E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Associated Press
Republican presidential candidates are joining New Hampshire's intensifying gay marriage debate — whether they like it or not.
State lawmakers plan to take up a measure to repeal the law allowing same-sex couples to wed and a vote is expected at some point in January — the same month as New Hampshire holds the nation's first Republican presidential primary contest. Already, candidates have been put on the spot over the divisive social issue when most, if not all, would rather be talking about the economy, voters' No. 1 concern.
The impending focus on gay marriage carries risk for several of White House contenders — including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former businessman Herman Cain — whose inconsistencies on the topic are well documented.
Recent polls have shown former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at or near the top of the field, along with Romney. With a little less than six weeks to go until the lead-off Iowa caucuses, people are listening to the former nemesis of Bill Clinton and would-be challenger to President Barack Obama.
But this issue may cause Gingrich problems. Earlier in the fall, he told an Iowa audience that gay marriage is a "temporary aberration" likely to go away because it defies convention. Gingrich, who has been married three times, has a half-sister in a same-sex marriage.
"The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists," Candace Gingrich-Jones wrote the former speaker in a letter posted on the Huffington Post in 2008: "In other words, stop being a hater, big bro."
The Republican candidates' increasingly vocal support for "traditional marriage" also threatens to alienate a growing number of younger Republicans and independents here who support legal recognition of same-sex couples. That note of divisiveness could bode poorly for the eventual Republican challenger to Obama in the general election.
Even so, the Republican candidates aren't shying away from the topic as they run for the nomination of a party dominated by conservatives and pushed further to the right by the tea party over the last few years.
"As conservatives, we believe in the sanctity of life, we believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I applaud those legislators in New Hampshire who are working to defend marriage between one man and one woman realizing that children need to be raised in a loving home by a mother and a father," Perry told a New Hampshire audience recently, becoming the latest contender to address gay marriage directly.
Although the issue hasn't yet become a regular talking point on the campaign trail, most Republican candidates declare support for the effort to repeal the law. And groups like the National Organization for Marriage hope to force the presidential contenders to publicly embrace the repeal.
Romney was the Massachusetts governor when his state legalized gay marriage. The Romney administration, as directed by the courts, granted nearly 200 same-sex marriage requests for gay and lesbian couples in 2005.
Campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said the former governor had little choice but to follow the state Supreme Court ruling at the time. He noted his candidate's consistent opposition to both civil unions and gay marriages, adding that Romney openly supports the New Hampshire repeal effort.
But Romney has reversed himself on whether gay marriage should be addressed at the state or federal level.
This past June, he said during a debate that he favors a federal constitutional amendment banning the practice. That's been his position at least since the beginning of his 2008 presidential bid, when he was the only major Republican candidate to support such an amendment.
But as a Massachusetts Senate candidate back in 1994, Romney told a Boston-area gay newspaper that same-sex marriage is "a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction." Aides say it's unfair to scrutinize Romney's position in 1994 — when there was virtually no discussion of a federal amendment. And they suggest Romney's rivals have far more blatant inconsistencies in recent months.
Both Perry and Cain have drawn conservative criticism for recent comments related to gay marriage.
Asked in mid-October whether he supports a federal marriage amendment, Cain told the Christian Broadcasting Network that federal legislation is necessary to protect traditional marriage. That seemed to be a direct contradiction from his statement of just six days earlier, when he told "Meet the Press" host David Gregory that states should be allowed to make up their own minds.
"I wouldn't seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage, but I am pro traditional marriage," Cain told Gregory.
In Perry's case, the Texas governor says he supports the New Hampshire repeal. But in July he said that New York's move to legalize gay marriage was "fine by me." A week later, facing social conservative criticism, he walked back the comments.
"It's fine with me that the state is using their sovereign right to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me," he said then.
GOP presidential candidate Herman is in favor of traditional marriage, and he doesn't agree with abortion "under any circumstances."
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
Oh what the hell the world is going to hell in a hand basket already
Of course the national GOP (aka American Taliban) is not liking this.
The GOP wants Sharia Law.
The GOP moralist police want to tell you that you can only live your life by their rules.
The GOP doesn't want anybody to have rights.
The GOP wants to take the US back to the Dark Ages where mystical religious dogma and fear ruled the masses.
Get over it, GOP.
Sexual-orientation is a part of a person's nature. It is something they are born with. It is found in ALL mammals.
And same-sex couples have every right to enjoy the same rights and privileges of marriage as anybody else.
.
Psychosis always adds to a discussion, but seldom in a good way. You are a great example to us all.
No, I think they just want what's right, marriage defined as one man and one woman, not six women and one man, or one man and one man, or two women and three men, a father and mother for each child, and an innocent child not to be slaughtered in it's mother womb. I think that's what they want.
Timothy, you rant is unbelievable. Not good talking points if you want to make a point. If the conservatives TP/Republicans really believe what you are saying then why are there so many divorces in the conservative families. Why do conservatives TP/Republicans believe in war where one parent can be killed leaving a child/children with only one mother or one father destroying the family of one mother and one father for each child.
You all believe in pro fetus, where if the mother's life is at stake you do not feel that the other children in the "family" of one mother and one father is appropriate. The mother can die.
As far as innocent children are being slaughtered in its mother womb. A child is not a child until it can live on it's own. Otherwise, it is just cells feeding off of it's host.
To quote a poster from CNN on 11 22 2011 "cf" after the CNN debate.
"Pro fetus is not pro-life. These people are not pro-life. They applaud wars and cheer the death penalty (even when the convicted is innocence) and favor sick people dying because they are poor rather than spend anything to help them out. They are against health care laws that is about saving lives and against Corporate regulations that make life safer. They are Anti-Life in all instances outside of the uterus."
Why does this law put pressure on GOP candidates? Most citizens (even in places like super-liberal California)are against gay marriage.....it's a nonissue in this election.
Gay marriage is a State issue. It's not up to the Federal Government to decide. I could care less if two guys or two gals get married. It's not going to affect my life one bit. My wife's aunt is married to her life partner. They are happy. Good for them... Abortion on the other hand is a subject I've learned to stay away from. For the record that should be a State issue as well...
Where is marriage defined that way, Timothy? And who said that YOU get to decide what is the "right" definition? You -- and your fellow Christian-sharia law enthusiasts -- don't own the word "marriage".
If you had read the article -- in fact, if you had read any article on the subject for the past six months or so -- you would know that the majority of Americans (53%) support marriage equality. Even the majority of people in NH (62%) are against repealing the law allowing same-sex marriage.
As for it being a "nonissue in this election," I guess civil rights are unimportant -- until YOUR rights are denied.
The states and federal governments and their conservative candidates:
We can't give you stable government. We can't give you jobs. We can't tell the truth ever. We can't guarantee social security you paid into actually gets paid. We can't instruct businesses to behave just and within the law.
but, although we are against regulating banks, oil companies, education, we can and will regulate your pelvis.
spider, you should know this. look who published this info.
Published May 22, 2011
| FoxNews.com
A recent Gallup poll shows 53 percent of Americans support making gay marriage legal, Reuters reports.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/22/time-majority-americans-support-gay-marriage/#ixzz1eduq9J5U
You conservatives are soooo predictable it's hysterical. Segue from gay rights to pro-birth (since none of you actually are pro-life) to guns and God.
When does the "So I can marry my goat" argument come out??
Spider, please go back and read the article. You say that "most people ... are against gay marriage". Upon what fact, research, study or whatever do you base this statement? The article pointedly says that recent research (polls) demonstrate that the majority of people in the U.S. support the right of same-sex individuals to marry. They provide their sources. All you do is give your opinion. And, you have a right to your opinion; even if it is wrong.
Give it a rest...based upon your statement that gay marriage is a state issue, I presume that you are opposed to the Federal DOMA law and that you would be opposed to any Federal law that would limit a state's right (as you put it) to decide this issue. What response do you make to those politicians and some others who advocate for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage?
It's election time folks....time for conservatives to pull out the ridiculous social issues that fire up their less intelligent base...the ones that can't even understand the real issues....
NH has already legalized gay marriage...so how do you fire up the ultra conservative base to show up at the polls? You threaten to repeal it. So predictable...and of course...the idiot conservatives will fall for it again...just as they do every single time...
Now stop bashing the hatefully loving Christian zealots.
"Gay marriage is a State issue. It's not up to the Federal Government to decide"
How is that working for us? Letting the states decide is retarded. We are one nation not 50. They should just pass an amendment stating all can marry. Then it wouldn't be such a big deal.
So to sum it up, if I ever felt like sodomizing another man, a democrat would be more obliging?
Gay marriage is currently a state issue, as each state can decide to legalize it or not. However, marriage itself is a federal issue and gay marriage will possibly fall under federal perview as more states either legalize gay marriage or as more legal challenges come up.
States cannot ban abortions outright, as that would violate SCOTUS ruling. However, states can impose limits on abortion after the 1st trimester.
Tim, what you think is irrelevant and otherwise outright wrong, as Erin and others here pointed out!
@Satanick: There is a reason we are the "United States". We are a Republic made up of 50 individual States and Commonwealths. As sovereign entities bound by choice to the "Republic" each "state" has the right to create its own laws. The federal government has no authority to legislate morals because the Constitution has made it this way. All powers not vested in the federal government nor prohibited of the states are reserved to the states and to the people.
Apparently they think that anyone trying to stop them from prosecuting "sinners" is somehow persecuting them. They have a right to their beliefs, but they do NOT have the right to enforce those beliefs on non-believers.
No, a Gay man would be more obliging - sexual orientation is more important than political orientation. There are Gay Republicans and Gay Democrats (and Gays that don't belong to either party) but the Gay Republicans are far more likely to be closeted self-loathing hypocrits. It would be easier to find an obliging Gay Democrat than an obliging Gay Republican, though.
