Time to End Marriage as We Know It

Today the citizens of North Carolina are voting on an amendment to the state constitution that would not only reenforce the current law against same sex marriage but would go a step further in making civil unions illegal also.

Homophobes across the country, mostly conservatives, have claimed that extending marriage to gay couples somehow sullies the grand institution. Well for starters, let’s dismiss the so-called grandness of the institution. 50% of first time marriages end in divorce [1]. Clearly when it comes to marriage, heterosexuals have no idea what they’re doing.

On the contrary, it is conservatives who have sullied the institution of marriage by forcing their definition upon the tradition. When homosexuality was taboo, marriage was reserved for heterosexuals. Homosexuality has recently gained much greater social acceptance. The stereotype of the promiscuous pervert is gradually being replaced with example after example of long term relationships between people of the same gender who truly love each other.

I propose that since marriage has been tarnished by ignorant, and in some instances, mean spirited individuals the time has come for fair minded people to abandon marriage. Let marriage remain a religious ceremony and let the various religions discriminate in any way they please. But in secular society, let civil unions be the norm for all couples, homosexual and heterosexual.

I suggest a “movement” of sorts. I suggest that every heterosexual couple contemplating a lifetime commitment go to their local court house and demand a civil union. These civil unions must provide all the legal protections of traditional marriage. Such a movement would show solidarity with our gay peers.

When an institution becomes corrupted by exclusive bigots, it is time to abandon the institution. Leave traditional marriage to the churches and happily let their adherents cling to the fantasy of the God blessed union that in reality fails as often as it succeeds.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Image: Tanatat / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

213 thoughts on “Time to End Marriage as We Know It

  1. A marriage is only as sacred as those in it keep it. Making them state ordained or church ordained doesn’t change that. I do agree the civil unions should be treated the same for gays and heteros as far as tax breaks and other monetary benefits.

    But once again we prefer to white wash our institutions rather than reestablish their foundations. Marriage has been undermined and many self-righteous look to blame cast.

  2. I’ll say good post Rutherford. I’ll also say I’d agree to the government defining legal unions as long as there are far reaching protections for religious entities that exceed marriage (such as not allowing prosecutions against pastors that preach against homosexuality) and that completely define unions in a manner that protects society.

  3. Should polgymy be accepted as a civil union too? Just curious. I really don’t give a shit one way or the other. My bet is that most gay dudes don’t want to be stuck in a legally sanctioned marriage any ways. We’re talking about people who literally take over certain rest stops, libraries and parks to blow strange weiners.

    I’d have no problem with what Rutherford desires as long as his beloved Nanny doesn’t arrest me for saying that the sight of two dudes smooching is a nasty ass abomination.

  4. By the way, wouldn’t have bachelor life been awesome if their was a hetro version of the gay sex with a stranger spots that ruin certain areas of every urban landscape in America?

    Rough week? Couldn’t get laid at the bar? No biggy. Just go to the library and some slutty chick will blow you, not for money, but because she loves blowing you with porno enthusiasm. Homos have it made.

  5. Other than abortion and possibly minorities incapable of being racists, I think this is the biggest line of bullshit that Liberals traffic in. The success of loving, long-term relationships in the homosexual community – a myth.

    This is the part Rutherford where I draw the line with you.

    This is where I find you an immoral,warped and frankly a self defeating man, from your politics to your personal life – all in the name of some enlightened political correctness. It isn’t core belief but herd mentality.

    If you really cared about these people you seek to “defend”, you would strive to seek treatment from what is obviously the abnormal – defined not just by religion, but by nature. Isn’t that what you liberals always preach as gospel? Natural law?

    The problem is not the institution of marriage which is the very cornerstone of all civilizations. The problem is the reprobate mind, like dumb animals incapable of determining right from wrong acting simply on instinct.

    Speaking from practical, we obviously didn’t learn our lesson from HIV/AIDS, so perhaps the light bulb will turn on as incurable MRSA continues to mutate and spreads like wildfire in the homosexual community. Unlike AIDS, MRSA doesn’t discriminate by behavior, is virulent, quick, and spread by skin contact.

    Like so many questions of right and wrong, rather the deal with the problem as adults, as clearly homosexuality a mental illness – what you libs do in your gross stupidity is to redefine the situation in the name of some “twisted” definition of tolerance, and normalize the abnormal.. The results are predictable. It brings us men like Dan Savage.

    Government entitlement, public schools, criminal justice, even the interpretation of the “living” Constitution. Everything neo modern liberalism touches turns to shit – in this particular case, literally in 50% of the cases. Any infectious disease doctor will tell you homosexuality is a major vector and incubator for many various forms of infectious disease.

    Maybe more importantly, there is absolutely no doubt that children have a far higher rate of successful formative years with both a father and mother living in the home. There is no successful philosophical substitute.

    Predictably, as the institution of marriage has failed, so has our society. And that is what you libs predictably market in – abject failure.

    You can refer to me as a homophobe. I will refer to you and your ilk as perverted deviants. 😐

  6. That is one weird sexual tirade you got going, rabbit.

    Homos have it made? Left on their own, they’re a dying breed.

    Polygamy has been around since the beginning. Powerful and wealthy men had many wives and concubines. It is outlawed in our nation, but some peoples still find it an acceptable tradition. If we had no laws to outlaw it, then I could see the unions getting the same benefits/ monetary breaks. You would need to allow for a woman having many husbands too. That would be “fair”, since that is what we attempt to achieve. They could all incorporate.

    You would still have as many abuse the unions as every other “benefit” group does. Who polices it?

    We need a real leader. How about this guy…

  7. Rutherford – Respectfully, THUMP!!! As long as two consenting adults are of a lawful age, they and only they should determine the type of union which exists between them. As I have said in my blog, rabbits have understood this for millennia. We bond for life in whatever combinations strike our fancy. Humans need to catch the thump up! Marriage equality is important not because it is about marriage but because it is about equality. – Arliss Bunny

  8. Rutherford – Respectfully, THUMP! Consenting adults of a legal age should be the only ones to determine the manner in which the bonds between them are codified. As I have mentioned in my blog, rabbits have known this for millennia as we bond, for life, in whatever combinations suit our fancy. Humans need to catch the thump up! Marriage equality is important not because it is marriage but because it is equality. – Arliss Bunny

  9. Trying to look past the blatant bigotry embedded in Rabbit’s comments, yes there is a hetero place for just getting laid, Rabbit and you already named it … the bar. No one goes to a bar to find the girl of his dreams.

  10. Of course, Tex outdoes Rabbit on the homophobic rant. Tex you need to get out more. My college roommate has been in a long term relationship (they actually married in CA in the window when such marriages were allowed) and they have adopted two children whom they love very much.

    You also know full well that lots of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex so save me the “unnatural” bullsh*t. If you want to see natural sex go read up on the bonobo monkey. They’ll f*ck anything that breathes.

    You and Rabbit are disgusted by guys getting off on each other. Fine. It’s not everybody’s cup of tea. But bottom line I’ve seen too many examples of same sex couples DEVOTED to each other to buy your anachronistic bullsh*t.

    BTW, to ALL the guys on the blog, if the gay stuff so disgusts you, stop watching the lesbo porn. 😉

  11. Arliss, I liked your comment so much I approved it twice.

    I’m not entirely sure where we disagree. I am basically for marriage equality but I find the entire debate so debased by the right that I think the better road is for everyone to seek a new model, gays and straight.

    To the extent that a marriage is marked by a religious ceremony … well I’m not the cafeteria Christian type. I believe if the church doesn’t want to marry same-sex partners that is their prerogative and gays who don’t like it should leave the church.

  12. I think an adult should be able to sign a marriage contract with any other consenting adult.

    I think churches should be allowed to discriminate against the marriage of same sex partners if they wish.

    The two are not mutually exclusive.

  13. Rutherford, you sexy motherfucker, how many times did pull a piece of ass from the bar?. I remember one of the things that I hated was the deceit that was often times necessary in order to get laid.

    Most guys can’t get laid in the bar. When they do, its often based on lies.

    These homo places that you pretend don’t exist, its pure depravity without the charade. They have their own bars too. So why do they exist?

  14. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    They are to that Jesus you like to quote here when convenient.

  15. You also know full well that lots of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex so save me the “unnatural” bullsh*t. If you want to see natural sex go read up on the bonobo monkey. They’ll f*ck anything that breathes.

    Like I said, your ilk are animals working on instinct – Bonobo monkeys, if you will. However, if we were to simply adopt natural law like the Bonobos, you ‘adorable’ roommate would have been booted from the herd and left for dead.

    But isn’t it you the anachronism, Homer? If you desire the Caligula lifestyle like Rome, so be it. I kind of like the idea. Why don’t we bring back slavery too, as Rome about 65% slave? If you prefer the Greek lifestyle (and obviously you do), Athens about 70% slave. Then there’s always Sodom. 😉

    These loving relationships are like the Chaz Bono normalcy, and the Republicans going the way of the Whigs. A myth.

  16. Rutherford –

    Agree with you. We have a saying around here: whoever pays the bills calls the shots. I couldn’t give a good God damn what other people do, unless they want me to pay their bills, and then it is MY business. My experience with queers is that they are kind, fine people to the last man, and that they support themselves, so their business is their own.

    This “protection of marriage” nonsense is just that. How does one couple’s marriage threaten someone else’s marriage? I have a queer employee, and I can tell you that his life has been tough, and if/when he finds a life partner and is willing to commit to it in law, how can someone deny him the same protections under the law that others have? If the churches don’t want to marry these folks, fine – so be it. It’s kind of a tradition anyway; if the priests married all the little boys they’ve had sex with, there would be a rash of polygamy trials anyway, wouldn’t there?

    Bloody backwoods goobers. WV’s motto is, “Thank God for Mississippi.”

    Add North Carolina to that.

  17. One other thing, Brother “R”. That’s three times in a month you’ve told me I need to “get out more.” Get out more for what? To get boned?

    Now Brother “R”, I love you in a manly sort of way, but not the way your adorable roommate loved you when he spotted that cute, little ass of yours. I’ll bet you did have a good time in college – convenient anyway.

    You do remember, of all the people on this board, you’ve been out the least for virtually your entire life?

    But I have to give you some bad news. News you’ve heard it all before, even agreed before Obama took a turn for the terminally stupid and you conveniently forgot. You do still remember, you are but like a child when it comes to the world?

    Remember?

  18. The issue about gay marriage is not one of rights but of the ethical right to make something people don’t want hijacked, hijacked. Gay folks have the civil right to have equal protection in terms of marriage – they do not have the right to declare what is normal and declare me a bigot if I’m not in agreement with what is clearly inferior in every sense of the word.

    Gays deserve equal rights under the law, but they do not have the right to declare their relationships as marriage anymore than I have a right to declare monopoly money is legal tender or an anus is a vagina.

    This semantic gibberish is but another game, where liberals and ungodly soften the perversion or the crime by playing with words – Planned Parenthood being substituted for abortion on demand.

    And unlike Pfesser, I’ve found “gays” to be anything but gay. In fact, Dan Savage is the prototypical gay I’ve met. Angry, always annoyed, obsessed with his “rights” and no one else.

  19. If gays were committed to committed relationships, good for them. Frankly, many of the problems in the gay community I believe are the result of the lack of it. And there’s no reason we can’t recognize a civil union from a legal standpoint, and leave churches to do what they believe appropriate when it comes to the issue (although I find the arguments concerning the Catholic church and forced supply of birth control to be at odds with the arguments from our liberal friends now as it relates to religious freedoms). As a meathead from Brooklyn I overheard said, “what’s the problem. . . let ’em be miserable like the rest of us.”

    As for ” the act,” I am repulsed by it as well as much of the lifestyle. I am also repulsed by the need for the gay community to feel like the must graphically display their lifestyle as a way to “win friends and influence people.” They do so to provoke a reaction to rely on as “proof” of bigotry – standard liberal fare creation of a victim class — Pride Parades, Exhibit “A.” I can only imagine what could be accomplished if the gay community chose to positively project their relationships and desired status, rejected the vulgar displays and conspicuous promiscuity, and quit pretending that being gay gives you some “right to offend.”

    R, as you accuse the right of bigotry, why aren’t you calling Obama to task for not having a position on the subject?

  20. My bet is that most gay dudes don’t want to be stuck in a legally sanctioned marriage any ways- DR

    The success of loving, long-term relationships in the homosexual community – a myth. – Tex

    as incurable MRSA continues to mutate and spreads like wildfire in the homosexual community- Tex

    @DR and Tex, you must not know any gay or lesbian couples. The ones hanging out in the gay bar are no different from the heteros hanging out in the straight bar.

    Statistics show MRSA continues to mutate and spread like wildfire in the hospitals and other health oriented places regardless of religion or sexuality.

    As long as any marriage requires a marriage certificate from the state in which you reside, I consider that a civil union regardless of religion.

    Rutherford, good post! Once again you have managed to stir up a hornet’s nest and most of the replies were predictable. I have just never understood why homosexual marriage scares so many heterosexuals. I agree with your basic premise. If it is truly just the word “Marriage” that is the issue, then the word should be changed to “Civil Unions”.

  21. I think that all marriages/civil unions should be on a contract basis and up for renewal every 10 or 20 years. That would eliminate the divorce problem 🙂

  22. Raji, we’ve hit this topic here before. If you read very carefully, I think you’ll find the reactions are not as “predictable” as they seem at first blush. I think you’ll see as this unfolds.

    Hell, the first “wedding” my son attended was a civil union ceremony in Vermont between two lesbian relatives that have now been together for nearly 40 years.

    R would loath to recall that I personally fought a legal battle against Georgia’s proposed anti- same sex legislation (constitutional amendment) the details of which I’ll save for now.

  23. “I think that all marriages/civil unions should be on a contract basis and up for renewal every 10 or 20 years. That would eliminate the divorce problem.”

    Although I trust you are joking, that of course that would be the antithesis of marriage or civil union.

  24. It seems to me that Tex is right – it’s a question of semantics, not substance, but my take is a bit different.

    Maybe we could get around the objection if we called it something else other than “marriage.” I don’t care if you call it marriage or ru-ru; if two adults cannot get protection under the law for property they have accumulated together, the right to visit in the hospital and a dozen other things – WHEN GIVING THEM THAT RIGHT WOULD CAUSE NO HARM TO ANYONE ELSE, I just don’t see it.

