Dem Presidential Candidates at Homosexual Forum

I thought Hillary was in power when HillBilly signed those bills? She was the nag pushing the agenda. Now she wants to back-up and say it was a ploy to prevent the republicans from inacting stricter verbage? The second lady president. It worked the first time. I wonder if there are enough suckers out there to do it again.

Well – we’ve been dealing with the Christian agenda for the last 7 years and many are getting sick of it. Gays are part of this nation and have the right to be heard. Let’s embrace them instead of alienating them. Heck, how many Christian leaders and anti gay politicians have been caught not practicing what they preach – hypocrisy at its best, that’s what we have seen these last 8 years.

your arguments are weak betty black. if only, they were as good as the song black betty.

people are just as sick now of your gay agenda as they were 7 years ago. People get tired of war, not your lifestyle.

Betty,
You exhibit what I see as classic liberal ignorance, hypocrisy is NOT extolling an ideal and failing to live up to it. Go find a dictionary.

As for the Christian agenda, being against the murder of children is an agenda that I am happy to push and support. Sacrificing children on the alter of the God-of-Choice so that one does not have to be burdened with the consequence of ones own actions is the height of narcissism. Convenience is a lousy bedrock on which to build an ethical framework.

As for the gay agenda, Singleton hit it on the head. VA is sick of it, please note the pasting your side of the argument took in the last election. The marriage bill passed with overwhelming numbers. Care to explain that if everyone is sick of the Christian agenda?

The way the Christians extremists made same sex marriage an issue during the last election was absolutely sickening! Fortunately the acceptance and understanding of gay citizens in our country is growing, it’s just too bad there are sites out there (like this one) that preach intolerance towards others that are not like them.

As black women with a gay daughter, I can’t imagine that she could possibly have fewer rights to marry the person she loves than I had.

It wasn’t too long ago your state of Virginia and many others discriminated against people of color, so it doesn’t surprise me one bit that Virginia hasn’t evolved as some of the more educated states have – give it time, they will, I promise you that!

I will leave you with this; getting married is a legal right, not a Christian right, so please stop pushing your hate filled agenda onto others, because that’s all it is.

Fact is, a certain percentage of all animal forms of life are attracted sexually to members of their own gender, that it’s not a matter of conduct but rather an innate characteristic.

Jacob,
You exhibit what I see as classic conservative punditry!

Anonymous,
guilty as charged!!

Wise man,
So what? Men also have been known to molest sheep and dogs have been seen humping the legs of humans. This behavior is not the product of an innate drive. It is just what is convenient and available. An itch needs to be scratched. Whether one uses ones own nails, or, a stick it does not matter to the one who is itchy.

The most basic drive I see at work in the above conversation is that of Betty defending the actions and rightousness of her daughter. This is a deep and basic drive and one I would not be critical of.

That does not mean I will agree with Betty, but it puts her in a different light.

Betty, I know at least two conservative Christian gay men who were in favor of the marriage amendment. They are comfortable with their homosexuality and are openly gay. I do not know the rationale behind their support of the amendment, but I bring this up to demonstrate that for many, many people, this issue is not about intolerance or hatred (though I am sure there are a minority of folks who do feel that way).

For the record, I am a moderately conservative Christian and I voted against the amendment, not because I am in favor of gay marriage but because I felt an amendment to the state constitution was too drastic a measure.

However, a large majority of voters supported the amendment, and I hope you will understand that their vote had to do with many issues ... religious values as well as economic and societal considerations.

It must be hurtful to imagine that people are being hateful toward your daughter, and so what I am trying to say here is that I don't think they are. At all. I don't believe the vast majority feel any animosity at all toward gay individuals (though they may dislike the gay activist movement). Some don't even have an issue with the "gay lifestyle" (e.g., the two aforementioned men). But they do see a societal value in prescribing that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. IMO, that is neither extreme nor intolerant.

Linda,
Regarding your last paragraph in your 11:18pm comment, I could not have said it any better myself. Bravo and thank you.

"It must be hurtful to imagine that people are being hateful toward your daughter."

Indeed, it must be hurtful for Betty to believe that her daughter suffers from discrimination when it's just all in her imagination. I'm sure she imagined all the hateful statements she sees in the media every day and the hurtful things that friends, co-workers and family members occasionally let slip before quickly apologizing. I'm sure you know much better what her experience has been.

I'm not sure which is worse: outright hatred, which at least has the couage of its convictions, or the kind of condescending disdain on display here.

Of course you don't hate gay people. You just don't like their "lifestyle" (whatever that is) and you hate the uppity ones, the "activists."

Of course, there is nothing in the least hateful about believing that the relationships of gay people are not as worthy as those of straight people, that they represent some kind of undefined "threat" to our society.

Of course, there is nothing hateful in believing that gay people are not worthy of serving in our armed forces (although many do), that they just don't fit in to military life, that their presence would cause a disturbance.

Of course, it's not hateful to believe that gay people are immoral, that they are going to hell, that their expressions of love for their partners are an abomination. There's nothing hateful at all about implying that gay people are dangerous to children, that they shouldn't be allowed to teach or adopt or be scoutmasters. Nothing hateful at all.

Of course, there is nothing hateful in implying that gays are diseased, unhealthy, that they have shorter lifespans, that what they do is unnatural.

And yes I know Linda that you didn't express all of these feelings in your sunny protestation that you don't hate gay people and don't know anyone who does, but all of these ideas have been expressed by anti-gay marriage activists and can all be found on this very blog.

I'm sorry that the very unpleasant gay people have led you to believe that they should not have the rights that married straight people have because denying them those rights has "societal value" which for some reason you have declined to define. Many Virginians saw "societal value" in making it illegal for blacks and whites to marry until the Supreme Court overturned those laws in the Loving v. Virginia case exactly 40 years ago. I bet those people didn't think they were "extreme or intolerant" either. And while you might be unable (or unwilling) to see the comparison, Mildred Loving certainly does. Here is what she recently said:

"When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married. Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. I am proud that Richard's and my name are on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

While I applaud your compassion for the suffering Betty's delusions have caused her, I suggest you actually ask some gay people if they have ever experienced discrimination and how they feel about their relationships being considered unworthy by a majority of Virginians. Besides your Christian gay friends, I mean.

I'm sure you can find some gay people opposed to gay marriage, just as it is possible to find black people opposed to civil rights laws and women who wouldn't vote for a "lady president." But that does absolve you from your own feelings about gay people.

Has it not occurred to you that your gay Christian friends are telling you what they think you want to hear, that they want your acceptance and approval, that the forces of animosity toward gay people are so powerful in this society that they have even internalized those negative feelings against gay people in the same way that many women for example feel they are not worthy enough to aspire to be CEOs or Presidents or mathematicians when it has been drummed into their heads since the time they were little girls that they just aren't worthy enough?

