Candace Gingrich writes an open letter to her 'big bro' Newt

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Dear Newt,


I recently had the displeasure of watching you bash the protestors of the Prop 8 marriage ban to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. I must say, after years of watching you build your career by stirring up the fears and prejudices of the far right, I feel compelled to use the words of your idol, Ronald Reagan, "There you go, again."
However, I realize that you may have been a little preoccupied lately with planning your resurrection as the savior of your party, so I thought I would fill you in on a few important developments you might have overlooked.

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.

Welcome to the 21st century, big bro. I can understand why you're so afraid of the energy that has been unleashed after gay and lesbian couples had their rights stripped away from them by a hateful campaign. I can see why you're sounding the alarm against the activists who use all the latest tech tools to build these rallies from the ground up in cities across the country.

This unstoppable progress has at its core a group we at HRC call Generation Equality. They are the most supportive of full LGBT equality than any American generation ever -- and when it comes to the politics of division, well, they don't roll that way. 18-24 year olds voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8 and overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. And the numbers of young progressive voters will only continue to grow. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning, about 23 million 18-29 year olds voted on Nov. 4, 2008 -- the most young voters ever to cast a ballot in a presidential election. That's an increase of 3 million more voters compared to 2004.

These are the same people who helped elect Barack Obama and sent a decisive message to your party. These young people are the future and their energy will continue to drive our country forward. Even older Americans are turning their backs on the politics of fear and demagoguery that you and your cronies have perfected over the years.

This is a movement of the people that you most fear. It's a movement of progress -- and your words on FOX News only show how truly desperate you are to maintain control of a world that is changing before your very eyes.

Then again, we've seen these tactics before. We know how much the right likes to play political and cultural hardball, and then turn around and accuse us of lashing out first. You give a pass to a religious group -- one that looks down upon minorities and women -- when they use their money and membership roles to roll back the rights of others, and then you label us "fascists" when we fight back. You belittle the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, and yet somehow neglect to explain who anointed you the protector of "traditional" marriage. And, of course, you've also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes. I fail to see how any of these patterns coincide with the values of "historic Christianity" you claim to champion.

Again, nothing new here. This is just more of the blatant hypocrisy we're used to hearing.

What really worries me is that you are always willing to use LGBT Americans as political weapons to further your ambitions. That's really so '90s, Newt. In this day and age, it's embarrassing to watch you talk like that. You should be more afraid of the new political climate in America, because, there is no place for you in it.

In other words, stop being a hater, big bro.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/candace-gingrich/a-letter-to-my-brother-ne_b_145739.html

[MilesAustinforMVP]

She was too nice to say it but Newt is a serial aldulterer, which is just another example of the hypocrisy of the right.

[Bizwah]

She was too nice to say it but Newt is a serial aldulterer, which is just another example of the hypocrisy of the right.

You mean like, let's take it easy on murderers...but let's kill the unborn?

[ScipioCowboy]

Dear Newt,

And, of course, you've also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes. I fail to see how any of these patterns coincide with the values of "historic Christianity" you claim to champion.


She was too nice to say it but Newt is a serial aldulterer, which is just another example of the hypocrisy of the right.

Irony. :laugh2:

[MilesAustinforMVP]

You mean like, let's take it easy on murderers...but let's kill the unborn?
I personally don't believe in abortion after the first trimester unless the health of the mother is at risk, because within the first trimester the FETUS has no feelings and is not sentient. It's the equivalent to someone who is brain dead, so you are not really hurting anybody by aborting it.

But you pointed out your own hypocrisy. The left doesn't label ourselves as pro-life as you people do. How is it pro-life to kill someone through the death sentence?

Although we have gone off topic, as I'm sure that was your intention.

[ScipioCowboy]

http://www.queercents.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/candace-gingrich.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Gingrich

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Irony. :laugh2:
No because the leaders of the LGBT community are rational peaceful people. Unlike the rights leader's like Newt, Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, and Ted Haggard who are hypocrites.

[ScipioCowboy]

No because the leaders of the LGBT community are rational peaceful people. Unlike the rights leaders like Newt, Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, and Ted Haggard who are hypocrites.

Speaking of hypocrisy, is this yet another inconsistency between your words and your actions?;)

[masomenos]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Candace_Gingrich.jpg/516px-Candace_Gingrich.jpg

[ScipioCowboy]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Candace_Gingrich.jpg/516px-Candace_Gingrich.jpg

Darn it!

This is the picture I wanted to use, but I couldn't find one small enough.:)

[MilesAustinforMVP]

she has her brother's good looks.

[bbgun]

Ah yes, hypocrisy. Like promising to finance your campaign with public funds ... until you started raking in the cash. Or enrolling your daughters in an exclusive private school, despite Weezie's very strong beliefs in the value of public education. Just not for her kids, apprently. Yep, I loves me some hypocrisy.

[vta]

http://www.queercents.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/candace-gingrich.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Gingrich

That's a man baby!

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd23/stpimfg2/Austin_Powers.jpg

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Ah, yes, hypocrisy. Like promising to finance your campaign with public funds ... until you started raking in the cash. Or enrolling your daughters in an exclusive private school, despite Weezie's very strong beliefs in the value of public education. Just not for her kids, apprently. Yep, I loves me some hypocrisy.
Just because he believes in the value of public education, it doesn't mean that public education in America isn't crap. If America had public education like in France I'm sure Obama would send his kids there. But that is why we elected Obama: to fix America's schools.

[bbgun]

Darn it!

This is the picture I wanted to use, but I couldn't find one small enough.:)

She's teaching Miles how to be a man. Good for her.

[ScipioCowboy]

That's a man baby!

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd23/stpimfg2/Austin_Powers.jpg


This thread has epic potential!:laugh2:

[masomenos]

Just because he believes in the value of public education, it doesn't mean that public education in America isn't crap. If America had public education like in France I'm sure Obama would send his kids there. But that is why we elected Obama: to fix America's schools.

I elected him because I wanted a Muslim as President. :eek:

[MilesAustinforMVP]

I elected him because I wanted a Muslim as President. :eek:
Well I was speaking about the majority of the people in this country. Personally I wanted a communist dictatorial regime that's why I voted for him.

[ScipioCowboy]

I elected him because I wanted a Muslim as President. :eek:

That's funny. I elected him because I wanted a President who detests everything for which I stand and derides my beliefs with impunity.;)

[masomenos]

Well I was speaking about the majority of the people in this country. Personally I wanted a communist dictatorial regime that's why I voted for him.

:laugh2:

[bbgun]

Just because he believes in the value of public education, it doesn't mean that public education in America isn't crap. If America had public education like in France I'm sure Obama would send his kids there. But that is why we elected Obama: to fix America's schools.

Gee, that's swell, but they're still hypocrites. The elite opponents of school choice routinely keep their children out of public schools. It would be nice if more parents had the means to make the same decision for their own kids, no? And it would be even nicer if Obama stopped congressional Dems from eliminating DC's very small school-choice program. Put your money where your big mouth is.

[masomenos]

That's funny. I elected him because I wanted a President who detests everything for which I stand and derides my beliefs with impunity.;)

Now, does that make you very open minded and progressive for voting for someone you don't agree with or does it make you a hypocrite for voting against your beliefs? :confused:

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Gee, that's swell, but they're still hypocrites. The elite opponents of school choice routinely keep their children out of public schools. It would be nice if more parents had the means to make the same decision for their own kids. And it would be even nicer if Obama stopped congressional Dems from eliminating DC's very small school-choice program. Put your money where your big mouth is.
I would love to federalize the school system so you would have more parity in funding for the public schools, which would especially help the urban schools.

And "school choice" only works in a limited sense. If it were to become our national education system it would be unsustainable.

[ScipioCowboy]

Now, does that make you very open minded and progressive for voting for someone you don't agree with or does it make you a hypocrite for voting against your beliefs? :confused:

Both.

Duh!:)

[bbgun]

I would love to federalize the school system so you would have more parity in funding for the public schools, which would especially help the urban schools.

Oh, I'm sure you would. Must have killed you to see the Berlin Wall come crumbling down.

