I don’t normally reprint emails without the authors’ express permission, but since this exchange seems to be making the rounds, and since it constitutes official correspondence with an elected official, thus making it a public record, I feel comfortable making an exception.
This afternoon Barbara from Sammamish mass emailed state legislators, citing a number of Biblical passages, and urging them to “Say NO to same sex marriage” or “be judged for all eternity. And to his credit, Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-Covington) was quick to offer the following courteous and thorough reply:
From: Simpson, Rep. Geoff
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:11 PM
To: [redacted]
Subject: RE: Say NO to same sex marriage SB5688Barbara –
What is it in the bible that leads you to believe stopping gay marriage should top your political priority list? Was there some extra-special **emphasis**, italics, bold or bold italics in your bible that called your attention to one aspect of god’s law to be the thing you should contact your elected representative about? Or did God himself point you to gay marriage as the issue that should be your tip-top, number one political concern?
Jesus opposed the death penalty, saying “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” – yet George W. Bush set an execution record when he was governor of Texas, and boasted of it. I don’t recall ever getting a message from you opposing the death penalty as Christ did.
Why is your “Christian” political activism concentrated against gay marriage instead of against the death penalty?
In the interest enforcing the laws of the bible with regard to marriage, let’s not forget that;
- It’s ok for marriage to consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3: 2-5)
- Marriage does not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.(11Sam 5:13; 1Kings 11:3; 11Chron 11:21)
- A marriage is considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut. 22: 13-21)
- Marriage between a believer and a non-believer is forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25: 1-9; Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30)
- Since marriage is for life, nothing in the scriptures permits divorce.( Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
- If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and by otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
Finally, I need some advice from you regarding some of the specific laws contained in the bible and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:17-21 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Geoff
Huh. I wonder if Barbara will respond, and if so, how? (In case you’re interested, I’ve included the content of her email below the fold.)
Personally, I think Geoff replied with all the respect the initial email deserved, and I’m particularly impressed considering he doesn’t even represent a safe Democratic district. Bravo.
From: [redacted]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:59 PM
To: Orwall, Rep. Tina; Parker, Rep. Kevin; Pearson, Rep. Kirk; Pedersen, Rep. Jamie; Pettigrew, Rep. Eric; Priest, Rep. Skip; Probst, Rep. Tim; Quall, Rep. Dave; Roach, Rep. Dan; Roberts, Rep. Mary Helen; Rodne, Rep. Jay; Rolfes, Rep. Christine; Ross, Rep. Charles; Santos, Rep. Sharon Tomiko; Schmick, Rep. Joe; Seaquist, Rep. Larry; Sells, Rep. Mike; Shea, Rep. Matt; Short, Rep. Shelly; Simpson, Rep. Geoff; Smith, Rep. Norma; Springer, Rep. Larry; Sullivan, Rep. Pat; Takko, Rep. Dean; Upthegrove, Rep. Dave; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin; Wallace, Rep. Deb; Walsh, Rep. Maureen; White, Rep. Scott; Williams, Rep. Brendan; Wood, Rep. Alex
Subject: Say NO to same sex marriage SB5688Washington State Legislators
You have the authority to stop this abomination of same sex marriage. I am asking God to give you the wisdom to vote “NO” on SB5688. God definitely declared this wrong when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. If you vote for this, God will surely judge you personally. For the love of God, please don’t bring down His condemnation on our State. We will all suffer for it. Honor Him and He will honor you! Disobey Him and you will be judged for all eternity.
Genesis 18:20 And the Lord said “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave…I will destroy it.” 19:24,25 “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley and all the inhabitants of the cities”.
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
Hebrews 13:4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
If nothing else, think of the children that they will bring into these godless marriages. Matthew 18:6 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and he be drowned in the depth of the sea.” V10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones.”
Proverbs 3:5-7 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; feat the Lord and turn away from evil.”
Thank you for your time & consideration. The majority of WA State doesn’t want or need this. Please don’t put this burden on us, our children or our grandchildren.
Barbara
[redacted]
I liked the answer so much, I forwarded it to my twenty-something daughter, who quickly replied: “Go, team! I like it!”
The late Rep. Mary Skinner, an eastern Washington Republican, observed, after meeting with some teens from her very-conservative district, that some of this issue is resolved by the passing of generations.
Go, Geoff.
Who cares. Yawn.
ah what a class act he is…and Deb Eddy doesn’t seem to be to far off.
Geoff, No matter what, I would expect a more professional attitude from our “eclected” officials. Agree with the sender or not, she send a respectful request to you. You could have ignored it or just say thank you for your concern, but your reply is childish and un-professional. Are you replying the same way in all cases you don’t agree with ? And it seems you are proud of your work…”look guys, I really told that religious nut…” or why did you feel you had to forward it to Goldstein and Co ?
What a class act you are.
“I don’t normally reprint emails without the authors’ express permission, but since this exchange seems to be making the rounds, and since it constitutes official correspondence with an elected official, thus making it a public record, I feel comfortable making an exception.”
He’ll be history next election.
LMAO !!!!
Goldy-
Thanks fer sharin’…Dutch needs to remember this tiny little fact: this esteemed lawmaker is entitled to the same freedom of speech as “Barbara”, and everyone else. But I don’t think Dutch would be so critical if Simpson had sent back a response overflowing in syrupy-sweet praise for the bible-thumper (I would have said “Your comments are appreciated as much as any state citizen, but don’t forget that we still enjoy and protect the Separation of Church and State in America when it comes to passing legislation in Washington State…”)
With all the work being done on the budget, how did this guy have time to craft this long email reply with all the bible quotes?
I have no doubt Rep. Simpson received more than one of the exact same form email he received from Barbara, so I’m not surprised he replied in kind.
However, his response is a collection of emails that have been floating around about gay marriage for some time.
Not surprisingly though, conservatives still have no response to their “evil” Bible.
Too bad the response was not original to Rep. Simpson.
I’ve seen it several times on the ‘net.
Plagerism is just another fine Democratic tradition. Ref: VP Biden.
So quoting the bible is plagerism?
@7 I’ve seen portions of his response on sites about Biblical law.
As a Christian myself, I don’t consider it unreasonable at all to question Biblical law. I see Jesus and his “cast the first stone” putting a very direct hit on all of the mosaic laws where stoning at the gates of the city was the prescribed punishment. All in all, I think it best to go with Matthew 7.
Steve @ 10
Some Christians spend their lives quietly striving to both understand and live up to the standards of conduct proscribed in the Bible. Other Christians spend their lives noisily striving to force everyone else to live up to their rigid and unmoving understanding of the standards of conduct proscribed in the Bible.
I think it best to go with Matthew 7.
I’d add the beatitudes, though I think they missed one: Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not get bent out of shape.
@11 The woman who wrote the email represents the radical Christian right well. She appears to have her agenda and then cherrypicks scripture to suit. Understandably, to suit their world view, the radical Christian right seldom quotes Jesus. When they do it’s more often than not something from the rather apocalyptic Gospel of Luke. This is why I and others say that the radical Christian right seems intent on removing the teachings of Christ from Christianity.
I say live and let live.
What difference is she making in your life?
For people who don’t believe they need to talk about a lot more than people who believe.
I can feel you hate.
Steve @ 12
This is why I and others say that the radical Christian right seems intent on removing the teachings of Christ from Christianity.
I like to think of that as the difference between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Gospel about Jesus Christ.
TT @ 13
What difference is she making in your life?
I’m perfectly OK with her believing that I’m going to hell. When she wants to get the government to try to keep me from going to hell, then “live and let live” no longer applies.