@bhonest and fair: The Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996 and overwhelmingly passed by both the senate and congress should not even be in existence. As far as an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage, that is just silly. If there is going to be an amendment in our near future it had better be for requiring a balanced budget.
the tide has turned against those who oppose treating lgbt persons fairliy. a few more years and those laws will be consigned to the dustbin of history. pass them all you like, they are on their way out. like jim crow, poll tax, anti-miscegenation, sodomy, adultery and all those laws where we have recognized the injustice and sent them on their way.
going going gone....
It appears you can't tell the difference between sexual orientation and politics. How odd your life must be.
maridanne
QUOTE:
As long as governments allow and encourage LGBT people to teach specific perverted sex acts like "Fisting, PEE Play and S&M" to our children paid for with our tax dollars in our schools.
I will fight you till my dying breath. You will find many of by brethren across America will do the same in defense of their families and children.
During the time when our Lord walked the earth he gave us a joice that good verses evil.. Now a days I wonder which root has grown deeper into mans existence, seriously what is the weigh on the scale.
Egilman - WTF!! where the hell do you even come up with that?? and all three of those acts you mention are prevalent in the straight community as well?
I love it! Their actually biting on this topic. LMAO, ROFL
This stuff is the exact reason I am not worried about a GOP candidate beating Obama. They are having to run such ridiculously far right campaigns that are getting huge amount of public scrutiny. They will have to shift toward the center some to have a chance of attracting independent voters in the election with Obama who will in turn hammer them with every extremist statement they made.
An amendment to the Constitution, the most important document in the USA, to ban gay marriage. Really Mr. Romney!?
How nice for you that you get to be the arbiter of what is good and evil.
Great job of ignoring the one candidate this whole article should be about MSNBC! Ron Paul has a solid record on this issue. He says it is unConstitutional for the federal government to say anything about this. It should be left up to the states. As should all personal matters.
WTF-Really
Egilman - WTF!! where the hell do you even come up with that??
California is teaching those very things in their schools. Gay and lesbian teachers teaching that it is a viable alternative to the heterosexual lifestyle. Straight teachers have never taught that straight is a viable alternative. Gay rights people have been pushing this agenda for decades. Need proof? Here is a gay rights web site: rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm Notice where it says they want to teach gay by gay teachers, but also want to remove all laws concerning age of consent. Exactly what NAMBLA wants. If this becomes a reality I will also protect my children.
ROFLMAO - Really?!
1) 1972...'nuff said
2) Made up page and not part of any official "gay rights" organization.
DOMA is unconstitutional and exclusionary, no government entity, local state or federal, can infringe on the equal rights of all consenting individuals , doesn't matter how overwhelming the vote was nor how bipartisan it was at the time, if a law supported by 99.9% of the people is created yet deprives the equal treatment of 1 American it is unconstitutional.
New Hampshire Democratic governor John Lynch was just re-elected in 2010. He has vowed to veto the bill. Even if this bill were to pass the state legislature, the repeal has no chance of becoming law. And there are definitely not enough votes to override a veto. If the Republican legislators pushing this non-sense think it's going to get them re-elected next year, they forgot which state they live in.
I'm sure at this point you all want the proof? correct?
Take a look at this page from massresistance.org about a third of the way down the page....
The section is titled....
Homosexual activism in government
massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
In fact if I was a mittney supporter I would do a lot of reading around that site and then stare asking some serious questions of the candidate the media would like to anoint as our president.
Egilman where do you find the athority to judge others>
Jesus gave the church the athority to judge it's self but reserved the world to himself
As I see this you are doing the same thing Lucfur did and we all know how well that worked for him
"There is a reason we are the "United States". We are a Republic made up of 50 individual States and Commonwealths. As sovereign entities bound by choice to the "Republic" each "state" has the right to create its own laws. The federal government has no authority to legislate morals because the Constitution has made it this way. All powers not vested in the federal government nor prohibited of the states are reserved to the states and to the people."
I believe similar arguments were used for perpetuating slavery ;)
Is anybody really going to listen to Newt(The Little Lizard)Gingrich when it comes to a discussion on the subject of marriage? Seriously...It's like listening to the Catholic Church on the subject of sex. What a hoot!!
I can't understand this hangup on the definition of marriage. As society and language evolves words take on new meanings all the time. Look at the Websters dictionary online. The definition of marriage has already been updated to include same sex couples. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with what is right under our secular form of government. If this was about doing what was right and just there would be no argument. Same-sex marriage would have been the law of the land long ago. This is strictly a theocratic issue fueled only by the religious, self-righteous idealogues (not all people of faith) who believe that we should all be subserviant to their will, their blindness, their intolerance and lack of compassion. The religious zealots are unquestionably the puppetmasters of the republican party and have been for some time. It doesn't take a genius to see that every single socially devisive issue is spearheaded by the republicans and funded by evangelicals who are trying their best to gain a stronger foothold in our government.
If we all truly enjoy and wish to protect all of our constitutional freedoms, including the freedom from religious oppression, which was the reason the settlers first came here, then we MUST keep religious fanatacism out of our government and our laws.
stexasdave--That was a great post. Excellent. Could not agree more!
@Kelnozz-2651761 - You talk about gay agendas and protecting your children, but you have no control over the outcome of your childrens' sexuality. Either they will be straight or gay. That's not up to you and you wishes.
bopdaddytoo #1.35
I'm not judging anyone, they can do as they please, to whomever and however the law allows them.
I won't have it for me and mine, which if I remember correctly is my choice to make given the constitution that gives me that right.
And the Constitution also gives me the right to post what they are actually doing here, remember that pesky first amendment thing?
I guess some of them (Liberals) don't like it when it cuts both ways and exposes them for what they really are.
lol, you must have to skip huge sections of your Bible in order to keep your head from exploding...I guess Moses and David and Abraham and Jacob didn't have REAL marriages according to you, did they?
And you don't get to use the excuse that their marriages were "appropriate for their time period." Guess why that option is not available to you? Because that is the argument for gay marriage. Yes. That's right -- like it or not, gay marriage is appropriate for the society we live in now. All people deserve to live in the loving, consensual relationship of their choice, as long as both are consenting adults.
"You and yours" have not been prevented from posting your bigotted views in this public forum. Not even when you post and obviously biased website with something to sell as your "proof." However, the first amendment does not prevent others from calling your guano crazy ideas simply that. Cut away.. you will find there is little to expose as I do not use religion and supposed moral superiority like a club over the head of anyone who doesn't agree with me. So far, you have not offered any reason that the public at large should feel threatened by marriage equality.
Just My 2 Coppers
Biased?
I guess you missed the part where the Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network went to court to prevent the posting of tapes of their "Education" subjects on the site and allowed the suit to lapse.
OR, the part where one of the Dept. of education perps sued to have it taken down also but settled the suit allowing them to post the evidence.
Site has been up for ten years, if it was crap the courts would have forced in down by now, and the people that tried either gave up of were forced to allow it to stand.
So the truth of the matter is the evidence HAS been vetted as truth, and there isn't a damn thing that the Mittney campaign can do to remove it.
All you have left is to call me a bigot. Truth hurts when it is exposed doesn't it?
I was expecting more from the lefties on here, but I'm sure they are smarter than challenging proven facts.
Well let's see. Romney and Huntsman both belong to a religion that not so long ago believed in polygamy and some of adherents still do. Both belong to a religion that until recent believed that blacks bore the mark of Cain (Adam and Eve's son) by the fact they are black. So that they could not become priests or elders in the church. Gingrich picks out and beds his new wife before he divorces the old one. (twice now) He definitely has a problem with that whole love and honor thing. He also has a problem with that whole what God has joined together let no man put asunder thing, that whole forsaking all others thing, Keeping only unto her thing, and really has a problem with tht whole death til you part thing. Cain has a problem with that whole forsaking all others thing and that keeping unto only thee thing. Bachmann has a problem with gays marrying each other while she is married to a gay or at least bisexual man. She was member of a homophobic and anti Catholic church until it became public. Santorum and his wife brought home a child that died in child birth and showed their other children their sibling. Their son Patrick was seven at the time! Like Porky the Pig says "That's all folks".
OK, because I am too lazy to find a counter-source, I'm just going to say this: what does this have to do with Gay Marriage? Express a legitimate opposition or you're just making bigoted posts irrelevant to the topic.
Mr. Anon
If you haven't figured it out yet, I definitely do NOT support Mittney.
As far as gays go, they can do as they damn well please, I don't have to sleep with them, or live with them.
But, when their political activist hacks like GLSEN go after the children, mine, yours or anyone elses, they are no better than the NAMBLA scum that sexualize children. I have a little problem with those people.
You know, the ones that think it's alright to have sex with children.
Of course you are perfectly within your rights to openly and publicly declare that you support such activities...
Egilman....
Our children graduated from American schools in the last 5-10 years....none of them were taught what you claim is being taught. None of them are gay.
I think what really bothers you about orientation being accurately portrayed in sex ed as natural, regardless of which one you happen to be born with....is that none of them are bigots either.
Your infantile attempt to disguise your own obvious bigotry as some lame-ass mission to "save children" from something that isn't harming them in the least...is not fooling anyone.
Obviously you haven't examined the evidence, and just as obviously you children didn't graduate from Mass. schools, otherwise you would have heard about it.
so like everyone else, you would rather bash, than examine and investigate the truth.
you seemed to have missed the point, I'm not on,
But I do now understand that you think A mission to save children could be considered "Lame-assed"
I'm on a mission to expose Mittney for the liberal that he is, it may be a fruitless mission, but it is my right to try and get people to see.
