The Left are so quick to throw out names such as "bigot", "xenophobe", "homophobe", and "close minded" to those on the Right they disagree with. But if you judge people by their actions I would contend that the Left are the true bigots, xenophobes, and closeminded haters. Anyone that was in favor of proposition 8 was labeled as such. As reported by the L.A. times the Left showed their complete lack of class. (Click here for article.)
Do the Left not understand that the majority of Californians want to keep the definition of marriage as heterosexual as it has been since the beginning of time? The protesters should realize that they are in the minority on this issue and get over themselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
Aww c'mon people, standing around screaming & name calling isn't really doing anything.
Come on, take to the next level. What? Are you not quite as filled with righteous courage as you would like to make out.
Come on anti-religious, "progressive" nut cases. Throw the first "punch". Let's kick this up a notch. It should be fun.
It's about the definition of a word, is it?
Well, I suppose that the definition of 'person' should be returned to its traditional meaning - i.e., a man, and surely never a *woman*.
While we're at it, the definition of 'human' should be returned to its traditional meaning - i.e., a white person, and surely never a *black person*.
Words are never static. Marriage is not 'owned' by anyone. It has not been anything CLOSE to the same institution throughout history. There is no reason why the state cannot call their union ceremony a marriage.
There really isn't a leg to stand on here. It doesn't matter whether you hate homosexuals, or whether you 'hate the sin, love the sinner', or whatever else you tell yourself to justify treating them differently. They are couples, they are in love and they have a right to the same treatment and an equal footing with every other couple.
Just because you don't like their behaviour doesn't mean that your taste gets to dictate their treatment. It really has nothing to do with you, outside of your perception that there is an objective supernatural moral law, and that you hold the ultimate understanding of it.
Well David we are each entitled to our own opinion. Does it bother you knowing that you are in the minority on this one? I am sure you just chalk it up to the majority of people being ignorant idiots.
California is where Canada was about 4 years ago, on the cusp.
In Canada in 2008 human rights tribunals charge pastors and demand they recant their faith in public.
In Canada today children are taught they have multiple marriage options when they grow up. (Great way to build a society, NOT). Reap what you sow doesn't quite say it well enough.
In Canada tomorrow Gay married couples will begin demanding children that share both partners DNA. These poor little science experiments will wonder what godless universe let them out of their glass womb.
Sometimes, as I turn the other cheek, I wonder if it might not be a bad thing for more islamic immigration. (I know Steyn, I should bite my tongue)
Interesting how the "less government" types are all for government to force their own narrow morality on others of different views.
Conservatives are totalitarians. And (judging from the anonymouse who dares to write of "courage) cowards as well.
the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time
Wow. How learned. Reminds of the genius who opposed bilingualism: "English was good enough for Jesus Christ, and it's good enough for us."
biebs, I applaud you for a classic example of a mindless, ignorant (hate to throw your own word back at ya, but hey) majority. Congrats! You're a part of it. Meanwhile we're at it, I also support david's wonderful recommendations.
Dear anon, I think I WILL marry another woman just because my government tells it's OK! It doesn't matter that I like men, I'll do it anyways! And you're absolutely right; everyone who supports same sex marriage is a creep who wants tube babies.
Do the Left not understand that the majority of Californians want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time?
I wonder if Biebs would agree if it read like this:
"Do the Negroes not understand that the majority of Californians want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time?"
Because that is pretty much the attitude in California until 1948 - when it was illegal for Blacks to marry whites.
Human rights are not a popularity contest. If you don't think marrying someone of the same sex is right, don't do it. Otherwise, it really is none of your business, since it doesn't affect you.
And be absolutely certain of this, being gay is no more a choice than being black is. It is a condition of birth.
I find it hypocritical that so-called Conservatives want the government out of peoples lives when it comes to making money, buying healthcare or smoking, but have no problem letting the government tell people whom they can love or whom they can marry.
And marriage has been mostly about property rights, not love or reproduction, since "the beginning of time". Perhaps if you weren't blinded by dogma, you might recognize that.
I'm Canadian. Any chance on getting information on where I can participate in watching one of those pastors being forced to recant their faith? I've never heard of such a thing happening and I'll bring popcorn for everyone.
1 Kings 11: And Solomon had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
"Beginning of time" does not mean what you think it means.
