Another Activist Judge Overrules the Will of the People

*hugs Neehai* don't let the haters get you down, most people do not want to take your freedom to love away, just the one's who are impotent or hate themselves. Let's face it, Bush is quite effeminate and overcompensates in a BIG way, Cheney is a non-human sadist (evil lizard-man who eats babys), karl Rove is a doughy criminal-mastermind, but one of them is gay or buys gay prostitutes for someone close, there is no other explanation for Jeff Gannon being in the most guarded place in the most secretive admin the usa has ever seen in recent history. Someone high up in the hate-filled govt. is an ass-bandit since we know Gannon is a top. Rush Limbaugh must be impotent if he did enough drugs to lose his hearing and by his macho postering, the football references and attempts to be tough, we know he is a limp-dick dweeb, and sean hannity, while probably able to attain an erection probably has little love for sex since he thinks fetishes should be illegal, so essentially they hate to compensate for their own short commings. People like the griefer on this thread are just buying into the hate because it is all that is on the radio, but that will change as regular people are waking up. The USA was founded by liberals not conservatives, the biggest welfare queens are the greedy corporations and we have them by the balls, look at what happened to Sinclair broadcasting, if the liberals take away their business, they will crush you and the corporations know it. We will win, and I'm not even gay hehe!!

many of them are gay and forgive themselves for molesting little boys and even promote cardinals who allow predators to have more fresh boy ass.why don't you hate on them? two consenting adults who don't claim to be anything but sinners, not closer to god like clergy, are hardly as harmfull to the world as predator predophiles allowed to fuck little boys in the ass after brainwashing them, so why don't you concentrate your passion to eradicate sin by directing to the most sinfull organisation out there, the catholic church.

Don't even get me *started* on the Catholic church. You have no idea. Lemme just say I am just as appalled by their handling of the molestation crisis as you are. But, while we're on the topic, let's talk teachers shall we? I don't hear you ranting and raving about the epidemic of child molesting teachers in this country. Could it be because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat?


-Kiamat Dusk
Protestant Warrior

Congratulations. You just made Jesus vomit.

That again, is a whole different issue. Many homosexuals get up every Sunday morning and go to church. I personally believe that the Ten Commandments should have a prominent place in every public building, and that all children should know and say the complete Pledge of Allegiance, Jehovah's Witnesses or not. If you think that is a hypocritical way of living, all I have to say is that there is a lot of picking and choosing going on when it comes to which of God's commandments we all of us find it convenient to keep and live by. If you were circumcised and kept a strict kosher diet and never did a lick of work on the Sabbath and followed each and all of the precepts in the Bible it would still be wrong for you to judge others and the lifestyles they lead - just as much as it would be wrong for Wiccans to expect the rest of us to worship trees and carry out human sacrifices.
If I were to say that all Blacks are lazy drug addicts, you would hardly like my sweeping bigoted generalizations, either, so don't characterize all of us as promiscuous drug addicted child molestors.

Aren't you picking and choosing you sins to fit your argument?

I notice you have yet to address your laughable "slippery slope" argument. Tell me again how if letting gays marry meanswe have to let children and animals marry, then why is it that if we let gays serve openly in the military you don't assume we will have to let children and animals serve openly in the military. It seems your slippery slope only applies to fags. Also, do you think interracial marriage moved the line any on the slope or did that decision have no impact?

So what is the "official" list of sins?

What about those Christians wearing two different types of cloth? (i.e. wool and linen) It is expressly forbidden according to the Bible, yet Christians do it all the time. Is someone who wear two different types of fabric worthy enough to become clergy? Or is this sin less severe than being a fag?

And the covetous or the gluttonous. Have you seen the size of good Christians lately? Jenny Craig and Jesus wept.

This is just more bullshit that you use to justify your hatred of fags. You can't make us go away so you deny us basic rights and make our lives harder in an attempt to force us into the shadows. It won't work.