[Trouble]

She's teaching Miles how to be a man. Good for her.


Miles will never be half the man Candace Gingrich is.

Candace Gingrich is a Butch Lesbian and charter member of that radical lesbian terrorist group WUDP
(Women United to Destroy Penises)





:starspin

[masomenos]

Both.

Duh!:)

Of course! That didn't even cross my mind as an option. I hate being stupid :(

I'm glad I have this oil fortune to console me. :laugh1:

[bbgun]

Miles will never be half the man his mother was.

Not only is Candace Gingrich is a Butch Lesbian, she is also a charter member of that radical lesbian terrorist group WUDP
(Women United to Destroy Penises)


SNL coined the correct term: boner shrinker.

[Hostile]

I can understand why you're so afraid of the energy that has been unleashed after gay and lesbian couples had their rights stripped away from them by a hateful campaign.Actually Candace, the hateful campaign happened on your side of the fence and continues in the aftermath of the results. Here's some footage that includes actual advertising that was on air in California.

Uv72urCWJcU

39 seconds in, religions sued for their beliefs.

1:05 in the footage of the ad that ran in California is described. Candace, that is hate.

You'd be hard pressed to find anything hateful about the ads Prop 8 ran. They focused on the definition of marriage and did not decry anyone's lifestyle. They simply wanted their own freedoms protected against prosecutions aimed at stripping away freedoms.

That is why voters on both sides of the political coin voted this down. Keep the litigation out of it, and the vast majority of us would support your unions. It is the attacking litigation aimed at stripping away religious rights and freedoms that killed the measure, not intolerance as you claim. If a religion does not believe in same sex marriages, they should not be compelled through litigation and forced to perform the ceremonies. That was happening and the threats of further actions were in the air.

That is a hate campaign Candace. Not the other way around.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Actually Candace, the hateful campaign happened on your side of the fence and continues in the aftermath of the results. Here's some footage that includes actual advertising that was on air in California.

39 seconds in, religions sued for their beliefs.

1:05 in the footage of the ad that ran in California is described. Candace, that is hate.

You'd be hard pressed to find anything hateful about the ads Prop 8 ran. They focused on the definition of marriage and did not decry anyone's lifestyle. They simply wanted their own freedoms protected against prosecutions aimed at stripping away freedoms.

That is why voters on both sides of the political coin voted this down. Keep the litigation out of it, and the vast majority of us would support your unions. It is the attacking litigation aimed at stripping away religious rights and freedoms that killed the measure, not intolerance as you claim. If a religion does not believe in same sex marriages, they should not be compelled through litigation and forced to perform the ceremonies. That was happening and the threats of further actions were in the air.

That is a hate campaign Candace. Not the other way around.

I love how you guys try to use the term religious freedom to obfuscate the fact that you are discriminating against an entire group of people. Basically you all are preventing gays from forming family units by preventing them from getting married and adopting. That's bigotry. If you religious folk think that your freedoms are being trampled on you need to get a crowbar to pry your heads out from your behinds.

They gay community is not doing anything different than Brown did in Brown v. Board of Education.

[Hostile]

I love how you guys try to use the term religious freedom to obfuscate the fact that you are discriminating against an entire group of people. Basically you all are preventing gays from forming family units by preventing them from getting married and adopting. That's bigotry. If you religious folk think that your freedoms are being trampled on you need to get a crowbar to pry your heads out from your behinds.

They gay community is not doing anything different than Brown did in Brown v. Board of Education.It is not discrimination, sorry. You cannot force anyone to do something against their beliefs. That is discrimination.

These religions are not against an entire group of people. They are against their own beliefs or the beliefs of others being attacked.

I would vote down any measure that would force a mosque, synagogue, temple, or Church to perform an act against their principles.

I will not be as rude to you as you are to me and insinuate anything anatomically impossible.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

It is not discrimination, sorry. You cannot force anyone to do something against their beliefs. That is discrimination.

These religions are not against an entire group of people. They are against their own beliefs or the beliefs of others being attacked.

I would vote down any measure that would force a mosque, synagogue, temple, or Church to perform an act against their principles.

I will not be as rude to you as you are to me and insinuate anything anatomically impossible.
Letting one group of people marry and adopt and not another is discrimination. That is the definition of discrimination. And you can promulgate your bigotry as much as you want, but you can't codify it. There is a separation of church and state.

Moreover, as I have already told you there is limitations on religious freedoms; it's called the compelling interest doctrine. Like with all freedoms as the saying goes, "my freedom to throw a punch stops at the tip of your nose." You can't use your freedom to interfere with another person's freedom (namely 14th amendment rights).

I understand what your intentions are but you are ignoring the fact that your actions are interfering with another group's rights.

Listen, I'm neither religious nor gay, so I have no dog in this fight. I'm just giving you an unbiased assessment of the facts.

[Bizwah]

I personally don't believe in abortion after the first trimester unless the health of the mother is at risk, because within the first trimester the FETUS has no feelings and is not sentient. It's the equivalent to someone who is brain dead, so you are not really hurting anybody by aborting it.

But you pointed out your own hypocrisy. The left doesn't label ourselves as pro-life as you people do. How is it pro-life to kill someone through the death sentence?

Although we have gone off topic, as I'm sure that was your intention.

Your intention was to point out hypocrisy on the part of the right.....I merely pointed out that it goes both ways.

No one party has the market cornered on hypocrisy.

And......Yes, I'm pro-death penalty. I fail to see the contradiction in supporting that, yet being pro-life. What crime did the unborn child commit.

To me, there's a difference in executing a murderer and killing the most innocent of humans.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Your intention was to point out hypocrisy on the part of the right.....I merely pointed out that it goes both ways.

No one party has the market cornered on hypocrisy.

And......Yes, I'm pro-death penalty. I fail to see the contradiction in supporting that, yet being pro-life. What crime did the unborn child commit.

To me, there's a difference in executing a murderer and killing the most innocent of humans.
Because you call yourself pro-life when in one instance you think it's ok to kill a conscious and sentient human being.

[arglebargle]

I think Hoss has a point: I don't like the idea of government enforcement of things like that. I think some of the churches are run by *****, but that's their right. I recall going to a marriage ceremony where the couple had to be married by a Unitarian, because his priest was on vacation and her Catholic priest would not approve of doing a Catholic/Protestant marriage......

Still, we have this religioius dogma being enshrined into law. I personally don't care what you call the thing, as long as its legally equal. So I'd be happy with a Civil Union/Marriage split. Let them keep the word if it will make things work smoother.

Despite the fact that marriage means different things all over the world, and through history. And we are actually legally obligated through law and treaty to accept other countries and states versions. The Saudi guy's get family rates when they show up with 30 wives.....

Technically I think the Pro Life position founders on being another religious dogma position, and I can't say I disagree with the death penalty, except that every case should be rigorously examined. Not too impressed by the present implementation of it.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

I think Hoss has a point: I don't like the idea of government enforcement of things like that. I think some of the churches are run by *****, but that's their right. I recall going to a marriage ceremony where the couple had to be married by a Unitarian, because his priest was on vacation and her Catholic priest would not approve of doing a Catholic/Protestant marriage......

Still, we have this religioius dogma being enshrined into law. I personally don't care what you call the thing, as long as its legally equal. So I'd be happy with a Civil Union/Marriage split. Let them keep the word if it will make things work smoother.

Despite the fact that marriage means different things all over the world, and through history. And we are actually legally obligated through law and treaty to accept other countries and states versions. The Saudi guy's get family rates when they show up with 30 wives.....

Technically I think the Pro Life position founders on being another religious dogma position, and I can't say I disagree with the death penalty, except that every case should be rigorously examined. Not too impressed by the present implementation of it.

Well I really don't care if the government gets rid of marriage altogether and everyone gets a civil union, including hetero's. But you can't have two institutions for two groups of people. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. I just want everyone treated equally by the government, the churches don't have to, but the government has to.

[burmafrd]

There is no reason in the world that civil unions cannot get the same financial and other breaks that goes with marriage. None at all.

