Sunday, August 14, 2011

Sexual Liberty vs. Religious Liberty

America's post-modern fetish with all things gay has culminated in an inevitable absurdity: 

Petitions to Sesame Street demanding the marriage of Ernie and Bert.

Gay mania has gone beyond granting gays their god-given rights, and has now entered the territory of publicly-enforced morality to the point of binding our consciences.




Tim Dalrymple examines the potential consequences of New York's gay marriage law:
The religious liberties and conscience rights of individual professionals and business owners, Nimocks says, are in particular peril. Since they do not fall beneath the "religious umbrella" the law creates, wedding planners or florists or clothiers who decline to offer their services to same-sex couples may face lawsuits or other forms of government pressure. Marriage counselors and adoption attorneys, if they are not employees of a religious group, also could be accused of illegal discrimination if they do not serve gay couples.
Even those beneath the "religious umbrella" may be less protected than they would like to believe. In spite of the conscience provision, there are "huge gaping holes" in the language of the law, says Nimocks. Ultimately, the long-term consequences of the law are unknown. Yet gay couples will take offense if they are not offered the same services traditional couples receive, and the same well-funded activists who pushed the same-sex marriage bill into law will continue to make their case in the courts and in the statehouses. (Tim Dalrymple - Liberty's Loss)
Before anyone seeks recourse in the trite and inapt comparisons to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, lets recall that this is an issue determined solely by how people have sex, a private act that's nobody's business but the practitioners'.

The state rightly does not enforce Christian morality, but it does declare the moral goodness of being gay and forces the rest of us to pay obeisance to this moral pronouncement upon pain of punishment.

So why was Rick Perry's Christian rally wrong, but government forcing everyone to accept homosexuality is OK?

94 comments:

Ducky's here said...

What do Rick Perry and Michele Bachman have in common?

They both like to sleep with gay men.

Silverfiddle said...

Look everybody, Ducky smeared excrement on the wall! And he's proud of it...

Divine Theatre said...

I have no problem with gay civil unions. None. Zero.
I do, however, think the government needs to get out of the business of marriage all together.
Another reason I home school is that I don't think my daughter needs to know this architect or that author had sex with their own gender. Why is that important? I would like her to learn that people who worked hard and were dedicated to a task succeeded. Their sexual preference have nothing to do with their success....until now! Obama considers this topic important enough to have appointed the first transgender, bipolar, multi-racial so and so...
What does that teach our children? Work kinda hard, whine ALOT, be gay (or better yet, have a sex change operation), and you will succeed!

Jack Camwell said...

Fun fact about ol' Jack Camwell: I'm actually a licensed minister with the state of Ohio. I can officially solemnize marriage vows.

Much like Homer Simpson, I have no moral qualms with gays getting married, and if gay marriage is ever legalized here in Ohio, I will bank on the fact that everyone else will follow their good Christian morals.

My calculation is that I'd actually get some good business. Does that mean I have less of a conscience?

Silverfiddle said...

I cannot judge you or your conscience Jack. Freedom of religion means just that.

I am objecting to the government using its coercive power to bind my conscience on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Theatre said it before I could get here:

"... the government needs to get out of the business of marriage all together."

To which I would only add: PERIOD!

Marriage is about as personal a thing as one could ever hope to get. It should be a matter of heart and conscience never legality. Marriage is considered a sacrament in the Church. Let marriage remain entirely within the province of the Church.

Like everything else the left proposes these attempts to achieve "equality" for homosexuals are nothing more than a cover for the purpose of amassing ever greater amounts of dictatorial power. The left wants you bound, gagged, and put in a cell, so they an do with you whatever they like whenever they like.

LEFTISTS for the most part are POWER MAD MEGALOMANIACS. Virtually all of them are petty tyrants at heart -- grim, humorless, joyless JAILERS.

Every issue they raise has only one true objective: INCREASED POWER and CONTROL for the LEFTISTS.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Ducky dropped the same accusation at Z's place yesterday, and offered no foundation or corroboration for it there either.

What could he possibly mean?

I could say, "Barack Obama bites the head off a live bat before breakfast everyday in front of his wife and children's adoring eyes," but that wouldn't make it true just because I said it.

Ducky, you disappoint me. Why mar your own credibility with childish stuff like that? You've been treated with more respect here than in other venues, and were starting to act accordingly. Why spoil that by acting like a silly child?

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

FT: Well said.

"What could he possibly mean?"

To even try to understand would be a descent into childish madness.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you, SilverFiddle. The government should not be given the power to tell any privately-owned business whom they should do business with.

I'll go way out on a limb here and say this all started with the Civil Rights Movements success in forcing businesses to accept black patrons back when this was "simply not done."

I dare to say that if it weren't for the importation of Negro slaves to the colonies -- and for the social problems engendered by The Industrial Revolution -- we would not be discussing any of these nettlesome issues today.

In fact the absolute HELL of the struggle between liberty and government-enforced standards of morality and decency is at the heart of ALL these controversial issues the left uses with such spectacular success in their drive to become our jailers.

In a very real sense the left is right. The issues they shamelessly exploit are real, and ardent supporters of the status quo have for the most part been on the wrong side of history.

The Church has every right to advocate whatever standards she feels appropriate for her CONGREGATION. She may even try to persuade those outside her congregation of the error of their ways, but the church has no right, as I know you understand, to enforce her teachings by codifying them into Civl Law.

Well, I would argue that Liberalism and Atheism, which to all intents and purposes appear to be first cousins, ALSO qualify as RELIGIONS. Therefore, they too should have no legal right to enforce THEIR beliefs by codifying them into cilvil Law either.

It's the coercion to which we should object. Matters of individual taste and conscience should never be subject to legislation, unless they infringe on the rights ad individual preferences of of others.

FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

FYI: Did a little research on Rick Perry, and sure enough Politico aided and abetted by MSNBC have started the "rumor" that Rick Perry, 61, either is or has been actively gay, even though he's been married for some time to one Anita Thigpen (!) Perry. They have two children.