@13 Far more likely you see things through a filter of hate. Hate of your own creation. A reality construct of hate. Try getting to know God. Maybe then you can let go of all this hate that’s building up inside you. Who knows? Maybe you’ll also be able to let go of all this hatred you have for America, Mom and apple pie.
@13
I have friends who ask for the same protections and commitments granted in law for marriage. They are not demanding a wedding in a Catholic Church, a Jewish Synagogue or Bapist Church.
Meanwhile radical Christians demand their legislators stop modest domestic partnership laws and hide behind an imperfect Bible.
There is no doubt in my mind the Bible is not the word of God, but the feeble attempts of mankind to understand a higher being. Why are there so many religions all with the same God? Why are there so many gospels disregarded? Why are there so many versions of the same Bible?
I don’t feel hate for the radicals, I am just troubled by their fanatiscism.
@15
your a class act to follow.
The IRS decides to audit Grandpa, and summons him to the IRS office.
The IRS auditor was not surprised when Grandpa showed up with his
attorney, Geoff Simpson
The auditor said, ‘Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no
full-time employment, Which you explain by saying that you win money
gambling. I’m not sure the IRS finds that believable.’
I’m a great gambler, and I can prove it,’ says Grandpa. ‘How about a
demonstration?’
The auditor thinks for a moment and said, ‘Okay. Go ahead.’
Grandpa says, ‘I’ll bet you a thousand dollars that I can bite my own
eye.’
The auditor thinks a moment and says, ‘It’s a bet.’
Grandpa removes his glass eye and bites it.
The auditor’s jaw drops.
Grandpa says, ‘Now, I’ll bet you two thousand dollars that I can bite my
other eye.’
Now the auditor can tell Grandpa isn’t blind, so he takes the bet. Grandpa
removes his dentures and bites his good eye.
The stunned auditor now realizes he has wagered and lost three grand, with
Grandpa’s attorney as a witness. He starts to get nervous.
‘Want to go double or nothing?’ Grandpa asks ‘I’ll bet you six thousand
dollars that I can stand on one side of your desk, and pee into that
wastebasket on the other side, and never get a drop anywhere in between.’
The auditor, twice burned, is cautious now, but he looks carefully and
decides there’s no way this old guy could possibly manage that stunt, so
he agrees again.
Grandpa stands beside the desk and unzips his pants, but although he
strains mightily, he can’t make the stream reach the wastebasket on the
other side, so he pretty much urinates all over the auditor’s desk.
The auditor leaps with joy, realizing that he has just turned a major loss
into a break even.
But Grandpa’s attorney, Geoff Simpson, moans and puts his head in his hands.
‘Are you okay?’ the auditor asks.
‘Not really,’ says Geoff Simpson. ‘This morning, when Grandpa told me he’d
been summoned for an audit, he bet me twenty-five thousand dollars that he
could come in here and piss all over your desk and that you’d be happy
about it.
Kountry Klubber steve drinks them Kountry Klub Martini’s at his Kountry Klub and then posts all his garbage while shitfaced.
Kountry Klubber steve is a real phoney…claims to be a Christian now.
Kountry Klub steve imagines himself to be lots of things when he is loaded.
@17 Glad to help you see the light. Hmm, but I see that we’re still going to have to work on that reality construct of yours. You’ve somehow gotten things inside out and upside down. We might have to tear it down and start over.
@16
The real question is marriage between a man and woman. Let them do whatever they want behind closed doors. I have no need to know or care to.
Seems if they want to change the law do it like normal people would. I have no need to walk down 5th Ave. at noon deep throating my wife why would they?
Yet they do this to get what shock, attention or ?? The people voted in calf. what did that prove to gays they can’t allow the law to be upheld.
Really didn’t help there cause.
Classic, awesome.
Let the trolls (great biblical literalists all) explain without changing the subject or just throwing the usual tantrum.
Drew: Not surprised you want to misunderstand what I’m saying. Yes, dear Geoff has the right of free speech…I’m not disputing it. What I take issue with is his “style” his “attitude” and his behaviour as an elected official. If anyone here would reply like this…fine, that’s what you guys do…and no one cares…but as an elected official, he should have more class, professionalism and at least “pretend” to care. But his petty, childish reply just proved who he really is.
What was gained by putting her down, ridicule her in email (and then forwarding it to the Goldsteins of the world)…ah what a guy…how brave, how sophisticated, how…
@19 Well, well, well, speaking of fucked up reality constructs, Mr. Klynical, our resident narcissist, has arrived.
I’ve talked about my faith openly since I’ve been here. I don’t drink.
You just make shit up because that’s all you have left. Just so much bullshit.
We get it, dutch: the politician is expected to reach your high standards, but the hateful Christian (in name only) lady gets to skate. Makes sense. Know what else makes sense: a lying, drug addict blowhard working on his fourth marriage as this lady’s hero and spokesman.
“Do not shit, lest you be shat”…
@23: I think that respectfully listening to wingnuts is what gets us things like “Waterboarding is OK!”, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, etc. I give Rep. Simpson a ton of credit for being starkly honest, so good on him.
Progressives are so open-minded.
Rep Eddy: Rep Skinner was dead on with her observation. All polling shows that the next generation could really care less about the Leave It To Beaver generation’s outdated & cherry-picked moral code.
Steve:
Somehow attacking your political opponents with goat sex commentary really demonstrates your Christianity.
EPIC FAIL!
to 23…
So, is Dutch is saying that when you become an elected official, you need to become a different person than whoever you are the rest of the time? That sounds like “politics as usual”, and I would have thought you wouldn’t like that. I don’t know a lot about Geoff Simpson, but it would appear that he’s at least honest and genuine about his beliefs, which you should be giving him some credit for.
Republican in a wheelchair entered a restaurant one afternoon and asked the waitress for a cup of coffee. The Republican looked across the restaurant and asked, “Is that Jesus sitting over there?” The waitress nodded “yes,” so the Republican requested that she give Jesus a cup of coffee on him.
The next patron to come in was a Libertarian with a hunched back. He shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and asked the waitress for a cup of hot tea. He also glanced across the restaurant and asked, “Is that Jesus over there?” The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to Give Jesus a cup of hot tea, “My treat.”
The third patron to come into the restaurant was a Democrat on crutches. He hobbled over to a booth, sat down and hollered, “Hey there, honey! How’s about gettin’ me a cold glass of Miller Light!” He, too, looked across the restaurant and asked, “Is that God’s boy over there?” The waitress once more nodded, so the Democrat directed her to give Jesus a cold glass of beer. “On my bill,” he said.
As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican, touched him and said, “For your kindness, you are healed.” The Republican felt the Strength come back into his legs, got up, and danced a jig out the door. “Thank you Jesus.”
Jesus also passed by the Libertarian, touched him and said, “For your kindness, you are healed.” The Libertarian felt his back straightening up, and he raised his hands, praised the Lord and did a series of back flips out the door.
Then Jesus walked towards the Democrat. The Democrat jumped up & said, don’t touch me, I’m on disability!
to 32…
Making fun of the disabled now? It must be a real Comedy Central laugh riot when you and your repugs consider new ways to slash benefits to “our most vulnerable”…damn near orgasmic for you, I suspect.
@30 Sure thing, Puddy. Just as your vapid “sticky white man-juice” line that I’ve read here a hundred times is an accurate reflection of your oh-so-deep faith. POW!! SLAM!!! BAM!!!
Throw that weak shit at me and Matthew 7 will bite you in the ass every time, my friend.
Puddy @ 32–
Great Joke…reminds me of the status of most of the KLOWNS on this Blog…incl christian steve.
It’s christian with a small ‘c’ when they spend months on goat fornication.