Miles still dodges the fact that he thinks abortions and executions of child killers are the same. Pretty sad comment on him.

[vta]

Well I really don't care if the government gets rid of marriage altogether and everyone gets a civil union, including hetero's. But you can't have two institutions for two groups of people. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. I just want everyone treated equally by the government, the churches don't have to, but the government has to.

If you really believe that, then separate but equal will have to suffice.
Civil unions and not 'marriages in the religious sense. A union where partners can share benefits, but not forcing religious institutions to compromise their beliefs and perform rites that they hold sacred for a cause they are averse to.

By all means go the court house and have a judge preside over your union, or have it in your yard or a rented hall, but really, stop trying to force others to accept your way of life. Freedom works in all ways, including the freedom to not accept you or care to deal with you. If freedom were really more than a tool to use to get your way, you'd have no problem understanding and accepting that.

[Aikbach]

I personally don't believe in abortion after the first trimester unless the health of the mother is at risk, because within the first trimester the FETUS has no feelings and is not sentient. It's the equivalent to someone who is brain dead, so you are not really hurting anybody by aborting it.

But you pointed out your own hypocrisy. The left doesn't label ourselves as pro-life as you people do. How is it pro-life to kill someone through the death sentence?

Although we have gone off topic, as I'm sure that was your intention.By your definition an accident that left you with traumatic nerve damage and in a coma would render you unfit for life and you should be ripped apart by a powerful suction or burned till dead with a saline solution because of it.

[Aikbach]

Well I really don't care if the government gets rid of marriage altogether and everyone gets a civil union, including hetero's. But you can't have two institutions for two groups of people. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. I just want everyone treated equally by the government, the churches don't have to, but the government has to.Then why are you so violent toward human life in the womb and willingly creating a caste system to justify their extermination?

[MilesAustinforMVP]

If you really believe that, then separate but equal will have to suffice.
Civil unions and not 'marriages in the religious sense. A union where partners can share benefits, but not forcing religious institutions to compromise their beliefs and perform rites that they hold sacred for a cause they are averse to.

By all means go the court house and have a judge preside over your union, or have it in your yard or a rented hall, but really, stop trying to force others to accept your way of life. Freedom works in all ways, including the freedom to not accept you or care to deal with you. If freedom were really more than a tool to use to get your way, you'd have no problem understanding and accepting that.
Whatever you may believe about separate but equal is inconsequential. The Supreme Court has explicitly said separate but equal is inherently unequal. You see any government institution has to treat everyone equally under the 14th amendment.

Secondly, I'm straight. But I would have no problem just letting the churches marrying whoever they want; that is their prerogative. But under the eyes of the law, probably the best thing to do is get rid of the term marriage and just have civil unions, since religious people seem to have a hang up over the term marriage they can just keep it for themselves. Then everyone can be happy, and everything will be square with the constitution.

[Aikbach]

Whatever you may believe about separate but equal is inconsequential. The Supreme Court has explicitly said separate but equal is inherently unequal. You see any government institution has to treat everyone equally under the 14th amendment.

Secondly, I'm straight. But I would have no problem just letting the churches marrying whoever they want; that is their prerogative. But under the eyes of the law, probably the best thing to do is get rid of the term marriage and just have civil unions, since religious people seem to have a hang up over the term marriage they can just keep it for themselves. Then everyone can be happy, and everything will be square with the constitution.So you prefer society bow to the whims of a jealous spoiled brat mentality that can't play nice so no one should have it if they can't have their way, brilliant notion.

Funny how you demand people differentiate between life and a fetus (which is impossible) but refuse to permit anyone to discern between marriage and homosexuality.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Then why are you so violent toward human life in the womb and willingly creating a caste system to justify their extermination?
Firstly, I don't believe in religious morals. I believe in ethics, which means I don't believe offending anyone within reason. Ethics is a universal system of right and wrong, and thus that is why it should be the basis for law since ethics can represent anyone. Morals are usually defined by a particular culture. So you know where I am coming from.

Now back to the topic at hand, fetuses in the first trimester can't be harmed, because to harm someone they would have to be aware of it. Fetuses in the first trimester are just a bunch of cells and underdeveloped organ systems without any sort of feelings, sentience, or consciousness. Like people who are brain dead. There is no sort of ethical duty owed to either of them.

Now your religion tells you that life starts at conception and that is fine(although St. Thomas Aquinas would disagree with you). I do not believe that. I could care less about that because I do not believe in a soul. All I care about is when the organism becomes conscious and sentient. When that occurs an ethical duty is owed to the organism. Until then abortion is fair game.

[Aikbach]

I love how you guys try to use the term religious freedom to obfuscate the fact that you are discriminating against an entire group of people. Basically you all are preventing gays from forming family units by preventing them from getting married and adopting. That's bigotry. If you religious folk think that your freedoms are being trampled on you need to get a crowbar to pry your heads out from your behinds.

They gay community is not doing anything different than Brown did in Brown v. Board of Education.You are delusional, I dare you to express this sentiment to a black church congregation or the widow of MLK.

Blacks never threatened churches with violence, never threatened to redefine the intrinsic moral fiber and sacredness of institutions and traditions, never demanded their lifestyles and culture be canonized and celebrated by penalty of law if it were refused, they persevered admirably through a prejudice toward their skin color.

[Aikbach]

Firstly, I don't believe in religious morals. I believe in ethics, which means I don't believe offending anyone within reason. Ethics is a universal system of right and wrong, and thus that is why it should be the basis for law since ethics can represent anyone. Morals are usually defined by a particular culture. So you know where I am coming from.

Now back to the topic at hand, fetuses in the first trimester can't be harmed, because to harm someone they would have to be aware of it. Fetuses in the first trimester are just a bunch of cells and underdeveloped organ systems without any sort of feelings, sentience, or consciousness. Like people who are brain dead. There is no sort of ethical duty owed to either of them.

Now your religion tells you that life starts at conception and that is fine(although St. Thomas Aquinas would disagree with you). I do not believe that. I could care less about that because I do not believe in a soul. All I care about is when the organism becomes conscious and sentient. When that occurs an ethical duty is owed to the organism. Until then abortion is fair game.You should never give a damn about anything since all things are but culture and perspective, you fight for vanity and nothing more by your own admission. You should never oppose war, poverty, nor injustice because you do not know justice.

Ethics were not created in a vacuum, they are cultivated by society and conscience, two things you are not immune to nor outside of, it doesn't require Christianity to declare life biologically present upon conception.

By your definition the Jones Town massacre was no biggie cuz it was painless poisoning that the cultists were not aware of.

Basically you are just a glorified state of a bunch of cells so your death is meaningless as well and we ought to exterminate the weak, Hitler was right according to you.

Perhaps we should just knock out those we hate so that they no longer have consciousness and we have no obligation to keep them among the living, you first ok?

[MilesAustinforMVP]

So you prefer society bow to the whims of a jealous spoiled brat mentality that can't play nice so no one should have it if they can't have their way, brilliant notion.

Funny how you demand people differentiate between life and a fetus (which is impossible) but refuse to permit anyone to discern between marriage and homosexuality.

If you would bold a little further I said your particular religious institution can call their civil unions marriage if they prefer, but the government is required by the constitution to treat everyone equal. That is all I care about. As long as the GOVERNMENT treats everyone equally I'm fine with it.

Moreover, you are right. The religious folks are spoiled brats who can't share with their homosexual brothers and sisters, but I see no value in creating conflict with them. So they can call it marriage if they wish and the Government can call it civil unions and everyone is happy.

[Aikbach]

If you would bold a little further I said your particular religious institution can call their civil unions marriage if they prefer, but the government is required by the constitution to treat everyone equal. That is all I care about. As long as the GOVERNMENT treats everyone equally I'm fine with it.

Moreover, you are right. The religious folks are spoiled brats who can't share with their homosexual brothers and sisters, but I see no value in creating conflict with them. So they can call it marriage if they wish and the Government can call it civil unions and everyone is happy.
Why do you want the title so bad, its religious in origin, you have shown your disrespect for Christianity and you demand the separation of church and state so why do you demand the church comply with government?