Hey, another stupid, worthless, ignorant piece of shit that thinks the world began 6000 years ago. Newsflash, asshole: the Earth has been around for 5 billion years. And over the hundreds of thousands of years that our species has existed polygamy has been the most popular form of marriage. It's why we have giant fucking testicals.
Thank God! I can't wait to see them pesky negros banned from marrying proper white woman. I've got my eye on a perky 9 year old down the street, I'm sure her family will love their new goat herd. And hey, if she ever gets so uppity she can't be fixed with a few black eyes, I'll just sell her into slavery!
Ahh Good Times Ahead!
Everything I've seen against gay marriage boil down to one or more of three arguments:
1. Logical fallacies. The most popular is the slippery slope (if gays can marry what's to keep my dog from marrying a fire hydrant) but the argumentum ad populum (something is true because many or most people think it's true) is also used.
2. "I think what gays do in bed is icky!"
3. "God thinks what gays do in bed is icky!"
I don't like tattoos. You will never see a tattoo on my body. But that doesn't mean I want tattoo parlors outlawed. If you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone who's the same sex.
Oh no this guy gives the Moron church credence.
A church based on non-existent gold plates and polygamy.
Rolls over dies laughing.
The majority on the Right in Nazi Germany wanted to expell Jews from Germany in an effort to maintain "traditional" bloodlines. That must mean it's all okay then.
These morons aren't protecting any traditional definition of marriage, because if they were, they would be protecting and advocating polygomous marriages. The fascist pigs are protecting and institutionalizing their bigotry.
Please spell out HOW it is just exactly that you imagine "the left" are xenophobes and homophobes. Because they demonstrated against the Mormon church?
"Feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think."
Sure, since you're begging for it:
I think you are a moron who are so entrenched in your bigoted values that you are unable to appreciate free-thinking and to grasp arguments that are contrary to your inbred superstitions. But you know, I could be wrong.
While we're defending the traditional meanings of words, maybe we should defend the 'traditional' meaning of the word 'baby' - that is, the meaning that existed before any understanding of embryogenesis. A baby is now the thing that comes out of the woman during birth.
Let's also defend the traditional meaning of 'government'. When we use the word 'government', we actually mean 'monarchy'. The Prime Minister is actually the King.
I've just celebrated my 37th wedding anniversary and think myself lucky.
I can't imagine how two people of the same sex becoming married to each other detracts from the status of my marriage in any way. I can't understand why anyone would think it should.
Canuck Girl
you want info, you must be stupid if you haven't heard of the Kangaroo courts of Canukistan
http://ezralevant.com/
Take a white, conservative Christian named Rev. Stephen Boissoin. After a six-year kangaroo hearing, he was convicted of hate speech for publishing an Op-Ed in the Red Deer Advocate. Six years later. He was fined $7,000 payable to his antagonists. But get this: he has been banned from saying anything disparaging about gays for the rest of his life. Disparaging is the word in the ruling. Not criminal, not hateful. Disparaging. In public sermons, even in private e-mail. Read the ruling.
And that’s not all: the government of Alberta positively ordered him to recant his views and apologize – not just to his antagonists, but in the Red Deer Advocate itself. (They wisely refused to print such a Maoist forced apology.)
Yes, "we're all entitled to our opinions"
How condescending, coming out of the mouth of someone who says that the opinion that gays should marry is "wrong."
I really fail to see the disconnect, not a single christian will comment on the whole "interracial marriage" thing that really SHINES THE LIGHT ON THIS.
It's the same damn thing. A group of people in the "minority" that wanted to get married because they loved each other.
It's something, that TO THIS DAY is still an issue, because weren't you neocons and rightwingers crying about Obama's heritage? If it wasn't because of his interracial background, it was because he might have been born in kenya (which, by the way, in case anyone actually gives a crap MEANS HE HAS DUAL CITIZENSHIP, OMG! LOOK IT UP!), or he might have had his this and that and whatever the crap the pundits could drag out.
It's always something. Leave people alone, and focus on yourself. Figure out why you hate your lives so much that all you can think about is what happens when you go to heaven. Stop letting rich institutions brainwash your thoughts and feelings, and instead trust your own instincts.
Conservatives are great!
"The Left are the bigoted, prejudiced, discriminating haters. Not the right."
& you forgot to mention that:
Up is down; left is right; black is white. Period! (Because you say it, it must be true. Who are the relativists? A: Right wing kooks.). And then for poor measure one of you adds a slippery slope argument about Canada …one step away from communism ruled by baby eating atheist dictators. Blah blah blah….