It is difficult when they don't want to see, and they just want to believe the BS he spews.
and, what GLSEN is teaching in the Mass school system is not, as you put it,
but is actually teaching the physical how to's, that they should explore their sexuality and that it is ok for older people to approach them and discuss sexual matter. All the way down to 12 years old, doesn't that just warm your heart?
Oh, That's right, you didn't investigate the evidence readily available for everyone to see, you would rather call me a bigot.
Unfortunately, you are only fooling yourself.
I do remember hearing something a few years back...about an isolated incident involving teens who asked for more material....with the obligatory conservative activist "plant" who ensured that it got blown out of proportion....do you have some links to what is actually being taught to "children" right now? Or are you talking about that one incident?
You are the one vowing to fight to the death to protect your children....but you haven't provided any information at all about what it is you feel you need to protect them from. No links. No proof. Just a lot of accusations and hyperbole.
Typical conservative "debate"...leave off half the information and then respond to it completely out of context. I said some lame-ass mission to "save children" from something that isn't harming them in the least
I'm all for keeping kids safe...just not from imaginary boogie men.
Perhaps it's because supporting equality in the past and speaking out against it now...doesn't make him a liberal? You make yourself look foolish and somewhat...obsessed.
It doesn't matter what he says. All he has to do is say nothing and he'll get the nomination, since the only opponents he has are all bat-shlt crazy. You want to write him off because he at one time supported gay rights...and yet you claim that you have "nothing against" LGBT. Right.
Please provide some proof of this. How to's of what? How to have sex? Or how to use birth control or protection against STD's? There are some sexually active 12 year olds...should we wait until they are older before giving them the information they need to make safe choices? Given the sexual information the average 12 year old is exposed to on TV, the movies, magazines, in music and online...then I honestly think some accurate information is a good thing...don't you?
I did look for it....it's not as "readily available" as you think...I'll look at any credible links you can produce.
I'm not the one out here on a self-proclaimed "mission" to convince others that Romney is an evil liberal because he once supported gay rights....and if you can't see how that makes you a bigot...then you've succeeded in fooling one person.
OK, because I am too lazy to find a counter-source, I'm just going to say this: what does this have to do with Gay Marriage? Express a legitimate opposition or you're just making bigoted posts irrelevant to the topic.
Just to clear things up, I have no idea how the post you were responding to got attributed to me. I wholeheartedly support marriage equality on a federal level (as some states are still too backwards to be trusted to play fair) and always will. :-)
Site has been up for ten years, if it was crap the courts would have forced in down by now, and the people that tried either gave up of were forced to allow it to stand.
Right..... that is how we know for a FACT that all internet sites are legit. O.o
Oh... and your views ARE bigotted... so, all I did was correctly identify. However, I am not sure it is worth responding to your wild-eyed rants anymore. Conspiracy theorists rarely respond to reason. However, people who feel like you do are becoming extinct as we speak. Gay marriage WILL happen; it is only a matter of time. And when it does, we may have less bullying over the topic in schools and less children committing suicide because of bigots... and their parents.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/health/1999/1099.pdf
The complete sex education curriculum for MA. schools... not one damned chapter on fisting.
Alright Guys, you want links?
www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08b/glsen_conf_0329/index
www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/teacher_traumatized
www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/black_book/black_book_inside
www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/king_and_king/book
www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/index
www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/framing_the_issue
www.massresistance.org/docs/events05/safe_zones/index
www.massresistance.org/docs/articles/franklin_trans_1106
www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11b/youth_pride/bisexual_pamphlet/index
www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11a/herald_sex-ed_032411
www.massresistance.org/docs/govt10/election10/dsa_endorsements/index
There you go Guys,
enjoy.... it's what you are fighting for...
By the way, if those were not enough for ya, I have more, LOTS more....
Take a good look and see what they are actually teaching in the Mass. Schools....
Again, have a good day, enjoy! ;-)
Egilman, your links don't work.
Oh, I can make them work, and they go directly to a virulently anti-gay organization, one that has teamed up with the Family Research Council, if that tells you anything.
Here's MassResistance's 'take' on Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools: "the horrors of what's going on in your schools!....It's every parent's nightmare!" Seriously.
Egilman, all of those links are from a clearly anti-gay site. Give us links to reliable sources, then we'll talk.
Ever wonder why it is that so many gay organizations are targeting our children? Don't tell me that it is not happening, because it can be seen from the east to west coast in this country. What could possibly be the purpose for this? What is the purpose for any one targeting children for any reason? Answer? Because children are impressionable. If you tell them something enough times at an early enough age they will believe it for the rest of their lives. Why is it that gay rights and marriage equality is in the same category with teaching our kids the gay lifestyle? If gay rights people want equality, why not leave the children out of it? Marriage equality and gay rights is an adult issue not an issue for children. The gay lifestyle is here to stay and has been around for decades and our children will be exposed to it through life experience, so why should it be forced on them at so early an age? To legitimize your lifestyle and indoctrinate the youth of America? Children will learn about it in due course, why force it upon them. And why is it that every time some one speaks against this they are considered bigots? Is this the only way you can defend it?
Well, calling a bigot a bigot is not a defense... it is a statement; one that I will often make against bigots. PROVE THAT THIS IS HAPPENING... if you want to be taken seriously. You claim it can be seen from east coast to west coat as "proof." lol I am sorry, you cannot ask people to just "take your word for it." That is not proof. As for the links above, they are ALL from the same bigotted group's website. ROFL Really? Is this really supposed to be proof? A newstory, maybe... a copy of a curriculum that includes what you suggest.. Those things are proof; not the half-baked rantings of an unhinged mind.
And there it is. Denies the obvious. Massachusetts, California. East coast to west coast both passing laws that require teaching the gay and lesbian lifestyle as a viable alternative to straight. It was in the national news in both states but yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
And by the way, I sited one website all day and was told that it was an old site, not worth reading, and not an official site, when in reality the site was up dated as recently as 2010, every gay site is official, and it heralded the teaching of gay studies as early as 1972, as well as eliminating age of consent. It was also authored by an official of NAMBLA.
Slight modification: Ever wonder why it is that so many religious organizations are targeting our children? Don't tell me that it is not happening, because it can be seen from the east to west coast in this country. What could possibly be the purpose for this? What is the purpose for any one targeting children for any reason? Answer? Because children are impressionable. If you tell them something enough times at an early enough age they will believe it for the rest of their lives.
if you are against such things being taught to impressionable children, you should be very much against small children being sent to church/mosque/synagogue/temple/etc. No reason they wouldn't be exposed to it later in life "in due course," when they are older and more mature and more capable of making an informed decision of which, if any, religion they will follow. On the other hand, children who are gay will probably figure that out while they are still teenagers, so would therefore need exposure to it at an earlier age.
So when did I bring religion into this? I did not. Don't try to justify one with the other. Both are equally bad except for the fact that religion is not teaching our kids that child rape is ok. These are perverts that target youth for sexual purposes not religion in general and they are being convicted for it. Lets deal with the fact that gay rights groups still want to push sex onto our children, not gay people in general, only perverts like you. Answer my question. Why is it that gay rights groups target our children specifically?
Now as to whether I agree with religion targeting children. I never sent my kids to church for that very reason and was never forced to allow it in the schools. Don't presume that you know any thing about how I feel about religion. Children should be taught these things in the home and when you force your ideas on impressionable children against the parents will you are as bad as the pedophile or the priest.
On the other hand, children who are religious will probably figure that out while they are still teenagers, so would therefore need exposure to it at an earlier age.
How many religious groups require that your children are forcibly exposed to religion in schools except for Mormons?
As far as I am concerned the catholic church, is not a christian church, they used to be but are not anymore.
And, when a priest rapes a child we should do the same to him as any other pedophile, dress him in panties and skirt and throw them in general population.
Anyone that preaches exposing hard sexuality to grade schoolers are pedophiles, this is my opinion, and I am very happy that most caring sensitive adults agree with me.
GLSEN/NAMBLA types have no business anywhere near our children. I taught my kids to tolerate all types and beliefs, but counseled then to understand that many of those types they should tolerate will try to prove that their beliefs superior to everyone elses. I taught them to fight against such attempts to subvert tolerance as everyone should.
you guys pushing the GLSEN agenda are just the types that need to be fought. your opinions are not superior to mine or any one elses.
Yes there is a lot of anti gay rhetoric on that site, that being said, You will notice one thing about the links I posted, I didn't post any links to anyone's rhetoric, I only posted link's to facts.
Why don't you guys post some links to facts that refute the facts and evidence contained within those links?
"Anyone that preaches exposing hard sexuality to grade schoolers are pedophiles, this is my opinion, and I am very happy that most caring sensitive adults agree with me."
Except no one is proposing that. It's a smokescreen.
"GLSEN/NAMBLA types have no business anywhere near our children"
You are conflating two entirely different groups. GLSEN does not promote sex with children.
"You will notice one thing about the links I posted, I didn't post any links to anyone's rhetoric, I only posted link's to facts."
Uh, no. The links you posted lead to webpages with lots of inflammatory rhetoric, few facts. See my post above for an example.
Answer my question. Why is it that gay rights groups target our children specifically? Stop trying to muddy the water with religion. I told you that I thought religion was as bad as gay rights groups. Why do you avoid what you do not want to hear?
http://www.reformation.com/
A website that has scores of links that highlight clergy sexually abusing children.... that are protestant. Of course, I do not believe that ALL clergy sexually abuse children anymore than I believe ALL gay people endorse NAMBLA.
In fact, gay rights groups went to court to stop NAMBLA from marching in their parade. In 1994, NAMBLA was expelled from the International Gay and Lesbian Association. In 1994, GLAAD adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the NGLTF adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."