    Two guys doing the nasty doesn’t appeal to me, but as Jefferson said about gods, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If they want to commit to each other – and since they don’t like girls, they can’t do it THAT way – what the hell and who the hell does it hurt and why can’t they do the same contract (ru-ru) as everybody else?

    (Interestingly, I know two gay/lesbian couples who married male/female way, fixed up their wills and other things, and then swapped housemates. Never stand in the way of love, even if you don’t understand it. People are too resourceful to be denied.

  25. HT to raji@21. I know at least …………. five queer couples, three male, two female, one single gay guy who works for me. The three gay couples have been together for a long, long time. JH and his fellow were in residency with me, so they have been together for over thirty years. He is a radiologist and well-respected as a neuro guy. Sure there are dirtbags in that community, but I’ll bet you that on balance you will find them “better citizens” than most hetero couples you pick at random.

    ………Forgot my cousin, Anette M, who was the head of nursing at WVU for over forty years. She and her partner (they were called “roommates” in the ‘fifties and ‘sixties) died having never had another, er, roommate.

    Shit. Forgot about my Embryology professor. Tough as balls. A real bitch, if you were a student. Lived with her “roommate” until they both died of old age.

    Screwing around? Sorry, not what I’ve seen, but then that is their business; has nothing to do with what is right in how they are treated.

  26. Good point, Tigre. I’ll read with an open mind. I was joking but….not a bad idea if you think about it.

    So if you want to reside in NC with a partner you best be married. I wonder how this amendment will effect the heterosexual senior citizens who for financial reasons opt not to be married but need the protection of a domestic partnership. I never thought NC was a great state to live in anyway.

  27. Statistics show MRSA continues to mutate and spread like wildfire in the hospitals and other health oriented places regardless of religion or sexuality.

    Raji, not bad on the financial stuff, but I notice you like to bend truth on the social aspects. No surprise, as you lean left. Let’s not play this game again about how homosexuals aren’t predominately spreading the ‘good’ stuff, hey?

    http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2008/01/15/chronicle/archive/2008/01/15/MNI5UE0L8.html?tsp=1

    Since it spreads by contact, of course it then spreads throughout the community. 😉 But let’s not pretend where it mutates and its initial spread facilitated in the bathhouses of SF and NY as recent history repeats itself, unless you want to revert back to Fat Grannies’ mode and play pretend? If so, you should get on board with more Obama.

    I have just never understood why homosexual marriage scares so many heterosexuals.

    That’s a ruse and the typical specious lefty dogma. You marrying your dog doesn’t threaten my marriage.

    But the reason the acceptance of homosexuality should scare you it is a clear indicator that the changes to basic structures (like committed marriage) when normalized (amongst other taboos) have always been a precursor to empires that have fallen – and fallen rather quickly. Make no mistake, the U.S. won’t escape that glorious conclusion either as your failed public schools already attest.

    If we are going to accept homosexuality, then I see absolutely no problem with accepting adultery, polygamy (the consenting adults), communes with children to be shared, NAMBLA, no restriction on abortion, female circumcision, necrophilia, street orgies, screwing the pooch etc… etc…

    When as Rome, be as Rome. Titus awaits.

    ———–

    Dear God, give me enough sane people to divest from these fruitless folk and be done with these stupid arguments and idiocy. Surely, we can have the intestinal fortitude do 1773 all over again and depart from them? 😀

  28. Little story. The nice queer (Michael) that cut my hair for 20 years was in one of those loving, long-term commitments gays and supporting straights like to speak about. He was married to Richard, who I later found out was also “married” to Rick.

    What they didn’t advertise was the weekend orgies at the lake house, where everyone traded their partners – Love, American style. I wasn’t filled into the fun until several years into my acquaintance. I was even invited until it became abundantly clear that wasn’t my bag when they discovered I had kids. 😈

    I ignored the clutter because the guy gave a good haircut and was a nice man. I never belittled him, though when he became sickly looking, I found another place. Nice guy, to each their own, or so I thought. Went to them before I even started college, through my mid 30s.

    Not one lived past the age of 60, best I recall. One died of tuberculosis, another from AIDS related symptoms. Two died of sepsis, and I would garner they too had AIDS related symptoms. Rick shot himself when scorned by his lover – though I guess he was bi, because he had two sons, shockingly who both were “born” gay. I wonder what the statistical chances of that? hrmph hmrph….

    Unfortunately, it was about that time that we found out things like MRSA and AIDS have a huge societal and political cost to all of us. Any epidemiologist would happily verify as much.

    I can give you very practical reasons having nothing to do with morality why the practice of homosexuality should be summarily scorned and rejected as an alternative – early death being the most practical.

  29. “I wonder how this amendment will effect the heterosexual senior citizens who for financial reasons opt not to be married but need the protection of a domestic partnership.”

    And that was my case here in Georgia.

  30. By the way, Pfesser.

    The accompanying vote against Obama in WV was hilarious – especially the picture, which is the part that did make me laugh out loud. 😆

    I don’t think men like Brother “R” really appreciate the amount of animosity many feel toward the left’s false messiah for an almost infinite number of reasons. So much for Rutherford’s post-racial, rainbow-filled utopia. For some reason, I get a thrill up my leg about that balloon being popped.

  31. “hen I see absolutely no problem with accepting adultery,”

    personal issue. OK by me.

    “polygamy (the consenting adults),”

    The State has an interest in preventing a mismatch of men/women, since they are approx 50/50, and one horny dude would deny several other men the opportunity for a family.

    “communes with children to be shared, NAMBLA”

    Children are unable to give consent

    “no restriction on abortion”

    irrelevant, Your Honor. Not the topic at hand, just like all the other things.

    “female circumcision”

    Probably not illegal here if consenting adult. Children unable as above.

    “necrophilia,”

    corpse cannot consent

    ” street orgies, screwing the pooch ”

    Pooch can’t consent.

    Despite obvious OTHER objections to all those things, none of them are the topic. The topic is “marriage” or civil union or ru-ru or whatever you want to call it, between consenting adults. Are you trying to argue “slippery slope?”

  32. These homo places that you pretend don’t exist, its pure depravity without the charade.

    I don’t deny some depravity goes on. Your famous Senator Larry Craig was caught wet red handed.

    But surely you agree the general population is averse to sex in public places so why would you not assume that the same percentage of gays are averse to it also? There is a difference between being gay (having sexual/romantic urges for the same gender) and being depraved (wanting to f*ck wherever you happen to be at the time).

  33. Regarding comment 15, oh Tex haven’t you yet learned that deflection is not an argument. No one is talking ancient Greece here. I notice you didn’t touch the hetero anal sex point. That’s your style … ignore the parts that defeat your argument.

    The only mythical thing is what is going on in your 1950’s era brain. The fact that you refuse to accept that there are a crap load of committed gay couples out there simply shows your unshakable prejudice. Sadly it seems most citizens of North Carolina are with you but they went you one better. Now they won’t even protect an unmarried woman from domestic abuse. Good going there sport!!!!!

  34. but not the way your adorable roommate loved you when he spotted that cute, little ass of yours.

    LOL, I figured you’d go there.

    My parents and I always suspected he was gay just based on stereotypes. But he wasn’t out in college and as far as I can tell wasn’t practicing in secret.

    He probably came out long before I knew about it because we had lost touch. But when I finally caught up with him, do you know what he said? This is almost an exact quote:

    Realizing I was gay broke my heart because I always wanted to have my own family and raise kids.

    Being gay was one helluva struggle for him. As luck would have it, the mood of the nation changed and he was eventually able to adopt two wonderful children. He’s a kind, decent and yes God fearing man Tex. A harder worker I’ve never met. If you knew him, you’d respect him. But before respect, you’d need to get past your blind spot and everything you’ve said here tells me you’re incapable.

    P.S. He’s a cardiologist married to a Christian minister.

  35. In fact, Dan Savage is the prototypical gay I’ve met. Angry, always annoyed, obsessed with his “rights” and no one else.

    LOL … you’re so short sighted I don’t know how you walk around the house without tripping over things.

    Do you think, with your attitude, that any decent gay man would come out to you? Why would any gay guy, other than a radical, discuss his sexuality with you knowing what a stone-cold bigot you are?

    Puhleeeeeeze.

  36. LOL PF … when I heard the news this morning that a convict took a good 43% of the vote from Obama in the WV primary, I cracked up …. and I KNEW I’d hear about it here on the blog.

    So of course, the next question is does that say more about Obama or West Virginia? 😉

  37. What did I not touch, Rutherford? What did I deflect?

    Your wife sucks your cock, I assume? Well, why don’t you let your hairy chested neighbor Bluto do it then too?

    You’re the one trying to normalize deviancy here.

    So far, all you’ve provided are a bunch of platitudes about your adorable roommate and two adopted kids that will be fucked up the remainder of their days without a mother. Is your adorable roommate the Mrs.? Does Mrs. Roommate’s children suckle? Does s(he) nurture the children with he(r) breasts? Did I ever tell you about Rick, who had his period? I worked up the nerve one time to ask him about the physicality of it – like how does that work?

    His answer: His gums bled. 😆 I kid you not. And you want to convince me these people are squared away, hey?

    What’s amazing, is how you have to twist your idea of the perfect union to fit the reality. Racism, homosexuality, Obama, the semantic of liberal gamesmanship. 😈 It always provides a good laugh to watch you perform Twister while you’re bragging about the strength of your debate. You’ve learned well at the knee (and the cock) of master Obama.

    Let me give you a dose of reality. I promise this is not work friendly so be careful:

    http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/

    By the way, Pfesser. NAMBLA says the children in man/boy relationships do consent – that’s a large part of their argument.

  38. R, as you accuse the right of bigotry, why aren’t you calling Obama to task for not having a position on the subject?

    When it comes to this topic, Obama is a punk. I just said so yesterday on my show.

    Many (wishful thinkers) believe Obama supports gay marriage but doesn’t want to risk losing votes. I disagree. I believe in his heart of hearts that he opposes gay marriage. I don’t know whether it’s the Christian influence in his later life or the jock influence. But I think his “evolving” is pure BS.

  39. CORRECTION:

    P.S. He’s a cardiologist married to someone calling himself a Christian minister.

    And I can call myself Obama, but that doesn’t make me President.

    I always wondered how these frauds calling themselves Christian ministers balance this little problem?

    1 Timothy 1:8-10
    We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

  40. I think that all marriages/civil unions should be on a contract basis and up for renewal every 10 or 20 years.

    Wow, I never thought of that.

    The high divorce rate probably does say something about the difficulty of “till death do us part”.

  41. R would loath to recall that I personally fought a legal battle against Georgia’s proposed anti- same sex legislation (constitutional amendment) the details of which I’ll save for now.

    Tigre, good for you! I honestly don’t remember your relaying that in the past.

    But you see …. personal experience with committed gays lays myth to Tex’s myth.

    I do wonder if lesbian partnerships have more staying power than male ones. I say this because a lesbian on my wife’s side of the family also has a 30 to 40 year relationship.

  42. ET, looks like you have job security if you wish to move to NC.

    “They say it could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples and impact victims of domestic violence. The term “domestic legal union” is not defined by North Carolina law.

    Holning Lau, an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina, who has written extensively on the implications of Amendment 1, said: “The language is very broad compared to other states. It is a common misconception that it would only affect same-sex marriage.”

    A report by Lau and others concluded it was “impossible to predict” how courts would resolve issues such as protection for victims of domestic violence, raised by the amendment’s vague language.

    It concluded that it would take years of expensive litigation to settle its meaning and “when the dust clears [all] unmarried couples would have fewer rights over their most important life decisions than they would have had otherwise”.

  43. Re: WV

    You know what the problem is in WV, don’t you? The Obama EPA has passed some new “regulations” (How do they do that?) that effectively block the commissioning of ANY new coal-fired power plants. Recent EPA rules have also knocked coal so badly that WV has lost thousands of jobs. The two (Democratic, by the way) WV senators are withholding their endorsement of Obama for now. If you had any idea how Democratic WV is, you would know what a precedent that is.

    I have a friend in NC, of all places, who keeps saying that it was because Obama’s black. Nope. The only thing black that has anything to do with it is coal.

  44. Maybe we could get around the objection if we called it something else other than “marriage.”

    The problem with this solution is it creates the illusion of second class citizen. Gays want a word that connotes all the warmth and wholesomeness of marriage, not the cold legal jargon of “civil union”.

    To this I say … take off the rose-colored glasses. Marriage as a romantic notion turns out pretty damn bad at least half the time.

    To use the parlance of the Sneetches, my solution is instead of gays getting the stars put on their bellies, it’s time for the rest of us hetero’s to tear the stars off ours. 🙂

  45. “To use the parlance of the Sneetches, my solution is instead of gays getting the stars put on their bellies, it’s time for the rest of us hetero’s to tear the stars off ours.”

    Damn you, Rutherford, you’re OK in spite of yourself sometimes.

  46. I was even invited until it became abundantly clear that wasn’t my bag when they discovered I had kids. 😈

    You got mistaken for gay???? Priceless!!!! Faulty gaydar or do you want to share something, Slugger? 😆

  47. No, actually it doesn’t lay waste to my myth. That’s the reality, Rutherford. Homosexuality is not a healthy alternative to marriage, has never been nor shall ever be a healthy alternative. For one thing, procreation has assured your argument will never be true. But I need not point out the obvious, that you are an emotionally immature and reactionary creature, whose basis of the universe is what he has deemed it to be. Pick a demographic, and I will happily prove you wrong – but make it worth my while.

    Since you’re not a betting man, how about we bet a retraction and apology on this very blog written by you if I prove you wrong with nothing but numbers and stats to be confirmed, and we will let the regulars put it to a vote who makes the better argument about the premise of supposed healthy lifestyle of “gay marriage”, hoping everybody can put their bias aside? Problem is, I’m not sure that possible here.

    I’ll warn you since I already know the answers, you might as well argue the merits of intravenous drug use or morbid obesity as a healthy alternative lifestyle.

    I’ll tell you what does actually sadden me to a degree, though it shouldn’t. I’ve never met a man more educated that is so devoid of hard fact.

    But then again, some of the most staunch Conservatives I’ve ever met were once Liberal.

    I suppose hope always spring eternal.

  48. I can give you very practical reasons having nothing to do with morality why the practice of homosexuality should be summarily scorned and rejected as an alternative – early death being the most practical.