It reminded me of this scene in West Wing.
http://www.fanpop.com/spots/debate/videos/2745742
The left has been pathetically cowed by the right-wing poo throwers and screech monkeys into avoiding telling them that they’re full of it, for fear of offending their tender Christian sensibilities. That’s one reason why we wound up over the last eight years with thousands of dead Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Arabs, the abandonment of any respect for international law or the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and the transformation of what was once the greatest economic engine on the planet into a gutted hulk possibly facing inevitable collapse.
I’m willing to respect someone’s opinions up to a point, even though I believe them wrong. However, when someone declares that he can stand in the middle of the tracks in the path of an oncoming train because he thinks he’s indestructable, I feel a certain obligation to tell him he’s wrong.
If he grabs my children and drags them into the middle of the tracks along with him, I’m going to work a lot harder to persuade him of his error, up to and including cutting his hands off if he doesn’t let go.
After that, I’ll be happy to pray to God to take mercy on his soul, and mine as well.
As usual the arguments miss the point on this topic.
Did everyone forget the civics classes given in high school? Laws are the codified form of the enduring mores of a country. You can legislate morality, or at least reflect it. That is what legislation is. Laws are not experiments in progressive thought, or conservative for that matter. Anerican mores are found from a variety of sources and, I know this disturbs liberals, but the Bible is the primary one in our culture. You can spout off about the Quran or those interminable Hindi story-poems, or Siddartha all you want. America is a Western country whose primary moral thought comes from Christianity for the past thousand years or so in Europe and, since our founding, here. (Excluding native peoples, who lost the battle for cultural and political primacy and therefore don’t count in this context.) This doesn’t mean we are Christian, God knows, especially in Seattle and other liberal cities. It doesn’t mean we must use Biblical quotes to support our legislation or anything else ridiculous like that. It just means that the Judeo-Christian tradition is the basis for American views on morality and therefore law. If a person doesn’t like this they are perfectly free to move somewhere whose moral structure they are more comfortable with, or to quietly practice whatever they wish within the constraints of our laws. They are not free to ask that we accomodate their cultural inflexibility and change our ways. This applies to other faiths, political views, languages and, yes, lifestyle choices.
I’m not trying to preach to anyone here, but a basic misundertanding about the quotes from the rude representative occured. The New Testament is the Gospel, not the Old, which is what the discourteous legislator quotes. I had been surprised that someone so able to quote scripture was so poor at understanding the whole story until I read that he just cribbed it from someone else. Christ says he is the fulmillment of the law. That is why Christians don’t sacrifice lambs once a year at Passover for instance. Again, not trying to preach, but that was the whole theological point of the crucifixion. You can believe or disbelieve in Christianity, but at least be consistent in critiquing it, and know what you’re talking about. Misleadingly quoting the line about throwing the first stone, or calling to account every hypocrisy a Christian shows doesn’t make a person clever. Quite the opposite.
I could talk about human hyprocrisy all day long from all faiths or ideologies. Somehow in liberal Seattle when it is a Christian who is hyprocital it makes all of Christianity invalid. This is never true of Islam or anything other than Christianity. Interesting and thoroughly illogical.
As for gay marraige, I don’t care if a person sleeps with someone of the same sex or not. I don’t care if they sleep with a VW bug. I do care if they wish to restructure our society and the sanctity of marraige for the convenience of a tiny minority of the country. Being an adult means living with the consequences of our choices. Homosexuality is a choice. Oh, and don’t bother with the ‘born that way’ argument. If that’s the case all behavior is innate. By that line of thought murderers, rapists and child molesters are not responsible for their choices, which is clearly nonsence. Gays chose homosexuality so they need to live with the costs and benefits of their choice, including the inability to marry.
The basic impasse here is that “marriage” means one thing to a church (and in fact with a degree of variation between churches) and quite another in a courtroom. No church should be required to bless a union that violates its teachings, but there have been codified into civil law a variety of strictures that make life more complicated for two people who have decided to be companions for life for whatever reason. To claim that keeping this situation the way it is for the “protection of morals” is questionable at the very least, and reheprensible if used as a facade for malice.
Sanctimonious turd @ 38:
Then why do the christo-fascists continue to throw the old testament quote as justificatio n for mysoginy, homophobia and a plethora of other hateful “biblical based” prejudices?
Jesus said there were two laws: “Love the Lord God with all you have and your neighbor as yourself.”
Sounds pretty simple to me.
So where does all the other shit come from…???
Lost at Sea @ 38
The US system of laws is a combined derivation from Roman/Greek legal traditions and English Common Law. English Common Law, in turn, derived from Norman Law. Norman Law incorporates concepts of jurisprudence from Islamic Law. Roman Law was also heavily influenced by Islamic traditions. To merely limit our system of laws and justice to a Judeo-Christian tradition is to grossly oversimplify history.
A unique aspect of the US system of laws is the guarantee of certain freedoms codified in a series of amendments to our Constitution, the very first of which both guarantees freedom of religion and precludes any form of state-sponsored religion.
I point these things out, because you began your comment by asking if we’d forgotten our civics lessons while the rest of your comment left me wondering if you’ve forgotten yours.
There is a distinct difference between adopting a moral concept that happens to be codified in the laws of several religious traditions and using a particular interpretation of one religious tradition to justify a specific morality that would end up denying other basic rights to some of our country’s citizens. Your screed attempts to gloss over this distinction.
Were that not reprehensible enough, you have the audacity to close with this:
Oh, and don’t bother with the ‘born that way’ argument. If that’s the case all behavior is innate. By that line of thought murderers, rapists and child molesters are not responsible for their choices, which is clearly nonsence. Gays chose homosexuality so they need to live with the costs and benefits of their choice, including the inability to marry.
So, we’re discussing homosexual intercourse in the same context as murder, rape and child molestation? You sick, pathetic creature. I’d call you a cretin, but that’d be an insult to cretins.
We demand that murders, rapists and child molesters control their impulses, because the victims of their impulses, by definition, do not consent to participating in the satisfaction of those impulses. There is no similar justification for demanding that homosexuals curb their impulses within the context of civil law. Homosexual intercourse is an activity undertaken by two consenting adults.
So, please, spare us your bullshit about “consequences,” when these “consequences” are the direct result of homophobic outbursts from obnoxious zealots like you.
How about if we start comparing you to Islamic terrorists? That wouldn’t be much different than your comparison of gays to murders, rapists and child molesters. Think about that the next time someone responds to your homophobia with more than a bit of outrage.
Where did Geoff copy his text from? Does anyone have a citation they can share?
@41 angry liberal showing liberal compassion.
Never paid that much attention to Don Joe before this post can he be one of the notcorrect,Pl.not my left foot,czechsaaz ???????????
They all have the same ring and ending.
Rep. Simpson is so gonna burn in Hell for writing that.
I am weary of “Christians” using my Jewish Torah to justify their prejudices. Stick to your own damned holy book and learn from that fellow Jesus.
Thanks for bringing Simpson’s email to our attention, Goldy.
I don’t see a single valid opposing comment.
HA’s special collection of trolls are a pathetic klan of dopes.
Yours ?
Great email, thanks for posting it Goldy.
Anything that gets the trolls panties in a bunch is fine with me. Especially the new ones, or are they the same tired crew with another new set of pen-names? Who cares? They’re all traitors who should be shot.
Oh, don’t like your own thoughts turned against you, morons? Too fucking bad. That’s what your masters exhorted you to do to us, and now the shoe is on the other foot.
Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?
FYVM
8 del
In what way did the representative attempt to present himself as the author of the citations?