I imagine there are people who will say they supported these amendments for reasons that have nothing to do with homophobia just as many people who opposed civil rights laws claimed it was really a matter of "state's rights." I don't think many people buy that argument today. They realize it was just a cover for people who refused to confront their negative feelings about black people, who wanted to believe despite all evidence to the contrary that they really were good people after all.

Zimzo,

"There's nothing hateful at all about implying that gay people are dangerous to children, that they shouldn't be allowed to teach or adopt or be scoutmasters. Nothing hateful at all."

Would you put a recovering alcoholic in a job as a bartender? Would you put a petaphile in a job as a daycare worker? A homosexual as a Scoutmaster? Do you work for Levi Strauss? Same sex couples adopting? No influence there as far as what's okay and possible future tendencies.

"Gay bashing" and "gay hating". SOS, different day. I don't hate them and I don't feel sorry for them. It is againest my religious beliefs (immorality) to accept that lifestyle or behavior. There are those that do outright hate and that is their issue. Why don't you give it a break and come back to reality. I think most of us on this blog site have explained it to you before (exponentially) that it is an immoral issue to most of us.

"Would you put a recovering alcoholic in a job as a bartender? Would you put a petaphile in a job as a daycare worker?"

...you forgot about the fact that most violent crime is perpetrated by males, and yet most of our law enforcement officers are also men! What is wrong with this country!?

damnit activist you crossed a line. If you parse it out, what you are expressing is a fear of gays. Isn't there a word for that?

It's like zomzo said, "I'm not sure which is worse: outright hatred, which at least has the couage of its convictions, or the kind of condescending disdain on display here."

why don't you own up to the truth? You don't hate gays? Fine. Homophobia isn't rooted in hatred, it's rooted in fear.

Zimzo,
LOL. (at you)

'hatred, which at least has the couage of its convictions ... (blah blah, etc)'

You as usual stand everything on its head; and it is sad, as always. The real pitiful part is you see yourself as some white Knight; the windmalls are over the hill and through the woods boy.

Try reading the Bible, you will see that hating is considered a sin. So is lying, and telling someone they are not sinning when they are is a lie (and a sin).

The Bible calls for obedience in all things, it also calls for beleivers to discern, to encourage and to CORRECT. Correction is not the same thing as judgement, but as usual when reading is anyting but fundamental (as it appears to be in your case) it all gets lost in translation.

Furthermore, because you are so d*mn predictable, Christians (the ones I know) all TRY to be obedient in all things, and aknowledging that we cannot live up to that ideal, call on Christ to take our place, and wash us clean of our sin. So please spare me the question, "Are you obedient in all things?" (add snarky, superior tone if it comes from zimzo) The answer is no, which is why I seek repentence everyday you tiresome little man.

Marshmallow,
While I do not agree with ACT's last comment, I think your comparison
"...you forgot about the fact that most violent crime is perpetrated by males, and yet most of our law enforcement officers are also men! What is wrong with this country!?"

is off the mark as well.

zimzo,

"nothing hateful ... that they have shorter lifespans ..."
Then why do they keep dying sooner than the rest of us?

Linda, I am very happy to hear that you did vote against this discriminatory amendment, thank you!

You say you know at least two conservative Christian gay men who were in favor of the marriage amendment? Well Linda I too know many Christian’s who where and still are against it, including some Priests, what’s your point?

My point is that NO ONE’S rights should ever be put to a popular vote, never!

What many people don’t understand is that a state marriage license is just that, it’s a license provided by the state, a legal document, “without” any religious ties. The license is granted to protect the two people that are committed to one another, period.

How would my daughter’s marriage to other women affect another person’s marriage? Make it less?

I don’t understand how anyone’s marriage is threatened by gay marriage, or any couples for that matter, marrying? If my marriage is threatened by another couple marrying, then it seems to me that my relationship can’t be that strong to begin with.

If you’re against gay marriage it’s simple, don’t have one. I just want my child to have the same protections that my husband have had for some 20 years, is that too much to ask for?

For the ones here that have wrote many nice things in my favor, thank you! This battle is very difficult and emotional, it’s nice to see even some of the more conservatives here coming to my support.

of course it's off the mark!

this whole court is off the mark!

"Then why do they keep dying sooner than the rest of us?"

What was that you said about lying, Jason?

I assume this notion you have that gay people "keep dying sooner than the rest of us" comes from the studies of anti-gay activist Paul Cameron, which have been thoroughly debunked. Cameron's "research" consisted of comparing obituaries in gay newspapers with obituaries in general newspapers.
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26857.html

Unless you have some other evidence and weren't just pulling this idea out of thin air. It does serve as a perfect example of the hateful and malicious falsehoods that anti-gay activists typically spew. Thanks for proving my point, Jason, as always.

Oops. I meant Jacob. I must have been confusing you with the monster from Halloween for some reason.

Marshmellow,
This is an argument in which we have gone round and round and round, so lets not go there again.

My point w.r.t. your exampleis that it did not match ACT's example from a tautological sense.

zimzo,
as usual going for the BIG lie, to scare others. Its like a poker tell, when ever you get this upitty it means you are bluffing

try
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
for example, and the scientist is very apologetic to the gay community. face it zimzo, the aids epidemic in the 80's and 90's has killed a lot of people in the gay community. That does tend to drive down the life expetancy. And you know it.

so take your hatefull statement:
"Unless you have some other evidence and weren't just pulling this idea out of thin air. It does serve as a perfect example of the hateful and malicious falsehoods that anti-gay activists typically spew." and put it someplace dark, like your heart, you annoying little man.

Furthermore, Camerons study was not the first to note this, and you knew that as well. The US davis report calling the Cameron study worthless was a hit piece, and you knew that as well. You oh so annoying little man.

Countering your lies is so easy, it's hardly worth the effort. Yes, AIDS had a great impact on the mortality of gay men (though not lesbians) just as it is having a great impact on heterosexuals in Africa. The fact that AIDS happened to affect this particular segment of the population says nothing about the inherent mortality of gay men.

The study you cite in fact was called "Modeling the impact of HIV disease on patterns of mortality in gay and bisexual men" and it studied mortality rates for gay men from 1987 to 1992 at the height of the AIDS epidemic!
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102209659.html

I look forward to your study on the mortality rates among Christians using data from 1347 at the height when the bubonic plague swept Europe proving definitively that Christians have shorter life spans than non-Christians.

"your exampleis that it did not match ACT's example from a tautological sense."

...and you felt that this was important to point out... why?

"round and round and round"
What argument exactly are you referring to? Is it the argument that drawing comparisons between gays and pedophiles or murders is definitively homophobic? That's not an argument, it's a fact.

zimzo,
You are a mathmatical illiterate, and calling me a liar does not change that. Calling me a liar is easy, all it requires is for you to type 'l-i-e-r' but it does not make it so, you annoying little man.

Furthermore, it does not matter WHY someone died when computing the life expectancy, what matters is in the sum total of birth v. deaths over time. Trying to norm this sort of thing is insane. If in the future AIDS is cured or stops being a factor inthe gay community, then life expectancy will rise.

