All good things...

...and the huge amount of money dedicated to defeating it by the homosexual agenda can only be countered by grassroots activism.

ok, stop. If you've been in the grass roots, you know that there is no such thing as the "homosexual agenda". There are only real families fighting for their liberty.

Why do you consider this the most important item on the ballot, singleton?

I'll miss you guys too.

Oh, don't pretend you don't know what he's talking about, Jonathan. Remember when the gays and the liberals and the terrorists and the atheists and the flag burners got together and signed on to the Agenda. You were at the meeting. I'm sure I saw you there.

And don't mock the important work that Singleton is doing. Some people dedicate their lives to helping the poor when we all know the poor deserve to be poor. Some people are concerned about global warming, which is just a myth. Others think the most important issue is terrorism but even the Bush Administration has given up looking for Osama Bin Laden and shut down the CIA unit charged with finding him. Singleton knows that the single greatest danger to America today are gay people who love each other and want to raise a family together. I'm sure if Jesus were here he would agree that children are much better off being raised in nice modern orphanages or with abusive, but heterosexual, parents instead of gay families.

I'll miss you guys too.

Classic.

Got to love how you folks mock Singleton because he believes children should not be willfully denied a mother or a father... and it's always pleasant to read Zimmy's tired old comparison of terrible abusive heterosexual parents to lovely Mary Poppins-esque same-sex couples... talk about a Hobson’s choice!

Singelton my friend, you're a great American. Best of luck in what you are doing to defend marriage as the union of one-man and one-woman. You'll be missed here at NOVA Town Hall. I am sure your fans will be here when you come back.

Oh, don't pretend you don't know what he's talking about...

Zimzo, honestly, I don't know what he's talking about. I haven't seen anything from singleton clued me in. What he's worried about must be coming from his heart. Please allow him to share. Don't assume that you understand his motivations.

Singleton has left us with a circular argument. He's going to dedicate a significant amount of energy fighting the "homosexual agenda". Unfortunately for him, there is the inconvenient fact that there is no "homosexual agenda". So the question to Singleton is to drop the labels and explain what his heart is telling him. He owes us that.

How many children have been denied a mother or a father by the War in Iraq Sophrosyne? I don't see you opposing that. Don't pretend it's the children you love when it's really the gays that you hate.

Got to love how you folks mock Singleton because he believes children should not be willfully denied a mother or a father..."

I never mocked Singleton.

You do realize that people who are not married procreate, and that people who are married don't necessarily have children. It's a nice argument, however we're beyond those Old Testament days when the husband discards his wife if she doesn't bear him children (even if he may be the infertile one). Civil marriage law and procreation law are separate fields. Let's not be intellectually messy.

Sophrosyne, are you saying that anti-gay activists are by definition "great Americans" and that gay rights activist can't be a "great Americans"? Please explain.

...believes children should not be willfully denied a mother or a father...

Show me a child conceived by two homosexuals (of the same sex) and I'll eat my hat.

I grow tired of asking this:
If supporters of this amendment insist on resorting to the tired refrain of "We must pass this for the good of The Children," why not promote an amendment that bans homosexuals from raising children (via adoption, artificial insemenization, surrogate mother, legal guardianship, etc.)?

A No-Gay-Child-Raising Amendment keeps The Children away from the Homosexual Agenda without infringing on the rights of the gay and straight people who would feel the effects of the amendment y'all are so feverishly promoting.

"why not promote an amendment that bans homosexuals from raising children"

Did you see Brokeback Mountain Gnossis? Ennis, a homosexual raised his daughter. If you didn't see the movie, the Loudoun Times Mirror wrote a glowing review which you can read here:
http://www.timescommunity.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=15762946&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=576934&rfi=8

There are also a handful of cases of "ex-gays" who are still same-sex oriented, but are now married with children. I'm troubled by the lack of thoroughness in your analysis. How would you implement such a policy? Would that implementation be "small government/low tax?"

"A No-Gay-Child-Raising Amendment keeps The Children away from the Homosexual Agenda"

Please explain what you mean by the "Homosexual Agenda"? According to "y'all", I'm responsible for carrying out the "agenda" in Loudoun and I feel woefully unprepared to do so. I could use help.