It's very easy to find out more, if you want to bother.

The Left -- that oh-so compassionate advocate for humanitarian concerns and Stalwart Champion of Gay Rights -- is never above exploiting the very people they tell us they are so eager to help in order to gain political leverage.

I also, listened to a film clip provided by some obnoxious leftist organization of Marcus Bachmann inveighing against homosexuality in a prissy, high-pitched, whiny, tongue-clucking, old-maidish-sounding voice, but that's the way most men from Minnesota and Wisconsin sound. Virtually all of them sound like Mrs. Grundy on the rag. They can't help it. Apparently, it's a regional thing.

It's the ACCENT, stupid. Maybe we should have government-mandated Speech Therapy for Midwesterners now?

Anyway, the Bachmann's have five children of their own (presumably all his), so isn't it time we just stopped entertaining this bat shit, and got back to the REAL issues that threaten our very existence?

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

The marriage of Bert and Ernie? How ludicrous! Except for the poor example that such a marriage would set for young children.

I'll probably take some flack for this, but I'm going to offer what I know....The verdict as to exactly how one's sexual orientation is determined isn't definitive for all individuals. We don't really know how much the role of environment (example, religion, etc.) and the role of from-birth play. In other words, we don't know if sexual orientation is promoted or inherent in all individuals. I am emphasizing the word "all."

-------------------

In the post: So why was Rick Perry's Christian rally wrong, but government forcing everyone to accept homosexuality is OK?

The double standard, of course. The rights of individual homosexuals trump the rights of individual Christians in these insane times in which we live.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"So why was Rick Perry's Christian rally wrong, but government forcing everyone to accept homosexuality is OK?:--SF



Government doesn’t “force” you to accept homosexuality, SF, anymore than government allowing the free exercise of religion forces me to be religious.

Your statement has a sniff of homophobia to it, SF.

You are free to spend the rest of your life not “accepting” homosexuality. Gay people will manage to live their happy fulfilled lives without your or anyone else’s approval.

However, the government may not deny gays the right to enjoy the same rights heteros enjoy as married people.

For those who feel discomfiture because the government--state governments in this case--grants equal rights to people whose sexual orientation disgusts them, I suggest they busy themselves with other issues and try not to continuously think about what people do to each other with their private parts.


BTW, Rick Perry, as the chief executive of the government of the state of Texas, can hold all the “Pray-for-Rain,” and Hope-that-Jesus-Favors-Us-Texans-Forever-Amen” rallies that he wants. He and his fellow religionists don’t bother me one iota. And their show-time religious grandstanding in no way forces me to “accept” his belief system.

Always On Watch said...

Silverfiddle: Look everybody, Ducky smeared excrement on the wall! And he's proud of it..

LOL! LOL!

BTW, smearing excrement all over the walls is one sign of dementia. Just sayin'.

Finntann said...

To Ducky I would reply, So? He could have three wives, two husbands, six sheep, and a goat, and he would still make a better president than the leftist we have now.

LD Jackson said...

I heard about this on NPR Friday evening and couldn't believe my ears. It's just more proof that the homosexual activists are not just after equal rights. Instead, they want their perverted brand of "normalcy" forced upon the rest of us. They desire for our children to be taught that homosexuality is a normal way of life, no matter how us parents believe. If they win that battle, they have more than half the war won.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: Equal rights? We all have them. Each man can marry one woman at a time and each woman can marry one man. Speaking of which, I assume you're for Polygamy and Polyandry as well?

Me? I am for the state staying out of it and leaving it to churches and individuals.

And the gay agenda people are the ones creating an entire protected class based on "private part" usage, so spare us.

Silverfiddle said...

FreeThinke: It's funny how the left, who claims to pass no judgments, are the first ones to employ the gay smear, isn't it?

conservativesonfire said...

The federal government should in no way be using their power to teach children that they a to be accepting of any other people, period. Children should be taught that all people have the same inalienable rights that are protected by our constitution.
The liberals are all for creating new protected classes of people because it results in more power for the liberals. they are not holier than thou by a long shot.

Finntann said...

I don't think many of us here care one way or another who does what to whomever's private parts.

Equality under the law is well accepted, where the issue arises is in the belief by some that they will be forced to compromise their beliefs by cases like these:

Couple Sues a Vermont Inn for Rejecting Gay Wedding

In 2008, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist group, violated the state’s fair-accommodation law by refusing to allow a lesbian couple to hold a civil union ceremony on its beachfront pavilion.

Both stories can be found in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20vermont.html

In these cases, government forces accomodation of a particular set of social mores and norms upon another group.

Should a Jewish inn owner be forced to host a convention of neo-nazis?

How about a halal restaurant being forced to serve pork? Aren't they denying market access to pork product producers?

How about BYOB? Bring your own bacon? Should a halal restaurant be allowed to prevent you from bringing in your own pork products?

Should a PETA office be forced to accomodate a secretary that chooses to wear furs?

Should an airline be able to stop a passenger from watching porn movies on their laptop?

You can't legislate acceptance, nor should you try.

Is not the Vermont inn sanctioned by its own policy? How much money did they choose to forgo for their moral principles?

A Methodist camp should be no more forced to accomodate a lesbian civil union than a Roman Catholic wedding.

Anonymous said...

"You can't legislate acceptance, nor should you try."

Yeah, but what about Segregation?

THAT's the wedge issue that started all this tub thumping for RIGHTS! RIGHTS! RIGHTS!

Most-if-not-all the established, accepted boundaries and mores have been challenged and have been crumbling away by Court Edict once blacks were allowed to sit anywhere they wanted on a city bus, and were put into integrated schools.

It's a FACT.

Now, exactly what does it that fact imply?

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

Desegregation came as the result of Constitutional provision.

Anonymous said...

"Should an airline be able to stop a passenger from watching porn movies on their laptop?

A resounding YES to that. Someone's seven-year-old might be in the adjacent seat.

Anything that's explicitly sexual involving exposed genitalia should be kept STRICTLY private.