In Africa, where people are dying from HIV-AIDs in their millions the life expectancy is falling through the floor. No one is norming it out there.

As for the when the study was done, duh! I picked it because of the tone of the researchers, they have been cowed by morons like you.

Life expectancy of every group changes every year, it is what it is. And yes, being a Christian in europe meant you had a low life expectancy in 1347. That was because no one knew about deseases, those who washed and stayed clear ofthe cities, lived. That difference is a 'behavior based variance in outcome.' In 1300 being Chinese also led to having a lower actuarially computed life expectancy because the plague was raging in China, those who were hermits (like Monks) had a better chance. What we do matters, trying to pretend it does not matter is delusion.

The current un-normed life expectancy of gay men has the impact the AIDS epidemic rolled into it, rightly so, there could be other behavioral elements as well, but currently the signal from epidemic swamps out all else. Trying to ignore that and claiming it to be a invalid is classic bit of Orwellian thought-speak, a language you are fluent in, you annoying little man.

Marshmallow,
The argument I am referring to is the morality of homsexual behavior.

I have never equated homosexuality with pedophilia, that is someone else.

The point was you were making a comparison as invalid as the gay=pedophilia one. That is all.

Why are you talking about life expectancy? It's not like you'd start supporting gay marriage if they found a cure for AIDS and the gay life expectancy increased because of it, would you?

"I have never equated homosexuality with pedophilia, that is someone else."

OK, then I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to ACT, and others in the past (Jack?) who have made similar comparisons.

"The point was you were making a comparison as invalid as the gay=pedophilia one. That is all."

indeed it WAS invalid, that was my point! : )

And while we seem to be agreeing, let me just say that morality doesn't matter, this is democracy! so I say we ought to have a county-wide referendum for EVERY marriage. If the majority of the people in your community disapprove of your marriage, it doesn't happen! Why not?

...and we should extend this model to other aspects of our personal lives, too. Why not? It would take care of a lot of other problems, too. ie: "If the majority of people in this community feel that Christianity is the one true religion, you don't get a permit to build a mosque."

That's the way it should be because this is America, where the majority rules!

So we don't need to talk about morality at all. If you look at the data, globally, Muslims tend to live shorter lives, predominantly Muslim countries generally have a lower standard of living than we do in the US, so there's evidence that Islam is harmful to society. So why should Muslims be allowed to build mosques?

Don't get me wrong, I have no negative feelings towards muslims, I just don't accept them. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to practice their ...lifestyle, behind closed doors. But since it isn't the Right lifestyle, the government shouldn't be doing anything to encourage it! I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to choose to be muslim in private, just that they shouldn't be allowed to build mosques.

OK, first let me just admit up front that I did not read all of the comments posted after mine ... because frankly, gays and gay marriage is not a big issue to me either way and I have lots on my plate tonight.

But zim and Betty, my only point in my post was to say that (IMO) the majority of those who voted to ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman are not doing so out of hatred but for other reasons. Because I do know lots of people (in addition to the two gay men) who voted that way and my observation of those individuals is that they are not hateful people.

I am not going to speak to why they voted that way, because I don't know. But I do not believe it is out of hate.

I do not expect that to make you any more accepting of what you consider to be a discriminatory vote. But Betty, you had referenced a "hate-filled" agenda and I was simply giving my two cents on that concept.

Thanks, zim, for taking my comments and extrapolating so much about me. I had no idea I felt or believed half of that stuff and greatly appreciate your insights.

Marshmallow,
This insanity is the result of me talking to zimzo. He brought up the point to begin with in one of his rants. I remember reading a long time ago that gays had shorter life spans, the factors are not important. I said so, contrary to one of his many claims, and was called a lier, at which point I replied in kind. All of which reminds me of a proverb regarding arguing with fools. So I got brought down to the lunatic's level, again. I need a bath.

As for your comments regarding life span etc, we are on opposite sides, and no even if being gay turned out to promote longevity would I not change my position. What is wrong is wrong. Yes, I am sure you will see that as narrow, but some things are not up for sale.

As for you outrageous and hilarious statement ...
"let me just say that morality doesn't matter, this is democracy!"
LOL! Oh contrair mon petit malade I would say that "democracy cest meme vertu", but since you are pulling my leg and not out of your gourd I will let this matter drop.

Personally I really like you idea regarding how people can get married. Put it to a vote. It would stop things like Madonna and Sean Penn from ever getting a marriage license. Only problem is 7000+ years of tradition where two free adults, of the opposite sex, not living in the homes of their parents can get married w/o anyones say so. You see marriage is about _creating_ children, the ultimate right.

"It would take care of a lot of other problems, too. ie: "If the majority of people in this community feel that Christianity is the one true religion, you don't get a permit to build a mosque."
Excellent, you actually have flipped, and here I was thinking parody, my mistake. I will go cry in the back now. Please read the constitution, while silent on marriage, it definitely says this is a no no.

As for your last para again, read the Bill of rights. Unlike you I do not 'like' Muslims; the Koran espouses violence and deceit, (have you ever read it?) considering the whole whahabism thing well... But, I will defend unto the death their right to build Mosque and practice their religion.

I question whether marriage has "7000+ years of tradition where two free adults, of the opposite sex, not living in the homes of their parents can get married w/o anyones say so" behind it. I guess I'll have to read up on the history of marriage and get back to you.

we all know what the constitution says about religion. You get the right people advising the pres., the right people appointed to the supreme court, and the right sort of grassroots campaign, and all of a sudden BAMN! a ban on mosque building is completely within the letter of the law!

Linda, I specifically said that you had not expressed all of those ideas about gay people but that they were ideas that have been expressed by anti-gay marriage activists and by people on this blog. It's a little bit ironic, however, for you to object about assumptions made about what you think after you dismissed Betty's experiences as the product of a wild imagination.

You say that "gays and gay marriage is not a big issue" for you but I bet it is a big issue for Betty and her daughter. Funny how important an issue seems to be when it's your rights or the rights of your loved ones that are being taken away. I bet they don't think it's as trivial as you apparently do and I bet they remember every hate-filled comment they have read and seen, while you have not really been paying that much attention.

I know it is difficult for you to see your friends and neighbors, who seem like such awfully nice people, as having hateful views about gay people. You seem so certain that they voted the way they did not out of hate but you seem unable to come up with an alternative explanation. I guess it's better not to think about it at all and just think happy thoughts.

Jacob, whenever you say "you annoying little man" I imagine you looking a little like Queen Victoria or some other queen. It's an image that suits you perfectly. Let me just say that whenever you write something, unlike Queen Victoria, we are amused.

Puffy, if there is a Pulitzer Prize for blog comments this year, I am nominating you. I bow to your brilliance.

Zim, I neither dismissed Betty's experiences nor said she had a wild imagination.