    I hope you’ve counseled everyone you know on the dangers of anal and oral sex ….. hetero and homo. Ahhhh but I forgot. You don’t want to go there. Would compromise your argument. 😉

  49. Tex … believe me … I do appreciate the animosity out there for Obama. Were I Obama, I would’ve said no to a second term about one month into the first one. Who needs to wake up to irrational crap every morning?

  50. No, I think I was mistook as being open minded to the Stylist shop’s alternate universe, because believe it or not, I’m not the bullying ogre you make me out to be on the street.

    But I got on a roll once, and was approached on three different occasions by metrosexual looking floaters – it did give me pause, with a question to my wife is there something that looks “gay” about me.

    She told me it was my cute ass. 😀 (Shiver)

  51. Well, now I can’t speak for your wife, Rutherford. But I’m afraid anal sex wouldn’t be on Mrs. Taylor’s plate anytime soon, if you get my drift. And I’m way too chicken to ask.

    And I can assure, without a shadow of a doubt, that the act of anal sex can be quite unhealthy for the recipient, and somewhat risky for the shall we say petitioner. I figured even you might be able to determine that.

    Can you document the dangers for me of married fellatio being a “health hazard?” 😆

    You just know Pfesser is getting a hoot out of this.

  52. I won’t even tell you the details of what an old pilot-friend of mine told me about some funeral-home fellows and the curling iron.

    (Warms things up)

    Yeeccccccchhhhh……

  53. “The two are not mutually exclusive.
    They are to that Jesus you like to quote here when convenient.” Tex

    Yes, but news flash, not all Americans are Christians. That’s why it’s called the United States of America, not Jesusland.

  54. “You just know Pfesser is getting a hoot out of this.”

    Yep. Anybody seen this old thing?

    (BW) — Women who perform the act of fellatio on a regular basis, one to two times a week, may reduce their risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent, a recent study found.

    Doctors had never suspected a link between the act of fellatio and breast cancer, but new research being performed is starting to suggest that there could be an important link between the two.

    In a study of over 15,000 women suspected of having performed regular fellatio over the past ten years, the researchers found that those actually having performed the act regularly, one to two times a week, had a lower occurance of breast cancer than those who had not. There was no increased risk, however, for those who did not regularly perform.

    “I think it removes the last shade of doubt that fellatio is actually a healthy act,” said Dr. B.J. Sooner of the Hopkins School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research. “I am surprised by these findings, but am also excited that the researchers may have discovered a relatively easy way to lower the occurance of breast cancer in women.”

    The University researchers stressed that, though breast cancer is relatively uncommon, any steps taken to reduce the risk would be a wise decision.

    “Only with regular performance will your chances be reduced, so I encourage all women out there to make fellatio an important part of their daily routine,” said Dr. Inserta Shafteer, one of the researchers. “Since the emergence of the research, I try to fellate at least once every other night to reduce my chances.”

    The study is reported in Friday’s Journal of Medical Research.

    In 1991, 43,582 women died of breast cancer, as reported by the National Cancer Institute.

    Dr. Len Lictepeen, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Group, said women should not overlook or “play down” these findings.

    “This will hopefully change women’s practice and patterns, resulting in a severe drop in the future number of cases,” Lictepeen said.

    Sooner said the research shows no increase in the risk of breast cancer in those who are, for whatever reason, not able to fellate regularly.

    “There’s definitely fertile ground for more research. Many have stepped forward to volunteer for related research now in the planning stages,” he said.

    Almost every woman is, at some point, going to perform the act of fellatio, but it is the frequency at which this event occurs that makes the difference, say researchers.

    The reasearch consisted of two groups, 6,246 women ages 25 to 45 who had performed fellatio on a regular basis over the past five to ten years, and 9,728 women who had not. The group of women who had performed fellatio had a breast cancer rate of 1.9 percent and the group who had not had a breast cancer rate of 10.4 percent.

    “The findings do suggest that there are other causes for breast cancer besides the absence of regular fellatio,” Shafteer said. “It’s a cause, not THE cause.”

    “The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.”

  55. two adopted kids that will be fucked up the remainder of their days without a mother.

    Wow are you showing your ignorance today. How many hetero’s are single parents nowadays Tex? Are all their kids doomed because they lack a mother or a father?

    Whenever anyone on this blog behaves like an assh*le can we blame it on their not being breast-fed? Speaking of which, over half of kids’ mothers give up on breast feeding after six months:

    73.9% were ever breastfed
    43.4% were still breastfeeding at 6 months of age
    22.7% were breastfeeding at 1 year of age
    33.1% were exclusively breastfed through 3 months of age
    13.6% were exclusively breastfed through 6 months of age

  56. “So of course, the next question is does that say more about Obama or West Virginia?” – R

    I think the Lugar loss is more telling. The Tea Party will continue to pull Romney to the right at the time when he needs to court the middle. In a lesser way, it might put the Indiana senate seat in play (although I doubt it will swing).

    In a totally unrelated note, M. Bachman just attained her dual citizenship in Switzerland. R, could you imagine if Obama had dual citizenship in a European country? Trump’s hair would stick up higher than the Freedom Tower. 😉

  57. Yes, but news flash, not all Americans are Christians. That’s why it’s called the United States of America, not Jesusland.

    Very true. And if you are not to call yourself Christian, you too can justify your positions as you see fit.

    So are you ready to admit you are not Christian? If so, c’est la vie. Feel free to be boned by Bluto in “good health.”

    Just make sure you stay consistent and on message about the Church’s role and stance next time you justify your twisted pretzel of social justice…

    You play Cloward-Piven and I’ll play Peter and Paul. 😉 We’ll see which one sells on the other side.

  58. No, I think I was mistook as being open minded to the Stylist shop’s alternate universe, because believe it or not, I’m not the bullying ogre you make me out to be on the street.

    I could go in so many directions with this. But I’ll take the two most obvious ones:

    1. Why would anyone want to be mistaken for being open-minded? 😯

    2. Tex, if you said half the trash talk out in the street that you say here, we’d be tearfully reading your obituary in Tulsa World.

  59. On the contrary, it is conservatives who have sullied the institution of marriage by forcing their definition upon the tradition.

    Is “the traditon” the same thing as “the institution”? How, exactly, have conservatives “forced their definition” on to the tradtion? What proof can you cite for this extradordinary hypothesis?

    It is exactly this kind of muddled presentation which makes it difficult to have an honest conversation with you sometimes, R.

    Well for starters, let’s dismiss the so-called grandness of the institution. 50% of first time marriages end in divorce [1]. Clearly when it comes to marriage, heterosexuals have no idea what they’re doing.

    Three words for you to consider: No-fault. Divorce.

  60. 31 states [Including California….CALIFORNIA!] now where when the citizens actually got to vote on it, they have said “No.”

    And still I keep hearing the word “Homophobe”. In the immortal words of Inego Montoya, I do not think the word means what you think it means.

  61. Wow are you showing your ignorance today. How many hetero’s are single parents nowadays Tex? Are all their kids doomed because they lack a mother or a father?

    I don’t argue that point, Rutherford. There is no ignorance, because I don’t disagree with your question. And since we’ve adopted to another alternative lifestyle called making babies out of wedlock as perfectly acceptable, because hey, who needs that institute of marriage?, how have our children fared, Brother Rutherford?

    Should we start with urban, black community of single motherhood and work our way backwards to white trash America? Or should we start with the institute of public education, test scores, opportunity, and rampant teenage suicide?

    I’m not saying children can’t turn out well without a father or a mother. I’m saying the odds highly favor the children of married couples.

    Surely Reverend Rutherford, you don’t disagree with those well documented results? Even your esteemed colleagues of Afro American studies at Ivy League Universities have acknowledged as much.

  62. Can you document the dangers for me of married fellatio being a “health hazard?”

    Well I’m no doctor but it seems to me a diseased dick is a diseased dick and whatever it gets stuck in is likely to get diseased.

    If we’re going to get down to brass tacks, placing one’s unit in an orifice reserved for the exit of feces doesn’t sound too appealing to me either. But I’d guess that the anus of the average homosexual adjusts to the invasion. And if the penetrator has no big aversion to a little santorum, then more power to him. None of my business.

    So do I gather that you have fewer health concerns with lesbians? If they are less likely to engage in “risky behavior” then what is your objection to them? Simply that Jesus wasn’t turned on by them?

  63. Tex, if you said half the trash talk out in the street that you say here, we’d be tearfully reading your obituary in Tulsa World.

    Do you think I go through some metamorphosis the minute I beckon the halls of Rutherford Lawson? 🙂 That I’m some wall flower in real life – the proverbial potted plant in the classroom? You might think that over again if you had read some of my letters to the editor once upon a time. Perhaps that is why I like Pfesser’s brotherly stories of public revenge. They remind me of my M.O.

    Perhaps some day, I will relay a fairly recent story of putting a smart ass Microbiology Professor in tears when she chose to attempt to bully me in a classroom for asking difficult questions of which she had no answer, including an offer to talk to the President of the University about her teaching credential with her present. One year later, she was asking me to substitute teach for her class. 😉 But I’m closed minded enough that I probably wouldn’t cross the train tracks announcing to my “Brothas” either.

    There’s a fine line between being open minded and devoid of mind, you of course, adopting the latter.

    I have no complaint about two consenting adults boning each other in the ass with any instrumentation of their choosing as long as:

    (1) I don’t have to pay for the consequences of their stupidity
    (2) I’m expected to not just tolerate it, but accept as normal behavior, so normal it provides adequate substitute for the most basic and beautiful form of partnership called marriage.

    I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Now, about that retraction you deflected from? 😀

  64. So you think lesbianism is a softener for your argument,, do you? I give you one Hilary Rosen and Rosie O’Donnell. Have you read about their tumultuous “love” life. 😆

    I’ll see if I can find an interesting article I read about a boy being raised by his two Heather mommies…it was an eye opener for me.

  65. In a totally unrelated note, M. Bachman just attained her dual citizenship in Switzerland. R, could you imagine if Obama had dual citizenship in a European country? Trump’s hair would stick up higher than the Freedom Tower. 😉

    Damn right. Also … yeah the Lugar loss is another very bad omen for where our politics are headed. Non-extremists need not apply. 😦

  66. making babies out of wedlock

    A logical leap of yours Tex, not mine. I was actually thinking of the high divorce rate which leaves MANY children in “broken homes”. These kids adjust to having only one primary parent in their lives.

  67. These kids adjust to having only one primary parent in their lives.

    Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

    The desire to minimize child support obligations to the other spouse means that sometimes, both parents remain VERY involved.

    Are you going to answer my questions upthread?

  68. Let’s not play this game again about how homosexuals aren’t predominately spreading the ‘good’ stuff, hey?-Tex

    “One factor that could be in play is a medical history of heavy use of antibiotics, which creates conditions for breeding drug-resistant strains. Any patient, HIV-positive or not, who has had high previous exposure to antibiotics might be more susceptible. “-sfgate.com

    “MRSA is also a substantial problem in the Downtown Eastside; it has been cultured from 54.8% of skin and soft tissue infections of patients seen at the emergency department of St. Paul’s Hospital (9). More recently, among wound infections in injection drug users in this community, 43% were colonized or infected with MRSA consistent with USA300, the predominant community-associated MRSA strain in Vancouver (10).”-http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/6/10-1978_article.htm

    I’m sure you and I can find many more sites regarding the spread of MRSA. Guess what, it’s also spread to the animal world. Better watch out eating all that beef and chicken raised on antibiotics.

    I guess I am a bit of a lefty. Luckily I was raised in the military and the schools I attended didn’t try to force me to be a righty and I was also allowed to write upside down.

  69. Not all of them adjust Rutherford. Our daughter is a therapist who counsels mostly teenagers. Many who don’t know their fathers are in the system.
    .
    Statistics show that children of absent fathers get into more trouble than children with both parents in their lives.

    Our politics are headed toward a non -violent revolution, because our politicians have become detached from the voters’ needs and desires. Senator Lugar didn’t even have a house in Indiana, though his family owns a farm.

    On another unrelated note, a Miami Herald article is titled “Thousands of foreigners may be illegally voting in Florida. I believe we discussed voter fraud earlier.

  70. Tex I wasn’t presenting lesbianism as “softener”. One of your big objections to the “gay lifestyle” is the unsanitaryness of it all. Now I’m no expert on lesbian sex practices but I’d wager they engage in anal no more than hetero’s do. So do you have a clinical objection to lesbians?

    There is a very popular book out right now about a man raised by two women and he describes his life glowingly, My Two Moms

  71. How, exactly, have conservatives “forced their definition” on to the tradtion?

    First, welcome BiW, long time no see.

    The phrase to which you object was admittedly inarticulate of me. It would be more accurate to say conservatives uncharitably refuse to expand the definition of marriage to any two people who love each other and want a long term commitment.

    Is it your hypothesis that the high divorce rate is partly due to getting divorced being too easy?

  72. I think love is the criteria, not sex. Americans are pretty messed up when it comes to healthy sexual attitudes and information.

    Love is the most important foundation for a marriage to work.

    Paul, speaking on his knowledge of scripture, clearly states the preferred believer’s walk is celibate to flesh and “married” to Christ, but adds if sexual urges cannot be controlled, it is better to marry to avoid sinning and battling unhealthy thoughts. So celibate men are married to Christ. It isn’t a sexual relationship, but it is a love relationship. Love is the foundation.

    In Genesis we learn God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.” “So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” To me, this denotes an orientation rather than physical reference. more yin yang.

    Later in Genesis we read God made the first woman, basically a clone formed from the man. Man already existed aside from this new being and it was for lack of a suitable helper that woman was made from man. Man was already in the garden and intimately knew God. The one and only rule was already in place before woman existed.

    “That is the reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

    They were one flesh to begin with, created male and female, it says. Now with cloning, one was equipped with much nicer curves and folds. 😀

  73. Oh, I’ve seen that Zach Wahl’s viral video – it’s compelling for the emotionally immature.

    But let’s consider why it went viral. Because it is exceptional and virtually unique. And 20 years old with a built in bias and the future in doubt is no way to measure the aggregate. Let us give it a few years before passing judgment, shall we?

    Let’s change that video from Zach to Bill Clinton speaking of single moms. Will you then be a proponent of single parenting, Rutherford, because of the successes of Bill Clinton?

  74. “R”, unsanitary. :neutral. Oh boy. Damn brother, I do have to spell it out for you.

    No, not the unsanitary – the unhealthy.

