100 per cent, your life belong to you, keep it to yourself,
no one want to kow it, that’s freedom and you have it,
The ones conferred by the State. The Windsor decision gave us a few of those benefits that straight married couples enjoy, and Obama has given us some more by “executive order”, but the marital benefits that are controlled by states as opposed to the Federal Government are still denied to gays in 33 states, including Virginia. Paul and I have to file five different income tax forms: Federal Married, and for the state of Virginia: Federal single, Federal Single, state single and state single. Filing jointly will reduce the number from 5 to 2. This benefit pales in significance to the death penalty we get in Virginia for not being recognized as married. For the state to “get out of marriage completely”, it would have to also get out of granting financial benefits on the basis of marital status. It won’t do that for the reason I already explained.
I think I see part of our disconnect here. I don’t support the existence of income or death taxes either, and this is part of the reason why. The state can then use it to extort people into whatever behaviors are politically fashionable for the day. Remember, technically these aren’t really benefits, because it’s your money to begin with, not theirs.
Pointing out problems and waiting has accomplished what?
This. Don’t all movements begin with dialogue anyway? Do I really need to be an activist pest and post flyers or vandalize property or something?
Indeed, times ARE changing. But I don’t credit those changes to pointing out problems. I think back to the marches and race riots during my youth, and wonder how much of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be with us today if the effort to gain equality for blacks had been limited to pointing out problems and waiting.
The Civil Rights Act would have happened with or without misbehaving white suburbanite hippie adolescents barnacling themselves to the already existing movement back in the flatulent 1960s. I’m not sure their LSD dropping or temper tantrums helped much either.
George Wells
10 years ago
@bees #213:
“your life belong to you, keep it to yourself,
no one want to kow it, that’s freedom and you have it,’
but that door doesn’t swing both ways, bees!
Straights put pictures of their spouses on their desks at work, and nothing is said. If I had done that, what a stink! Straights may hold hands and kiss in public (generally) but gays may do that in only a few locals, and still get harassment if the do. It is largely a straight world because of the relative numbers, but the “freedom” you are describing is for gay people to live a lie while straights don’t have to. To stay “in the closet”. Can’t you see the difference????
George Wells
10 years ago
@Kraken #214:
” Don’t all movements begin with dialogue anyway? Do I really need to be an activist pest and post flyers or vandalize property or something?”
Sure progress begins with dialogue. But dialog began way before I was born, and accomplished nothing until the so-called gay rights movement was “encouraged” by the Stonewall riots 40 years ago. The pace of dialogue-inspired progress is glacial. It was an ugly time. The “activist pests and flyer posters” of today owe a lot to those bloodied and jailed rioters of decades past.
George Wells
i have a great idea for you,
instead of saying GAY RIGHT, YOU SHOULD CALL IT , RIGHTO GAY,
HOW’S THAT SOUND? YOU’LL GET USE TO IT, YOU JUST REPEAT IT 10 TIMES EVERY DAY FOR A MONTH,
AND IT WILL COME EASY WHEN YOU NEED TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT FOR SOMETHING,
AND IF YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT, DON’T PAY THE GOVERNMENT,
PAY THE CREATOR OF YOUR NAME
THAT’S ME
George Wells
10 years ago
Warm up your crocodile tears and grab your hankies – the next round of legal victories in the battle for marriage equality is coming to a state near you!
With as much irony as I can muster by mimicking Tokyo Rose: “Silly Republicans, you are wasting your time and money fighting and losing a totally ineffective battle against gay marriage. Surrender now and our gloriously Divine Emperor MIGHT spare your souls (but of course not your lives!) Arigatou gozaimasu!”
Wait for it… wait for it… HERE IT COMES!
(All together now): “PALIN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016!!!”
George Wells
arigatou causehelostit,
YOU EARN THE HELP OF ZIGONES CELEBRATING YOUR VOWS FROM HELL,
Nanny G
10 years ago
@George Wells: 2009 sign in gay protest reads, ”Marriage is only the beginning….socialist party.”
Is this any indication of the photo gays want on their desks?
And how does guilt-by-association help?
Taking that gay=black to an extreme shows its absurdity, but this man went there anyway.
George Wells
10 years ago
@Nanny G #220:
You’re indicting me over something you say a man did in 2009? What, was my signature on his sign?
Y’all keep talking “collective” and “gay agenda” and making every other innuendo you can think of to condemn all gays for the actions of a few. I can state with confidence that we will not EVER compromise on ANY of our demands, individual or otherwise, so long as you continue to insist that we are nothing but a bunch of stereotypical clones.
We both have responsibilities in the civil resolution of these differences, and YOURS do not end with the observation that some of US are behaving badly.
George Wells
10 years ago
Republican Smoke Screen #14:
“Opposition to Gay Marriage is ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN. Studies show that children raised in a mother-father environment do better than children raised in alternative family environments. Therefore, ONLY opposite-sex couples should be allowed to marry.”
This is an example of a classic “non sequitur”, a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.
Even if the statement that children do best in opposite-sex families is statistically correct, (a point vigorously disputed) that fact would not justify excluding gays from marriage. Don’t children raised in affluent white families do better than their homeless, non-white counterparts? Don’t biological children do better than adopted ones? Yet the poor and the homeless are allowed to marry, and adoption is legal.
Additionally, (and more to the non-sequitur point) neither the having of children nor the potential TO have children has EVER been a qualification for marriage. Barren couples and elderly couples and couples who admittedly don’t love or even KNOW each other ARE allowed to marry, so MARRIAGE is NOT ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN.
