Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 23, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

TRADITION....Writing about the news that gay and lesbian family groups plan to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll in order to generate some attention for LGBT issues, Bruce Reed says:

Conservatives consider this a threat to one of their most cherished traditions: politicizing religious holidays.

Read the rest.

Kevin Drum 10:02 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (154)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Kinda the same way the Kansas religious fanatics politicize funerals of Iraq war veterans with their anti-gay spew? Just asking...

Posted by: The Dad on January 23, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, this shit will help their acceptance.
I think NAMBLA should show up with a couple of well-hidden eggs little boys can reach for on national television.

Posted by: McA on January 23, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

"I think NAMBLA should show up with a couple of well-hidden eggs little boys can reach for on national television."

Yeah, because all homosexuals are card-carrying NAMBLA members. Just like all heterosexuals are into kiddy porn. Riiiiiiiiiight.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 23, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, because all homosexuals are card-carrying NAMBLA members.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 23, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

No. But the "we can't help it argument" used to undermine community standards, extends to a lot of other things.

Posted by: McA on January 23, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

Plus once you allow gay marriage by court order, which is the current tactic.

They are legally entitled to the lowest 'marriage' age on the books which would be '14' (with parental consent) and '16' without.
And its not child molestation if the older man does it to his legal 'wife'.

Posted by: McA on January 23, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

McAsshole, so sorry to hear about your involuntary celibacy. No wonder you are so uptight.

Posted by: ACM on January 23, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

"They are legally entitled to the lowest 'marriage' age on the books which would be '14' (with parental consent) and '16' without.
And its not child molestation if the older man does it to his legal 'wife'."

So, are you campaigning to end teenage heterosexual marriage as well? Seems the same argument would apply.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 23, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

What does Slate mean by "the children always find what they're looking for"?

Posted by: tbrosz on January 23, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

So, are you campaigning to end teenage heterosexual marriage as well? Seems the same argument would apply.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 23, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

Homosexual relationships are often more exploitative in nature. As to be expected from a relationship where someone has to take it up the rear.

However, moving teenage marriage up to 18 might not hurt.

Posted by: McA on January 23, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives have to scapegoat someone...

...all their leaders are under indictment...

What do they have to be proud of? A job well done?

Yawn...

Posted by: The Hague on January 23, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, we heterosexuals are rightly proud of our multi-century history of totally non-exploitative relationships.

Posted by: Adam Kotsko on January 23, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Homosexual relationships are often more exploitative in nature. As to be expected from a relationship where someone has to take it up the rear.
Posted by: McA

comments like this are nicely revealing since heteros who are comfortable in their sexuality don't stress about this nearly as much as mca seems to be.

really, mca, you're parents won't hate you once they find out you're gay.

Posted by: Nads on January 23, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

How dare those blacks try to politicize good old-fashioned American water fountains!

Posted by: BD on January 23, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

True Americans wipe their ass with "traditions"...

...we don't need some stuffy no-nothing telling free Americans how to pursue their happiness...

(oh, look, here come some really subtle anti-gay jokes...)

Posted by: The Hague on January 23, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

My caption: No, no last words, I wouldn't want to politicize this.

Posted by: BD on January 23, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

Your society, not mine.

Posted by: McA on January 23, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Then go jerk off with the Freepers. Leave us alone. We've got the future to build here.

You people are the past, and the past is done.

Posted by: The Hague on January 23, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

"Homosexual relationships are often more exploitative in nature."

Maybe on your planet. Here on earth, heterosexual men in particular are known to do damn near anything to get into the panties of their latest crush.

"Your society, not mine."

Yep. Damn right. So why are you so concerned who goes looking for easter eggs on the White House lawn?

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 23, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

"Your society, not mine."

So why do you spend so much effort supporting it?

Posted by: floopmeister on January 23, 2006 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

Will Republicans find another Democrat-beating wedge issue if homophobia EVER begins to fail the Republican ticket?

Posted by: ferd on January 23, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Will Republicans find another Democrat-beating wedge issue if homophobia EVER begins to fail the Republican ticket?

Of course, as the Democrats are always willing to supply them.

Posted by: Derek Copold on January 23, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

"politicizing religious holidays"
How many times do you have to be fooled by the same bags of overused tricks? Bruce Reed is taking a page out of Rove's handbook by accusing the left of the right's sins. Slander of the foulest kind: the criminal accusing the victim of the very crime he committed against the victim.
Absolutely shameless.

Posted by: joe on January 23, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

I'm confused. Which Lesbian has to take what up whose rear? I mean, I'm willing to stick around to find out. For research. Research purposes. That I have.

Posted by: DK2 on January 23, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Ferd, we figured that out a few threads back.

Left-handed Albanians- scourge of all that is decent, holy, and good. You heard it here first.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 23, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

This is especially disgusting coming so soon after the "Merry Christmas/ Happy Holidays" furor.

Posted by: joe on January 24, 2006 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK
Homosexual relationships are often more exploitative in nature. As to be expected from a relationship where someone has to take it up the rear. Posted by: McA
So how come a male prostitute was given daily access to the White House and the press room? Who was exploiting that poor innocent lad, in your Republican society? Posted by: Mike on January 24, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Mike, don't be too hard on McA. He obviously lionised the free-market reformer Anwar Ibrahim, who was going to drag Malaysia out of the statist darkness of the Mahathir regime and into a bright new libertarian neo-liberal dawn!

Until he was accused (ludicrously) of homosexual acts, you see, and slung in jail after a show trial.

Ever since our poor little peranakan friend has been mightily confused... Surely his hero was not engaging in sodomy? Surely it was all a plot by Mahathir?

Poor little McA has been feeling hot and flushed ever since.

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Plus a background check on the sex lives of all reporters straight or otherwise, following by public outing.

Ah libertarians. Gotta love 'em.

To my knowledge vaginal sex - doesn't involve torn sphincter muscles and a ridiculously high rate of STD transfer (reduced for condom use of course).

Someone's been Googling again!

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Ah libertarians. Gotta love 'em.

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Most definitely not a libertarian by the Us definition. I'm all for it, if the US were to screen press accreditation the way, the left wanted Jeff Gannon to be screened.

No special treatment.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

Surely his hero was not engaging in sodomy? Surely it was all a plot by Mahathir?

Actually it was. He's been freed on appeal.

Oh duh, you idiot. I know it was nonsense, and I know it was a show trial. I was mocking you.

Here we have a case where a hypocritical government was suppressing political dissent through homophobia. And I was making this point with reference to the political situation in the US.

Yes indeed: plots to suppress political development in third world countries.... Which country are you talking about here?

So you make my argument for me, criticise me after missing my sarcasm entirely - and then accuse me of hypocrisy as a bonus.

You are truly an idiot, my friend.

You know, you sound more and more like Mahathir the more you rant - the same accusations of racism, the same illogical recourse to the evils of 'colonialism' when it suits your haphazard 'argument'.

I've taught a few students like you over the years. The same stew of personal inadequacies presented as cultural 'analysis'.

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

The gay stuff does seem to get our little trolls especially excited.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 24, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives consider this a threat to one of their most cherished traditions: politicizing religious holidays.

All conservatives must belong to the Church of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Wabbit.

Posted by: Bud on January 24, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, the whole colonization/anti-americanism/moral relativism thing is this strange morass of ideology that Mahatir and the American Anti-War Movement subscribes too.
Its the basis on which the Left believes terrorism was just 'provoked'.

Wow, you really are this obtuse.

Fascinating.

So colonisation and anti-Americanism are equated with 'moral relativity'? And yet, you'll argue for the right of China to self-determinisation against people like Pale Rider by using this same 'morass of ideology' you just criticised?

OK...

It's funny, because I'm actually on your side with regard to China, since I believe China has the damn right to do what every it wants as a sovereign nation. If you agree with this attitude, you're basing your opinion on textbook post-colonialist theory.

And yet, because I'm not a moral relativist like yourself, I apply the same logic to countries like, say, Iran. You don't because you're illogical.

You might be an expert in your field, but you're worse than clueless when it comes to some of the most basic trends of political and social thought.

You're also completely clueless as to my opinion on these matters.

Oh well. As long as you're having fun arguing with the strawman version of me...

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

But what about the ** incompetence ** McAristotle...

...last time I checked, the judge on the Milosevic trial hasn't been replaced two, three times and we don't have 135,000 troops (and billions spent on crack "private contractors" - thanks guys!) on the ground in Serbia.

Things are going SO WELL on ALL FRONTS.

Posted by: The Hague on January 24, 2006 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

Gannon wasn't demonized, he was mocked.

And he was mocked for his hypocrisy in willingly and knowingly aiding and abetting the administration in their efforts to demonize (correct use of the word now) the Left and paint them as anti-family-values.

As for your vague speculations on progressive ideology: I am anti-war in attitude, but I will be the first guy defending my country if it is invaded or actually threatened (not pretend threats like Iraq). I would hold this same position if I lived in Columbia, the Netherlands -- or that country that has all the marsupials, you know: the one where women glow and men plunder (no pun intended).

