« You have no idea how much trouble myth #10 has caused around my house *OR* My wife is trying to melt the kinder! | Main | Orson Scott Card has the first good thinking against gay amrriage I've seen that doesn't rely on religious argument »

Comments

Rick the Bomber

Pedro, it's not often that I get to unleash a cruise missile with your name on it but in this case, I think you are trying too hard to be PC. No one is proposing taking away the rights of homosexuals. This is about your kids growing up in a world where the deviant sexual behavior envelope is pushed to the next level. It is about your kid's teachers teaching them in 6th grade sex education that a man's anus is no different that a woman's vagina. It is about the definition of marriage. It is about the benefit to society that traditional families provide over that of a small group of loud people that are not quite right sexually (whether by choice or by genetics) who demand to be recognized as normal. If you think the liberal by-product of the 60's is a screwed up generation, what do you think the homogenizing homosexuals and heterosexuals will do? This is our generation’s opportunity to slow the attack on our values. And you want to abdicate that responsibility in the name of political correctness? Are you more passionate about the national debt than you are about preserving the meaning and value of marriage for your kids’ generation?

Sure, I have heard the warm and fuzzy stories about two gay people being "in love" and "why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt a child?" The reality is they are the extreme exception and are far from the typical homosexual "couple." The vast majority are screwed up individuals who are far more promiscuous, immoral, and self-absorbed than the rest of society. Bestowing upon them the sanctity of marriage will do nothing but devalue marriage and give the left (especially Hollywood) an open invitation to make a mockery of families, as we know them.

The President is being straight up but not because he thinks we all need to vote on it but because he wants to focus a bright light on the immorality of the left on an issue of their choosing that the vast majority of Americans oppose. How many on the left do you think are passionate about gay marriage? I would guess that most gays are ambivalent about it. It will be fun to watch Kerry and Edwards juggle this hot potato when the real debates begin. Bush just solidified the far right, the right, and a large chunk of the middle. The only question remaining in the 2004 election is whether or not Bush will sweep all 50 states.

Mike the liberal Jewish brother-in-law

The President is being straight up and wants to focus a bright light on this immorality?

What a load of crap.

When he was asked about it in the Republican Primary debates, he explicitly stated that this was an issue each state should decide for itself and not one the Federal Government should decide. Now he's done his usual 180 and also as usual, his fans (and yes, that IS short for fanatic) are saying it's "straight up"? Bull. All he's doing is sucking up to potential voters and swinging with the polls.

If that's "straight up" on what he feels is an "immorality" that needs a "bright light" shone upon it then what do you call a hypocritical, bald faced lie to kiss his donor's asses?

Mike the liberal Jewish brother-in-law

I will agree with one thing, though. It is classic W...

Rick the Bomber

In typical fashion, all you have done is bash Bush. That might work here, but Kerry will have to actually take a position on the issue. Liberals always seem to pander to special interests each election – you know the “divide and conquer” strategy that pits us against each other based on race, sex, age, wealth, etc. Kerry will have to pander cautiously to the gays this time around. As you just demonstrated, bashing Bush just won't cut it.

Perhaps if it had been left to the State legislatures, Bush wouldn't have had this opportunity. But, rouge courts and mayors were deciding the issue. He hasn't done a 180. He just isn't going to allow the mayor of SF cause every court in the US to be tied up with challenges to State laws when these "married" couples start fanning out to every state in the union. Legally, it is simply the only responsible course of action. Politically, the left tossed him a soft ball and he hit a home run. Morally, you managed to avoid taking a position. Kerry won't have this luxury.

pedro

New posts on this point - Look for "Glenn Beck's Joke?"

Mike the liberal Jewish brother-in-law

Nonsense. All I did, as usual, was present the facts which conservatives, as usual, pretend to not remember.

If the truth makes Bush look bad, perhaps that says more about Bush and his fanatic followers than anything else could.

Rick the Bomber

Present facts? You're joking, right?

What a load of crap.

Now he's done his usual 180...

his fans (and yes, that IS short for fanatic)...

Bull...

All he's doing is sucking up...

...a hypocritical, bald faced lie to kiss his donor's asses?

The following resembles a fact:

When he was asked about it in the Republican Primary debates, he explicitly stated that this was an issue each state should decide for itself and not one the Federal Government should decide.

But, you conveniently and deliberately avoid actual thought on this issue because you would probably find yourself agreeing with Bush's proposal. Laws are made by the legistlative branch, but that isn't good enough for you libs because that typically requires the support of a majority. (How can you shove your backwards liberal socialist agenda down the throats of the majority who oppose you?) For example, can any court in any state make the law for that state? Can the mayor, sheriff, minister, or any notary create law? And, what happens when a homosexual married couple moves across state/county/city lines? Is their marriage invalidated?