  75. Raji, you’re not bad at Fat Granny propagandizing. I congratulate you and move you to Poolman’s Chatty Kitchen status as honor.

    More Obama!

  76. The phrase to which you object was admittedly inarticulate of me. It would be more accurate to say conservatives uncharitably refuse to expand the definition of marriage to any two people who love each other and want a long term commitment.

    1) I think your hypothesis is still flawed; California is one of the least conservative places I have ever been, and when they had a chance to vote on it, they said “No.” It’s also happened in other places, such a Michigan, which is hardly a hotbed of conservatism.

    2) But even if we were to assume that it is just he eeeeeevvvvvvviiiiilllll conservatives being “uncharitable”, my next question is what is your basis for changing this? We are talking about a definition that remained consistent for hundreds of years of law and history until 2003 (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Do you have any rationale other then the subjective and always nebulous “fairness” and “equality” arguments? I mean, it isn’t like we haven’t had this discussion before, and it isn’t like I have never pointed out that things are often a certain way for a reason, and yet I have yet to hear a convincing argument made in support of such “charity”. Instead, its either elaborate deconstructions of the term, or a “because we wanna” argument. I’m not convinced by either, and apparently, neither are the voters in 31 states.

    Is it your hypothesis that the high divorce rate is partly due to getting divorced being too easy?

    I suggest to you that it is one of several factors. But then another aspect of the data to be considered is that marriage rates in general aren’t what they used to be, either.

    Now, what about your use of “tradition” and “institution”? Can you further define them, and how they fit in to your hypothesis, or can you cite some authority to support it?

  77. Well here we go …. Obama JUST came out in support of same-sex marriage. Apparently he ponied up this opinion with ABC’s Robin Roberts this morning. My buddies at MSNBC are ecstatic.

    Now I don’t know what to think. I truly felt the dude didn’t cotton to the idea. I can’t say he’s doing a 180 for political gain because as BiW correctly points out, there are a decent share of homophobic Democrats who will hold this against Obama.

    Leave it to Joe Biden to force Obama into a corner.

    Mmmmm of course this may also be an effort on Obama’s part to distance himself from that NC vote last night.

  78. Like the able counselor that you are, BiW, you’re not letting me off the hook on the tradition vs institution semantics.

    Let’s just say this. There’s no reason why the institution (the current practice) can’t be altered by acknowledging that the tradition (the historical practice) has not kept pace with changing mores in this country.

  79. I can’t say he’s doing a 180 for political gain because as BiW correctly points out, there are a decent share of homophobic Democrats who will hold this against Obama.

    When did opposition to something turn into fear of that thing? I’d like to backtrack to figure out what I was doing on that day. I mean, the last I heard, opposition was racism, not a phobia.

    You guys should really call the change in step, so the rest of us can keep up with which unsavory traits we supposedly have today.
    ______________________________________

    My theory? He NEVER misses a chance to try to tell a state that its wrong, and he wasn’t about to start now.

  80. It’s fashionable to call those who oppose gay marriage haters, but that’s not the case. For a long time I considered this issue sole from a religious perspective. But time has changed my mind. There’s more to gay marriage than meets the eye.

    I think the idea of a gay civil marriage is fine. I mean, why not? But as soon as a law is passed that has anything to do with the church, any church, then a line has been crossed. In fact there should be no wording in any law considering gay marriages that should refer to the church at all except to say that the law shall have no effect on the churches at all and that they are not compelled in any way to perform gay marriages.

    That way it’s up to the churches to decide what they want to do as far as gay marriage is concerned. Some churches have a definite ruling hierarchy, while a lot of other churches are simply started by a minister with no particular denomination. Churches include pagan and satanists. Regardless of their teachings, giving them all the freedom to decide is the answer that I can live with.

    As long as this is still America then people have a right to religion and the freedom from government to interfere with our religious freedom.

    I don’t like how some people use government to scare and manipulate us. Neither do I like how some religions make a mockery of true faith. However unless and until we are no longer free to pursue our political and religious affiliations then we better take care that one does not encroach upon the other.

    In today’s world the media and the blogosphere has done a great job of scaring people into thinking that religion is a threat to our freedoms. But that is far from the truth.

    We now have the most liberal president ever. Abortion is legal. Gay marriage is just around the corner as well as legalized pot. Anyone can order porn off the net, kiddie porn is readily available too, even if possessing it can get a person jailed. And most communities have porn and sex toy shops where one can purchase videos on just about any sex act the mind can devise. We are free to drink ourselves into a stupor and couples have long since lost the concept that living together is wrong.

    Our television shows commonly show sex outside of marriage and gay characters are commonplace now too. Our comedians are pioneering the public dialogue right into the toilet where they are most comfortable.

    The American public has been deceived. The idea that America is a Christian nation is a joke.

    Marriage means something different to the church than it does to the secular world. His kingdom is not of this world. It’s not of this realm.

    Let them marry.

  81. Let’s just say this. There’s no reason why the institution (the current practice) can’t be altered by acknowledging that the tradition (the historical practice) has not kept pace with changing mores in this country.

    I take exception with classifying “institution” as a “current practice”; you’d come closer to the mark to describe it as a compenent or building block of society, rather than a “practice”.

    Secondly, when the voters of 31 states say “NO” when someone actually consults them, I think you fail with the assertion that the mores regarding the institution have changed in the country.

  82. There’s no reason why the institution (the current practice) can’t be altered by acknowledging that the tradition (the historical practice) has not kept pace with changing mores in this country.

    Changing mores of your portion of the country. Half the country thinks the better of it and refuses to go along with you and the Evolving Obama. What an unprincipled, politically expedient phony you serve, Brother Rutherford.

    I find it both ironic and comical that Zach Wahl’s two mommies so confident in their parenting of a male, that Zach became an Eagle Scout – from an organization that was sued by those LGBT archangels Zach poses as ideal parents. 😈 No conflict there, hey Zach with the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holding far and away the most chartered organizations?

    The more demented they become, the more obvious the intent, the more illegitimate their supposed sound reasoning. What a tangled web they weave, when their intent to solely to deceive.

  83. Muffy, no doubt America not a Christian nation.

    It was intended to be a nation free to worship as it saw fit, or to not worship at all. That is not inconsistent with the message of Christ – free will is the basic premise of faith. Our Founders understood the arrogant and corrupted nature of man. I believe what they never counted on what the utter moral decadence that would follow when the bounty so plentiful. And that is the history of man’s corrupted nature. It’s a basic tenet of the entire Old Testament. There is nothing new under the sun.

    I understand the wisdom of the Founding Fathers coming from a life lived under the Church of England. Our Founding Fathers fully absorbed who is the ultimate sovereign power. Of that, I believe there can be no debate whose province reigns from our Declaration alone.

    However, there is also no doubt America a nation founded by Christians, predating even the Founding Fathers, themselves composed mostly of Protestant Christians.

    And Christians, myself included, have had a large hand in the hastening of our imminent demise. Most of us have not lived up to the standards set by even our Founders. Most of us are of this world, whether we choose to admit that or not.

    What our adversaries have figured out is that it is not difficult to live up to the Christian ideal – it is impossible. And since the concept of grace escapes them, and the purpose of Christ eludes them, the argument against even the best of us loaded. Perhaps that is the way God intended it. It keeps us from looking to man’s government for answers and back to Him.

    If I am right, America will soon be rendered inconsequential anyway. By definition, God needs nothing. By definition, that would include America. The relationship is not a two way street in that by definition as proclaimed Christian, we need Him.

    And when the hedge is fully burned, I believe with all my heart hell will be loosed and America will not be spared. All of us.

  84. @muffy 3:49

    Hear! Hear! Good analysis.

    One small point, re: kiddie porn available. I have been all over the Internet since it was just text. I have never seen any kiddie porn, although I am sure it is/was available, more previously than now.

    Why is that? Simple. Adult Webmasters avoid it like the plague, and for two reasons: firstly, it is the ONE thing that will end porn on the Internet and they know it. Secondly, and more importantly, they have kids too. If kiddie porn shows up, the adult Webmasters will be all over it like a duck on a June bug, and they have the tools to find out WHO it is and turn those names over to the FBI – and I mean RIGHT NOW.

  85. Gee Tex, thanks for the honor but I got banned at Chatty Kitchen for associating with the likes of you 😉

  86. Raji,

    😆 Now that was funny. Don’t know if it was funny for you, but it was funny for me.

    I apologize profusely for getting you banned from that Chitty Chat forum. The mere mention of my name turns most apoplectic. I’m sure you were crushed.

    Though you may swing left, let me give you a warm, left-handed compliment. I place you at a higher plane of existence than the Chatty Kitchen crowd.

  87. “I place you at a higher plane of existence than the Chatty Kitchen crowd.

    paraphrasing: I place you at a plane of existence. LOL

  88. Courtesy, Glenn Reynolds:

    Problem (Americans are….)/Progressive Solution:

    Too fat? Ban bake sales and junk food; mandate broccoli

    Too ignorant? Censor journalists; control the curriculum

    Too rich? Tax the greedy bastards

    Too white? Favor non-whites whenever possible

    Too individualistic? Encourage dependency

    Too uninsured? Mandate health insurance

    Too carbon-y? Ban incandescent lightbulbs; loan billions to friends who start “green” companies; cap and trade; demonize energy consumption

    Too unemployed? Raise taxes to pay for temporary government jobs; discount jobless numbers by excluding those who have given up on finding a job

    Too American? Cede U.S. sovereignty to supra-national U.N. bodies whenever possible; use international and foreign law when interpreting the U.S. Constitution

    JENNIFER RUBIN ON THE LIFE OF #JULIA: It should be called ‘Life of a dependent liberal.’

  89. Muffy, you are correct that churches should not be forced by law to perform marriages that are outside of their beliefs. And no one is arguing they should. There are gay/lesbian people within churches that are pushing their own congregations and denominations to change, which is perfectly legitimate within the framework of those religious denominations. The LGBT community and same-sex marriage supporters do not push for laws that compel churches to perform same-sex marriages.

    Rutherford, I disagree with separating the terms. I am married. I was married in a courthouse. I’m not going to all of a sudden say I’m civil unioned. And changing the terminology isn’t going to change the (ever dwindling) fight against same-sex couple equality. Because the reasons for it aren’t rational. So attempting a rational proposal isn’t going to work.

  90. I also agree with muffy.

    Two friends were the first lesbians to marry in our county when Iowa’s court ruled it was legal. Its not working well, because there is a real and imagined other woman.

    How did the kitchen people know Ragi was associating with us? Now that you’ve been banned, your already high IQ will rise several points. Can Poolman be far behind?

    Tex’s list explains why our country is restive, Rutherford. The country we grew up in is being stolen from us piece by piece.

  91. You know, BIC. Even when the courts rule by fiat that marriage is what the homos want it defined to be, it won’t be enough. Because there will still be millions of us that simply won’t accept the legitimacy of their sham marriage, and though they will say, “We don’t care what you think!!!”, rest assured they will. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be a fight now. Immorality can never be satisfied.

    Like abortion is still the taking of a life, homosexuality was, is and will always be a perversion. Nature itself has declared as much. And shortly thereafter, after the thrill is gone and the deviants still realize nothing really changed, that is when they will begin to force all churches to recognize same sex marriage by fiat and force, and hate speech will then be declared in the pulpit. Canada and Europe have already had instances of that.

    You know it and I know it. And that, along with the imminent financial collapse will be the beginning of the end of America. So be it. I believe I am ready for that test of faith.

    I know many, and I’ll bet you are one, have been preparing for the real battle for quite some time.

  92. Right.

    I believe Democrats were frightened by last night’s election results. Obama may be concentrating on liberal areas sympathetic to his anticipated flip flop. Socially conservative blacks oppose gay marriage, but Obama probably thinks most of them will vote for him anyway.

    “because we want it..” is getting harder for them to hide.

  93. “Because “We want it because we want it, and damn what the rest of you think if you’re asked” is ssssooooooooooo “rational”.”

    They want equal protection under the law. And if there were a rational reason for denying it, I’d have heard it by now.

    That lawsuit decision you cite should be overturned. That’s a clear First Amendment violation for the photographer/business owner. But I am not going to base an entire section of the population’s behavior on one or two edge case crazy law suits. They are way too prevalent in this country across every swath of society.

  94. “because we want it..” is getting harder for them to hide.

    Now James, you know that you oppose it because you are an “ignorant”, “homephobic” “h8ter” who is simply too stupid to have any opinion on the subject…Hell, just ask that paragon of conservative thought and erudite legal and theological thinking, Megan McCain.

    I saw that tweet last night and all I could think was “Keep talking sweetie. I’m sure there is still someone you didn’t win over to your brilliant enlightenment when you typed that.”

  95. I agree wholeheartedly, BIC.

    In talking to some of my more skeptical friends, even they are experiencing the palpable feeling of reaching a climatic ending with an air of great change taking place. They know not what – they just know.

    I don’t think that is by accident.

  96. They want equal protection under the law. And if there were a rational reason for denying it, I’d have heard it by now.

    But what about that relationship exactly, is deserving of “equal protection”? You see, when that analysis is honestly done, which it hasn’t been yet, the argument falls apart.

    You haven’t heard it because you haven’t been listening:

    http://threesurethingsoflife.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/sophistry-myopia-and-obsession-proposition-8-litigation-and-studies-in-legal-alchemy/

    Of course, as I stated, David Limbaugh did a great job destroying the sophistry that Judge Walker engaged in when he wrote his decision.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2010/08/david-limbaugh-judge-overturned-prop-8-while-claiming-he-wasnt-changing

  97. There is no debate about equal protection under the law. That’s a poor excuse and ruse even for a liberal. There is not a man living in America that is not allowed to marry a woman of his choosing. Same goes for the female marrying any male. There is no discrimination except what nature dictates.

    The only restriction for both male and female is that both be unmarried.

    You’re not wanting equal protection under the law. You’re wanting a new definition of what has always constituted marriage.

    A warped definition for the reprobate mind.

  98. “Now that was funny. Don’t know if it was funny for you, but it was funny for me.”-Tex

    I thought it was hilarious and my daughters told me I had “arrived” in the blogsphere. James, they peek over here!

    To take a serious note though. I really hope that MRSA does not get associated with a minority group or get the stigma of a sexually related disease like HIV. It is a disease that everyone should recognize can happen to anyone. The over use of antibiotics is a world wide problem. Since the disease can be managed by the use of soap, everyone should be aware and take charge of their own health. Demand that your health care provider wash their hands before an exam. A word to the wise, please take this precaution when visiting your vet also.