Homosexuals deserve the rights of marriage. I should be able to partner with the adult of my choosing and empower them with the rights that marriage provides over my estate and my well-being.

I suppose it could be viewed as an assault on thier values, but if you flip it around and view it from the 'other' side, it is much more pronounced. For example, I'm an athiest. I don't believe in any higher power, etc, but I fully support and respect the rights of others to do so. However, everytime I open my wallet or grab some change from my pocket, I'm confronted with someone else's values, right there on my money - government produced money. Everyday, without fail, it is there... 'In God We Trust'.

It's not representative of our country, as a whole. Not everyone who is religious believes in 'God' and not everyone in this country is religious.

Doesn't matter; your ass is still going to get busted first thing Monday morning if you leave the two unmentionable pejoratives out for Jeska to see.

yeah, we are on the same track, we care for the kids and that is solid, but saying teachers mostly vote democratic only makes them seem more caring and intelligent than republicans. If you think that dinosaurs didn't exist, women shouldn't have the right to control their fertility, war for re-election is great and that eating shellfish makes you burn in hell you're nuts and probably couldn't pass a teaching test anyway.

and insinuating that liberals are more likely to molest kids is disgusting, you are brainwashed by evil limp-dick right wing media morons. Your government invites gay prostitutes into your whitehouse, who's more immoral now??

So you think in a country with multiple religions we should have a big sign that tells everyone they should have no other gods before the Christian god in public buildings? That's a bit arrogant.

Also, can I ask? Jesus is in heaven correct? Yet with all the images of him floating around isn't that in violation of the second commandment? Also, what about pictures of angels? I mean, we aren't supposed to make any images of anything in heaven.

How does one keep the sabbath holy? What are you supposed to do specifically?


Okay, not coveting my neighbors wife is one thing but his male servant? Everyone should be allowed to gawk at the poolboy. Hell, that's half of their job.

The stealing and murdering thing is sort of already against the law so there is no need for that kind of redundancy on a religious level.

I find that Christians and their religion offensive and there is no place for it in public. If we let Christians start placing the 10 Commandments in public buildings we are going down a "slippery slope". Soon they will want to place 10 commandments bumper sticks on children and animals.

oh btw the only person I hate more than the Bush crime-syndicate and the evil lizard-men who feed off of human misery is John Kerry, that douche-bag sued me for half a mill this time last year and I kicked his ass without a lawyer so DON'T consider me a democrat, they are pussies, corporate ass sucking scum like republicans.

ARGHH. Being literal on a Sunday afternoon is a mortal sin! My point was that I can personally believe that, but my belief doesn't give me the right to shove the 10 Commandments down everyone else's throat by actually hanging it up in my local post office. Since the Ten Commandments references a Jewish God, technically, I'm not all that sure why so many Christians get so fired up about the whole thing. They should get their own damn set of laws, that will maybe cover the neighbour's BMW. Who the fuck even owns a donkey, anyway?

It's amazing how this conversation has morphed. But that's groovy; I dig it.

Ok...now we're talking religion. My personal beliefs are as follows:

The US is a secular country and should remain that way. As a rule, Theocracies of any stripe are bad. Very bad.

However, all I've seen lately is this war on Christianity from the Left and it amazes me because these are supposed to be the vangaurd of tolerance and diversity. I mean just look at the things people have said about Christians in this thread alone. Remember, you're talking about Mother Theresa here.

And what for? Our intolerance? Islam has far more restrictions and yet no one in spewing this kind of vitriol at Muslims. In Iran, women are still stoned to death for adultery-but the American Left saves its hatred for the people who are running homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

Why is that? Perhaps because currently Muslim extremists are killing people while Christians have been known to turn the other cheek. Makes sense to me since Liberals are notorious cowards.

