The key bit - "“Listen, we’re just politicians. I wasn’t elected to play God. The American people probably aren’t going to fall in love with Mitt Romney. I’ll tell you this: 95 percent of the people that show up to vote in November are going to show up in that voting booth, and they are going to vote for or against Barack Obama.
“Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons ... some people that are going to vote for him. But that’s not what this election is about. This election is going to be a referendum on the president’s failed economic policies."
Entire article:
John Boehner: Voters Need Not Love Mitt Romney
By Jonathan Strong
Roll Call Staff
July 7, 2012, 11:01 a.m.
Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call
By now, Republican laments that presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney is not the most inspiring figure to ever run for president are well-known.
“The Republican bench had several candidates stronger than Romney, but they chose not to run,” conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer recently wrote.
Romney took a relatively long time to conquer his rivals in the GOP primary, and some Republicans have recently expressed concern about the state of the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign against President Barack Obama.
But at a June 30 fundraiser in Wheeling, W.Va., Speaker John Boehner offered a surprisingly frank assessment of the dynamic that surprised some in the audience.
Aside from Romney’s “friends, relatives and fellow Mormons,” Boehner said, most people will be motivated to vote for him in opposition to Obama.
The Ohio Republican made the remarks when an unidentified woman asked during a question-and-answer session: “Can you make me love Mitt Romney?”
“No,” Boehner said. “Listen, we’re just politicians. I wasn’t elected to play God. The American people probably aren’t going to fall in love with Mitt Romney. I’ll tell you this: 95 percent of the people that show up to vote in November are going to show up in that voting booth, and they are going to vote for or against Barack Obama.
“Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons ... some people that are going to vote for him. But that’s not what this election is about. This election is going to be a referendum on the president’s failed economic policies.
“Mitt Romney believes, just like we do, that if we’re going to get the economy back, if we’re going to put the American people back to work, we need to fix the tax code, we need to stop the regulatory juggernaut that’s going on in Washington and we need to fix our economy. Solid guy, he’s going to do a great job, even if you don’t fall in love with him.”
In contrast to Romney, Obama’s 2008 victory was boosted by the enthusiastic devotion of his followers.
Since then, he has faced complaints from the left and the poor economy has dampened enthusiasm among young voters.
In moves widely perceived to be aimed at revving up the base, Obama has taken several executive actions, such as his recent announcement that his administration would cease deporting some undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country when they were young and have stayed out of trouble. That move, for instance, could boost his support among Hispanics.
Boehner’s political office provided the quote after being contacted by Roll Call about somewhat different versions relayed by people in the audience of 200 to 300.
The fundraiser to benefit the Boehner for Speaker campaign committee was originally scheduled to be held in St. Clairsville, Ohio, but was moved to an arena in nearby West Virginia because of power outages from derecho storms the previous weekend.
Robert Murray, CEO of the Murray Energy Corp., hosted the event.
Boehner also hosted a June 29 fundraiser at Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito’s home in Charleston, W.Va., according to the Charleston Gazette.
Also over the recess break, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was scheduled to be a special guest at a fundraiser for Romney Sunday in the Hamptons, N.Y.
An invitation for the lunch event published by the Sunlight Foundation requested $25,000 per person for a VIP photo reception and $5,000 to gain entry to just the lunch.
House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) was in Russia on a Congressional delegation trip.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office said the California Democrat was with her family and declined to provide any details about her schedule.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer attended a Tuesday party to celebrate the holiday at the Herrington Harbour South Marina in Anne Arundel County, Md., and came to Washington, D.C., for the Fourth of July.
The Maryland Democrat traveled to Rhode Island on Friday, where he was scheduled to attend events with Democratic Reps. James Langevin and David Cicilline.
Boehner also released a video message for the Fourth of July, filmed in the Capitol Rotunda with patriotic music in the background.
“From our earliest days, Americans have marked the Fourth of July as the ‘great anniversary celebration,’ as John Adams predicted it would be. We raise Old Glory, march down Main Street, and light up the skies — our pride front and center, like [John] Hancock’s signature itself,” Boehner said.
In actuality, Adams believed July 2, the day the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution of independence from Great Britain, would be the anniversary celebration marked by generations.
In a letter to his wife, Abigail, the future president wrote: “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival.”
July 4 is the day the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence.
JonathanStrong@cqrollcall.com | @j_strong
Jihadin wrote:Mit or Obama....either way...we're doomed. I actually probaly will vote for Mit. I doubt we survive as a nation with another 4 yrs of Obama.
I think you've only survived as a nation, or at least avoided full blown depression, due to Obama.
Romney has made millions making companies bankrupt, he was born a millionaire and has never had to work or struggle to achieve, hardly suited to represent the people. Also, he can't even take care of a dog, I don't think that is a ringing endorsement of his capacity to care for the rest of us.
Jihadin wrote:Mit or Obama....either way...we're doomed. I actually probaly will vote for Mit. I doubt we survive as a nation with another 4 yrs of Obama.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
We survived 8 years of Bush and 6 years of Nixon after all.
Jihadin wrote:I think Mit would do the country good compare to Obama
Only cos your an American soldier mate, and 80% of you lot are dyed in Republicans.
I dont like Obama, I was there for his election and we voted for an independent. It was gonna be McCain until he brought dippy bastard Sarah along....
But this time, its 100% Obama. Better him than that fether Mitt. I would rather have pretty much any other Republican than him, and I don't even have to start on that bat gak magical Mormon gak that makes Jesus come from America. I know all politicians are lying bastards (Obama most definately is!) but Mitt is a proper war dodging little viper.
The man is lower than a snakes belly, and I trust him about as far as I could throw ... er... Rosanne Barr?
This reminds me of when it was between Bush and Kerry. It's basically which color of gak do you want: green or brown?
What it comes down to is this: Do you want Obama still in office, or are you ok with damn near anyone else? The alternative may not be that great, but do you think that ANY alternative will be better/more effective than Obama has been?
While I'm not too keen on Mormons(except for the 5 cool ones I know in real life, most of whom drink soda and swear), I think that Obama had his shot, and failed miserably at it. I'm not saying that the job is easy, but he has delivered feth all. He gave away a gak ton of money to the wrong people, many of whom are going bankrupt anyway, and he forced this healthcare crap down our throats in a way that many people will be screwed out of healthcare altogether. While I may not vote for Romney, I most certainly NOT vote for Obama. I'd honestly rather throw my vote away than have either, so I'll let the rest of the country decide who to go with. My conscience will be clean of the matter.
I remember when people said 4 years of Obama would bring Terrorists to our shores, take our guns away, take money from white people and give it to black people, there would be more illegal Mexicans than ever before, attack Christianity and my favorite of them all. Become dictator and remove the election process.
Piston Honda wrote:I remember when people said 4 years of Obama would bring Terrorists to our shores, take our guns away, take money from white people and give it to black people, there would be more illegal Mexicans than ever before, attack Christianity and my favorite of them all. Become dictator and remove the election process.
All of that would be somehow better than him not doing a damn thing in 4 years, which he did.
Got some healthcare reform passed. Helped pull the economy out of the gutter. We were headed for the cliff when he took over, and he helped steer us away from it.
Romney advocates for and represents the same policies (lower taxes combined with spending, less regs and oversight on banks and lenders) that drove us into that ditch/toward that cliff in the first place.
Piston Honda wrote:I remember when people said 4 years of Obama would bring Terrorists to our shores, take our guns away, take money from white people and give it to black people, there would be more illegal Mexicans than ever before, attack Christianity and my favorite of them all. Become dictator and remove the election process.
All of that would be somehow better than him not doing a damn thing in 4 years, which he did.
You actualy read that website page top to bottom? I see college playoff syste was high on my list...watch haven list for off shore bank to countries that doesn't share that info? Swiss banks comes to mind. How long did they have their policy?
Mannahnin wrote:Got some healthcare reform passed. Helped pull the economy out of the gutter. We were headed for the cliff when he took over, and he helped steer us away from it.
Romney advocates for and represents the same policies (lower taxes combined with spending, less regs and oversight on banks and lenders) that drove us into that ditch/toward that cliff in the first place.
We're still in the gutter.
One thing I have to tip my hat to President Obama is his foreign policy, most of it I have agreed with. Something I wish he did different or faster, but I am not in his shoes.
As for the Economy, Obama and crew had 2 years to do what he wanted. While I believe he tried a few things to get the economy back on track, most of his efforts seemed to fall on party issues. Now we are in a tug-o-war where neither side will budge. Blame now falls on both sides.
Economy is the number one issue, fortunately for the Romney camp most voters believe he is better suited for that job. Economy trumps other issues during a recession.
Personally, I think Obama lost the election when the health care ruling was ruled constitutional.
Think it will come down to 1 - 3 states with a Romney win.
Jihadin wrote:You actualy read that website page top to bottom? I see college playoff syste was high on my list...watch haven list for off shore bank to countries that doesn't share that info? Swiss banks comes to mind. How long did they have their policy?
Yup. Though Obama did not have any direct influence on the college playoff system he did say (more than a few times with ESPN interviews) how he would love to help a push for college football playoffs, calling the current system "corrupt".
Though I don't think the site is giving him 100 percent credit or even a lot of credit, Obama's thoughts on college football playoffs have echoed many times on the topic on sports talk radio, ESPN, etc. Think that is why they included it.
Jihadin wrote:I think Mit would do the country good compare to Obama
Only cos your an American soldier mate, and 80% of you lot are dyed in Republicans.
I dont like Obama, I was there for his election and we voted for an independent. It was gonna be McCain until he brought dippy bastard Sarah along....
But this time, its 100% Obama. Better him than that fether Mitt. I would rather have pretty much any other Republican than him, and I don't even have to start on that bat gak magical Mormon gak that makes Jesus come from America. I know all politicians are lying bastards (Obama most definately is!) but Mitt is a proper war dodging little viper.
The man is lower than a snakes belly, and I trust him about as far as I could throw ... er... Rosanne Barr?
I have to correct you here, Mat. We don't believe Jesus came from America,
we do believe he visited America after his ressurection.
have to correct you here, Mat. We don't believe Jesus came from America,
we do believe he visited America after his ressurection.
Have to correct you Relapse being that I'm the Man before the man who related to a guy who 3rd cousin to the individual who's a associate with a guy that knows the guy that unrelated to the guy who is 4th placed from the guy that drinks beers with a real distant relative that was a 70 pornstar it seems that knows the guy that supposedly on the grapevine with a guy that recieves memo's from a guy who delivers water to a building this guy owns who supposedly have a seat at 3rd tier management in the food chain that corperate HQ has establish to the guy that has the in with the guy that supposedly is the right hand of JC himself....so its completely reliable...it was not JC who visited Amerika because JC is white
have to correct you here, Mat. We don't believe Jesus came from America,
we do believe he visited America after his ressurection.
Have to correct you Relapse being that I'm the Man before the man who related to a guy who 3rd cousin to the individual who's a associate with a guy that knows the guy that unrelated to the guy who is 4th placed from the guy that drinks beers with a real distant relative that was a 70 pornstar it seems that knows the guy that supposedly on the grapevine with a guy that recieves memo's from a guy who delivers water to a building this guy owns who supposedly have a seat at 3rd tier management in the food chain that corperate HQ has establish to the guy that has the in with the guy that supposedly is the right hand of JC himself....so its completely reliable...it was not JC who visited Amerika because JC is white
I don't know about who visited Amerika, but it's Mormon doctrine Jesus visited America.
have to correct you here, Mat. We don't believe Jesus came from America,
we do believe he visited America after his ressurection.