So that helps me understand the willingness of other countries to take up arms against their aggressors, justified or not.

The pieces you're missing in your analysis of the present day progressive movement are 1) the understanding of the importance of self-determination as both an unalienable right and a requirement for any cultural or political changes to achieve permanence, and 2) the understanding that the use of military force should not be casual, as it brings with it a host of unpleasant consequences, including: human suffering and death, the desensitization of people to violence and devaluing of human life, crime, disease, the dangerous arrogation of power in a few individuals, and many others.


Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

It's funny, because I'm actually on your side with regard to China, since I believe China has the damn right to do what every it wants as a sovereign nation.

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

I disagree on that. I think post-colonial sovereignity is pretty important but I think there are things that cross that line.

1) Harboring terrorism is one *
2) WMD proliferation**
3) Genocide

* Triggers the right of other countries for self-defense

** There is no moral basis for the nuclear states that have nukes to have nukes and expect others to give them up, but its just impractical otherwide

I'm just amazed that your respect for third world freedom, doesn't extend to my right to be a proud capitalist and a pro-democracy type.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Well folks...just tuned into Canadian news and they have now elected a homophobic government to match yours.....so it's a matching set......soon won't be safe for any of you to go either because of your own homophobia or because of the persecution.

Posted by: murmeister on January 24, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

I disagree on that. I think post-colonial sovereignity is pretty important but I think there are things that cross that line.
1) Harboring terrorism is one

must suck to be kissinger ...

Posted by: Nads on January 24, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

I'm just amazed that your respect for third world freedom, doesn't extend to my right to be a proud capitalist and a pro-democracy type.

Of course it does. You're free to follow any ideology you want. Just don't preach it too loud before the Gate of Heavenly Peace, OK?

So let's explore this further, shall we?

What's your opinion on the continent-wide shift to the left in South America? You do realise it's because voters there have rejected neo-liberal free market economics as an overarching economic ideology? They've also rejected the US worldview that lies behind it.

So where does your 'morass of ideology' stand with regard to this development? Where's the colonialism here? Where's the moral relativism?

Are you going to argue that 'the Left' is condemning them to poverty and lack of development? Those poor South American schmucks, believing the anti-free market propaganda of 'the Left'. Believing that the policies of the US have been anything but positive for their lives. Too stupid or ill-educated to vote for the only true path to development...

Sounds like a pretty Colonial argument to me. Whip out the pith helmet and teach the poor brownies what's good for them! McA knows what good for you!

Frankly, I think the personal experiences you had while studying in the West have led you to a pretty confused attitude towards the relationship between the developed and developing worlds.

Just like Mahathir, in fact.

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

mocked for his hypocrisy in willingly and knowingly aiding and abetting the administration in their efforts to demonize (correct use of the word now) the Left and paint them as anti-family-values.

.................

The pieces you're missing in your analysis of the present day progressive movement are 1) the understanding of the importance of self-determination as both an unalienable right and a requirement for any cultural or political changes to achieve permanence

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

Sure.

But how does respect for self-determination ignore the views of the elected government of Iraq.

And what if Gannon believes the left is anti-family values. I mean, a gay prostitute might actually be in a position to know that gay activist bullshit might not be true.

By the way, if you are the first to defend your country. Sign up, Afghanistan is still on. And no one pretends that isn't a retaliation for hosting (and refusing to extradite) Mr. Osama.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

1) Harboring terrorism is one *

* Triggers the right of other countries for self-defense

PM Howard will be very happy to here that. Expect the SAS some time soon in KL. Maybe they can arrest stall holders in food courts for having collection boxes for Malaysian fundamentalist organisations?

2) WMD proliferation**

** There is no moral basis for the nuclear states that have nukes to have nukes and expect others to give them up, but its just impractical otherwide

Yes, well I think the moral issue trumps 'impractical' issues, actually. Call me old fashioned, but self-determination extends to the right to have nuclear weapons.

Still, your moral relativism is defensible, I'll agree.

3) Genocide

Actually no argument here.

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

And no one pretends that isn't a retaliation for hosting (and refusing to extradite) Mr. Osama.

False.

Omar offered to hand him over. He just (rather cheekily) asked for proof of bin Laden's involvement first.

He couldn't stand bin Laden, of course - he was just useful.

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

Have fun all - time to go home.

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

By the way, if you are the first to defend your country. Sign up, Afghanistan is still on.

Afghanistan is threatening the U.S.? They have really made great strides as a country!

I think you may have missed some talking points from the administration on this one. Rumsfeld was in Afghanistan just last week and said everything is peachy there, so I believe him. You, on the other hand, could earn U.S. citizenship by signing up to fight in your pet project of Iraq.

I'll even send you the occasional care package of steamed buns.

Speaking of steamed buns, the problem with Gannon is that during the day he helped the adminstration lobby against the very things he was doing secretly at night. That and he pretended to be an impartial journalist when in fact he was an administration spokesperson.

You'll understand the difference when you go through your citizenship training.

Your rebuttal is something like arguing that crooked cops are the ones in the best position to know that the law just doesn't work.

Self-determination in Iraq means Iraqis doing the work to overcome their religious and ethnic differences and purchase self-government. It doesn't mean having their government and national resources taken away by the U.S. in a chaotic war and the survivors eventually being told they can hold elections within certain parameters if they're good.

You can walk into town and buy food from any vendor you like -- or I can beat the hell out of you, take most of your money, and then give you a choice between broccoli and peas.

You still have "choice" at some level, but do you possess equal self-determination in both cases?

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK


-UIThings are going SO WELL on ALL FRONTS.

Posted by: The Hague on January 24, 2006 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

And, Milo's still free 5 years after a war to punish him for genocide.

And 5 years later, there are still 20,000 troops there (mainly non-US).

And this is with a smaller country than Iraq. With no suicide bombers.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Afghanistan is threatening the U.S.? They have really made great strides as a country!

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

Hosting Osama Bin Laden. I'm not sure but you might have missed the whole 9/11 thing.

---------------

You can walk into town and buy food from any vendor you like -- or I can beat the hell out of you, take most of your money, and then give you a choice between broccoli and peas.

You still have "choice" at some level, but do you possess equal self-determination in both cases?

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

I think you are forgetting in Iraq. Saddam didn't really run against an opposition.

And he didn't really spend that oil-for-food money being stolen from the Iraqi people on his people.


Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

I think you are forgetting in Iraq. Saddam didn't really run against an opposition.

Neither did King George III, but we handed him his ass. That's how it's done.

Afghanistan is hosting bin Laden? That's news to me. The neocons are whispering that he's in Iran now so they can justify an attack there. Do you mean he was there four years ago? I do remember that, and could never figure out why we let him go at Tora Bora. Could it be he was more useful to neocon interests while still at large, or do you think it was just incompetent White House interference in military matters?

But to get to your point, I stated that if my country was invaded or threatened by another country -- not a guy on horseback near Kandahar -- I would naturally defend it.

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

I stated that if my country was invaded or threatened by another country -- not a guy on horseback near Kandahar -- I would naturally defend it.

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

So you don't believe he planned 9/11?

I mean, he did claim responsibility.
And Afghanistan did decline to extradite him.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0109220175sep22,0,2564779.story

----------------

PM Howard will be very happy to here that. Expect the SAS some time soon in KL. Maybe they can arrest stall holders in food courts for having collection boxes for Malaysian fundamentalist organisations?

Posted by: floopmeister on January 24, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

Sure. They can try. Then it would be war. But if the threat of that lose-lose scenario wasn't there, there would be much incentive to do something about terrorism would there?

And on nukes. What if Malaysia decided to build uranium centrifuges for itself instead of Libya? And decided not to turn them in when it finds out.

http://www.rmp.gov.my/rmp03/040220scomi_eng.htm

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

the problem with Gannon is that during the day he helped the adminstration lobby against the very things he was doing secretly at night.

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

If he's gay - accuse him of hypocrisy.
If he's straight - you'd call him a bigot.

Just a way of finding ways to attack anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

think you are forgetting in Iraq. Saddam didn't really run against an opposition.

Neither did King George III, but we handed him his ass. That's how it's done.

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

With the help of the French, a foreign power.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

McA: I don't know why I bother, but here:


"If he's gay - accuse him of hypocrisy.
If he's straight - you'd call him a bigot."