Nor did I call this a trivial issue. My comment that I do not consider this a big issue was my way of saying that I personally do not have strong feelings pro/con. If forced to choose, I would say I generally take a "live and let live" stance on it. Surprised?

I am guessing I won't get any further with you here than others on this blog ever have, so please feel free to go ahead and have the last word.

Marshmallow,
Bamn!? What are you, an Emeril wannabe?

I know its that whole pesky Constitution thing. Annoying how it does not fit our preconceived notions of fairness. Look, it is the law we have. You do not like it, change it. I mean that w/o rancor or sarcasm, it is the American way. Mind you, there will be some guy like me trying to stop you, that is also the American way.

As for the particulars of marriage customs in Mesopotamia, let me know, I love reading history from that time.

Linda,
Look, you tried to play peacemaker with Betty. A noble thing. That has been tried on other occasions with other folks. zimzo loves to run up overturn the card table at that point. It is as predictable as the sun rising come morning; it is what he does.

Linda, again I thank you for supporting my daughter’s right to marry the person she wants; Unfortunately, prejudice and religious persecution will always remain, but with time society will become more educated and evolve…

Example: Did you know that slavery and women’s oppression were once ENDORSED by the Catholic Church?

Betty, I don't know that I would necessarily use the word "support." It was not so much that I believed it was a right, but more that I didn't necessarily feel I had the right to take away that option via a measure as strong and lasting as a constitutional amendment. Again, I tend to be more of a "live and let live" person.

I know, I'd make a great politician. But obviously I have some conflicting feelings on the topic.

As for the Catholic Church and women, well, that is a bit off topic, so let me just say this: I grew up Catholic and went to 12 years of Catholic school, and while I continue to have a great appreciation for the religious ideals my parents instilled in me and the great education the church provided me, I left in my 20s due to their refusal to allow women a role in the heirarchy. They may no longer endorse oppression, but they still have a ways to go as far as women's rights are concerned.

(Zim, I hope the idea of a conservative feminist shakes up your dearly held stereotypes a little without sending you into any kind of apoplectic seizures.)

Puft,

Crossed the line? Maybe you miss understood the point I was trying to make. I wasn't equating anybody to anything. Nor do I have fear of "gays". Since in many earlier discussions on this issue we have never discerned if the homosexual lifestyle is brained mis-wired or BY CHOICE, I am saying that you don't put people into jobs or activities that are tempts to their way of life or thinking. I would never go for a teacher who is homosexual teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle. Just as I would never allow same sex adoption of a child for the influence it would have on the childs' rearing. The young mind is so impreasionable that it is way to easy to sway. If you grow up in a household of smokers or you see your dad drunk every night and smacking your mother around, that's the way it was done for some in the old days and was acceptable. You don't think many of the kids today who may have lived in that setting haven't taken that behavior forward in their own lives? And are now confused because it is NOT an acceptable life style? That is my point. You fill in the blank. Homosexuals will always be people and they are capable of doing any job or profession of a heterosexual. I just don't think they should be in a position (job/profession) where they can further the beliefs of their lifestyle.

I apologize if you missed my point to zippo. If you still have issue than show me "what line".

"we all know what the constitution says about religion. You get the right people advising the pres., the right people appointed to the supreme court, and the right sort of grassroots campaign, and all of a sudden BAMN! a ban on mosque building is completely within the letter of the law!"

You have a good point, puffalump. That is, essentially, what happened with Roe v. Wade, Social Security, and Campaign Finance Reform. This is the problem with appointing judges who are not strict constructionists.

As someone who is constantly reduced to a stereotype by your husband and others on this blog as some sort of America-hating leftist, I certainly sympathize with your desire not to be pigeon-holed. And while I'm glad you are not one of those women who makes excuses for the Catholic Church's misogyny or worse agrees with it, it is after all an issue that affects you directly since you are a woman. It is much more difficult to empathize with someone who is not like you at all and try to see things from their perspective.

Though you now deny that you intended to be dismissive of Betty, that is exactly how your comments sounded. The fact that you don't believe anti-gay marriage activists are "hateful" or have used hateful rhetoric, but you can't quite figure out what their motivations are leads me to believe it is not something you have thought about much. The point of my comment was only to get you to take what Betty was saying seriously, since she is after all speaking from experience, an experience you don't share, and get you to think about it a little.

Indeed, you may be right that the vast majority of people who voted for this amendment did not do so out of deep animosity toward gay people, but I don't think they thought about how their vote affected people like Betty and her daughter. For most of these people gay marriage has no effect on their lives whatsoever but it has a very profound effect on people like Betty and her daughter.

So all I am asking is that you think about these issues a little, that you take what Betty says seriously, that you open your mind to people that have a different experience and different point of view from yours and that you don't accept the protestations of some of the more strident anti-gay marriage activists that they don't have animosity toward gays when their rhetoric shows otherwise.

Zim, I appreciate your reasonable tone, and so I am happy to respond to your post.

I DID take Betty's experience seriously and in fact that was the reason I posted a comment at all. I don't often chime in here so you can be assured I did so because I felt compelled. Perhaps you can go back and reread my original post with that thought in mind and see if it strikes you any differently.

And I DID give the issue of gay marriage a good bit of thought, which is why I voted the way I did.

You can think what you want about anti-gay marriage activists, but I am just telling you that in my experience, I have not found the majority of them to be hateful toward gays or others. And I am hopeful that Betty's daughter and others affected by the issue, though they may view the law as wrong, will not view it as an indication that the majority of Virginia voters hate them. I just think that would be a very sad way to think and live, and I don't think it's true. That was and is my only point.

Gee, zimzo, maybe if you stopped writing like an America-hating leftist, you wouldn't get stereotyped as one.

Activist, seriously. Yeah, you have no fear of gays, you just think they pose a threat to our children and the fabric of society and as such they need to be silenced.

"brained mis-wired or BY CHOICE, I am saying that you don't put people into jobs or activities that are tempts to their way of life or thinking"

First of all, explain to me how saying that gay scout leaders are a threat is not tacitly equating gays to pediphiles?

next, using your line of reasoning, explain to me why we let hetro males teach high school classes with females students.

yeah, you're not equating gays to anything, you're just drawing comparisons to pedophiles, alcoholics, and abusive husbands.

Well, guess what? I know kids with gay parents and kids with alcoholic parents and guess who's more well adjusted?

"And are now confused because it is NOT an acceptable life style?"

Acceptable to whom? Let me tell you, when a kid who grew up with gay parents runs into someone like you, the most confusing thing is trying to understand what your problem is.

"The young mind is so impreasionable that it is way to easy to sway."

"Nor do I have fear of "gays""

"I just don't think they should be in a position (job/profession) where they can further the beliefs of their lifestyle."

"Nor do I have fear of "gays""

http://turingmachine.org/silvernegative/uploads/2007/200702/070225-070108_3476_850.jpg

"First of all, explain to me how saying that gay scout leaders are a threat is not tacitly equating gays to pediphiles?"