Have to correct you Relapse being that I'm the Man before the man who related to a guy who 3rd cousin to the individual who's a associate with a guy that knows the guy that unrelated to the guy who is 4th placed from the guy that drinks beers with a real distant relative that was a 70 pornstar it seems that knows the guy that supposedly on the grapevine with a guy that recieves memo's from a guy who delivers water to a building this guy owns who supposedly have a seat at 3rd tier management in the food chain that corperate HQ has establish to the guy that has the in with the guy that supposedly is the right hand of JC himself....so its completely reliable...it was not JC who visited Amerika because JC is white
I don't know about who visited Amerika, but it's Mormon doctrine Jesus visited America.
For the love of Joseph Smith can we not turn this into a Mormonism thread? I just don't have the energy and patience for that right now.
Also, Obama is all about severe punishments for Marijuana related "crimes" when he himself ADMITS to smoking a ton of weed before politics as well as "maybe a little blow". And as we all know, there is no such thing as a little blow, and maybe means yes. If the same punishments for weed were in place back before his career and he'd been caught, Obama wouldn't have made it anywhere near the presidency. It is hypocritical for him to advocate harsh punishment for things that he was guilty of himself at one point, even if he doesn't do it anymore.
Everyone thought that he was going to be the messiah of US politics, and he ended up being another useless mass of flesh(albeit darker flesh than any other before him) sitting in an office doing feth all.
And no one can claim that the healthcare reform was a good thing when 1. there was no popular vote for it and 2. about half the people I've read from are pissed off that they will be losing insurance that will soon be illegal in some form or another. ANYTHING that will affect the entire country should be voted on by the entire fething country.
And how is the economy in an upturn from 4 years ago? Try getting a non minimum wage job here in California. feth, try even getting a minimum wage job.
The #1 unskilled career for people with little formal education was construction. Who is building new houses and buildings right now? fething no one that's who.
Pretty soon illegal immigrants are going to be complaining about how white people are stealing their jobs because there aren't any other ones out there, so Derek has to go pick strawberries all day to pay his rent.
Anyone remember the stock market in Fall/Spring of 2008/2009?
The economy's still poor. It's a lot better than it was when he came into office. We were bearing down on a Depression, and instead stayed at and have been pulling out of a Recession. Fraz and other Repub doomsayers opposed the stimulus package, saying it would lead to a double-dip Recession. Instead, countries like the UK practicing Austerity have had the double-dip Recessions, while we've been climbing out of ours.
Healthcare reform WAS a significant part of what the Presidential election was about. It's a big part of the reason I voted for him; he repeatedly promised us a Public Option, both on the campaign trail and in his national debates with McCain, and we elected him. He didn't deliver on that, which disappoints me. He didn't deliver on it because he adopted a Republican-created reform plan, in the hopes of getting a major bipartisan reform package passed without too much screaming and opposition. Sadly, he underestimated the pure political gamesmanship, bloody-mindedness, and unwillingness to compromise that was present across the aisle.
Healthcare is THE major longterm economic problem in this country, and reforming the system and getting costs under control is massively important to the extended economic health of our nation. The Republican party and most of the Dems stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem while taking campaign contributions from the health insurance industry.
Only ignorant people though he was any kind of messiah, but he had a lot of good ideas, and has honestly worked to bring most of them to fruition, in the face of dedicated and intractable opposition.
On drugs and government abuses of the constitution he's continued most of the same policies of the last thirty years. Which has disappointed a lot of us.
You mean 4 times bankrupt Donald Trump of the Birther Lunacy division of the already gak eating crazy 'tea party'?
Sounds like the right guy. Declare the US bankrupt, then build a new Freedom Tower somewhere, and maybe marry a third middle eastern country after divorcing Pakistan.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:....and 6 years of Nixon after all.
Nixon was great most of his term.
I think Nixon might have gotten more great things done than any subsequent American president. While he was a deeply flawed man it's my hope one day history will vindicate him for the good he did.
It never surprises me to see people just throw out "I think so and so will win". There seems to be almost no interest in current polling data, and certainly none at all in looking at what states a candidate will have to win to capture the election. Just kind of 'the economy is bad therefore Romney".
For the record, Obama is holding a 2.5% lead in overall polling data among likely voters, and while that lead is fairly marginal it looks a lot better when you look at state by state numbers it shapes up as a much stronger electoral advantage (were the election held tomorrow Obama would probably win about 297 votes, to Romney's 241).
All that shapes up to give Obama makes Obama about a 2:1 favourite to win the election, according to the polling wonks at [ur]fivethirtyeight.com[/url]. The betting market at intrade puts Obama at 56% to win, so they're calling a much closer election but still favouring Obama.
There's still a long race to come and anything can happen (with some months to go Mondale was a strong favourite against Reagan, and we all know how that turned out), but Obama is the favourite to win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Mit or Obama....either way...we're doomed. I actually probaly will vote for Mit. I doubt we survive as a nation with another 4 yrs of Obama.
You keep saying this, but you never seem capable of explaining exactly how the country will be destroyed. This is because there is no sensible sequence of events that goes from Obama does the kind of stuff Obama is doing to 'USA destroyed'... so in order to keep pretending it's anything other than stupid nonsense you keep it all as vague as possible.
Nothing wrong with the Tea Party
Nothing wrong with Trump 4 bankrptcy....being the US IMO is damn close to one you think eiither the next two would know what to do?
sebster wrote:It never surprises me to see people just throw out "I think so and so will win". There seems to be almost no interest in current polling data, and certainly none at all in looking at what states a candidate will have to win to capture the election. Just kind of 'the economy is bad therefore Romney".
For the record, Obama is holding a 2.5% lead in overall polling data among likely voters, and while that lead is fairly marginal it looks a lot better when you look at state by state numbers it shapes up as a much stronger electoral advantage (were the election held tomorrow Obama would probably win about 297 votes, to Romney's 241).
All that shapes up to give Obama makes Obama about a 2:1 favourite to win the election, according to the polling wonks at [ur]fivethirtyeight.com[/url]. The betting market at intrade puts Obama at 56% to win, so they're calling a much closer election but still favouring Obama.
There's still a long race to come and anything can happen (with some months to go Mondale was a strong favourite against Reagan, and we all know how that turned out), but Obama is the favourite to win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Mit or Obama....either way...we're doomed. I actually probaly will vote for Mit. I doubt we survive as a nation with another 4 yrs of Obama.
You keep saying this, but you never seem capable of explaining exactly how the country will be destroyed. This is because there is no sensible sequence of events that goes from Obama does the kind of stuff Obama is doing to 'USA destroyed'... so in order to keep pretending it's anything other than stupid nonsense you keep it all as vague as possible.
Stop fething doing it.
You're right, anything can happen. For me, I'd like to see Romney win for the fact that Obama jacked up my insurance coverage among other things. But then again I live in Utah, and you're not going to find many Obama supporters here.
Mannahnin wrote:Got some healthcare reform passed. Helped pull the economy out of the gutter. We were headed for the cliff when he took over, and he helped steer us away from it.
Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America's Veterans. Added 4.6 billion USD to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals. Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system. Signed New START Treaty - nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia. First president to endorse same-sex marriage equality. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. Provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB. Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations. Established Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers. Significantly increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act. Reversed 'global gag rule', allowing US aid to go to organizations regardless of whether they provide abortions. Significantly expanded Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college. Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Appointed the nation's first Chief Technology Officer. Signed financial reform law prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading (trading the bank's own money to turn a profit, often in conflict with their customers' interests). Signed financial reform laws to allow shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay. Cut the cost of prescription drugs in medicare by fifty percent. Provided $12.2 Billion in new funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, and appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history (and, IIRC, more than all of the previous ones combined). Voluntarily disclosed visitors to the white house for the first time in history. Appointed first Latina to the US Supreme Court. Launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse.
Mannahnin wrote:Got some healthcare reform passed. Helped pull the economy out of the gutter. We were headed for the cliff when he took over, and he helped steer us away from it.
Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America's Veterans. Added 4.6 billion USD to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals. Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system. Signed New START Treaty - nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia. First president to endorse same-sex marriage equality. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. Provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB. Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations. Established Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers. Significantly increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act. Reversed 'global gag rule', allowing US aid to go to organizations regardless of whether they provide abortions. Significantly expanded Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college. Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Appointed the nation's first Chief Technology Officer. Signed financial reform law prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading (trading the bank's own money to turn a profit, often in conflict with their customers' interests). Signed financial reform laws to allow shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay. Cut the cost of prescription drugs in medicare by fifty percent. Provided $12.2 Billion in new funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, and appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history (and, IIRC, more than all of the previous ones combined). Voluntarily disclosed visitors to the white house for the first time in history. Appointed first Latina to the US Supreme Court. Launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse.
Yeah, Obama hasn't done anything.
Strange, but I thought most of that was thru legislation. Obama is in the Executive branch, right? Hmmm...
Stuff he signs are not his accomplishments, they belong to congress. Unless they are bills we hate, then they are his fault again.
Stuff he cannot sign because our broken congress will not pass it are also his fault, since he is to busy not doing something to be able to sign bills that are not send to him.
European countries without a government are able to get more done that the USA.
Lets not forget the Super Committee that couldn't get it together and seriously gutting the US Military. The same sex marriage deal for federal employee's....DOMA is still in effect. ...Hell there's a counter to everything he "supposedly" done all by him and his team
Automatically Appended Next Post: BAh is this the thread I'm trying to light a fire?
DoMA is still in effect, but he refused to defend it in court, leaving a team of three republicans and two democrats (the latter being effectively ignored) to defend it instead.
Because he doesn't believe it's worth defending and is waiting for the courts to inevitably cut it down (it is, and always was, unconstitutional after all). Heh.
I see no hurry in repealing DOMA yet in congress. Before I get nailed on this. I could careless of samesex marriage it doesn't effect me. As for it being unconstitutional I don't see it.
Jihadin wrote:I see no hurry in repealing DOMA yet in congress. Before I get nailed on this. I could careless of samesex marriage it doesn't effect me. As for it being unconstitutional I don't see it.
It's two people signing a contract, the government prohibits a subgroup of people from signing that contract. But that is probably a separate thread from this one.
Jihadin wrote:As for it being unconstitutional I don't see it.
A better question is, rather, how isn't it unconstitutional? It directly and specifically discriminates against a group of people for no valid reason, just like miscegenation laws did before it, and furthermore violates the full faith and credit clause, as well as equal protection under the fifth amendment.
The courts have said it is unconstitutional under the latter, most notably, in three separate cases thus far which likely will end up in the supreme court.
For the record, the three cases are: Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management Gill v. Office of Personnel Management Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
As an aside, the latter was found unconstitutional by a unanimous decision in the first circuit court-- no dissenting opinions.
Jihadin wrote:Thats a state issue to start off with. So its a state constitution thats involve first.
I am quite convinced that state right arguments are just lies that people tell themselves so that they can advocate a tyranny of the majority.
But even setting that instinctive dislike of the pathetic excuse of an argument, states are not allowed to violate the constitution of the United States of America.
Or perhaps you would say that it's okay and legal for states to lock you up for speaking out against the government? That it's okay and legal for states to ignore the rights of the accused, and punish whoever they want without a trial? That it's okay and legal for states to establish a specific religion and ban all other religions within their borders?