    I was associated with doctors attending the world conference on HIV back in the early 80’s. They acknowledged that HIV was prevalent in animals before it appeared in humans. Felines and Equines were diagnosed in the early 70’s. The disease was eradicated in the equine by euthanizing the positive animal. The stigma of HIV which was attached to the gay/lesbian community made heterosexuals complacent. I do not want to see the same scenario played out with MRSA.

  99. “You’re not wanting equal protection under the law. You’re wanting a new definition of what has always constituted marriage.” – Tex

    At one time there was no need for equal protection under the law. With HIPPA and other such privacy laws there is now a need which is why the concept of domestic partnerships arose. For example, I have had to obtain legal help in order that my daughters will have access to my medical history. I in turn have no legal rights to their medical history. I have a friend, male who is single and has had to go through all kinds of legal hoops to allow his male friend (who is married with children) to have access to his medical records. What about the people who can’t afford to hire a lawyer or even worse have no idea that they need this type of protection.

    Unmarried couples, single men and women, homosexual or heterosexual are in a quandary today regarding legal rights. Marriage isn’t the only issue here

  100. BIC, there’s no argument made in either of those links you provided. In fact, the source columnist, David Limbaugh, explicitly states that he doesn’t need to provide a counter argument:

    “But in the United States, marriage has always been legally defined as between man and woman, and the reasons for that are so fundamental in our culture and legal tradition that they do not need to be broken down into constituent parts. A man and a woman are the constituent parts of a marriage and do not lend themselves to further dissection.”

    So no, those articles are not rational arguments against same-sex marriage. It’s a statement by the columnist that he doesn’t like this judge’s ruling but doesn’t need to state why.

  101. “What about the people who can’t afford to hire a lawyer or even worse have no idea that they need this type of protection.”

    There’s a hell of a lot more to it than that.

    In most jurisdictions, the proscription usually attempts to block contractual elations that “mirror” a marriage. For example, making contracts as to the disposition of property at death that typically be afforded a souse, property divisions in the event of a split like pre-nup or post-nup, insurance and retirement benefits etc., etc.

    To avoid constitutional limitations, the State Const. amendments typically are drafted to apply to non-married hetero couples (the issue raised in my case).

    Equal protection expands beyond the gay rights scenario as well.

  102. I agree with 110 and 111, Ragi–especially the over use of anti- biotics. Farm animals get entirely too many doses.

    If they are watching, maybe I should share what I really think. Ha!

    I look in the mirror every morning and tell myself what a handsome ignorant homophobe I am, Blackiswhite.

    My wife and I are friends of the first lesbians to marry in our county after an Iowa court declared it legal. I try to keep still about it so the Grand Order of Ignorant Homophobes doesn’t revoke my membership. .

  103. GK, I saw that blurb (from the article) as simply a truism. Since the marriage has always been defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and woman, the onus is on the one attempting to change the status quo. Stated differently, the ball on that point is not in his court.

  104. One of my in laws is an intersex. She is a X0 woman.

    Other varieties are closer to a twilight zone between the genders. How does the law apply to say, an XY woman or XX man who were born with atypical gender appearance?

  105. So the NC ruling + Obama’s evolution=?
    Is Obama trying to embrace a wedge issue in the Rovian spirit?
    Which presidential candidate is helped the most by any or all components?

  106. It’s deeper than that wedge issue, Alfie. Rutherford has on many occasions now told us that the nation is evolving toward Sodom, and that’s a good thing. This article is but one of hundreds of claims about our so called evolving toward Rome, where I roll my eyes. 🙄 🙄

    We’ve now had 32 popular votes by state concerning the issue of legalizing gay marriage.

    And 32 times the issue has been defeated, from Hawaii and California, to New York, to Mississippi.

    The only thing “evolving” is Rutherford’s misconception like the Republican party going the way of the Whigs, and these polls the dregs always drag out trying to convince all the masses of dumbasses of the greatness and exceptionalism of El Bomba.

    What would be interesting is to put the legality of abortion, excusing the cases of rape and incest, to a popular vote. I would bet big money that Roe v. Wade would be overwhelmingly defeated. That is what is evolving.

  107. So no, those articles are not rational arguments against same-sex marriage.

    Oh Lord. It’s like having dialogue and rationalizing with your brick mailbox why it can’t get up and walk away.

    I don’t see any rational argument against arguing defining hot as cold.

  108. Muff’s right. This is the land of all/no religions. It was intentionally set up that way. Why should laws favor one group? If banding as a family should provide monetary relief, it should apply to all such unions. We are an attempted democracy, after all.

    The word marriage is not completely sacred. It has been used to describe other unions between entities. Churches can do whatever churches decide. Why do we keep trying to pass our moral conditions on others? Most cannot hold to their own professed convictions anyway.

    The most important marriage in the NT is the one with Christ and His bride, the true church. Earthly marriage was intended to reflect that unity and relationship. One of purity and devotion toward each other.

    Many would rewrite the 10 commandments to include homosexuals instead of adulterers. One sin is no greater than another in the eyes of the Almighty. Worry about your own path and trail.

  109. I inherited a cat named DOG, (pronounced deeogee). But she was all cat. She had a litter of kittens, too. We fixes them faster now.

  110. Damn, I just cruised over to Fat Grannies for the first time in months and found I was being lambasted for political gamesmanship. The outrage was seething.

    I pretty much agree with Rutherford. Fat Grannies has got a hard on for penises. Explains why they still accept Poolman as one of their own. 😈

    Some guy posting anonymously has done a swell job of slapping their fat faces, and those loons are still blaming me. They’re getting beat up in so many directions, they lash out in anger at figment of their imagination. Pfesser was smacking the collective ginormous, wrinkled, cellulite rump about their plagiarizing a math problem off the net and taking credit for it. 😆 Good find. Those imbeciles couldn’t multiply by zero.

    Now you’re going to be in hot water too, Pfesser – your name ever linked with James, Noah Tex, and now Anonymous.

    Was it Reggie Jackson that said, “They don’t boo nobodies?” Wear it as another medal of honor.

  111. This is the land of all/no religions. It was intentionally set up that way.

    No, and the history doesn’t support such a thesis.

    Why should laws favor one group?

    How exactly does keeping the definition of marriage for marriage “favor one group”?

    If banding as a family should provide monetary relief, it should apply to all such unions.

    I could probably write an entire post about why this thinking is wrong…but instead I’ll just bring up the reason I keep hearing…if it is about “love”, then it isn’t about money. And if it is about both, then it probably incorporates a few other components too. I’ll let you ponder those for a while.

    We are an attempted democracy, after all.

    No, we are a Constitutional Republic, and we were deliberately set up that way. (See Federalist Papers, The)

    The word marriage is not completely sacred. It has been used to describe other unions between entities.

    Not by the state.

    Churches can do whatever churches decide.

    Thank you for affirming the First Amendment. I know I’ll sure sleep more soundly knowing you approve.

    Why do we keep trying to pass our moral conditions on others?
    Most laws are a reflection of someone’s morals, even the supposedly neutral secular ones.

    Most cannot hold to their own professed convictions anyway.

    Absolutely correct. Why have any standards at all? Hell, I guess ANYTHING should go, right? [As someone who professes to be a Christian, you really ought to know better.]

    The most important marriage in the NT is the one with Christ and His bride, the true church. Earthly marriage was intended to reflect that unity and relationship. One of purity and devotion toward each other.

    And since there are parts of the NT that are clearly against homosexuality, it makes perfect sense to embrace what was still considered sin by calling it something it isn’t.

    Many would rewrite the 10 commandments to include homosexuals instead of adulterers.

    Why not? You seem willing to rewrite the NT to make “marriage” ok.

    One sin is no greater than another in the eyes of the Almighty.

    Go to BibleGateway.com, select whatever translation you are most comfortable with, then search the term “unpardonable sin”…the one that Jesus was talking about.

    Worry about your own path and trail.

    I do. That’s why I have chosen NOT to imitate the servant who buried the talent rather than trying to multiply it.

  112. “GK, I saw that blurb (from the article) as simply a truism. Since the marriage has always been defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and woman, the onus is on the one attempting to change the status quo. Stated differently, the ball on that point is not in his court.”

    Except when in the bible marriage was between a man and multiple women.

  113. Except when in the bible marriage was between a man and multiple women.

    I know this is difficult for you, but focus.

    IF you are going to bring the Bible into this, then you have to bring the whole thing. If you are going to talk about it as defining marriage, then you should be looking to the New Testament, where you will not find polygamy as a copecetic practice.

    _____________________________________________

    That said, when you are talking about marriage as a Western legal concept, which I thought we were, then you have a much harder time making your case, because you are saying that a definition that reaches back to the English commonlaw has to be changed without saying WHY, let alone what justifies classing it as an “equal protection clause” matter…Judge Walker could cite no law to justify such a change, and I’m betting you can’t either.

  114. Sorry, forgot we had a legalist among us. re: 126, Backwards we go…

    Check: All talents and resources appropriated and used in His service…

    I should have been specific. Sins of the flesh. The one unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Spirit.

    Marriage to me is intact. It is condition of the heart. I don’t need no stinking 10 commandments, let alone more definitions of what “is” is. Loving God foremost and the golden rule covers ALL the bases.

    Nobody is saying homosexuality is God-sanctioned. But it has been prevalent throughout history, even found in many animal and plant kingdoms. Sexual sin is described and recorded all over the Bible. Sins like rape, adultery, incest, sodomy, bestiality, etc. The sin is condemned, not the sinner. The NT also sanctions slavery and advocates women not speaking publicly. Societies change.

    The greater NT message is that love covers a multitude of sins and mercy triumphs over judgment. That is the believer’s part in all this. Condemnation in the church of the church but not from the church over society. It has certainly gotten out of hand in the past, crusades and witch trials come to mind. If you want Sharia, join a commune.

    They will know us by our love, one for another. We are in the world but not of the world. There is no marriage in heaven, except for Christ and the church.

    My point was if society made unions beneficial to one group, why not allow the same benefits across the board, or remove the benefit altogether. I don’t care what you call it. If it isn’t a marriage in your definition, so be it. The union is the important thing, no matter how it is described. If marriage is between one man and one woman, as defined by the state, then so be it. Other unions can be called civil, or whatever. If there is a benefit from the state for one, there should be for the other. Of course I would advocate that decided on a state by state level, as it has I believe. Changing the definition doesn’t change the institution. Though we do live in a world of doublespeak. It is just another in a line of distractions from real issues.

    If a marriage gets a break financially better than civil unions, then there is inequality. If it is just a matter of semantics, BFD.

    Freedom from religious persecution and freedom to practice whatever religion one wanted. That was the all/no meaning. Should cover it.

  115. I have been all over the Internet since it was just text.

    Obviously you haven’t PF. You’re limiting your comments to web sites. Back in the 90’s Usenet newsgroups were notorious for KP traders. Even now there are web sites with banner ads that push the boundary of decency.

    But there is no doubt that KP is the one area where things have calmed down considerably, Now of course you can find just about ANYTHING other than KP for free on the net.

    LOL back in my curious days I stumbled upon a web site that talked about people (mostly men) who had an erotic preoccupation with leg braces. I sh*t you not. Unfortunately, as I said, it was typically men liking women with leg braces, not the other way around so I could get no benefit from the trend. 😉

  116. homosexuality was, is and will always be a perversion. Nature itself has declared as much.

    We’ve been down this road already in this very thread. Damn, you’re stupid as hell.

  117. In talking to some of my more skeptical friends, even they are experiencing the palpable feeling of reaching a climatic ending with an air of great change taking place. They know not what – they just know.

    BiW returns to the forum (for which I am grateful) and Tex starts talking mumbo jumbo that only BiW could possibly tolerate.

    Yes Tex, the climactic ending is imminent. Jesus is coming back to castrate every gay guy in the country. BTW …. you actually wrote “climatic” ending. Starting to believe in climate change heh? 😉

  118. The NT also sanctions slavery and advocates women not speaking publicly.

    Thank you! I won’t go Poolman’s route of biblical quotation since it is not in my wheelhouse. BUT BiW please get off the “it’s been this way for 100’s of years” bullsh*t. Not everything old is good. In fact, enlightenment and science assist us in abandoning old practices that don’t work or hurt some subsection of society.

    Then again as Chris Mooney says in “The Republican Brain” conservatives have a hard time accepting science.

    P.S. “The Republican Brain”, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism” and “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion” are three books on my reading list this coming summer.

  119. “Now James, you know that you oppose it because you are an “ignorant”, “homephobic” “h8ter” who is simply too stupid to have any opinion on the subject…Hell, just ask that paragon of conservative thought and erudite legal and theological thinking, Megan McCain.”

    Just keep it up. That kind of thinking has been SOooooo productive in the last ten years, hasn’t it? As I told folks on a number of liberal blogs – including my friend Gryphen on the Immoral Minority blog – when a lot of people are pissed-off, you can make fun of them, or not take them seriously, but that just strengthens their resolve and they will eventually take your head off. (But enough about Senator Lugar)

    The doctors were arrogant, felt they had people over a barrel and treated them that way thirty years ago, but look at their situation now; they are so tied up by regulation and malpractice lawsuits that I don’t know a single doc who plans to stay in any longer than he has to. (A little look at Proverbs 16:18 might be instructive.)

    I think Meghan McCain is young and inexperienced, just as YOU were at one time; her inability to express herself well does not mean that she doesn’t speak for a lot of people who feel the same way. Her father’s star is not only waning, it’s dead, and IMHO so is the ridged-backed thinking that goes with it. At some point we will get the Goldwater GOP back – low taxes, small government, keep your f’ing nose out of people’s business otherwise, and I believe she will play a real part.

    Until the GOP recognizes that its Pact with the Devil – the embracing of the Religious Right in exchange for its votes – is just that, and returns to some sanity, former lifelong Republicans just like me are going to sit on the sidelines, voting for Democrats and Libertarians.

    Wait and see what happens.

  120. raji opined:
    “At one time there was no need for equal protection under the law. With HIPPA and other such privacy laws there is now a need which is why the concept of domestic partnerships arose. For example, I have had to obtain legal help in order that my daughters will have access to my medical history. I in turn have no legal rights to their medical history. I have a friend, male who is single and has had to go through all kinds of legal hoops to allow his male friend (who is married with children) to have access to his medical records. What about the people who can’t afford to hire a lawyer or even worse have no idea that they need this type of protection.”