Well let's see, men commit the vast majority of child abuse. 3% of the population is gay, but one-third of the victims are male. Thus, homosexuals are 10 times more likely to be child molesters.

BTW, pedophilia is still regarded as a mental disorder.

Marshmallow,
Heterosexual men are usually steared away from teaching in the lower grades. More so nowadays, than when we were in grade school. So some of the thinking w.r.t. male teachers teaching HS females is already in effect for the lower grades.

HS proper? OK interesting point, guess heterosexual men have the advantage of being in the mathematical 'norm'.

First off, thanks Zimo for your posts, I’m glad I’m not the only one that tries to make others understand what some families have to go through because of their vote.

ACTivist, That’s a real raciest remark….“I would never go for a teacher who is homosexual teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle”…. That’s like me saying, “I would never go for a teacher who is Christian teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle”

Everyone is different; I’ve had people reject me for daycare positions because I am of color, why? Because they didn’t want me to “influence” their children and having them listen to as they put it, “my kind of music” “my way of eating” and “my way of dressing” same thing ACTivist, same thing. No matter how you slice it, it’s bigotry to the root!

Puft, "Activist, seriously. Yeah, you have no fear of gays, you just think they pose a threat to our children and the fabric of society and as such they need to be silenced. " Yes, I do. I don't think they need to be silenced other than when in a position dealing with children. That's MY belief.

"First of all, explain to me how saying that gay scout leaders are a threat is not tacitly equating gays to pediphiles?"

Because I say so.

"next, using your line of reasoning, explain to me why we let hetro males teach high school classes with females students."

I don't know that the public school allows all female classes with male only teachers (certainly not gym). If they do that in private school (and they do), you can see that it is a path to disaster and we hear about it. Then again, I also believe that the church should clean out its petiphile/homosexual priests ( that one sure doesn't look good, does it).

"Acceptable to whom? Let me tell you, when a kid who grew up with gay parents runs into someone like you, the most confusing thing is trying to understand what your problem is."

Exactly my point!

As your bunny shows (being as it is facing, not crossing the line), I guess I didn't either. Puft, there are too many things becoming acceptable that are tearing the fabric of society apart. My beliefs are what they are and I apologize to no one for them. There are things that will always be unacceptable to me and that won't change. That is from my up-bringing and God. We'll have to disagree for now.

BeACTivist, That’s a real raciest remark….“I would never go for a teacher who is homosexual teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle”…. That’s like me saying, “I would never go for a teacher who is Christian teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyletty,"

If that is what you believe then say that. You get to make those choices. Racist? You are sounding like zippo. I may look ignorant to you from your side of the fence just the same as you may look to me. Because I don't take your understanding and beliefs this makes me racist and bigoted? I can only wonder what the lima beans think of me because I don't like the taste but I do like the green beans.

Linda, It doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are, or how you personally view a particular person, or group; When you try to prevent people from protecting their family, I'm sorry but that IS hateful!

Linda, I'm sorry but the "you" wasn't aimed at "you" I should have wrote "anyone" sorry for that..

Who's trying to prevent anyone from protecting his family?

Oh, yeah, the gun-banner liberals!

Jack, people who signed that hateful marriage amendment. Before you respond, it would be best to read some of the posts that have been going back and fourth.
Your slam was un warranted to the conversation.

Boo-hoo. The marriage amendment WAS hateful -- of sin. What does it have to do with protecting your family, anyway?

If you read the post you would know I have a gay daughter, and for YOUR information mister Jack, marriage has "nothing" to do with religion, it’s a license granted by the state.

I read the post. So you have a gay daughter. Why does that make you special?

The state regulates marriage, and the people of the state make the rules. Would you have the state open marriage to everyone? Should siblings be allowed to marry?

Jack you are being totally ridiculous with that comment and you know it!

This Country is about liberty and Justice FOR ALL not just a few or those who believe in a particular religion. When your religious beliefs infringe on my families rights, you better be ready for a fight…By the way I’m sure you’ve heard of the separation of church and state.

And no Jack the people of the state don’t’ make all the rules, that’s why we have elected officials. If that were the case some states in the south might still have segregation in place and you know it!

Betty,
Now you are going off the deep end. Who do you think puts the 'elected officials' in office? The people of the state, as if you did not know.

Marriage is regulated by the state, but, it is an institution far older than the state. Therefore it comes with historical traditions that preceed and trump in my mind the perogatives of the state. The stated original purpose of Marriage was the union of man and woman in order to facilitate the creation and rearing of children (the whole point behind the honeymoon was to kick start the process) in a 'till death do us part' institution. It is a recent and hopefully fleeting phenomina that the status of marriage has been reduced to that of a tax bracket.

Frankly I would prefer if the state got out of the marriage business. But it is the world we live in.

The people of the State also voted (overwhelmingly) for the Marriage Amendment. The elected officials were doing their jobs -- representing the people.

You still haven't told me what the Marriage Amendment has to do with one's being unable to protect his family.

"it�s a license granted by the state." Thanks Betty. This is the key. The state, which is supposed to represent all citizens, has an obligation not to be exclusive. This marriage amendment isn't democracy in action; it's mod rule.

It's a bit funny that Linda is posting about the anti-gay activists not being hateful right alongside this guy who even calls himself ACtivist who's going on about the dangers that gays pose to our children.

Activist,
so it's not that you're afraid of gays, and you're not equating them to pedophiles, you're just worried that they might molest your kids.

you're a homophobe, by definition. I'm not asking you to apologize for your beliefs, just own up to them.

"Because I say so." ?? oh please. I'd say you're pretty much down for the count.

Jack,

"Well let's see, men commit the vast majority of child abuse. 3% of the population is gay, but one-third of the victims are male. Thus, homosexuals are 10 times more likely to be child molesters."

This wins the award for most unconvincing statistics-based argument ever.

it's also implying that anyone who would want to have sex with boys is be homosexual, so you're still lumping gays in with pedophiles.

first of all, where did this 3% number come from? 2nd, it's nonsense to assume that child molesters who abuse boys come from the same segment of the population that identifies as gay.

You could make the same kind of claim that heterosexuals are a threat to society because girls have been molested by men before. This is just looking for anything you can use to support an anti-gay position. It's a bullshit argument, and honestly it's starting to make me queezie

Betty wrote, "When you try to prevent people from protecting their family, I'm sorry but that IS hateful!"

I disagree. Those who voted for the marriage amendment may have acted out of many motivations, including:

(1) fear
(2) desire to protect their own families and communities from something they believe to be unnatural/sinful/risky/whatever
(3) desire to maintain tradition

... and I am sure there are many others I have not thought of off the top of my head.

I am not saying all of these are rational motivations, just that they are not necessarily rooted in hate.

I wonder, though, if maybe you prefer to believe people hate your daughter, if maybe it is easier for you to vilify these folks as hate mongerers than to consider the possibility that they might be good people who disagree with you.