Grow up/evolve. This is issue is about human rights not your treasured majority rule. Conservatives have been the opponent of every struggle for expanding human right in every age, then years later embrace the ideas as their own!
Don’t you have anything better to do than to prattle on about how OTHER people ought to conduct their PERSONAL relationships? And to top it off you all have the audacity to bitch about government interference in economic matters—clearly a SOCIETAL issue. You would not have your precious “free-market” without the rules and laws that government puts in place and enforces (but this is a different issue about which you are also wrong).
The hypocrisy of the conservative movement is astounding. But anything is possible when black is white and hypocrisy is consistency.
Gay marriage is sooo yesterday. The new frontier should be about family marriages...mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister. After all, it doesn't affect ME personally so it must be OK!
After that, gay family marriages: father/son, mother/daughter, etc.
Nice Slippery Slope, "s".
Yes, that refutes your comment.
I don't have to drag myself down to your illogical level.
But i can do the same thing.
"What? Blacks don't want to be 3/5ths of a person anymore?"
"what? women want to work and make money? next they'll want to VOTE, and then they'll want to RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, and who knows, some day they'll EVEN WANT TO HAVE A SHOT AT THE PRESIDENCY!"
"we freed the slaves? What next, giving them land rights? Seperate but equal is illegal? BUT NEXT THEY'LL WANT TO GO TO OUR COLLEGES! AND THEN ONE MIGHT HAVE THE AUDACITY TO WANT TO BE PRESIDENT! and what happens if he succeeds?"
Those women and africans should know their place, just like the gays. Right, Fundies?
"I am sure you just chalk it up to the majority of people being ignorant idiots."
Bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, close minded, ignorant idiots actually.
And they have bad hair.
It's this simple. Either you think everyone is equal under the law or you're a bigot.
And let me ask you this how is gay marriage a threat to anyone?
If two men (or women, or to satisfy the utter absurdity of this nonesne, two dogs) in California get married are you a) going to love your wife/husband less? Are you going to hold your vows any less sacred? Are you going to take your responsibilities as a spouse any less seriously? Are you going to suddenly stop loving and caring for your children or your parents?
Here's the simple fact. People who are against gay marriage are against gay marriage because they don't think gay people are good enough to be treated the same as real people.
I say fuck them. Fuck them right in the ass with a telephone pole.
s:
Have you ever heard of birth defects and genetic disorders?
David:
Last time i checked, homosexuals that copulated were unable to have babies.
Unless you were talking about incest, in which case that's probably always going to be outlawed, because it's not between consenting adults.
s
I will indulge your slippery illogic.
Yes, what is to stop us from making it legal to boil 2 year old babies alive?
Gosh I don’t know.
If we don’t stop the gays now, then we will be boiling babies in hot oil, and maybe eat them!
Oh my God!…Stop the gays!….from getting married!
If you want to have sex with your mother or your father, go right ahead, and your daughter and/or son too, if they are old enough to consent. (Make sure you use birth control...the odds of you and any one of the aforementioned mates receiving a double dose of a nasty allele is pretty high). I support your right to have what ever consensual (i.e., not coerced) relationship you want. If you and your partner then want to argue for equal rights to “marriage” under the law, then by all means let us hear the argument.
You won't have to worry about visitation rights in the hospital when they are sick because you already have those rights as a family member. Health insurance won't be a problem either. What rights would you be denied if you were not allowed to “officially marry” your mother? None.
Thus, your argument misses the point entirely! Or rather the entire point of your argument is the problem. You just cannot get your mind around the idea that a man can fall in love with another man or that a woman can fall in love with another woman. To you it is just gross/sinful or what ever.
You miss the central point of the issue: people who have found someone to love and want to share their lives with each other want equal rights under the law. This is something you take for granted. Why would they want that? Why? A: They are human just like you and me.
Human rights. Conservatives hate them.
If I remember correctly (that's a reality-based term for "I'm not quoting verbatim nor am I making crap up like you just did") no one has ever been forced to "renounce their faith". They were ordered to pay damages and stop preaching hate from the pulpit of their church.
Unless your contention is that hate and bigotry are a faith for the preacher in question, then I guess you'd be right.
You can read the actual report, as opposed to the lied about, torqued and spun version that is being pimped here at
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf
"And that’s not all: the government of Alberta positively ordered him to recant his views and apologize – not just to his antagonists, but in the Red Deer Advocate itself.'