When gays are prevented from marrying – regardless of love, commitment or longevity of togetherness – in the 33 states that forbid it, it isn’t ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN. It is all about ANIMUS. Moral outrage against homosexuality has been used repeatedly to justify anti-gay legislation. Remember that such moral outrage was codified in the DOMA legislation, the introduction of which as evidence in the Windsor case was instrumental in securing the plaintiff’s victory.
Masking moral outrage with the claim that it is “ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN” is Republican Smoke Screen #14.
“Silly Republicans, you are wasting your time and money fighting and losing a totally ineffective battle against gay marriage.
I wonder if you even understand that George? How is anyone ‘fighting’ a battle or ‘losing’ a battle against gay marriage? Can you tell me any ‘personal’ act I have taken that you consider to be ‘fighting’ against gay marriage? The absolute most I have ever done is write on a blog, and I have a computer and internet service that costs the same whether I do or do not write about gay marriage. So far, no gays are married, so I sure don’t see how I’m ‘losing’ a battle. Since a marriage has to consist of a man and a woman, as long as a gay woman and a gay man don’t get married, then there are no gay marriages. Just the fact that someone, in an attempt to buy a vote, agrees to ‘say’ you are married doesn’t mean a thing. Can you live together? You always have been able to, nothing has changed except a lot of gay people are being fooled into believing they have ‘friends’ that are only people that are playing them for fools. Remain happily oblivious.
Redteam
10 years ago
@Nanny G: Nanny, you should not link to pictures of George.
You’re indicting me over something you say a man did in 2009? What, was my signature on his sign?
I have to agree. We can’t blame the whole of the Collective for the actions of specific drones, even though the Collective does foster a culture of lunacy, particularly at its hilarious protest events.
Y’all keep talking “collective” and “gay agenda” and making every other innuendo you can think of to condemn all gays for the actions of a few.
As far as I know, I’m the only one thusfar to talk about the Collective, well, except for the Collective itself of course. I have no problems with homosexuals, and haven’t made any such innuendos or condemnations. Does this mean that you owe me an apology?
I can state with confidence that we will not EVER compromise on ANY of our demands, individual or otherwise, so long as you continue to insist that we are nothing but a bunch of stereotypical clones.
I expect not. Refusal to compromise is what it means to be a fascist, which of course is what the Collective is.
We both have responsibilities in the civil resolution of these differences, and YOURS do not end with the observation that some of US are behaving badly.
When you capitalize an entire word, does that mean that you really, really mean that word?
Kraken
10 years ago
“Opposition to Gay Marriage is ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN. Studies show that children raised in a mother-father environment do better than children raised in alternative family environments. Therefore, ONLY opposite-sex couples should be allowed to marry.”
I don’t think that I can buy this either. Wouldn’t the comparison of a well adjusted gay couple with an abusive meth lab running but straight couple, pretty much blow this idea out of the water?
Kraken
10 years ago
Y’all keep talking “collective” and “gay agenda” and making every other innuendo you can think of to condemn all gays for the actions of a few.
Incidentally, reading a moonbat put the word collective in sneer quotes is beyond delicious. Yummy.
George Wells
10 years ago
@Kraken #226:
The quote you copied was my parody of a conservative argument. Sorry if that was not clear. It is not an argument that I agree with, and the entire post was dedicated to its rebuttal. Speed-reading kills.
George Wells
10 years ago
@Kraken #227:
????
Unfamiliar term. Logic beyond my humble comprehension. Sorry.
“Y’all keep talking “collective” and “gay agenda” and making every other innuendo you can think of to condemn all gays for the actions of a few.
As far as I know, I’m the only one thusfar to talk about the Collective, well, except for the Collective itself of course. I have no problems with homosexuals, and haven’t made any such innuendos or condemnations. Does this mean that you owe me an apology?”
I don’t think so. “Y’all” was used as a shorthand term to address “”””the collection of Flopping Aces respondents who generally advocate in the following direction:””””
I will stipulate that YOU are the principle user of the term “collective,” REDTEAM and RETIRE05 are the ones who most frequently harp on the “ONE GAY AGENDA” and gay being “abnormal AND unnatural,” RETIRE is the principle user of the word “SODOMY” and REDTEAM is the principle denier that gay marriage even exists. None of you use those words or phrases exclusively, and none use them all. No apology is necessary.
“Refusal to compromise is what it means to be a fascist”
Intellectual hypocrisy. You KNOW that neither refusal to compromise nor fascism is that simple. If you know that if you sell a guy some gasoline and a match, he will set a fire, and so you refuse to sell him those goods and REFUSE TO COMPROMISE on the issue, it doesn’t make you a fascist. Neither is REDTEAM a fascist because he won’t compromise on his claim that gay marriage does not exist.
“When you capitalize an entire word, does that mean that you really, really mean that word?”
Yes. It is actually to give the word an underlining/bold effect that I cannot achieve on Flopping Aces with my computer. Don’t know why. Sorry if it bothers you.
“How is anyone ‘fighting’ a battle or ‘losing’ a battle against gay marriage? Can you tell me any ‘personal’ act I have taken that you consider to be ‘fighting’ against gay marriage? The absolute most I have ever done is write on a blog”
Arguing on a blog is debating (at least when it is done reasonably well), and debate is verbal combat- a fight. Not every fight involves physical violence. Arguing against something IS fighting against it, regardless of whether the ammunition you are using are words, dollars or bullets.