Gays have the right of attorney, will, and civil union status in many places and the whole battle is for church recognition, plain and simple otherwise the word marriage would not be in contention.

You are woefully inconsistent yet again.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

You are delusional, I dare you to express this sentiment to a black church congregation or the widow of MLK.

Blacks never threatened churches with violence, never threatened to redefine the intrinsic moral fiber and sacredness of institutions and traditions, never demanded their lifestyles and culture be canonized and celebrated by penalty of law if it were refused, they persevered admirably through a prejudice toward their skin color.

There are a very few isolated incidents of gays threatening violence against churches. The vast majority don't agree with that, to think they do is ignorant. Just like the black panthers didn't represent the black civil rights movement. They were an isolated extremist group.

And the blacks did demand the redefinition of marriage in this country and they received it. They wanted to be able to marry whites, which was illegal. It was the "intrinsic moral fiber and sacredness of institutions and traditions" to keep blacks from marrying whites. In fact it wasnt until 2001 that Bob Jones university allowed interracial dating. Basically if your "moral fiber" is unconstitutional then it doesn't matter how old that tradition of bigotry is; it is constitutionally required to be go. Your religion doesn't have to recognize it if it wants to be bigoted, but the government has to recognize it.

[vta]

Whatever you may believe about separate but equal is inconsequential. The Supreme Court has explicitly said separate but equal is inherently unequal. You see any government institution has to treat everyone equally under the 14th amendment.

Secondly, I'm straight. But I would have no problem just letting the churches marrying whoever they want; that is their prerogative. But under the eyes of the law, probably the best thing to do is get rid of the term marriage and just have civil unions, since religious people seem to have a hang up over the term marriage they can just keep it for themselves. Then everyone can be happy, and everything will be square with the constitution.

Nope. Only those who want to take away religious ceremony would be happy. And a church is not a government institution.

Certain rites, such as baptisms, marriages and communions are religious rites and are protected by law, under freedom of religion. Doing away with any of those rites, because you do not fit into the guidelines of the religion is not freedom, it's simply taking a right away from one, to make another who is excluded from those rites happy.

Freedom of religion is being able to follow the tenets of the religion, not having the government force it to be malleable to the whims of any group.

If gays want something, they would be wise in avoiding religion all together and seek government mandates. Since it's abundantly clear that they won't do just that, it's obvious their only intention is to smear religion.

[Hostile]

There is no reason in the world that civil unions cannot get the same financial and other breaks that goes with marriage. None at all.That is exactly correct and both presidential candidates and their VP choices agree with that.

The issue has ALWAYS been that churches who believe homosexuality is a sin were going to be forced to do things against their own religious values. It is like forcing a Muslim person to eat pork. It is simply wrong. They were threatened with lawsuits, revocation of their tax exempt status, and all kinds of horrible intrusions into their freedoms.

You do not have to be religious to see that. You just have to have your eyes open.

The attacks in the Boston area on the Catholic church galvanized religions to stand together in the 3 states. Religions that do not normally do so. Jewish synagogues, Muslim mosques, and various Christian religions all were united in a desire to protect their own religious freedoms. They did NOT in any way attack the Gay and Lesbian community. Let me repeat that. Gays and Lesbians were not attacked in the advertising. I know, because I saw every ad.

It is shocking to me that anyone would condone the actions of retaliation that have happened since that measure failed. In this country (of all places on earth) it should not be condoned.

I've seen vandalism, thug-like behavior, religious persecution, and outright lies like the one told by Ms. Gingrich since this measure passed. I've even heard of some death threats. It is basically a mass temper tantrum. If the measure had failed and the religions had acted even 1/10 as boorish, the media would be all over them.

Why no protests at Jewish synagogues? Afraid to be labeled anti-Semitic? Why no protests at Muslim mosques? Afraid to be labeled as racists? This measure passed because of the strong outpouring of the Blacks and Hispanics in California. Why no protests there? Again fear of being labeled racists. But by all means protest Christian religions with mostly White congregations who won't fight back because the media would paint them.

It's deplorable.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Why do you want the title so bad, its religious in origin, you have shown your disrespect for Christianity and you demand the separation of church and state so why do you demand the church comply with government?

Gays have the right of attorney, will, and civil union status in many places and the whole battle is for church recognition, plain and simple otherwise the word marriage would not be in contention.

You are woefully inconsistent yet again.
The Supreme court ruled separate but equal is inherently unequal, so deal with it.

Secondly, I don't want that title. Are not reading my posts or can you not read. I wrote that the government can just use the term civil unions, and the religions can use the term marriage if they would like. As long as everyone is treated equally by the Government then I'm peachy keen.

[Hostile]

I think Hoss has a point: I don't like the idea of government enforcement of things like that. I think some of the churches are run by *****, but that's their right. I recall going to a marriage ceremony where the couple had to be married by a Unitarian, because his priest was on vacation and her Catholic priest would not approve of doing a Catholic/Protestant marriage......

Still, we have this religioius dogma being enshrined into law. I personally don't care what you call the thing, as long as its legally equal. So I'd be happy with a Civil Union/Marriage split. Let them keep the word if it will make things work smoother.

Despite the fact that marriage means different things all over the world, and through history. And we are actually legally obligated through law and treaty to accept other countries and states versions. The Saudi guy's get family rates when they show up with 30 wives.....

Technically I think the Pro Life position founders on being another religious dogma position, and I can't say I disagree with the death penalty, except that every case should be rigorously examined. Not too impressed by the present implementation of it.Thank you.

[Aikbach]

There are a very few isolated incidents of gays threatening violence against churches. The vast majority don't agree with that, to think they do is ignorant. Just like the black panthers didn't represent the black civil rights movement. They were an isolated extremist group.

And the blacks did demand the redefinition of marriage in this country and they received it. They wanted to be able to marry whites, which was illegal. It was the "intrinsic moral fiber and sacredness of institutions and traditions" to keep blacks from marrying whites. In fact it wasnt until 2001 that Bob Jones university allowed interracial dating. Basically if your "moral fiber" is unconstitutional then it doesn't matter how old that tradition of bigotry is; it is constitutionally required to go.Bigotry is a moral judgment call ,you don't believe in morality.

The law is full of shameful instances for certain (for example the possible Freedom of choice Act and judicial activism) but the rule of law by and large is just.

The difference between interracial marriage and homosexuality is that homosexuality does not procreate it recruits so its existence is predicated upon shoving itself into traditional families to keep it from being a fringe, its publicity exaggerates its numbers and prevalence, they've run an impressive PR campaign to inundate us all into thinking they are anything more than a lifestyle choice represented by roughly 1% of 300 million.

Choose that lifestyle if you must but do not come to the public square and demand to be celebrated and rewarded, just another example of entitlement in our modern times.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Nope. Only those who want to take away religious ceremony would be happy. And a church is not a government institution.

Certain rites, such as baptisms, marriages and communions are religious rites and are protected by law, under freedom of religion. Doing away with any of those rites, because you do not fit into the guidelines of the religion is not freedom, it's simply taking a right away from one, to make another who is excluded from those rites happy.

Freedom of religion is being able to follow the tenets of the religion, not having the government force it to be malleable to the whims of any group.

If gays want something, they would be wise in avoiding religion all together and seek government mandates. Since it's abundantly clear that they won't do just that, it's obvious their only intention is to smear religion.

Nobody is saying is saying you have to get rid of those rites. What the heck are you talking about? In fact you can just let heterosexuals exercise those religious rites if you wish. The government should allow religions to be bigoted if they wish to be.

[Hostile]

You are delusional, I dare you to express this sentiment to a black church congregation or the widow of MLK.

Blacks never threatened churches with violence, never threatened to redefine the intrinsic moral fiber and sacredness of institutions and traditions, never demanded their lifestyles and culture be canonized and celebrated by penalty of law if it were refused, they persevered admirably through a prejudice toward their skin color.Post of the day.

[Aikbach]

The Supreme court ruled separate but equal is inherently unequal, so deal with it.