Oh, and don’t bother with the ‘born that way’ argument. If that’s the case all behavior is innate. By that line of thought murderers, rapists and child molesters are not responsible for their choices, which is clearly nonsence. Gays chose homosexuality so they need to live with the costs and benefits of their choice, including the inability to marry.
This is the argument of the bully blaming his victim for creating the unfortunate necessity of beating him up.
38 LIASOB
The New Testament is the Gospel, not the Old, which is what the discourteous legislator quotes.
Or you might have read beyond the fold and seen that the original writer ALSO quoted the OT extensively. And if you were better read, you might realize that the majority of Biblical arguments used to justify discrimination based on sexual orientation are based in OT citations and NOT in the message of love and tolerance in the NT (excluding the horrid and intolerant Paul).
And if you were smarter, you could come up with better arguments than your colleciton of straw men:
– “you can spout off about the Quran” which you could cite no one doing.
– That it is “illogical” to claim that it is “never true of Islam or anything other than Christianity” that hypocrisy by a believer indicates hypocrisy of the belief system, where again you cannot cite a single example of anyone claiming this.
– “don’t use the ‘born that way’ argument” when the only person in this thread who used the words ‘born’ or ‘innate’ was you.
Again, the argument of the bully blaming the victim. Our society has always been and is currently built to respect and protect the beliefs and practices of our minorities, which was furthered during women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, and today’s gay rights movement. Oh, yeah, and laws can be changed whenever the fuck we want to change them.
America is a Western country whose primary moral thought comes from Christianity for the past thousand years or so in Europe and, since our founding, here. (Excluding native peoples, who lost the battle for cultural and political primacy and therefore don’t count in this context.)…the Judeo-Christian tradition is the basis for American views on morality and therefore law. If a person doesn’t like this they are perfectly free to move somewhere whose moral structure they are more comfortable with, or to quietly practice whatever they wish within the constraints of our laws. They are not free to ask that we accomodate their cultural inflexibility and change our ways. This applies to other faiths, political views, languages and, yes, lifestyle choices.
Did everyone forget the civics classes given in high school?
Indeed you did. Talk about “cultural inflexibility.”
Ahhh Goldy,
You’ve been suckered. I’m a little disappointed in you.
http://www.snopes.com/politics.....rlaura.asp
It’s a revamped urban legend Goldy…sigh….
re 3: He showed the writer some respect — but just a little bit — which is more than she deserved.
Stupidity is a wall that the Lord himself cannot breach.
Geoff Simpson came from the Joe Biden school of Plagarism.
Good catch Susan.
Simpson takes credit for someone else’s work!
Where did is your citation Geoff?
Simpson’s problem, of which he has many, is he tries to be too clever & mean.
This time plagarizing someone else’s material.
Gee Goldy…don’t you ought to Geoff’s e-mail as it appears to violate the HorsesAss Policy!
HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~HAR!~
Simpson didn’t get the last laugh–
Instead he is the laughing stock…again!
I guess people in power on the Lunatic Left get a free pass on HorsesAss Policy!
TOO DAMN FUNNY!
The conservative mind is of the nature that opposing their intention to regulate your behavior is to deny them free speech.
re 55: Since when is quoting the Bible plagiarism?
The author of the anti-gay marriage screed lifted her civics lesson from a tiny cartoon-pamphlet that is given to pedestrians in downtown Seattle.
How do YOU know you are saved?
Inteeresting set of quotations. It’s history has some convolutions. If the call of plagerism is all you got, you got nada.
It’s not that “quoting from the Bible” is not plagiarism. It’s just that some anonymous missive being e-mailed around the world by hundreds of people and being posted on numerous Web pages is not attributable. The Representative was entirely correct in not attempting at attribute it.
If I were the one sending it, though, I would look up the citations first to make sure I was being accurate, at least. I have not thus far wih either writer’s citations.
A saying by Mahatma Gandhi:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
A look at the religious issues around homosexuality from a Canadian tolerance group:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm
Well it certainly is smarmy for a public official – no doubt he will hear about it next election season.
My question is what about all the positive Biblical norms that are reflected in law and that this lawmaker recommends.
Could not the same denunciation be used to chastise people who (as he points out) are against the death penalty, or murder, or theft, or adultery, or poverty, or discrimination, or wife beating, or whatnot?
He also has very little understanding of Biblical scholarship and standard forms of Biblical interpretation.Most of his “zingers” can be easily accounted for using standard and mainstream Christian scholarship that has existed for hundreds of years of Biblical exigesis..
IMO, as a follower of Christ, it’s not my job to judge others. I have evolved my position on this issue. Mostly via having a closer relationship with Christ. As a Christian I don’t have an issue with Gay couples wanting and having marriage. Who am I to judge?
As a matter of governance and state supported policy? I see potential issues when introducing a “broader” definition of marriage outside of 1 man and 1 women. what is the context of the definition? Why written that way? There needs to be a way to make this happen such that poligamy and “other radical” types of relationships demanding equal rights under law are not supported.
To all the dominionist hypocrites who smile about how Jesus loves them and then try to cram the Book of Leviticus down everyone else’s throats:
May you all be unclean until evening.
Right Stuff spews:
There needs to be a way to make this happen such that poligamy and “other radical” types of relationships demanding equal rights under law are not supported.
WHY???? – as you said above, it’s not your job to judge others????
rulax farted:
rulax, “Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thy shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the Prophets.”
What is the law? Well it’s found in the Old Testament. God’s law is the 10 Commandments written by God Himself. Then there are the Mosaic Laws which you can get from any Jewish lefty here. Goldy, David, SeattleJew, etc. The Law and the Prophets pointed to Jesus, someone you reject. Jesus died for everyone’s sins, even yours rulax.
What is Love your God? Well God was the Old Testament. So you love God you love his tenets. This included God’s laws on homosexuality. Jesus was the pinnacle of the Old Testament because Christ said the came to fulfill the Mosaic law. God’s 10 Commandments stays. Why would Jesus talk to John about “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” John 14:15
“Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Revelation14:12. Jesus also said “I and my Father are One.” “Before Abraham was I am”.
Love your neighbor is taking money out of your pocket and sending it to Hurricane Katrina victims, Tsunami victims in Banda Aceh, flood victims in Fargo North Dakota. It’s not hoping the US FEMA sends tax dollars there rulax. So did you love your neighbor rulax? We know clueless wonder and stillbentover don’t. Each time Puddy challenges them to a charitable contribution faceoff the run like the chickens they are…
Hilander@33: What a moron.
Golly Steve, that’s satire for clueless wonder’s continual use of left-wing whack-job sites. He averages a 98% use of left wing material. clueless wonder even posted KosTV. If that doesn’t identify him as a kook-aid drinker, then you are more warped than Puddy thought.
Your goat commentary was different as it was a directed hateful and spiteful attack because you attached a human being to it such as Vitter, Craig or Foley. Man I see satire is lost on you Steve!
@63 spews
Please account for them.
@63 spews
Please account for them.
“Your goat commentary was different as it was a directed hateful and spiteful attack because you attached a human being to it such as Vitter, Craig or Foley. Man I see satire is lost on you Steve!”
Such bullshit. If you weren’t such fucking hypocrites there’d be nothing for me to attack. The “holier than thou” crowd deserves to be attacked. That you find this to be “hateful and spiteful” is merely the sad spin of somebody who still presents themselves as being such a person. I’m sure the “holier than thou” Mr. Klynical also finds finds my attacks to be “hateful and spiteful”. Tough shit to both of you. If Mr. Klynical wants to continue to call me, a Christian, a Godless heathen, then he can surely endure my calling him a damned goatfucker. If you want to criticize my attacks and continue to ignore Cynical’s attacks on my faith, then you can go fuck yourself.