So your one example attacking leftist extremism involves the Conservative Albertan government?
genewitch:
I'm not sure what you're responding to.
I was stating that there are very real, biological reasons why we don't allow family members to have sex, at least, which is usually a part of marriage. I was wondering if "s" was actually serious, to be honest.
There are of course many other reasons why we wouldn't allow family members to get married, not the least of which is the violation of trust, the destruction of expected family relationships, and the potential psychological damage that would result from it.
david:
I misread your comment as somehow being aligned with what s said.
Disregard it as it pertains to you. s is still a noobcake though.
Pissed off wrote, "Canuck Girl
you want info, you must be stupid if you haven't heard of the Kangaroo courts of Canukistan"
Well, truthfully I don't read Ezra Levant. Unless he ever gets a reality-based view of the world, I doubt we'll agree on much.
However, apologizing for hate speech is hardly "recanting faith". Let's see what this good pastor had to say that got him in such hot water (quoted from here - http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/050825hearing )...
"From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators."
"Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."
"My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume."
This goes beyond quoting Leviticus or Romans and calling sodomy a vile sin. While he personally likely meant a spiritual war, a war of words in the public forum, what he wrote is the kind of thing that will get people riled up enough to take physical action and that's what hate speech laws are there to protect against.
Do the Left not understand that the majority of Californians want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time?
Do the Left not understand that the majority of Californians
not understand that the majority
the majority:
Seems you made a grave error, CM!
"The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. If for instance, a logical proof that the answer is A attempted to make the argument that 75% of people polled think the answer is A, there is a 25% chance that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this chance by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers."
Although, honestly, I know, and everyone here knows, that "conservative minded" people have no desire to make sense, use logic, be rational, inform themselves of other viewpoints, etc.
I don't expect any honest attempt to explain why "the majority" (the scant 2-3% that it was, some "majority") need necessarily be right?
The constitution is in place to protect the MINORITIES from the majority. GET IT?
So some day, when Christianity isn't so popular in the united states, some unruly librul won't be able to take away your right to talk about jesus in public, for instance.
Does that make sense?
Hey Conservative Minded aka Genius,
Conservatives have exceptionally high divorce rates. What could be more damaging to traditional marriage than to GET DIVORCED???
Why don't you defenders of traditional marriage try to ban divorce instead of rape human rights?
Oh, I forgot, it's because you are all liars. You don't really care about marriage. You just hate gay people.
Conservatives lost on slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights, creationism in school, etc, and eventually you will lose on this issue too. You should be used to losing by now.
I misread your comment as somehow being aligned with what s said.
I'm gravely insulted, but I'll get over it. :)
some unruly librul won't be able to take away your right to talk about jesus in public, for instance.
We would still be free, however, to point at you and laugh, then head off for some gay sex and a few abortions.
Once upon a time, marriage was considered *so secular* it was considered an affront to God himself to so sully a church by having a wedding in it. It was considered - by the Church and by the people - to be a primarily economic contract between two men: the father of the bride, and the husband-to-be.
Marriage wasn't a sacrament until the Council of Trent. It took nearly 200 years for culture to shift toward church weddings. Define "tradition."
Marriage since the begining of time? So, the Mayans, Egyptians, Incas, Native Americans, Kymer, Iraqis, and the denizens of Atlantas all held identical beliefs reguarding marriage?
What? That doesn't matter, cause we don't live there? Ok, then shut the hell up about "the begining of time."
..."keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time?"
Not only is this ludicrous in terms of history, in a good half of the world it is still not the case, as it contradicts scripture:
"...then marry women who seem good to you, two, three, or four; (the Women, ch4:v1)
Do the Left not understand that the majority of Californians want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time?
"Majority of Californians"? Hardly.
38,049,462 = population of CA. [Source: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1_2006-07/]
5,668,960 = number of votes in favor of Prop 8. [Source: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm]
That's 14.8989% of Californians who voted for Prop 8, bub. Last I checked, that's not a majority.
The protesters should realize that they are in the minority on this issue and get over themselves.
See math, above.
And hey - let's vote on your marriage!
"Majority" is not synonymous with "correct".
Majority of the people in country once thought it's ok to enslave another group of people.
Majority of the world once thought the Earth is flat.