As for posting links to discredit you, EG... I did. I posted the actual curriculum for sexual education from Ma.
As for Kel, you make an outrageous statement and again, you have provided no evidence that it is truth. I contend that gay rights groups are not "targeting" children. So there. I answered your question.
The only way that gay rights groups and the people who support them "target" children is in education. In case you weren't aware, that's the most effective way to eradicate bigotry. Bigotry isn't inborn, it is taught...by bigoted parents, bigoted churches, etc. By teaching inclusion in the schools, by teaching the facts instead of a lot of myths, unfounded fears and hyperbole, every child has an opportunity to learn what society as a whole expects of them, and to have all the information available before deciding what beliefs they will adopt as their own.
Bigots don't like that, because bigotry can only thrive in ignorance...and they want to keep children ignorant.
As for Kel, you make an outrageous statement and again, you have provided no evidence that it is truth. I contend that gay rights groups are not "targeting" children. So there. I answered your question.
California just pass a law but you go ahead and ignore that fact.
The only way that gay rights groups and the people who support them "target" children is in education. In case you weren't aware, that's the most effective way to eradicate bigotry. Bigotry isn't inborn, it is taught...by bigoted parents, bigoted churches, etc.
ECT. also means bigoted gay rights groups. See how it works both ways? Gay rights groups say they want equality in marriage and in political rights the same as all other people, So what do those things have to do with our children if not to indoctrinate them at an early age, same as religion. To force your views on the most vulnerable. It is the parents responsibility to raise their children any way they see fit. If you have a child do you want us to tell them what is right or wrong? Who to marry? What to think? See how the shoe fits the other foot? Teach kids my way because that is the only right way, is that what you think? Get out of the school system and let every one have rights.
Really?! This social studies class that focuses on the struggles of the gay rights movement and the players involved... much in the way that Harriet Tubman is taught.. and Susan B. Anthony is taught... and Martin Luther King is taught.... THIS is what has your undies in a bunch?!
I am sure there were many who thought exactly like you right after Brown v Board of Ed. In my opinion, removing your children from school may be for the best all around. The school is attempting to teach them tolerance of others while you are fighting back and teaching them hate. You children must be very confused. However, survival of the fittest will dictate that those with antiquated views will eventually become extinct. You can continue to believe that "your way is the only right way" if you like. But "your way" teaches children that it is OK to do things they can be charged for criminally. Once Junior does your will and is in prison, we will all sleep a little sounder. This is, of course, assuming Junior isn't gay and commits suicide in the face of your hatred.
No, you posted links to Focus on the Family sites. They are WELL KNOWN and DOCUMENTED for supporting and hailing fraudulent, altered studies that foster anti-gay rhetoric.
Prove it
You have posted no links at all. I wonder who is doing the most research? Any links that you could possibly post are WELL KNOWN and DOCUMENTED for supporting and hailing fraudulent, altered studies that foster gay rhetoric. And I know this because it is a known fact, with a little research, that we understand less than 1% of how the mind works and that we only use about 10% of total brain function. Any one can say anything in the proper study to make any thing sound possible. And if you do a study with gay people doing the research you will get the result you are looking for.
#2
Harriet Tubman is taught.. and Susan B. Anthony is taught... and Martin Luther King is taught....
Here is something you may well be overlooking. Tubman and King were prominent in establishing equal rights for black people. Susan helped to get equality for women. None of the three of them targeted children in there endeavors. So trying to use these three to try to convince others that you are right to target children is the worst possible crime against their memory. To use an entire race of people or an entire gender to try to make your point is just plain stupid and that race or gender should hold you accountable for it. You have gone so far into the realm of stupidity that there is no sense in continuing.
"None of the three of them targeted children in there endeavors."
And no one is 'targeting' children now.
Here ya go:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200612140004
Since you knew their information was bogus, what makes you think that proof didn't exist?
Nope. That's wrong too. See here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain
Wrong again. King fought for school desegregation, and strangely enough, people screamed that it was sinful to teach children that blacks are equal to whites. Go figure.
That's strike three for you, Kelnozz. Next time, do some real research, instead of listening to people who start their sentences with, "Y'know, they say..."
Regards
:::sitting back with a beer while Proud Pagan deftly handles the argument::: Yeah... what he/she said. ;-)
I'm happy to oblige. :-) I have neither patience nor tolerance for bull@!$%#.
Kind regards
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation UNDER GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all....
er... quoted the wrong thing above. lol Was supposed to be - How many religious groups require that your children are forcibly exposed to religion in schools except for Mormons?
When have any gay rights groups campaigned for special laws against others? When have they said that others aren't worthy of marriage or serving openly in the military or any other thing? Disagreeing with bigotry isn't bigotry...wanting to treat others as "less worthy" in our society and our laws...is. See how it doesn't work both ways?
That should be obvious...even to you. Gays would already have equality if it weren't for the ignorant bigotry against them...bigotry that was learned from other ignorant people. By eradicating ignorance, we can eradicate bigotry, and achieve equality. Why are you so afraid of children learning that there is no reason to hate or fear something different?
No more than views about geography or history or math are being "forced" on them. It's just information.
Treating others like second class citizens is not a "right". Teaching your children hatred, fear and bigotry and trying to perpetuate an unjust situation, is only going to cause your children grief and make them objects of ridicule and scorn. You are still free to teach them any nonsense you want, of course, but the schools are charged with teaching them the truth. They are free to do as you do, and reject the truth in favor of small-minded hatred, we are all free to think whatever we want. They just won't be able to act on their bigotry with the impunity that you had at their age, because...as I said...that is not a "right".
huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/new-york-city-teaching-ga_n_901876.html
huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/high-school-plays-gay-kis_n_1022498.html
From your first link: "Summer school teachers in New York City are already teaching about same-sex marriage in civics classes, "
So they are teaching ABOUT gay marriage in a high school civics class in a state where gay marriage is legal. This is about accurate information about how our civic system works, not sex ed.
From your second link: "The school was informed of the content of the performance beforehand, resulting in some students not attending the play and others having their parents excuse them for the day." So nobody in this high school was forced to attend, and it was one scene (a kiss between 2 males) in one play offered during the year. Not exactly part of the curriculum.
Define "forcing homosexuality upon children" please. You seem to suggest that "claiming homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle" constitutes as forcing.
kelnozz...
Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, it's an orientation...just like heterosexuality. There is no appreciable "lifestyle" difference between orientations. We all work, pay taxes, obey the laws, fall in love, have families, pay the bills, grow old, etc.
Trying to pretend that homosexuality doesn't exist...by trying to censor any valid information about it...is...well...insane. Providing information isn't "forcing" anything on anyone...it just makes it harder for the lies you fell for to infect the next generation...which is why you have your panties in a bunch about it. You're fighting a war of attrition. You know that if kids are given the facts...they won't be bigots and you will just look more and more ridiculous as your shrinking band of like-minded haters slowly dies off.
Bigotry never wins. It sometimes takes a long time, but in the end it always loses. Nothing you can do or say can stop that, but you always have the opportunity to educate yourself and switch to the winning side. Or not. You'll only make yourself crazy.
kelnozz
Let me introduce you to a concept.
"Grasping at straws"
I suggest you not do it again. It causes you to look desperate.
Regards
Of course the national GOP (aka American Taliban) is not liking this.
The GOP wants Sharia Law.
The GOP moralist police want to tell you that you can only live your life by their rules.
The GOP doesn't want anybody to have rights.
The GOP wants to take the US back to the Dark Ages where mystical religious dogma and fear ruled the masses.
Get over it, GOP.
Sexual-orientation is a part of a person's nature. It is something they are born with. It is found in ALL mammals.
And same-sex couples have every right to enjoy the same rights and privileges of marriage as anybody else.
.
Class...
This is the product of a very ignorant "American educated" person that lives in a tent on Wall street.
This is why I thank Gd I got my education in Asia.
You see, while this idiot was studying gay sex and global warming in college, I was studying modern chemistry, engineering and mathematics.
As a result, I have a great job in another country and this idiot lives with his parents playing x-box (with the occasional upload of a Justin Beiber video).
So class...
This is your brain on American education..
I would rather be for equality and freedom then whatever it is you are advertising Gypsy.
If was selling anything you wouldn't be able to afford it. You're American educated. Therefore you only know gay sex, global warming and government hand outs..
Now, to answer your next question...YES, I would like fries with that!
The decision to live in error is always a choice. There is no reason for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman. There is no fit.
G B America.............The only reason for a man to marry a woman is to reproduce and considering how badly the human race has over reproduced itself, that is really a bad thing. The best reason for a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman is love. And that should be the only reason for a man marrying a woman. The sex and shape and appearance of the other person has nothing to do with you or anyone else. There are probably just as many trying to figure out what your "better half" saw in you! Any person has the right to be married to the person they love most. Making marriage harder between those who love isn't the problem, making divorce harder should be more important. Then a lot fewer children will be ruined by coming from broken homes. No loving home with two committed parents regardless of the sex of said parents can harm a child.
The decision to think you are qualified to determine what is an "error" and what isn't....is also a choice...an arrogant, conceited, judgmental, overbearing, interfering, and bigoted one.
You don't know what reasons other people have for things...you certainly aren't in any position to tell them they have no reason for something you don't even understand....live and let live.
You know personally, I couldn't care less what others do with themselves when they are alone,
what I do object to is the gay community forcing their views down my throat.
What I absolutely hate is governments allowing and encouraging LGBT people to teach specific perverted sex acts like "Fisting, PEE Play and S&M" to our children paid for with our tax dollars in our schools.
This I will fight till my dying breath. You will find many of my brethren across America will do the same in defense of their families and children.
There's no reason for a man to marry a woman or vice versa, except possibly for tax or other federal benefits. Besides, who are you to say what reasons people need to get married?