    I have to deal with HIPAA every day. It is a perfect example of a good idea gone wrong. It ties us up in knots when we are just trying to get information to deliver good medical care. (If you give up, but in doing so fail to get critical patient information and end up hurting the patient, you will see a summons on your doorstep the next morning.) Medicine is definitely not fun anymore.

  121. Two days before Obama’s announcement major gay donors said they would withhold funding from his campaign. One in six of his donors are gay. According to Redstate, Obama made his announcement after the North Carolina announcement and the gay donors’ threats. He did not promise federal action to make homosexual marriage legal.

    “Obama and the Washington Press Corps, aligned perfectly on this issue are oblivious to one overwhelming data point.” Thirty-two states have put it to a vote, and it has failed thirty-two times.

    Obama’s announcment was the action of a frightened man.

    Meanwhile, it like the failed war on women and Romney’s dog, draws attention from economic issues.

  122. Pfessor, I actually support gay marriage, but not when it is forced on us. Conventional marriage has been the accepted standard for thousands of years. It behooves advocates for such a major deparature from normal to make a case for it and to persuade others to change without threatening or belittling them.

    Un- married hetrosexual couples can evolve into common law marriage, and gay couples should have legal rights given to hetrosexual couples. Polls show increasing numbers of people supporting gay marriage. Public sentiment should evolve rather than be forced ahead of its time. Right now, the deal killer is the word “marriage” because of its long history.

    Obama said roughly the same thing. Gay marriage is for the states to decide.

    We are still battling Pro -life and Pro- choice because the Supreme Court imposed its will on the country. Letting the states sort it out would have been less confrontational in the long run.
    I agree, Republicans must not be held hostage to the religious right. It has not worked well for them when they have. Now, Democrats are in thrall to extremist left wingers, and they face the same problems as the Repubicans did.

    The “Republican Brain” is just another attempt by liberals to discredit their enemies. It is bunk. As I wrote before, many conservatives are really liberals in the sense that they are willing to try new things and are able to apply rough versions of the scientific method to discern realty. Liberals, on the other hand are wedded with semi- religious fervor to old concepts

    Al Gore’s version of global warming is a prime example. Reality is more complex than the “science is settled.” His liberal supporters are thinking like the stereotypical conservatives Chris Moone malignes .

    Medicine is no longer fun is frightening.

  123. We’ve been down this road already in this very thread. Damn, you’re stupid as hell.

    From the man who finds himself living in an apartment due to one bad personal decision after another. Preach to me, Brotha Rutherford!

    You want to talk about stupid, old pal?

    You can’t handle the truth.

  124. Pfesser, hate to tell you this but it’s the “religious right” that carries the Republican party. You can mock N.C. but you’re outnumbered 3-2 buddy. So goes religion, so goes Conservatism.

    Your atheistic nature is going to have to make a really hard choice.

    Either stick with those that brung yah and bear with their faith, or make a pact with the devil again. So you’re going to have to decide how important your god mammon is to you.

    Hard for me to believe you could defend somebody as woefully stupid as Meghan McCain – she’s Fat Grannies material on a national broadcast for one reason and one reason only:

    Her equally inept daddy and his name.

  125. Tex –

    The RR did NOT carry the party at one time, and I would respectfully submit that it is their being embraced by the Republicans that has brought about its current woes. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

    Stick with those that brung you? Firstly, I think they hurt the Party, not help it on balance; secondly, haven’t you heard of loving the sinner and hating the sin? You shouldn’t have to compromise principle for loyalty if you think they are doing the wrong thing. I do.

    Meghan is pretty rough around the edges – the result of our American “education” system, if you will excuse the expression; that does NOT mean she can’t learn and become more polished, or that she is not speaking for a lot of young people who feel exactly the same way. I believe she does; the youth of America are much more libertarian in their outlook than most people believe. You and I will be gone soon; she will not. Dismiss her at peril, IMHO.

  126. I missed this beauty. I’ve got to quick falling asleep so early.

    BiW returns to the forum (for which I am grateful) and Tex starts talking mumbo jumbo that only BiW could possibly tolerate.

    I went so far to say it rains on both the just and unjust, did I not?

    I don’t know why you criticize the misandrists at Fat Grannies – you quote and verify from the very same sources and other than having your peenie slapped, formulate the very same opinions. Ever thought about that, Homer?

    Have you ever for one minute considered in that Jon Stewart group you run, you’re in a very small minority of virtually irrelevant opinion that is placed on the comedy channel with about a million equally inane viewers? Using your own measure, Rush Limbaugh is a god!!!

    Your quoted cynic, Jon Benet Stewart? Now here’s a man that is proud to claim Judaism – he often refers to himself as a Jew when interviewed. But this Jew that claims that heritage when the curtain pulled has to discount in no particular order everything ever recorded about: Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, Joshua, David, Solomon, and about a gazillion other Jews of recorded history.

    Now to the resident Obama worshipers, that probably means little because your ignorance of historical context of antiquity so profound. So let me put that in a more recent secular context.

    Let’s say I call myself a scientist. In fact, I am quick to remind people my heritage and my religion is “science.” However, I don’t believe a word of Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Faraday or Pasteur, and in fact use them as superficial gag humor with a laugh track to gain notoriety. You probably would find me stark raving mad if that were my schtick. But for some unknown reason, that little diode never flows through that fro – you’ve got this 6″ wide piece of plastic between your ears. Yes WE Can! 😉

    Tell you what you have done for me, Rutherford. You’ve completely convinced me that my hypothesis of all but the hard medical sciences of Ivy League is simply a feel good liberal endowment – funding political correctness, Liz Warren Indian diversity and black affirmative action so white generational trust fund babies can feel good about their moral standing. Mary Jo was unavailable for comment.

    And that affirmative action would include the black Jesus, Barack CORPSEMAN Obama, the man you had been waiting for your entire life to lead you into the promised land.

    Must be a real downer to experience the one you had been waiting for so long to bring you into the promised land turned back when trying to navigate the South Chicago sewer, Hey Pharaoh?

    I don’t blame you for lashing out at your critics. Having to bow at the Obama altar while defending daily this lame performance would piss me off too.

    What’s it feel like to be so ungraciously hoodwinked while you served your master faithfully, Brother “R”? 😐

  127. amendments typically are drafted to apply to non-married hetero couples (the issue raised in my case).- Tigre

    So did you win your case and on what grounds if you did? That explains why my male friend is having such a hard time giving his best friend all the rights that would normally be afforded to a spouse.

    Someone brought up an interesting point (sorry, forgot who) about government benefits afford to married couples. The IRS is a perfect example. Why should government single out one group over another for special privilege? A definition that reaches back to the English commonlaw needs to be redefined periodically to adjust to changing times.There are laws on our books from another era that if enforced would be ludicrous.

  128. Pfesser,

    You keep referring back to the Barry Goldwater days as if those the salad days of the Republican party. Goldwater got blitzed. These Goldwater Republicans hardly exist anymore by Republican name. I guess I would now refer to them as Libertarian. Did you miss “moderate” Dick Lugar getting his butt handed to him the other night? That’s a losing proposition in today’s environment.

    I can understand your contempt of the Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson Jerry Falwell types (if it makes you feel better, they’re not my cup of tea either and I hold my breath when they appear on TV), but you would be incorrect if you believe that is what makes up the vast majority of the “religious right” in this country. Those buffoons are caricatures of the media to be used and consumed as political fodder, but in my inner circle, that’s the lunatic fringe. You once told me you admired Billy Graham. Billy Graham is an example of the one most of us take our cue from.

    I wasn’t teasing when I said you’ve got a really hard choice to make this go around. Either you’re going to have to tolerate the majority of the Christian faith who make up the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party, or you are going to have to decide to vote for Barack Obama and his political expediency.

    Let me ask you a fair question. You’re a critic of organized religion – some of it earned. But why does it not earn your wrath when Barack Obama trots out the occasional biblical quote when convenient and generally always twisted in context (social justice), knowing fully well the guy doesn’t believe a word he says and it done simply for garner a vote and gain power?

    How’s Barack Obama any different than these phony TV evangelists who pander for money late night, only now its for political stash?

  129. There are laws on our books from another era that if enforced would be ludicrous.

    I think Oklahoma may have the most ludicrous. I heard the other day, whaling is illegal in Oklahoma. 😆 I kid you not.

  130. In Missouri the “Mormon Extermination Order” made it technically legal to kill Mormons. It passed after the so called Mormon war and remained in effect until the 1970’s.

    There must be a story behind illegal whaling.

    Pfessor , Tex is a wise man regarding our election choices this November, maybe on a par with our Wise Latina.

  131. Tex – I wasn’t aware that Obama quoted scripture; I have seen exactly zero of his speeches in the last several years. Having said that, I quote scripture myself occasionally; just because I don’t believe in the supernatural does NOT mean I reject the scriptures’ wisdom.

  132. “So did you win your case and on what grounds if you did? That explains why my male friend is having such a hard time giving his best friend all the rights that would normally be afforded to a spouse.”

    Yes, but the reasons are hyper-technical.

    I represented an elderly couple, both widowed with adult children from their prior marriages. The cohabitated, but were not married. The established some contractual relationships concerning the disposition of their separate property at death (and other circumstances). The initial defense to the contracts was that they were founded on illegal consideration, i.e. the furtherance of a meretricious relations proscribed by statute based on public policy considerations. At the time, the same portion of the very same statute would’ve proscribed a gay couple from entering into similar relationships based on the argument that the consideration was founded on sodomy – no longer deemed “illegal” under Georgia law. Because the proposed constitutional amendment banning the enforceability of contractual relations between unmarried couples (gay or straight) was invoked, some on the bench viewed it as a test case for the constitutional limits of the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment.

    In any event, I won in the trial court. The case was initially picked up by the Supreme Court on certiorari (to the Court of Appeals). I argued that certiorari was improvidently granted because the constitutional issues were not properly adjudicated through my case – so the issues here were not addressed. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed itself so the trial court victory (for my clients) remained in place, but with no opinion rendered on constitutional issues.

    If this makes sense to you, you must be a lawyer.

  133. Correction: I represented one of the spouses. The other deceased and the issues raised by the adult children claiming an interest in his property.

  134. Thirty-two states have put it to a vote, and it has failed thirty-two times.

    Does anybody have a good link on this statistic? James I’m not saying you’re wrong but I keep hearing different numbers. “32 of 33 referendum have caused same sex marriage to be illegal” was the stat I heard on Rachel Maddow. But then I’ve seen 28 out of 28.

    Does anybody have a good source on this? As I’ve said, I’ve Googled it and not found a solid answer.

  135. Obama’s announcment was the action of a frightened man.

    Damn, James you do have a flair for the dramatic turn of phrase.

    I won’t argue that it was a POLITICAL move but motivated out of fear? I kinda doubt that. Other than the Log Cabin Republicans, Obama had the gay vote in the pocket whether he came out in favor of gay marriage or not.

  136. I quote scripture myself occasionally; just because I don’t believe in the supernatural does NOT mean I reject the scriptures’ wisdom.

    Yes, but you’re not quoting scripture for personal gain or to curry favor for a vote by some sanctimony from a pulpit. You’re simply using scripture as good advice, like you would a penny saved is a penny earned. While I’m not accusing you in the double standard in judgment, I can certainly make that charge against a host of people here, not the least in one Mr. Rutherford and his selective outrage and predictable duplicity. Race trumps virtue in Rutherford’s world – it’s in his DNA.

    So I ask again, how is Obama using scripture for political expediency in appealing to the masses to gain power, any different than a TV evangelist pandering for money to build a bigger home when both are nothing are more than self serving?

    They’re both equally pretentious, and the former is costing you a whole lot more money and isn’t voluntary.

  137. The initial defense to the contracts was that they were founded on illegal consideration, i.e. the furtherance of a meretricious relations proscribed by statute based on public policy considerations.”

    “meretricious” – Not Nice!! Must have been one of those adult children that pushed that concept. Lawyers have such a way with words.
    Not a lawyer but a wannabe at one time 😉 Yes, it does make sense. It seems that was one hot potato that the Supreme Court didn’t want to deal with. I congratulate you on your expertise.

  138. “So I ask again, how is Obama using scripture for political expediency in appealing to the masses to gain power, any different than a TV evangelist pandering for money to build a bigger home when both are nothing are more than self serving?”

    Identical, to my eye.

  139. The “Republican Brain” is just another attempt by liberals to discredit their enemies. It is bunk. As I wrote before, many conservatives are really liberals in the sense that they are willing to try new things and are able to apply rough versions of the scientific method to discern realty. Liberals, on the other hand are wedded with semi- religious fervor to old concepts

    The most fun part of this book is that its author predicted Republicans would deny it … because they deny science. 😆 😆 So the Republican reaction is a self fulfilling prophesy. Truly cracks me up.

    And I’m sorry James but you’ve got this horribly backwards, Conservatives are NOT willing to try new things. That is what fundamentally makes them Conservative. The very word conservative means safe.

    Both evolution and climate change are “new concepts”, not old, in the sweeping history of science. Liberals embrace both of these NEW concepts and conservatives deny both.

    You’re on the losing end of this argument and Mooney’s book (which I have yet to read) uses SCIENTIFIC studies on personality to prove his point.

    Mooney defends his book against an attack from Jonah Goldberg here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/letters/story/2012-05-03/chirs-mooney-republican-brain/54733296/1

    It gives you a taste of the wild accusations against the book and Mooney’s able defense against them. (As I said earlier, I plan to read the book before end of summer.)

  140. “It seems that was one hot potato that the Supreme Court didn’t want to deal with.”

    Oh it was mighty hot potato. There had to have been no less than 20 amicus briefs filed in the case. The most persuasive in my view was filed by a gay rights organization here that to my surprise was remarkably cogent and not agenda loaded. I offered the author a position with our firm if he ever chose to accept it.

    Now just because there was no opinion doesn’t mean that the merits of the case were not presented. To the contrary, they were argued vigorously. But ultimately the Supreme Court decided to accept my principal objection and punt. It was the right thing because the dynamics of the particular case would’ve created bad precedent for other parties regardless of the decision.