It's a shame we've, apparently, lost touch with all sense of decency, common wisdom, and good taste. If that were not the case, such a situation would be unthinkable.

I'm a BIG Freedom Freak, but at the same time I should be able to reserve the right not to have someone else's tastes in music and visual entertainment forced in me in public.

How far could "freedom" to go before it becomes license? At the rate things have been degenerating since I was a kid, I can actually envision a time in the not-too-distant-future when some smartass activist troublemaking SOB will sue for the right to get naked and fuck openly on public beaches and in the meadows of public parks.

Worse yet, I can see SCOTUS granting that "right."

Won't it be lovely when our children can get their sex education firsthand while Mommy or Daddy takes them for a walk in the park or for a picnic on the beach?

Oh to be child again! WHEEEEEEEEEE!

~ FreeThinke

A Pissed Off Irishman said...

Oh the importance of it all.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, AOW, it was literally forced on us by the Supreme Court backed up by the National Guard. No one wanted it, except the activists, and I have always maintained they were motivated more by hate for the Establishment and their desire for Power than by any real love for the Negro.

The Supremes found a way to interpret the Constitution to accommodate the growing sense that segregation was wrong,

I'm old enough to remember those days. Do you remember Authorine Lucy? I may be one of last people still alive who does.

At any rate, please don't think I'm advocating a return to Jim Crow. All I'm trying to do is establish how far government should be able to go in forcing moral precepts on the public by criminalizing an ever-broadening definition of immorality?

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

There is a clear distinction between racial discrimination and behavioral discrimination.

We discriminate against behavior all the time... talking in the movies, smoking in restaurants, making out on a bus, not wearing a coat and/or tie at a fancy restaurant.

Once government is given the power to redefine social mores, we are one step closer to a totalitarian state.

Embrace diversity! Except when it deviates from the governmental definition.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF: "Shaw: Equal rights? We all have them. Each man can marry one woman at a time and each woman can marry one man. Speaking of which, I assume you're for Polygamy and Polyandry as well?"

SF, Polygamy and Polyandry are illegal. Homosexuality isn't. And wanting to marry the person you love is not illegal either.

Your distaste for homosexual marriage is faith-based.

LD: "...homosexual activists are not just after equal rights. Instead, they want their perverted brand of "normalcy" forced upon the rest of us. They desire for our children to be taught that homosexuality is a normal way of life, no matter how us parents believe>"

That's a lie. Our gay American citizens desire nothing of the sort. They desire to have equal rights and to be left alone. If your children are learning that homosexuality exists in the world, they are learning the truth. Or do you bring up your children to believe in untruths? A child can never be hurt by learning that in human beings, homosexuality exists and has ALWAYS existed. A majority of human beings is heterosexual. Homosexuals are a minority. But in America, we believe in protecting the rights of minorities.

Your anger and misstatements directed at our fellow American citizens, who are a minority, reek of bigotry.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Finntann: "There is a clear distinction between racial discrimination and behavioral discrimination."

And you're making an assumption that homosexuality is merely a behavioral transgression?

Can you give us the scientific evidence that backs up this supposition?

Anonymous said...

Shaw,

Do you wish to spread enlightenment on the subject of homosexuality, or do you merely wish to indulge in throwing a temper tantrum?

Invective is useless as a tool for winning friends and influencing people.

To begin with I'd be interested to know whether you regard homosexuality as a "choice" one may or may not make, or a "condition" imposed by Nature one must learn to live with?

If the latter, I would imagine it's no different than having blue eyes instead of brown, or straight hair instead of naturally curly, or being tall instead of short, or black instead of white, of being homely instead of attractive, etc. etc. etc. How do you feel about it?

Also, how do you look at the matter of being Jewish? Is it a choice or something imposed by genetic makeup? Is it a race, or is it a religion? Is it a learned behavior, or a genetically acquired set of inborn traits?

I'd just like to learn your thoughts. I'm sure others would be interested in learning them too.

~ FreeThinke

Mark Adams said...

As long as it is kept behind closed doors, I couldn't careless.

Z said...

SF; saw Ann Coulter yesterday...I hope you find the time to read my 'report'..she was so different than on TV in so many ways. Amazing woman. Thanks for your beautiful comment about Bonhoeffer, etc...well done.

As for Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry and Ducky's nonsense; he's blogged for 3 1/2 years at geeeeZ and, before that, at FPM with me, Pris, Impertinent, etc etc., and he was always the very first one to 'out' any Republican HE felt was gay, in a very disdainful way, too. And, my next post dealing with homosexuality's comments from him would be asking us Conservatives why we "hate gays" (As if). US? :-)

Did you know there are pages of videos on Google showing Mr. Bachmann walking down a hall? No talking, just walking. Apparently, a lot of gays think he's swishing or otherwise 'acting or walking gay'?? THat's all I can figure out from when I was directed to them. THIS, from the group that doesn't like to generalize...cute, isn't it? :-)
I guess they forgot to suggest Sarah Palin's husband was gay, so...

I guess I can delete my Bert and Ernie post I had up for tomorrow........you covered it almost as well as I had (heh heh!...but dARN!)

I have asked plenty of gay friends if they want to marry and none of them (and I was in the interiors business for years so I obviously met more gay men than some might), not one, wanted to.
In fact, some found it repugnant...they enjoyed their lives and felt marriage was between men and women... this is all about agenda.
Gad, who CARES what people DO in the privacy of their own home? I had a very close family friend who we THINK was gay; he had a very good friend for years, he never married, he was a wonderful man who had dignity and enjoyed his life. And never did he stoop to demanding anything, parading in fishnets in a parade, etc etc. WHat a lovely, loving man Leon was(He never asked what I did in MY bedroom, either, by the way...)

Shaw Kenawe said...

F. Thinke,

I've not thrown any temper tantrums. That's your mischaracterization of my opinions.

I'm not sure I want to engage in a discussion with someone who appears to be arguing that the government shouldn't step in to criminalize criminal behavior.

