This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
Nice try Jenn, but all the smart liberals will see right through it.
You're a racist. It's science.
Damn... you're right Tea....Bastards.
Jenn, please stop calling yourself a racist; I'm a little embarrassed for you.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Glad you found it in your heart to understand that it's okay for two people who are in love to get married, regardless of gender. Man, RepJenn really thinks you're going to hell now.
You know Will, Jen and I may not have all the same outlooks on life, but she, as a free American citizen, is entitled to her opinion.
By belittling her, and showing disdain, you only make yourself look shallow.
I didn't call myself a racist, it's sarcasm.
Or do you not get sarcasm?
She (RepJenn) makes it way too easy. But, you're right, this is your blog and belittling her is neither here nor there.
You may not be a sheep, but I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that people actually like Dubya. I mean, what is it about this guy that you like? Honestly, I'm not being a punk, I just want to know what there is to like.
Okey Dokey.
I like how he talks. He is such a poor public speaker, but at least he's honest about it. Straight shooter.
I like how he has a real past, and admits it. He boozed up, but was strong enough to stop himself before it was too late.
I think he managed to raise two daughters who seemingly turned out very normal. Even going through the same hellraising days most of us did.
I like how he stands up for his convictions. Like his love of god. I may not feel that way, and in fact get annoyed when he throws the "god bless" stuff around, but at least I aknowledge that it's his right as a free American to do so.
And I admire his ability to stand up, still, under the blind hatred that the left has thrown his way.
I agree with some of his policies, and I think he's done an admirable job in a very dark time. 8 years of Clinton clutter to clean up, 9/11, Afganistan, Hurricane seasons from hell.
And I like how he is with Laura, and the dogs. Anyone who has a dog named Ms. Beasley can't be that bad.
I don't know, I just like him. Love and like are not the same.
On another note, I like to wait until a person is actually convicted for a crime before I punish them.
Fair enough, I guess. I think the negative far outweighs the positive, though.
I wonder if Will would accept the decision of voters in each state on the issue of gay marriage?
Or would he go crying to the courts when state after state chooses against gay marriage.
On a sidenote, I am acquainted with a great lady who is in a lifelong monogomous same sex relationship.
We discussed the issue at great length. She agreed that gay marriage was not a civil rights issue and she would be satisfied with civil unions. She thought it was ridiculous to go for "gay marriage" and step on main stream America's toes.
she and I agreed that the best way was for the gov to get out of the marriage business altogether and call all unions "civil unions," saving marriage for the church.
Most of all, she agreed with me that the supporters of gay marriage would have been better served telling the American people thier concerns, rather than telling them they were "bigots," and "homophobes," and "Nazi's."
In that sense, she very much mirrored most conservatives attitudes on the subject, despite being a flaming lefty. The difference was that the issue was personal for her, not demagoguery.
Interesting to note that while the unhinged continue to push their agenda farther than anyone will accept, it is real-life people that are suffering.
As always, I support civl unions. In that I have very much in common with many gay people, who could care less about a title and more about substance.
Unfortunately for her, there is very little substance and no compromise in today's fake-left. It will be gay marriage or nothing. Much to the detrment of gay people everywhere, it will likely be nothing, judging from the polls.
Well, I think you'd find, TP, that the majority of gay couples seeking marriage aren't doing it "for the title" like you and your gay friend suggest.
Along with the title of marriage comes benefits and rights that civil unions and unmarried couples cannot claim, thus the whole reason for seeking out the title in the first place for many people.
It's disturbing to me that both TP and his gay friend agree that equal rights for Americans aren't worth stepping on the toes of mainstream America for.
Don't you think that maybe mainstream America needs to be shaken a little every once in a while? We're talking about a huge population of gay people still not being accepted or given the same rights as everyone else. And for what reason? Because the Bible says it's wrong. It's called science people, not everyone is a rich, white, God-fearing Christian. Some people are gay and can't help that fact any more than a black man could explain why his skin is dark. Does that mean they shouldn't be treated exactly the same as the goofy white straight Christian man with a wife and 2.2 kids with an SUV and a "Support The Troops" sticker on the back?