    I do find the subject fascinating. And although I argued against Tex and BiC’s positions here, by no means is what they’re saying devoid of logic, virtue or validity. The “you’re just a homophobe” is cheap, self-righteous, b.s. that gets under my skin too. There’s more to it than that and the accusation is a way of avoiding the arguments rather than addressing them. However, I do think some species of legally recognized gay marriage is inevitable, and it can’t be a state specific thing. It will be a test of US Constitutional rights because the opposite is entirely unworkable if full faith and credit must be afforded to the status (which it must).

  141. From the man who finds himself living in an apartment due to one bad personal decision after another. Preach to me, Brotha Rutherford!

    My friend, list the bad decisions beyond two. I’ll grant you two: I pissed off the wrong person at my old company and got a scarlet letter for it. When layoff time came, I was already in the cross hairs. My arrogance prevented me from realizing who I was dealing with. Had I thrown myself at her mercy, I might have saved my reputation.

    Second mistake: upon notification of layoff, I should have BEGGED for my job. A colleague of mine became so unglued that the managers were afraid he was suicidal and they found him another job. Me? I “took it like a man” and wound up out on my ass.

    Beyond that, I defend every move I made before I finally had to surrender and sell the house.

    And along the way, I didn’t go making absolutely idiotic statements about unnatural acts to defend my blatant and unwarranted bigotry against gay people.

    News flash Skippy: If it happens in nature, it is by definition natural. And nature encompasses more than what goes on in the pea size brain of one Tex Taylor. 😐

    I’ll devote another comment to your cute pornographic link about gay depravity. Stay tuned.

  142. “Liberals embrace both of these NEW concepts and conservatives deny both.”

    Liberals embrace the politics of it. Big fucking difference.

    You embrace it and don’t a G-damned thing about the science of either.

  143. R opined:
    “Both evolution and climate change are “new concepts”, not old, in the sweeping history of science. Liberals embrace both of these NEW concepts and conservatives deny both.”

    C’mon Rutherford; you can do better than that. Apples and oranges. Evolution has been tested and validated tens- if not hundreds- of thousands of times; it is the ultimate of the scientific method used well. And what makes it so powerful is that new discoveries fit right in where they are supposed to. SOME conservatives deny it, but among the scientific community there is no controversy, and when I say NO, I mean none.

    Global warming – or “climate change” nowadays, since there seems to be some evidence of global COOLING and they want to hedge their bets, is far from settled science, IMHO. Its major thrust is political, not scientific.

    And to further point out your fallacious thinking: yes, both are “new” concepts, relatively speaking, but what does that have to do with whether either is valid? Nothing. It’s like saying Stalin and Hitler were both bad man, and since they both had moustaches, that must be the reason.

    Tighten up your thinking, fellow.

  144. “News flash Skippy: If it happens in nature, it is by definition natural. And nature encompasses more than what goes on in the pea size brain of one Tex Taylor.”

    Mother’s kill their children in some instances. Is that by definition “natural?”

  145. Very good, Pfesser. So all I would ask in return in the name of fairness with you unbelievers that aren’t blow up, bleating sheep for the legalized extortionists, power mongers, race pimps, and enablers from the Left:

    Understand that it isn’t only Republicans that have been sanctimonious and hypocritical about their faith. Christ made it abundantly clear that there are many that use His Name and are still lost. That will include a whole host of people that vote for Mitt Romney this year.

    I’ll defend my position, I’ll challenge the doubters like you when called into question, but it is a matter of faith. I have experienced no miracles, no personal revelations, no lightning bolts from heaven. I don’t expect to either.

    Like I said yesterday, living the Christian life isn’t difficult – it’s impossible. I am no different than you, for better or worse. I just believe Jesus was the Messiah. And yes, the bottom line is that while I accepted that position after a great deal of consideration, reflection, observation of the here and now, and what I consider conclusive proof from both Old and New Testament, there is absolutely no way I could prove it to the unbeliever. That is between you and God.

    I want you to personally to understand that I am not here to impose my spiritual convictions on you or anyone else. I too believe in the wall of separation, but believe it for the protection of the church, not state. I’m not here to proselytize. I’m here to debate, mostly politic. But sometimes it necessary to delve into the soul in the explanation of how I arrived at my positions.

  146. If I couldn’t see beyond my own nose, I’d have looked at the pornographic pictorial that Tex linked to earlier in the thread and I’d say “YEAH, why SHOULD we grant any equal rights to that bunch of perverts?”

    But guess what:

    1. One woman expecting Obama to pay her electric bill does not make all blacks stupid.

    2. One man sh*tting on a police car and a couple of people getting raped does not summarize the entire Occupy movement.

    3. A bunch of sophomoric gays out for shock value does not represent the entire gay community. Many blacks are mortified by case 1. Many Occupy members are disgusted by case 2.

    And I dare say that many many gays are embarrassed by the shenanigans portrayed in your pictorial. What you fail to understand is that because gays are F*CKING HUMAN BEINGS they share traits with you such as modesty and decorum.

    Tex, the only reason I even bother discussing this with you is for some ungodly reason I sense a sensitive empathetic human being beneath the Internet troll facade. If I really felt you were an unrepentant bigot, I’d tell you to f*ck off and then I’d ignore you.

  147. You shouldn’t have to compromise principle for loyalty

    Ahhhh PF, one of the points made in The Republican Brain is that conservatives value loyalty above many other factors. That’s one reason why you see them consolidate around issues with lightening speed. While libs fight among themselves in the public square, Repubs circle the wagons …. again and again.

  148. Jon Benet Stewart

    LOL I know you love rhetorical flourishes but WTF was that? Jon Stewart mashed with a dead child beauty queen? Is there some political statement in there that I’m missing or were you just free associating?

    Lay off the meth man. 🙂

    P.S. OH SH*T …. I finally figured out what you must be doing in your spare time. Ever seen “Breaking Bad”??? 😉

  149. “Mary Jo was unavailable for comment.”

    Ohhhh! That had some stank on it!

    Tex was channeling Dennis Miller. That probably explains the bizarre “Jon Benet Stewart” reference too.

  150. Rutherford, I got the 32 from Red State blog, I think I just threw it in for dramatic effect because I think most gay marriage bills have failed. Then I looked it up elsewhere. The Washington Post Have ballot initiatives undermined gay marriage cites The Fix’s Rachel
    Weiner. Since 1998 32 states have voted down some form of gay marriage. Six states with legal gay marriages got them through the courts.

    Weiner noted that some of the success of anti-gay marriage votes is due to timing and location.

    I do get dramatic sometimes.However, I think Obama is frightened. The last elections did not go his way. Wisconsin is an other example. Govener Brown got almost as many votes as all of the Democrats combined, and that included a minor Republican opponent. The Democrats and labor unions have not reaped the benefits their time and money promised.

    The “Ragin Cagin” also said Democrats could lose this.

    As I wrote major gay fund raisers were pressuring Obama to make a statement. Our computer is causing problems, so I am writing as fast as I can

  151. And along the way, I didn’t go making absolutely idiotic statements about unnatural acts to defend my blatant and unwarranted bigotry against gay people.

    What’s bigoted about taking thousands of years of accepted norm and the most basic foundation of all civilization, and asking for a good reason as to why the definition now needs to be changed, made into something it is not? Like I said, why don’t we redefine hot to cold, make rectum synonymous with vagina, pretend we men are on our period too? I think I’m having my own luteal surge. Sure is hot.

    Liberalism and irrationality meet anarchy and chaos? Obama 2012.

    I can give a dozen good arguments that I haven’t raised yet, all monetary, why it a really bad idea to ‘open marriage’ in a broken country to boot. What’s to prevent anyone from gaming the system for a little unearned “charity?” I’ll claim my neighbor as my wife. WE can all be married then, can’t we? What’s idiotic is being accused of being an idiot when asking, “what’s natural about a man’s penis in another man’s feces?” You sure you want to go down the road of referring to idiocy?

    I don’t believe you have the truth in you, Rutherford, including your transparently lame emotional attachment you try to apply as justification, where you try to sound like some loving friend and caregiver for the less blessed, depraved, and disenfranchised. Phooey. You don’t do a damn thing for their betterment and you continually lie about man’s better nature, driven by nothing more than group think you heard some other goober parrot. You’re a small player as the enabler of bad and destructive behavior.

    Do you think your self absorption and daily disingenuous baloney escape me, Mother Rutherford? Live and on set? What was you bragged? Sans notes? Really? Shazamm!

    News flash Skippy: If it happens in nature, it is by definition natural. And nature encompasses more than what goes on in the pea size brain of one Tex Taylor.

    Is murder natural? How about cloning? Artificial intelligence? Is that natural? How about something more refined? Like space walks? I suppose that’s natural too, hey? I can’t tell you how stupid you read. And I mean STUPID. Not naive; not a rube; not duped; not a sacrificial lamb. STUPID.

    Once upon a time, it was thought provoking here. Those days are long gone. Obama failed so you failed. Now the outrageous substitutes as deep thinking. You want me to get you some more hits? Is that what drives you? You want me to drag some liberals over here to even the count? Then you can boilerplate your entry about how Tex is mean. That makes up about 90% of my name being mentioned by you.

    Without doubt, you’re the least qualified person on this entire board to be determining right from wrong. Don’t kid yourself.

  152. Okay I just had to look this one up.
    Dumb laws for every state

    http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/oklahoma

    Why is whaling illegal in OK? Best answer yet
    Duh! Have you seen some people coming out of Walmart lately?

    OKLAHOMA STATUTES
    TITLE 29
    GAME AND FISH
    §29-2-135. Threatened.
    “Threatened” refers to any wildlife species or subspecies in the wild or in captivity that, although not presently threatened with extinction, are in such small numbers throughout their range that they may become an endangered species within the foreseeable future or that they may be endangered if their environment deteriorates.

    Someone said hey, that means whales too! And they’re correct. Indeed MOST states have laws that by their language would also include whales. They read the code, knew it must INCLUDE whales, and started the whole, “Whale hunting is illegal in Oklahoma” gig, when in reality it’s illegal in most states by the language of the code. So yes, it is true, but you will no find “whaling” or “whale hunting” specifically mentioned in the code.

  153. Let me repeat this tripe. This was too good, considering the loyal associates just sent a 36 year serving Senator out to pasture they were so loyal less than 48 hours ago. This one is really rich. 😆 😆


    Ahhhh PF, one of the points made in The Republican Brain is that conservatives value loyalty above many other factors. That’s one reason why you see them consolidate around issues with lightening speed. While libs fight among themselves in the public square, Repubs circle the wagons …. again and again

    That deserves to be mocked unmercifully. Libs are the ultimate herd mentality. Drive one over the cliff, you’ve got them all. Ted Kennedy for President with Nancy Pelosi serving as V.P. The ultimate Lib ticket.

    Where do they come up with this stuff? I wanted to barf, but had to laugh. So I just choked when I read that. Did Jon Benet say this last night? Is that the new meme? 😆

    And Obama is our post racial President.

  154. What’s bigoted about taking thousands of years of accepted norm and the most basic foundation of all civilization, and asking for a good reason as to why the definition now needs to be changed, made into something it is not?-Tex

    Just for the sake of argument, It’s interesting to review what was considered natural in ancient history.

    “The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century.

    The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was “paiderastia” meaning “boy love”..

    The roots of Greek pederasty lie in the tribal past of Greece, before the rise of the city-state as a unit of political organization.

    The Sacred Band of Thebes, a separate military unit reserved only for men and their beloved youths, is usually considered as the prime example of how the ancient Greeks used love between soldiers in a troop to boost their fighting spirit.

    After a long hiatus marked by censorship of homosexual themes,[11] modern historians picked up the thread, starting with Erich Bethe in 1907 and continuing with K. J. Dover and many others. These scholars have shown that same-sex relations were openly practised, largely with official sanction, in many areas of life from the 7th century BC until the Roman era.” – Wiki

  155. “Mary Jo was unavailable for comment.”
    Ohhhh! That had some stank on it!

    I saw a great political show in the ‘nineties, with a panel of distinguished politicos, including WFB Jr. The premise was to come up with a good snappy comeback for some particularly vicious comment.

    At that time George HW Bush was claiming that he was “not in the loop” during Iran-contra and the Democrats were killing him in the Presidential campaign with the phrase, “Where was George?” – initially uttered by Teddy Kennedy at the Democratic National Convention.

    Coming up with a snappy comeback to that one fell to Buckley.

    He never batted an eye: “Where was I, Mr. Kennedy? Why, I was at home with my wife – sober and dry.”

    I nearly fell off the couch laughing. Still remember that to this day as the best comeback I have ever heard.

  156. The “you’re just a homophobe” is cheap, self-righteous, b.s.

    Tigre, on the face of it, I’d agree with you. Name calling (which I’ve done) is not a valid argument in debate.

    But if we search for a motivation, what beyond homophobia, or simply homo-hatred (since BiW wants to snag me on the phobia tag) motivates the opposition?

    Granting gays the right to marry has ZERO impact on married straights. If anyone could present to me an argument that does not rely on “thousands of years of tradition” (itself a lie [1]), I might be more open minded to the opposition.

    [1] State sanctioned marriage dates back to 1753 England.

  157. So now two things for the host:
    from my 118
    So the NC ruling + Obama’s evolution=?
    Is Obama trying to embrace a wedge issue in the Rovian spirit?
    Which presidential candidate is helped the most by any or all components?
    I have to add the follow up to Obamas two fans here,R and Thor.
    Do you seriously believe the Obama announcement is anything other than a cheap sound bite to the base ?

    My answers to the opener are:
    yes Obamas camp is fully embracing wedgies.
    Obama is concerned about his chances,he even dropped a line about state rights that will play well for Mitt if he chooses to pick it up,and he should.
    Romney wins! He gets to embrace NC from a distance under the state rights banner which can then be parlayed into the bumpy but consistent position he has defended RomneyCare on. Also NC goes red.

  158. I think looking beyond the United States for a position on marriage is a false journey. Foundations mean something,be in touch with them first and the rest of the stuff will work out. In the case at hand the foundations and definitions are what they are,if you want something else out of them get back to basics to find the solution.
    This concludes Alfie’s excursion in2Zen blogging

  159. both are “new” concepts, relatively speaking, but what does that have to do with whether either is valid?

    Sorry PF, it is you who needs to tighten up your thinking. James purported that libs cling to old theories and conservatives embrace new ones. THAT is what I was responding to … not to the validity of the theories themselves.

    Follow the argument dude.