Secondly, I don't want that title. Are not reading my posts or can you not read. I wrote that the government can just use the term civil unions, and the religions can use the term marriage if they would like. As long as everyone is treated equally by the Government then I'm peachy keen.Prop 8 passed so deal with it.

See how that works? Oh I'm sorry, only when in your favor must one live with the state of affairs.

[bbgun]

The Supreme court ruled separate but equal is inherently unequal, so deal with it.

Not quite. The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

[Hostile]

Nope. Only those who want to take away religious ceremony would be happy. And a church is not a government institution.

Certain rites, such as baptisms, marriages and communions are religious rites and are protected by law, under freedom of religion. Doing away with any of those rites, because you do not fit into the guidelines of the religion is not freedom, it's simply taking a right away from one, to make another who is excluded from those rites happy.

Freedom of religion is being able to follow the tenets of the religion, not having the government force it to be malleable to the whims of any group.

If gays want something, they would be wise in avoiding religion all together and seek government mandates. Since it's abundantly clear that they won't do just that, it's obvious their only intention is to smear religion.Exactly right. He will not get it.

[vta]

Nobody is saying is saying you have to get rid of those rites. What the heck are you talking about? In fact you can just let heterosexuals exercise those religious rites if you wish. The government should allow religions to be bigoted if they wish to be.

I do believe, Miles, that it was you who wrote "probably the best thing to do is get rid of the term marriage".

The 'term' marriage is not merely a term, any more than baptism or communion is a term. They are religious practices - practices valued by many. By all means, let the gays abandon such hopes of being 'married' and be united civilly, but don't expect religion to abandon it's tenets to make them feel better about themselves.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Bigotry is a moral judgment call ,you don't believe in morality.
Firstly, with bigotry you harm someone, so it is an ethical judgment call.


The difference between interracial marriage and homosexuality is that homosexuality does not procreate it recruits so its existence is predicated upon shoving itself into traditional families to keep it from being a fringe, its publicity exaggerates its numbers and prevalence, they've run an impressive PR campaign to inundate us all into thinking they are anything more than a lifestyle choice represented by roughly 1% of 300 million.

Choose that lifestyle if you must but do not come to the public square and demand to be celebrated and rewarded, just another example of entitlement in our modern times.

Secondly, Science has shown there are anatomical differences in hypothalmic nuclei between gays and straights, so it is not a choice.

Thirdly, that recruit comment was both ignorant and bigoted. I think I'm done discussing this matter with you. That comment is truly disgusting.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

I do believe, Miles, that it was you who wrote "probably the best thing to do is get rid of the term marriage".

The 'term' marriage is not merely a term, any more than baptism or communion is a term. They are religious practices - practices valued by many. By all means, let the gays abandon such hopes of being 'married' and be united civilly, but don't expect religion to abandon it's tenets to make them feel better about themselves.
Sorry let me rephrase. The government can get rid of the term marriage and just have civil unions. Your religious institution can keep it. Why is that so wrong? Then everyone is equal under the eyes of the law, as is constitutionally mandated, and under the eyes of your god only heterosexuals are married. Then everyone is happy.

[bbgun]

If opposing gay marriage on religious grounds makes you a bigot, then meet the latest bigot.

http://dirtyharrysplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obama.jpg

[vta]

Exactly right. He will not get it.

Aikbach said it best, this whole 'issue' is a farce. It's not an issue.

Seeing the success and righteous cause blacks have had against racism, a fringe group of our society is demanding acceptance, by trying to hitch it's wagon to their plight and it's a disgrace.

Gays will never touch the depth of misery blacks have been subjected to and have no such grounds of 'discrimination' to prop themselves upon.

It's unfortunate that a more noble cause has influenced such a pale attempt to capitalize on it's success and can cause such discord amongst our population. This country has greater woes to concern itself with.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Not quite. The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?
Homosexuality is not just a behavior. They are born a certain way. You can't discriminate against the way someone is born.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

If opposing gay marriage on religious grounds makes you a bigot, then meet the latest bigot.

http://dirtyharrysplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obama.jpg
He does what he must to get elected. In time that will all change.

[Aikbach]

Firstly, with bigotry you harm someone, so it is an ethical judgment call.



Secondly, Science has shown there are anatomical differences in hypothalmic nuclei between gays and straights, so it is not a choice.

Thirdly, that recruit comment was both ignorant and bigoted. I think I'm done discussing this matter with you. That comment is truly disgusting.So discernment between what harms and doesn't is done by whom?
Sounds like a judgment call which flirts dangerously with the moral, why is 'harm' bad? And if its bad what standard is bad waged against if not morality? What is ethic void of morality, cultural legalism? Then its relative and easily dismissed.

So I can't be bigoted, just not like minded, no need to argue then cause nothing is at stake in this nihilistic and meaningless existence.

As for your pseudo-science, ain't buying it and besides scientific facts can't be bedrock since everything else in life is subjective, then there can't be any absolutes our intellects can grasp.

[vta]

Sorry let me rephrase. The government can get rid of the term marriage and just have civil unions. Your religious institution can keep it. Why is that so wrong? Then everyone is equal under the eyes of the law, as is constitutionally mandated, and under the eyes of your god only heterosexuals are married. Then everyone is happy.

Then they should stop challenging the church on it's absolute right to decline servicing them.

I personally do not care if a gay couple is united civilly and in fact was happy for a dear friend who was able to do just that, because it made her happy.

[Aikbach]

He does what he must to get elected. In time that will all change.So unbridled pragmatism is acceptable so long as you approve of the end the means need not matter, Watergate was perfectly just then since Nixon wanted to find out dirt on McGovern.

The War in Iraq was completely justifiable since we wanted to oust Saddam.

Nuclear war is permissible as well since it would turn our enemies to ash and keep us safe.

[bbgun]

Homosexuality is not just a behavior. They are born a certain way. You can't discriminate against the way someone is born.

Sure it is. It's something you do, not something you are. Duh. Why do you think we need a word to differentiate them from the heteros?

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Aikbach said it best, this whole 'issue' is a farce. It's not an issue.

Seeing the success and righteous cause blacks have had against racism, a fringe group of our society is demanding acceptance, by trying to hitch it's wagon to their plight and it's a disgrace.

Gays will never touch the depth of misery blacks have been subjected to and have no such grounds of 'discrimination' to prop themselves upon.

It's unfortunate that a more noble cause has influenced such a pale attempt to capitalize on it's success and can cause such discord amongst our population. This country has greater woes to concern itself with.
Until recently, especially in the South, if someone found out you were gay you would get the **** kicked out of you. My grandfather, who grew up in Texas, told me when he was younger he knew of a couple of times when certain people were found out and were beaten senseless. Don't be so naive to think gay people had it so easy in this country.

[Aikbach]

Homosexuality is not just a behavior. They are born a certain way. You can't discriminate against the way someone is born.You seem willing to kill the unconscious, sounds like a discrimination to me, some are born in a coma. Time to saline them to death i guess.

You seem willing to pre-empt a down syndrome child with abortion, but you oppose pre-emptive war, most curious.

In the end you really are quite fond of pre-emptive death.

[vta]

Until recently, especially in the South, if someone found out you were gay you would get the **** kicked out of you. My grandfather, who grew up in Texas, told me when he was younger he knew of a couple of times when certain people were found out and were beaten senseless. Don't be so naive to think gay people had it so easy in this country.

Simply put: gays have not plumbed the depths of misery that have been visited upon blacks, so abandon this tact. There is no comparison. Ever.

[Aikbach]

Until recently, especially in the South, if someone found out you were gay you would get the **** kicked out of you. My grandfather, who grew up in Texas, told me when he was younger he knew of a couple of times when certain people were found out and were beaten senseless. Don't be so naive to think gay people had it so easy in this country.
You are appealing to morality and that was already discredited by you so now what?