Because I don't think you quite understand what you're saying.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:OT/ But rights are by the individual. Each individual is being given the same rights.
Same nonsensical argument that racists make about anti-miscegenation laws.
Just as that argument failed, so does yours. And I quote:
The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples.
1970–1999
October 10, 1972: The United States Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question".[110]
May 5, 1993: The Supreme Court of Hawaii rules that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can show that it is (1) justified by compelling state interests and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgements of rights under the Hawaii Constitution. The case is sent back to the lower courts for a trial on these two issues.[111]
September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
December 3, 1996: A Hawaii trial court judge holds that no compelling interests support Hawaii's statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. He stays the decision pending review by the Supreme Court of Hawaii.[112][113]
November 3, 1998: Hawaii voters pass a constitutional amendment to give the Hawaii State Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.[114] Voters in Alaska approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[115]
December 9, 1999: In light of the constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court of Hawaii in Baehr v. Miike reverses the decision of the trial court and remands the case with instructions to enter judgment for the state.[116]
December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution.
[edit] 2000–2009
November 2000: Voters in Nebraska approve Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[117]
November 2002: Voters in Nevada approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[118]
November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gives the state legislature 180 days to enact same-sex marriage.
February 11, 2004: The Massachusetts General Court (legislature) completes the first step in a process that would ban same-sex marriage. The process is not continued.
February 12 – March 11, 2004: San Francisco issues same-sex marriage licenses.
March 3 – April 20, 2004: Several Oregon counties, led by Portland's Multnomah County, issue same-sex marriage licenses.
May 17, 2004: Same-sex marriage starts in Massachusetts.
August 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court rules that the San Francisco marriages are void.
August 3, 2004: Voters in Missouri approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[119]
September 18, 2004: Voters in Louisiana approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[120]
November 2004: Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[121]
April 5, 2005: Voters in Kansas, by a 70% to 30% margin, approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[122]
May 12, 2005: Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 overturned by United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon as a unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, and a bill of attainder in violation of Article I's Contract Clause.
September 29, 2005: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a same-sex marriage bill.
November 8, 2005: Voters in Texas approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[123]
June 6, 2006: Voters in Alabama approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, with 81% of voters voting in favor.[124]
July 6, 2006: The New York Court of Appeals issues its decision in Hernández v. Robles, stating that same-sex partners do not have the right to marry under the New York Constitution.[125]
July 14, 2006: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rules that Nebraska Initiative Measure 416's limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, and was not a bill of attainder in violation of Article I's Contract Clause, reversing Judge Joseph F. Bataillon's 2005 decision.
November 2006: Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[126][127]
October 12, 2007: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes same-sex marriage bill.
May 15, 2008: The Supreme Court of California overturns the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
June 16, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in California.
September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
October 10, 2008: The Supreme Court of Connecticut orders same-sex marriage legalized.
November 4, 2008: Voters in Arizona, California, and Florida approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[128]
November 5, 2008: Proposition 8 takes effect in California, stopping new same-sex marriage licenses from being issued after this date.
November 12, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in Connecticut.
March 26, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
April 3, 2009: The Iowa Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.
April 6, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill is passed by the Vermont General Assembly and then vetoed by the governor.
April 7, 2009: The Vermont General Assembly overrides the governor's veto of the same-sex marriage bill.
April 23, 2009: Connecticut governor signs legislation which statutorily legalizes same-sex marriage (see October 10 and November 12, 2008), and also converts any existing civil unions into marriages as of October 1, 2010.
April 27, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in Iowa.
April 29, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the New Hampshire Senate with minor amendments.
May 6, 2009: Maine Governor Baldacci signs the Marriage Equality Bill. The New Hampshire House of Representatives concurs with the Senate's amendments to HB436, and the bill supporting same-sex marriage advances to Governor John Lynch.
May 12, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill passes in the lower house New York Assembly.
May 26, 2009: The California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, but also upholds the marriage rights of the 18,000 same-sex couples married while same-sex marriage had been briefly legalized.
June 3, 2009: The New Hampshire General Court passes new HB73, which includes protections for religious institutions, as required by Gov. John Lynch to secure his signature on HB436, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Gov. Lynch signs both bills the same day.
September 1, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in Vermont.
October 2, 2009: A Texas judge rules the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional while presiding over the divorce proceedings for two gay Texans married in Massachusetts, clearing the way for both Texas's first same-sex divorce and a legal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban.[129]
October 11, 2009: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs into law recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage.[130][131]
November 3, 2009: The same-sex marriage law passed in Maine is repealed through a popular referendum, with 53% in favor of repeal.[22][132]
December 1, 2009: The Council of the District of Columbia passes same-sex marriage bill 11-2 in its first vote. The bill must pass a second vote on December 15 before it can go to Mayor Adrian Fenty for signature. Barring interference by the United States Congress within thirty legislative days after Mayor Fenty signs the bill, DC will allow same-sex marriage.[133]
December 2, 2009: Same-sex marriage legislation is defeated 38–24 in the New York State Senate.[134]
December 15, 2009: District of Columbia City Council passes same-sex marriage bill 11-2 in its second vote. The bill was signed by Mayor Fenty on December 18, 2009.[135]
[edit] 2010–present
[edit] 2010
January 1, 2010: Same-sex marriage starts in New Hampshire and all out-of-state same-sex marriages are given the benefits of marriage under California law, although only those performed before November 5, 2008 are granted the designation "marriage".[136]
January 7, 2010: The New Jersey Senate voted on a same-sex marriage bill (S-1967) during the waning days of Governor Jon Corzine's administration. The bill failed by a 14-20 vote (21 votes are needed to pass) with three senators abstaining.[137][138]
February 24, 2010: Maryland's attorney general issues an opinion requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.[139]
March 3, 2010: Same-sex marriage starts in Washington, D.C.[140]
July 8, 2010: Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held in two related cases (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services) that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples in Massachusetts under the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.[18][19]
August 4, 2010: California's Proposition 8 is overturned by United States District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in Perry v. Schwarzenegger as an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
August 31, 2010: The Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas reverses a 2009 ruling in a same-sex divorce case, ruling that the Texas constitutional ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further rules that district courts in Texas do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case.[141]
October 12, 2010: The Department of Justice appealed against Tauro's July 8 decision (see above).[142]
[edit] 2011
February 23, 2011: The Obama Administration announced its determination that discrimination based on sexual orientation is subject to heightened scrutiny and when judged by that standard is unconstitutional. It will continue to enforce DOMA's provisions, will no longer defend challenges to the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA in court, and will cooperate with the courts if Congress decides to assert its right to defend DOMA's constitutionality in court.[143]
February 24, 2011: The Maryland Senate votes 25–21 in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.[144] One week later, the bill is returned to House of Delegates judiciary committee without a final vote.[145]
March 4, 2011: Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he would exercise Congress's right to defend DOMA's constitutionality in court by convening a bipartisan legal advisory group tasked with "initiating action by the House to defend this law."[146]
From the gallery of the New York State Senate, supporters of the Marriage Equality Act celebrate the bill's passage, June 24, 2011. June 24, 2011: The New York State Senate passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage by a vote of 33–29. The bill was signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo and became law.[26]
July 24, 2011: Granting of same-sex marriages begins in New York.[147]
August 1, 2011: Washington state's Native American Suquamish tribe approves granting same-sex marriages.[148]
[edit] 2012
January 26, 2012: Proponents of same-sex marriage in Maine submit 96,137 petition signatures to the Maine Secretary of State's Office for an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine.[149]
February 2, 2012: The Washington State Senate voted 28-21 in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, sending the issue to the Washington House of Representatives.[150]
February 7, 2012: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms district court Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in Perry, overturning California Proposition 8.
February 8, 2012: The Washington House of Representatives voted 55–43 on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage sending the issue to Governor Christine Gregoire.[151]
February 13, 2012: Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington State signs a same-sex marriage bill into law. [152] Also, the New Jersey Senate passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in a 24-16 vote, sending the bill to the state assembly. [153]
February 16, 2012: The New Jersey Assembly passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in a 42-33 vote, sending the bill to Governor Chris Christie. [154]
February 17, 2012: Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey vetoes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.[155] Also ,the Maryland House of Delegates passes a bill 72–67 legalizing same-sex marriage.[156]
February 22, 2012: Judge Jeffrey White rules the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management. Judge White found that Karen Golinski, an attorney and employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, saying that her rights had been violated under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution when she was denied spousal benefits.[157]
February 23, 2012: The Maryland Senate approves a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.[158] Also, the Secretary of State of Maine, Charlie Summers, announces that his office has verified 85,216 petition signatures for an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage; 57,277 signatures were needed. Consequently, a citizen-initiated bill to legalize same-sex marriages will be sent the Maine legislature. If the legislature approves the bill and the governor signs it, it will become law; if the legislature votes it down or the governor vetoes it, the issue will be put on the November ballot.[149]
March 1, 2012: Governor Martin O'Malley from Maryland signs a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.[159][160] Opponents begin to collect signatures to subject it to a referendum on the November 2012 ballot.
March 13–15, 2012: The Maine legislature votes down the citizen-initiated bill to legalize same-sex marriage, sending the final decision to the voters on the November ballot as a referendum. It will be the first time in US history that same-sex marriage has been put to a popular vote due to a petition from supporters; all previous propositions, initiatives, and referendums on the issue have been due to petitions from the opposition.[161][162][149]
March 21, 2012: The New Hampshire House of Representatives rejects repeal of the state's 2009 same-sex marriage bill in a bipartisan vote of 211-116.[163]
May 8, 2012: Voters in North Carolina approve North Carolina Amendment 1, defining marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibiting the recognition of any type of same-sex union in that state.[164]
May 9, 2012: President Barack Obama becomes the first sitting U.S. president to declare his support for legalizing same-sex marriage.[165]
May 14, 2012: Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island signs an executive order directing state agencies to treat same-sex marriages performed out-of-state equally under the law.[166][167]
June 7, 2012: The State of Maryland validates at least 70,039 petition signatures from same-sex marriage opponents, forcing a same-sex marriage referendum on the November 2012 ballot.[168]
June 12, 2012: The State of Washington validates that same-sex marriage opponents have submitted more than the necessary 120,577 signatures to force the state's recently passed same-sex marriage law onto the ballot in November as a referendum.[169]
July 7, 2012: Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts marries his partner, Jim Ready, becoming the first member of Congress to enter into a same-sex marriage.[170]
I see a lot involvement with state constitutuion first.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:OT/ But rights are by the individual. Each individual is being given the same rights.
Same nonsensical argument that racists make about anti-miscegenation laws.
Just as that argument failed, so does yours.
I do not support anti-miscegenation laws, but neither do I see a similarity here. Here...
Law was...
Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman
Dorks made new law...
"No coloreds"
This fails to give each person access to the right as stated in the first line...
Unconstitutional!
Your argument....
Law is not being applied equally.
1 Gay man has right to marry 1 woman. Does not like that right.
Law is still applied equally. It is just not what he wants.
So you need to expand that law. Not declare it unconstitutional based on discrimination, as there is no discrimination.
edit - about the court ruling... Activist judge assumed a new definition of the right without first having that right legally changed. The judge used bad law, in other words. Happens all the time.
Nothing within that dreadfully long quote you spammed this thread with is relevant to what I stated, Jihadin.