That's not even a valid reason in itself. Marriage is not necessary for reproduction, or vice versa.
Now that's a more valid reason!
Where did you get that from? I'm not aware of any school which teaches sex ed like that.
All they are trying to do is get rid of the bigoted laws against them that other people shoved down all our throats.
Seriously? Is that what you hate? That's it? If the government and school boards (the ones who make up the curriculum....not just random gay people) weren't doing that, then you'd support gay rights? Please do some genuine research into what is actually taught in the schools to children...and then you can stop spreading these lies.
How....um....noble of you. So what have you done so far in this battle to the death? What schools have you visited to confirm this utter nonsense? What school boards have you petititioned for a copy of their sex ed curriculum? How many petitions have you circulated? How many (real) news organizations have picked it up and reported on it? How much public outrage has been generated to stop this obviously fictional practice from going on?
Do you really think that just hearing about stuff like that puts your family or your children in some kind of danger? Have you listened to music in the last 30 years? Watched any movies? You've heard about....did it make you gay?
You don't say how many you've sodomized so far or if you are sodomizing just one, but if you ever did feel like sodomizing another man, that would be your business. I would recommend, however, that you go to your fellow republicans and tell them about your orientation and emphasize that you are still very republican and explain that it's time for them to openly support their gay party members.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT all of the judges who are implementing SHARIA LAW into our courts are Democrats , And that is a Matter of record , and indirect violation of our constitutional laws ,
"GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT all of the judges who are implementing SHARIA LAW into our courts are Democrats , And that is a Matter of record , and indirect violation of our constitutional laws ,"
False. No one is implementing sharia law.
Matter of record, is it? Then please.... provide us with links.
Gypsy...is it possible that you're so down on American education because you couldn't get into a good American school. College students from all over the world, including Asia, still work hard to get into American universities. The only difference is that their government pays for them to go to school here. Our kids have to take on a decades long debt to get their education.
x
@Darrel...Ok give us some facts then we'll talk.Sharia law? REALLY? I don't think so
gordy327 #2.8
NotKidding #2.9
Really? Lies?
I take it you want the proof?
I'll give it to ya....
Here ya go,
Take a look at this page from the site about a third of the way down the page....
The section is titled....
Homosexual activism in government
massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
I demand proof of this. Otherwise, I am calling you out as a liar. I want to know which court and which judge made a law requiring women to cover their hair in public. I also want to know when eating halal foods became law. Also, please provide a link stating that we must pray 5 times a day towards Mecca, otherwise we will be thrown in jail.
You're a liar. And you're not even a very good one.
OMG GAYS/LESBIANS IN GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(next thing you know they will allow them to vote and own property)
Is this the best you can do? All this proves is that Romney is inconsistant with his issues. Oh, and "appointing openly Gay government agents" =/= "Homosexual activism".
Mr. Anon
Inconsistent with his issues?
I guess that you really didn't read the website then, or you skipped the part where he was telling them that he absolutely supported their position. and then was told that his wife and daughter signed petitions to prevent what he was supporting?
Or how the leader of GLSEN made a speech to the membership about not worrying about Mittneys apparent change of position, that at heart he still completely supports their cause....
And on another occasion that Mittney is only claiming he's against them because he is running for president as a republican....
Mittney is not inconsistent on his issues, he's a downright dirty LIAR.
He has no integrity at all, there is no honor in the man, he is the epitome of backstabbing liberal scum...
If this is what republicans have become I'm very thankful that I abandoned the party 8 years ago.
News flash: Romney is a liar. Or he genuinely supported LGBT until he didn't. Or he's actually smart enough to support equality but realizes he has to lie to his ignorant bigoted base to get elected. Or some of all of the above.
Wow...you do realize he's a backstabbing conservative scum, right? My guess is that he is only pandering to people like yourself....who are for some weird reason, terrified of LGBT...but either way....the guy is definitely NOT a liberal. More than half the country supports equality...including a large number of conservatives....that doesn't make them liberals. It just makes them smarter than the rest of the conservatives.
NotKidding
I absolutely agree....
I realize he is a backstabbing LIBERAL scum disguised as a backstabbing conservative scum.
Either way he's backstabbing scum and doesn't deserve to be elected as the county dog-poop catcher much less president of the USA.
I'm glad we agree.... ;-)
OH, and by the way, NotKidding....
I'm not terrified of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals & Transgender people or their issues.
I'm terrified of what their activist members would like to do to my or even your children in our public schools under the auspices of teaching "Tolerance"
The evidence says they teach anything but "Tolerance"
Lay off the kids, and they have no problems with me... And the LGBT's that know me agree with me.
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here Egilman. Yes, a few years ago he would have been a Democrat by today's standards, but we all agree that he keeps on flip-flopping on issues.
"I'm terrified of what their activist members would like to do to my or even your children in our public schools under the auspices of teaching "Tolerance""
You do realize that being GLB is NOT the same as being a pedophile, right? Because it seems like that is what you are implying. And you do understand that nothing is being "done" to children in the public schools, right? Even that whole "Fistgate" episode you are so stuck on occurred in a conference NOT funded by public money and held at a time that was not during school hours or even on a school day, and was solely the result of one anonymous question asked in one workshop during the entire conference. And it occurred more than 10 years ago!
"The evidence says they teach anything but "Tolerance""
What 'evidence'? From the links you provided above by an anti-gay group? That is certainly not credible evidence.
You have yet to show just what it is that they are teaching that terrifies you so much. No links to the curriculum...nothing. The schools aren't turning out batches of sexually damaged kids...so what, exactly, is the problem? Other than your imagination, and a lot of lying hyperbole on lying right-wing web sites...where is the information that frightens you so much?
Not from the curriculum I've seen. It's all about tolerance. Except for bigotry and bullying...but then, it would be stupid to be tolerant of those things, wouldn't it?
I call B.S. You haven't shown a single fact to support your ravings. Nor do you give the impression that if you learned the facts: that children are in no danger, that you would become less "terrified" of LGBT.
The GOP is soooo out of touch with the average American citizen it's not funny!
PRESS THE BUTTON! --------> [Its Bush's Fault]
The GYPSY!
What's Bush's fault? Please be more specific. Personally, I'd say that Bush had something to do with the Bush Recession and the Bush Iraq debacle.
Where is it defined in the bible that marriage is between one man and one wife? Solomon (who has his own book in that tome) had over 1,000 wives ! Make other arguments, you homophobic bigots.
I disagree with you Nora! I think it is funny. ROFL
The TP/GOP are the USA Taliban. They want to pass religious bigotry into law. Just like the taliban. They want to punish free people expressing their opinions freely, living the lifestyles they freely choose and not harming others doing it. They clap and cheer for executions. If I wanted to write a science fiction book about rough times coming the TP/GOP would be the evil government that ran around controlling everyone's lives.
IMHO -- Dude that's actually a really good idea for a book!
It's not an issue of that they push it. It's where they push it.
Here we go again...sideshows, attempts to trip people up with issues that don't mean a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things. "Judge not, that ye not be judged", and in the end we ALL will be held accountable for our own deeds according to our own unique circumstances.
We have far bigger issues that if not tackled and addressed...none of these "social issues" (including abortion) will matter doodly.
Get on with the important stuff! Both parties!
Of course it's not an important issue unless it's your civil rights that are denied.
I don't think the issue is civil rights, I belive the gay's should be given equal rights in legal binding domestic partnerships, that includes medical insurance, tax breaks, ect. like a traditional marriage.
What I Have a problem with is the gays demanding that we all accept their view points on sex and require it to be called a marriage. I'm really getting tired of them forcing their views on others who don't see things the same way, they are violating my rights as well.
Nobody's asking you to accept anything. Just allow them their constitutional liberties.
You're free to hate gays, blacks or Jews, but you simply can't deny them equal treatment under the law.
And no one is violating your rights at all. However, you don't have the right to use the government to enforce your sharia laws.
No one is demanding you accept anything. Your acceptance is neither required nor necessary. Only the government's is under the law.
So why do you have a problem with allowing gays the right to marry then?
Which rights of yours are being violated?
@ desertblonde...Rights are rights. I don't care if you call them civil rights, human rights, equal rights or whatever. I don't think that gay people are asking you to accept their views on sex. I don't recall anyone advocating for marriage equality has ever talked about sex. Gay marriage has no more to do with sex than straight marriage does. Marriage is about a legally (not religiously) sanctioned partnership between 2 people that brings with it a multitude of rights, benefits and responsibilities. This "definition of marriage" argument is nonsense. "Marriage" is just a word and the definition of words change and expand constantly. I don't see how any of your rights are being violated by a group of people who want nothing more than what you have.
I'm sure gay people will be just as happy as you when discrimination based on sexual orientation is no longer an issue. Everyone can just go about living their lives in peace and be done with this silliness.
If the UNH poll accurately reflects that 62% of people in New Hampshire do not want repeal, just who is getting represented by the representatives pushing for repeal? Oh, that's right: the people from all across the country who can be motivated first into funding the repeal campaign and then into funding the representatives' reelection campaigns! In other contexts, pandering is a felony.
I would rather be gay than be a republican.
And your point is?
As of late you don't even need to choose!
being republican will not send you to hell but being gay will!!
It's more honorable and honest to be Gay - except for Gay Republicans, who tend to be self-loathing hypocrits.
Terry-428570 - ACCORDING TO WHOM? YOU? Sorry - not worried
Voting Republican is a Choice! Loving someone of your own sex is not a choice.
I whole whole heartedly agree with that statement, the one about being gay than republican; to the statement about choice, you are an idiot.
@Terry....please..........really??? Get over your moronic self
Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani believe that marriage should be between a man and woman, and then another woman, and then another woman. Those guys really practice what they preach!