I will stipulate that YOU are the principle user of the term “collective,” REDTEAM and RETIRE05 are the ones who most frequently harp on the “ONE GAY AGENDA” and gay being “abnormal AND unnatural,” RETIRE is the principle user of the word “SODOMY” and REDTEAM is the principle denier that gay marriage even exists. None of you use those words or phrases exclusively, and none use them all. No apology is necessary
Again you spin the truth. I have repeatedly stated that not all gays subscribe to the “gay” agenda. i.e. the Log Cabin Republicans. But for some reason you seem to think if you repeat a falsehood often enough, it will become the truth.
REDTEAM and RETIRE05 are the ones who most frequently harp on the “ONE GAY AGENDA”
I don’t believe I’ve ever used the term:“ONE GAY AGENDA”, if I have, I don’t know what it means. I think the gays have multiple objectives and don’t have a clue what the agenda is.
Happily I concede the fact that there is no such thing as EITHER a “heterosexual agenda”(a.k.a. “straight agenda”) or a “homosexual agenda” (a.k.a. “gay agenda”) that either all straights or else all gays subscribe to. But the frequent usage of the latter term here is not out of ignorance of that fact.
Further, I will argue that use of the term “heterosexual agenda” a.k.a. “straight agenda” on the other hand, and the use of the term “homosexual agenda” a.k.a. “gay agenda” on the other hand are both intentionally insulting and grossly misleading to the respective classes.
If any of these terms found legitimate usage beyond partisan labeling of issue opponents for the sole purpose of creating either confusion or mental anguish, they might have some value… but they don’t, and this is PARTICULARLY the case with YOUR usage. These disparaging terms are bantered about on this blog site as nothing more than objects of ridicule.
If you genuinely had ANY interest in SOLVING problems instead of creating more, you would not place insulting people so high on your list of priorities.
“Where did I say that ALL gays subscribed to the “gay” agenda?”
You have made the implication often. Maybe you DIDN’T mean it, but then you were just being sloppy with your words. And I’ve played this game of “Where did I say that?” with you and Redteam too many times to be fooled again. I quote you a few examples, and you change the subject. Move on.
So you found something totally out of context and claim it makes your point. If I had to say what ‘a’ gay agenda is, I’d say that it is an agenda by the liberals to make fools out of gays. To make them think that the libs are sympathetic to their cause. If you really want to see how well libs support gays in the things gays are interested in, then insinuate that the gays support Republicans and conservatives and see how long the libs will still be touting the wonderfulness of the lifestyle of gays. They’ll drop them quicker than a hot quarter. Gays can be fooled all of the time by some of the people. Libs.
If you genuinely had ANY interest in SOLVING problems instead of creating more, you would not place insulting people so high on your list of priorities.
When you make snide remarks about Christians, and claim that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your political philosophies are the “enemy”, yeah, you deserve to be insulted. Again, and again, and again.
If you really want to see how well libs support gays in the things gays are interested in, then insinuate that the gays support Republicans and conservatives and see how long the libs will still be touting the wonderfulness of the lifestyle of gays.
You sure the hell don’t see the Democrats beating the door down to support the Log Cabin Republicans simply because they are gay.
“If you really want to see how well libs support gays in the things gays are interested in, then insinuate that the gays support Republicans and conservatives and see how long the libs will still be touting the wonderfulness of the lifestyle of gays. They’ll drop them quicker than a hot quarter.”
What is this? Is your NEW strategy to “divide-and-conquer”? For THAT to work, you’d have to give us a better alternative to the Democratic Party. Hint: It won’t Be the Republican Party. While there are some gays who ARE Republican, we are certainly NOT welcome in the Grand Old Party. Where else have we to go?
Ah, yes, well, BESIDES Hell…)
“When you make snide remarks about Christians, and claim that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your political philosophies are the “enemy”, yeah, you deserve to be insulted.”
The war against homosexuals was started thousands of years ago, LONG before Christ and Christianity, but today’s war against gay rights is largely a temporal extension of that same conflict. During the long struggle, MY side has NOT sought to criminalize heterosexuality, to incarcerate straights, or to restrict YOUR civil rights.
As I explained before, it IS a cultural war, and you know it. And in any war, the opposing sides are enemies. There would be a rational purpose to hurling insults at me if doing so weakened my resolve or otherwise damaged my strategic position, but neither of these effects are in evidence. Your continued use of insult only serves to communicate the weakness of your arguments or lack of them. Keep the insults coming.
“You sure the hell don’t see the Democrats beating the door down to support the Log Cabin Republicans simply because they are gay.”
INDEED! And for the same reason that you don’t see the Republicans beating the door down to support the KKK simply because they are straight. Fortunately, “sexual orientation” is not the overriding determinant of political affiliation for members of EITHER party – THANK GOD!
For THAT to work, you’d have to give us a better alternative to the Democratic Party.
The Dimocrats only support you as long as you vote for them. The only ‘right’ they support of gays is the right to vote for Dimocrats. But I agree with you about the Republicans, hell, they have even deserted the Republicans. Most Republicans don’t support Republicans. about 90% of them are RINO’S.
we are certainly NOT welcome in the Grand Old Party.
Some of them will promise you what you want to hear if you’ll vote for them (as the Dims do)
The war against homosexuals was started thousands of years ago, LONG before Christ and Christianity, but today’s war against gay rights is largely a temporal extension of that same conflict.
George, if you believe that is true, then don’t you expect today’s Christians to continue that ‘war’?