-Well, yes and no: It's not just a matter of him "being gay" it's that spends part of his time trying to help advance an agenda which, among other positions, condemns any kind of homosexuality while venerating monogamous heterosexual marriage as the exclusive, correct, sanctified socio-sexual relationship. Then he spends part of his time selling his companionship and sexual favors to other men. These activities, not just the sex but the paid sex work, are expressly publicly condemned by the people who's agenda he works towards as a reporter and political operative, and he keeps them secret, or he tried to. And, it's not just a matter of him being gay, he's also like a cartoon of how many of those people might think gay people are: secret lives, promiscuitiy, paid sex, pornogrophy, etc. so that seems prety hypocritical to me. Don't see how you could not see that, but anyway, it wouldn't be a problem for us, and we wouldn't care except we know that gay people's lives aren't just about promiscuity, paid sex, pornogrophy, etc. [which I'm all pretty ok with tho not blind to their dangers either, but that's not a position i'd ascribe to "we" as I'm using it here]so we attack him, because he is part of something attacking us, and we do so by calling him a hypocrite because it's so obvious that it would be foolish to ignore it. It would be insane to ignore it. If there was someone on our side who was a paid political operative, worked as a "journalist" for a fly by night website that was strongly pro-union but was also a strikebreaker for hire (these aren't perfect metaphors)under another name, well tell me that you wouldn't be pointing that out.

But, he wouldn't have to be a bigot to do the political stuff, if he was they guy he pretended to be when he did the political stuff. Just an asshole.

Just a way of finding ways to attack anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Posted by: URK on January 24, 2006 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

Ahh-"asshole" was supposed to be the last word there. the other line was mispasted from McA's quote.

Posted by: URK on January 24, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

if he was they guy he pretended to be when he did the political stuff. Just an asshole.

Posted by: URK on January 24, 2006 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

Why can't he be gay and pro-family?

Maybe he legitimately believes the whole gay thing is kinda unhealthy. I mean, he gets paid for sex. He might meet a lot of gay people that way and form an opinion.

Slutty gays are as much a part of the whole gay thing as monogamous gays.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK

Its like an alcoholic lobbying for higher alcohol taxes...he deserves our sympathy.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 3:32 AM | PERMALINK

McA > Slutty gays are as much a part of the whole gay thing as monogamous gays.

So why are you against promoting monogomy amongst gays?

And re the upthread squimishness about gays having anal sex: they're a single-digit percentage of the population. Yet as the last nation sex survey for the USA showed, more straights than gays have tried anal sex, and more of them have had it in any given year.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 24, 2006 at 4:06 AM | PERMALINK

So why are you against promoting monogomy amongst gays?

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 24, 2006 at 4:06 AM | PERMALINK

Ummn... sure, without cheaping marriage more than it already is. Now celibate gays - that's a goal worthy of discussion.

---------------------

showed, more straights than gays have tried anal sex, and more of them have had it in any given year.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 24, 2006 at 4:06 AM | PERMALINK

As a percentage of gay people? I have no problem with celibate gays - not my business. Leaves more women for the unmarried straights.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 4:15 AM | PERMALINK

Which of the McAssholes just sent me a spam email with the subject "Improve sperm quality"?

Exactly what don't you like about the taste of it?

Posted by: bad Jim on January 24, 2006 at 4:24 AM | PERMALINK

>As a percentage of gay people?

No. As absolute percentages. 25% of straights say they've tried it in studies, 10% in the previous year. Gays number well under 10%, therefore, more straights than gays practice anal sex.

>Ummn... sure, without cheaping marriage more than it already is.

I think the phenomenon of multiple (> 2) marriages cheapens the institution more than gays ever could. Marriage used to be an economic and childrearing contract. Now we expect different things from it, for it to strengthen emotional commitment and social inclusion.

Unless you are willing to exclude infertile and post-childbearing age couples, you cannot in all fairness exclude a gay committed gay couple. I only know one such couple myself, but their stablity and civic involvement puts most straights to shame. These people want the right to marry explicitly in order to be fully included, and to fully contribute, within their community. That hardly cheapens marriage.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 24, 2006 at 4:33 AM | PERMALINK

These people want the right to marry explicitly in order to be fully included, and to fully contribute, within their community. That hardly cheapens marriage.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 24, 2006 at 4:33 AM | PERMALINK

Does marrying give you more votes or something?

Nope. Bullshit. They can contribute in their community just fine without it.

"Marriage used to be an economic and childrearing contract." - Wrong. Marriage is a religious concept.

If they want to bind each other together with alimony and divorce, the movement would settle for civil unions.

The only difference is adoption plus the useful 16 year old are of consent in marriage. Its the freakshow and work again.

Look at legal gay marriages in the Netherlands.
Much higher divorce rate than straight marriages.
Gays are different.


Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 4:39 AM | PERMALINK

>Marriage is a religious concept.

False. Marriage is a human concept. It exists in every society, with or without religious significance attached.

Nice attempt at appropriation though.

>Look at legal gay marriages in the Netherlands.
Much higher divorce rate than straight marriages.

Look at legal straight marriages in the southern united states. Much higher divorce rates than for the northern (liberal) states. Republicans are different.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 24, 2006 at 4:48 AM | PERMALINK

Since the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox is Easter (note the name of the British pagan goddess) does it follow that the first Sunday after the first full moon after the atumnal equinox is Wester?

Posted by: bad Jim on January 24, 2006 at 4:57 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans are different.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 24, 2006 at 4:48 AM | PERMALINK

True. How's being a Conservative? Wait till you've had a tax cut. You'll never go back.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 5:06 AM | PERMALINK

False. Marriage is a human concept. It exists in every society, with or without religious significance attached.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 24, 2006 at 4:48 AM | PERMALINK

Nope. Its usually not monogamous.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 5:08 AM | PERMALINK

Monagamous, Monogynous, Monandrous, or Monotonous?

Or all of the above?

Posted by: bad Jim on January 24, 2006 at 5:42 AM | PERMALINK

For any of my fellow Christians who may have sung something similar on a rececnt Sunday --

"and they'll know we are Christians, by our hate, by our hate. They will know we are Christians by our hate."

This is what we have come to?

Posted by: Jim Ramsey on January 24, 2006 at 6:19 AM | PERMALINK

I think this chapter is relevant. I can say something is wrong, without hating someone.

And trying to pass off gay marriage as marriage is wrong.

Nothing personal.

From the book of Jude- "these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animalsthese are the very things that destroy them. "

-----------------

Jude 1: 4-10

For certain men whose condemnation was written aboutlong ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own homethese he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animalsthese are the very things that destroy them.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 7:01 AM | PERMALINK

"Jude 1: 4-10"

Yeah I read that book. it was riveting and that surprise ending, wow! who saw that comming.
I have alot of books and many of them spout off about all manner of profound life policies, moral issues and vicissitudes.
None of them give me the right to intervene into the lives of gay people and declare them unworthy of the same benefits that I am able to provide for MY family. Stop straining over what they do in their bedrooms (between consenting adults) and see that they are people just like anybody else and have the same needs as anybody else so should be afforded the same benefits as anybody else.
On THIS issue (and few others) I side with the liberals.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 24, 2006 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

If it was good enough for the ancient Greeks and the wonderful society they created, I'll take it over the society Bush has created.

Posted by: murmeister on January 24, 2006 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

Ok, McA, I'll see your quote and raise you one.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Now, given that 1) marriage in America is a legal contract, requiring the approval of the state and 2) marriage does not require any approval by any religious authority in America- what does your religious opinion have to do with the subject? Religious groups get to perform the ceremony if requested, but they are in no way, shape, or form a required part of it. So long as no religion is forced to perform a wedding ceremony against their beliefs, it's none of their business and they can butt out.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

"Conservatives consider this a threat to one of their most cherished traditions: politicizing religious holidays."

Yeah right....in about fifteen minutes O'Reilly will declare a "War on Easter."

Posted by: diane on January 24, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Funny thing about those Bible quotes, they usually work just as easily against you as for you.

Hats off to Lurker for affirming the principle that liberty and self-determination trump religious codes in a democracy.

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Last night on MSNMC Tucker Carldon, the promoter of this activity was on - He was a Reverend ssociated with "Soul Force" a LGBTQ "religious" group.

So who's politicizing religion...?
HUH?????

(oh- and Tucker put him through the ringer- it was great)

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Oh- thats Tucker Carlson..(you know the show)

This page needs to get its facts straigt, Its the gay "religious" group trying to infiltrate a non-political event for maximizing exposure to their cause...
They tried to keep it secret until the last minute- but word got out.

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Government was warned of Katrina hazards

At the same time the White House is promoting religion, we have more proof that they lied about being warned about Katrina, among the many other things they've lied about.

And Gonzales continues to lie about the NSA domestic spying program.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 24, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

trex,

Doesn't it appear to you (and to everyone else) that McAristotle seems to know a lot about the Biblical aspect of sodomy and that he is just a tad bit bothered by the whole thing?

Why would a Chinese Malaysian who supports conservatism in another country be able to so effectively quote the Bible as it relates to sodomy?

I'm thinking our friend McAristotle is a Christian convert who had to turn to Western religions to help him get over a personal problem.

More power to you, McAristotle--religion can cure what ails you. Or torments you. Or gives you flop sweat. Or nightmares.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and it can also cure the screaming heebie jeebies and the stark raving scream that emanates from the diaphragm when confronted with the sheer horror of being forced to engage in an UnGodly act against your will...