Which was that the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law, is unconstitutional. Hell, if you want to argue from states rights positions, you should be against DoMA in the first place, as it itself violates state rights.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I do not support anti-miscegenation laws, but neither do I see a similarity here.
I'm well aware of your willful ignorance on the topic.
The fact remains, however, that everyone had the same rights under anti-miscegenation laws. You had the right to marry those of your race. Equal rights for all!
Technically speaking, banning all religions and adopting an official religion is equal rights for everyone, too, by the nonsense argument you're making. Your "equal rights" argument is an argument with no foundation in logic or rational thinking and, in the end, is nothing more than grasping at straws.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I do not support anti-miscegenation laws, but neither do I see a similarity here.
I'm well aware of your willful ignorance on the topic.
The fact remains, however, that everyone had the same rights under anti-miscegenation laws. You had the right to marry those of your race. Equal rights for all!
You are emotional about this issue. And you have every right to be. But emotion makes poor legal standing.
I am not trying to poop on your parade here. I am merely stating my view on the communication problem you are having with those who disagree with you ("you" in the broad sense).
No need to be snarky about my "willful ignorance". A majority here in CA (a liberal state) agreed with me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:The original laws also stated that slaves were 3/5 of a person, we changed that.
Marriage is a contract between two people, why should the state restrict what two people can sign on the dotted line?
Your definition of marriage is "two people".
the current legal definition is "1 man 1 woman".
Therein is the problem. You are using your own definition to declare the current definition unconstitutional.
You need to instead write laws to change the definition. Not go thru a judge based on your own definition.
In your slavery example, there is a constitutional amendment. That was passed as legislation. AKA - The proper channels.
That is all I am saying. i am not discrediting your cause (though I may disagree). I am just stating the proper way to change laws.
And, because I know you will refuse to read the link, I will quote it DIRECTLY in to this thread for you:
The first reason proffered by Congress when enacting DOMA was to encourage responsible procreation and child-rearing. [...] More than thirty years of scholarship resulting in over fifty peer-reviewed empirical reports have overwhelmingly demonstrated that children raised by same-sex parents are as likely to be emotionally healthy, and educationally and socially successful as those raised by opposite-sex parents. [...] Furthermore, to the extent Congress was interested merely in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing by opposite-sex married couples, a desire to encourage opposite-sex couples to procreate and raise their own children well would not provide a legitimate reason for denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The denial of recognition and withholding of marital benefits to same-sex couples does nothing to support opposite-sex parenting, but rather merely serves to endanger children of same-sex parents by denying them “‘the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,’ when afforded equal recognition under federal law.” [...] Accordingly, the Court finds that the first proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to encourage responsible procreation and child-rearing – does not provide a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective. [...] The second reason proffered by Congress when passing DOMA, was its asserted interest in defending and nurturing traditional, opposite-sex marriage. Tradition alone, however, cannot form an adequate justification for a law. [...] In addition, the ostensible governmental objective of fostering opposite-sex marriages remains unaffected by the passage of DOMA. DOMA does nothing to encourage same-sex married individuals to marry members of the opposite sex because they are already married to a member of the same sex. Nor does the denial of benefits to same-sex couples do anything to encourage opposite-sex couples to get married. [...] Accordingly, the Court does not find that the second proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to defend and nurture the institution of traditional, opposite-sex marriage – provides a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective. [...] The third reason proffered by Congress when passing DOMA was its asserted interest in defending traditional notions of morality. Basing legislation on moral disapproval of same-sex couples does not pass any level of scrutiny. “The animus toward, and moral rejection of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships are apparent in the Congressional record.” See Dragovich, 764 F. Supp. 2d at 1190. “[M]oral condemnation of homosexuality [does not] provide the requisite justification for the DOMA’s section three. The ‘bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group’ is not a legitimate [governmental] interest.” [...] “Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be ‘drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.’” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 633). “[T]he fact that the governing majority ... has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577-78. [...] Accordingly, the Court does not find that the third proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to defend traditional notions of morality – provides a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective. [...] The final reason proffered by Congress for passing DOMA was the preservation of scarce government resources. However, there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that the provision of federal benefits to same-sex married couples would adversely affect the government fisc. In addition, the preservation of government resources cannot, as a matter of law, justify barring some arbitrarily chosen group from a government program. [...] Accordingly, the Court does not find that the fourth proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to preserve scarce government resources – provides a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective. [...] Accordingly, the Court does not find that the fourth proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to preserve scarce government resources – provides a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective. [...] The Court has already addressed the four interests proffered by Congress during the passage of DOMA and found them not to be substantially related to an important governmental objective. Similarly, under the rational basis review, the Court finds that none of Congress’ proffered justifications constitute a rational relation in furtherance of some legitimate governmental end. [...] Specifically, the Court finds that Congress’ justification of promoting traditional notions of morality does not satisfy rational basis scrutiny. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582 (holding that “[m]oral disapproval of [homosexuals], like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.”) Also, if the denial of benefits is designed to defend traditional notions of morality by discouraging same-sex marriage, “it does so only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law, and thus exhibits the ‘bare desire to harm’ same-sex couples.” In re Levenson, 587 F.3d at 932 (emphasis in original). This is forbidden by the Constitution. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 634- 35. “Discouraging gay marriage serves only to force gay couples to live in a ‘state of sin’ rather than in a lawfully-recognized ‘state of connubial bliss’ that encourages a long-enduring permanent relationship that, in turn, serves as the basis of a state-recognized family.” In re Levenson, 587 F.3d at 932. The promotion of morality is not a cognizable governmental interest furthered by the denial of federal benefits and protections. [...] The Court does not find the justification of encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing survives rational basis scrutiny. Even if the Court were to accept as true, which it does not, that opposite-sex parenting is somehow superior to same-sex parenting, DOMA is not rationally related to this alleged governmental interest. [...] DOMA has no effect on who may become a parent under federal or state law. Moreover, whether a same-sex couple is entitled to marriage benefits has no rational relation to that couple’s or an opposite-sex couple’s ability to procreate. Significantly, to reiterate, the ability to procreate has never been a precondition to marriage in any jurisdiction. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 605 (Scalia, J. dissenting). Here, there is simply no connection between the ability (or capacity) to become a parent and the designation of federal entitlements based on a definition of marriage that excludes legally married couples who are capable of becoming parents.
Denying federal benefits to same-sex married couples has no rational effect on the procreation and child-rearing practices of opposite-sex married (or unmarried) couples. [...] Accordingly, the Court finds that Congress’ stated justification of encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing bears no rational relationship to the classification which burdens same-sex married couples. [...] Again, the argument that the definition of marriage should remain the same for the definition’s sake is a circular argument, not a rational justification. Simply stating what has always been does not address the reasons for it. The mere fact that prior law, history, tradition, the dictionary and the Bible have defined a term does not give that definition a rational basis, it merely states what has been. Tradition, standing alone, does not provide a rational basis for the law. [...] BLAG argues, but does not explain how denying marriage benefits only to same-sex couples will somehow make marriage between opposite-sex couples better. The proffered justification may derive from strongly-held religious or fundamentally traditional beliefs, but still does not provide a legally recognizable rational basis for sustaining a law that actively discriminates against legally married couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages. [...] Accordingly, the Court finds that Congress’ stated justification of nurturing the institution of traditional, opposite-sex marriage bears no rational relationship to the classification which burdens same-sex married couples. [...] BLAG contends that Congress could have had a rational basis for the passage of DOMA by preserving the status quo in the federal definition of marriage while waiting for the states to “tinker with the substantive centuries-old definition of marriage.” (BLAG Opp. Br. on Motion for Summary Judgment at 22.) To the extent this argument is premised upon preserving a traditional definition of marriage for its own sake, the Court has already rejected this argument. As the court found in Gill, “[s]taying the course is not an end in and of itself, but rather a means to an end.” Gill, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 390-94. The long history of discrimination against gay men and lesbians does not provide a rational basis for continuing it. [...] Moreover, DOMA does not preserve the status quo. The passage of DOMA marks a stark departure from tradition and a blatant disregard of the well-accepted concept of federalism in the area of domestic relations. See Gill, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 392 (finding that DOMA “mark[ed] the first time the federal government has ever attempted to legislatively mandate a uniform federal definition of marriage – or any other core concept of domestic relations, for that matter”); see also Dragovich, 764 F. Supp. 2d at 1189 (“[S]ection three of DOMA was a preemptive strike to bar federal legal recognition of same-sex marriages should certain states decide to allow them, rather than a law that furthered the status quo, which gave the states authority to define marriage for themselves.”). [...] The Court finds that the passage of DOMA, rather than maintaining the status quo in the arena of domestic relations, stands in stark contrast to it. Accordingly, the Court finds that Congressional caution in defining a legislative term and maintaining the status quo does not constitute a rational basis. [...] BLAG also contends that Congress should remain cautious, especially in an area of so much social divisiveness, by holding the purported federal definition of marriage steady while waiting to see how the states tinker with new definitions. The Court finds the contention similar to arguments that were advanced in support of antimiscegenation laws. Proponents similarly argued that the long-standing tradition of the separation of the races provided justification for prohibiting interracial marriage. The lower court in Loving found that God had created the races and placed them on separate continents in order that there “would be no cause for such [interracial] marriages.” 388 U.S. at 3. It was, at the time, a strongly-held belief among proponents of antimiscegenation laws that mixing the races was against God’s will, flaunted a long history of tradition and, at its core, endangered the institution of marriage. See id. However, in its holding in Loving, the Supreme Court found that although interracial marriage was a socially divisive issue and proponents of antimiscegenation held traditional and religious beliefs about the erosion of the traditional concept of marriage, Virginia’s racial classification violated the equal protection guarantee. Id. at 11-12. [...] More recently, in Romer, the Supreme Court addressed a proposed amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would prohibit all legislative, executive, or judicial action designed to protect discrimination against homosexuals. One of the arguments in support of the state amendment was that it was an attempt to withdraw “a deeply divisive social and political issue from elected representatives and place its resolution squarely in the hands of the people.” (See Brief for Petitioner filed April 21, 1995 in Romer v. Evans, No. 94-1039 (Supreme Court), 1995 WL 17008429, at *10.) Proponents contended that it was important to ensure that “the deeply divisive issue of homosexuality does not serve to seriously fragment Colorado’s body politic.” (See id., at *47.) Proponents argued that it required some leeway in this socially divisive atmosphere to handle the “sensitive and core political choices” in matters regarding discrimination against homosexuals calmly over time. (Id.) The Supreme Court, however, flatly rejected this argument as providing a rational basis and found that the proposed amendment to the Colorado state constitution was unconstitutional. Romer, 517 U.S. at 620. Here, too, this Court finds that Congress cannot, like an ostrich, merely bury its head in the sand and wait for danger to pass, especially at the risk of permitting continued constitutional injury upon legally married couples. The fact that the issue is socially divisive does nothing to relieve the judiciary of its obligation to examine the constitutionality of the discriminating classifications in the law.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Congressional caution in the area of social divisiveness does not constitute a rational basis. [...] BLAG also contends that Congress could have rationally sought to base eligibility for federal benefits on a traditional definition of marriage in order “to avoid the arbitrariness and inconsistency in such eligibility ... and not depend[] on the vagaries of state law.” (BLAG Motion to Dismiss at 24.) However, as explained above, in all of the years preceding the passage of DOMA, Congress relied on the various states’ definitions of marriage without incident. All couples married under state law were entitled to federal benefits, even if the particulars of the states’ definitions were variable. The passage of DOMA actually undermined administrative consistency by requiring that the federal government, for the first time, discern which state definitions of marriage are entitled to federal recognition and which are not. Accordingly, the Court finds that consistency does not constitute a rational basis. [...] The Court finds that neither Congress’ claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further. [...] The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples. Even though animus is clearly present in its legislative history, the Court, having examined that history, the arguments made in its support, and the effects of the law, is persuaded that something short of animus may have motivated DOMA’s passage: Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374-75 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring). [...] In this matter, the Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse.
