California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Chick-fil-A Kissing Protest Planned For Friday - Boycott Questioned By GOP
http://www.politicalgroove.com/2012/08/chick-fil-kissing-protest-planned-for.html

So Conservatives are now whining about a boycott? Okay then, here's just a shortlist of what they've boycotted in the name of bigotry.

LMAO... Now that was funny and appropriate.

I try and use this same analogy with a black coworker but he just can not seem to grasp the logic.

The analogy is not exactly the same... if homosexuality is strictly hormonal it is still a preexisting condition that is part of natural birth... If homosexuality is a genetic factor also (which it probably is) then in both instances we are 'born this way' similar to race.

The fact that all races can produce offspring that are born homosexual just shows that homosexuality is more deeply ingrained within nature than race. Homosexuality is older than race as it is part of sexuality itself that predates even humanity. Homosexuality trumps even race... Using race actually weakens the argument for sexual equality...

This is why I often refer to homosexuality as a "rite"...

WOW.... You really are enlightened in my opinion. That is a very well thought out reply.

We have touched bases on the wiki leaks issues in the past and maybe I have it wrong but it seemed to me that you have suggested that your mother probably knows you, your state of morality and you as a person better than anyone else so I would think that Julian's mother may know him too, "better than anyone else.

This will probably add to some of the things that what you did not know about him.

Actually, even animals engage in homosexual activity. It's all part of "nature."
In other words, it's natural.

Julian's mother during this interview is reading from a list, not very impromptu and spontaneous. Nearly everything she says is scripted. Perhaps suspiciously and insincerely well thought out and planned.

Assange is not into possessions but the alleged rape charges in Sweden speak possibly of someone self centered and deeply troubled.

It is a complicated thing.

Can Julian get a fair trial if extradited to the US? I am not sure of that either. Maybe not. Our constitution has, since the George W. Bush era, been seriously eroded, corrupted and egregiously compromised.

Just a thought, maybe someone should release all of Julian's mother's private phone conversations to her lawyers and family over the last year on the internet? She might sing a different tune then about privacy and its sanctity. What is good for the goose should also be good for the gander. Does she believe in the sovereignty of a country and civilian privacy? Especially during troubled war times? Compared to the world wars, Iraq and Afghanistan have been like a romper room. Remember Hitler bombing London and most of Europe?

What of the Illegal US massacres in Cambodia years ago?
And covert decades old operations to try and assassinate the Chilean dictator?

Arms to Iran...

I just read an article a few days ago about a recent accusation by a German historian that claims secret files have been uncovered revealing that the US government ordered the liquidation of Tzar Nicholas II and his family in Russia...

All is fair in love and war? I do not really believe this. But, hind sight is 20/20... That is no excuse either.

War is both defense and offense... Maybe that is some sort of saving grace and acid test..

The US has done much worse in the past than even what has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. This does not excuse any of these atrocities but I do think at least today we are 'much' more civilized than these radicalized terrorist counterparts.

A few weeks ago Al-Qaeda blew up another civilian market in Iraq with hundreds of casualties. We no longer have a military presence in that country. Who do we blame now Julian? Bush and Obama still? America? And, look at the blood shed in Syria with also supposedly no apparent direct US involvement at all... Hard to point the blame at the US now for this too. The US has repeatedly called for Assad to surrender.

Hard to say now that we are the cause for the bulk of the violence in the Middle East as Assange has tried to do. Assange tried to magnify the liberators few infractions, though still grievous, above that of the aggressors. Something twisted and insane about that too. Not an easy feat maintaining an army of volunteer juveniles... Perhaps he could to a better job in his spare time while he is not out 'allegedly' raping Swedish women? I think the US military has done admirably, considering it is still 'war'.

Not to say our military has not recently been at times totally out of line...

But, this is the exception rather than the rule. Let's hope to heck it stays that way. Still we try very hard to avoid civilian casualties while our counterparts do all they can to increase the number of civilian casualties...

This fundamental difference is a key factor in my own judging of America's role in the Middle East.

It is hard to even accuse America of profiteering from these wars considering we left Iraq and recently Libya as self governing democracies.

I still say, let the government and people who know more about this handle Assange. I am not sticking my neck out for something I really do not concretely know that much about.

Although, I do not trust our government 100%. I see enough to have at least a basic trust in what they are trying to accomplish in this case. This leaves me to wonder if Assange's motivations are truly arrogant and not based in trying to get at the truth but, simply a deeply rooted and utterly snobbish hatred for America.

I am still on the fence but I tend to tip towards letting our government and military figure this one out.

I certainly don't like the secrecy element of our government but, I also don't think our aggressors should know our every move before we take them... We seem damned either way.

Like Anonymous, and many libertarian Ron Paul goof balls... they are bashing on Obama yet are too stupid to consider what a Romney presidency would actually be like... Like they seen no consequence whatsoever for their own actions... More juveniles perhaps... Not that I disagree with everything they do. I tend to trust Obama. I do see huge differences in both major political parties (democrats and teapublicans) and I think the democrats are the only ones who are capable of not running the country into the ground.

Sorry for any typos, I am too zonked to proofread this 50 more times... Hope I did not seriously flub up. Hard subject to comment on...

Please let me know if you see any huge gaps in my reasoning here.