Another straw man:
Yeah, who exactly is “demanding” equal rights for other types of relationships?
It’s just a ploy to avoid talking about the subject at hand, which is equal rights for same-gender couples.
72 Steve
You see, Steve, flinging the mud at people’s sexual proclivities toward goats is hateful and spiteful. Using the OT to establish to one’s satisfaction that homosexuals should be put to death is good clean Christian love.
Diddled Luvr, Where has anyone spouted putting homosexuals to Death? You threw it out so tell us who has advocated this:
Cynical
Truth
Puddy
Original Mark
Mark1
CJS
Jane
Pudge
Fill in the blank…
Also, R U Saying God’s word is changeable?
Just axking…
Diddled Luvr,
I remember reading about a Brian Barnard guy who defended polygamists and was hoping to bring a case to SCOTUS someday. Does this ring a bell with anyone else?
@70 like you account for your incessant goat attacks?
Steve, I have asked Cynical to lay off you before. Cynical will acknowledge my request.
Okay Cynical tell Steve…
Lot of talk, but no real answers as usual. The rights movements mentioned in posts responding to mine at 38 were all based on biological issues, like gender or ethnicity. Homosexuality is a choice, good bad or indifferent. Non-one refuted the basic contention, as it is irrefutable. Behavior, sexual or otherwise, is choice or it is not. If it is chosen it is subject to social incentive or penalty. Simple as that. Call me bully or terrorist or whatever to hide the fact you have no answers and you still have no answers.
The argument about victimhood defining crime is off base. I never indicated a desire to criminalize homosexuality and wouldn’t. I only ask that people live with the consequences of their freely made choices and not ask others to change for them.
As for Islamic influence on our law I don’t see the relevance. I never denied other sources, merely stated the primacy of Judeo-Christian values in our society, whether you folks like it or not. I like the Christo fascist comment from whoever made it. Very clever. You’re so smart.
Daddy Love, grow up. No-one cares whether you like men or not. No-one cares with whom you sleep or live. I only ask that you act with the same discretion and respect for others that I’d ask of any heterosexual couple. Practice whatever perversion you like, provided it’s legal but keep it to yourself. You don’t get to change a whole society to make your poor choices more defensible to yourself.
Good luck loony lefties maintaining a society without basic moral and ethical standards.
@74
One thing I can say about liberals if they can’t find what they want to fit their agenda they will make it up as this guy did.
Everyday I see more and more lies from these liberals. I once thought they where serious and sincere, today that’s laughable.
79 LIASOB
When did you decide to be heterosexual?
75 Pud
Who said it? Wow, dude, did you even read the fucking post? It was “Barbara,” the person whose letter or e-mail started this whole thing. Because I know it’s hard to scroll ALLLLL the way up there, here’s her tidbit:
As I said, trying to establish that homosexuals should be put to death is just good Christian love as Barbara teaches us.
and re:
I have said nothing about God’s word. But what I will say about it is that I have neither heard it nor read it, and neither have you or anyone else.
Sex between adults of the same sex or the opposite sex is not illegal.
The Bible may speak about whether that is moral or immoral, but that is not the government’s concern.
If two adults wish to commit in a relationship with each other that is the goveernment’s concern. Issues about divorce, wills, patient rights and guardianship are concerns of the government and the flawed Bible doesn’t address those adequately.
“I swear upon the altar of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
In this quote religion is the form of “tyranny “over the mind of man the author is referring to.
This quote can be found at the final resting place of its author. Who also penned the Declaration of Independence, he was a Founding Father of this nation, our nation’s 3rd President, and he’s the author who clarified, in writing, the thinking of the men who wrote the Constitution and the 1st Amendment regarding religion. “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Thomas Jefferson.
You see, our Founding Fathers in no way formed the United States of America on the Judeo-Christian faith.
This was expressed in a treatise. It passed the United States Senate UNANIMOUSLY by the very people who formed this country. It’s commonly known as the article 11 of the Barbary Treaty; which reads: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18t.....r1796t.asp
No matter how badly conservatives want to rewrite history, it cannot be done.
This country was founded by many men of Christian faith, but many others were Deists that believed not in the God of Israel, but the God of Nature. Some, like Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin thought religion to be a waste of time.
In the end they all agreed that religion is strictly an opinion between man and his God, and thus of no concern to the governance of this nation.
Religion was one of the reasons cited by people to endorse slavery
Religion was one of the reasons cited by people to prevent women from having equal rights
Religion was one of the reasons cited by people to prevent interracial couples from marrying.
Religion was one of the reasons cited by people to promote Jim Crowe laws.
Religion was one of the reasons cited by people to prevent the Negro from voting.
Religion is one of the reasons cited by people to prevent two loving adults who happen to be of the same sex from getting married.
Anyone see a pattern here? A form of tyranny over the mind of man to limit the liberty, freedom and justice of American citizens.
What this country was formed on were ideals and principles. Every time this nation acts to limit the rights of some that are enjoyed by others we trample upon those beliefs. Every time we’ve elevated a class of citizens to equality our nation became a “more perfect union” and we are the better for it. Never has our country digressed because we gave liberty and freedom to our citizens – NEVER!
What we have here is out and out discrimination and suppression of freedom cloaking itself in one of the world’s great religions. No different than how al Qeada uses Islam to perpetrate savage murder of innocent people. This, is the tyranny of religion.
It’s time for conservatives to yield to patriotism of country instead of blind loyalty to a failed political ideology.
For those of you who espouse the belief that sexual attraction is a “choice” can you please explain why males have nipples?
Not a joking question, there is SCIENCE behind this question so contemplate it wisely.
79 LIASOB
Ah, dismissing the arguments of others without addressing them. Good one, Brainiac.
First, there is in fact a great deal of disagreement about the origins and root of homsexual sexual orientation. There is a body of evidence that supports a view that there are biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals that may point to causation. Overridingly, the evidence from both heterosexuals and homosexuals self-reporting that they have never been in any doubt of their orientation from birth (it is certainly true of me) is compelling. When did you decide to stop being homosexual? So it you are “contending” that homosexuality cannot possibly be biologically determined, it is as far as it can be from “irrefutable,” and, in fact, attempts to refute such a POV are entirely appropriate.
Second, there is also a large body of legal and philosophical reasoning in “Western society” (since the Enlightenment) that holds that private, consensual activities between adults (such as recreational drug use, pornography, interracial sexual relations, gambling, and so on) should not be, as you stated it, “subject to social incentive or penalty.” So this point is neither simple nor settled.
Maybe you just have no questions. You don’t seem to question much. Everything is well-defined, black-and-white, settled and “irrefutable” for you.
That wasn’t my argument, if you are claiming it was. I just said that the logic of blaming the victim of discrimination for causing you to discriminate agaisnt them was flawed (likening it to the frequent rationalization used by bullies saying that it was the victim’s actions that FORCED the bully beat him up). Your argument was, essentially, “this is a Christian nation, so our laws discriminating against homosexuals are a valid part of our culture, and people who disagree must submit to our legal system or leave.” Wrong.
No, you ask for the privilege of continuing to discriminate against anyone who does not agree with you, or of whose “behavior” you disappove. You don’t get to do that. When do I get to pass judgement on whether your sexual preferences and practices meet with my approval?
No, you didn’t. You asserted that there are people claiming that “the Quran or those interminable Hindi story-poems, or Siddartha” are a primary source of moral thought in our culture. That’s a straw man argument.
Wrong. Because if I were gay, you don’t think that there is any reason for our “culture” to allow me to marry my life partner, which, if you are heteroseuxal, you are allowed to do.