MY side has NOT sought to criminalize heterosexuality,
Why would they? They know it’s the correct order of things. You don’t expect to criminalize a person for withdrawing money from a bank that he has in his account. That’s normal, but if he tries to withdraw money from others accounts, with a gun, then that’s not right and you should speak out against it, or to incarcerate them, or to restrict THEIR civil rights.
George, 244:
the KKK simply because they are straight.
Are KKK members required to be straight? I didn’t know that was a requirement of membership.
Log Cabin Republicans simply because they are gay.”
@kraken #199:
Thanks for the careful analysis. If BOTH sides of this issue would occasionally suspend their deaf-and-dumb acts and work together to find equitable compromises, this would be a better world.
George Wells
you remind me of the RUSSIANS living in CRIMEA,
saying if both sides would get together and talk of a solution,
both sides of what? what again? SAY IT,
THEY MEAN CRIMEA , BUT CRIMEA BELONG TO UKRAINE,
WHY SHOULD THEY WANT TO TALK OF A COUNTRY THEY DON’T OWN, AND NO VOTES , NO PAPER , NO WORDS CAN CHANGE IT, IT’S UKRAINE , NOT THEIR OWN , IT’S A COUNTRY ,
TO A PEOPLE NOT IN THEIR COUNTRY, WITH NO ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR HOST, HAVING LET THE INVASION HAPPEN TO THE COUNTRY WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO SHARE WITH THEM,
THEIR SOVEREIGNTY UNDISPUTED,
YOU ARE TRYING TO SELL THE IDEA THAT THIS COUNTRY IS HALF YOURS, AND YOU WANT TO GET TOGETHER TO TALK ABOUT THE SIDE ,YOU PRETEND TO OWN,
YOU HAVE LOST SIGHT OF WHAT YOU WANT TO FIGHT FOR,
THIS LAND IS MY LAND, THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND , THIS LAND IS ALL THE PEOPLE’S LAND,
YOU HAVE TO ADAPT AND LIKE ANY WHO COME FROM OTHER LANDS YOU ALL MUST COMPLY WITH THE MAJORITY AND STOP ASKING FOR PRIVILEDGES ONLY FOR YOU, BY TAKING IT OUT FROM THE MAJORITY’S WILL,
AND IF THEY RESTRAIN YOU FROM WHAT YOU WANT, THEY ARE RIGHT,
WHY? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST TOLERANT PEOPLE ON EARTH,
AND THEY DON’T WANT WHAT YOU WANT,
EVEN IF A GOVERNMENT IS ON YOUR SIDE, HE IS SOON TO FADE AWAY, AND NO MATTER WHAT, IT’S THE PEOPLE
YOU ARE LEFT WITH TO SHARE THE TOLERANT AMERICA,
THE CRIMEA RUSSIANS SHOULD BE DEPORTED FOR HAVING COMITED TREASON TO THEIR HOST UKRAINE, BY TAKING OVER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PART WHICH BELONG NOT TO RUSSIA,
BUT UKRAINE,
AND TO ASK ANOTHER COUNTRY TO INVADE IS AN ACT OF TREASON, AND AN ACT OF WAR FROM RUSSIA,
@Kraken:
Search as I have, I cannot find anything in the U.S. Constitution that dictates/mandates rules for businesses. Freedom to conduct your business guided by your own personal beliefs is a tenant of free men. If I don’t like the business decisions someone makes, I am free to purchase goods and services elsewhere. It is not like we are a nation with no competition for a business.
Yet, the gay movement will attack Christians while ignoring the beliefs of Muslim. The Sisters of Perpetual Outrage, located in California, will act unreasonably at a Catholic Mass, yet do not have the courage of their convictions to infiltrate Friday prayers at a mosque. Gays will sue Christian businesses, yet there has never been one law suit filed against any Muslim business.
I have remarked on this many times. Progressives and Muslims make strange bedfellows simply because the Muslims do not support Progressive policies but with join in with them for political expediency. That will not last. Read any international news source that reports on Islamic countries and you will come to the conclusion that Muslims are becoming more radicalized, not less. Eventually, that radicalization will come to the United States, just as it has Great Britain, as their numbers grow. Then what? Will the Progressives hope the alligator eats them last?
@retire05 #203:
“Then what? Will the Progressives hope the alligator eats them last?”
I can’t speak for Kraken, but Muslims are not showing up on MY home-town radar, and American conservatives ARE. In 2003, Scalia argued (unsuccessfully) for the criminalization of gay sex. Had he prevailed, what do you suppose HIS end game would have been? We can’t have 5-10 million criminals running around, now can we? THAT alligator had its jaws clenched around the necks of every practicing homosexual in America, and we never know for sure from whence the next alligator will issue. But at least MOST of us don’t think that it will be from the Middle-East. Most of us BELIEVE that it will be come from the Republican Party, in the form of Rick Santorum or any one of the many other Republicans who believe as Scalia did. We cannot fight effectively on ALL fronts at the same time, so we concentrate our resources on what we perceive to be the most dangerous current threat. We will address the Muslim issue when we get the chance, and if not dealing with it now is a mortal mistake, that’s OUR problem, not yours.
But thanks for the advice.
That’s unfortunate because most Republicans and conservatives are simply opposed to the institution of gay marriage, not necessary against homosexuals themselves, and many could be persuaded through rational argumentation. They generally don’t for instance, preach about killing gays, set gay bars on fire, issue Fatwas permitting the burning of homosexuals alive, execute gays in an “ideal world,” call for gay to be thrown off of mountains, threaten to kill gays, etc. And that’s just a small sampling of our own Western World stuff. The stuff coming out of the Eastern World might curl your nose hairs.