Houston!...do I remember correctly that Rudy lived with a gay couple while he was between wives as the mayor of NYC? Wow! How can he say that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman?
bhonest and fair
Easy. He just opens up his mouth and lets the hot air flow out. Like most Republican "leaders" he's a well-lubricated weather vane, like Jon Huntsman said of Mitt Romney.
Yes. Those are two excellent examples of men who chose not to stand up for their covenants, thus making their arguments less effective. However, nature did not design man to mate with man or woman to mate with woman. While we can demonstrate tolerance towards private consensual behaviors between adults, we need not accept these as the norm. We do not need to call these "unions" a marriage. And if we care for our gay friends, while we demonstrate tolerance, let us not pretend it is ok.
Just shows your lack of experience. We really are designed for it, the parts all fit together neatly, and it really does work. Mind you, if you don't want to try it, then don't do it, but don't assume that because you've never done it that no one else can do it, either.
You know personally, I couldn't care less what others do with themselves when they are alone,
what I do object to is the gay community forcing their views down my throat. But I can tolerate that.
What I absolutely hate and cannot tolerate is governments allowing and encouraging LGBT people to teach specific perverted sex acts like "Fisting, PEE Play and S&M" to our children paid for with our tax dollars in our schools.
This I will fight till my dying breath. You will find many of my brethren across America will do the same in defense of their families and children.
Egilman, spoken like a good republican candidate who doesn't get any facts into their argument. Did you think you might want to go into politics? Watch what happens to these losers before you decide. LOL
Spoken like a true religious fanatic, Egilman. But you can't cite a reputable reference for that filthy-minded smear because it's a lie. Only an idiot would believe that the government is "allowing and encouraging LGBT people to teach specific perverted sex acts . . . "
BTW, Egilman, no one's forcing their views, or anything else (I presume), down your throat.
That's because it's easier for him to make up "facts" to support his personal predijuces. You'll note his silence on supporting evidence because there is none.
IMHO-2730490 #8.6
benji2 #8.7
Severed Head in a Jar #8.8
I don't think I could go into politics, I prefer facts,
I see it's a smear and a lie,
I'm making up facts....
So I take it you all want proof? Correct?
Well I'll give it to ya....
Take a look at this page from massresistance.org about a third of the way down the page....
The section is titled....
Homosexual activism in government
massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
In fact if I was a mittney supporter I would do a lot of reading around that site and then stare asking some serious questions of the candidate the media would like to anoint as our president.
Nature designed man to mate with A LOT of women. Your Old Testament prophets all proved this point. Ever heard of Jacob? Solomon? Abraham? Google "polygamy" and "Old Testament," and you'll find about thirty so-called "men of God" doing just what Nature designed them to do, all with the full sanction of your God.
@GodBlessAmerica...Do you really have any gay friends? I think not
@Egilman....Dude you need to get a new schtick. Get off the broken record thing. We all knew you were of fairly limited intelligence the first 3 times you regurgitated this crap.
Your right stexasdave it is CRAP!
But it is what Mittney supports.
I apologise if the repeating it offends you, but I really want to get the liberal opinion on the facts from that website?
What's wrong with that?
Egilman
Condemning gays with religious fervor while using phrases like"down my throat. But I can tolerate that." sounds like latent homosexuality. It would be easy to picture Egilman weeping in rage while in the act of self flagellation as he responds to these posts.
"This I will fight till my dying breath. You will find many of my brethren across America will do the same" sounds like a movement that would include white hooded robes and midnight rides if necessary.
Your link merely purports that Romney is too liberal as he's been in support of "Homosexual anti-discrimination laws" and advocating adoption rights. So part of your religious hysteria concerns Romney being too liberal for your conservative tastes? Then don't vote for him. You are no prophet and I'm reasonably sure that "God" hasn't tapped you to be "His" anti-gay crusader. (a cape would be fabulous with that. ;) ).
Don't like gays then don't be gay. Don't like abortion then don't have one. Don't like inter-racial marriage then marry within your "race". Don't like "the liberal agenda" then don't vote that way. But in any case, chill out a bit and try a little tolerance.
I hope you feel better real soon. Take care.
workingpoor-2370498
You miss the entire point.
I'm not condemning gays, I couldn't care less what they do with each other.
I'm condemning Mittney for being a Democrat in Republican clothing.
He's a liar, he shouldn't be on the stage as a republican.
Everything he stands for is ultra leftist liberal. Anyone who votes for him is a leftist liberal.
Facts are facts, and if all you can come up with is religion bashing and name calling as refutation for proven facts then you are worse than Mittney.
Egilman
He is and I wouldn't argue that he's not all that and more.
Most if not all of your posts on this subject were couched in religious rhetoric so replying to it, essentially with your own quotes, is appropriate. If you are going to use "God" as your hammer don't complain when you miss the target and sound sanctimonious.
Egilman,
Massresistance.org is an anti-gay hate group that spreads lies and smears all the time. After repeating that garbage on multiple posts, it doesn't matter what more you have to say. You have zero credibility. Stuff it @!$%#.
workingpoor-2370498
None of my posts mention god in anyway shape or form....
sorry try again.
benji2
If they are such an anti-gay hate group as you say, why did the gay group lawyers let their suit expire for lack of pursuit? My knowledge is when the gay groups have a valid issue they never let go until the opposition is nothing but a burned out shell.
Yet on this one they quit before they even started. probably because they didn't want to have to answer for the truth in open court.
If that isn't the case, (only logical explanation I can come up with) then tell me where I get the information that proves the contrary.
But I suspect that you can't, that is why you now resort to bashing, rather than try to defend the indefensible.
This is the party that professes to want a smaller government that doesn't impede on personal freedoms. I guess thats only if it's tax breaks for the rich and corporations. Feel free to take a loaded assault rifle into a daycare but it's just wrong to have two committed individuals who love each other marry. Perhaps Bachmanns husband can cure them of being gay (for a fee). I suppose they have to take positions like this so they appease the mouth breathing, anti-science, redneck tea party that has so much power in todays shrinking Republican party. The transparent hypocrisy of the increasingly far right GOP never fails to surprise me... they are completely out of touch with reality. The GOP... party first, country second. Disgusting.
GOP = God's Ordained Politicians! The Christian Taliban 2012 is coming to America! End a women right to choose. Stop the gays in the military from marriage. Force prayer in the public schools. End the mandate on min wage. They will control you!
Class...
This is the product of a very ignorant "American educated" person that lives in a tent on Wall street.
This is why I thank Gd I got my education in Asia.
You see, while this idiot was studying gay sex and global warming in college, I was studying modern chemistry, engineering and mathematics.
As a result, I have a great job in another country and this idiot lives with his parents playing x-box (with the occasional upload of a Justin Beiber video).
So class...
This is your brain on American education..
Well, Gypsy, I didn't realize that they taught sanctimonious bigotry in Asia. Thanks for clearing that up.
Fact is, you have no idea what is actually being taught here, instead you rely on absurd right-wing talking points to bolster your own sagging ego.
wondered why the gypassy doesnt have a reply button.... hope him/her/it stays where ever him/her/it is
Gypsy-The post wasn't clever the first two times you posted it.
The US is falling behind through grade 12, but our higher education institutions are the envy of the world.
Asian schools cannot currently compete with our top tier Universities. Period.
I don't agree with Ron Pauls definition of marriage I do agree with his stance.
Let the states make the decision. Why should this be a national issue?
But then again I don't really agree with anyone being married, it doesn't seem natual. If you want a civil union go for it, make the reception an open bar and I'll bring you a toaster made in China.
I definitely favor getting marriage out of government. Call it a civil union no matter who it is. Leave marriage to be defined by the churches under their traditions and beliefs.
Since legal marriage was a civil contract long before organized religion ever got involved in the matter, let organized religions change THEIR terminology.
Besides, if the current laws were to be changed to make all marriages civil unions, it would be an administrative nightmare to have to rewrite literally thousands of laws to reflect such changes.
The church does not own the word marriage. Marriage was a civil institution long before the church became involved.
Let the states make the decision.
It makes no difference to me which level of government claims the right to oppress me.
We have a simple choice: repeal all laws that favor certain classes such as heteros and mothers. Or, keep the laws but do not favor anyone in their implementation.
This is the American dilemma: we wish to profess certain high principles as part of American exceptional-ism but stoutly refuse to live by our own ideals.
.
If Newt would ever win the presidency, would his wifes title be, the First Lady or the Third Lady?
@ Starbuck49 Who knows, but just for good measure, she should be booed.
HA HA.......A tough decision for Noot. He could call her the First Lady on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the Third Lady the rest of the week. Like the entire republican field, changing position from minute to minute seems to be perfectly acceptable
"As conservatives, we believe in the sanctity of life, (except for the death penalty --even if it requires ignoring evidence that the person may be innocent) we believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage" (no matter how many times we need to do it to get it right).
When you speak of the "sanctity of marriage" you should be referring to "Holy Matrimony" in my view. What is so sacred about marriage that it can be swapped out when it becomes inconvenient. That's something more akin to contract law.
So is Perry against "divorce"? If mariage is so sacred, how does he square the two I wonder? (or is this a question for Newt?)
The "Party of god", the "family values" Party, the "moral majority" now has a leading candidate who is a twice divorced, admitted adulterer whose ethics got him tossed from this same "conservative party" leadership, while he was leading the charge to impeach a sitting president.
Very little of this Party makes sense to me.
starbuck - he's not dead yet, so there may be more wives in his future.
now that's somethin that'll turn ya gay- being married to Noot!! Ew.......
Why should this be a state issue?
Marriage is a personal issue.