Homosexuality is a sin. God doesn't rank sin. To Him, the little white lie I told yesterday is just as bad as the load Neehai gargled with this morning. He loves us both the same. Juro is just as welcome in His home as I am and, frankly, just as welcome in MY home.

As I have stated before, I deal with people based on their entire personality, not who they are sleeping with. As much as it would make it easier on people like Neehai if I were to just say I hate gays, it simply isn't true.

I disagree with gay marriage. I will do all in my power to prevent it-ie voting for politicians in my state and for president who share my view. I will not kill any judges or their families, nor will I endorse such behavior.

I expect those of you who feel the opposite to do the same. That's how America works and I'm proud to live here. If your side wins, I'll live in an America that recognizes gay marriage and I will continue to work to have it overturned just as I do to get abortion overturned. Again, if my side wins, I'm sure you'll continue your fight.

As long as we can all agree that we live in the greatest country on earth, as long as we can deal in *facts*, as long as we can agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, we'll get along just fine.

Again, I point out Juro as a prime example. He and I are on opposite ends of this spectrum, yet he has been able to have this debate with me without resorting to the kind of disgusting vitriol which Neehai and Michi seem to love to wallow in.

Also, I note that Jeska Linden has been nowhere in evidence despite all the personal attacks made against me thus proving my point that there is a Vast Leftwing Conspiracy in the forums.


-Kiamat Dusk
...taking America back, one red state at a time.

"this war on Christianity from the Left" yeah that's right, you better kill us all now or Jesus won't come back!!!!

You don't suppose that this "war" is actually a reaction vs. an instigation? I am no apologist for the left, but I do believe that the left takes exception with factional extremist Christianity, not the religion in itself. If you take a look at 20th century American history, the liberal/democratic arm was once the bastian of American Christianity. Only in the last couple of decades has Christianity been co-opted by the conservative right. Liberal does not equate to atheist.

What's your point? That your brand of oppression isn't as bad as that of the Muslim world? Ah, I've been enlightened...

And GW, an avowed Christian, ordered the invasion of Iraq under the auspices of WMD. How many people have died as a result of that dubious decision? Heroism not tempered by wisdom is folly.

Lordy, we have been over this how many times now? I disagree, but I'd rather let you search the forums for my many past rebuttals than to repeat it all here, again.

You have failed to present a compelling argument to justify your desire to marginalize a group of human beings through legistlative action. What do you really expect will happen if your side "wins?" You can dislike the gay lifestyle all you like, but to take action to prevent human beings from living out their lives is simply a form of repression. Don't forget that. And as a side-note, this is an extremely relevant example as to why the judiciary should retain its independence. Tyrrany by the masses is still tyrrany.

Me, too. Though, my goal is to turn them blue (or more accurately, purple since it's probably representative of a Libertarian view).

The vast majority of Americans who are working to treat me as a second class citizen are Christians. As such, those are the people I address on this issue.

I have travelled around the world to many muslim countries working to raise the status of women and fight atrocities. I have seen things that frighten and sicken me. I have gone places where my work was perceived as a great threat to the Muslin establishment. Three months after September 11th I was in a Muslim country continuing my work. Just last June I was standing in a store in a Muslim country facing a wall sized poster of Osama Bin Laden.

I will fight atrocity and discrimination where I see it. I categorize your brand of discrimination against homosexuals no differently than that of Muslims stoning women to death. Yours is just more insidious. They both seek to deny basic human rights to a class of people.

If you ever think i will sit idly by while you kill my people you are wrong. It will never happen as long I have have breath to speak.


You discriminate against homosexuals. You have no good reason for doing so. You have a single slippery slope argument that you apply only to homosexuals and marriage. Furthermore, the marriage ban referenced in this thread not only outlawed marriage but any contractual union of two people of the same sex. That deny a specific set of federal laws that allows me to make arrangements for healthcare, funeral care and a host of other things with my partner.

You seek to deny me basic human rights. For someone who doesn't hate me, you sure have an odd way of showing it.

