ehBeth wrote:errrr, very few of the self-described left here are even near the political centre on a globabl spectrum. It's not fair to the real left to call them left, or liberal. They're just barely, slightly left of the right.
(that ^^^ is this quarter's rant on that topic - resume your positions - and keep on singin', scrat)
Hey! I resent that1
I have to lean to the right to make a left turn, I'm such a lefty!!!
Many of you have heard Dr. Laura, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others speak of the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has actually ever seen it.
I asked a friend of mine -- who recently obtained a copy of the Homosexual Agenda directly from the Head Homosexual -- if he would send me a copy. He did and now I am sharing it with all of you.
I certainly hope it will assist you so that you will be prepared.
6:00am Gym
8:00am Breakfast: oatmeal, egg whites, and mimosas
9:00am Hair appointment
10:00am Shopping, preferably at Barney's or Prada
12:00pm Brunch
2:00pm (1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, state, and local governments as well as all other forms of world government (2) Destroy all healthy marriages (3) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents from Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels (4) Bulldoze all houses of worship (5) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media (6) Be Fabulous
2:30pm Mud mask and forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest
4:00pm Cocktails
6:00pm Light Dinner: soup, salad with romaine, radicchio, arugula, and balsamic vinaigrette dressing; Apple Martini
8:00pm Theatre
10:30pm "Do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight!"
Super, PDiddie.
I knew it all the time -- those dastardly ingates.
<putting down my salad with balsamic, swallowing, grinning, and snorting>
Loved it, PD. Much better/funnier than the usual spate of cartoons.
Well, i don't have anything against gay dudes . . . i just wouldn't want my daughter to marry one . . .
PDiddie wrote:Many of you have heard Dr. Laura, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others speak of the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has actually ever seen it.
Oh geez, I can't believe I'm opening myself to this, but I have to put in a word in defense of Dr. Laura here. I don't believe you can find a single instance in which she has described a 'homosexual agenda' or in which she has bashed gays in any way. She does believe children do benefit from having a father and mother in the home and for that reason she opposes gays adopting children if the child could otherwise have a traditional family. She believes homosexuality is an anomaly in nature as there is no gene pool for it, but she does not believe people choose to be gay or are evil because they are gay.
I won't try to defend either Robertson or Falwell on this issue however.
PDiddie, the "apple martini" at the end totally made that post
Every girl and gay dude I know seems to live off that drink, its like their fuel...
Been a while since a post made me laugh out loud. Thanks!
Fox, That post by PD is a joke.
cicerone imposter wrote:Fox, That post by PD is a joke.
I know it was a joke and I laughed.
I would guess that none of the people on A2K ever listens to Dr Laura. I could be mistaken.
Excellent article, Brand X.
"she used 'activist judges' three times and she used the phrase 'redefining marriage' thirteen times".
This says it all here, and relates to something Cicerone said as well. It's a deliberate manipulative ploy, and it requires the sound logic showing how it is wrong to be shot right back at them in the same manner...a difficult task at best. Cicerone said they just don't even understand how prejudiced they are, but I think in light of the manipulation technique they are fully aware of their hatred and disgust and are totally convinced they are of the superior position so completely arrogantly, they could care less who gets trampled along the way.
We are dealing with reptiles here, not silly humans too blind to see the errors of their ways. They are standing there all along ready to snap your head off and crunch it down if the right opportunity presents itself...cold, lidless eyes hiding behind a human mask. It's that little central core of prehistoric jelly in our brain we inherited from the reptiles, the one that orders the most basic of functions, and it is THE source of all the problems we have on this planet.
So long as the STATE requires a marriage license, it is a civil institution guaranteed to everyone by the 14th Amendment. Those pesky Reconstructionists of the South should have been way more specific regarding the rights guaranteed to all, instead of just labelling them as civil rights, and the states know all too well that marriage as a civil institution is blatantly discriminatory. So long as Americans didn't understand the full scope of the 14th Amendment, all was well. But now that they are getting around to really defining civil as civil for everyone...the lawmakers are all totally in a snit, because, as was said, they can't get up there and decry homosexuals as abominations or lusty with the ways of Rome....THE TWO BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO HOMOSEXUALITY, it will make them look well, prejudiced, and ignorant.
But they can't get up there and say separate and equal, or near equal, or protected by religion because they are government for one thing, and to attack gay marriage is to attack the most fundamental tenet of the 14th Amendment, a massive turning point and expansion of democracy in this country EVER. It's far more massive than the Constitution itself or any other amendment except the first amendment.
Government can't use religion as an excuse because government demands a license for the ritual to follow. That's mixing church and state right there.
The hacks can't say marriage is an inviolate sacred institution either because marriage has changed in a big way at least three times in this country alone, never mind the different kinds of marriages in different cultures, all of whom live in America. Marriage is a PAGAN invention for that matter, and gays bonded in the pagan world as much as straights did.