I would ask that you consider that possibility.

I hope you will continue to fight for what you believe and call your opposition out when they make claims you find unreasonable, but if you reduce the issue to "it's hate," I don't think you'll be as effective as you might if you try to understand the other side and work from there.

"Mod rule"? Is that like the Mods vs. the Rockers from 1960's England?

The 3% number comes from several sources. One is a 1992 NYT poll. Another is a Guttmacher survey, taken in 1991, of 3300 men, in which only 2.3% had a same-sex experience in the past 10 years.

Let me try to work it out so that even a liberal can understand. A man is male. A boy is male. Man-boy sex is a same-sex activity. The Greek word for "same" is "homo." Thus, man-boy sexual activity is homosexual activity. Therefore, the man is homosexual -- otherwise, he'd be molesting girls.

I am sorry that logic and mathematics make you queezie. I guess that's why you're a liberal.

it's not the math. The math is just wrong. It's this endless talk about man-boy sex that's disturbing...

"Therefore, the man is homosexual -- otherwise, he'd be molesting girls."

what a joke! Are people who identify as gay, or who lead a "gay lifestyle" the same people who are molesting boys? Parsing the meaning of greek words is not relevant. I think you know that.

2.3 percent had, or ADMITTED to having? NYT poll? seriously?

So what you’re saying Jacob is that if a married couple can not have children they shouldn’t wed – right?

Jack, if my daughter finds women that she is devoted to for the rest of her life, without a marriage license they do not have the same hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and over 1000 others. Jack, you know what I’m talking about don’t be so coy.

"so it's not that you're afraid of gays, and you're not equating them to pedophiles, you're just worried that they might molest your kids."

Puft, I think you being off your blood pressure medicine is affecting your vision. Show me ANYTHING where I said I was afraid of homosexuals molesting my kids? Maybe you are thinking of what Jack said. I don't want them in teaching positions where they can influence kids about their lifestyle. It is the indoctrination of youth that I am concerned with. I didn't tacitly equate anything-you did. Scout leaders are teaching positions also. Originally I mentioned not putting pediphiles as scout leaders. Your assumptions run amuck. Read. If you need clarification, I'll give you that. I know what I meant and stated it. You just want to believe something else.

OK, puffalump, explain the errors in my math.

BB -- Inheritance rights? Write a will. (Married people write wills, too.)

Hospital Visitation Rights? A Power of Attourney can fix that right up -- you don't even need a lawyer.

Get real, Betty.

Jack, what's wrong is you mislabel your answers.

"man-boy sexual activity is homosexual activity. Therefore, the man is homosexual"

what you're doing is exploiting the fact that words have multiple meanings. You go from using a technical definition of homosexual to using homosexual to refer to gays in general. You prefer to think of someone who molests boys as a homosexual rather than a pedophile.

answer these questions:

Are people who identify as gay, or who lead a "gay lifestyle" the same people who molest boys? Parsing the meaning of greek words is not relevant. I think you know that.

2.3 percent had, or ADMITTED to having?

act: what did you mean by:

"A homosexual as a Scoutmaster? Do you work for Levi Strauss?"

If you've got better numbers, puffalump, put them up. Put up or shut up.

A man who molests boys a is both a pedophile and a homosexual. A man who molests girls is a both a pedophile and a heterosexual. A homosexual is ten times as likely to be a pedophile also.

Betty,
The reason dejour for marriage was to have children. People usually did not find out that they were barren until after marriage. Barren couples in some cultures were pitied. In other cultures, if the couple failed to have children then a divorce could ensue.

Jack, my time is too valuable to waste it on ignorant close minded individuals like you!

Betty,
Jack answered your concerns regarding inheritance and visitation. Are you interested in the right to inherit and visit or is marriage the end all and be all?

Jacob, Jack didn’t answer my concerns; he only addressed a couple of examples. There are hundreds of state laws and over 1,100 federal laws that provide protections, rights and responsibilities to married individuals and couples.

Only marriage brings a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. The word itself is a fundamental protection and it represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people, understood by all. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.

As a typical liberal, you resort to ad hominem attacks when you do not have a legitimate argument.

I have addressed the concerns you pointed out. Your assertion that "[only] marriage brings a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections" is patently false. CONTRACTS provide those as well. I can only think of one single legal right that marriage provides that contracts cannot -- I'll leave it to you to see whether you can figure out what it is. Even so, there is a simple way around that problem, too.

If you want gay marriage so badly, go to Canada.

That’s good Jack, I’ll tell my daughter to go get 1000 + contracts written and tell my son that instead of him marring his girlfriend to do the same, ok?

As always, your rebuttal is TOTTALY ridiculous! By the way, so goes Massachusetts so goes the nation; same-sex marriage WILL happen throughout the country, its evolution Jack, face reality instead of your own stupidity!

She doesn't need 1000+ contracts. That is a BS exaggeration put out by the homosexual lobby. One or two will probably cover everything relevant.

Your assertions regarding Massachusetts may or may not be correct. Considering the success of Marriage Amendments throughout the nation -- I do not expect that the nation will sink to such depravity in my lifetime, and I will do my part to see that it does not.

(BTW, use a possessive before a gerund so you don't sound like an ignoramus. Furthermore, you might consider upgrading to the latest version of Internet Explorer -- it has a built-in spell-checker.)

Betty,
You don't need a 1000 contracts, that is a myth perpetrated by your side of the argument to bring us back to marriage and only marriage. Write the contract as the need arises. You will find the number far less than 1000.

As for Mass, being the cultural weather vein, God forbid! You can't prove it any way. So each of us can hope.

As for Jack's alleged stupidity, he has from what I can see addressed your concerns in his usual warm fussy way. Calling him stupid is not only incorrect, it demeans Betty Black. Don't go zimzo on us, please.

"I wonder, though, if maybe you prefer to believe people hate your daughter, if maybe it is easier for you to vilify these folks as hate mongerers than to consider the possibility that they might be good people who disagree with you. I would ask that you consider that possibility."

Once again Linda you seem unable to listen to what Betty is saying without being condescending. How dare you say that she "prefers to believe people hate." Have you ever considered the possibility that these "good people" are perhaps not as good as you think? What do you think homophobia means? It means fear of gay people. Fear is what motivates bigotry. Go to a website like the Traditional Values Coalition's or the American Family Association's and tell me honestly it is not full of hate. Read some of the other comments on this blog from people like Jack, Jacob, ACTivist and Sophrosyne and tell me they are not motivated by fear and hatred. Look at your own disparaging use of code words like the "gay lifestyle" and "gay activists" and your recoiling from using the word "support" for Betty. Why can't you support the right of another human being to live their lives as they choose when it has no bearing on your life whatsoever. What is it you think anti-gay marriage activists "fear"? What "threats" do they perceive? What kind of "traditions" do they seek to uphold other than the tradition to consider gays as second-class citizens? Why do you make excuses for their fear and bigotry and attack Betty who has been the victim of their attitudes? You say you are a "live and let live" kind of person. Does that include looking the other way when some people don't want to let other people live and let live or does that make you an accomplice?