I'd rather ask you this? Should the government have continued to allow young children to work 12 hours a day in dangerous factory conditions? Or to allow factory owners to lock the doors to stairwells so women couldn't escape a deadly fire?

As for your questions on what I know or don't know about homosexuality, I'll answer this much:

Having gay relatives and several gay close friends allows me some insight into what I believe or do not believe.

And what the heck does being Jewish have to do with anything?

Thersites said...

First they wanted "tolerance". Then they wanted "equality". Now they demand moral "superiority".

Now bow to the Gay god you've created, people. And make your children pray to him.

Finntann said...

Shaw: Can you give any scientific evidence that it is not?

I thought not.

Homosexuality is characterized by sexual behavior, just as BDSM, D&S, polygamy, polyandry or any other sexual preference or fetish is. It is up to you to prove otherwise, not me. Find a gay gene? I'll be more than happy to reconsider my position, but until then, the burden of proof is on you.

Bondage and Discipline also exists, is legal, and is something I would prefer my schoolage children not be taught about by the state either.

And yes, homosexuality is legal while polyandry and polygamy are not... WHY? If you can't legislate one, you can't rationally legislate the other.

So little Billy has a mom and two dads... is that any different that Bobby who has two dads?

Are you or the state to say how many people we can love? One's okay, two is not?

You miss my point entirely... I could care less about homosexuality, polygamy, polyandry, or any other lifestyle preference. What I do care about is people being forced to violate their own principles at the whim of the state.

You want to have a gay wedding and western dance in my barn? I'd be more than happy to accomodate you. I won't however say that my neighbor has to be as accomodating as I am.

In the civil rights movement it was appropriate for the government to enforce desegregated state/city run transportation. The state has no right to discriminate against its citizens. I would also say that it was correct in enforcing desegregation in publicly held corporations, but it was wrong for the state to enforce desegregation is sole proprietary businesses.

Is it wrong for a business to discriminate? Yes, and I enforce that point by not doing business with them. A corporation opens itself to more scrutiny and enforcement due to the fact that it is publicly traded, a black man or homosexual can just as easily by a share of stock as anyone else. But to dictate to a sole proprietorship who they may or may not do business with is just as wrong.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: Nice dodge on the polygamy question. Three people can't love one another? Says who?

They desire to have equal rights and to be left alone.

They have equal rights. And you are right. My objection is religious and definitional. Marriage has never meant two men or two women. Call it a partnership or whatever, just get out of everybody else's face about it.

Gays in the military? All they had to do was amend the UCMJ to remove all laws that criminalized gay sex. Period. But no, the activists saw an opportunity.

Left alone? Then leave our kids alone and stop demanding the power of the state indoctrinate them!

Anonymous said...

Poor Shaw!

He so filled with defensiveness he can't recognize a possible friend when he meets one. All I can say is institutionalized belligerence blinds one to Truth.

I doubt very much that Z ever really knew any of the gay men with whom she did business, so I'm doubtful about her blanket statement that "none of them had any desire to marry." How could she presume to know? However Z makes a very good point when she says the activism on behalf of gay acceptance through the schools and gay marriage, etc. is all agenda-driven.

Of course it is!

I imagine too that many not in any way involved would be astounded at who is and who is not capable of enjoying homosexual relations. You just never know -- and I'm sure it's much better that way.

This contemporary notion that everything has to be brought out into the open, and that everything must be accepted by everybody is just plain crazy.

The practice by activist gays of "outing" others who wish their personal lives to remain private is contemptible.

No secrets may be kept from Almighty God, but it's a darned good thing that much is kept discreetly hidden in the every day course of human events. If it were not many lives would be shattered -- and so unnecessarily.

There are very good reasons why tattletales are universally despised -- and why blackmailers frankly deserve to be murdered.

I feel compelled to add that from what I've observed in seventy years of living being homosexual is no different from being a Negro, a Jew, an American Indian, a Mexican, a Japanese, a Chinese or any of the many distinct European identities.

Discriminating against homosexuals is the moral equivalent of discriminating against any other minority group -- and that would include the mentally retarded, those born with deformities, the crippled, the blind, and those who are forced to live with rare diseases that set them apart.

MOST people shy away from anything manifestly DIFFERENT from themselves. It's a natural human tendency. That doesn't make it right.

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

Here is an interesting point for you all to ponder:

How much behavior outside social norms should government recognize?

The repeal of DADT allows gays to openly serve in the military. A gay military member may designate his civil union spouse as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy and as his emergency 'next of kin' contact.

The repeal of DADT does not however grant the same sex spouse the same rights and priveliges as an opposite sex spouse. The same sex spouse will not be entitled to military healthcare, exchange and comissary priveleges, housing benefits, a dependent ID card, etc. All of these are precluded, ostensibly, under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), another federal law.

http://www.military.com/news/article/military-gay-couples-wont-enjoy-benefits.html

So let me see if I understand the administrations position...

It's okay, so long as it doesn't cost us any more money?

Cheers!

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

I find it ironic that if one does not believe in Gay Marriage or the using of children's traditional show characters and turning them into their so-called educational tools, the left labels them homophobe or bigots and if a person doesn't believe in abortion the left labels them anti-woman or if they are religious the left labels them zealots or if they disagree with Obama's Policies they are labeled Racists.
Isn't it amazing that the left is the one with all the labels and the right are considered the wing nuts?
As far as the Bert and Ernie Gay Marriage BS that is so typical of NPR. Just more "Know best" governmnet feeling the need to be the "educators" of our" children.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Anonymous said...
Poor Shaw!

He so filled with defensiveness he can't recognize a possible friend when he meets one. All I can say is institutionalized belligerence blinds one to Truth."--F.Thinke

FYI, F. Thinke, I’m not a he, I’m a she.


"Discriminating against homosexuals is the moral equivalent of discriminating against any other minority group -- and that would include the mentally retarded, those born with deformities, the crippled, the blind, and those who are forced to live with rare diseases that set them apart."--F.Thinke

That’s something we both agree on. Heterosexuals are a majority; homosexuals, a minority. We in America believe in protecting the rights of the minority. It’s as simple as that. A majority of heterosexuals enjoy the rights government confers on married couples; minority homosexual couples deserve no less.