Emphasis mine.
The court found no constitutional nor rational basis in the discrimination you support. Neither can I, and, apparently, neither can you.
As for the comparison to miscegenation, you can live in denial all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that your argument (which as I stated before, although you ignored my post because apparently you didn't want to face up to your own illogical argument) is the exact same argument used by the proponents anti-miscegenation laws, and the discrimination you support is opposed for many of the same reasons.
If we keep on talking about this it will probably get the thread closed as being off-topic. Let's stick to how Republicans don't like Romney and start a new thread about gay marriage if we want to. Although every other gay marriage thread didn't fare well either.
Hey Mel....yours was longer then MINE!!!! You forget Mel I cannot advocate nor publicaly disagree with federal law for two more months. Something to do with UCMJ.
Yes, but mine was actually relevant and wasn't just an atrociously formatted list
And you know, if you are legally obligated not to disagree with the laws, you should really not post in topics where the laws are being debated in support of the laws and then complain about it afterwards...
The court found no constitutional nor rational basis in the discrimination you support. Neither can I, and, apparently, neither can you.
As for the comparison to miscegenation, you can live in denial all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that your argument (which as I stated before, although you ignored my post because apparently you didn't want to face up to your own illogical argument) is the exact same argument used by the proponents anti-miscegenation laws, and the discrimination you support is opposed for many of the same reasons.
The court made very good arguments for changing the law. But it assumed as valid it's own definition. That is the only point I am making here (so let off !)
As for me making "the exact same argument" either you don't understand "exact same" or you believe that I oppose gay marriage on the grounds that whites and blacks should not intermarry.
Allow me to clarify then. I am stating that the intent off all of this is to redefine a right. I think we agree on that. We are having this mix up due to you assuming your definition of marriage is correct. While you may or may not be correct on moral grounds, that has little to do with law. The law is applied universally. The definition of marriage over the centuries s unchanged.
The bigots that tried to add a layer to the meaning of marriage at the state level were in the wrong to do so, as that is not how marriage is defined!
If you want to define (or redefine) a right, that is done in legislature.
Simple enough, right?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:As for me making "the exact same argument" either you don't understand "exact same" or you believe that I oppose gay marriage on the grounds that whites and blacks should not intermarry.
An absurdist and logically fallacious statement. To be specific, a false dichotomy fallacy.
There's a third option, too. The reason I'm saying you're making the exact same argument as anti-miscegenation law proponents is because you're making the exact same arguments as anti-miscegenation law proponents.
Your argument: It's okay to discriminate against homosexuals because everyone has the same rights, they can all marry those who are of the opposite sex.
Anti-miscegenist's argument: It's okay to discriminate against interracial marriages because everyone has the same rights, they can all marry those who are of the same race as they are.
Your argument about universality is the same argument that was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws. It uses the same logic, the same premises, the same justification, and will in the end have the same results-- ignored by the courts because it is a bad argument. The only difference is the subject matter.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:As for me making "the exact same argument" either you don't understand "exact same" or you believe that I oppose gay marriage on the grounds that whites and blacks should not intermarry.
An absurdist and logically fallacious statement.
There's a third option, too. The reason I'm saying you're making the exact same argument as anti-miscegenation law proponents is because you're making the exact same arguments as anti-miscegenation law proponents.
Your argument: It's okay to discriminate against homosexuals because everyone has the same rights, they can all marry those who are of the opposite sex.
Anti-miscegenist's argument: It's okay to discriminate against interracial marriages because everyone has the same rights, they can all marry those who are of the same race as they are.
Your argument about universality is the same argument that was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws. It uses the same logic, the same premises, the same justification, and will in the end have the same results-- ignored by the courts because it is a bad argument.
I am not saying it is okay.
I am saying you are going about fixing it the wrong way.
I have made that clear enough for a child. How much more clearer do you need it?!
The definition of marriage has been unchanged for centuries in western civilization. When the racist punks tried to change that definition, they were in the wrong. Because what they did was not the actual legal (federal) definition of marriage.
What you are doing is different from that. What I am doing is agreeing with those that overturned the racist laws. (aka - Upholding the legal and traditional definition of marriage).
If you want to expand rights, do it! Go for it! Have at it!
But to say a law is not being fair when all have the same right (albeit a right they don't want) you miss the whole point of defining rights!
DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.[18][19] This ruling is currently under a stay, but would affect residents residing within the federal district that covers Massachusetts if the stay is lifted.[citation needed] If this decision is appealed and affirmed, the ruling could apply elsewhere in the U.S. For now, no act or agency of the federal government—except within the state of Massachusetts if the stay is lifted—may recognize same-sex marriage.
WHy does Romney religion is a concern?
I wonder how many here would avoid the draft to go to Iraq or Afghanistan if it was in play today?
For his overseas accounts from what I understand he pays taxes on.
You think there be a "smoking gun" of him actually outsourcing jobs to other countries. All I hear is talk but no proof.
You again act as if the definition of marriage has been unchanged for thousands of years. And that the racists who attempted to change the definition of marriage to only between members of the same race are any different from the homophobes attempting to change the definition of marriage to only those of opposite sexes.
A highly ignorant statement to be sure. Oh, and yes, the anti-gay marriage activists are changing the definition, specifically trying to work changes in to the laws and constitutions of the various states and the federal government in order to unconstitutionally restrict the rights of homosexuals.
Jihadin wrote:Lets not forget the Super Committee that couldn't get it together and seriously gutting the US Military.
Last I looked the US still spends more than every other nation on Earth combined on its military. I can't see why a reduction in military spending would mean "gutting" it.
Melissia wrote:You again act as if the definition of marriage has been unchanged for thousands of years. And that the racists who attempted to change the definition of marriage to only between members of the same race are any different from the homophobes attempting to change the definition of marriage to only those of opposite sexes.
A highly ignorant statement to be sure. Oh, and yes, the anti-gay marriage activists are changing the definition, specifically trying to work changes in to the laws and constitutions of the various states and the federal government in order to unconstitutionally restrict the rights of homosexuals.
So marriage hasn't been between just men and women for thousands of years?
So then why is it that the only countries in which it is legal have only made it legal in the last century?
The vast majority of the world over the course of history, and even now, recognize marriage as only being between a man and a woman.
So yes, up until the last century, the definition of marriage over thousands of years remained fairly unchanged.
And again, no one said homosexuals can't get married, but getting married means a person of each sex, not two of the same.
If you want to change the definition of marriage, that is one thing. But no ones rights are being ignored here. They just don't like the rights that they have, and would rather have it changed, which is fine but there are specific ways to do that.
But seriously, just drop it. It has feth all to do with Republican views on Romney, which is what the thread is about. If you want a gay marriage rights thread, go make one and gtfo of this thread.
DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.[18][19] This ruling is currently under a stay, but would affect residents residing within the federal district that covers Massachusetts if the stay is lifted.[citation needed] If this decision is appealed and affirmed, the ruling could apply elsewhere in the U.S. For now, no act or agency of the federal government—except within the state of Massachusetts if the stay is lifted—may recognize same-sex marriage.
WHy does Romney religion is a concern?
I wonder how many here would avoid the draft to go to Iraq or Afghanistan if it was in play today?
For his overseas accounts from what I understand he pays taxes on.
You think there be a "smoking gun" of him actually outsourcing jobs to other countries. All I hear is talk but no proof.
Thats funny because Romney was pro war and pro draft for viet nam, then ran off to france to avoid it.
Plus his whole economic plan is really just, he wants to save 5 million a year on taxes.
Aerethan wrote:So marriage hasn't been between just men and women for thousands of years?
The woman is of equal status and often works alongside the man, divorce is easy to access with not even a single word from the church, most families in modern times don't pay dowries either. Marriage is not commonly done for the sake of continuing the family line anymore, and even having children is often an afterthought these days (We're gonna get married! Hm, children? That'd be nice, someday, wouldn't it?). And many, if not most, couples these days have sex before marriage, and there's very little shame in many parts of the modern world for not being a virgin at the time of marriage, for men or women, nor is divorce necessarily looked upon badly. Even the numbers involved would be shocking-- a husband can have only one wife! Shocking! Hell, the amount of respect that marriage is given is, itself, a drastic change. Commonly, marriage was nothing more than a political tool and a means to continue the bloodline or to obtain a dowry that would ensure the parents' retirement, or worse than that, it was considered a means in which to fulfill one's sexual desires without sinning. These days it's held sacrosanct, done for its own sake.
So... never mind that there were definitely unions between homosexual males in ancient cultures (with women in many of those cultures pretty much utterly ignored except for reproduction, leaving very little knowledge about the prevailing beliefs on lesbianism even though we know it existed back then based off of art and objects found).
Even ignoring that, marriage in its modern form would be almost unrecognizable to people thousands of years ago. Society has drastically changed, and marriage, being a part of society, has changed drastically as well.
Aerethan wrote:So marriage hasn't been between just men and women for thousands of years?
The woman is of equal status and often works alongside the man, divorce is easy to access with not even a single word from the church, most families in modern times don't pay dowries either. Marriage is not commonly done for the sake of continuing the family line anymore, and even having children is often an afterthought these days (We're gonna get married! Hm, children? That'd be nice, someday, wouldn't it?). And many, if not most, couples these days have sex before marriage, and there's very little shame in many parts of the modern world for not being a virgin at the time of marriage, for men or women, nor is divorce necessarily looked upon badly. Even the numbers involved would be shocking-- a husband can have only one wife! Shocking! Hell, the amount of respect that marriage is given is, itself, a drastic change. Commonly, marriage was nothing more than a political tool and a means to continue the bloodline or to obtain a dowry that would ensure the parents' retirement, or worse than that, it was considered a means in which to fulfill one's sexual desires without sinning. These days it's held sacrosanct, done for its own sake.
So... never mind that there were definitely unions between homosexual males in ancient cultures (with women in many of those cultures pretty much utterly ignored except for reproduction, leaving very little knowledge about the prevailing beliefs on lesbianism even though we know it existed back then based off of art and objects found).
Even ignoring that, marriage in its modern form would be almost unrecognizable to people thousands of years ago. Society has drastically changed, and marriage, being a part of society, has changed drastically as well.
Melissia wrote:And many, if not most, couples these days have sex before marriage...
Anecdotally, I would say most. It is considered unusual to be in your early 20's, and a virgin. Hell, I was shocked to find out the freshman girl I dated during my senior year of college was a virgin.
Melissia wrote:
...and there's very little shame in many parts of the modern world for not being a virgin at the time of marriage...
I would even go so far as to say that virgins are considered less desirable due to a lack of sexual experience (and therefore skill), especially if they're male.
Gallup survey released last week found that veterans prefer Romney over Obama by 58 percent to 34 percent. That voting bloc, consisting mostly of older men, makes up 13 percent of the adult population. Obama won the presidency four years ago while losing veterans by 10 points to Sen. John McCain, a former Navy pilot.