IT didn't make any difference at all to the pagans. The Christians, on the other hand, are stuck in their prejudices instilled in them over the past 2000 years that ignores most of the facts about marriage. It is firstmost and foremost since pagan days, an economic and civil insitutiton designed to provide for the weaker members of society, and to protect them from infringing governments who cannot violate the sacred bond. It is also a wonderful mechanism to perpetuate consumerism on a large scale. Letting gays get married to would certainly increase production in this country.
How does gay marriage ruin marriage so badly that it must be banned or separated out.
How will gay marriages have a negative impact on your life?
If every last two Americans in this country got married, who is it that would stand to lose the most money or properties?
Separate and equal didn't fly to well with bussing and schooling. It's prejudice pretending to share like good Christians, and a total farce, of course.
And finally, if civil unions give gays the identical legal perks, protections and benefits married people have now, then isn't a civil union a marriage, and isn't a marriage a civil union. Why make the distinction at all? What's the point.
Civil union must be the positioning to be exploited later, but no matter how many times they repeat it, they can't convince people anymore that they are anything but blatant, ignorantly, and selfishly biased and prejudiced against fellow Americans. The more they attack, the more they look anti-American AND anti-Bill of Rights. They have to be very, very careful with this one.
And they know it.
"WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER INTO A MARRIAGE AS IT IS AND HAS BEEN DEFINED. There doesn't seem to be any "equal protection" issue there at all. "
Scrat, this is simply not true. Gays marry now, but they aren't recognized as legal or anything having the same entitlements and benefits that traditional marriages have. This is about equal economic rights as quaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The STATE made this come about by requiring a civil license before a marriage is seen as legitimate. You aren't recognized under the law without that license. This is a civil rights issue whether you choose to believe it or not. The STATE Shouldn't even be demanding liscenses for religious worship for that matter, so they are in a bind of their own making. So long as marriage has any civil law attached to it, then it is a civil institution in this country, and the 14th amendment says all Americas are entitle to the same, equal rights as all the other Americans. The meant blacks of course, in the 14th, but they left it as civil rights, and I am sure there have been some who have known this all along, and were dreading the time should it come that gays would just start demanding the same rights as straights.
Those against gay marriages are in one hell of a tremendous constitutional pickle. They can't get around the 14th amendment so long as the states require licenses for marriages to be protected under the law.
They obviously didn't think things through too well.
I for one am amazed such a development could ever have occurred under Bush, but he is fanning the flames on all this, now isn't he, so maybe it isn't such a wonder.
But it pits all Americans up against their precious Constitution. To add an amendment that DISCRIMINATES is going to work as well as the only other amendment that discriminated - the Prohibition Amendment. That one created more crime than this country ever saw. I suspect any Jim Crow amendment is going to set this country on fire.
Are we really living in a free and just society, or are we really just arrogant hypocrites. This issue will decide that once and for all, and there will be no coming back from that decision either, whichever way it goes.
The law is already there to allow it in the 14th Amendment. The lawmakers know this. Notice how they are pussyfooting around on all this...because they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on, and even if they succeed in their amendment, the USSC will have to shoot it down when appealed. Discrimination is forbidden by the 14th Amendment. Will you vote to kill the 14th? Black people won't. Hispanics won't. Women won't. Gays won't. There aren't more straight white men than there are of all the rest combined.
If a gay civil union has all the same rights and benefits as a straight marriage, then isn't a civil union a marriage, and isn't a marriage a civil union? Calling one gay and one straight is not separate and equal, even if it is by law.
For that matter, no mention of making union = marriage legally in the upcoming amendment. The suggestions for compromise is that a union gets SOME of the same protections and benefits, but not all.
Once again, if every two Americans in this country got married, who would stand to lose the most money? Estate tax people, the IRS, healthcare, and more I am sure.
anti-gay marriage = selfish, prejudiced self-serving economic interest.
As to misunderstanding your position, Scrat, I do not. I've read that you aren't against, per se, but you statements regarding the legality of the situation are somewhat off base. In short, the 14th Amendment doesn't allow for new amendments that discrimate based on law, period. So long as that state issued license is necessary, marriage is a civil insitution protected by civil, not religious laws. And the 14th is quite clear that all Americans are entitled to the same civil rights under law. Even suggesting some kind of Jim Crow amendment is even possible is dead wrong. The people don't need to vote on this. They did already when they ratified the 14th amendment.
I wish people wouldn't take an expansion of their statements so personally. You said it in a public place, and if you expect we all just accept pronouncements without debating the wisdom or accuracy of the statement, well, you are expecting way too much here.
I'm not targeting anyone with malintent. Debate frequently crosses back and forth about what it accurate and what is not. You can't talk about this issue without including the 14th amendment, and as yet, I've yet to see a conservative dare say it. So I am 14th amendment happy lately. I'll jump on any excuse to get it in there somehow, and if I have offended you, I apologize.
Thank you , angie, for clarifying the legal, civil situation as it exists. Hell, it took us how long, about 130 years or so to figure out the civil rights of married people are exclusionary when the 14th amendment states they cannot be. But now that we have seen this, there is no turning back. They might fight like banchees over this, but let them. In the end, civil rights will prevail, and they will all look like traitors to the American dream.