The claim that gays are “forcing” hetero parents to teach their children “teh gaii” is ludicrous. When children learn that some men love other men and some women love other women, they are learning the truth. And children can deal with that information--believe me, I have personal experience on this.

Homosexuality has been part of our humanity since humans fell out of the trees.

I was fortunate to have been raised in a family where I never heard a word uttered against minorities, and I wasn’t taught by any religion that my fellow human beings were depraved or deviant because of whom they loved.

This is probably why I don’t understand most anti-gay comments here and why F. Thinke believes I've been belligerent.

Mark Adams said...

"We in America believe in protecting the rights of the minority"
No, we in America believe in protecting the rights of ALL. It's called We the People.
Nothing in the constitution says you can give special rights to a group or class of people.
One thing people need to know. If the "Government" 'grants' you a right, it can take it away.

Ducky's here said...

Well Silverfiddle, I'll try to hold down the sarcasm.

But it is curious that the right simply ignores homosexual dalliance among its own.
Whether it's Larry Craig cruising restrooms or Bachmann's gay husband ripping off Medicaid with his "pray gays straight" clinic. The rumors about Perry seem inconclusive.

But it doesn't matter. The courts have determined that the civil contract f marriage can not be denied homosexuals in certain states. So live with it.

Or you can go pull your American Taliban act and continue with every lame ass argument you can find. Catering a gay wedding would profoundly offend someone's religious sensibilities? Bore me later.

Jersey McJones said...

Marc Adams, you are wrong.

Our nation was explicitly constructed with protecting the rights of minorities in mind. Granted, we excluded many minorities over the years, so pat yourself on the back for being among that bunch. But thanks to that basic tenet of our national foundation - the protection of the rights of minorities - people like you have been less and less able to force your way of life on minorities.

We do not yet - but you guys are hard working at it - live in a social tyranny of the masses.

JMJ

98ZJUSMC said...

Since when did homosexuality become a race?

Ducky's here said...

Here's something to consider, Finntann.

A gay couple was married in Massachusetts and one has AIDS while the other, an Australian, is his primary care giver.

They have been together for 20 years but due to the Defense of Marriage Act the marriage does not give the Aussie citizenship and he's being deported despite The Black Messiah's statement that the DOMA would not be enforced.

What is gained by this action. How far will you go to defend your cheap bigotry gleaned from one line in the tribal laws of a bunch of primitive goat herders?

American Taliban, that's all you are. The courts have already ruled against polygamy. Move on and admit you just don't like gays and you little mercenary's soul can't admit it.

And it thumpers care so much about marriage, why is their divorce rate so high?

98ZJUSMC said...

people like you have been less and less able to force your way of life on minorities

Wh-wh-what?

That's just plain stupid.

Oh, ...I see who wrote it. Never mind.

Ducky's here said...

Nothing in the constitution says you can give special rights to a group or class of people.

------------
What special rights are you talking about? Every time one of you fringe righties starts with "where in the Constitution..." it's time to get out the hip waders.

The homos are kicking your teeth in in the culture war, get used to it.

98ZJUSMC said...

The rumors about Perry seem inconclusive

But they rate poo flinging, don't they?

Primitive.

You seem to demand solid intellectual discourse for others, while descending into the baseless time and again.

Keep on that high ground.

Jersey McJones said...

Anyone here who doesn't understand the moral and constitutional necessity that the equal rights of minorities must be preserved for the sake of both those minorities and the temporal maorities that stand against them, is a fucking moron.

JMJ

MK said...

It's Bachmann not Bachman dumbass.

i guess for liberals everything is about sex, Tea Party = tea baggers. When Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann come along terrifying leftards that their gasbag empty suit will get booted out, they're gay or something similarly stupid. No brains to contest them with valid arguments, just some worthless piffle about them being gay. Funny how liberals are supposed to love homos, but Conservative homos are just dreadful people.

When it comes to your children and education or the programs they watch on TV, liberal creeps want to focus on bum sex and teaching them all about it. Gee i wonder why. And don't tell me it's to promote tolerance, we've all been informed to the back teeth about homos and how wonderful they are, quite frankly they're old news, no one gives a damn anymore people. if you take it up the ass, well good for you, now please eff off and leave us alone. Me being uninterested in your sex life doesn't equate to me bashing homos or persecuting them.

Ordinary Americans and most other people have jobs, bills, taxes, the future for them and their children, security for their nation and such things on their priority list. But not the liberal retards who insist on speaking for us. For them gay bum sex has to be the biggest priority for us.

Sorry but we really don't care, so have a tissue and get over it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Mark Adams,



"While there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes.

Protecting the rights of a minority is not giving it "special" rights, it's considered humanly decent, democratic, and aspiring to our better natures.

Mark Adams said...

"Our nation was explicitly constructed with protecting the rights of minorities in mind."
Jersey please point to where the constitution that makes this claim.
You lefties have been guided by the extreme left to dissect the constitutions simple, logical words to suit your own agenda.

"people like you have been less and less able to force your way of life on minorities."
What's my way of life? You mean the rights the constitution grants all? Is this not yours way of life, too?

Mark Adams said...

Here Duck, enjoy the reading. It's something new to you, I am sure.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html

Mark Adams said...

Shaw, I'll draw your attention to the subject of collective bargaining rights as an example of "special rights", granted by government. I will then refer you back to my original statement "If the "Government" 'grants' you a right, it can take it away."
BTW: as much as people think, especially the left, we are not a democracy, as much as it is a republic. Representative majority.

Kid said...

Seperation of Sex and State !

(Damn, I gotta get back here more often. Great blog)

Finntann said...

Ducky, do you even read what I write?

Government should not be in the marriage business, period.

Want a church wedding fine...afterwards you go to the county clerk and register your civil union.