It can also help you with that serial bedwetting problem and that case of the shivers that occurs every time someone walks behind you.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

I see- the opposition has a mental disorder?
Is that the idea?
Maybe they need shock therapy?

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

So long as no religion is forced to perform a wedding ceremony against their beliefs, it's none of their business and they can butt out.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Then butt out and rename marriage in your laws. But its offensive to use faith-based word for your experiment in new age philosophy. Even the Europeans used civil unions.

Secondly, the free exercise of religion would include voting for and advocating for leaders with faith-based value. So Christians should think about doing so, if they feel called to do so.

-------------

I'm thinking our friend McAristotle is a Christian convert who had to turn to Western religions to help him get over a personal problem.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Yup. Its called sin.

As to Malaysia. Ever hear of missionaries.

---------------
good enough for the ancient Greeks and the wonderful society they created

Posted by: murmeister on January 24, 2006 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

Along with slavery, exposure of newborn infants and temple prostitution.
Hey, but it all involved consenting adults and minors so its cool according to modern liberalism.

--------------

Stop straining over what they do in their bedrooms (between consenting adults) and see that they are people just like anybody else and have the same needs as anybody else so should be afforded the same benefits as anybody else.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 24, 2006 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

"Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animalsthese are the very things that destroy them. "

So what need do they have, you can't hand them by civil unions without degrading monogamous marriage?

Why not just rename 'golden showers' 'baptisms' by act of law?


This started with me criticizing the outing Jeff Gannon, so I've got no intention of worrying anyone in his own bedroom.

They may have needs*. But my moral guidepost is based on the Bible. And the Bible is very clear that some needs on this earth are bad for you in the afterlife**.

People are free to make their own choices but people are also free to defend their faith.

* Philippians 3:18-20

"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven"

** 1 Corinthians 6:13

' "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body '

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Here's the CNN STORY link

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/20/eggs.roll.ap/

And the Headline
""NEW YORK (AP) -- Three months before the annual Easter egg roll at the White House, the usually festive event is already taking on a divisive edge because of plans by gay- and lesbian-led families to turn out en masse in hopes of raising their public profile."""

Clearly the blogger got it exactly wrong. Its the Gay groups attempting to politicize a apotitical event.

Just as they try to redifine societies most important foundational institution (in order to spread their lifestyle)
They also politicize a Hoiliday event meant for children into a cheap forum to normailize their sexual practices

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Where does the word "afterlife" appear in the Bible, McA?

Posted by: Ace Franze on January 24, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

into a cheap forum to normailize their sexual practices

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, haven't you heard. In liberal America, the Bible is hate speech.

That's what "free exercise of religion" meant in the constitution.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

"Then butt out and rename marriage in your laws. But its offensive to use faith-based word for your experiment in new age philosophy. Even the Europeans used civil unions."

"Marriage" precedes any surviving religious group. As such, they have no exclusive claim on it. I am quite happily atheistic. I can still obtain a marriage from the proper secular authority, with no need for any priest, preacher, or shaman to approve or intervene in any way; for my legal marriage, that is exactly what I plan to do. For that matter, my "religious" wedding (which will have no legal standing) will be a Theravada Buddhist ceremony. My fiancee informs me that many Thai monks are more than happy to perform same-sex religious marriages, even though same-sex civil marriages are not available in her country. Not every religion has the same strictures as yours.

"Secondly, the free exercise of religion would include voting for and advocating for leaders with faith-based value. So Christians should think about doing so, if they feel called to do so."

Never said they couldn't. However, Americans are bound by our Constitution first and foremost. While we are free to vote according to whatever beliefs we bring to the table, we do not have the right to establish our beliefs over others. Perhaps, as a non-American, you do not grasp this.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

McAristotle's deep dark soul revealed:

Yup. Its called sin.

Ah, so you fear living in sin, not being forgiven for your sins, and having your dirty, smelly, sweaty sins exposed to the world. I guess if your day job is financial trading and stealing money from honest people, go for it. Look for redemption wherever you may find it.

As to Malaysia. Ever hear of missionaries.

I thought the influence of foreign devils was to be resisted...apparently, you weren't smart enough to resist.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

"People are free to make their own choices but people are also free to defend their faith."

Agreed, defend your faith all you want to. I'm not attacking your faith as long as you don't impose it on others who may not believe as you do.

"without degrading monogamous marriage?"

I have never heard anyone on my side of this issue give two craps what word you use to describe their union. All they are asking for is to be given access to benefits that any other "spouse" would have access to.

"Secondly, the free exercise of religion would include voting for and advocating for leaders with faith-based value. So Christians should think about doing so, if they feel called to do so."

You can fill congress to the brim with Christians but the fact would remain. Legislating from the bible is unconstitutional IAW 1st ammendment. That would be establishing a religion as a federal religion now wouldn't it?

Lastly quoting your bible means nothing when speaking to someone who doesn't believe as you. You may as well be quoting Gone With the Wind.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 24, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Why would a Chinese Malaysian who supports conservatism in another country be able to so effectively quote the Bible as it relates to sodomy?

Rider, I don't know and I don't wanna know!

I do find it odd that the contemptuous, judgmental McAristotle with a penchant for reviling Muslims and casually dismissing the deceit and human suffering involved in Iraq would all of a sudden be self-righteously beating us over the head with Bible quotes.

That doesn't compute.

Or did you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Cor 6:9-10

We talk about Republican swindlers and thieves a lot here McA, but for some reason you find it necessary to defend those behaviors. A little selective in our Christian outrage are we?

Also, the meaning of the terms malakoi and aresenokoitai which have been translated as "effeminate" and "homosexuals" respectively is not quite clear. The latter is not the word commonly used to designate a homosexual at the time, and the former probably refers to someone wealthy enough to live a leisurely, decadent life.

You know, like what people strive for under the free-market systems you so enthusiastically espouse.

Posted by: trex on January 24, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42

Dont be a nin-com-poop

Though Shalll Not Steal...
Opps its in the Bible, well we better expunge it from the law... your point is nonsessencal - legislatures can give any reason they want in voting for or arguing for legislation.

Moral norm an re broader than religios injunctions

Marriage is (and always has been defined) as between a man and a women because society has a stake in promoting the natural two parent family (you know men+ women = babies)

this is as commonsensical as "though shall not steal" and requires no specific religios foundation whatsoever

MJ Mephisis

I would look again into the true foundations of Buddahism. Read what the lord Buddah actually said about marriage and human sexuality.
A LOT of western so-called "Buudists" are just new age leftiewho chant..

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Why is Trex suddenly an expert in ancient greek /hebrew / aramaic and bible translations of 2000 year old texts.
(dont believe everything you read)

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Rider, I don't know and I don't wanna know!

I'm thinking that McAristotle's obsession involves a howler monkey with a prosthetic device, v!agra and a whole lot of crystal meth. What else would inspire such a rant?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Why is Trex suddenly an expert in ancient greek /hebrew / aramaic and bible translations of 2000 year old texts.

Trex is an edjimicated fellow...

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Thai monks are more than happy to perform same-sex religious marriages, even though same-sex civil marriages are not available in her country. Not every religion has the same strictures as yours.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Actually. Its because they are nice people who feel no obligation to save you this reincarnation.
Buddhism - is about fighting desire. Desire includes all sex.

-------------

we do not have the right to establish our beliefs over others. Perhaps, as a non-American, you do not grasp this.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

I read your history once. All long as you have the numbers to amend the constitution. I think it was called the Prohibition.

Plus all kinds of laws on community decency.

Plus stacking the supreme court to read a 'right' to abortion into the constitution.

Its a living document.

----------------

we do not have the right to establish our beliefs over others. Perhaps, as a non-American, you do not grasp this.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

, so you fear living in sin, not being forgiven for your sins, and having your dirty, smelly, sweaty sins exposed to the world.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

No. Romans 3: 23-24. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus"

-----------

apparently, you weren't smart enough to resist.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Yup. Lucky me. So dumb, I discovered a source of strength that makes my life worth living.

Mark 10: 31 "But many who are first will be last, and the last first."


Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Yup. Lucky me. So dumb, I discovered a source of strength that makes my life worth living.

So the white devil had to teach you that life was worth living? Well, well, well. Hope you remember that the next time Bongo the Chimp fails to lube up...

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

When are liberals ever going to learn that gay and lesbian issues are a looser that detracts from other issues such as economic justice and civil liberties?

Indeed, this point is so clear that it suggests that advocates of gay rights lack any sincere commitment to economic justic and civil liberties but rather are attempting to co-opt liberalism to further their own agendas.

This point is not lost on mainstream America.

No wonder Bush does so well.

Posted by: Thinker on January 24, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

No wonder Bush does so well.

Yup, 36% can't be wrong!

Posted by: mr. ziffel on January 24, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

The very nature of law is the imposition on beliefs over others..