You want to reach out the least among us? Protect the unborn.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Sure it is. It's something you do, not something you are. Duh. Why do you think we need a word to differentiate them from the heteros?
Morphometric analysis of the human hypothalamus revealed that the volume of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) in homosexual men is 1.7 times as large as that of a reference group of male subjects and contains 2.1 times as many cells.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYR-4835YY2-1PM&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1ec9e25de8feebcb7b99c107206e56b9

[MilesAustinforMVP]

You are appealing to morality and that was already discredited by you so now what?

You want to reach out the least among us? Protect the unborn.
I beleive in not offending anyone within reason, that is what ethics is. You can't offend someone who is not sentient and conscious.

[Aikbach]

I beleive in not offending anyone within reason, that is what ethics is. You can't offend someone who is not sentient and conscious.But you can offend the living, oh no you've broken your rule!

Besides a REASONABLE man would see life is present and formulating a human being that is an independent organism of the mother.

And according to your reason any slumbering soul can be killed in their sleep since they're not conscious to object.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Simply put: gays have not plumbed the depths of misery that have been visited upon blacks, so abandon this tact. There is no comparison. Ever.

I'm not in the business of comparing misery. I'm comparing discrimination. It doesn't matter how miserable your history in America is; discrimination is discrimination. Homosexuals had a miserable existence in America and that is all that matters. You don't need to reach a certain level of misery to be allowed to be treated equally. That is absurd.

[Hostile]

If opposing gay marriage on religious grounds makes you a bigot, then meet the latest bigot.

http://dirtyharrysplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obama.jpgI understand what you are saying, so when I disagree with this please understand why.

The religions who supported this are not bigots and neither were the 4 candidates for the top 2 spots in the US.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of others based on their beliefs, opinions, or creeds.

That definition does not fit the supporters of Prop 8 and Prop 102. Unfortunately (and I do mean this) it is fitting the other side.

I know of no one who will not support survivor rights, insurance rights, etc. for same sex couples. Not one single person that I have met on these measures wants same sex couples to be sanctioned in any way. They simply do not want any religions to be the subject of attacks and forced to perform acts contrary to their doctrines.

I am not Muslim. But if this movement were trying to force the Muslim faith to recognize same sex marriages I would oppose it. Same with the Jewish faith. Same with any faith. Our forefathers came to this great land so they could worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

If I were an atheist I would still oppose this. Forcing a people (in this case religions) to accept things they oppose or face injunctions and oppression is beyond galling.

That is EXACTLY why Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mr. Biden, and Mrs. Palin were in favor of Prop 8 and Prop 102 where marriage was not to be redefined.

Remove the oppression of the religious rights from the equation and I promise you no one would balk at this. No one.

The Gay and Lesbian community will never protest Mr. Obama, because it will get negative feedback from the media. I applaud him for recognizing the flaws and taking a stand for what is right.

[Hostile]

Aikbach said it best, this whole 'issue' is a farce. It's not an issue.

Seeing the success and righteous cause blacks have had against racism, a fringe group of our society is demanding acceptance, by trying to hitch it's wagon to their plight and it's a disgrace.

Gays will never touch the depth of misery blacks have been subjected to and have no such grounds of 'discrimination' to prop themselves upon.

It's unfortunate that a more noble cause has influenced such a pale attempt to capitalize on it's success and can cause such discord amongst our population. This country has greater woes to concern itself with.I'm going to show this to a friend of mine here in Tucson. He has said the exact same thing. Them including him in their arguments insults him to the core.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

I understand what you are saying, so when I disagree with this please understand why.

The religions who supported this are not bigots and neither were the 4 candidates for the top 2 spots in the US.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of others based on their beliefs, opinions, or creeds.

That definition does not fit the supporters of Prop 8 and Prop 102. Unfortunately (and I do mean this) it is fitting the other side.

I know of no one who will not support survivor rights, insurance rights, etc. for same sex couples. Not one single person that I have met on these measures wants same sex couples to be sanctioned in any way. They simply do not want any religions to be the subject of attacks and forced to perform acts contrary to their doctrines.

I am not Muslim. But if this movement were trying to force the Muslim faith to recognize same sex marriages I would oppose it. Same with the Jewish faith. Same with any faith. Our forefathers came to this great land so they could worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

If I were an atheist I would still oppose this. Forcing a people (in this case religions) to accept things they oppose or face injunctions and oppression is beyond galling.

That is EXACTLY why Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mr. Biden, and Mrs. Palin were in favor of Prop 8 and Prop 102 where marriage was not to be redefined.

Remove the oppression of the religious rights from the equation and I promise you no one would balk at this. No one.

The Gay and Lesbian community will never protest Mr. Obama, because it will get negative feedback from the media. I applaud him for recognizing the flaws and taking a stand for what is right.
Like I said before you have religious rights with in reason. you can't use your right to deny others rights. You don't have to to baptize gays if you don't want to, but they have to be seen equally under the eyes if the law.

And by the way Obama was against prop 8 (http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doesnt-believe-in-gay-marriage-20081103/). Like I said he has to say certain things to get elected like all politicians. It's is more ethical to lie to bigots and do good as President, than allow a bigot like McCain get into office.

[Aikbach]

I'm going to show this to a friend of mine here in Tucson. He has said the exact same thing. Them including him in their arguments insults him to the core.Its like comparing themselves (homosexuals) to Roman Christians being fed to the lions, completely out of context and irreverent for what genuine persecution looks like.

[Hostile]

Like I said before you have religious rights with in reason. you can't use your right to deny others rights. You don't have to to baptize gays if you don't want to, but they have to be seen equally under the eyes if the law.

And by the way Obama was against prop 8 (http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doesnt-believe-in-gay-marriage-20081103/). Like I said he has to say certain things to get elected like all politicians. It's is more ethical to lie to bigots and do good as President, than allow a bigot like McCain get into office.You are wrong on these things.

There was no denial of rights. That is the point.

[trickblue]

Irony. :laugh2:

Miles has always been recognized as passionate... just not real smart... ;)

[Aikbach]

You are wrong on these things.

There was no denial of rights. That is the point.Wrong implies moral judgment Hositle, that simply won't do.

You could have said incorrect, that is softer and more palatable to his ethics which lack moral standards despite making moral platitudes.:confused::rolleyes::)

[Hostile]

Wrong implies moral judgment Hositle, that simply won't do.

You could have said incorrect, that is softer and more palatable to his ethics which lack moral standards despite making moral platitudes.:confused::rolleyes::)LOL

I'm a bull in a china closet. Delicacy doesn't work too well.

[bbgun]

I understand what you are saying, so when I disagree with this please understand why.

The religions who supported this are not bigots and neither were the 4 candidates for the top 2 spots in the US.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of others based on their beliefs, opinions, or creeds.

Yes, I realize that Obama et al are nothing of the kind. I was merely mocking Miles' predilection for dismissing everything he doesn't like as "hate" and demonizing Prop 8 opponents as "haters and bigots." It's a sleazy way to win an argument; makes otherwise reasonable people much less likely to sympathize with gay marriage proponents; and quite frankly smacks of desperation.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

You are wrong on these things.

There was no denial of rights. That is the point.

Like adopting?

I know you think if they are given all the same rights then every thing is peachy keen. But Brown v. Board of education says separate but equal is inherently unequal. That is why I'm proposing having civil unions for the government, and marriage for religions, so religious institutions can marry whoever they want, and the government can treat everyone equally. Whats your problem with that.

[Hostile]

Yes, I realize that Obama et al are nothing of the kind. I was merely mocking Miles' predilection for dismissing everything he doesn't like as "hate" and demonizing Prop 8 opponents as "haters and bigots." It's a sleazy way to win an argument; makes otherwise reasonable people much less likely to sympathize with gay marriage proponents; and quite frankly smacks of desperation.And doing a damn fine job of it if you will allow me to say so.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

I'm going to show this to a friend of mine here in Tucson. He has said the exact same thing. Them including him in their arguments insults him to the core.
That is sad your friend is so offended by being compared to a homosexual. That shouldn't be an insult.

Anyhow if that bothers you so much I'll compare homosexuals to Jews, since I'm of Jewish heritage myself and I don't find it insulting to being compared to a homosexual. Homosexuals were also put in the concentration camps and discriminated to a greater extent than Jews here in America. So if Jews are allowed to marry and have equal rights then so should Homosexuals. Is that better?