Yes, we (the People) do get to do that. Women couldn’t vote, and religious bigots of the time quoted the Bible to support it. We changed the Constitution. Blacks were chattel property, and religious bigots of the time quoted the Bible to support it. We changed the Constitution. According to our Constitution RIGHT NOW, no State is allowed to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Any person. ANY person. Not any heterosexual person. Not “unless it violates an ambiguous set of Bliblical and other Christian ‘moral standards.’ ”
Nope. ALL PERSONS are entitled to EQUAL protection under our laws. Period.
We’ll get there. You’ll hate it. I’m glad.
Marriage, in the United States of America at least, has ZERO to do with religion.
It is purely a matter of the state.
I don’t care what your religious beliefs are; if you hold a marriage ceremony at a house of worship, if you have a priest give a sermon, nobody is married until two things happen: someone says “By the power vested in me by the STATE of . . . (fill in the name of the state you’re getting married in) and you fill our a marriage certificate issued by the GOVERNMENT.
Nor can you go to your priest and get a divorce.
It’s pure government run. PERIOD!
Therefore, preventing two legal adults who happen to share the same genitalia is no different than telling two people who have different skin color they cannot get married.
Neither one has control over who they “fall in love with” nor how their bodies were formed.
Thus, no compelling legal reason for the state to intervene between two legal consenting adults.
But then again, conservatives LOVE Big Government telling us who we can marry, who can get what medical procedure, just happy with the government listening in on our phone calls, looking through our emails, wanting to know what we read at the library, what charity we donate to, torturing innocent people, . . . you get the idea. If it’s un-American conservatives are for it.
Oh, and LIASOB, not that it is any of your business, but I’m not gay.
If your not gay then are you the judge?
In order for someone to believe that homosexuality is a “choice” then that means you yourself had to contemplate homosexuality before choosing heterosexuality.
Because if your attraction to the opposite sex was never in doubt and you never had an attraction to the same sex, then you have no idea whether or not someone else is naturally attracted to the same sex, thus blowing your whole argument right out of the water.
Lost at Sea
You injected murder, rape and child molestation into this discussion when it didn’t belong in the first place. Now that several people have taken you to task for doing so, you now accuse us of having “no answers”. What?!
Apparently you haven’t at all grasped my point about the First Amendment to our Constitution, so perhaps a not-so-hypothetical will drive the point home:
Suppose there is a religious organization that has no laws against same-sex couples, yet teaches that any relationship involving a physical aspect requires that the couple be married. Members of this organization believe that sex outside marriage is detrimental to the spiritual growth and well-being of the parties regardless of whether that relationship is heterosexual or homosexual.
To deny, by force of law, this religious organization the right to bind same-sex couples together in their version of holy matrimony, we deny them their First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs.
What is your answer to this problem?
No. Injecting anything having to do with murder, rape or child molestation into this discussion is way off base. So far off base as to be beyond the parking lot outside the stadium let alone out in left field. So far off base as to be completely and utterly reprehensible.
You speak of “consequences”. What, exactly, are these “consequences” outside your own homophobic derision? Enumerate them, please. You cannot, in all fairness and justice, be the source of illegitimate “consequences” while chastising others for not wanting to put up with your “consequences”.
Diddled Luvr, I know what Barbara said above, I was wondering if you were accusing us posters on the right of advocating death.
GBS: You forgot to preface it with: Certain people used:
Puddy @ 93:
Thanks for bustin’ my balls . . . however, I didn’t need to perface with “Certain” people because the sentece presupposes a limited number of people. Those people who cited religion to limit the freedoms and liberties of other American citiznes.
How’s things?
OK this isn’t about the email itself. This is to those who are convinced conservatives as a whole are agianst gay marriage. I am conservative, but I hang out with my local GSA and am not Christian. I am infact Pagan and if I can find the proper training hope to be Wiccan one day.
92 Death needs nobody to “advocate” it. It’s going to happen to all of us anyway, sooner or later. All we’re arguing about is what we’re gonna do until then.
A public servant quoting scripture? How dare he!
Where is the separation of church and state we are so enamored with?
47th District Dems, he’s your man; what do you think about him now? Do you acknowledge the Bible and it’s truths that he so freely quotes?
mercedes and the puddybiotch ought to enjoy religiously fucking each other, n’est pa?
I find it very humorous that people are claiming his response was tactless. I do agree elected officials must hold themselves to a certain level of class, yet I would never want class to interrupt with my elected officials belief. It is important for one’s opinion to be stated regardless of who they are, she was allowed to email him, thus he was allowed an equivalent reply. Those claiming he has no tact are calling for censorship not class.
Still lost in a rational argument, libs?
I’ll try to put it in simple terms so that even people educated in public schools can understand.
First though, I appreciate the intelligent arguments initially made by Don Joe, and to some degree Daddy Lover. Being liberal you are unable to voice these without personal abuse and hyperbole, but thanks for the spirited argument anyway.
I did not ever write that we are a Christian nation. I never wrote that we were founded as a Christian nation. I never wrote that laws should be promulgated in the light of being a Christian nation. I did write, several times and very clearly, that our cultural values and morals were formed by a thousand years of Christian sources in Europe. I realize this is a distinction that requires an understanding of the terms and how sentences are structured. Look them up or something.
I have no problem with and strongly endorse separation of church and state and the avoidance of tyranny of the majority. However, there is such a thing as tyranny of the minority as well, which is what gay marraige is really about.
I made no value judgements on homosexuality, or religious ones either. I nowhere wrote anything defamatory of gays or lesbians. I didn’t preach or prosyletize in any point of this argument. Calling me homophobic is poor interpretation and a careful reading of my posts would show it to be baseless.
I also did not personally attack any of you or descend to abuse as a means to distract from my lack of compelling argument. That is a trick of those with nothing, really, to say.
As for the straw man comments they show at least the rudiments of an education. Congratulations Daddy Lover. As opposed to Rujax of course. Ne c’est pas. It means roughly ‘that isn’t’. Learn the language before using it. Having said that these were anticipatory arguments since liberal talking points are so cliche and obvious. I wanted to answer the arguments before they were raised. It is called rhetoric, look that up as well.
As for ‘consequences,’ and incentives and penalties, these are social in nature, not governmental. If I don’t bathe regularly the social consequences are that I will be isolated. If I stand on a street corner shouting abuse at people the same, with possibly a visit from a police officer are the consequences. Being gay means some advantages, I suppose. No college funds to worry about for junior or juniorette. No diapers, formula clothes and such to burden your income need purchased. Most people won’t care that your partner is of the same sex, and those who do shouldn’t matter to you if you are sure of yourself. But marraige is a way of building the basic unit of society, the family, in a predictable way for the benefit of the greater culture. It is an expression of thousands of years of societal custom, and is not a method for social experiment. This is a consequence of choice to be homosexual.
I could repeat the same argument from before that color and gender are biologically mandated and are not comparable to gay rights, but you didn’t listen the first time so why bother.
As for rapists and murderers that might have been me guilty of hyperbole, but it served the point. I was pointing out the abusurdity of excusing behavior based on genetic mandate. You folks can intentionally twist it out of shape all you like. The point is and remains that choice driven behavior is subject to societal control, or it isn’t. We choose to be a nation of laws so on that score it is. We are by default a complex society of unwritten social laws and on that score also, chosen behavior is subject to social review.
And it is chosen, as well as being a clear sign of derangement. I ‘chose’ to be heterosexual because I’m not mentally ill. If I think that I’m a hedgehog no-one contests that this is a sign of mental disturbance. Why, if I choose to ignore the fairly simple operating instructions of human sexuality, am I not similarly in a state of mental disturbance? The only way to practice gay sex is abnormally for the human being. The body is designed a certain way, and that ain’t it, to be blunt.