It's very Republican of you people to think that just because something is mainstream we shouldn't go messing with it. That doesn't make it right.
That's all well and good for Will but I don't base any of my assertions on the Bible. In fact, I'm an athiest.
It's disturbing to me that both TP and his gay friend agree that equal rights for Americans aren't worth stepping on the toes of mainstream America for.
What's far more disturbing is that Will is willing to forego the way in which the way a majority of the country wants to see it run. I guess "government for the people, by the people" doesn't play into his world view. Better to impose a belief system I guess.
Certainly he can't be opposed to allowing people to vote on an issue as important as gay marriage, can he? Of course he is, because he and the left are too intellectually lazy to make a case that would sway the American people. Better to express as much disdain for religious beliefs as possible and then attempt to impose a will through the courts.
Personally, I would be in favor of any civil union process that allowed gay couples to take advantage of the tax breaks, health care, and afterlife planning that hetero couples have. My only objection is to the hijacking of a religious institution. Will finds their beliefs laughable so he has no problem with that.
Although I am not a believer, I am of the mind that those of religion are of equal status as gays and deserve as much consideration in the process. They want to preserve marriage. The gay lobby wants equal status. We can have both.
For having this opinion, I have been reviled as a homophobe, hate-monger, and a Nazi. Why? Because I have respect for the views of others besides the gay community.
Under my plan, gays would enjoy equal status in a relatively short time. But, since compromise with evil religious people is entirely out of the question, the left has set up a situation that virtually guarantees that gays will not enjoy these rights for some time.
So who should I listen too in this? Will? Who apparently finds it astounding that a gay person could have a pragmatic approach? Or a person living under the current law, who could care less about hijacking marriage, but just wants a chance at a fair shake to live their lives.
Give up on marriage and make a positive case for equal civil unions and the American people will show an astounding ability to agree. Continue to refuse compromise and demonize religion and gay people can expect nothing.
Right now I would argue that I have a far better sense of the gay communities best interests than Will, who like Hillary and Daylight Belefonte, are more interested in demogoguery than actual change. Why? Because gay people are far more likely to vote Democrat as long as they are a "victim" class and Dem's know that they need to hold onto as many of those as possible right now.
As long as they keep people down, their survival is assured. Isn't that nice?
BTW...Will? You called me a liar in a previous post. Care to articulate?
Right now I would argue that I have a far better sense of the gay communities best interests than Will, who like Hillary and Daylight Belefonte, are more interested in demogoguery than actual change. Why? Because gay people are far more likely to vote Democrat as long as they are a "victim" class and Dem's know that they need to hold onto as many of those as possible right now.
As long as they keep people down, their survival is assured. Isn't that nice?
Tea, you're simmering another crockpot of bullshit in your last two paragraphs of what was otherwise a semi-reasonable argument.
What you have, here, far from a sense of the what's in the gay community's best interest, is a sense of the views of your one gay neighbor.
Are you saying that by pushing for rights for gay people that the Dems are trying to keep them down? This kind of strange logic seems to be your trademark.
I agree that it's a difficult issue, and until recently, I was inclined to say, "Why not just be happy with civil unions? It's at least a step in the right direction."
But then I got to know a couple from down the street, Alec and John. They had lived together for fifteen years, had travelled the world together, had formed deep relationships with one another's families. In short, their lives were intertwined; they were committed and deeply in love.
Two summers ago, shortly after gay marriage was made legal in Massachusetts, they were married in a ceremony in their front yard, attended by close friends and family -- it was a truly beautiful event. They were clearly ecstatic and felt blessed that their love would be recognized for what it was -- a marriage -- definition: a couple voluntarily joined for life.
Six months later, after developing chronic back pain, Alec found out that he had a melanoma which had metastasized and had quickly spread to his lungs. He was given less than a year. He died two days after the day on which, the year before, he had been married to the love of his life.
Even after they were married, I have to admit -- and maybe it's just my Baptist upbringing, or something innate, something I couldn't really trace -- I was vaguely uncomfortable. I saw how the issue had become a political hot-button; how the right was using it to convince the country during a campaign season that gays and dems were teaming up to turn their children into something out of a John Waters movie. I was worried.