I am not so sure of myself to not take a fair amount of constructive criticism on this subject.

Thanks for reading...

Maybe this is true, do you have any evidence of this? Could you be wrong?



So you think that she may be insincere? OK maybe but I would not think that myself..



If this could shed some light on her or Julian's character, "why not? I think that transparency is key to truth.




Maybe you are correct but from what I understand statistically you are at a much greater risk of dying eating a peanut than what you are from the hands of a terrorist. Do you think that we should devote more of our military time and treasure fighting peanut deaths?



Maybe you are correct but I hate to say that from all the interviews that I have done over the years, "our neighbors seem to be sand niggers and so forth to the many "not all" of the young military recruits that I have spoken to.



You don't think that there are some who are making a killing from these wars?




I think you did a pretty fair job of it.

Rex, in fairness to Iamsam, things are slightly different over here. We have a thing called a 'civil partnership,' that same sex couples can enter into. This conveys all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, and a gay couple can have their union blessed in a church. The only difference is the name, 'civil partnership,' as opposed to 'marriage.'

This is indicative of the British tradition of compromise, when the civil partnership laws were passed they were greeted enthusiastically by the gay community. Elton John entered into one with his parter to great fanfare.

Gay marriage will come eventually, but not for a few years. The age of consent for gay men used to be 21, then it was reduced to 18, now it's the same as heterosexuals, 16. We move slowly, in baby steps.

At the moment the Tory PM David Cameron has announced his support for gay marriage because he's trying to rebrand his party as not being anti-gay. This is failing as a lot of his back benchers have rebelled, for the same reasons your Republican types are so anti-gay. In short a bill allowing gay marriage could only pass with Labour support. I think the Labour party would rather play politics and allow the bill to fail so they can bring out their own version when they get back in power.

With regard to RL's posting of videos by RT. Take them with a pinch of salt. RT is a propaganda channel controlled by the Kremlin. With what is going on in Syria right now they are desperate to divert the Western audience's attention away from Syria and on to something that paints America in as an unfavourable light as possible. Your theory that Assange's mother was reading from a script is very likely to be true.

You know me I like to follow all the propaganda that is out there including Fox news.



What is it that you know "that makes it more likely than not?

My problem with civil unions is when a heterosexual couple makes babies then get divorced and remarried it is called marriage.

Many remarriages are likely to not produce offspring. In fact many remarriages either or both of the couples have taken steps to prevent offspring altogether.

Since they neither intend to produce offspring nor will produce offspring under the existing definition of some states and countries this should be called a civil union.

Yet it is still called marriage.

It all boils down to sexual discrimination and mathematics. If two things are equal separately then they are in intrinsically equal together even though they together can function differently in essence they are equal by definition.

If man is equal to women than two men or two woman or a man and a woman are equal.

This is why I think the conservatives are trying to erode women's right, equal pay and their right to decide their own choice on reproduction. So men can lord over women. Brute over brains...

If women are inferior under the law to men then it would only then mean two men together are of a greater value constitutionally than a man and a woman.

Then two gay men would be worth more constitutionally than two lesbian women together... And where would marriage fit into this all then?

No, all men and women are created equally and all unions between two consenting adults of either sex are created equally. They are (at least should be) created in love, not the mere promise of offspring. This idea that marriage is for the purposes of breeding reduces the value of the marriage actually to studs and (there is no female word for stud) farm hens. In other words merely 'breeders'...

And what of the heterosexual's second third and fourth marriage? Should it not be called a civil union since most religion and the bible forbids remarriage? No, it is called marriage because it is inherently sexist. This is discrimination based upon sexuality.

Should a father of children be demoted in civil status just because he remarries to a same sex person? So in court the jury can think well the mother remarried to a man and the father remarried to a man so one is higher than the other... Marriage between a man and a women does not automatically mean a stable family home.

Marriage is marriage just as remarriage is remarriage... the new spouse had no part in making the children why should one new spouse have more of a say over the previous marriage just because they have a gender preferable to the courts?

And what if the father remarries a lesbian and the mother remarries a lesbian?

In this case there would be not only no deep loving commitment in the father's case but the very image of marriage becomes deceptive in the eyes of the court.

Marriage is a civil union not a religious union. Churches can try and imply marriage is all about breeding and overpopulating the world but love is the purpose and it is unthinkable that the church overlooks scripture that the "the greatest is charity" not the "greatest is breeding".

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity [love].

Breeding takes most couples only a few minutes but love and nurture take a lifetime. Rape takes a few minutes too and so does abortion. But again, love is greater, the greatest is love.

Love is love, it transcends sexual barriers and ideological dogma.

Love conquereth all... but not if you are gay (cynical)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but because civil partnership is legally the same as marriage in all but name, same sex marriage isn't as much of an issue with the gay community over here. I'm sure it will come to pass anyway, though not in this government's term of office. It's just like the age of consent, we couldn't go from 21 to 16, we had to go to 18 first.

I think 16 is too young for marriage and sex in many cases...

The age of 16 isn't compulsory.

No only when the price is right? In Maine where I live we have a sliding scale. 16 only when the ages are near one another... If some older person want to wed a 16 year old they can wait two years if love is really that important and wed them when they turn 18...

I'm not too sure of the exact set up over here.