Marriage has historically been, and across many if not most cultures, a religious institution. For convenience we have allowed religious figures to be the authority conducting the ceremony. That is all it is, a convenience, that a fundamentalist minister can marry members of his church puts him under no obligation to marry anyone else.

Civil unions should accord the contractual partners the same rights and benefits as we currently provide for heterosexual marriage partners.

Furthermore, government should have no say in who or how many partners there are to the civil contract.

That said, government also ought not be sponsoring or promoting lifestyle choices of any kind. The poetry of Walt Whitman might be appropriate for a 9th grade English class... his sexual preferences are not. While I might want to explain to my children how Whitman's sexuality influenced his poetry, I would not presume to so instruct my neighbors children.

Personal choice.

As I said previously, the state can't discriminate, public corporations, being publically traded can't discriminate, but it is not the governments place to tell us who we must like, dislike, tolerate, or not. Nor should it treat sole proprietorships as if they were public institutions or public property.

The Hilton Hotel Corporation as a publicly traded corporation should be subject to a higher standard than Billy Bob's Bed, Breakfast, and Baptist Revival Tent.

I have no problem whatsoever extending the same civil union benefits to homosexuals, polygamists, polyandrists, etc.

What I have a problem with is the state telling a Methodist Camp that they have to host a lesbian wedding, or that a sole proprietorship Bed and Breakfast must welcome them into a single room. Or the state presuming to instruct our children in acceptance of moral choices abhorrent to their parents.

Cheers!

Finntann said...

"How far will you go to defend your cheap bigotry gleaned from one line in the tribal laws of a bunch of primitive goat herders?"

Speaking of cheap bigotry, who placed you as judge and jury over the moral standards of others?

I at least recognize that my value system is just that, my value system, no better or no worse than any other. I don't presume to instruct your children in it, why would you presume the right to instruct mine?

Just one man's opinion, but it seems to me that government is your religion and the state is your god. In that matter, you are not much different than a goatherd.

Anonymous said...

High on a hill was a lonely goatherd
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo
Loud was the voice of the lonely goatherd
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

Folks in a town that was quite remote heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo
Lusty and clear from the goatherd's throat heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

O ho lay dee odl lee o, o ho lay dee odl ay
O ho lay dee odl lee o, lay dee odl lee o lay

A prince on the bridge of a castle moat heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

Men on a road with a load to tote heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

Men in the midst of a table d'hote heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

Men drinking beer with the foam afloat heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

One little girl in a pale pink coat heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

She yodeled back to the lonely goatherd
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

Soon her Mama with a gleaming gloat heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo
What a duet for a girl and goatherd
Maria and the Children:
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

One little girl in a pale pink coat heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hoo hoo

She yodeled back to the lonely goatherd
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

Soon her Mama with a gleaming gloat heard
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hmm hmm
What a duet for a girl and goatherd
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo!


~ Oscar Hammerstein II

~ Contributed by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

You know if we could just cut out the defensiveness, the contempt and the sarcasm, we might actually learn something of value from one another.

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke,
I had to look up Authorine Lucy as I didn't recognize the name. But I do recall reading about her and the University of Alabama.

Always On Watch said...

Finntann,
Want a church wedding fine...afterwards you go to the county clerk and register your civil union.

Isn't that the method used in Switzerland?

Always On Watch said...

This comment from Thersites is spot on, IMO:

First they wanted "tolerance". Then they wanted "equality". Now they demand moral "superiority".

Now bow to the Gay god you've created, people. And make your children pray to him.


In another few years, heterosexual couples will be labeled bigots -- just by dint of their having chosen a heterosexual relationship. It is already "cool" to be gay.

Always On Watch said...

In my view, whom one chooses to marry is a personal choice -- racial, sexual orientation, whatever.

However, marriage also has a religious component for many. In that regard, it should be the couple's and the church's own choice whether or not to label the relationship as "marriage."

Here in Virginia, when one is married in a church, the marriage certificate is manually filed with the civil authority. It is through the civil authority that one obtains the legal benefits of marriage.

I do know several couples who never had a marriage ceremony performed in a church. Are they married in the eyes of the church? Depends on the church.

Z said...

In Germany (and probably Switzerland, too..oh, and England, too), AOW, they do the Civil Union first, at a court, sometimes days before, then have a wedding at a church if they want to, and a party.

Thersites said...

Anybody remember when the world's "psychiatrists" decided to normalize homosexuality a few decades ago? Welcome to Phase II... anybody need an eromenos?

jez said...

Z: no, in England you can get the whole thing done in a church in one go. Maybe that's just CofE, not sure.

As for "sex is private", well of course it is but relationships aren't. We're all agreed that marriage is useful, the whole point is that it's a public declaration.

Some conservatives seem to think it's all right to demand that homosexuals keep their relationship secret, and that by being asked not to make that demand it's special rights for gays, or eroding their rights to bigotry or something.

'First they wanted "tolerance". Then they wanted "equality".'

Was that wrong of them? How dare they want equality!

'Now they demand moral "superiority".'

How's that?

Speedy G said...

How's that?

Here you are, arguing about your right to educate OUR children.

What gives YOU the right to "educate" anyone?

Speedy G said...

The morally clueless have no "right" to pass on their values to ANYONE. You want to educate a child on the finer points of sodomy? Practice a form a sex that produces a child. Else, I recommend" you keep your impractical and patently unsuccessful reproductive "methods" to yourselves.

Speedy G said...

for as Nietzsche says in WtP 493 (1885)

Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive.

Your "kinds of errors" have no value for life and are therefore an "un-truth".

Joe Conservative said...

The world will better survive through being a little "less educated".

Anonymous said...

"As for "sex is private", well of course it is, but relationships aren't. ..."

I don't think that's true, Jez. Lots of little old maids used to live together. In the world I came from it was always assumed they did so to share economic burdens and to offer each other a bit of companionship. Heaven only knew what was really going on between them! People were much to polite to ask -- or even to speculate.