Take care, Singleton. Thanks for being part of the tag team here, and I hope to see you back in the late fall.

We'll leave the light on for ya.

Jonathan,

I guess I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my last post...I was going for more of a Jonathan Swift, Modest Proposal-esque approach.

I, too, wonder what the Homosexual Agenda is that Soph, et al are referencing. I'm also trying to figure out why kids play such a prominent role in their arguments for supporting this amendment. It seems the argument frequently touches on the notion that homosexuals are somehow unfit or less-than-ideal parents when compared with a straight married couple. But exactly how this amendment addresses that perceived "problem" is beyond me.

I imagine one could also argue (with statistics to back it up) that people with limited financial means aren't as good at parenting as a white collar family, what with the working multiple jobs at low wages and all, I bet they're never home to spend time with the kids! Let's get an amendment going that will ensure only middle and upper class heterosexual partners can get married! Of course, your financial status would have to be reviewed periodically to make sure you're still in that bracket of financial acceptability. This, in turn will require some new government office to keep track of all of that information, and you know as well as I do that we liberal wingnuts love big government!

In no way do I support either the current amendment proposal or the hypothetical amendment I described. I was just trying to get at Soph's odd assertion that children will be "willfully denied" parents if homosexuals start pledging their love and fidelity to one another with the same legal footing as straight folks.

As for Brokeback, great movie, but the repetitive guitar riff got to me after a while ;-)

Hey, Jonathan, I was going for the same effect as Gnossis. I'm on your side. I thought gay people were supposed to have a highly developed sense of irony. I guess not even positive stereotypes are always true. Then again maybe you were being ironic...

Zimzo and Gnossis,

Sorry to be such a Nervous Nellie. You both fooled me. There is a group of scholars who believe that marriage rights and procreation rights are one and the same. Bob Marshall is a member of this group. Sometimes fact is stranger than irony. See:

http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=42

p.s. - Unlike straight people, it may be that all queer people are different. ;-)

singleton,

You're departing message is dehumanizing. I'm sure that you've probably met David and I and understand that we sh-t just like you. We are humans, not an "agenda".

The manner that you chose to run away - ducking any closing questions and refusing to take responsibility for your words - was just plain chicken.

Good luck great American coward.

Who's next?

Singleton,

Good luck to you. It's been great blogging here with you and I'm sure we'll be jointly working on projects in the future.

Jonathan,

No homosexual agenda? Are you kidding? The homosexual lobby has got to be one of the biggest, most powerful, and well funded lobbies out there. If groups like Equality Loudoun have no agenda, why do they exist?

Singleton has chosen not to dignify your anger (hatred?) with a response. Name-calling is a bit uncivil...don't you think?

"The homosexual lobby has got to be one of the biggest, most powerful, and well funded lobbies out there."

Bigger than the NRA? Bigger than AARP? Bigger than the Christian Right? Do you have any facts to back up this statement. Probably not.

If groups like Equality Loudoun have no agenda, why do they exist?

Equality Loudoun is totally transparent.

"We have been working since 2003 to make Loudoun County, Virginia a welcoming place for all its residents - gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and straight."

It's on our web site. Read. If novatownhall would like to make Loudoun County unwelcoming, you may be the ones with the agenda.

"anger (hatred?)"

Singleton knows that I love him (in a purely Christian sense - remember, I'm married). Men need strong male role models to tell them the truth. And men must bear the truth, internalize the truth, and mature. That's what masculinity is all about, isn't it? Surely, you don't condone his behavior?

Ah...Zimzo, once again twisting our words. At least you didn't completely change the subject this time. Even if the groups you have mentioned are bigger, "one of the biggest" does not mean same thing as "THE biggest".

Jonny, I agree you are transparent, no one said your agenda was hidden. But your agenda exists and there are many more aspects to it than what is covered in the mission statement on your website.

I'm glad we're all a big happy blog family. I think we can have discussions about our disagreements without making it so personal. (Except for maybe Zimso...his crankiness amuses me).