I cannot judge the guy during the Vietnam Era. It was not my war. Iraq and Afghanistan is my war. I'm sure a lot of people giving the chance if the policy was the same for deferment will avoid as long as possible to go to war. I can't fault them
Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.
d-usa wrote:President Obama's executive branch has frozen my pay to help keep federal spending down.
His executive branch has also deported more people than any other president. Surely that counts as something.
w00t!
Yeah kinda sucks having to choose between the guy who froze your pay and the guy who'll fire you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Lets not forget the Super Committee that couldn't get it together and seriously gutting the US Military.
Last I looked the US still spends more than every other nation on Earth combined on its military. I can't see why a reduction in military spending would mean "gutting" it.
Don't exaggerate!
We only spend more than the next 19 other countries combined!
Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.
GG
At best homosexuality is an anomaly. If it were an inherent trait the species would die off rather quickly.
Also, if homosexuality IS genetic, then it can be reversed, thus proving that homosexuality can, in theory, be cured.
So which is it? Genetic anomaly or choice? And if it's genetic, then for the good of the species we must cure it.
Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.
GG
Ethnicity isn't a basic human characteristic. A person born to two Arab parents in the United States isn't Arab in the same sense as a person born to two Arab parents in Saudi Arabia unless they were somehow socialized in a manner which was consistent with Saudi Arabian Arabs. Ethnicity is a set of behaviors and beliefs attached to a vaguely defined group.
Race also isn't a basic human characteristic, its a social construct that deals with behavior as much as parentage, birth place, and skin color. Hence the "He doesn't act black." thing.
Both racial and ethnic behaviors are developed over time, unconsciously, just as homosexuality is if you accept that its a "choice."
I don't think that George Takei needs to be cured of anything besides him growing old and eventually dying.
The argument is there though. If we can alter genetics, then we can "fix" anomalies in them. So if homosexuality is a genetic, lets say "difference", from the majority of humanity, and is not needed in order to propagate the species, then evolution says it should be phased out.
Don't rage at me, I'm just the messenger.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
generalgrog wrote:This again?
Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.
GG
Ethnicity isn't a basic human characteristic. A person born to two Arab parents in the United States isn't Arab in the same sense as a person born to two Arab parents in Saudi Arabia unless they were somehow socialized in a manner which was consistent with Saudi Arabian Arabs. Ethnicity is a set of behaviors and beliefs attached to a vaguely defined group.
Race also isn't a basic human characteristic, its a social construct that deals with behavior as much as parentage, birth place, and skin color. Hence the "He doesn't act black." thing.
Both racial and ethnic behaviors are developed over time, unconsciously, just as homosexuality is if you accept that its a "choice."
Race is indeed directly related to environmental factors such as lineage and habitat. If you took the whitest, gingeriest Irish families and planted them in Africa, something like 30 generations down the line you see a major difference in appearance and skin tone. None of which has anything to do with how they behave, which is determined by their ethnicity. If they continued the usual Irish lifestyle and traditions, you'd have a bunch of black people with awesome accents who drink warm beer all day.
Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.
GG
Ethnicity isn't a basic human characteristic. A person born to two Arab parents in the United States isn't Arab in the same sense as a person born to two Arab parents in Saudi Arabia unless they were somehow socialized in a manner which was consistent with Saudi Arabian Arabs. Ethnicity is a set of behaviors and beliefs attached to a vaguely defined group.
Race also isn't a basic human characteristic, its a social construct that deals with behavior as much as parentage, birth place, and skin color. Hence the "He doesn't act black." thing.
Both racial and ethnic behaviors are developed over time, unconsciously, just as homosexuality is if you accept that its a "choice."
So what you just said is that African people aren't africans.
generalgrog wrote:
So what you just said is that African people aren't africans.
WOW...
No it isn't. First "African" isn't a race, or ethnicity, its a continental origin. Even if it were, being born in Africa doesn't make you African, what makes you African is living in Africa for an extended period of time early in life, and thereby acquiring the habits and mannerisms of an African. The point being that its a learned series of behavior and beliefs, not an intrinsic characteristic of your birth.
It is, assuming you truly are African, an intrinsic characteristic of who you are, who you are being a learned series of behaviors and beliefs. You don't choose to be African, it just happens to end up that way.
An African person by definition would have to be born in Africa. Note, there are many white skinned Africans in countries like South Africa.
If they were born in Detroit, they are just American. Now, they might be dark skinned, which was determined by lineage and at one point environment.
If you took a tribe of African people and planted them in Norway, 30 something generations down the line they would look like damn near everyone else in Norway. Also, they would no longer be African. They would be Norwegian.
Aerethan wrote:An African person by definition would have to be born in Africa. Note, there are many white skinned Africans in countries like South Africa.
If they were born in Detroit, they are just American. Now, they might be dark skinned, which was determined by lineage and at one point environment.
Not true in either case. A person can be born in Detroit, move to Africa at age 2, and live there the rest of their lives and be African. The fact that they were born in America would have virtually no impact on who they are as people. Conversely, a person can be born in Africa, and move to America at age 2, and live there the rest of their lives and be American because being in born in Africa has zero relevance to their personhood.
Aerethan wrote:
If you took a tribe of African people and planted them in Norway, 30 something generations down the line they would look like damn near everyone else in Norway. Also, they would no longer be African. They would be Norwegian.
Sure, if we're talking about a whole tribe that is going to be able reinforce its culture via insularity. But individuals can't do that, which shows us that your race and ethnicity are not determined by birth.
Your skin color is determined by birth, but what that makes you racially depends on where you grow up. A black person born in America, but who spends his formative years in Africa, is neither African nor black in the American sense.
I was meaning in more of a legal sense, in the way that anyone born in America is American, regardless of where they lived at any time after birth.
I will agree that if you grew up in Africa and spent the formative years of your life there that you would indeed be African.
I also think most African people would be pissed off to be associated with many "African-Americans" in our country. I like to think that Zimbabwe has more class than downtown Detroit.
General Grog apparently thinks he could choose to be African, and that he chose to be straight. He could decide tomorrow to be attracted to men instead, apparently.
Racism and homophobia are two bigotries which operate in nearly identical fashion. Romney's campaign is dependent on voters who are motivated by both.
Aerethan wrote:I was meaning in more of a legal sense, in the way that anyone born in America is American, regardless of where they lived at any time after birth.
Aerethan wrote:
I also think most African people would be pissed off to be associated with many "African-Americans" in our country. I like to think that Zimbabwe has more class than downtown Detroit.
I don't know about that, but I do agree that the term "African-American" is applied too broadly here. There are some African-Americans, though they would likely add their country of origin to "American" instead of the continent, but for the most part "black" is a more appropriate moniker if we're referring to racial background.
The way I always describe it is as this: My great-grandparents on my dad's side were fresh off the boat from Poland. My grandfather was born 5 years after that, he was Polish-American because his family was Polish and they lived in Polish Chicago.
My dad is American, but with a strong Polish flavor. That is, he seems American at first, but know him for a bit and you can see his heritage in the way he acts and the things he likes.
I'm American, you look at me and I have Central European features, but other than that I'm indistinguishable from anyone else in the Upper Midwest; aside from very minor dialect and accent differences. I don't even like Polish food.
The same applies to pretty much everyone, though with varying rates of integration.
generalgrog wrote:Hey it took Manny less than 5 posts to play the "homophobe" card.
What card, Groggy? People who are bigoted against homosexuals are conventionally referred to as homophobes. If someone asks "What's 2+2?", do I need to spend a long time teaching them arithmetic, or can I just say "4"?
I feel you on not liking the food of your heritage. British food is terribad.
For me, my grandparents moved here a few years after WWII. The first two kids were born in England, the 3rd in Canada and the last 2 in the US, one of which is my dad.
My dad is far from British-American. No accent, no traditions, none of that. He's a Californian. As such, I'm a Californian. No accent, and my only traditions are enjoying moderate weather and owning more than one car.
I don't think that English heritage carries much once outside of the UK. Scottish and Irish perhaps.
Aerethan wrote:It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.
Homophobia itself, as it is used by modern society, doesn't indicate fear. Phobia in the modern sense indicates a strong and irrational dislike or fear of something.
Be that as it may... actually, I would go so far as to say that most of those who "disapprove", as you would put it with your weasel wording, are in fact motivated by a sort of fear. Certainly it is irrational.
How the word is used means feth all to it's actual definition.
Is the N-word any less offensive if said by a black person?
So I don't really care what context people are misusing the word with, the word itself insists a fear of homosexuality.
I don't know of anyone personally who disapproves of homosexuality on the basis that they are afraid of surprise buttsecks by some bear in a park bathroom.
There isn't anything to fear in it. It isn't contagious, and unless the homosexual in question is Bobby Trendy, then in most cases it isn't even noticeable.
Mannahnin wrote:
Most disapproval of homosexuals stems from ignorance and fear.
Some of the fear is legitimate, not that homosexuals are actively working to subvert America, but their acceptance does make life difficult for a select group of people that find that particular form of sexuality distasteful.
Of course, in that case, its a matter of "Too bad."
Aerethan wrote:The term "homophobic" itself is an insult.
Only if you take it as such. You can try to redefine the word, but it's common parlance.
Aerethan wrote:It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hatred leads to suffering. Yoda called it.
Most disapproval of homosexuals stems from ignorance and fear.
And yet, ignorance =/= fear.
I'm ignorant of advanced physics, but I don't fear it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So we agree, it should be renamed Homoignorance.
I can accept that.
Bigot works just as well.
If someone think your "choice" on sexuality gives them the right to pass laws restricting those who "chose" differently, then that someone is being a textbook bigot.
Aerethan wrote:How the word is used means feth all to it's actual definition.
Are you going to tell the Democrats and Republicans that they can't use those names anymore, because they're not accurate descriptions? The strict literal meaning of a word is not always exactly how it's used in real life. A Porch Monkey doesn't refer to a generic lazy person, absent any racist meaning, just because Randall from Clerks wasn't aware of the racist meaning. Terms have widespread usages and meanings that we have to (at least so some extent) accept and get used to.
Aerethan wrote:So I don't really care what context people are misusing the word with, the word itself insists a fear of homosexuality.
If you're just noticing this now, maybe you're a bit out of the loop and should do some reading and catch up on the subject a bit
Aerethan wrote:There isn't anything to fear in it. It isn't contagious, and unless the homosexual in question is Bobby Trendy, then in most cases it isn't even noticeable.
That's right. But it's not a rational fear. It's a visceral, emotional reaction.
I would like to point out that 'phobia' doesn't mean fear in the literal sense either. It mean intense dilike, hatred, disaproval, or fear. For example Anglophobia is an intense dislike of the english not fear of the english
generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.
GG
It's more rational than homophobia, considering that 1500 non-human species not only engage in homosexuality, but have equal or larger percentages of their populations prefer it in comparison to humans.
Or are we so "brainwashed" that we're imagining the natural world engaging in it, too? The only "brainwashing" going on is that people are taught to think it's unnatural.
Most people with homophobia also can't see their parents getting it on in the house with them in it. Is same sex marriage a major issue with the upcoming election? Believe the reason DOMA has a stay on it is due to the states not resolving the issue themselves. Since the federal gov't recognize marraiges within the states. So state constitution have to amend their constitution.
generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.
No less rational than heterosexuality.
No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."
generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.
No less rational than heterosexuality.
No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."
Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?
Aerethan wrote:The term "homophobic" itself is an insult.