I know, blah, blah, blah...I hate Bush!

Mike the liberal Jewish brother-in-law

Gee Rick. Did I hit a repressed memory?

In 2000, George W. Bush was asked about gays being allowed to marry. He said it was an issue that should be left up to the states. That is a fact.

In 2004, George W. Bush was asked about gays being allowed to marry. He said that it was too important an issue to be left up to the states and required a Constitutional Ammendment to make sure the states couldn't decide. That is a fact.

Are you really so brainwashed that you don't think that's a 180 degree total contradiction on an issue he now claims is of moral importance?

OK. Now pretend a Democrat had said them and Rush told you to think they were 180 degrees opposite...

I think that makes my point no matter how you choose to pretend that Bush isn't a liar and hypocrite and that his followers aren't blind sheep cheering on the home team no matter what.

pedro

I had drinks tonight with a woman who speaks gibberish when she's drunk. It is the funniest thing you ever saw. She is SO serious, and SO frustrated because she knows she's not getting her point across. Actually, she's not getting anything across. It is hilarious. Like she's speaking in tongues.
Feh.

Rick the Bomber

"In 2000, George W. Bush was asked about gays being allowed to marry. He said it was an issue that should be left up to the states. That is a fact."

Left up to the states means allowing the states legislatures to adopt their own laws regarding the issue – not leaving the process up to mayors, ministers, notaries, judges, etc.

"In 2004, George W. Bush was asked about gays being allowed to marry. He said that it was too important an issue to be left up to the states and required a Constitutional Ammendment to make sure the states couldn't decide. That is a fact."

No, this is not a fact. You inserted a few words and changed what he said entirely. Only in your blinded-by-hate world is that a fact.

Again, you haven’t taken a position on this – except to disparage Bush. Nor have you offered any answers to the questions I posed to you in a previous post. You are wasting my time.

Would you like to appoint someone else to think for you?

Mike the liberal Jewish brother-in-law

So "Left up to the states" means that the Federal Government should tell the states what they can and can't do to decide what they want?

Wow. Speaking of doubletalk...

pedro

The states are not free to repeal gravity, nor to change the speed of light. Marriage is what it is. The states *are* free to allow certain forms of contract, i.e. Civil Unions, and I haven't heard any one in this debate argue against that. (I'm not saying they're not out there, but I haven't heard them so I'm thinking they're not all that numerous. Could be wrong.)
The correct answer is FOUR.

Mike the liberal Jewish brother-in-law

Gee, so when Bush said it was up to the states he didn't really mean it was up to the states.

Wow.

BTW: Marriage, as it now stands, is totally up to the states with the only Federal intervention being the "full faith and credit" clause which requires states to recongnize each other's contracts. A state could define marriage as anything they want. There's no inherent limitation and whether they call them marriage, civil union, or aardvark wrestling has no basis in limiting their authority. If it did, Bush's NEW ELECTION YEAR ONLY view on the subject wouldn't require changing the US Consititution.

Why is it that conservatives always say VERY LOUDLY that they're for "small government" at the same time that they push to make the government bigger? Are they just hoping we won't notice?

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

Seen at low tide

  • American White Pelican
    Saw 30 in one flock on a weptember evening while fishing
  • Hummingbird
    Finally, my first hummingbirds. Saw them on a fire bush in Crystal Beach, FL. My rental's neighbor's yard is all xeriscaped, which is ugly to me but just fine with the little hummers. At first, I thought they were the biggest hornets I'd ever seen.
  • Flamingo!
    One of these dudes flew right over my house. I couldn't believe it. And please don't tell me it was a roseated spoonbill because it was a frickin' flamingo, dude! Huge and pink and right there above me. I was like so freaking out, you know?
  • Falcon!
    Don't see these guys too often. Wish we did. Bet the morning doves don't.
  • Black Skimmer
    These beauties are getting scarce, but one flew by yesterday at low tide on the hunt for minnows.
  • Dead sea turtle
    cool, but smelly
  • Reddish Egret
    These have been hanging out around the pool quite a bit lately. Must be a new group of adolesent birds -- the youngsters like to hunt where the water is clear, and it takes them a day to figure out there are not now and never will be fish in the swimming pool no matter how clear the water.
  • Sand Piper
  • Brown Pelican
    I saw a flock of about 200 of these at Disappearing Island yesterday, just south of Anclote Island on the west coast of FL. Good to see such a large flock.
  • Wood Pecker
    They've developed a sudden interest in the orange tree, which just went into bloom.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2003