[Hostile]

Like adopting?

I know you think if they are given all the same rights then every thing is peachy keen. But Brown v. Board of education says separate but equal is inherently unequal. That is why I'm proposing having civil unions for the government, and marriage for religions, so religious institutions can marry whoever they want, and the government can treat everyone equally. Whats your problem with that.As vta said, that is an appalling comparison.

[Aikbach]

Like adopting?

I know you think if they are given all the same rights then every thing is peachy keen. But Brown v. Board of education says separate but equal is inherently unequal. That is why I'm proposing having civil unions for the government, and marriage for religions, so religious institutions can marry whoever they want, and the government can treat everyone equally. Whats your problem with that.Do gays procreate? One of the bi-products of marriage is children, even gay union beneath that banner wouldn't satisfy that function.

You make the choice not to procreate when you adopt a homosexual lifestyle so now you want the privilege of parenthood from the sons and daughters of those you did not bring into this world?

Besides you as a man of science surely recognizes that studies prove a child needs a balanced exposure to both a mother and father for their own development and stability no matter how benevolent the homosexual household.

It's no coincidence gays go out of their way to get opposite sex as nannies to help raise their children, because they lack the natural function a procreative couple innately brings to parenthood.

These are the FACTS and they are NOT disputed so bigot away.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

As vta said, that is an appalling comparison.
Well gays were put in concentration camps and experienced far worse conditions in there than blacks ever have in America. Have blacks been put in ovens alive en masse? But like I said I don't like comparing misery. It's a stupid exercise.

Secondly, as a law student, the Brown v. Board decision doesn't only apply to blacks. When the court said "separate but equal is inherently unequal" they meant it to apply to everyone no matter who you are, and that is a fact.

[Aikbach]

Well gays were put in concentration camps and experienced far worse conditions in there than blacks ever have in America. Have blacks been put in ovens alive en masse?

Secondly, as a law student, the Brown v. Board decision doesn't only apply to blacks. When the court said "separate but equal is inherently unequal" they meant it to apply to everyone no matter who you are, and that is a fact.Mere Social Darwinism, quit making moral distinctions, you already denounced it.

How many Christians have been murdered and persecuted the past 2000 years by the way?

Facts are absolutes, we can't make those by your logic, the world is relative.

Proclaiming any view point stupid is another folly into moralism on your part.

[Hostile]

That is sad your friend is so offended by being compared to a homosexual. That shouldn't be an insult.

Anyhow if that bothers you so much I'll compare homosexuals to Jews, since I'm of Jewish heritage myself and I don't find it insulting to being compared to a homosexual. Homosexuals were also put in the concentration camps and discriminated to a greater extent than Jews here in America. So if Jews are allowed to marry and have equal rights then so should Homosexuals. Is that better?Homosexuals have been nowhere near the discrimination of slaves. They were never chattel.

Yes, they have been seen as lesser citizens and no one denies that is wrong.

The comparison is ludicrous.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Do gays procreate? One of the bi-products of marriage is children, even gay union beneath that banner wouldn't satisfy that function.

You make the choice not to procreate when you adopt a homosexual lifestyle so now you want the privilege of parenthood from the sons and daughters of those you did not bring into this world?

Besides you as a man of science surely recognizes that studies prove a child needs a balanced exposure to both a mother and father for their own development and stability no matter how benevolent the homosexual household.

It's no coincidence gays go out of their way to get opposite sex as nannies to help raise their children, because they lack the natural function a procreative couple innately brings to parenthood.

These are the FACTS and they are NOT disputed so bigot away.

Procreation is not a concern of the government. Secondly should people who either don't want to have children or can't for biological reasons not be allowed to get married? That is a stupid argument.

And there has been no scientific study that I have seen that children raised by gay parents are any less healthy emotionally.

[iceberg]

She was too nice to say it but Newt is a serial aldulterer, which is just another example of the hypocrisy of the right.

i can never begin to tell you how glad i am that you've risen to be such a beacon of light in the darkness of dispair. your total unbiased nature you see the world in, the promise for us all, well it astounds me.

oh look - lint! gotta go!

[Hostile]

Well gays were put in concentration camps and experienced far worse conditions in there than blacks ever have in America. Have blacks been put in ovens alive en masse? But like I said I don't like comparing misery. It's a stupid exercise.

Secondly, as a law student, the Brown v. Board decision doesn't only apply to blacks. When the court said "separate but equal is inherently unequal" they meant it to apply to everyone no matter who you are, and that is a fact.Holy cow. All Jews are gay?

You need to stop. Seriously.

[bbgun]

Homosexuals have been nowhere near the discrimination of slaves.

But they are slaves to fashion. Yes, I went there girlfriend.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Holy cow. All Jews are gay?

You need to stop. Seriously.
yo genius not only Jews were put in concentration camps. Homosexuals and gypsies were also put in concentration camps. You need to stop... seriously. Don't argue with me about the Hollocaust. I will destroy you as someone who went to Hebrew school as a kid I know more than any person who would want to know about that horrible event.

[trickblue]

Holy cow. All Jews are gay?

You need to stop. Seriously.

He can't stop himself... he is the antithesis and example of everything he hates from the other side

He sees himself as reasonable without seeing his true self...

It's sad really...

[ScipioCowboy]

Like adopting?

I know you think if they are given all the same rights then every thing is peachy keen. But Brown v. Board of education says separate but equal is inherently unequal. That is why I'm proposing having civil unions for the government, and marriage for religions, so religious institutions can marry whoever they want, and the government can treat everyone equally. Whats your problem with that.

Your argument is invalid because no individual has the right to define marriage solely for himself or herself. This limitation is true for everyone, not just homosexuals; therefore, there is no separation.

Does the government grant marriage status to polygamous unions or incestuous unions?

No.

Are those who would engage in polygamy or incest victims of discrimination?

Of course not. The very idea is ludicrous.

[Aikbach]

Procreation is not a concern of the government. Secondly should people who either don't want to have children or can't for biological reasons not be allowed to get married? That is a stupid argument.

And there has been no scientific study that I have seen that children raised by gay parents are any less healthy emotionally.So because you have not seen it it must not be true? This is how you've formulated your worldview.

Stupid is to trek into a moral standard bud, you can't do that, you're handcuffed.

Procreation is very much the concern of the government as the preamble of our very Declaration of Independence declares men entitled to LIFE and all other liberties flow from it accordingly.

It is the government's constitutional obligation to defend the people, which mean LIFE be it in the womb or near senility, though you think those two classifications are sub-human.

The survival of society is very much in the best interest of the republic and thus the sanctity of life is infact enshrined in the constitution and the taking of it from infants and geriatrics is explicitly forbidden in many state constitutions which were denied their rightful authority by judicial activism despite their federal right to exist according to the national constitution.

You are very hostile to human life in all forms so it is no wonder you are flippant with its stewardship if it survives the first round of executions it may be subjected to in the womb.

[Hostile]

yo genius not only Jews were put in concentration camps. Homosexuals and gypsies were also put in concentration camps. You need to stop... seriously. Don't argue with me about the Hollocaust. I will destroy you as someone who went to Hebrew school as a kid I know more than any person who would want to know about that horrible event.The concentration camps were not in America. Hate to break that to you.

In the Middle East gays are murdered. How is that a reflection on the United States? Oh right, it isn't.

Comparing Nazi Germany to America is foolish at best. It can't get any higher than that on the scale. Foolish is the peak.

[bbgun]

yo genius not only Jews were put in concentration camps. Homosexuals and gypsies were also put in concentration camps. You need to stop... seriously. Don't argue with me about the Hollocaust. I will destroy you as someone who went to Hebrew school as a kid I know more than any person who would want to know about that horrible event.

Schmuck.

[Aikbach]

She was too nice to say it but Newt is a serial aldulterer, which is just another example of the hypocrisy of the right.Adultery is a moral matter ( so is discerning "niceness"), you don't make those, remember?