It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.
By your standards I should be called mustardphobic.
saying someone is homophobic allows an "out" to the accused.
It is saying "I assume you are acting the way you are because of a fear of the unknown not because of some more evil/deranged/anti-social cause that may be too deep-rooted to leave any hope for you.
Ignorance can be countered through education and exposure. Certain other motivations are more concerning...
generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.
No less rational than heterosexuality.
No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."
Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?
You forgot the part where you have to raise them to.
generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.
No less rational than heterosexuality.
No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."
The propagation and survival of the species isn't more rational than the exact opposite of that?
Of the two, only one ends with survival beyond a single generation.
Research indicates that having some gay people may be advantageous for the continuation of the species/tribal group, even if those individuals do not breed.
As a specific example, the Allies sure benefitted from having Alan Turing on our side. They helped make sure that our society won out over the rival "tribe".
generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.
No less rational than heterosexuality.
No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."
Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?
You forgot the part where you have to raise them to.
I thought man do the reproducing and women do the raising?
Maybe Romney has the right religious idea and we should do it like the lions do. One guy, many women, they do all the work while the guy just sleeps.
Similarly, sexuality itself is a complex issue, and is not simply "gay or straight". Tendencies for homosexuality is very likely carried within your genes-- yes, yours. Also probably mine, and the majority of the population to some extent or other. Within a small portion of society, these genes mix in the right way to produce someone who is naturally inclined towards homosexuality. Most people are, to some extent, bisexual rather than straight or gay.
This has many theorized benefits involving specialization. A tribal male can feel comfortable leaving a gay male to protect his mates as he goes off hunting, for example-- the gay male will not rape his wife and impregnate her. This actually coincides with a common employment for gay males during most of the Roman Empire's reign, for example, with homosexuality only being strongly condemned until late in the empire; for example, Emperor Justinian using an alternate interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah from punishment for inhospitality to punishment for homosexuality.
Another benefit is that the homosexual men, as they do not reproduce, actually help the society ensure that it doesn't need more food, while still providing benefits to the group-- be it hunting, farming, gathering, crafting, etc. They have no focus on rearing children and so they can instead focus on their craft.
Aerethan wrote:
The propagation and survival of the species isn't more rational than the exact opposite of that?
Of the two, only one ends with survival beyond a single generation.
First, why should we propagate the species? Why should I want successive generation of humans to exist?
Second, why do we want to make everyone want to do a thing that creates more of us? There is such a thing as overpopulation. If, in certain circumstances, we can prevent that why wouldn't we?
Third, its not binary. Sexuality doesn't work that way. I've seen plenty of straight men and women go home with plenty of homosexual men and women.
First, I suppose you are right, if you are an existentialist or a nihilist.
Second, not everyone who IS heterosexual wants to propagate. And in many cases homosexuals do want to propagate but can't and thus turn to the opposite sex to make a baby for them since they can't/won't.
Third, I didn't say that sexuality was binary. Procreation for humans however is.
Aerethan wrote:
Second, not everyone who IS heterosexual wants to propagate. And in many cases homosexuals do want to propagate but can't and thus turn to the opposite sex to make a baby for them since they can't/won't.
Third, I didn't say that sexuality was binary. Procreation for humans however is.
Not to mention that humans moved past the 'I must have sex to make more me's" stage quite a awhile ago. For the past couple a thousand of years we've been having sex because we like to have sex and not just for the purpose of procreation.
Also as far as marriage is concerned, historically its always been a contract between two men. "I will give you my daughter/son in exchange for X." The conccept of marriage being a contract between one man and one woman is vary recent, Usually it was a contract between family's or one man and a father or one man and multiple woman.
generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.
No less rational than heterosexuality.
No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."
Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?
You forgot the part where you have to raise them to.
I thought man do the reproducing and women do the raising?
Maybe Romney has the right religious idea and we should do it like the lions do. One guy, many women, they do all the work while the guy just sleeps.
Relapse wrote:
What religion is it you're talking about?
That one that said to get a bunch of wives, and keep making babies until you die, then they repealed the first part so that they could "mainstream" and be socially accepted.
Nothing like changing your religion for the sake of fitting in.
Relapse wrote:
What religion is it you're talking about?
That one that said to get a bunch of wives, and keep making babies until you die, then they repealed the first part so that they could "mainstream" and be socially accepted.
Nothing like changing your religion for the sake of fitting in.
While I understand your point, mormans dropped the polygamy so they could be officially be accepted as a religion and so that utah could be accepted as a state, they didn't do it to become 'mainstream'
You missed the part where they dropped polygamy, which is in their bible, in order to do ANYTHING.
If it is the word of God, who the hell are they to edit it down because it benefits them in that moment?
Pretty sure the New Testament, which Mormons also believe to be the Word of God, specifically says to NOT add or subtract from it, ever.
ib4 people quoting Old Law from Leviticus and saying how we don't stone the gays even though the bible says to. Research that whole part where the old law is OLD LAW and is over written by the two commandments of: Love God above all others, love others as God loves you.
youbedead wrote:Also as far as marriage is concerned, historically its always been a contract between two men. "I will give you my daughter/son in exchange for X." The conccept of marriage being a contract between one man and one woman is vary recent, Usually it was a contract between family's or one man and a father or one man and multiple woman.
This is a good point, but it's still too limited. There have been a lot of different kinds of marriage in many different cultures over the millenia. Some cultures did have gay "marriages", though marriage in ancient cultures was often a lot different than the institution we have in modern Western world. Male + female was the most common configuration, as breeding has obviously usually been one of the primary purposes. But not always. Single male multiple females has cropped up lots of places and time periods.
Heck, before Christianity got there, the Irish had nine different types/degrees of marriage, each spelling out a different relationship between the parties involved in their clans. First degree was between a man and a woman of equal rank and property, and the woman was not subjugated. Lower degrees included when one partner was higher status, when a woman was stolen from her clan in war, when a woman was taken as a second wife, and the ninth degree- marriage between two a male and female mentally incompetent, who were recognized as married by the community so any kids they had would be legitimate and part of the clan structure.
Aerethan wrote:You missed the part where they dropped polygamy, which is in their bible, in order to do ANYTHING.
If it is the word of God, who the hell are they to edit it down because it benefits them in that moment?
I'd have to think we should ask mainstream Christian groups the same thing. I mean, when David and Moses and a bunch of other great men of the bible had polygamous marriages, how much sense does it make to suddenly claim marriage is between one man and one woman?
Obviously we changed that when sensibilities changed.
Both had mistresses, both were against God's wishes. Neither case ended well for those men.
Solomon did the whole polygamy thing as well, and it didn't end well for him either.
What does this mean? That not everyone in the Bible was perfect.
That is not the same as the Book of Mormon saying that followers should take on multiple wives, and then Mormons retconning it out because they wanted to have a statehood.
Aerethan wrote:You missed the part where they dropped polygamy, which is in their bible, in order to do ANYTHING.
If it is the word of God, who the hell are they to edit it down because it benefits them in that moment?
Pretty sure the New Testament, which Mormons also believe to be the Word of God, specifically says to NOT add or subtract from it, ever.
ib4 people quoting Old Law from Leviticus and saying how we don't stone the gays even though the bible says to. Research that whole part where the old law is OLD LAW and is over written by the two commandments of: Love God above all others, love others as God loves you.
You should study the history of the Mormons a bit more closely to avoid making such ignorant statements. They had spent decades being persecuted, murdered, robbed and slandered because of their beliefs. They came out to the middle of the desert to land no one else wanted after having entire cities they had built stolen from them. In Illinois, an extermination order had been issued by the governer and a lot of Mormons were murdered.
It is against this backdrop in around the year 1890, they were looking at having everything again taken away that after prayer and consideration the desicion came to drop Polygamy:
You show an ignorance of the bible also. The book of Revelation says nothing is to be taken from or added to it. All of the books of the Bible were seperate and only compiled at a later date. By your logic, the compilers of the Bible were adding to the bible when they put the Revelations between the same covers as the other books of the Bible.
Christianity was persecuted for centuries. The Roman Empire being a favored persecutor. They didn't change their beliefs because of it.
But no, I'm sure those decades were rough. How many Mormons were skinned alive and thrown in vats of salt?
Aerethan wrote:Christianity was persecuted for centuries. The Roman Empire being a favored persecutor. They didn't change their beliefs because of it.
But no, I'm sure those decades were rough. How many Mormons were skinned alive and thrown in vats of salt?
I'll concede the point on Revelation.
I maintain that it is a ballsy move to edit God.
There were Mormons that were quartered with sythes by Mobs, had their children murdered dragged to death, burned alive, etc. and had everything they owned stolen time and again.
God is not edited by Mormons, he gives revelation to his Prophets.
Aerethan wrote:Christianity was persecuted for centuries. The Roman Empire being a favored persecutor. They didn't change their beliefs because of it.
But no, I'm sure those decades were rough. How many Mormons were skinned alive and thrown in vats of salt?
I'll concede the point on Revelation.
I maintain that it is a ballsy move to edit God.
There were Mormons that were quartered with sythes by Mobs, had their children murdered dragged to death, burned alive, etc. and had everything they owned stolen time and again.
God is not edited by Mormons, he gives revelation to his Prophets.
So you are saying that God revises the Book of Mormon according to social trends?
That makes more sense than men editing the book when under pressure from society, if you don't really think about it.
Aerethan wrote:Christianity was persecuted for centuries. The Roman Empire being a favored persecutor. They didn't change their beliefs because of it.
But no, I'm sure those decades were rough. How many Mormons were skinned alive and thrown in vats of salt?
I'll concede the point on Revelation.
I maintain that it is a ballsy move to edit God.
There were Mormons that were quartered with sythes by Mobs, had their children murdered dragged to death, burned alive, etc. and had everything they owned stolen time and again.
God is not edited by Mormons, he gives revelation to his Prophets.
So you are saying that God revises the Book of Mormon according to social trends?
That makes more sense than men editing the book when under pressure from society, if you don't really think about it.
Do you have deep dislike for Mormons or something, I mean sure I'm not particularly fond of the official church either but you being a bit dick,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:
Aerethan wrote:You missed the part where they dropped polygamy, which is in their bible, in order to do ANYTHING.
If it is the word of God, who the hell are they to edit it down because it benefits them in that moment?
Pretty sure the New Testament, which Mormons also believe to be the Word of God, specifically says to NOT add or subtract from it, ever.
ib4 people quoting Old Law from Leviticus and saying how we don't stone the gays even though the bible says to. Research that whole part where the old law is OLD LAW and is over written by the two commandments of: Love God above all others, love others as God loves you.
You should study the history of the Mormons a bit more closely to avoid making such ignorant statements. They had spent decades being persecuted, murdered, robbed and slandered because of their beliefs. They came out to the middle of the desert to land no one else wanted after having entire cities they had built stolen from them. In Illinois, an extermination order had been issued by the governer and a lot of Mormons were murdered.
It is against this backdrop in around the year 1890, they were looking at having everything again taken away that after prayer and consideration the desicion came to drop Polygamy:
You show an ignorance of the bible also. The book of Revelation says nothing is to be taken from or added to it. All of the books of the Bible were seperate and only compiled at a later date. By your logic, the compilers of the Bible were adding to the bible when they put the Revelations between the same covers as the other books of the Bible.
Ever read Mormon Settlement in Arizona by James McClintock. Its an interesting look at the impact of mormons on the southwest and the development of permanent infrastructure by the mormons
As you'll notice, the 9th article states that we believe God has yet things to reveal.