Lots of men used to live as "bachelors" too and that was never questioned either. It was all quietly accepted, until The Sexual Revolution whipped everyone into a frenzy to know in the most vulgar and grotesquely graphic fashion everything about tits, cunt, cock, balls, ass and armpits and what people might be doing with those things in their spare time.

My parents went to their graves after forty-odd years of marriage, and never gave anyone the slightest clue as to whether or not they ever had oral sex, anal sex, multiple orgasms, extra-marital affairs or bisexual feelings. For all I know they never had sex at all after I was conceived in the eighth year of their marriage. I have always been immensely grateful for their reticence -- and for that of everyone else in their social set.

"We're all agreed that marriage is useful, the whole point is that it's a public declaration."

Marriage is more a state of mind than anything else. So many are legally married, but live virtually separate lives. Others who've never made a "public commitment" have lived together devotedly in bonds of mutual support and affection for several decades.

"There are more things in Heaven and earth than could be included in your philosophy, Horatio."

Sorry if that's a misquote, but the meaning is clear enough all the same.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

@ FreeThinke: Lots of little old maids used to live together. In the world I came from it was always assumed they did so to share economic burdens and to offer each other a bit of companionship. Heaven only knew what was really going on between them! People were much to polite to ask -- or even to speculate.

Lots of men used to live as "bachelors" too and that was never questioned either.

My parents went to their graves after forty-odd years of marriage, and never gave anyone the slightest clue as to whether or not they ever had oral sex, anal sex, multiple orgasms, extra-marital affairs or bisexual feelings. For all I know they never had sex at all after I was conceived in the eighth year of their marriage. I have always been immensely grateful for their reticence -- and for that of everyone else in their social set.


Yes! I've had this rolling around in my head but have not been able to state it as you just did.

Since when did everybody's private life go public?

It reminds me of Michael Savage observing that the 1st Amendment only became important when the porn pushers wanted to mainstream it. It is still only important of pushing every kind of perversity and things that are better kept private or left unsaid.

That same 1st Amendment is no good, however, for protecting religious speech if for example a valedictorian wants to thank The Lord Jesus in her graduation speech.

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke,
Marriage is more a state of mind than anything else

Not when it comes to liability for medical bills. There is no way for a husband and a wife to separate their funds to prevent medical bankruptcy -- as I discovered to my chagrin even before Mr. AOW had his disabling stroke.

Marriage has legal and financial benefits -- and legal and financial drawbacks as well.

Trestin said...

Ducky, what evidence do you have that Michelle Bachmann's husband is gay? Did you use the same method you used when you were five to deduce who had cooties?

jez said...

Freethinke: I'm suggesting that burden of secrecy was a bad thing. I certainly don't agree that you have the right to impose it on maids & bachelors now, what makes you think you do? Wouldn't you be surprised at a non-adulterous long-term heterosexual relationship conducted in secret, and feel pity for the participants? I would.

jez said...

And does the government enforce that "homosexuality is ok" any more than it enforces that "christianity is ok" or "islam is ok".

Government seems to be increasingly keen on encouraging citizens to not discriminate on certain bases (sexuality, religion, race, gender etc.). Do you argue specially in favour of discrimination on the basis of sexuality, or are you just plain in favour of discrimination?

Speedy G said...

Yes, I'm for sexual discrimination. Women should NOT be allowed into the Men Rest Room, period. Only Men SHOULD be allowed to go into the Women's Rest Rooms.

Oh, wait, let's just discriminate against all and only let Men go into Men's Rest Rooms and Women into women... kinda the opposite of marriage. ;)

Speedy G said...

Jez, you are proof possitive that stupidity LITERALLY knows no bounds.

Speedy G said...

Indiscrimination means that having sex with minor children is fine... are you "fine" with that, Jizz?

Speedy G said...

To "choose" is to "discriminate". Jizz doesn't like having choices/options. Totalitarians are like that...

Anonymous said...

AOW, I know exactly what you mean, and you are correct. Legal marriage has its penalties as well as its rewards.

Have you read, as I have, of instances where loving couples went through the process of getting divorced just to avoid "the marriage penalty" in their taxes, and to avoid the kind of liability you brought to our attention?

These couples, of course, went on living together after their "legal" divorce just as though nothing had happened. Some regard this practice as immoral, others as prudent. Pragmatist that I am, I'm in the latter camp.

It's a bit similar to divesting an aged parent of much of his or her net worth after one gets power of attorney, so that "all the money" doesn't get eaten up by end-of-life care. It may sound cynical or cold-hearted, but as long as the person in charge of the elderly relative behaves responsibly and makes sure all the needs of his charge are properly met I see nothing wrong with it.

I certainly wish you well with the ordeal you're going through right now. Believe me I understand the sacrifices you are making. I've been through the same thing, myself, more than once.

I think it's morally wrong that you might be impoverished after taking such good care of your husband. What a reward for doing the right thing! It's like adding insult to injury.

I dislike the welfare state, but we are at our most vulnerable in old age, and I firmly believe that no one should be forced into bankruptcy and become destitute just because he or she had the gall to get ill and become helpless. That's where we really should help each other collectively -- where there is real need, I hasten to add.

I frankly think it's absurd for very rich people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Donald Trump and Nancy Pelousy to collect one red cent from government, except a legitimate tax refund now and then. We should pay for our care -- according to our ability. I'm a great believer in The Sliding Scale.

Sorry to sound like Marx, but he did make some sense now and then. We've got to give the devil his due.

I'm not rich, but I've been fortunate, so I give my Social Security check to charity each month -- and a little more besides. Then I thank God each day for giving me the means to be generous.

If people of means had been more generous to their employees and more charitable toward the needy, we might not be saddled with the vile socialism that's sapping our strength today.

"Laws are never made till they've been broken."

Regarding my remark about marriage being a state of mind, it would have been more accurate if I had said love and loyalty instead.

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke,
Mr. AOW and I are hanging on by the skin of our teeth.

I did post THIS about the predicament that Mr. AOW and I faced. One salient portion which shows one of the drawbacks of being married when caught in the medical loop:

Once we established that Medicaid was not an option and that I was indeed determined to bring Mr. AOW home, I was threatened: "We'll have to report you to adult protective services."