Once opon a time we chaced the Mormons all aver the country and right into the desert.. and then did not let them become a state until they agreed to outlaw polygamy...
That my friends... is imposing your morality.

(so is difining or redifining marriage in one way or another)
as are anti-drug laws, anti-prostitution laws and yes the supreme courts decision in 73 to make it impossible for any state to restrict abortion. (no matter what the democratic majority is)

In fact ever law from graduated tax rates, to enviromental regulaion is "imposing" someones morality on someone who does not agree.

Duh..

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

McA
Godbless from a fellow Christian..
They say you live in Malyasia
I hope you spread the Gospel far and wide.
Bring the Good News of our Lord to every nation.

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

The so-called "conservative" movement in the USA today is really nothing but a cult of hate.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 24, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Good point

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, sexual immorality is defined as all sex outside of marriage. And the definitions of marriage don't rely on 'arsenokoitai' which means literally 'arse'-'bed' and are clearly man to woman.

Note being homosexual isn't a sin (if people are actually homosexual and hetero and not just varying degrees of bisexual). Its the act of sex outside of marriage that is bad.

Try,

Hebrews 13 v4 : "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."

Genesis 2 v24-25 : "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame".

1 Corinthians 7 v2-6 : "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. "


Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

So the white devil had to teach you that life was worth living?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, the Jewish chap. But with a 'thank you' owed to the white translator person.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

I dont think any of them can be called "white" they were most probably (as you would suspect) what we would call now adays middle easterners.

Semetic Jews by birth (even the transaltors in the early first century who gathered the original gospels together along with the other chief texts were semetic or greek)

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

TO GET BACK ON TOPIC

Here's the CNN STORY link

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/20/eggs.roll.ap/

And the Headline
""NEW YORK (AP) -- Three months before the annual Easter egg roll at the White House, the usually festive event is already taking on a divisive edge because of plans by gay- and lesbian-led families to turn out en masse in hopes of raising their public profile."""

Clearly the blogger got it exactly wrong. Its the Gay groups attempting to politicize an apotitical event.

Just as they try to redifine societies most important foundational institution'S (in order to spread their lifestyle)
They also politicize a Hoiliday event meant for children into a cheap forum to normailize their sexual practices

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

"The very nature of law is the imposition on beliefs over others.."

True enough but in this country those beliefs are not allowed to be religously motivated.

"Though Shalll Not Steal"

One of only 3* present day laws (In the US) in the 10 commandments. I don't understand why a court house would want TTC displayed. They don't seem to be very relevant.

*4 if you live in a state or locality where it is illegal to commit adultery.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 24, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

"I would look again into the true foundations of Buddahism. Read what the lord Buddah actually said about marriage and human sexuality.
A LOT of western so-called "Buudists" are just new age leftiewho chant.."

Fitz, I leave the Buddhism to my fiancee. However, given that her father, brother, and all her other male relatives have served as Buddhist monks, and given that she lives in a country where over 90% of the populace practice the oldest surviving form of Buddhism, I will take her word for their beliefs much, much sooner than from a Christian who can't even properly spell "Buddhist".

Oh, by the way, do you *really* think the Christian bible was the first writing to prohibit theft? Last I heard, Hammurabi's Code beat the Mosaic Law by several centuries- and was probably the source for Mosaic Law. And the Ur-Nammu preceded that by several centuries more. Just because the bible plagiarized a few good ideas doesn't mean we have to throw them out.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

They also politicize a Hoiliday event meant for children into a cheap forum to normailize their sexual practices.

Thankfully, Karl Rove is in control and there will be no cheap forums or politicized events.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 24, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

"Marriage is (and always has been defined) as between a man and a women because society has a stake in promoting the natural two parent family (you know men+ women = babies)"

Actually, if you consult the Bible you'll find that marriage was man and multiple women = babies and more babies.

The reason for this, I suspect, was those peaceful christians were trying to build armies to kill the infidels.

Posted by: diane on January 24, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

those peaceful christians were trying to build armies to kill the infidels.

Posted by: diane on January 24, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Christian marriage is monogamous. You read the Bible before you pretend you know it.

Now old testament marriage has some polygamy, but often in a context that precedes disaster.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Diane,
Of course, we can also add the landed class Tibetan form of marriage- normally woman and multiple men = good for keeping land within a family line.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

I'll admit I'm not well read on the Bible. I've read just enough to know that it is a "religion written by men, for men." Not for me, thanks.

I know there are some Mormons out west who are gung-ho about jesus and polygamy, too. I believe they consider themselves christians.

Posted by: diane on January 24, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

"I know there are some Mormons out west who are gung-ho about jesus and polygamy"

There is an isolationist group who lived out west that still practices polygamy. I don't know if they've been shut down yet or not. Someone had escaped and that's what the news story was about. The main body of Mormons no longer practices it. (Or so I'm told)

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 24, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Y'all notice how McA went straight to Bible quotes when the grown ups started talking.

We don't care. We're free Americans. You are not.

Posted by: The Hague on January 24, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42, the way I've always heard it explained is that polygamy was outlawed as a condition of statehood for Utah. Because this was forced by secular, rather than theological, reasons, some of the Mormon believers never accepted the change as legitimate- hence the little outposts of polygamy. I have heard that the most common form this takes is several trailers on a piece of property, with each wife and her children living in a separate one. Only the first marriage is "legal", but the others still have church sanction of a sort.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Thats right, the main body of Mormanism does not practice polygamy anymore.
We made them outlaw it in the state of Utah in order to be recognized by the union.
Thats called imposing your morality through the law (to get back to my original point)

Mephisis

Since your wife has such a long tradition and liniage in Buddism, Then ask her about their definition of marriage within Buddahism and what sexualll practices it considers immoral.

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's a little larger than an isolationist group. I believe polygamy is widespread and socially accepted in many areas of Utah and northern Arizona.

I remember polygamy discussed at a press conference a few years back and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, skirted around the issue, saying to the effect that many (polygamists) were good people who believed different than he.

Polygamy is a huge drain on the Utah and Arizona welfare systems.

Those practicing polygamy (at least willingly, not the 12 year-old girls who are married off to old men)are fundamentalist christians who believe they are following the word of god.

Posted by: diane on January 24, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis wrote: Fitz, I leave the Buddhism to my fiancee. However, given that her father, brother, and all her other male relatives have served as Buddhist monks, and given that she lives in a country where over 90% of the populace practice the oldest surviving form of Buddhism, I will take her word for their beliefs much, much sooner than from a Christian who can't even properly spell "Buddhist".

It's important to realize that the Buddhist precepts, both those for lay Buddhists and those for Buddhist monks, are not "moral laws" and they are not the supposed mandates of some "god" or other authority figure, supernatural or otherwise. They are simply practices that are conducive to the cessation of suffering (dukkha) and the realization of enlightenment (nirvana), based on the teachings of an ordinary human being, the monk Siddhartha Gotauma known as "the Buddha", who himself realized enlightenment, and taught those practices to help others do so.

The five basic precepts for lay Buddhists can be stated in various ways, but a simple traditional statement of them is: do not kill, do not lie, do not steal, do not get intoxicated, and do not engage in harmful sexual conduct. "Harmful sexual conduct" has been construed differently in different cultural contexts. As has, for that matter, the precept about not killing -- some Buddhists are strict vegetarians, others are not.

But in any case, to violate any of the precepts is not a "sin" -- there is really no such concept as "sin" in Buddhism. To violate the precepts is simply to create conditions (karma) that tend to exacerbate suffering and are not conducive to attaining enlightenment.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 24, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Diane
So the market for polagamy (check out the web under bigamy polyandry, polymore, & pologamy) is much larger than the market for same-sex marriage
(many other religions condone if not encourage polygamy including Islam)

By what right do we limit these partnerships under the law?

Perhaps the polygamists should alll get together and show up at the Easter party on the White House lawn, so they can promote & politicize their cause?

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

" still have church sanction of a sort."

I knew about the statehood thing but I always thought polygamy was almost dead in this country.

http://www.polygamy.org/releases.shtml

Guess I was wrong. Aparently there is a non-profit org who is still fighting it. I would assume there are others as well. Sadness (that it's still going on.)

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 24, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

For a SecularAnimist your quite a Buddhist.

(you wopuld need to quatify what the norms of those traditions are to come up with your average, orthodox, or liberal Buddhist)

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz, Buddhists hold to five basic ethical precepts, one of which is to avoid illicit sexual activity- basically, don't sneak around or cheat on your partner. The precepts are based on avoiding doing things to others that you would not want done to you, rather than any sort of divine command. There isn't, so far as I have been able to find, any list of "banned practices"- that really depends more on the particular culture in question, and vary widely from time to time and place to place. For instance, Thailand and some of the other SE Asian countries are traditionally more accepting of homosexuals than, for instance, China, and different Buddhist cultures have allowed polygamy at different times.