    P.S. Getting back to the validity argument which was tangential, the typical pattern of “deniers” is to point to gaps in a theory to dismiss that theory. Evolution has far fewer gaps than climate change but it has gaps nonetheless and anti-evolution (or creationists) folks point to those gaps to invalidate the theory.

  160. Just because it was touched on (sorta) earlier. Has anyone/everyone seen the Times cover?http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20120521,00.html
    Two things (God there’s more) to say about our society regards that pic.
    Is that kid mom combo real? If it isn’t who the fuck takes these modeling jobs????!!! Ok mom we’re gonna have you son latch on to this models boob…..
    tell you one thing that is one kid that isn’t gonna want to be involved in one of those “where are they now” stories.

  161. Mother’s kill their children in some instances. Is that by definition “natural?”

    Unfortunately, yes. Lets take shaken baby syndrome. Frustration is natural emotion. Some mothers shake or otherwise abuse their children due to natural impulses.

    Let’s not fall into the trap of saying because it is natural it is good. That is not my argument. I AM arguing that one cannot label certain acts unnatural in order to invalidate them. They can be perfectly natural and equally disgusting.

    You see, I’d have little argument with Tex if he simply said “homosexuality” (and notice it really is mostly male sex that has Tex’s panties in a knot) “disgusts me”. That’s a valid subjective judgment. To argue about that with him would be like convincing him pizza is delicious if he hates pizza. Where I fault him is when he relies on whether or not homosexuality is “natural”.

    Sorry … it is.

  162. Sorry R. Maternal instinct is “natural.” Maternal instinct does not tell momma to strap her own children into a car and cause it submerge in a lake and claim she didn’t do it. Deliberately (not negligently) killing your babies is not natural.

    You can follow the point. Why do you insist on playing games with it? The fact things “happen” is not the test of natural — and you know it.

  163. Alfie, I’m hungry and I want to go eat lunch so I’ll address part of your comment now.

    I’m contemplating a new post entitled “Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage: So What?”

    Suffice it to say I don’t share the media’s view that this is groundbreaking.

  164. “Ok mom we’re gonna have you son latch on to this models boob…..
    tell you one thing that is one kid that isn’t gonna want to be involved in one of those “where are they now” stories.”

    At my niece’s outdoor wedding about 17 years ago I was handling the official video camera. About half-way through the bouquet-toss several folks started yelling and pointing behind me. I turned around to see my two-year old taking a leak on the grass.

    Everyone was yelling at me to “get that!” – videotape it. I turned the camera off and shook my head NO WAY. My son may have been two THEN, but he wouldn’t always be two, and I wasn’t about to create a video that would haunt him all his days. Even little guys deserve consideration. I was glad to see the last of my uncles die; I got good and tired of the same old stories about a terminally bored only-child raised with no playmates, by two old people, getting into trouble looking for something fun to do.

  165. tell you one thing that is one kid that isn’t gonna want to be involved in one of those “where are they now” stories.

    Au contraire …. do you know the bragging rights that kid has now?

    Billy: I lost my virginity at 15.

    Bobby: That’s nothing. I was sucking t*t when I was 10 and I have the photo to prove it!

    Apologies in advance to our women residents.

    P.S. I cannot believe that is a legit Time cover …. holy crap. Sorry folks but that does border on kiddie porn!!!! (Incest porn?) DAMN!!

  166. Homosexuality comes naturally and like any other trait is influenced by environment. You can outlaw homosexual acts and try to abolish the activity as some campaigns have in our history, but the result of that takes it underground like any other vice. The repression also breeds militancy.

    Theologians can argue if these are things brought out of depravity, or if it is naturally inherent in mankind, but the truth is that homosexuals and bisexuals have always lived among us. Mostly we humans seek acceptance and often find it with members of the same sex. Sexual sin also is steeped in our genetics. Offenders are often the offendees in their youth.

    We have very unhealthy sexual attitudes. Like the shock value of Alfie’s breast-feeding Time cover, many see that as perversion. Yet studies have proven the many benefits of breastfeeding until the child wants to be weaned, sometimes as late as 3, 4, and 5 years.

    That is the best for health and bonding and stability in later life, yet we determine it uncultured and backward. We prefer plastic. Latch to oil early and often, create a polybond.

  167. Rutherford, we have some 19th century Harpers magazines. One article discussed Lincoln’s mother’s possible affair. As a side note, the writer mentioned the climate had changed since 1800 and discussed signs of change. Climate change is an old concept.

    Liberals treat it like a religion and let those who would use it to enrich themselves lead them into a false religion. They don’t think critically.

    Obama has used old nostrums dating back at least to the Depression while other countries like Estonia and Canada have tried other solutions with better results.That isn’t very scientific of him.

    Another concept our betters tried to force on us was the metric system. Societies are basically conservative and resistant to change.

    Slavery is another practice which continues and It is the exception to the rule allowing slow change.

  168. 3 year old boys get hard-ons for various reasons, Rutherford. A penis is a curiosity to it’s owner at this stage. Sexual desires and urges show up later as one nears puberty.

    Bonding between humans is more complex than that. A mother-child relationship is the most critical in early human development.

    Nursing is not sexy to the participants under normal circumstances.

  169. I see the timing of this gay marriage topic is political. Romney just came out and apologized for bullying a gay kid in high school and leading a gang to forcibly cut that kid’s hair.

    Ouch! Campaign damage assessment control alert. Ready for overcompensation adjustment action. Steady. Steady…

  170. Gay Osama. 😆 That’s great. You never know what evil lies in the hearts of men.

    My my my my Sharia.

  171. These scholars have shown that same-sex relations were openly practised, largely with official sanction, in many areas of life from the 7th century BC until the Roman era.”

    You can always tell when some queerdom from Europe has entered in a new wiki entry. Practised with an ‘s’. They spell like they fight – poorly.

    Raji, I’m not sure your point on that matter, but I guess it wouldn’t make any difference with you enlightened folk if I pointed out those pedophilia practicing empires for all practical purposes dead and gone eons ago?

    Is that the bright future we now want to pursue? 😀

  172. LOL Poolman you take me way too seriously on that one. Honestly I have a lot of trouble gauging children’s age. That kid looks older than 3 to me but who knows. Photo still blows me away. I don’t know how the editors gave that one a thumbs up. I’m not sure if the kid was a girl if it would have been even more provocative.

  173. Got to love your radio host? For what? Outright lying? Do you not realize your secondary radio host (how bad is that? 😆 ), was too stupid to recognize that what she obtained is such junk it doesn’t get past the first box in being completely inaccurate?

    I guess you’re not terribly familiar with the story of Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, hey Rutherford? I won’t even venture a guess about Secondary Sandi’s ability. If the crack radio show indicator, she’s not smart enough to figure out where to place the ignition key.

    😆 You people are desperate. Go to the Book of Obama, Chapter 2008, Hope and Change. It will refresh your spirit.

  174. I just heard this Romney-as-bully story in the background on my TV. This is the kind of foolishness campaigns have dipped to. Unless he’s hiding a criminal juvie record, I really don’t care what Mitt did in high school.

  175. Tex I agree that arguing faith with you is a waste of time, One either has it or doesn’t. But surely the intellectual side of you can admit the Bible full of contradictions. Why’s that so tough for you?

  176. Because your idea of a contradiction is whether a rooster crowed two times or three times, or something of that regard. All that does for me is reinforce the legitimacy of the stories and the translation from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek, and eventually to English.

    No where in the Bible is anything legitimate of marriage given but one man and one woman. Every time one detoured, whether Abraham, Jacob, David, or Solomon, trouble followed – hence Isaac and Ishmael, Mohammad and radical Islam.

    Here. This is what that book of “myths” quoted for all to see 3,200 years before Mohammad was an apple in his daddy’s eye:

    11 The angel of the Lord also said to her (Hagar, the great, great, great, great….grandma of Islam):

    “You are now pregnant
    and you will give birth to a son.
    You shall name him Ishmael,
    for the Lord has heard of your misery.
    He will be a wild donkey of a man;
    his hand will be against everyone
    and everyone’s hand against him,
    and he will live in hostility
    toward all his brothers.

    Not bad for a book of myths, hey? Too bad Obama’s prophetic prowess of the Whigs not so accurate. 😉

  177. “Homophobes across the country, mostly conservatives”

    Prove it or don’t stay it and apologize for it.

    “On the contrary, it is conservatives who have sullied the institution of marriage by forcing their definition upon the tradition”

    What is the name of this Conservative body and by what means and by what authority are they forcing this upon the American people?

    “When an institution becomes corrupted by exclusive bigots”

    You say this as if it is a recent occurrence. News for ya big guy. Bible is some 2k years old You are mischaracterizing something you either have no understanding in or you are purposefully misrepresenting it. Neither of which is constructive.

    Haven’t had a chance to read all the above as I was still in the last post hoping for a response to a question than has gone unanswered for 2 years running. So I will give my opinion and read the above later.

    As a hard core conservative, and a religious man, I am for civil unions. I think there is more than enough evidence that for many gay and lesbian people, it is a biological truth that people are indeed born this way. We are in effect biological machines. We have all kinds of drugs that we used to alter our chemistry to alter who we are and how we act, from drug addicts to bipolar people.

    There are some 6 billion of us on this planet. It is a fact that we are not all exactly alike and that some people are just wired differently. Some are poets and artists, some are mathematicians, some are autistic or savants, and yes, some are gay and lesbian.

    It makes no more sense to me to say a mentally challenged person cannot be recognized as a family unit. So why should we make the distinction for gay and lesbians? Answer: We shouldn’t.

    Tradition says marriage between a man and a woman. I have a lot of respect for traditions and do not easily let them go. To that end I would allow for civil unions, but probably not marriage.

  178. “Raji, I’m not sure your point on that matter, but I guess it wouldn’t make any difference with you enlightened folk if I pointed out those pedophilia practicing empires for all practical purposes dead and gone eons ago?”

    As will be this one. As will the species, which will suffer the fate of all species – extinction.

    Homosexuality has been around, as far as we can tell, since the beginning of recorded history. It would seem to me that for nature to keep producing queers there must be some survival value for the species, otherwise it is a very self-limiting preference – jokes about the origins of state troopers notwithstanding.

  179. With Obama at the helm? It will suffer that fate in months – queers notwithstanding.

    But if I only need to find one source to prove there’s “not one” who disagrees with the conclusive proof evolution in and of itself explains our very existence, I give you the Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Histology of my former medical school as proof that not true. 😉

  180. I would think beyond a shadow of a doubt, the thousands of identical twins, one straight and one gay, would prove genetics initially plays little role in the determination.

    Personally, I feel sexuality a very complicated set of environmental factors chosen at a young age but not fully realized, where the brain “additionally” wired, including the further development of the cortex – somewhere between the ages of 2-5.

    Rutherford thinks I hold great animosity toward homosexuality. The real truth is feel great sadness for the emptiness of their lives, as they will never experience the fulfillment of complementary mate.

  181. I actually fully support breastfeeding;however,I just as fully find attachment parenting to be a disgraceful disservice to kids that need to be weaned from both mommy’s tit as well as the public teet.
    The only true benefits from breast-feeding come before the age of 2,after that the Lalache fanatics and attachment parenting freaks are actually all about how they feel. We’re the top of the food chain for a reason and it isn’t breast feeding till 6 and family bed till 10. Thumbs and free will baby,thumbs an free will.

  182. Tex
    We have people who suffer from behavioral problems based on a chemical imbalance. Otherwise sane rational people who take drugs alter who they are and how they act.

    Twins are a good case for what we are being genetic. Many are the story of twins separated at birth, living thousands of miles a part in different environments having dozens if not more similarities in how their lives unfolded.

  183. Alfie, those breast feeding mommies at age 4 I’ve found invariably swing left too in their politics. Hippie Prof had some dodo at his site who frequented often and was breast feeding her toddler with a dedicated website. 😯

    Some weird people out there.

  184. I think most infants are weaned when they start teething. 🙂 My girls were weaned around 12 months, as I recall. I think the grandkids went about 18 months. Some take it to extremes. Once they start eating foods, it usually isn’t long.

  185. I think we were even shorter than that, Poolman. And if I remember, it was probably six months and probably for convenience. For a little while, my wife would bottle it. Yours sounds like a healthy approach. I would think 12-18 months ideal.

    Whatever mom Taylor did, we were either incredibly lucky (I keep saying we when it ought to be she), or incredibly smart without knowing it. 🙂 My kids have both been the picture of health (knock on wood). In fact, I can only remember my wife being sick twice in 25 years of marriage.

    But three years of age and still breast feeding? I find that obsessive. In fact, I find it bizarre.

  186. Practised with an ‘s’. They spell like they fight – poorly.

    Oh please make it stop!!! If I keep laughing this hard I’ll bust my hernia open again.

    Tex are you trying to come up with some new variation on “If …. you must be a redneck”? (“If you think the Brits misspell words, then you must be a redneck.”) Here’s a clue Einstein … theirs is the mother tongue. We got the language from them. We perverted the language, not the other way around.

    You’re obviously not “practised” in the art of linguistics. 😆 😆

  187. Prove it or don’t stay it and apologize for it.

    Damn, you do take things awfully seriously don’t you? Why in God’s name did you spend a single minute at M&H (or Fat Grannies as we call it here)? Are you some sort of masochist?

    Haven’t had a chance to read all the above as I was still in the last post hoping for a response to a question than has gone unanswered for 2 years running. So I will give my opinion and read the above later.

    Go back and read my response … I did give you one. And yes read the above thread since some of your objections were stated by others and already answered by me.

    And THEN you can move on to the current thread. Unlike M&H, I don’t wait weeks between articles. 😉

  188. Just checked. 509 and 512 last post, nothing. Maybe it doesn’t load for Conservatives?

    By answering, I mean the kind of answer that holds you accountable to having an actual opinion on the question asked, not a fringe notion that avoids having an firm answer on hard questions. My questions were specific, your answers should be, if what you believe in is justifiable. But that is my opinion. BTW I hold myself to those same standards.

  189. Try again …. I just gave you more food for thought. After that, move to the current thread so I don’t have to keep juggling three threads at a time.

  190. No need to dumb things down. Just keep in mind I get lots of questions from the regulars here and I have a life off the blog and I don’t get paid for this gig. So there will be times when questions don’t get the thorough treatment you might be expecting.

    Hope you’ve found more kindred spirits here than at M&H.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s