Homosexuality is a choice. It is also a mental illness. Having said that it hurts no-one but the patient so I personally could care less if 5% of our population is deranged, so long as they don’t try to force me to normalize that illness. Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone about gets it.
Conservatism is a choice. It is also a mental illness. I personally care less if 30% of our population is deranged, so long as they don’t try to force me to normalize that illness.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/heal.....ss/DS01104
“To be classified as a mental illness, a condition must cause distress in your life and reduce your ability to function in one or more areas of your life, such as at work, in relationships or in social situations.”
Sounds like Republicans to me.
I can counter the idiot at 100 in two easy statements:
1) Your puerile arguement is dead fucking wrong.
2) See above.
I was gonna say that he/she/it is a clueless dumbass, but that clearly would be overstating the obvious.
Bravo gentlemen! I was so lost in the flow of your eloquence that I missed the refutation of my points. What were they again?
It’s very funny that the WA Democrat machine was fooled by this “story” and put it forth as new. HA is the blind faith mouth of Democrat talking points…..
The recent posts about the budget are all attempts to rev up the base for raising taxes…
The 10’s of HA faithful are surely fired up!
Lost at Sea
Being liberal you are unable to voice these without personal abuse and hyperbole, but thanks for the spirited argument anyway.
Hold that thought for a moment.
However, there is such a thing as tyranny of the minority as well, which is what gay marraige is really about.
Absolutely. Gay marriage is about the tyranny of the majority who wish to deny gay couples to the right to a civilly recognized union with attendant privileges. Not one of these privileges imposes an undue burden on anyone else in society that is not imposed by the same privileges accorded to heterosexual couples. There is no reasonable justification for this tyranny of the majority. I’m glad that you’ve chosen to speak out against such tyranny of the majority.
Oh, wait. You think gay marriage should be banned, right? Exactly what “tyranny” do you have in mind? The only possible way one can find the granting of basic rights to same-sex couples is that it somehow offends your sensibilities, and the only possible way it could offend your sensibilities is if those sensibilities are essentially homophobic.
That’s not a value judgement. That’s an observation of fact.
On the other hand:
I made no value judgements on homosexuality, or religious ones either. I nowhere wrote anything defamatory of gays or lesbians.
First of all, your unsupported assertions that homosexuality is a matter of choice and that homosexuality is a mental illness are, themselves, value judgements. Moreover, they are value judgements that contradict both what homosexuals have to say about themselves and what science has to say about homosexuality and mental illness.
Secondly, your reference to murders, rapists and child molesters, particularly in the context of the Bible verses that are the substance of the original post, is more than just hyperbole. It is entirely defamatory by virtue of it’s complete irrelevance to the issue at hand. As I pointed out in my original response to your first screed, same-sex marriage is about the relationship between two consenting adults. Discussion of violent acts involving non-consenting victims has no place here, and is entirely inflammatory.
I also did not personally attack any of you or descend to abuse as a means to distract from my lack of compelling argument.
See the first paragraph I quoted above. That’s pure ad-hominem. Your very first comment disparaged the general knowledge of civics in this forum, and was then followed up with a lecture on civics that was both incomplete and biased.
Perhaps you simply don’t understand the meaning of “ad hominem”? At no point has anyone here said that your arguments suck because you’re homophobic. Rather, we’ve pointed out that your arguments betray your homophobia.
Nor, for that matter, is it abusive to point out that you are espousing clearly homophobic views. To wit:
As for ‘consequences,’ and incentives and penalties, these are social in nature, not governmental.
Never mind that these “consequences” are the result of wide-spread homophobia in society at large and have nothing to do with any harm that is actually caused to people by same-sex couples.
You really do have no concept of what the phrase “tyranny of the majority” means, do you? The “tyranny of the majority” occurs when certain basic rights are denied to a minority of the population with no substantive justification for the denial of those rights other than the fact that these minorities are members of that class.
Tyranny of the majority has nothing to do with whether or not membership in the minority group is a matter of choice. Your value judgements about homosexuality being a matter of choice betray your homophobia, but they have nothing to do with the concept of the tyranny of the majority.
The only relevant issue regarding the tyranny of the majority is whether or not the denial of rights to a certain minority class has any substantive justification in some other societal interest. That some people might be offended by the idea that same-sex couples have certain rights that are granted to heterosexual couples does not rise to the level of substantive harm.
Vague claims about the loss of “moral standards” also do not rise to a level of substantive harm. These claims are little more than the same homophobia couched in different language. It is fear, and nothing else; fear that in some vague and unspecified way, allowing same-sex couples to marry will bring down a plague upon our society.
Nowhere is this more evident than when people express faux tolerance for gay couples so long as they keep their relationships “behind closed doors.” When this concession to tolerance is grudgingly offered up, it is abundantly clear that the only “harm” brought by same-sex marriage to those who oppose it is having to be reminded that homosexuality merely exists.
So, no, you clearly don’t understand the concept of tyranny of the majority. If you did, then you’d stand staunchly in favor of allowing same-sex couples to get married.
@100
I find your arguments about homosexuality being a mental illness pretty repugnant. However, allowing in your world it is, what is wrong with homosexual marriage?
We allow drug abusers, murderers, and rapists to marry. Those people are far more disgusting than two consenting adults who wish to have a committed relationship.
What right does the government have to prevent people from sharing the same rights as heterosexuals when their relationships are just as legal? Frankly I doubt if there are many married couples who have not engaged in “abnormal” sex.
goldstein, go back to the garbage dump they call israel, nobody wants you here
Puerile is a good word for it. Wrong and ugly and ignorant apply as well. Some people just don’t learn.
wow looks like my beeeeeeeeeeeeyotch is gunning for the final 4 position…
Don Joe, you disappoint me. Your earlier posts were consise, varied and on on point. Stimulating even. This is mere rambling. That or some contest to see how often you can use the word ‘homophobia.’
Gay marraige is the tyranny of the minority, not the majority. It is the tail wagging the dog. Comparing gay rights to womens’ sufferage or racial equality is asanine. One is chosen, the other not, and despite your assertion that is relevant. Minorities are protected often precisely because they did not choose their minority status, which creates the injustice.
And I do understand the tyranny of the majority. By a slim margin your president won an election. On the strength of that majority he is turning this country into a Socialist Dictatorship/Bananna Republic. See, I understand the concept.
I don’t much care what gays say about it, homosexuality is a choice. It is only recently that homosexuality was removed from the lists of mental illnesses, and that was political, not scientific. The addict says he has no choice but to use his drug of choice as well. That doesn’t make it so. If a genetic predisposition exists for heart disease you don’t make a steady diet of Big Macs and expect society to protect you. Why is homosexualtiy somehow exempt from personal responsibility?
So what’s next? Bigamy? People marrying their livestock? After all these people are simply expressing a sexual preference they were born with, right? All consenting, right? No victims, except maybe the sheep.
Most kids in our society are straight, probably 95% or more of them. They have a right to a society that gives healthy role models for the adults they will become. That is why gay marriage is a problem. Society has a right to certain basic building blocks like the family. Not as liberals interpret it though. Any collection of people sharing the same house for long enough is a family in liberal-speak, but not in the real world. That is why gay marraige is a problem.
I don’t care if my neigbor drinks himself into a stupor every night so long as he doesn’t cause a disturbance or a danger. I don’t care if my neigbor takes up naked lawnmowing so long as a high enough fence is built. I don’t care if my neighbor is gay, so long as he or she doesn’t want to remake society in his or her own image.