If you disagree with gay marriage, then don't have one. Why should other people not get to do something because you don't like it?

Not meaning to hijack this any further than it has already gone, but groups like NAMBLA have tried to get on the coat tails of the gay rights movement specifically BECAUSE of broadly written constitutional protections against discrimination due to sexual orientation. Now I absolutely do not associate pedophiles with homosexuality, one is between consenting adults and the other involves adults preying upon children. The entire argument of NAMBLA (which unfortunately is somewhat supported by research of pedophiles) is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and, as such, should be protected under these amendments. Even the criminal justice system's rationale for extended supervision and mental commitments, beyond any original criminal sentence due to their likelihood to re-offend, supports (if looked at from the other direction) the argument that this is a sexual orientation and these people cannot help the way their attractions are wired into their brains.

Unfortunately, every sexual orientation protection amendment I have ever read is written to include all sexual orientations and thus giving them an argument that their cause might, technically, fall under these protections. Of course, any sexual orientation could also make the same argument, so the question arises do we revise these protections to specifically address gay issues so you don't have groups like NAMBLA jumping on board?

/me ends thread hijack

I also just want to say that I DO support gay unions in some form (marriage, civil union, call it what you will) so that domestic partners can recieve family health insurance, tax benefits, and formal societal recognition of their relationship.

...and that's exactly why the argument has no merit. It's the "if we let gays marry, what's next? people marrying animals?!" argument, just stated more politely. It's still the same argment. You ca't compare relationships between consenting adults with molestation of children who are unable to enter the relationship with legal consent. I don't doubt that pedophiles are wired that way and can't help being attracted to children, but is the argument that gays should be treated like children? The comparison is specious.

Chip,

I wasn't trying to make that comparison, but I was explaining the course of logic used by these groups to make this argument. They don't highlight the fact that one involves consenting adults and the other adults preying on children. Instead they push the argument that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and thus entitled to protections from prosecution. The protections, as written, don't provide any language that would automatically prevent pedophilia from gaining protection as a sexual orientation. That's where groups like NAMBLA hang their hat. I don't know what the right answer would be for this, but if they ever manage to establish, scientifically, that their cause is a sexual orientation we could easily see some serious scrambling to re-define those protections to exclude predators.

John Kerry sued you?

John Kerry made all his money from suing people - same as John Edwards. Thanks to the two of them it's almost impossible to get malpractice insurance in Massachusetts and North Carolina.

heh.. sigh.

Not that that's hard to believe, it's just hard to believe Kerry sued HIM. Not that it isn't possible...

Maybe one of the problems is that gay groups don't speak out on this issue, since we get tarred and feathered with it so very often. I don't know what the deal is here. Grown heterosexual men may sneak a look at teenaged girls on occasion, but they usually don't take advantage of them. It's exactly the same thing with gay men and teenaged boys. You might look, but the prospect of having to listen to them talk...

Kiamat, this is really interesting to me, becuase I had assumed your position against gay marriage was one grounded in your religious beliefs. Now that I understand your beliefs on religion and government, I'm even more confused!

What the gay population in the U.S. is attempting to gain is the right to have thier union 'sanctioned' by our government - not necessarily by the religious community. There are two parts to getting married: the marriage license and the ceremony. You have to have the license issued by the local official, but the ceremony can take various forms and does not need to be religious. About half of my friends who are married had religious ceremonies, the other half had non-denominational ceremonies.

I can understand where some people would be up in arms thinking that gay women and men are trying to 'force' their church to perform and recognize gay marriages, but that's not what the goal is - and it never should be. Churches should be allowed to accept or not accept gay marriage; it should not be legislated.

The courtroom battle going on here in California is not to get churches to recognize those relationships, but to get the state to uphold its constitutional promise that no Californian can be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

I don't think it's possible to have a truly secular government if laws we craft are founded in religious beliefs, especially laws that 'ban' things.