As I said, I believe people ought to be able to associate, or indeed even disassociate, freely.
But in looking into the Constitution further, I also find that freedom of religion is protected by the 1st Amendment. Since the entire issue over gay marriage is in my mind, a religious issue, since the institution of marriage is a religious institution, I’m not sure I understand why gay people need to ask government’s permission to get married in the first place.
@Kraken #205:
“But in looking into the Constitution further, I also find that freedom of religion is protected by the 1st Amendment. Since the entire issue over gay marriage is in my mind, a religious issue, since the institution of marriage is a religious institution, I’m not sure I understand why gay people need to ask government’s permission to get married in the first place.”
I agree with parts of this, although I would dispute that a “civil” marriage is a religious institution, and I would also point out that in 33 states, the Christian churches who support gay marriage are forbidden by law to conduct them. If the State DID get out of marriage altogether, then everyone would lose their 1000+ marital benefits, and I doubt that anyone would go along with that.
If you are so morally enraged by the Muslim World’s treatment of gays, what are YOU doing about it?
I’m not battling Somalia or Syria or North Korea or Iran or Putin or China or Global Warming or Ozone Depletion or Starvation or Homelessness or Income Inequality or Tax Form Complexity or Abortion or Health Care Costs or Rape in the Military or Extinction Rates or Pathogen Resistance to Antibiotics or Teen Pregnancy Rates or Drug Abuse or Drunk Driving or Corruption or Organized Crime or Drug Cartels or Nuclear Proliferation or Rotting Infrastructure or Terrorism etc. etc. etc. etc. Who has the time to cover everything?
@Kraken #205:
“That’s unfortunate because most Republicans and conservatives are simply opposed to the institution of gay marriage, not necessary against homosexuals themselves, and many could be persuaded through rational argumentation.”
I would have to dispute that.
For decades, Republicans have opposed the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, opposed the decriminalization of homosexual sex, and not once introduced any legislation that would give a right to gays that straights already had. Gay marriage hadn’t been invented yet.
We’ve been arguing for equal rights all along, and some of those arguments were was surely rational (we DO have a healthy share of intellectuals on our side), but so far, those arguments have largely fallen on deaf ears. The outrageous behavior some of you love to point fingers at is at least in part a manifestation of our collective frustration with YOUR collective intransigence. I would also point out that the moment a Republican makes a pro-gay-rights statement, he is branded a RINO and essentially disowned by his own party. Do you really think that rational argumentation is going to make a difference?
What marital benefits would they lose?
Exactly what I’ve just done, point out the problems that progressives would otherwise like to ignore do indeed exist, and waiting for progressives to call Muslims homophobic. Pointing out that Muslim treatment of gays is far worse than Republican treatment of gays, is hardly engaging in any and/or all of the battles that you list.
Yes, but what you’re talking about is mostly history. Times are changing.
@Kraken #208:
“What marital benefits would they lose?”
The ones conferred by the State. The Windsor decision gave us a few of those benefits that straight married couples enjoy, and Obama has given us some more by “executive order”, but the marital benefits that are controlled by states as opposed to the Federal Government are still denied to gays in 33 states, including Virginia. Paul and I have to file five different income tax forms: Federal Married, and for the state of Virginia: Federal single, Federal Single, state single and state single. Filing jointly will reduce the number from 5 to 2. This benefit pales in significance to the death penalty we get in Virginia for not being recognized as married. For the state to “get out of marriage completely”, it would have to also get out of granting financial benefits on the basis of marital status. It won’t do that for the reason I already explained.
Pointing out problems and waiting has accomplished what?
Indeed, times ARE changing. But I don’t credit those changes to pointing out problems. I think back to the marches and race riots during my youth, and wonder how much of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be with us today if the effort to gain equality for blacks had been limited to pointing out problems and waiting.
retire05
you have a good point as usual,
they try their game on CHRISTIANS LIKE THE ATHEISTS DO,
BECAUSE THEY TRUST THE TOLERANCE OF CHRISTIANS TO WAIT A LONG TIME TO
DECIDE TO PUT THEM BACK IN THEIR PLACE, AND TO MY MIND IS WAITING TOO LONG,
AND BECAUSE OF THOSE ATTACKS ON GOOD PEOPLE THEY DO NOT DESERVE THE LAPSUS OF TIME,
THE CHRISTIANS ALLOW THEM,
ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY FEAR THE MUSLIMS RIGHTFULLY, IT’S THEIR LIVES AT STEAK AND THEY KNOW IT,
SO THEY SKIP THE ONE THEY SHOULD ATTACK, TO TAKE ON THE TOLERANT ONE THEY KNOW AND TRUST TO BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER,
IS IN IT A COWARDLY WAY TO GET WHAT THEY WANT?
IF ONE CHRISTIAN LOSE HIS CONTROL ONE DAY AND BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF ONE WHO INSIST TO GET A CAKE, HE COULD HAVE KILLED HIM NON INTENTIONLY BUT WITH ANGER,
we know it take only one blow to kill a human sometimes,
HE IS THE ONE TO GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE,
WHILE THE OTHER ONE PICK ANOTHER TO EXASPERATE,
@bees #210:
“CHRISTIANS (will) WAIT A LONG TIME TO
DECIDE TO PUT THEM (gays) BACK IN THEIR PLACE”
And where is THAT “place”, bees? Jail? The “closet”? Do you want 5-10 million gays to look, act, talk and pretend to be straight under penalty of what? Death? Incarceration? To live a lie their whole lives? What do you propose Christians DO with gays? (never mind that there are gay Christians and Straight Christians who support them politically.)