And, contra McA above, celibacy is neither required nor encouraged, except for those currently under monastic vows.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

SA,
"As has, for that matter, the precept about not killing -- some Buddhists are strict vegetarians, others are not."

Yep. I was very surprised when I found out that in the Theravada tradition even the monks aren't required to be vegetarian. Regular Thais are downright carnivorous (well, with a little fruit and rice to go with it).

Fitz,
"(you wopuld need to quatify what the norms of those traditions are to come up with your average, orthodox, or liberal Buddhist)"

You are trying to shoehorn Buddhists into your own ideological framework. Actually, a very strict "orthodox" Buddhist would probably be more "liberal" in your terms- strictly pacificistic and vegetarian.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you SecularAnimist. That was easily understood and enlightening (No pun intended). Short and to the point. It was also verified by my co-worker who is a practicing buddist.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 24, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis
I was not really trying to fit it into any political framework just a social one the liberal to orthodox contiume would tell a lot.
I just know (as you probably do) that what we take for Buhdaism in the U.S. is rarely the real deal.
I have know doubt that it theological framework is vastly different from Christianity. However celebicy for its monks is a similarity it shares with multiple religions, as would a primacy for marriage (that I can only assume it has) as well as a universal prohibition against sodomy/homosexuality - (regardless of which culturess treat it more or less sympatheticly)

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

My co-worker just laughed at me for mis-plelling Buddhist.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 24, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

"By what right do we limit these partnerships under the law?"

I'm not sure. If two consenting adult women want to marry one man, well, I really don't have a problem with that.

From what I've read, though, daughters are raised and pretty much given away in marriage at early ages to older men and in my book that constitutes sexual child abuse.

Also, some men have many wives and many children and turn to the welfare system for support.

That said, I really don't have a problem with the private living arrangements of consenting adults. Let them marry. Let all the wives share the social security when the old man dies. But also make him responsible for the child support payments of his children.

Some employers might have problems with a guy with 40 or 50 dependents. But then where I'm from there is a large Apostolic population and some have huge families (like 23 children). My employer just pays it..of, course, many of the Apostolics are in decision-making positions.

The problem I have is with the children, especially the female children.

Posted by: diane on January 24, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis wrote: I was very surprised when I found out that in the Theravada tradition even the monks aren't required to be vegetarian.

It's my understanding that Buddhist monks who follow the precepts observed by Buddha's original bikkhus (literally "beggars") eat only food that is given to them as an offering and eat only one meal per day. And they are to eat whatever is offered to them, whether it is vegetarian or not, with the exception that they are not to accept meat from an animal that was killed specifically for them.

According to tradition, the Buddha himself died (at age 85, after some 45 years of teaching the Dharma) from food poisoning that he got from eating bad mushrooms given to him as a food offering.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 24, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz, there is no liberal to orthodox continuum that you or I would recognize as anything related to a similar Western continuum. The celibacy for monastics is only superficially similar- it is a way of focusing the mind toward enlightenment, rather than a way of avoiding "sin". They do favor marriage, but as I've said, Buddhism has recognized many forms of marriage over the years- polyandry in Tibet, polygyny in SE Asia, and the occasional same-sex marriages as well. And no, they do not have any "universal prohibition" on "sodomy".

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Dianne

I was not asking if you in particular supported the policy but rather: "By what right do WE (i.e. the people) limit such partnerships by law.

You may want to make a distinction (and its important one)
Between what we make criminally illegal (i.e. polygamy and bigamy)
and what we refuse to subsidise or give legal protections too -- & how this helps bolster the relationships we do honor.

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz: I have know doubt that it theological framework is vastly different from Christianity.

Well, Buddhism has absolutely nothing whatever to do with "theology" of any kind, so yes, that's pretty different from Christianity.

Buddha had nothing at all to say about "god". One of the most fundamental teachings of the Buddha is that everything is impermanent and without a separate or independent existence ("self-nature") which would seem to preclude the concept of "god" as found in the Middle Eastern monotheistic religions. It is certainly possible to be an atheist and a Buddhist as well.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 24, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis

The Catholic tradition of celibacy is not merely to "avoid sin" bit is very much a similar path twoard enlightenment through spiritual discipline. A married Catholic priest (and there are some - both exist now and have, and Greek orthodox allow married priest but chose their Bishops only from the celibate class)and yet Married sexuallity is not considered sinfull in either tradition. Its the spirituall norishment of giving your whole self to Christ and being "married" to the Church.


I must read more on Buddhaism but I must believe that it is possible to discern a mainstream and orthodox tradition even across time and culture.

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Well folks my day has come to an end. It was a rare pleasure indeed to be in agreement with those that I usually disagree. Enjoy and have a good night (after noon, morning depending on your timezone).

P.S. If we can find common ground on this issue there may yet be hope for our country. :)

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 24, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

"I must read more on Buddhaism but I must believe that it is possible to discern a mainstream and orthodox tradition even across time and culture."

Well, Fitz, clearly you do need to read more on Buddhism before you can make any pronouncements on it. But if you "must believe" that there is a mainstream, orthodox tradition, then you may be disappointed. Just as in any other religion, there is a common base (Eightfold Path, Four Noble Truths, Five Ethical Precepts, etc.), but the fun is in the interpretation.

But then, it sounds like you think there is a "mainstream, orthodox" version of Christianity too, which to me seems pretty ludicrous.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Will their be any Buddhists invading the white house easter pagent in order to promote their cause? (either as singles , doubles, triads with pivoting enterlocators?)

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis

Thats the problem with Atheists, just when you get your hands around their necks: {poof} they disappear into ether!

No its not "ludicrous" to be able (and eager) to discern a mainstream/orthodox continum in either Christianity or Budddhism
Nothing is foreign to the mind.
They both have discernable traditions and practices that can fall in and out of the norm over the recorded history of the belief.

If not - why study the tradition, or why practice it.
Are you a Nihilist? (or are all athiests), maybe your a realativist? , - Perhaps a postmodern reductionist (their all the rage) who cant settle any matter within his mind?

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Between what we make criminally illegal (i.e. polygamy and bigamy) and what we refuse to subsidise or give legal protections too -- & how this helps bolster the relationships we do honor."

I love that phrase "criminally illegal." Hey lots of women are going to be criminally illegal once they overturn Roe, eh? Won't mean diddly unless they're poor or young.

As for polygamy, people that believe in it are going to do it. They're probably married in their church and in the eyes of god and that's enough for them.

Does a one man/one woman marriage arrangement make my marriage any stronger? No. What they don't have that I do is legal protections (i.e., half hubby's pension if he decides to run off with his young secretary), and I can go visit him if he's in the hospital dying (if he dies I get his social security and ALL his pension). Plus other stuff, mostly financial, which can be a benefit or a liability. If he gets busted for drunk driving my insurance rates go up.

Yep, I get all that. But I could have a cheating SOB for a husband, he could be an abuser, a drunk, a dead-beat, whatever, and I have the piece of paper that says I'm married and in a relationship that's honored. Yippee.

What the hell was the question?


Posted by: diane on January 24, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Dianne

I was not asking if you in particular supported the policy but rather: "By what right do WE (i.e. the people) limit such partnerships by law.

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz, I am not disappearing into ether, nor can I say I felt any hands on my neck. But I also can't do an in-depth argument on Buddhist philosophy, for the simple reason that I am not a Buddhist, merely conversant with the basic doctrines, divisions, and history. I am a plain ol' atheist. Not religious, no interest in taking up a religion (although I do enjoy pretty religious architecture), and no quarrel with any of them so long as they practice their beliefs and leave everyone else free to do the same.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Fair enough

Posted by: Fitz on January 24, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

fitz wrote: I must read more on Buddhaism

If you are really interested in reading more about Buddhism, I recommend:

The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh

What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula

Lotus In A Stream by Hsing Yun.

All three authors are Buddhist monks and scholars, and convey the teachings of the Buddha in a language and style that is very accessible to western readers. If you were going to read only one book I would recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's book.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 24, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

"Homosexual relationships are often more exploitative in nature."

Hoo, boy, laughing so hard tears are coming down.

Yeah, obviously, relationships in which both partners are of equal strength are less exploitative. We've all see how much spouse abuse there is in homo relationships, haven't we? All those abused women, bruises all over their bodies, faces mishapen from repeated beatings, they're all lesbians, right?

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 24, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

"The Left and the mainstream Media outed Jeff Gannon and demonized him."

Yeah, but it was Republican Karl Rove who sodomized him.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 24, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Maybe he [Jeff Gannon] legitimately believes the whole gay thing is kinda unhealthy. I mean, he gets paid for sex. He might meet a lot of gay people that way and form an opinion."

HahahahahahHAHAHAHAhahaha

Yeah, he only does it for the MONEY, so that's OK. It's not like he likes it or anything. And the unhealthy part? Well, that's just an occupational hazard.