While happy for Alec and John personally, I found myself wondering why gays, in general, couldn't just settle for civil unions -- for some of the goodies, but not the whole meal. Why did there have to be a movement? Why now! I actually wondered this.
When I heard Alec died, I immediately thought back to who he had been just seven months before: acerbic, wickedly ironic, yet one of the kindest and most generous people I knew or have known. He was so funny! He'd used his sense of humor do deal with being short (
Even after they were married, I have to admit -- and maybe it's just my Baptist upbringing, or something innate, something I couldn't really trace -- I was vaguely uncomfortable.
Homophobe.
Beautiful story though. Completely irrelevent, but beautiful.
Well, it seems the story was cut off halfway.
The point of it was that having been married brought incredible joy and comfort to John and Alec in Alec's last months. John is so relieved and thankful that it was able to happen.
He is still devastated. He walks around with the dogs they owned together like he's got a meeting with an IRS investigator. But he when he speaks of Alec, it's always as his "dearly departed," or just: "husband."
John and Alec, didn't "hijack marriage." Marriage is for people like them. And thankfully it was theirs for a year until Alec died.
I don't think for a second that most people in Kansas or Utah are going to be psyched by the notion of gay marriages taking place in the front yards of their neighborhoods. And I'm not going to generalize and label them homophobes and say they should just get over it. But I certainly don't think that most of these people have had deep friendships with gay Americans. I don't think they see them, as I do, as normal people with the very same dreams and aspirations as the rest of us. I think too many people see them as perverted or sinister somehow. It's obviously why people in large metropolitan areas are much more tolerant of gay lifestyles. Not because city-dwellers are somehow inherently liberal. But because they've had real relationsips with people of varying sexual persuasions. They know them, they understand them, and they are not afraid.
Seeing as my "marriage" was a civil ceremony performed on a beach, I don't think having all ceremonies be "civil" is really a problem. And if you want marriage, go to the church. If your church won't marry you, then I recommend finding another that will.
TP is right though. The mad rush to join the gay "side" in this debate, as most of the left has done, that makes Christians out as evil doers is just as bad as the Christians saying being gay is evil.
They are all hypocrits.
Oh, and Mad, I have many, many gay friends, grew up across the street from one of the nicest men I've ever known, gay, and my last three bosses were gay. As well as two I work with now. None, not a one of them gives a flying F if they get married or have a civil ceremony, it is, as TP says..." to take advantage of the tax breaks, health care, and afterlife planning that hetero couples have." That they want. That's the priority.
I've been called a racist a few times in my day as well.
Yes, Kevin, we know.... if you have a differening view, you are a racist.
Please see the quote at the top of my website,it pretty well sums up the left.
For the most part, most of these simple translations dont quite hit the nail on the head.
It's a nice way to sugar coat some of your very abrasive positions to make yoursel feel better about them. Cant blame you though, even Reagan tricked himself into thinking he wasnt trading arms for hostages, but you should try to truly examine your own positions a bit more thoroughly.
P.S.
I am a different Will.
Dear, you see the title at the top of the page..... I abhor Politically Correct bullshit, so I sugar coat nothing.
Just the facts ma'am.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure of my positions.
Although, I do keep an open mind.
Uhh. Wow. I wonder how much more mudslinging I can take in this place. First I hear someone accusing someone of being a racist when they she was just pointing out someone who was talking about real stereotypes that are going around. And then, from the side who is usually being called the people who accept everybody call Christians one of the most stereotypical and offending things I have ever heard. My point here is that as you can see an athiest respect the believers, gays who say that instead of offending people they dont want to offend anyone, they want equality, and people more than ready to give them that.
These are people who have values. You don't have to be a Christian to have the same morals as everyone else just as you can be a Christian and believe in science.
These are people who are truly living in as accepting, righteous people. I won't put what party I support as I don't want to be covered in mud that was thrown for no good reason.
And as for the people saying that we Christians are rich silly people who are racist... well the only thing I can say to you is go join the true racists= Al Qaida (how is anyone expected to know how its spelled)
FYI... I am an athiest. : )
Commenting by HaloScan