George Wells
DO YOU FEEL THAT THE GAY ARE THAT DESPERATE, SO TO START TO HARASS THE OTHER,
SO TO MAKE A POINT BY SUING THEM FOR SAYING NO,
THAT’S WHERE I SITUATE IN MY COMMENT, AND YOU PAINT THE APOCALYPSE IMAGE
OF THE MARTIRDOM OF GAYS,
I AM SURPRISE OF HOW FAR YOU ARE WILLING TO GO TO COVER THOSE ACTIVISTS,
George Wells
why do you think that the people is interested to see how the GAYS LIVED?
do you really think so?
the people relate to human who are citizens, the rest is to be define by one to be friend or enemy,
according to the values he or she has deep in their core,
YOU ON THE OPOSIT WANT ALL GAY TO BECOME A GROUP AND CLOSE THE DOOR TO THE REST
OF HUMAN AND TEMP [as temptation], THEM TO BELIEVE THEY ARE TOGETHER SO TO PROTECT THEIR OWN,
you so much feel insecure and for the wrong reason,
no one want you dead, no one want to hurt you,
all want you to be AMERICAN AT 100 per cent, your life belong to you, keep it to yourself,
no one want to kow it, that’s freedom and you have it,
@George Wells:
I think I see part of our disconnect here. I don’t support the existence of income or death taxes either, and this is part of the reason why. The state can then use it to extort people into whatever behaviors are politically fashionable for the day. Remember, technically these aren’t really benefits, because it’s your money to begin with, not theirs.
This. Don’t all movements begin with dialogue anyway? Do I really need to be an activist pest and post flyers or vandalize property or something?
The Civil Rights Act would have happened with or without misbehaving white suburbanite hippie adolescents barnacling themselves to the already existing movement back in the flatulent 1960s. I’m not sure their LSD dropping or temper tantrums helped much either.
@bees #213:
“your life belong to you, keep it to yourself,
no one want to kow it, that’s freedom and you have it,’
but that door doesn’t swing both ways, bees!
Straights put pictures of their spouses on their desks at work, and nothing is said. If I had done that, what a stink! Straights may hold hands and kiss in public (generally) but gays may do that in only a few locals, and still get harassment if the do. It is largely a straight world because of the relative numbers, but the “freedom” you are describing is for gay people to live a lie while straights don’t have to. To stay “in the closet”. Can’t you see the difference????
@Kraken #214:
” Don’t all movements begin with dialogue anyway? Do I really need to be an activist pest and post flyers or vandalize property or something?”
Sure progress begins with dialogue. But dialog began way before I was born, and accomplished nothing until the so-called gay rights movement was “encouraged” by the Stonewall riots 40 years ago. The pace of dialogue-inspired progress is glacial. It was an ugly time. The “activist pests and flyer posters” of today owe a lot to those bloodied and jailed rioters of decades past.
George Wells
i have a great idea for you,
instead of saying GAY RIGHT, YOU SHOULD CALL IT , RIGHTO GAY,
HOW’S THAT SOUND? YOU’LL GET USE TO IT, YOU JUST REPEAT IT 10 TIMES EVERY DAY FOR A MONTH,
AND IT WILL COME EASY WHEN YOU NEED TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT FOR SOMETHING,
AND IF YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT, DON’T PAY THE GOVERNMENT,
PAY THE CREATOR OF YOUR NAME
THAT’S ME
Warm up your crocodile tears and grab your hankies – the next round of legal victories in the battle for marriage equality is coming to a state near you!
With as much irony as I can muster by mimicking Tokyo Rose: “Silly Republicans, you are wasting your time and money fighting and losing a totally ineffective battle against gay marriage. Surrender now and our gloriously Divine Emperor MIGHT spare your souls (but of course not your lives!) Arigatou gozaimasu!”
Wait for it… wait for it… HERE IT COMES!
(All together now): “PALIN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016!!!”
George Wells
arigatou causehelostit,
YOU EARN THE HELP OF ZIGONES CELEBRATING YOUR VOWS FROM HELL,
@George Wells:
2009 sign in gay protest reads, ”Marriage is only the beginning….socialist party.”
Is this any indication of the photo gays want on their desks?
And how does guilt-by-association help?
Taking that gay=black to an extreme shows its absurdity, but this man went there anyway.
@Nanny G #220:
You’re indicting me over something you say a man did in 2009? What, was my signature on his sign?
Y’all keep talking “collective” and “gay agenda” and making every other innuendo you can think of to condemn all gays for the actions of a few. I can state with confidence that we will not EVER compromise on ANY of our demands, individual or otherwise, so long as you continue to insist that we are nothing but a bunch of stereotypical clones.
We both have responsibilities in the civil resolution of these differences, and YOURS do not end with the observation that some of US are behaving badly.
Republican Smoke Screen #14:
“Opposition to Gay Marriage is ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN. Studies show that children raised in a mother-father environment do better than children raised in alternative family environments. Therefore, ONLY opposite-sex couples should be allowed to marry.”
This is an example of a classic “non sequitur”, a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.