As far as the contractual law part, it has to be a federal issue because of the privileges and responsibilities already codified regarding marriage in federal laws. Federal law trumps state law.
I'm going to repeat what I said earlier simply because it fits better here. I've been advocating for getting government out of marriage. But we still need a legal framework like marriage. So just call it civil union no matter what genders are involved. That way churches can define marriage any way they please under their own traditions and beliefs.
Unfortunately, the pessimist in me doesn't see that this reasoned approach will get anywhere since both sides are trying to impose their views on the populace at large.
Pragmatic-3918582 - thankyou - feel the same
I'm going to repeat what I said earlier:
Since legal marriage was a civil contract long before organized religion ever got involved in the matter, let organized religions change THEIR terminology.
Besides, if the current laws were to be changed to make all marriages civil unions, it would be an administrative nightmare to have to rewrite literally thousands of laws to reflect such changes.
I agree Erin...
Where did religion get the ridiculous idea that they "owned" marriage? They can't legally marry anyone. Only the state can provide the license and the authorization to make a marriage legal. Religion is just an accessory.
If they want to call their legally meaningless ceremony something different, they are free to do so, but marriage is a state sanctioned contract between two consenting adults...not a religious one.
NotKidding
OH my God......
Something we can agree on!
PLAIN & SIMPLE: The GOP has become anti-Gay, anti-worker, rich people's party. The non-rich GOP party members and supporters are just too ignorant to realize the truth.
And social issues like this are how they convince those idiotic saps into voting against their interests.
There is a FOX-owned AM radio station in Denver with a "conservative" host named Mike Rosen, who frequently states on the air, "Party should always trump principle. I accept the social conservatives' views because they agree with my conservative economic views."
Prostitution by any other name...
Mind Your Own Business!
Presidental candidate Gary Johnson, Republican/Libertarian could have an advantage in this area. Of course the media would actually have to allow you to know he exists. But they're kept too busy trying to ignore, denigrate, and marginalize Ron Paul for the masses.
I guess the GOP is tired of NH living free. It must be time for them to die. Too bad the GOP doesn't realize that every time they bring up these issues they turn people away. It's the economy Stupid!
Mitt Romney is positioned to win on this issue.
It was his state that lead the way in acknowledging gay couples right to marry, his state that paved the way for the individual mandate to buy private health insurance.
He is the most liberal in the republican field which makes him the most electable.
Everyone knows that he "changed" his position on abortion rights just to win the primary. Once that is out of the way he can run on Obama's left to undercut his support with his base.
The best part is that the evangelicals will have to suck it up and vote for a man who follows Joseph Smith!
2012 is a win-win for the left!
Can it be true? In the battle of right vs. wrong, can right really win out in the end?
It depends on what your definition of "right" is.
Dan, it is Mitt Romney who belongs to a religion noted in its history for polygamy. A religion that sells special underware for its believers. And it is Mitt who honestly thinks corporations are people too.
Nope, not a chance. USA is going to reject all of them.
Exactly, it' not like there has been a half dozen stories in the news lately of just the mothers in those God-ordained hetero marriages that have gone off and killed a couple of their kids.
yup... better little johnny watch dad beat mom up every day of his life than have 2 loving dads or moms....at least it's a man and a woman gosh darn it....
Sanctity is a religious concept. Govenment officials have no business in determining what is sanctified and what is not sanctified since these things differ according to your religion.
Government should stay out of the religion business and stay out of peoples bedrooms.
Except of course when we are executing someone.
GOP = "Greedy Old Pervs" - the Republican party is not even trying to hide the fact that they want the middle class to go down in flames while the 1% become more powerful, at the same time inviting themselves into every bedroom across America and up every woman's womb. How American!! Just what this country needs!
Almost forgot: "Happy Thanksgiving". Go Lions!
but not if it requires healthcare.
For the life of me, I just can't understand why these people are full of such hate! It is sickening.
It results from their tactics of fear-mongering. To gain support and donations, they like to find a scapegoat to blame, someone they can demonize and portray as a "danger" even though no real danger exists. The natural result of scapegoating and fear-mongering is hatred and bigotry and intolerance - and violence.
You hit it cm...it's all about money and filling those collection plates.
CM-6969
You know personally, I couldn't care less what others do with themselves when they are alone,
What I absolutely hate is governments allowing and encouraging LGBT people to teach specific perverted sex acts like "Fisting, PEE Play and S&M" to our children paid for with our tax dollars in our schools.
And you say this isn't a "DANGER"?
This I will fight till my dying breath. You will find many of my brethren across America will do the same in defense of their families and children.
Ah, Egilman and his "facts". Sort of like when Hitler had all those facts about minorities in Germany. I really do not trust rightwingnuts when they point out a minority that threatens the "good people."
Well Dan, there's this really old book. And this book is full of old Palestinian fairy tales from cavemen in the Bronze Age. Now, even though this book was written by men who didn't even know where the sun went at night or where babies come from, a lot of grown-ups in America still think these fairy tales are real. And sadly, a few of these fairy tales tell them to hate people born different from them.
His lies are sort of like the Nazi smears in another way too, IMHO. Maybe Egilman heard somewhere of propaganda minister Goebels' lesson about a lie being believed if repeated often enough, because he apparently thinks people will believe the idiot and transparent lie if he just keeps posting it. But that repetition thing worked for Goebels because the Nazis controlled all the news sources and also had the power to silence voices of opposition. They didn't have to compete with fact or reason.
So keep your filthy thoughts to yourself, Egilman, only religious fanatics could believe such a moronic claim.
Until the religious fanatics establish a theocracy in USA, ordinary Americans are going to increasingly see fanatics like you as the ignorant fools that you really are. Better get used to it, Egilman. LOL!
because most of them are closet gays. how else can you rationalize their complete obssession with this one area? They quote the bible, say it's wrong; but they get divorced, have affairs (gay ones too peeps), cheat on their taxes, practice serial monogamy, applaud death, and break just about every other commandment known to man...but this GAY thing? yup, that's the one thing we are gonna bust up!!! Those two people who love each other both have vaginas???? Nope, we just can't have that. THAT is what's gonna klill society. Wars and affairs= good. Two vaginas= bad.
IMHO-2730490,
benji2,
I've already replied to you both @ 8.9
Toasty, & djslim,
You guys might want to check out the website also just so you know what Mittney is really all about. Of course he's a closet democrat, so you just might like him even more...
A website of made up @!$%# designed to sell books to morons... great source.....
Just My 2 Coppers
So obviously you didn't read it, which means you really don't care about truth.
You wish to roll around in your ideology.
Fine with me, but when you do come up with something real and truthful to refute the point, I'll be here to discuss it with you and anyone else that wants truth.
Until then, have a nice day! ;-)
Wipe the foam off of your mouth, Eg. Believe me, when presented with truth, I read it. What you have presented is not truth. It is Westburo baptist church @!$%# that makes me long (at times) to live in a country where bat@!$%# crazy people were excluded from the first ammendment. But as that is not the case, I simply have to weed out bat@!$%# crazy for myself. I actually am not that interested in what you call "discussion"... and I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney if he shat gold bouillion and "made it rain" over my house... so, you are screeching for no good reason on that point.
A "discussion," for the record, is an exchange of ideas... not holding your ears while shouting at the top of your lungs.
Just My 2 Coppers
It's not truth huh?
Well, if you won't accept it from me, would you accept it from 53 senators and president Obama himself?
Kevin Jennings (creator of GLSEN) was appointed to the US Department of Education as the President's "Safe Schools Czar" soon after he took office.
The beginning of this year, people presented this information to a group of senators. (mostly democrats)
I believe that over a number of months they completed an investigation. When it was complete, 53 of them presented this information to the President demanding that he FIRE Mr Jennings IMMEDIATELY!
President Obama complied with this Senatorial demand in July this year.
So I guess this Westburo baptist church bull#$% that you claim it to be was vetted by both the US Senate and the US President and deemed to be truthful enough to fire the person that earned his post by getting massive contributions to his campaign in 2008 from the GLBT activists.
I imagine it was done very quietly, I'm sure they didn't want the administration embarrassed by his appointing a pedophile homosexual to an extremely important post in the DOE, don't ya think?
Your done, you have been exposed, you claim a discussion is an exchange of Ideas except you haven't exchanged anything except bashing. you refused to look at the facts assuming it was a bunch of bigoted hate mongering...
If you do or don't vote for mittney, it is now out there, this pervert did all this with mittney's knowledge and approval.
Have a nice day ladies and gents...
I just do have to add one more little tidbit to this,
One of Jennings great hero's in the Gay movement was Harry Hay.
Harry was a vocal gay rights activist and direct supporter of Nambla, there are pictures of Harry Hay on the web during one of the gay rights marches in California in the '80s wearing a sign proclaiming his support for Nambla.
Interesting that for over two years president Obama had a Nambla supporter in a very high office in his administration.
Don't ya just love it?
x
On May 19, 2009, Obama administration Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced Jennings' appointment as an Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, starting July 6, 2009 as the third director of the office, which was established in 2002 during the George W. Bush administration pursuant to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Social conservatives campaigned against Jennings' appointment because they alleged he condoned child molestation based on the 2004 incident over a teen's story he related in his book One teacher in 10 : LGBT educators share their stories. The allegations were proven to be false when it was shown the student was above the age of consent and no sex had occurred. 53 Republican members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to the Obama administration that called for Jennings' dismissal. Education Secretary Duncan, the White House, the NEA, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals have supported Jennings' appointment, with Duncan saying Jennings was “uniquely qualified for his job.”