I know the more I take money from people who hire me, the more I hate them. Doesn't everybody despise those they work for?

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 24, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

McAristotle citing the book of Jude.

OH, it's in the BIBLE!!! Why didn't you say so at the outset.

Well if it's in the BIBLE, end of discussion!

Would you like to read my holy book? It's one sentence long: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

And then this: "Christian marriage is monogamous. You read the Bible before you pretend you know it. Now old testament marriage has some polygamy..."

Funny, the Bible I had in Sunday school had the Old Testament in it, too. I guess they didn't get the memo that Christians only practice what's in the New Testament. So Ten Commandments out the window. I guess that's why Republican Christians don't have any problem coveting their neighbors goods.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 24, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

celibacy is neither required nor encouraged, except for those currently under monastic vows.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 24, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Yup. But that's for conventional people. You have to remember its about hitting Nirvana or Buddha status and beating desire.

There is a conventional path and a fast path (those who commit their lives to a monastery)and the fast trackers are suppose to be celibate.

You are meant to beat desire. Control worldly urges like food, water and sex.

From a philosophical viewpoint, Buddhism has got a good grasp of sin and sainthood equivalence. Just no concept of God or Grace.

---------------

guess they didn't get the memo that Christians only practice what's in the New Testament.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 24, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Most Churches did get the memo. The letters after acts are actually the memos. There's a healthy discussion of law and the gentiles. Paul and Peter came to agreement on the rules for gentiles.

Gentile Christians don't follow the law, which is why they are not circumcised.

But the old testament is useful as an indicator of God's will and historical relationship with man.

--------------

Yeah, obviously, relationships in which both partners are of equal strength are less exploitative.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 24, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Ever here of Prison rape? Or rent boys?

-----------------

If you don't follow the Bible that's your choice. But don't expect those that do not to have strong opinions about Marriage. Get the state out of the debate then - no problems there.

1) Retroactively rename marriage - civil unions

2) Set up civil unions separately so (group marriages and homosexuals) can get the alimony, inheritance and visitation rights. Adoption rights would be difficult.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Drum,

Your blog's comments are overrun by serial homophobes. What a pity since you are a fine blogger.

McA: I think NAMBLA should show up with a couple of well-hidden eggs little boys can reach for on national television.

Could someone puh-leeze report this sicko's IP address to the child porn unit and flag him for electronic surveillance? Such activities may be rampant in Asia where sexual predators can buy a child sex slave for pennies, but we don't need encouragement from offshore perverts. Go away, McA!

No. But the "we can't help it argument" used to undermine community standards, extends to a lot of other things.

Oh, the, "mommy and daddy can't help it we don't love each other anymore so we're getting a divorce" argument? That's so popular with kids. Hetero divorce rates are through the stratosphere. What about the "I couldn't help it, she was asking for it" rape defense? That promotes personal responsibility and respect for women, doesn't it? How is that working out? What about the more politically-charged "EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMDs so it's okay that America invaded Iraq" rationale?

Swinger clubs, strip joints, prostitution, sexual battery, rape, and child abuse are overwhelmingly hetero vices and crimes but SOME people oblivious to their own kind's "sins" cast stones at homos. Pathetic. Clean up your own house first, silly nelly, before you attempt to demonize others with your disowned deeply-repressed parochial view of life.

Genocide, war, terrorism, and many more truly EVILS of the world are uniquely hetero. And you dare cast stones at gays! What a hypocrite!

BTW, McA, when did you decide to CHOOSE to be hetero? Can't help yourself, can you, McA? Fancy that!

I say, thank you, God, for making me gay!

Plus once you allow gay marriage by court order, which is the current tactic.

If it's unconstitutional, yes. Only people with a "hetero supremacy agenda" have a problem with the rule of law. Take Loving v. Virginia, for example. Interracial marriage threatened white supremacy. Boy, did the bigots howl bloody murder when the courts correctly threw out interracial marriage bans.

Bad laws need to be overturned when bigots legislate their own personal (and I must say, immoral) prejudices into the laws they make. When politicians take their oaths of office seriously, when they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, they must not willingly impose the WILL of fearful bigots upon us all if that WILL violates the Constitution.

I am beginning to think American Christians have abandoned their faith believing in fear and force more than truth, love and compassion. Poor Jesus. Few have listened. Fewer still have heard.

When uppity hetero Christians get threatened about their sanctimonious supremacy, people die or get bashed. Native Americans learned that the hard way. Blacks and Jews, too. Today, it's da gays.

To those Christians and atheists who understand the truly inhospitable POVs of McA and bigots like him, the true sin of Sodom, please accept my apology. Bigotry disguised as "faith" is still bigotry and you know it, thank God.

Homosexual relationships are often more exploitative in nature.

Sweetie darling, you are totally clueless. You have no knowledge of hetero relationships, do you? Or of men with weenie breath who will say anything even "I love you" or "I'm not married" to bed women? MJ Memphis knows what I am talking about. Hetero on hetero exploitation offers too many examples to cite here and has been the subject of many books.

Your boyfriend dumped you, didn't he, McA? Nursing resentment because even a queer wouldn't have you is a terrible rejection especially if you have failed hetero romances. My condolences. You just don't fit in. Poor thing. Or are you some SM/BD freak who can't help his own fetish, to bind and paddle in the name of God? I think you're a sadist here to taut and annoy because your dungeon was flooded. Okay, pervert, go get your rocks off somewhere else.

As to be expected from a relationship where someone has to take it up the rear.

My, my, you are anally fascinated. Someone must have broken you in wrong. You think that anal sex is THE thing for gays. On the contrary, it's not. Either you've been been brutalized by some selfish oaf or you're an ignor-anus don't wannabe an ass virgin anymore. Otherwise, why would you be so anally obsessed?

The sexually repressed and cowardly are so quick to project their personal self-hate onto gays because they envy our courage to be real, to be out, to be who we are without shame. Get a grip, McMary. Jealous much?

I think you will find hetero women take it up the rear more than any other group including gay men. There are far more hetero women that gay men, dearie. More straight men and women doing anal play than gay men, sweetie. Not only are you ignorant about homo sex, but hetero sex too. Bless your heart.

Remember, love is the basis for all healthy relationships. If the love is good, then the sex will be good. Maybe that thought can get you through your self-imposed prison of guilt and rejection.

Love, my brothers and sisters. Love and love well. Make some more gay babies while you're at it. We are your best hope for better fashion and home decor among other civilized peaceful pursuits. You won't find gays leading the march to needless wars although we do serve our country honorably in uniform when needed.

Lesbians are cool. No problems with them. Kinda harmless bunch in my opinion. I'd take Lesbian Civil Unions straightaway and leave Gay Civil Unions for another generation.

Lawdy, lawdy. Am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy and blatant bigotry of this statement? You know, there's something incredibly sexist about this way of thinking.

To my knowledge vaginal sex - doesn't involve torn sphincter muscles...

No kidding. Still you didn't mention vaginal tears, abrasion, and bruising. How so very faggot of you. You must suck as a lover.

...and a ridiculously high rate of STD transfer (reduced for condom use of course).

Tell that to the African women dying of AIDS. Some irresponsible men didn't want to sheath their wangs and they are selfish killers yielding a new form of Robert Longo's "Sword of the Pig." I feel for the women of Africa where they are treated as chattel and scarred with female circumcision.

Plus a background check on the sex lives of all reporters straight or otherwise, following by public outing.

Well, I am sure the press corp would have something to say about having their privacy violated in such an unnecessary and unconstitutional manner. Ms. Matt Drudge will be thrilled no doubt. But since you brought it up, maybe we can extend your recommendation to presidential appointees, especially the Family Value candidates.

Just a way of finding ways to attack anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Clueless sweetie, that's what YOU have done with your homophobic attacks spreading ignorance like a nasty STD.

I christen thee, McA-hole, the talking rectum. How's that for attacking someone who doesn't agree with you? Do I care? Hardly.

Ummn... sure, without cheaping marriage more than it already is.

Heteros do a great job of cheapening the sanctity of marriage whenever they swear, "I do, unto death do us part" and then they don't. Committing adultery and getting divorced shows that marriage vows mean nothing to heteros. Christian heteros don't fare much better on this score.

Now celibate gays - that's a goal worthy of discussion.

Do tell. YOU need this discussion because of why? Having a hard time coming out, are you? Celibate gays... now that will solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies exactly how?

There is so much idiocy on this thread that I barely can respond to all the nonsense, no disrespect intended to my enlightened liberal brothers and sisters. You know who you are. You're the grown-ups.

The Hague: Y'all notice how McA went straight to Bible quotes when the grown ups started talking.

McA's quotes of the Bible do not impress me. God DID NOT write the Bible. Men did. McA knows nothing about the politics involved in censoring texts and only including edited translations that fit into the world view of the ruling class of that time.

Put aside your Bible and do what I do, McA. I have a direct relationship with my Creator who guides and counsels me minute by minute of everyday. An ancient document is inferior compared to an ongoing connection with the divine.