Even if the statement that children do best in opposite-sex families is statistically correct, (a point vigorously disputed) that fact would not justify excluding gays from marriage. Don’t children raised in affluent white families do better than their homeless, non-white counterparts? Don’t biological children do better than adopted ones? Yet the poor and the homeless are allowed to marry, and adoption is legal.
Additionally, (and more to the non-sequitur point) neither the having of children nor the potential TO have children has EVER been a qualification for marriage. Barren couples and elderly couples and couples who admittedly don’t love or even KNOW each other ARE allowed to marry, so MARRIAGE is NOT ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN.
When gays are prevented from marrying – regardless of love, commitment or longevity of togetherness – in the 33 states that forbid it, it isn’t ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN. It is all about ANIMUS. Moral outrage against homosexuality has been used repeatedly to justify anti-gay legislation. Remember that such moral outrage was codified in the DOMA legislation, the introduction of which as evidence in the Windsor case was instrumental in securing the plaintiff’s victory.
Masking moral outrage with the claim that it is “ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN” is Republican Smoke Screen #14.
@George Wells:
I wonder if you even understand that George? How is anyone ‘fighting’ a battle or ‘losing’ a battle against gay marriage? Can you tell me any ‘personal’ act I have taken that you consider to be ‘fighting’ against gay marriage? The absolute most I have ever done is write on a blog, and I have a computer and internet service that costs the same whether I do or do not write about gay marriage. So far, no gays are married, so I sure don’t see how I’m ‘losing’ a battle. Since a marriage has to consist of a man and a woman, as long as a gay woman and a gay man don’t get married, then there are no gay marriages. Just the fact that someone, in an attempt to buy a vote, agrees to ‘say’ you are married doesn’t mean a thing. Can you live together? You always have been able to, nothing has changed except a lot of gay people are being fooled into believing they have ‘friends’ that are only people that are playing them for fools. Remain happily oblivious.
@Nanny G: Nanny, you should not link to pictures of George.
@George Wells:
I have to agree. We can’t blame the whole of the Collective for the actions of specific drones, even though the Collective does foster a culture of lunacy, particularly at its hilarious protest events.
As far as I know, I’m the only one thusfar to talk about the Collective, well, except for the Collective itself of course. I have no problems with homosexuals, and haven’t made any such innuendos or condemnations. Does this mean that you owe me an apology?
I expect not. Refusal to compromise is what it means to be a fascist, which of course is what the Collective is.
When you capitalize an entire word, does that mean that you really, really mean that word?
I don’t think that I can buy this either. Wouldn’t the comparison of a well adjusted gay couple with an abusive meth lab running but straight couple, pretty much blow this idea out of the water?
Incidentally, reading a moonbat put the word collective in sneer quotes is beyond delicious. Yummy.
@Kraken #226:
The quote you copied was my parody of a conservative argument. Sorry if that was not clear. It is not an argument that I agree with, and the entire post was dedicated to its rebuttal. Speed-reading kills.
@Kraken #227:
????
Unfamiliar term. Logic beyond my humble comprehension. Sorry.
@George Wells:
Ahh, my mistake.
.@Kraken #225:
“Y’all keep talking “collective” and “gay agenda” and making every other innuendo you can think of to condemn all gays for the actions of a few.
As far as I know, I’m the only one thusfar to talk about the Collective, well, except for the Collective itself of course. I have no problems with homosexuals, and haven’t made any such innuendos or condemnations. Does this mean that you owe me an apology?”
I don’t think so. “Y’all” was used as a shorthand term to address “”””the collection of Flopping Aces respondents who generally advocate in the following direction:””””
I will stipulate that YOU are the principle user of the term “collective,” REDTEAM and RETIRE05 are the ones who most frequently harp on the “ONE GAY AGENDA” and gay being “abnormal AND unnatural,” RETIRE is the principle user of the word “SODOMY” and REDTEAM is the principle denier that gay marriage even exists. None of you use those words or phrases exclusively, and none use them all. No apology is necessary.
“Refusal to compromise is what it means to be a fascist”
Intellectual hypocrisy. You KNOW that neither refusal to compromise nor fascism is that simple. If you know that if you sell a guy some gasoline and a match, he will set a fire, and so you refuse to sell him those goods and REFUSE TO COMPROMISE on the issue, it doesn’t make you a fascist. Neither is REDTEAM a fascist because he won’t compromise on his claim that gay marriage does not exist.
“When you capitalize an entire word, does that mean that you really, really mean that word?”
Yes. It is actually to give the word an underlining/bold effect that I cannot achieve on Flopping Aces with my computer. Don’t know why. Sorry if it bothers you.
@Redteam #223:
“How is anyone ‘fighting’ a battle or ‘losing’ a battle against gay marriage? Can you tell me any ‘personal’ act I have taken that you consider to be ‘fighting’ against gay marriage? The absolute most I have ever done is write on a blog”
Arguing on a blog is debating (at least when it is done reasonably well), and debate is verbal combat- a fight. Not every fight involves physical violence. Arguing against something IS fighting against it, regardless of whether the ammunition you are using are words, dollars or bullets.
@George Wells:
Again you spin the truth. I have repeatedly stated that not all gays subscribe to the “gay” agenda. i.e. the Log Cabin Republicans. But for some reason you seem to think if you repeat a falsehood often enough, it will become the truth.
Now, you owe me an apology.
@retire05 #233:
LOL! I’ll give you a credit against all of the apologies you owe ME! My bank stopped accepting my deposits of those, as they ran out of room!