Zim, You are unable to listen to what I am saying without being condescending, so at least we're even on that count.

I am NOT saying there is NO hate. I AM saying that the majority of Virginia voters voted for the marriage amendment and I don't believe that the majority of them did so out of hate. If you believe the majority of voters are hateful people, well, I think that is sad.

I make no excuses for those who do participate in vitriolic attacks. My point is not to sweep the hatred that does exist under a rug, but to state my belief that those people are in the minority.

I do think many people, maybe even most, prefer to believe the worst about their opposition rather than trying to understand them. In fact, I would "condescend" to say that about myself in many instances. On either side of any given issue, it is unproductive.

I specifically put "gay lifestyle" in quotes because that is what anti-gay activists call it and I was addressing their feelings on it. I make no apologies for "gay activists" (except that really what I meant was "activists who advocate for the gay cause" not that they are necessarily gay themselves, so maybe "the gay activist movement" would have been more apt).

I did not *recoil* from the word "support" ... I know plenty of folks who do support gay marriage rights and I find nothing offensive about that ... but I did not want to overstate my personal position, which falls short of that word. Sorry, I know I will not make you happy unless I can say I "support" it, but at this point, I do not explicitly support it.

As I said, I realize that fear is not a rational motivation, and I do know that it can lead to hatred, but I don't think the two are synonymous. You may feel that is semantics, but I do see a distinction.

"Homophobe" is a label liberals liks to use in ad hominem attacks, so that they can avoid a reasoned argument which they cannot win. Other favorites are "bigot" and "racist."

No, zimzo, they do not want "to live their lives as they choose when it has no bearing on your life whatsoever," they want us to affirm their choices and reward them. That is why they want marriage -- to get that affirmation.

Linda,
Nothing short of unconditional surrender would satisfy zimzo. For him there is no compromise. Nor does he answer questions. He just talks right past you.

Please note that when he cannot convince with his sloganeering, he will insult you by disparaging your intentions. I believe you already have experienced this.

His trump card is where he provides a link, and he appears to think this settles the discussion given the accompanying verbage that comes with the link. I am not sure what he is expecting because you follow the link and poke holes in it, he squeals like stuck pig. You have not yet seen this, but you will.

After the crying, when that fails to silence you he begins the to employ the 'commie mind reading trick'. He will tell you what you were thinking and how everything you say is actually code for something else. (I think you may seen this as well.)

The something else is always hateful and bigoted and zimzo is the truth squad or white knight in his little make believe world.

What he really is an annoying form of thought police and like some blogger version of a fascist Barney Fief, he walks around with an unloaded gun threatening to run you in.

This is done by latching onto one statement, employing the reading comprehension skills of a second grader, and twisting its meaning to the point of being unrecognizable. zimzo then levels a charge against you (you are hateful etc) in his standard outraged tone. You can almost see the .38 shaking in his hand.

Jack, you're a hate monger, have you heard that one yet? I'm sure you'll get me with some kind of blanket come back, you pathetic human being.

Betty some words of advice. First off, Jack / Jacob, same person. You can’t argue with them, they’re totally close minded, try to move a parked car, same thing. Both are bullies; they try to hit all your buttons. Facts, they use a few, and when they do, they exaggerate them. Remember this, 80% of statistics are made on the spot. They try and put holes in your facts but will absolutely reject yours when you do the same.

They will dispute most if not all of this, or, they wont comment at all, that’s the way they work. If they do respond, look at the facts I wrote above, they will use all my examples. I forgot one thing, they love name calling or labeling.

Betty and others, you’re wasting your time, while at the same time making them “feel” more powerful when you respond.

Last thing, look at all the names here, you will find that it’s the same 4 or 5 people, some (like Jack and Jacob) are the same person, they do this to gang up on a person argument with different angles.

Jacob: LOL.

Alick: "You're a hate monger" ... "blanket statement." Pot ... kettle.

A past blogger: I have met Jacob. I have not met Jack, but I know who he is. They are two different people.

Betty,

These people aren't worth your time.

By all means, go to the zoo and check out the monkey house every once in a while. It's nice to see a monkey now and then- we don't have our own monkeys, we don't know any monkeys personally and it's sort of novel to see them from time to time. It's almost nice to refresh your memory as to what a monkey looks like.

Go to the zoo, check the monkeys out but try to avoid playing with them too much or you get covered in feces.

Best of luck to you and the family

A past blogger,
I won't speak for others, but if someone is polite and does not make blanket statement like "you're a hate monger" I refrain from that as well.

Humor me in this, show me where someone has been polite, and I have not. I have run over Kevin once or twice but I also apologize to him. SPMM, whom I call Marshamallow almost never gets the zimbat treatment. Does not mean that I don't get under his skin. Can we agree on that at least?

The nastier someone gets, well the nastier I get in responce. It is the law of the jungle. Ignoring personal attacks only goes so far. If you are judging me based on my interaction with zimzo alone, well then I am guilty as you charge.

Please note that AFF has been invited in the past to engage in constructive dialogue. He has yet to take up the offer. Since I am just a monkey in a cage to him, then I hope he has the decency to not be surprised when I throw something smelly at him. If I decide to not to ignore him altogether.

Jacob, I remember our introduction fondly. I believe it was me running over you, though. . .

Jacob: "show me where someone has been polite, and I have not."

Here is Betty's first comment in this thread: "Well – we’ve been dealing with the Christian agenda for the last 7 years and many are getting sick of it. Gays are part of this nation and have the right to be heard. Let’s embrace them instead of alienating them. Heck, how many Christian leaders and anti gay politicians have been caught not practicing what they preach – hypocrisy at its best, that’s what we have seen these last 8 years."

Here was Jacob's response: "Betty,
You exhibit what I see as classic liberal ignorance, hypocrisy is NOT extolling an ideal and failing to live up to it. Go find a dictionary."

Yeah. That was real polite.

Alick -- thank you, I had forgotten to add "hate monger" to the list of ad hominem attacks the liberals like to use.

You libs are great -- just when I say zimzo goes for the ad hominem attacks with "racist," "homophobe," and "bigot," you libs jump in with yet more, offering not one shred of evidence or logic to support your Weltanschauung.

I really do appreciate how you libs feed my superiority complex.

See, what did I tell ya? Jack did EXCALLY what I said he would do and will continue to do if you let him. HA HA HA!!!! Jack you are SO amusing and predictable! LOL!!!!!!

Glad I could provide you with a little entertainment, PB!

zimzo,

Lets take this slow. OK?

Recall that Betty has posted here before, do you remember "So how much support does the KKK actually give this site?" I am sure you think this is real sweet, but I am of a different mind.