As for 2cents I am sorry about your repugnance. However, the basic premise is intact. A person with a fundamental disconnect with reality is mentally ill at some level. In the case of a homosexual it is harmless except to themselves, but they are still ill. The analogy of the hedgehog may be too indirect. If a person looks in a mirror at a man and sees a woman or vice-versa that person is not sane. If a person looks at genitalia and its’ natural function and fails to see it they are not sane. Pure and simple. If I’m wrong I’d be delighted if you could tell me how, but I frankly don’t see it.
Paranoid, deranged… Who lies behind that screen name? Rick Santorum?
lostinaseaofblue
Pelletizer, Ekim, rulax and Steve had their livestock marriage “ceremonies” long ago.
proud loony, and some lesser libtards are pining for their turns.
Bonnie and Clyde can get married yet Bonnie and Betsy can’t.
It’s all to do with plumbing. If the plumbing isn’t compatible then that’s a “tyrannical” threat of some kind.
Yeah makes perfect sense to me too.
clueless wonder asks:
monomaniacal synonyms: neurotic, delusional, disturbed, psychoneurotic, maladjusted, paranoid, deranged, schizoid, obsessional, obsessive, pathological, phobic.
So yes it’s you, clueless wonder, hiding behind your own screen name.
And just think everyone, it was an HA lefty who named clueless wonder this wonderful adjective…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
You lose.
KABLAMMMMO
Lost at Sea
First of all, you’d do better than complain about my supposed “rambling” and then follow that complaint up with your own rambling screed involving bizarre notions of socialism and people marrying sheep.
Secondly:
Gay marraige is the tyranny of the minority, not the majority.
And here I thought you’d merely committed a typographical error. Imagine my amazement to discover that you actually expect us to accept a premise that is an oxymoron. In a representative democracy, there is no such thing as a tyranny of the minority. The tail cannot wag the dog, for the tail simply hasn’t enough power to do so.
Most kids in our society are straight, probably 95% or more of them.
You do realize that you’ve just completely undercut any argument that starts with the premise that homosexuality is a choice? Or, perhaps not. Let’s see how well you can turn yourself into knots on this.
They have a right to a society that gives healthy role models for the adults they will become.
What about the 5% who are not straight? Don’t they deserve health role models as well? Why do their role models have to confine themselves to the closet? Are you afraid that healthy role models for the 5% of gay youth will somehow change the remaining 95% into gay youth? Do you have any evidence outside your obviously creative imagination that there is any risk of such a thing happening at all?
Oh, wait. Despite both scientific evidence and the testimony of gays (about which you clearly don’t care at all) to the contrary, gay people both choose to be gay and are mentally ill. Not only do you beg the question, you posit two factual assertions that are collectively incoherent.
If homosexuality is a mental illness, then how can anyone choose to be mentally ill? (I have to hand it to you. Sanctimony and incoherence all in one nice, neat package. How do you manage to do that?)
Which brings me to the last statement worth addressing in any way:
I don’t care if my neighbor is gay, so long as he or she doesn’t want to remake society in his or her own image.
First, the only way gay people can completely remake society in their own image is to demand that marriage between two people of the same sex be the only accepted form of marriage. So, we’re talking about incremental evolution, no?
Second, I’ve never understood this resistance to societal evolution. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Should, for example, our forebears have resisted the way that intellectuals remade society in their own image during the enlightenment? Should Catholics have resisted the way that Protestants remade society in their own image during the Reformation? Should our agrarian forebears have resisted the way that industrialists remade society in their own image?
Why is some societal evolution good while other societal evolution is bad?
@112
Perhaps you aren’t so off base with your mental illness theory. However I would modify it that sex itself is mental illness. Where would psychology be without sex? Frankly when I first heard about the birds and the bees I thought that was insane. Where a man pees and a woman pees go together and a baby pops out? What the #@$?
Nevertheless I allowed your premise and still could not find where the government has any say in preventing same sex marriages.
Bestially is clearly animal abuse and against the law.
Societies change over time and the law needs to also. Religion can lock itself to its dogma. But, we should not have religious law.
Lost at Sea
Since you admire brevity, allow me to summarize the basic problem with your argument about “healthy” role models. In absence of any objective criteria for what is and is not “healthy,” so long as the majority’s notion of “healthy” is based on a subjective moral sensibility, then the rights of the minority must trump the moral sensibilities of the majority.
If we do anything less, then we have ceased to be a free society. Anything less than objective criteria allows the majority to cook up any rationalization they wish in order to deny the rights to any minority group they want. That is the very definition of tyranny.
This is Goldy’s blog for christ’s sake!
Furthermore…he’s an American Citizen.
YOU get the fuck out, asshole!
Why are you guys wasting your time reading “lost in his own delusion”??
It’s like reading the pudddybiotch’s insane ramblings…it’s time you’re NEVER gonna get back…
I see my personal beeeeeeeeeeeyotch rulax is getting his pink panties all twisted around his microscopic scrote. He’s such a Pavlov’s chimp.
Good!
RE: 120, 121
Thanks for clearing the air. It is good to set and hold an agenda of one’s own on one’s own blog.
Goldy, is there any way you can configure your web/blog program for it to weed out distracting, useless, trolling comments? Or would that be throwing out the baby with the bath water?
Don Joe, hats off to you! You completely dismantled the argument of the conservatives.
For all the points made I find one argument missing and the most crucial one of this debate.
What is the compelling legal interest for the state to ban gay marriage?
Operative phrase here is “compelling legal interest.”
Societal “norm” is not a compelling legal interest. This argument was struck down regarding interracial marriage. In 1967 16 states in this country legally banned interracial marriage.
Procreation: Again, whether or not a heterosexual couple opts to have children or not have children is of no concern to the government when they issue the marriage license. The bigger question becomes: do we want government intruding so far into our private lives as to dictate to us with the force of law whether or not we MUST have children and perhaps how many children we may we can or cannot have? Thanks, but no thanks.
Mental illness: As Don Joe correctly points out nobody can “choose” a mental illness, therefore it cannot be a choice and an illness at the same time. Conservatives can pick one of the two accusations, but not both and still have a logical and cognitive deliberation. Since homosexuality is correctly no longer listed as a mental illness, it can no longer be used as a compelling legal interest
Choice: If it’s a choice, then it presupposes that everyone must make a choice between homosexuality and heterosexuality at some point in their lifetime. That there is not “natural” attraction to the opposite sex, that we, as individuals must choose between the sexes. This, however, is in conflict with the way nature “hardwires” every species on this planet that has a male and female component. So it’s not a choice by virtue of Nature’s order of survival. There are, however, abnormalities within nature. Being attracted to the same sex is by the very definition of natural science an abnormality, but one that should come with legal penalties. Some people are born with a condition in which they cannot feel pain. Pain is essential to survival, but that abnormality lacks a compelling legal interest to limit their rights as any other citizen, just as there is no legal compelling interest for being attracted to the same sex.
So that’s the primer for the true debate: Deliver a compelling legal interest why the government should not apply the law equally to homosexuals.
It will be interesting for the conservatives to put forth their argument keeping in mind that we are a Nation of Laws and not men. And according to the Preamble this nation derives it’s power from We The People and no other authority.
Good luck.
Bravo! Terrific response. He could have also added a long list of Bible verses making statements about matters which science clearly shows are patently false. Further, he could have suggested that the lady read The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors–Christianity Before Christ, , also The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (a scholarly review of the evidence, or lack of evidence, that Jesus ever lived. It’s doubtful. Also Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, or God Is Not Great–How Religion Spoils Everything. Or for more fun, read the books of George Carlin, the recently passed-away comedian.
Bravo. Thank you for sharing this awesome response by Senator Simpson. Caroline, Detroit