@George Wells:
Obfuscation seems to be your forte. Where did I say that ALL gays subscribed to the “gay” agenda?
@George Wells:
Oh, well…
@George:
I don’t believe I’ve ever used the term:“ONE GAY AGENDA”, if I have, I don’t know what it means. I think the gays have multiple objectives and don’t have a clue what the agenda is.
@retire05 #235:
Happily I concede the fact that there is no such thing as EITHER a “heterosexual agenda”(a.k.a. “straight agenda”) or a “homosexual agenda” (a.k.a. “gay agenda”) that either all straights or else all gays subscribe to. But the frequent usage of the latter term here is not out of ignorance of that fact.
Further, I will argue that use of the term “heterosexual agenda” a.k.a. “straight agenda” on the other hand, and the use of the term “homosexual agenda” a.k.a. “gay agenda” on the other hand are both intentionally insulting and grossly misleading to the respective classes.
If any of these terms found legitimate usage beyond partisan labeling of issue opponents for the sole purpose of creating either confusion or mental anguish, they might have some value… but they don’t, and this is PARTICULARLY the case with YOUR usage. These disparaging terms are bantered about on this blog site as nothing more than objects of ridicule.
If you genuinely had ANY interest in SOLVING problems instead of creating more, you would not place insulting people so high on your list of priorities.
“Where did I say that ALL gays subscribed to the “gay” agenda?”
You have made the implication often. Maybe you DIDN’T mean it, but then you were just being sloppy with your words. And I’ve played this game of “Where did I say that?” with you and Redteam too many times to be fooled again. I quote you a few examples, and you change the subject. Move on.
@George Wells:
So you found something totally out of context and claim it makes your point. If I had to say what ‘a’ gay agenda is, I’d say that it is an agenda by the liberals to make fools out of gays. To make them think that the libs are sympathetic to their cause. If you really want to see how well libs support gays in the things gays are interested in, then insinuate that the gays support Republicans and conservatives and see how long the libs will still be touting the wonderfulness of the lifestyle of gays. They’ll drop them quicker than a hot quarter. Gays can be fooled all of the time by some of the people. Libs.
@George Wells:
When you make snide remarks about Christians, and claim that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your political philosophies are the “enemy”, yeah, you deserve to be insulted. Again, and again, and again.
@Redteam:
You sure the hell don’t see the Democrats beating the door down to support the Log Cabin Republicans simply because they are gay.
@Redteam #239:
“If you really want to see how well libs support gays in the things gays are interested in, then insinuate that the gays support Republicans and conservatives and see how long the libs will still be touting the wonderfulness of the lifestyle of gays. They’ll drop them quicker than a hot quarter.”
What is this? Is your NEW strategy to “divide-and-conquer”? For THAT to work, you’d have to give us a better alternative to the Democratic Party. Hint: It won’t Be the Republican Party. While there are some gays who ARE Republican, we are certainly NOT welcome in the Grand Old Party. Where else have we to go?
Ah, yes, well, BESIDES Hell…)
@retire05 #240:
“When you make snide remarks about Christians, and claim that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your political philosophies are the “enemy”, yeah, you deserve to be insulted.”
The war against homosexuals was started thousands of years ago, LONG before Christ and Christianity, but today’s war against gay rights is largely a temporal extension of that same conflict. During the long struggle, MY side has NOT sought to criminalize heterosexuality, to incarcerate straights, or to restrict YOUR civil rights.
As I explained before, it IS a cultural war, and you know it. And in any war, the opposing sides are enemies. There would be a rational purpose to hurling insults at me if doing so weakened my resolve or otherwise damaged my strategic position, but neither of these effects are in evidence. Your continued use of insult only serves to communicate the weakness of your arguments or lack of them. Keep the insults coming.
@retire05 #241:
“You sure the hell don’t see the Democrats beating the door down to support the Log Cabin Republicans simply because they are gay.”
INDEED! And for the same reason that you don’t see the Republicans beating the door down to support the KKK simply because they are straight. Fortunately, “sexual orientation” is not the overriding determinant of political affiliation for members of EITHER party – THANK GOD!
@George Wells:
The Dimocrats only support you as long as you vote for them. The only ‘right’ they support of gays is the right to vote for Dimocrats. But I agree with you about the Republicans, hell, they have even deserted the Republicans. Most Republicans don’t support Republicans. about 90% of them are RINO’S.
Some of them will promise you what you want to hear if you’ll vote for them (as the Dims do)
You planning a trip?
@George Wells:
George, if you believe that is true, then don’t you expect today’s Christians to continue that ‘war’?
Why would they? They know it’s the correct order of things. You don’t expect to criminalize a person for withdrawing money from a bank that he has in his account. That’s normal, but if he tries to withdraw money from others accounts, with a gun, then that’s not right and you should speak out against it, or to incarcerate them, or to restrict THEIR civil rights.
George, 244:
Are KKK members required to be straight? I didn’t know that was a requirement of membership.
I didn’t even know they were gay.
@George Wells:
Why would Republicans support the KKK, be they straight or gay, since it was a Democrat organization?
@Redteam #245:
(Yawn)
@Redteam #246:
“George, if you believe that is true, then don’t you expect today’s Christians to continue that ‘war’?”
Yes. And as it takes two to tango, you should expect gays to fight back. So here we are.
“Log Cabin Republicans simply because they are gay.”
I didn’t even know they were gay.”
Wow! When you bury your head in the sand, you don’t hold back, do you?
@retire05 #247:
That was the point I was making. Glad you got it.