Think about it in this context, when Jesus appeared, he offended people with the things he said in his ministry because they believed it went against the laws of Moses, an early Prophet.
There were things that Jesus needed to reveal and explain to the people though, because it was time for it to happen.
After his Resurrection and ascention, the Apostles had their hands full because of the errors creeping in to the doctrines of some of the churches.
After the last of the Apostles, except for John, were martyred,
things went south in a big way, because of the various interpretations people were putting to the scriptures without a living prophet to relay any further Revelations from God.
It wasn't until Joseph Smith over 1000 years later was there a living prophet, because up until that point, the world would not accept the things God had yet to reveal.
Nowadays, we don't need to know how to build an Ark, or how to sacrifice animals, as the Old Testiment people needed to know, but the modern day prophets, through revelation, let us know what we need to do in order to attain Salvation and live in the world today.
Mannahnin wrote:Research indicates that having some gay people may be advantageous for the continuation of the species/tribal group, even if those individuals do not breed.
As a specific example, the Allies sure benefitted from having Alan Turing on our side. They helped make sure that our society won out over the rival "tribe".
Research also indicates that rape, incest, and pedophilia occurs in nature...so why are you stopping with the research that supports your agenda(Gay agenda)? Why are you stopping with gay dolphins and lions, what about the naturaly ocurring rape, incest, pedophilia and murder that happens in nature?
The fact is that our society drew a line in the sand, regarding marriage, many many years ago and the modern gay activists are trying to change this with clever "It's only natural" argumentation.
generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.
No less rational than heterosexuality.
No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."
Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?
You forgot the part where you have to raise them to.
I thought man do the reproducing and women do the raising?
Maybe Romney has the right religious idea and we should do it like the lions do. One guy, many women, they do all the work while the guy just sleeps.
Most women I know would respond with the thought that we could always do it like the black widow spiders do...
Mannahnin wrote:Research indicates that having some gay people may be advantageous for the continuation of the species/tribal group, even if those individuals do not breed.
As a specific example, the Allies sure benefitted from having Alan Turing on our side. They helped make sure that our society won out over the rival "tribe".
Research also indicates that rape, incest, and pedophilia occurs in nature...so why are you stopping with the research that supports your agenda(Gay agenda)?
Your argument is morally offensive as well as intellectually bankrupt.
I was responding to the foolish argument that homosexuality is necessarily contrary to the continuation of the species. It's only so on the shallowest level of examination. In reality gay people keep being born to straight parents, and researchers have theories why in fact having some homosexuals may be helpful to the family/tribe's survival and collective continuation and passing on of its genetic material.
If you sincerely (as opposed to just being a troll) equate homosexuality with rape, incest, and pedophilia, then your reasoning on this subject is fundamentally flawed, and probably causing you to do evil in the world- working against the happiness and equality of innocent people who are doing no harm to you or anyone else.
generalgrog wrote:[The fact is that our society drew a line in the sand, regarding marriage, many many years ago...
Which one? It's been pointed out over and over and over again that marriage has changed MANY times, and modern Western marriage only vague resembles marriage in ancient societies. It's not even that similar to marriage two hundred years ago. We have changed the meaning of marriage quite a lot, and always in response to changing social mores.
You can get divorced now.
You can marry someone of a different race now.
You can marry someone of a different religion now.
You can't marry multiple women anymore.
The bride's father doesn't pay a dowry anymore.
The father of the bride and husband are no longer treated as a functional "owners" of the wife, as they used to be in many legal respects.
We don't force a woman to marry her rapist anymore.
I'm neither an existentialist, a nihilist, nor an existential nihilist. But as a scientist who as yet remains convinced of evolution as the prevailing theory on how the species came to be what it is,I still fail to see why continuing the species needs to be an important personal goal. It is a natural goal for the species, but that is not the same as being the natural goal for every individual. The species also gets benefits from those who do not propagate the species, and would stand to have plenty to lose if everyone focused only on babymaking.
Computers, cars, electricity, cheese, philosophy, historical records, even to some extent the very concepts of language and writing itself, exists only because we humans are not entirely focused on propagating the species. The ability of humans to specialize allows us to move beyond such biological goals. In truth, one could even make the argument that without the homosexual part of our genetics, our society would not have advanced anywhere near as far or as fast as it has.
If you sincerely (as opposed to just being a troll) equate homosexuality with rape, incest, and pedophilia, then you
Really aren't worth paying attention to, in the same way that the KKK aren't worth paying attention to-- that is, until you do inevitably something bad again.
Mannahnin wrote:Research indicates that having some gay people may be advantageous for the continuation of the species/tribal group, even if those individuals do not breed.
As a specific example, the Allies sure benefitted from having Alan Turing on our side. They helped make sure that our society won out over the rival "tribe".
Research also indicates that rape, incest, and pedophilia occurs in nature...so why are you stopping with the research that supports your agenda(Gay agenda)? Why are you stopping with gay dolphins and lions, what about the naturaly ocurring rape, incest, pedophilia and murder that happens in nature?
The fact is that our society drew a line in the sand, regarding marriage, many many years ago and the modern gay activists are trying to change this with clever "It's only natural" argumentation.
GG
well those are interesting points. What does the bible say about them? oh that's right, the bible and your god, condones and exalts every one of those actions.
Its a good thing we've evolved to be morally superior to your god, I mean really, look what a horrible job he did with the other animals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:
/clip
Think about it in this context, when Jesus appeared, /CLIP
It wasn't until Joseph Smith over 1000 years later was there a living prophet, because up until that point, the world would not accept the things God had yet to reveal.
you forgot Mohammad, 570 years after Jesus. then Smith, 1000 years. Makes you wonder if some prophet came around in the last 500 years and no one took notice of him.
Relapse wrote:
/clip
Think about it in this context, when Jesus appeared, /CLIP
It wasn't until Joseph Smith over 1000 years later was there a living prophet, because up until that point, the world would not accept the things God had yet to reveal.
you forgot Mohammad, 570 years after Jesus. then Smith, 1000 years. Makes you wonder if some prophet came around in the last 500 years and no one took notice of him.
Whether or not you look at Mohammad as a prophet is a matter of personal belief, we don't.
I just put out some of the things we believe in after reading some comments that indicated there is a misunderstanding about Mormons having more than one wife.
generalgrog wrote:
The fact is that our society drew a line in the sand, regarding marriage, many many years ago and the modern gay activists are trying to change this with clever "It's only natural" argumentation.
And so what if they are? Societies change and leave the people, and values, they no longer care for in the dust. It has happened many, many times.
generalgrog wrote:The fact is that our society drew a line in the sand, regarding marriage, many many years ago and the modern gay activists are trying to change this with clever "It's only natural" argumentation.
And so what if they are? Societies change and leave the people, and values, they no longer care for in the dust. It has happened many, many times.
Also, I don't really see people using the "it's only natural" line to defend gay marriage. The "it's natural" argument is only ever used, in my experience, as a counter to the rather ignorant "homosexuality is unnatural" argument.
Gay marriage proponents tend to use civil/equal rights arguments instead.
Mannahnin wrote: .....Your argument is morally offensive as well as intellectually bankrupt....
the only thing that is morally offensive is that you think Gay people are born gay.
And it's intellectually bankrupt that you continue to try and frame my argument as though I am equating rape,incest, and pedophilia with homesexuality. You know good and well I am not doing that.
I am simply pointing out your hypocrisy and people who try and argue like you.
generalgrog wrote:the only thing that is morally offensive is that you think Gay people are born gay.
Does the truth offend you? So sorry that reality doesn't match with your hate-mongering.
generalgrog wrote:And it's intellectually bankrupt that you continue to try and frame my argument as though I am equating rape,incest, and pedophilia with homesexuality. You know good and well I am not doing that.
Actually, I know damned well that you are. That's exactly the kind of thing that you like to post.
You have posted it numerous times in the past, and you constantly and insistently make that comparison.
Jihadin wrote:Think there was no man butter involved
Man... butter?
Please tell me that this is like... a sun-tan lotion for men or something.
Mannahnin wrote: .....Your argument is morally offensive as well as intellectually bankrupt....
the only thing that is morally offensive is that you think Gay people are born gay.
And it's intellectually bankrupt that you continue to try and frame my argument as though I am equating rape,incest, and pedophilia with homesexuality. You know good and well I am not doing that.
I am simply pointing out your hypocrisy and people who try and argue like you.
GG
WHat is you evidence that homosexuality is a choice
Jihadin wrote:Hey um...we getting this thread back into whatever the original topic was?
The Boehner Romney breakup? I hope there was a prenup or else Boehner a wealthy mama!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
generalgrog wrote:the only thing that is morally offensive is that you think Gay people are born gay.
Does the truth offend you? So sorry that reality doesn't match with your hate-mongering.
generalgrog wrote:And it's intellectually bankrupt that you continue to try and frame my argument as though I am equating rape,incest, and pedophilia with homesexuality. You know good and well I am not doing that.
Actually, I know damned well that you are. That's exactly the kind of thing that you like to post.
You have posted it numerous times in the past, and you constantly and insistently make that comparison.
Jihadin wrote:Think there was no man butter involved
Man... butter?
Please tell me that this is like... a sun-tan lotion for men or something.
I think my mind might break otherwise
Lets play nice ladies!
Can't we just agree to live and let live, and stay the hell off my lawn!
generalgrog wrote:
the only thing that is morally offensive is that you think Gay people are born gay.
How is that morally offensive?
generalgrog wrote:
Research also indicates that rape, incest, and pedophilia occurs in nature...so why are you stopping with the research that supports your agenda(Gay agenda)? Why are you stopping with gay dolphins and lions, what about the naturaly ocurring rape, incest, pedophilia and murder that happens in nature?
Rape and incest I get, but pedophilia and murder are based on social conventions.
Is there some chimp legislature that outlined the age of consent for chimps, and what isn't justifiable killing?
dogma wrote:Rape and incest I get, but pedophilia and murder are based on social conventions.
Is there some chimp legislature that outlined the age of consent for chimps, and what isn't justifiable killing?
You could argue that any specy naturally geared toward moral reciprocity could feel offended by ''murder'', and possibly pedophilia, if there's a clear abuse of the infant.
Under the same outlook, homosexuality would be perfectly acceptable, since it's a reciprocal relationship.
dogma wrote:Rape and incest I get, but pedophilia and murder are based on social conventions.
Is there some chimp legislature that outlined the age of consent for chimps, and what isn't justifiable killing?
You could argue that any specy naturally geared toward moral reciprocity could feel offended by ''murder'', and possibly pedophilia, if there's a clear abuse of the infant.
Under the same outlook, homosexuality would be perfectly acceptable, since it's a reciprocal relationship.
As an aside, I found this little treat in an Economist article (pay only)...
Mike Teets, the only Republican on the Hardy County Commission [in West Virginia], denies that race has anything to do with local antipathy towards Mr Obama. But he is concerned that the president may be a Muslim, secretly in cahoots with Osama bin Laden, whose killing he could have faked. He also wonders whether the president might be gay.
So he's a gay muslim terrorist [racial epithet], apparently.
Its acceptable only on Thursday for men to um...do men...only on Thursday. All sins are forgiven on Saturday at prayers. So if your ever in the middle east and a jingle truck a rocking don't knock on the door to see if everything all right. You know a boy dancer/prostitute is quite acceptable to.