[MilesAustinforMVP]

He can't stop himself... he is the antithesis and example of everything he hates from the other side

He sees himself as reasonable without seeing his true self...

It's sad really...
Hey genius, Homosexuals were specifically targeted as a group for extermination by the Nazis. But I'm going to do you guys a favor and stop for tonight, as I've beaten ya'll to a pulp. Later.

[Aikbach]

Hey genius, Homosexuals were specifically targeted as a group for extermination by the Nazis. But I'm going to do you guys a favor and stop for tonight. Later.We are all genius' by your admission so i see no need for you to continue your debate especially since you've established that moralism, absolutes, and conscience are not permissible pools of thought to bring to any argument although that is illogical because logic does not exist in a vacuum but i don't think you've thought this through very carefully.

[trickblue]

Hey genius, Homosexuals were specifically targeted as a group for extermination by the Nazis. But I'm going to do you guys a favor and stop for tonight. Later.

Hey genius... when did I mention Homosexuals?

My point was that you don't even recognize yourself as radical while accusing others of the same thing...

You are hardly objective... and I don't need a history lesson from you... I know history quite well, thank you...

[bbgun]

Hey genius, Homosexuals were specifically targeted as a group for extermination by the Nazis. But I'm going to do you guys a favor and stop for tonight, as I've beaten ya'll to a pulp. Later.

I have a feeling he's just seconds away for analogizing Auschwitz to the Japanese internment camps, which, of course, would put FDR on the same moral plane as Hitler.

[burmafrd]

Gotta admire a guy who can take so many head and body shots and still keep coming back for more. Wasn't there some boxer years ago that was pretty bad but had such a hard head that he was virtually impossible to knock out?
Trying to remember his name.

[Aikbach]

I have a feeling he's just seconds away for analogizing Auschwitz to the Japanese internment camps, which, of course, would put FDR on the same moral plane as Hitler.He can't, FDR is a demagogue to the left, infallible and beyond reproach.

[silverbear]

Thanksgiving dinner must be a LOT of fun in the Gingrich household... :D

[burmafrd]

The logic of that would completely escape him.

[bbgun]

He can't, FDR is a demagogue to the left, infallible and beyond reproach.

Did you mean demi-god? "Demagogue" is a pejorative.

[Hostile]

Gotta admire a guy who can take so many head and body shots and still keep coming back for more. Wasn't there some boxer years ago that was pretty bad but had such a hard head that he was virtually impossible to knock out?
Trying to remember his name.Randall "Tex" Cobb.

[burmafrd]

Yeah I think that was him.
Or was that Chuck Wepner who fought Ali in the 70's?

[bbgun]

Thanksgiving dinner must be a LOT of fun in the Gingrich household... :D

Newt always loses the "hairiest legs" contest.

[ScipioCowboy]

Thanksgiving dinner must be a LOT of fun in the Gingrich household... :D

Poor Mother Gingrich has difficulty telling her son and daughter apart.;)

[Aikbach]

Did you mean demi-god? "Demagogue" is a pejorative.No, I meant demagogue, it can be positive or negative according to one's personal worldview and how they wish to fit it in.

He appealed to emotions and fears to promote his political agendas, same thing the left likes to lambaste Bush of doing.

[Hostile]

He actually thinks he made points. That's just sad. He got raked at every turn.

[silverbear]

Candace Gingrich is a Butch Lesbian and charter member of that radical lesbian terrorist group WUDP (Women United to Destroy Penises)

There's one charity I won't be contributing to...

[Aikbach]

Randall "Tex" Cobb.Yes but then he put together a senational acting career in Arizona.;)

[Hostile]

Yes but then he put together a senational acting career in Arizona.;)Holly Hunter was so miscast in that movie.

Nicholas Cage
Tex Cobb
Holly Hunter


It's Sesame Street. One of these actors is not like the others, tell me which one doesn't belong....

[bbgun]

There's one charity I won't be contributing to...

Just because she pees standing up is no reason to feel threatened.

[ScipioCowboy]

Yes but then he put together a senational acting career in Arizona.;)

I have a question for you, Mr. Aikbach--our own personal Hollywood Insider:

With whom can I lobby a complaint over the new Star Trek movie? The prospect of Star Trek 90210 simply doesn't appeal to me as an avid Trekker.

[Aikbach]

Holly Hunter was so miscast in that movie.

Nicholas Cage
Tex Cobb
Holly Hunter


It's Sesame Street. One of these actors is not like the others, tell me which one doesn't belong....Nicholas Cage? Just kidding. It's a fun movie however.

[Aikbach]

I have a question for you, Mr. Aikbach--our own personal Hollywood Insider:

With whom can I lobby a complaint over the new Star Trek movie? The prospect of Star Trek 90210 simply doesn't appeal to me as an avid Trekker.Paramount Pictures or producer J/J Abrams, I'm not legally permitted to provide their contact info. but it can be found on IMDBPro.

[ScipioCowboy]

Paramount Pictures or producer J/J Abrams, I'm not legally permitted to provide their contact info. but it can be found on IMDBPro.

Thanks.:)

I don't suppose you have any thoughts concerning the upcoming Trek?

[Aikbach]

Thanks.:)

I don't suppose you have any thoughts concerning the upcoming Trek?I watched them film parts of it on the backlot, it was filmed under the top secret banner "Corporate Headquarters" in order to protect the privacy of the set, a common industry practice to keep snoops away especially in the digital age where spoilers hit the world wide web in a jiffy.

[Hostile]

Nicholas Cage? Just kidding. It's a fun movie however.As in...she's the only one who can truly act. Nick and Tex can't.

[bbgun]

I have a question for you, Mr. Aikbach--our own personal Hollywood Insider:

With whom can I lobby a complaint over the new Star Trek movie? The prospect of Star Trek 90210 simply doesn't appeal to me as an avid Trekker.

The only thing worse than sequels is prequels. Young Anakin and Obi Wan? Sucked. Young Indiana Jones? Sucked. Godfather II is a major exception.

[Aikbach]

As in...she's the only one who can truly act. Nick and Tex can't.Well, I guess Madonna was busy.:eek:

[silverbear]

Just because she pees standing up is no reason to feel threatened.

OK, that one cracked me up... :bow:

[Rogah]

The only thing worse than sequels is prequels. Young Anakin and Obi Wan? Sucked. Young Indiana Jones? Sucked. Godfather II is a major exception.The prequel parts of Godfather 2 worked so well because they didn't have to shoehorn anything in to make it consistent with the characters we all already knew and loved. IIRC, if you read the Godfather book, you get the events that take place in Godfather 1 plus the events that describe Vito's journey to America and how he rose to the lead a major crime syndicate. So the 2nd Godfather movies presented a story completely consistent with the original and didn't have that feeling that they "shoe-horned" the story in to fit facts we already knew.

That plus the fact that they are both absolutely brilliant movies doesn't hurt. :D

I have a question for you, Mr. Aikbach--our own personal Hollywood Insider:

With whom can I lobby a complaint over the new Star Trek movie? The prospect of Star Trek 90210 simply doesn't appeal to me as an avid Trekker.I thought the new trailer looked pretty darn decent, but I am certainly not an avid Trekker so I don't know how untrue-to-the-original the new movie is going to be. It seems to me that Abrams is trying to broaden the appeal of Star Trek in order to keep the movie franchise alive. Because if this Star Trek movie doesn't do better than the last few ones, it could be a looooooooooooong time before they make another.

[masomenos]

Abrams typically makes pretty enjoyable stuff. It's not always good, but it's normally a good ride.

[burmafrd]

Basically Abrams has dumped the entire background of the enterprise crew as was established in the series and the movies.
He has kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones, virtually everyone at the academy at the same time- despite what was shown in that Kirk was the youngest Star Ship captain in Star fleet History; that BOnes and Scotty were several years older; that Spock had been on the Enterprise 17 years before kirk got there; that Kirk was a gen X type at the academy when several episodes on the original series showed he was a very dedicated and serious cadet.
I could go on but whats the point. I guess you can tell I despise what Abrams is doing with the background and history of Star Trek.