So, how did I bring Mr. AOW home without getting arrested? I had in place the necessary paperwork: complete power of attorney and the advanced medical directive, both of which documents gave me conseiderable legal power. I also had on my side our family physician, who was willing to sign the release orders. This last is very important! Had I not placed Mr. AOW under the care of the family physician, the nursing-home physician could have refused to release Mr. AOW, thus forcing us into bankruptcy.

Also of help was a bit of name dropping, specifically, the name of my husband's personal attorney, famous as "the attorney of attorneys." Were he called in, he would own the nursing home by the time he was finished! At that point, the nursing home, recognizing the kind of legal proceedings they could be up against, agreed to starting the necessary paperwork for Mr. AOW's release from the nursing home....


Often married couples have no choice but to divorce to avoid medical bankruptcy. Frankly, I believe that the Lord understands and condones such divorces. Were Mr. AOW to have another serious stroke, we've already agreed that divorce would be the only option for my financial survival. A horrendous reality if if ever have to pursue that option!

divesting an aged parent of much of his or her net worth after one gets power of attorney, so that "all the money" doesn't get eaten up by end-of-life care

On the advice of a financial attorney, my widowed father did just that. I saw to it that Dad's final wishes ("No nursing home EVER!") we followed -- with the help of our long-time family doctor.

Gay couples who are agitating for marriage may not be aware of the possible financial ramifications -- serious and severe financial ramifications.

jez said...

Speedy obviously wants to discriminate on every basis, but we already knew that about him.

What about the rest of you?

Anonymous said...

God bless you, AOW.

I have a lifelong friend who went through exactly what you're facing when her husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and became severely crippled after he had a bad fall.

I believe remaining home is always best whenever possible. Mr. AOW is fortunate to have you, as I'm sure he knows.

I hope you can get some help to relieve you at regular intervals. It's fearfully expensive thanks largely to all the government mandates involved "for our protection," but worth it if you can manage. Even an afternoon off once a week would be a great help.

I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers. And may you take comfort and draw strength in knowing you're doing the right thing.

Best,

~ FreeThinke

PS: Your point about gay couples not thinking through the downside of legal marriage is well taken.

Anonymous said...

Jez,

Speedy -- and most of us here -- does not want the State to instill it's official version of morality in his children or ours. That would be tantamount to violating the Establishment Clause in our Constitution.

"Secular Humanism," which is what you advocate, whether you realize it or not, qualifies as a "religion" every bit as much as Catholicism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Judaism, Satanism or Voodoo.

Marxism and Atheism are religions too.

The State has no legal right to preach and teach what-amounts-to a State Religion in our schools -- especially since the State refuses to give Christianity -- the religion of 75-80% of our population equal time.

I do sympathize with the idea of encouraging tolerance and understanding of all that seems "different," but that's very different from proselytizing for adherence to what-many-sincerely-regard-as aberrant, undesirable behavior.

"Vice is a creature of such fearful mien
As to be hated needs to be seen,
Yet seen too oft -- familiar with her face
First endure -- then pity -- then embrace."


Pope had a point there, Jez.

~ FreeThinke

Thersites said...

Indiscrimination means that having sex with minor children is fine... are you "fine" with that, Jizz?

...aparently his answer is, "yes". Wow! Talk about "indiscriminate" sexuality.

jez said...

Speedy wants to persecute gays, doesn't he? He hasn't explicitly said so, but that's his implication. It might just be shtick, but that's what he wants me to understand, right?

I, along with my dictionary, prefer a stricter definition of "religion".

Are there any Americans who have had insufficient exposure to Christianity?

jez said...

Silverfiddle: Thersites and Speedy have supplied you with that fallacy of accident you were looking for.

Speedy G said...

persecute gays?

Un-priviledge is more like it. I "tolerate" gays. I don't "endorse". I don't promote "equality" (of sexual lifestyles). I don't "socially priviledge" them with those advantages given legitimately married people that empowers them to raise children. I certainly don't give them ANY tax and/or financial incentives. And last but not least, I would never "honour" them.

If toleration constitutes "persecution" in your eyes, so be it. But as far as I'm concerned, gays are only one step on the food chain above child molesters.

Speedy G said...

ps - I'm no Christian... so bashing them ain't gonna get you anywhere in MY world.

Speedy G said...

Truth is the kind of error necessary for the perpetuation of the species. Homosexuality is not.

Ducky's here said...

The morally clueless have no "right" to pass on their values to ANYONE. You want to educate a child on the finer points of sodomy? Practice a form a sex that produces a child. Else, I recommend" you keep your impractical and patently unsuccessful reproductive "methods" to yourselves.

============

Never got a little loaded and come in the back door, Farmer?

Trestin said...

Good job Ducky, you just called for the legalization of pedophilia. You are not just a leftest fool, your sick freak.

MK said...

"are you "fine" with that, Jizz?"

ROFLMAO. That's funny Speedy. Sorry to laugh at your expense jez, it was just too much.

"If toleration constitutes "persecution" in your eyes....."

I don't know if it does to jez, he can clear that up himself, but to many leftards i'm sure it does, i recently watched an interview that Michele Bachmann did with some leftard. The way he was pressing the homo and womens lib points, I got the impression that Bachmann and every other Conservative should start off such interviews by saying - Look i don't believe in men marrying men, women marrying women and i won't vote for it or promote it. However, let me be the first to state that if i win the top job i will not, repeat - will not be forming a black ops team to run around America kicking in doors arresting homos for having bum sex and single women from having jobs and fornicating without some sort of frigging license.

It's so annoying, for leftards if you won't celebrate homos, fairies and abortions, you're some sort of gay-bashing, women-hating thug yearning to kill them or something. It's just crazy.

"Never got a little loaded and come in the back door, Farmer?"

mmmmm, is that like a gay smear or something ducky boy, or is that just how you roll?

-FJ said...

Never did, duckmeister. Just call me "socially responsible".