Majority of the people that voted on prop 8 believe it's right impose their views based on some fairytale books upon everyone else.
so..?
you've shown "Might" wins battles.
"Slippery slope" of "illogic"? Aren't we discussing the behaviour of consenting adults, genewitch?
No one said anything about boiling babies, chris. Nice attempt at going off on a tanget though. Hey, did you ever stop to think that not all people are actually equal? Did you ever stop to think that only 2-3% of the population are actually gay? Did you ever stop to think that the majority actually have the right to determine what "normal" is, despite your whining.
david, your concerns about incest causing birth defects are answered here by wikianswers : "It doesn't *cause* birth defects, but it improves your chance of having a child with birth defects. If you're not related, you have a 3-7% chance of giving birth to a child with defects. If the parents are siblings the probability rises up thrice, to something like 17%. And if those siblings have a family history of genetic diseases, it's highly likely that a child would suffer from any or all of these genetic diseases."
So what's your problem? If you're so keen on supporting the rights of consenting adults, why aren't you keen on supporting incestuous relationships between consenting adults? You must be an anti-human rights conservative.
s: You'd better bump those Googling skills into high gear and look up the definition of the slippery slope fallacy. Let me help. David was merely illustrating the absurdness of your "argument," but you obviously didn't get it. Everybody else did, of course.
The point that was being made about incest is this: How is legalizing incestuous marriage remotely related to gay marriage? It's not, of course, because incest has genuine physical health consequences for offspring.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, hurts nobody - except the delicate sensibilities of people whose business it isn't. Legalizing gay marriage will lead to nothing... except gays getting married. And that has absolutely no repercussions for anybody except the two people involved.
"Did you ever stop to think that only 2-3% of the population are actually gay? Did you ever stop to think that the majority actually have the right to determine what "normal" is, despite your whining."
Oh, also, let me help with that one, lest your Googling skills completely atrophy.
You must be an anti-human rights conservative.
Well, I'm not.
And in case it wasn't REALLY CLEAR, s, every single one of your arguments is based upon a logical fallacy. Put more simply: wrong.
"After a six-year kangaroo hearing, he was convicted of hate speech for publishing an Op-Ed in the Red Deer Advocate. Six years later. He was fined $7,000 payable to his antagonists. But get this: he has been banned from saying anything disparaging about gays for the rest of his life."
clearly, boissoin received what god had intended for him.
KEvron
"Did you ever stop to think that only 2-3% of the population are actually gay? Did you ever stop to think that the majority actually have the right to determine what "normal" is, despite your whining."
So basically, your argument is that all of our views should reflect those of the Chinese, since they are, afterall, in the majority compared to Western civilization?
The problem with your statement is that America isn't supposed to be a "majority rules" country. Our Constitution protects us from that. I don't know if you're familiar with the concept of the "tyranny of the majority," but that's precisely what's going on with the passage of proposition 8. Democracy is about giving freedom to all, regardless (to a reasonable extent, of course) of what they think, say, do, or, as in this case, who they love. To quote Larry Flynt, "Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper."
This is the sort of thing that has so-cons privately popping champagne corks:
http://www.afterellen.com/node/40028
I'm thinking this guy thought he'd have more comments in support of his post. But he won't, because he is, in fact, a bigot, and normal, constitution-loving people find him and his ilk repugnant.
"Did you ever stop to think that the majority actually have the right to determine what 'normal' is"
so, jews aren't normal in canada? nor blacks? do protestants outnumber catholics? do women outnumber men?
KEvron
zoinks! you know you've got it all assed-up, conservative minded (an oxymoron if ever i saw one), when maryt weighs in against you. your take on a majority's entitlements within a democracy couldn't be any further from western democracy as we know it.
KEvron
"every single one of your arguments is based upon a logical fallacy."
i gave up on explaining logical fallacies to wingnuts a couple of years ago. seems that, without them, they are unabale to participate in duhbate.
KEvron
Hey, good point about the majority! As a member of the 54%ers - women - I demand that we be able to set public policy. I'll bring it up at tonight's monthly Sisterhood meeting.
I'm just here to throw grammar mud! It's "closed-mined," not "close minded" or "closeminded," Christian soldiers.
But maybe I'm not being open-minded enough about grammar or about denying rights to other human beings!
Bad me! I'm so bigoted!
Uh, no, it's not, Marmot. Use your dictionary, please. Thank you.
Post a Comment