Betty was pulling out the ol' "you hateful Christian's canard", and "Christian agenda" spiel with Jack in earlier postings. So before I wrote "You exhibit what I see as classic liberal ignorance, hypocrisy is NOT extolling an ideal and failing to live up to it. Go find a dictionary." I had seen more than her one relatively innocuous comment above.

It takes a few comments before I get my back up. Everyone is entitled to a bad day. But she was falling into a pattern so I responded. Do you see what I am getting at up to this point at least? I am not asking for you to agree, that might kill you, but only that do you get the logic train.

BTW, I back pedaled when she mentioned her kid. Justifying your own sin is one thing, standing up for your child is another. I even said as much, see above.

Kevin,
You where first? I still have the t-shirt with the tire tracks, but I thought I was first. Next time I am gonna back up!

Guess I also can take back one apology now? Obviously one of the times I ran you over, it MUST have been revenge! ;-)

You left something out and so pathetic!!!

I feel sorry for him actually, it must be so sad being Jack 

Jacob, your August 19, 8:55 am post was a thing of genius. Thank you. And the world thanks you.

Alick,
Glad you have joined us here at nova, care to say something other than your opinion of Jack as a person?

Joe,
It was Sunday, and I was inspired.

C'mon, Jacob, you're expecting reasoned discourse from a liberal? How much wine did they give you at that holy-roller church, anyway? ;-)

Puft, http://www.saveourscouts.com/hall.html, go to this link and read.

Because of the way that Levi Strauss bullied and the way The United Way knuckled under, I won't buy Levi's and I won't contribute thru the United way.

AFF, Monkeys? I am so happy that you are entertained. One thing I would not and could not do would be to "ape" your style of dialog (pun intended).

Jacob, thing of beauty. I think a .38 is a bit small for zippo at times. More like a howitzer so that he can blanket the whole area.

Don't take it too hard, ACTivist. To the libs, we are all just hairless monkeys, and the morality of the monkeys is the height of their spiritual aspirations.

saying we're not hairless monkeys doesn't make it true

I didn't say it, did I?

I keep reading Jack’s ridiculous come backs using the bible as his source for information.

The bible is a book written by people who did not have nearly as much education as we do now, who made some guesses based on their own ignorance about what should and should not be.

Let's keep in mind this was THOUSANDS of years ago! If a new interpretation of the bible were written today, it would be decidedly different based on the information of today, and a modern perception of God. You are a bigot Jack, plain and simple, and please stop spewing your ignorance because you are afraid of the reality that the world had changed. Well unfortunately for you it has, I suggest you move with it. "

Oh and Jacob, thanks for welcoming me here with open arms. LOL!!!

I write about Jack so that others will know the type of person they are dealing with before they decide to challenge him. His mind is closed, no matter how many facts you throw at him he tosses his own fabricated ones at you. He’s a real piece of work that Jack.

When have you posted a fact, Dumbalick, and when have I fabricated one?

Wow, a lot has been written since I was away. I appreciate some of you that have given me some insight on Jack; you’re right, he is a bully and does throw stuff out there without checking or understanding all the facts.

I will try to refrain from calling people names, if I offended anyone, I am sorry. I say this because I was offended by some that attacked my family. I can not feed into some of the hateful messages that have been posted here, I can only pray that those people find God and accept that we are all his people.

It’s an old saying but true, don’t criticize until you’ve walk in another persons shoes. Also, don’t be so close-minded, listen to what others say and stop with the hate filled attacks. If I attacked just know I was reacting to the bullets that came my way.

Remember, we are ALL different in one way or another, embrace diversity, don’t stomp on it. As someone else wrote (here or on another blog) it’s liberty and justice for all, not just a few.

Alick,
Open arms?! Sure why not, we let anyone play in our park so why not you. As for bigotry, you look like an expert from where I am standing.

Just because someone follows the writing of the Bible, it does not make them a bigot. You show scant tolerance yourself. It is with those whom you disagree that patience is needed. Given what you have thus far written, you don't appear have any.

You seem very cock sure as a matter of fact. Interesting thing is you have not offered up a single fact, or roiginal view point. Yup, you are real impressive, Alick. Aside from name calling and claiming the Bible would oh so different today, could you take the time explain why?

Can you at least demonstrate some wit, and live up to the smart-alick moneker you have claimed for yourself?

And still the libs go on with the ad hominem attacks, having nothing left in their arsenal. So, BB, can YOU give an example of my "[throwing] out there without checking or understanding all the facts"?

Another classic is that "we are all God's people." Sure we are -- all the people were invited to the feast, but the one who did not change for the party was thrown out (Matthew 22). It's not a come-as-you-are party, BB.

Jacob, The Bible is a JOKE as are its followers. One day people will laugh at it - so much more to be spending our time on - life on Titan, one of Saturn's moons, space exploration, etc. The bible helped the ignorant, but it's time to bury it for good. "

I, for one, am glad we have more libs on the blog -- it was getting a bit dull with just zimzo and puffalump as the only, meager fodder for my superiority complex.

I, for one, am glad to come to a site filled with ultra conservative right-wing radical extremists, they are such a treat to feed on – ha ha ha ha!!!

As I stated Jack, you are a bully; I will no longer feed your self-made superiority complex.

Great, Alick -- we're both happy!

I'll miss you, BB -- you were delicious!

Alick -- what is more important than one's soul?

Titan? No, it is Enceladus. It is the gravitational pull of Titan and the other Saturn moons that causes tidal heating of Enceladus, keeping the water inside liquid. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11736311/

(BTW, I have 39 graduate credits in Computational Astrophysics. Again, thanks for feeding my superiority complex.)

I wish I could say the same about you Jack, you’re just too bitter.

Alick,

The Bible (you did capitalize it) is a joke and so are its followers. You probably have always had a good understanding why things haven't gone totally right in your life. You will undoubtably be able to rationalize why they still don't go right in your future. Remember this-while you still live there is always hope. But when you hit that brick wall and things go black (as is probably your belief of death) that light that turns on again is your PONR. That means too late for you. You just keep playing with yout X-BOX and let life pass you by!

Poor poor Jack, always looking to prove someone wrong with misleading facts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life/looking/titan.shtml

Jack,

Don't be bitter and stop being a bully. Facts should be sufficient. Just the facts, Jack-just the facts. Computational Astrophysics? Well done!

Things have gone my way, a long way, I am quite grateful for the life I have, I don’t need to read / follow a book written by man thousands of years ago to fulfill me. I feel for you, a person who needs a manual to get through life, a manual filled with fairytales, so sad you can’t think on your own. So sad ;(

well said Betty, well said! a bitter ol queen that Jack! LOL!!!

Nothing new under the sun. That includes you, Alick. The "book" tells of yesterday, today and tomorrow. I have no regrets having a manual that plans my future. Boy Scout motto-"be prepared".

Try this religion, it's right up there with your book. oh, and your president praises them too! he he he he

http://sonic.net/sentinel/1earth4.html