As Assistant Deputy Secretary, Jennings has focused on matters relating to teacher safety, classroom discipline and bullying. His office has awarded safety grants worth millions of dollars. In August 2010 his office hosted the first-ever National Bullying Summit which he helped organize. In September 2010 Jennings became one of the notable members of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention (NAASP), a public-private partnership designed to advance and update the 2001 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention and an outgrowth of the Suicide Prevention Resource Center. The NAASP will initially focus on three high-risk populations; LGBT Youth, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Military/Veterans.
On May 19, 2011, the Boston-based nonprofit organization Be the Change, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, announced that Jennings would be resigning his position with the Obama administration and on July 25 he would become President and Chief Executive Officer of the organization.
He wasn't asked to resign, the white house still supports him and all the lies the right wing has tried to throw at him haven't worked. But keep on trying. Fox doesn't care if you look dishonest and stupid repeating the lies they tell you...they just want you to keep on repeating them.
Well-documented and supported article about Kevin Jennings here: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/kevin-jennings-obama-anti-bullying-czar
Thank you, Doctor.. very insightful article. :-) While I fear it will fall on deaf ears with some that are so committed to the continued subjugation of gays and lesbians, it has at least highlighted the outright lies being told by Eg.
"Your done, you have been exposed, you claim a discussion is an exchange of Ideas except you haven't exchanged anything except bashing. you refused to look at the facts assuming it was a bunch of bigoted hate mongering..."
Once again, those are not facts. My "idea" is that all adults have equality under the law. Let me show you what an ACTUAL fact looks like:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Oh... and one more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/fox-news-correction-false_n_311734.html
The thing that's sad....is that even though Egilman has claimed this is why he feels the way he does, and it's clear these allegations are totally false....he will just go looking for the next batch of manufactured crap to "justify" his irrational fear of LGBT.
Facts and truth won't have any effect on him at all...nor will he experience a single moment of outrage at the "news" outlets that have been spewing these lies all along and set him up to look like an idiot for repeating them.
NotKidding, DrDrGimmetheNews, Just My 2 Coppers;
Thank you, thank you, thank you,
Yes thank you all!
Quoting wikipedia, the HUFFINGTON POST?, MOTHER JONES?
You didn't respond to one single fact, and unfortunately just point me to more rhetoric.
You know, I won't deny that Massresistance.org has some serious rhetoric on it's pages also, but they have also posted a lot of FACTS that are matter of public record or have been entered into court as evidence.
I have asked for FACTS to dispel what the current evidence illustrates and what I get is more rhetoric, not one fact in any of those links you all have graciously posted
Sure they would if you posted some! or could point me to some.
Your right, I save my outrage for when I find the facts and can point my outrage at those that deserve it. Until then I try to stay unemotional.
I haven't repeated anything, quite the contrary, you gentlemen are doing the repeating, I'm deliberately not repeating the rhetoric from the other side.
Repetition does NOT make veracity, or don't you gentlemen understand that simple little point?
Or, do you rather prefer, "If you don't understand, then I can't explain it to you"
The last refuge of bigots
I submit to you sirs, I do not look like the idiot, you do.
Instead of blanket ad hom arguments, perhaps you could actually address the questions directly?
You have not presented any facts. What is there to respond to?
Oh, it's so much more than that, and you know it. MassResistance is listed as a known hate group, on the same lines as Westboro Baptist Church, and just a notch or two below Christian Identity, a known terrorist organization.
That would be a lie. No court in this country has accepted such information as factual at face value.
You have not presented evidence, you've provided unsupported accusations.
Shoving your fingers into your ears and shouting "la la la I can't hear you la la la" is anything but impressive.
Oh no! The "I know you are but what am I" defense!! We're devastated!! /s
Actually, it's more like "You choose to not understand because it's not part of your anti-gay agenda"
Is that better?
The voice of experience?
What you look like, sir, is one who is so radically anti-gay that you would sink to lies and deception to support your agenda. You look like someone who would have defended the attackers in the Matthew Shepherd case. Or the bullies in the Carl Walker-Hoover case. You look, for lack of better terms, like Fred Phelps or someone who wants to be just like him.
Does that clear it up for you?
Regards
This is my first posting here so pardon me if I don't know how it all works.Egilman is a friend of mine, I have known him and his wife for a little over 6 years.He does not know I'm posting this but he will probably find out.Never, Ever have I and my partner ever had friends like him and his wife.The things you are saying about him are hurtful, not true and are very unkind.He as always demonstrated kindness and tolerance for us. We live right next door to them and they have always been the most helpful people. I know his politics and at first I was a little apprehensive of him. He can come across very strong, hell he's the strongest personality I've ever met, but he has always had a kind word and a helping hand when we have needed help. They watch our two children when we go out. Please stop your attacks at him, I have read what he has posted here. Please, he is not a bigot nor a hater, and I have experienced my share. I'm sure he has his reasons for posting what he does. He is not a liar.
He doesn't deserve what you are saying.
Jeanne & Samantha
Riiight... I totally believe that a member of the LGBT community is best friends with an obvious bigot... AND uses the screen name "bull dyke." You are offensive and should know that creating an alternate screen name to applaud yourself is not only seriously frowned upon by the community at large, it also violates the CoH and can get you banned. I have sent a report of my suspicions as I believe this activity inhibits the free exchange of ideas this forum was designed to promote. They can tell by IP address if it is true, by the way....
From the user agreement:
Prohibited Conduct
The following non-exhaustive list describes the kinds of illegal or harmful conduct that are prohibited on our Site. You agree not to:
Bull_Dyke
He has unabashedly proffered outright lies regarding education plans of my home state of Massachusetts.
He cites a website created by a group registered as a "Hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
He uses the word "Liberal" as if it were a vulgarity.
His posts consist of deception, bigotry, and willful ignorance. He, as a person, may deserve better, but his posts, here on the Newsvine, deserve so much more of that which he is already receiving.
And by the way, it's become a very common practice for people to register to this site multiple times, to make it appear they have allies and people who agree with them. If you continue reading through posts, you'll see them referred to as "rereg's." Your intent may be laudable, but the appearance of your post may be far less persuasive than you expected.
Regards
Proud Pagan
Quote:
I'm sure it is. Thank you Sam, but this was unnecessary and unfortunate. (and will probably for the most part be ignored)
I guess I should give everyone an apology, I usually do not emotionally rant like I have for the last few days. I sure pissed off a few people and to be honest I meant to, I wanted people to feel the rage I have felt the last few days.
Jeanne has a son named Jeremy, he's 13 yrs old, from a previous marriage that wasn't so great. He considers my wife and I as his "substitute grandparents". Last week Jeremy was molested by a pedophile, one that used his position of trust to coerce him into a homosexual sexual experience. The injuries he sustained clearly establish it as a NON-consensual incident.
Rather than go to his mother to report the "incident" as the police called it he came to me. I had to tell her. They haven't caught the perp yet he seems to have disappeared.
What we have been able to get from him through counseling is that the perp used the fact that he lives in a lesbian household against him emotionally.
I"m sorry that I lot my self control and allowed my emotions to get the better of me. For that I apologise I should have known better. I"m not looking for forgiveness, there is some truth in what I posted but also there is a lot of hate in the same pages. it's time for the hate to stop.
I"m sure Jen would agree.
At this point I will no longer post on this thread and it should die, Hammer me all you want, but please do not criticize Sam for posting. She is an innocent naive young lady who faced some huge fears over coming out to come to the defense of someone she loves. She doesn't deserve it.
Please let this die....
"Last week Jeremy was molested by a pedophile, one that used his position of trust to coerce him into a homosexual sexual experience. The injuries he sustained clearly establish it as a NON-consensual incident."
Let me make two points here. One, this was not a "homosexual sexual experience", it was the rape of a child. And being injured is not required for this to be a non-consensual incident because someone of the age of 13 is not old enough to give consent.
I'm still wondering ..how their gonna get past the "one" man .."one" woman language in defining marriage...there's nothing in there about serial divorces or multiple marriages.. the "one" man .."one" woman thing is pretty clear...why hasn't this been challenged in court yet..
Wait until Newt finds out that he's going to spend all of eternity in the afterlife with his wife, his first wife that is. What God has joined together let no man put asunder, right? Well, then who is his second and third wives going to spend all eternity with? He can't spend eternity with all three, can he? That would be more like the 72 virgin promise of Muslim martyrs, wouldn't it? This is all very confusing. You're right, Amunaka, what about the one man-one woman thing? I guess you'd have to outlaw divorce, too, absent Papal dispensation and annulment. We all know the Pope is infallible. Newt, too bad you're not Catholic. You've got enough money that you could easily get an annulment from Rome. Then you wouldn't have to spend all eternity with the first wife, you could just keep trading down to younger wives as you go along, and the last wife get's to spend eternity with you. That seems like a just reward for her.
Or here's an idea: Let's call the whole thing off and the government can mind it's own goddamn business and leave people alone.
I don't see what the big deal is. Regardless if gay marriage is not on the Republican platform, the candidates should all say the support it, then, taking a lesson from our current President, when he/she gets elected they can merely say "Oh! I really didn't mean that I wholeheartedly supported it". They will probably need someone like Robert Gibbs (a true master of doublespeak and question dancing) to actually explain the flip as a non-flip.
Tribal men in positions of power, Republicans', Taliban , Extreme Religious right, all practice intolerance and the right to control the female population, no power in their organizations or control over there body's. And if you're not God fearing and in a marriage producing more children, off with your head ! Art, fashion, culture, protection of people and the envorment, naw not interested, is there anyting we can bomb or kill today because they a different ?
New Hampshire state motto: Live free or die. Pretty simple - let people be free to live their lives as they see fit. If these Republican candidates want less government, then surely they want less government intrusion into people's private lives. Or maybe they're just hypocrites.
Good point, jwight01. You pinned the tale (of hypocrisy) right on the GOP elephant's ass.