God is still speaking but few hear still clinging to inferior texts written so long ago rather than turning to the daily communion with our Creator.

I don't buy it that you are a true Christian, McA. You blaspheme God to justify your bigotry. God is the only judge, not you. Live your life and quit pushing your way onto others. May you reap what you sow and I pray you reap it today.

Fitz: Just as they try to redifine societies most important foundational institution (in order to spread their lifestyle)

We gays have always been part of the diversity of life. The Creator made us and we are part of a glorious creation. We are not redefining society. We are part of society and have always been part of society. How dare you reject God's people! Our God-given homo sexuality is as normal as hetero sexuality. Even science says homos are normal. You right-handed? Consider us God's left-handed minority.

They also politicize a Hoiliday event meant for children into a cheap forum to normailize their sexual practices>

We gays are also citizens and taxpayers and parents of children of America and therefore, just as entitled to participate in any White House event as any American citizen is.

You and people like you cheapen the forum by declaring that only the majority can participate in the discourse of American life. How very un-American!

--TGM
Thank you, God, for making me gay.

Posted by: The Gay Millionaire on January 24, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, McA. I am amazed at your rectum's ability to type so proficiently. A word of advice... stop letting your a--hole speak for you.

--TGM
"Jesus loves you but I'm his favorite."

Posted by: The Gay Millionaire on January 24, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for all the homophobic ravings McAnustoddler, your predictible anti-gay message adds so much. If your so worried about groups with questionable agendas recruiting the children so they can be converted then maybe you should spend some time screeching about organized religion for a while. When I was growing up I knew several gay kids and several religious kids, none of the gay kids ever came on to me sexually but those religious kids just couldn't take no for an answer as they hounded me to accept jesus as my personal savior. Like vaacuum cleaner salesman trying to make comission.

Guess which group I learned to avoid.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on January 25, 2006 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

This has got to be the most wacked-out thread I've ever seen here.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 25, 2006 at 3:28 AM | PERMALINK

TGM:

Really really enjoyed your post. I rarely read a point-by-point thread longer than a screen, but yours was a pleasure since I had seen all the original idiocies.

One thing you have to understand about our foreign friend McRectum. I dunno if he's a closet case, exactly, but he *is* god's most pathetic form of wannabe -- an ethnic Chinese Malaysian who's been Christianized by those wonderful British missionaries and now fervently argues the American GOP brief on this blog. I dunno if his his dick has ever been embedded in anything more warm 'n' creamy than Karl Rove's ideology, but it's stuck up *there* and getting more sore by the minute, poor lamb.

The thing that never ceases to amaze about McSphincter is that he comes (heh) on a blog full of progressives all Mr. Contrarian without expecting we'd do the Margaret Mead thing and view this is as little more than a personal and/or cultural pathology. Like he wants to be caned by a dreamy authoritarian in hip boots and a police badge *so much* you can feel each delicious shivery welt in every post.

It's bad enough when he's got the free market's magic twanger down his gullet, but when a post like this gives him the opportunity to wax Levitican, we can all just *see* him at the mission, down on his knees with Bible in hand, looking up at all those godlike white people. Such round eyes. Such impeccable personal hygiene.

The most most amusing thing in this anatomy of amusement is how *sincerely* McAIDS believes in George Bush's gospel of spreading democracy to all god's brown and yellow people, bless their defective little hearts. He's not only clueless (repression is a marvelous headache reliever) to the internalized self-hatred this demonstrates, but is also likewise oblivious to the preexisting cultural authoritarianism and caste system in his native lands that allows this cheesy feelgood white-person rationalization to paper over the raw economic domination that is its true purpose.

He serves his Masters both colonial and corporate and thinks, as he's wiping his chin, that they'll *accept him* as an *equal* someday. I mean how just how many gallons of jizz do you think *that's* going to take? Is it *ever* enough?

Maybe if he's a good boy and lights Karl's eyes with a distracted twinkle once or twice they'll let him, I dunno, handle the political prisoners someday.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 25, 2006 at 7:11 AM | PERMALINK

Holy crap,

McAristotle, you just had your head served back to you on a platter.

TGM, thank you for taking the time to post. Excellent work.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2006 at 7:32 AM | PERMALINK

And some people will go to hell for following their own desires - genetic or otherwise.

I dunno--I think you'll get to hell much faster through the condemnation and hatred of others for being different, but that's your deal.

Not only does McAnus enjoy his red underwear but he also has a diaper thing going...

SHANGHAI, China Jan 24, 2006 Alongside food and fire crackers, Chinese are adding a new item to their lunar New Year shopping: Adult diapers. Sales have soared ahead of the holiday as travelers prepare for long trips home aboard trains so crowded that even the toilets are jammed with people, newspapers said Tuesday.

In Foshan, a southern industrial city with a large migrant population, supermarkets report diaper sales have risen 50 percent since the main travel season began on Jan. 14, the papers said.

The problem arises from the need to sell twice as many tickets as there are train seats to accommodate the crush of travelers. Those without seats must find some place any place to put themselves, including in overhead racks, between cars, and in the usually stinking toilets.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2006 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

through the condemnation and hatred of others for being different, but that's your deal.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2006 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

No hate. But to the liberals any moral position is condemnation. God made everything. It doesn't mean he approves of everything.

Somehow 'grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own desires' seems really apt. When your attempt to justify your own position is a series of attacks, it detracts from your own position.

And when you are betting your salvation on your own rules, you'd better be right.

Jude 1 v 16 :
These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

Posted by: McA on January 25, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Look at legal gay marriages in the Netherlands.
Much higher divorce rate than straight marriages.
Gays are different.

Posted by: McA on January 24, 2006 at 4:39 AM | PERMALINK


I would think this result reflects men moreso than gays in particular. In the nature to move on, inseminate as many as possible, etc, biological. Not stright vs gay....

Posted by: ac on January 25, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

MARRIAGE WIN IN NEW YORK COURT
Hernandez v. Robles, 2005 NY Slip Op. 09436 (NY App. Div., First Dept., Dec. 8, 2005)

"Marriage, defined as the union between one man and one woman, is based upon important public policy considerations and has been recognized as a fundamental constitutional right . . .

Marriage promotes sharing of resources between men, women and the children that they procreate; provides a basis for the legal and factual assumption that a man is the father of his wife's child via the legal presumption of paternity plus the marital expectations of monogamy and fidelity; and creates and develops a relationship between parents and child based on real, everyday ties. It is based on the presumption that the optimal situation for child rearing is having both biological parents present in a committed, socially esteemed relationship (Reno v Flores, 507 US 292, 310 [1993] [marriage allows the state to express a preference for biological parents "whom our society . . . (has) always presumed to be the preferred and primary custodians of their minor children"]). The law assumes that a marriage will produce children and affords benefits based on that assumption. It sets up heterosexual marriage as the cultural, social and legal ideal in an effort to discourage unmarried childbearing and to encourage sufficient marital childbearing to sustain the population and society; the entire society, even those who do not marry, depend on a healthy marriage culture for this latter, critical, but presently undervalued, benefit. Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support, but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision. Thus, society and government have reasonable, important interests in encouraging heterosexual couples to accept the recognition and regulation of marriage.


SIMPLE- TIMELESS - POPULAR - CRUCIAL
foundational civilizational tenet!!!!!!


Posted by: Fitz on January 25, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Who's politicizing what!!!!!!!!!

"FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS children have gathered on the South Lawn of the White House on the Monday after Easter to roll Easter eggs across the yard and meet the Easter Bunny. Seemingly few (if any) Washingtonians have ever tried to exploit the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for political purposes. Until now. A church-based homosexual rights group is planning to crash the event with a 'family visibility action' to spotlight their non-traditional families.

" 'On April 17, 2006, when the White House lawn is opened to families for the Annual Easter Egg Roll, imagine if the first 1,000 families onto the lawn were LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families,' enthused a January 4 email alert from Soulforce. Once America sees the White House lawn awash in LGBT families, 'there will be no going back,' Soulforce promised.

"Soulforce is the political organizing tool of self-described 'militant gay activist' Mel White, the former Jerry Falwell speech writer who discovered his gayness and became a clergyman in the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches."

Family Pride will be dressing their participants in special T-shirts with a "nonpolitical message". Of course, a group that chooses to identify by their unnatural sexual practices -- and demands that everyone else publicly accede their normality -- is making a political statement by their very presence.

[Weekly Standard continues:]
"Recipients of the Soulforce email were asked to be 'discreet' and not to post the information on websites because the 'success of this action depends on keeping it under the radar of the media and the administration!!!'

"OVER THE YEARS Soulforce has become well known for its disruptive demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience at the conventions of religious denominations that do not share its views on sexual ethics. Invariably these churches, even the liberal mainline ones, are portrayed by Soulforce as 'anti-gay.'

Posted by: Fitz on January 25, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly