Savage on same-sex marriage vote: "[G]ay mafia bought the votes ... like cheap tricks in a gay bathhouse"
On the June 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage attacked the Massachusetts state legislature for defeating a proposal that would have called for a referendum on an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage, saying of the legislators who voted against putting the amendment on the ballot for 2008: "The gang that answers to the gay mafia controls the state." Savage characterized opponents of the amendment, including Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D), as "criminals" who told voters to "drop dead." He added: "Gay marriage was to go before the people in an even vote ... [b]ut at the last minute, the gay mafia bought the votes of state representatives up and down the line -- bought them lock, stock, and barrel, like cheap tricks in a gay bathhouse." He also called same-sex marriage "an affront to all of civilization."
On June 14, the legislature voted 151-45 against putting the amendment to a referendum; same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. The state Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that "barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," and issued an advisory opinion to the state Senate in 2004 making clear that only full marriage rights, not civil unions, would comport with the state constitution. The proposal for a referendum on the amendment fell short of the 50 votes needed to include a referendum on the amendment on the November 2008 ballot.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Savage frequently makes homophobic remarks on his program. On the January 2 broadcast of his show, he said "the homosexual dance of death" is "the seminal issue of our time." Savage has also repeatedly called gay parenting "child abuse."
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the June 15 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Here's a headline you're not going to believe. It's 100 percent true: "Gays conspire with corrupt politicians to steal constitutional rights of voters in Massachusetts, forcing homosexual marriage down throats of millions, bypassing the ballot box."
What they did in Massachusetts is what was initiated in California with a proposition. They wanted to bring it directly to the people, meaning the voters. Isn't that what our system says? Are we going to descend into the Sunnis and the Shiites under these vermin, these rats, these bums, these corrupt scum?
In Massachusetts, a gang -- including the governor, including the Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi, including Senate president Therese Murray, and including Governor Deval Patrick -- they did an end-run around the voters. The voters wanted a vote on homosexual marriage. They wanted it to go before the people, and these criminals went behind the voters' back and shot it down. They won't even let them vote on it. They said "drop dead" to all of you. "We're not going to let you vote on it! We control the state!" The gang that answers to the gay mafia controls the state -- "You people, you can drop dead, all of you."
Now, if you think it's just a bunch of homophobes, who wanted the people to vote, what would you make of this statement? Who do you think was the lead sponsor of the proposed amendment to have overturned homosexual marriage, which, of course, as you well know, is an affront to all of civilization?
A hundred and seventy thousand Massachusetts residents signed the petition to place the ban on the ballot. Raymond Flynn, the former Boston mayor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, was the lead sponsor of this amendment. You know what he had to say? You know what he had to say? He said that "the people had their votes stolen from them." So that's Raymond Flynn. Gay marriage was to go before the people in an even vote. Just let the people decide. But at the last minute, the gay mafia bought the votes of state representatives, up and down the line -- bought them lock, stock, and barrel, like cheap tricks in a gay bathhouse.
Savage is an interesting contradiction with these "gay" issues. On the one hand he supports letting the people decide at the ballot box on same sex marriage, majority rules, or so he wishes. Yet his "fairness" and "it's up to the people" rhetoric cannot seem to be delivered by him without his homophobic rants against gay people, peppered with insulting generalizations and typical scare tactics. It is shameful.
One wonders if he has "right" and "morality" and the will of the people on his side, why must he resort to schoolyard slurs to support his case?
Maybe 'cause his whole show is, you know, a put on?
Val, I don't believe he is a "put on" at all. Your article is from the NRO, a big Bush-loving outfit who doesn't take to kindly to those who aren't......and Savage's disdain for Bush on many issues is well known.
I believe he says what he thinks, and some stuff I wholeheartedly agree with......and then on some issues he is just a jerk, in my opinion.
Val, thanks for that link. I think I agree with that mainly because Savage is a smart guy, too smart to believe some of the stuff he spouts off about. Maybe the entire show isn't a put on, but I absolutely think he doesn't believe a lot of the stuff he throws out there. But he gives the left an easy target while garnering a large audience so I guess it's working for him.
- why must he resort to schoolyard slurs - tommy
I listen on occasion to savage. While I'm not a doctor...it is apparent to me that he has some "ego mania" based problems.
It's too bad...when he raises a logical point...it gets lost in all his foolish over-the-top hyperbole.
I'll agree with that. In my case, he'll bring up a perfectly valid point regarding some political item and then rant about how it's the fault of liberals, etc. As a liberal I'm thinking, "but I agree with that, I know that there are so-called conservatives that are part of that particular problem, and I know plenty of liberals that would agree that it IS a problem." Much like Boortz (although to a more severe degree), he makes his money by targeting and firing at a chosen segment of the political population, and demonizing them at any chance - justified or no. For Boortz, I could honestly say that I think his is for show on the large part. For Wiener, I think his book "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" is a prime example of projection, and that Savage's rants betray his own insecurities and issues.
Let's not forget he's one of the immigration Chicken Littles. Apparently it's more important to keep the brown people out than, you know, give the people the immigration reform they want.
Savage should not have resorted to name calling, period. It takes away from the issue at hand. The real issue is the fact that the voters got cheated.
The voters weren't cheated. They voted for representatives who voted on this issue. If they disagree, they can vote for new representatives.
I hate it when voters are cheated from the opportunity to deny some group their rights.
Savage's routine has become a bore. It's not even offensive anymore because it's so ridiculous.
Methinks it was time to start questioning the rather pathetic bromide of Savage and suchlike of his ilk who suggests that children are somehow "turning gay" thanks to TV and films, thereby "warping their minds" in the process.
Come to think of it: Are there any valid studies out there which confirms such a rather pathetic conservative bromide crossing into faulty logic and/or doublethink as the aforementioned?
Who even knows what the term, "cheap trick at a gay bathhouse." means besides men who frequent gay bathhouses?
Well "turning tricks" is a phrase/slang that describes a prostitutes um, appointments ;-) so I don't think it's too difficult to figure what Savage is insinuating here. Oh and of course Cheap Trick was a pretty good band from the 1970's...but I doubt Savage was alluding to them ;-)
Why his obsession though with this topic? And why so bitter? And can't he make whatever case he's trying to make without the ranting & name calling?
I happen to live in Massachusetts and while this debate was all over our local TV news [and covered in the Globe & Herald], I had the feeling that most people went about their own business pretty disinterested.
Had they put it on the ballot it would have been interesting to have seen the results. This is a very Liberal state, but I'm not all that certain it would have passed.
I get the feeling that Iraq, immigration, the economy & health care are topics people truly care about more than the debate about whether Gay Marriage belongs on the ballot.
Hey, Cheap Trick still rocks, dude ;)
I’m inclined to believe that this a cultural populist issue Savage is exploiting to keep his teenie weenie pea brained audience enraged at the left.
Actually Jeter from what I heard one of main reasons the MA legislature voted the motion down this time (because it required to consecutive yes votes to be placed on the ballot), was this fairly logical argument:
"With all these other things going on in the US and the state today, this is important, why?"
I mean if I remember it correctly the legislature that voted yes the first time were all voted out of office.
I'm actually at a loss for what Mikey's trying to get across. My understanding is that gay bathhouses (and, honestly, are there really any other kind?) aren't really the kind of place where one goes to pay or get paid for sex. If you have to pay for sex, you're not likely to be frequenting bathhouses, and if you expect to get paid for sex, you're going to have a lot of competition, much of whom will be operating gratis.
All this violent murder, kill, death speak from Savage. It's the kind of violent political rhetoric that is the opposite of open democratic principles he purports to hold sacred.
Not to skirt the issue, though. If the people of MA petitioned to have this on the ballot, and they were ignored, that is egregious.
However, our system of government is designed to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Gay marriage will not harm the majority, it will only benefit the minority. So, what is the answer? What should be done in order to grant equal rights to all Americans?
Roundhouse,
It is a touchy issue for many, me included. I do not believe in some national ban or law against gay marriage, i.e. the silly DOMA. And I do believe that sanctioning committed realtionships between gay couples helps stability and society in the long run, it doesn't hurt anyone......that is a empty scare tactic that is always put out there without any verifiable proof.
But I do believe it should up to the states to settle it how they see fit.
That must also include polygamy?
I know this is not an acceptable site, but, something I ran into yesterday: BuzzFlash
Interesting thing polygamy. In the Bible it is condoned, accepted and even encouraged, yet the religious right would have them all banished to Hell. When you have selective worship to promote a singular mind, the international understanding of the term "cult" would apply.
I would love to have two wives, that would be fun. Polygamy's legal, if you think about it. What's a marriage but a legal ceremony concerning the sharing property rights? No license, no marriage. Just do it as a simple three-way contract and viola, defacto marriage. You can live outwardly wedded to two women, you can say you are openly, even hold a three-way wedding. Technically, you would be married to neither, state doesn't recognize it as marraige so they can't prosecute. But in all the legal and physical aspects, polygamy. It's all in the details of the contract. Hey, Heff gets away with it.
What gives them the right to demand we get a license to marry anyway? Why do we need a government's permission to mate? We may have to add some new rights to the official list.
Tommy,
What would sanctioning look like? Benefits for domestic partners, perhaps? Here in KY domestic partner benefits have been struck down by the court (not sure off hand which court), and that leads me to wonder, as a states rights issue, how many states beyond NY, CA and maybe HI would recognize such unions.
Gay couples would go to certain states to live like the rest of us Americans do, but that’s a bummer. Gay citizens, in general, add to the quality of most areas in which they dwell. When I lived in Columbus, OH the gay and lesbian community bonded together to beautify a failing section of the Short North district. It’s fabulous now, restaurants, galleries, shops, nice homes etc. I saw the same happen in the North Side district of Cincinnati.
The homosexual community is an asset to all America.
Now, what if interracial marriage had been left to individual states? What would our country look like today? States rights are wonderful for certain issues, but human rights are a national, even global issue.
I don’t know. What do you think?
I think issues like this evolve, for sure. I agree with much of what you said. People are people, there are good and bad regardless of sexual orientation.....it should be irrelevant when determing one's rights, I agree.
I have always said that the term marriage should be taken out of the equation altogether. It should be strictly a religious term performed by religious institutions at their discretion. The term should be civil unions legally sanctioned by the state between two consenting adults......marriage is a charged term for many. Take it out and it solves alot, in my opinion.
Tommy, the real problem is that the term "marriage" itself is meaningless. Gay couples can refer to themselves as "married" regardless of the "legal technicalities" and refer to their "husbands" and "wives" just as straight couples do. No matter how many laws banning same-sex "marriage" are passed, it doesn't matter. What IS important is the fact that some states (and the Federal gov't as well) want to legally enshrine discriminatory behavior against a specific group of individuals. It doesn't matter who the individuals are, it's still discrimination. Some religious denominations have no problem with the idea of same-sex marriage, but THEY face gov't interference if they perform such a marriage because the STATE won't authorize a license for that marriage to be legal. (That is a violation of the First Amendment, and I really wish some gay couple married by such a denomination would take the matter to court claiming their religious freedoms had been violated. I'd love to see the religious right's front groups spin their way around that.)
Regarding Cincinnati - when you began talking about how the gay community bonded together to revamp and beautify/gentrify an area of Columbus, I immediately thought of Northside in Cincinnati. So funny you mention that!
In Cincinnati's case, a year before I left the city, I remember there being a crisis of sorts regarding the working population of the city - it seems that lawmakers and businesses were distinctly noticing that creative workers, people in their 20s and 30s, and the artistic communities were shrinking - despite strong efforts to redo downtown to be more young-money friendly, and despite the courting of young and fresh businesses in the city. As I read about this so-called crisis, I reflected on the nearly annual Klan rallies on Fountain Square, the Klan cross that is featured at Christmas within feet of the nativity, the fact that for years Cincinnati was the only city in the nation that had written into its charter that it is OK to discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation, and the rampant nanny-state conservativism in the county (and state) that can't seem to keep its nose out of adult sex lives. Why in God's name would any young, talented, creative individual wish to come to or stay in Cincinnati with such a political climate, if they have choices elsewhere?
People like Michael Savage would like to continue an underclass of quasi-citizens (these people do have their own little lists of who they'd like included in that underclass), but do not seem to understand the economic and social impact of enforcing this kind of inequity - either that, or that they just don't care.
It’s like Twain said (loosely), that when the end of the world came, he wanted to be in Cincinnati because the present arrives there twenty years late.
OK, where are the posters with the slippery slope (Santorum) analogies ?
You know, the Dr. Weiner's correct squad. If we allow gays to marry, it's only a matter of time before we have people wanting to marry kumquats, etc.
And if we allow that, then someone will want then wants to marry a "Flock of Seagulls".
Or the "Partridge" Family.
Everyone but Danny.
I haven't seen the Weinerdogs around as of late. Maybe they realized chanting "borders, language, culture" isn't a winning debate tactic.
Maybe it's because trying to talk to illogical thinkers gets old after awhile. You keep saying the same things over and over, with none of it making sense, except to other illogical thinkers.
Listen to who is talking. You could not more fathom LOGIC than you could a treastice on quantum mechanics written in Ancient Sumerian Cuneiform or the Rongo Rongo writing from Easter Island.
I hear you. I got real sick of this board last week when the libs made an effort to somehow discredit/ignore the fact that science has not yet proven being gay is genetic. I guess in their heads, some science is "undeniable," like the global warming scam; but when the ball isnt 100% in their court yet, it's nothing but worn-out conservative bashing.
Actually, everything you said was addressed, not "ignored". You didn't have a valid point.
That makes us even it takes about one post for me to get sick of you. My most common reaction to one of your posts is I want the last two minutes of my life back.
You can't marry a "flock of seagulls" because they are in "i ran".
But Savage is clearly a homophobe. And you know how gay ranks right up there in the bible, in fact it's way more important than the 7 deadly sins. Of which Savage has violated at least 2 on a daily basis. He's obese, and lusts.
Don't forget wrath.
How does one balance the claims of the individual with those of society?
Not all issues should be up to the dictates of society. Some issues ought to be off limits to society. Individuals ought to have powers that society cannot take away or limit. One of those powers is liberty aka the manner of ones own choosing.
Two members of the same sex are in love with each other. That have a level of initmacy that is shared with only between themselves. The share their secret thoughts and desires including the subject of what is to be done should one become ill or die.
Because same sex marriage is unlawful this allows a distant relative to take over the decision of the ill or dead gay person. This distant relative has the power to make decisions without even have shared any intimacy and without even knowing what the desires of the ill or dead gay person is.
Because same sex marriage is illegal the living or surviving gay partner will be powerless in making sure the desires or will of the ill or dead partner becomes a reality.
The liberty of the individual has been taken away because of the hate the gay crowd.
I don't want to hear the likes of Savage or the hate the gay crowd talk about liberty because it don't sound real in fact it sounds phony.
Word up yo.
I like the old California maxim: my rights end where yours begin.
That's a great point.
How are my rights as a heterosexual male married to a heterosexual woman infringed upon by the union of two people of the same sex?
Their right to join into a partnership doesn't infringe on my liberties as all.
No homosexual is ever going to destroy my marriage, or have any effect on it, so how can anyone claim that they have the right to limit the rights of gays to marry?
Harlequin, I agree with almost every word in your post with the exception of Society. Let's not confuse Society with the righteous right. Most of those "organized religions" have only taken root since WW II and the overwhelming majority since the hippie days as a counter punch to society.
What is it with this guy and gays. I mean each and everything is because of gays. I'm waiting for him to say the 9/11 hijackers were gay and that's another reason they flew the planes into the building. Maybe he already said that.
What I'm really curious about are the people who actually spend time listening to this nut job! Ah hell I'm still wondering who the 29% that still approve of Junior are too.
Nah, he didn't say the hijackers were gay. He just said that they did it because of us gay lovin' liberals.
Savage is hateful, smart, flagrant, sexist, racist, bitter, and just an all around asshole. He takes the cake for hateful speech. This man, ladies and gentlemen, might be the biggest asshole on talk radio. All though, Bill O'Rielly and Sean Hannity are right behind him.
"Savage is hateful, smart, flagrant, sexist, racist, bitter, and just an all around asshole"
Smart? So being smart is now a negative trait to have?
Maybe he meant smart @ss?
Why would it have to be? You are so caught up in this Manichean simplistic thinking that things either go in the black box or the white box that you cant think straight. Someone can be smart and still be a jerk. Someone can have a couple of good qualities burried under a dozen or so bad qualities. Man until you get rid of the simplicity of this mindset you are never going to understand ANYTHING
Smart can be both a good trait and a bad trait. It all depends on how you use or misuse it. Everything has a bit of poison in the pill including love and hate.
Rhino, when you hear liberals use stock terminology such as "hater, hate speech, racists, bigot, homophobe, etc..." all you can do is smile and laugh, because they are all in essence meaningless labels to throw at people they don't agree with.
In truth, Savage seems to base his detest of the gay lifestlye off the fact that the bible condemns that behaivor. The only thing he should be labeled with for holding that belief is "Christian" or "Jew" for believing in the bible.
I don’t think Savage has much use for the Bible. His tirades are not Biblically based recriminations of homosexuals. His rants are rants against the so called, “homosexual agenda.”
Or, for the enlightened, his rants are rants against equal rights.
Savage actually has a rather progressive outlook at religon and spirituality. He claims not to be a follower of one religion, but rather he incorporates beliefs from many including christianity, judism, islamic and hindu. He has stated that when you boil all major religions down to the core beleifs, they are all very similar if not identical. His view on homosexuality is that based on what he has taken from those religions, all of which see the practice of homosexuality as an aboration or sin.
Remember what Jesus said about homsexuality.
Not a damned thing.
Remember what Leviticus said? Homosexual acts are detestable. Old Testament not good enough for you? How about what Paul says in Romans 1? "Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." The bible condemns homosexuality up and down, new testament and old testament.
Considering they didn't name Christianity after Leviticus or Paul, I think it is extremely important what Jesus said and didn't say. Maybe that's just me.
God and Jesus are the same person. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three parts combined into one being. Whatever God says in the Bible is the same thing Jesus says as well, as they are the same person or being.
That is merely your self-serving opinion. Jesus, himself said in John 14:28 (King James Version)
28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
How can Jesus's Father be greater than Jesus if Jesus is God too? Remember, you are the one who says he believes everything in the Bible is true. Is the above statement true or not?
The Trinity is composed of three parts. The father, the son, and the holy spirit. These three parts make up one being. That is Christian teaching. All of the demoninations other than mormonism believe that. The verse that you cited seems to imply that God is the greatest part of the Trinity.
Rino
The Trinity was NOT something ever claimed by Christ. He NEVER alluded to himself as the physical incarnation of God. This was a belief the was adopted... well after his death... by the early Church as a means of placing their confused & politically charged dogma above any interpretations other than their own. Jesus had simply announced that he was the long prophesied messiah, sent here by God in order to redeem man from the sins that had been visited upon him by the rebellious actions of Adam.
Jesus central message was about love & forgiveness. He warned us about judging the morals & actions of others. He warned us about directing our hatred at those who are vulnerable. He commanded us to love our neighbors as we do ourselves, & forbid us to usurp God's exclusive right to judge sinners.
It is a message that has been twisted, manipulated, perverted, distorted, & aggressively suppressed by the myriad social clubs & institutional bureaucracies that have since elbowed aside the gentle yet revolutionary teachings of Jesus. Hence, institutional Christianity... from it's earliest days... has been largely a conservative POLITICAL movement
This is why I love Christ, but have absolutely no use for Christianity.
Savage's inflammatory rhetoric aside, he's absolutely right that the Massachusetts legislature thwarted the will of the people and refused to give them the right to simply vote on the issue. The Massachusetts legislature is obviously very anti-democratic, which is similar to most liberals today. The Mass. legislators felt it was better for their state Supreme Court to force their far left views on the residents of Massachusetts rather than letting them vote on such a controversial issue. Their anti-democratic stand is typical of most on the left who don't want to give the people the right to VOTE on controversial issues such as abortion and gay marriage. They know that they could never get their extremist agenda passed through the ballot box, so they have to rely on activist judges to force a far left agenda on the American people.
Funny, RH, the two issues you mention as examples of forcing an agenda on others are both personal matters that don't affect anyone else.
Strange how conservatives seem to see those things that are absolutely none of their business as having such importance in their lives.
We've already got a Barney Fife, but you can be Gladys Kravitz.
"Funny, RH, the two issues you mention as examples of forcing an agenda on others are both personal matters that don't affect anyone else"
Except for the 45 million unborn babies in this country that have been murdered since the Roe v. Wade decision.
45 Million that would've happened anyway, just in back alleys, as currently happens in countries where abortion's illegal; love how people always miss that . . .
There would not be 45 million illegal abortions. That's ridiculous.
Hmmm, you're right . . . it'd probably be higher; the abortion rate in the US pre-Roe was about the same as after; in Brazil, where it's illegal, there are three times as many abortions, that's six times the US rate . . .
If you really don't want more abortions, you'd do everything in your power to keep it legal, safe, and rare . . .
"Hmmm, you're right . . . it'd probably be higher; the abortion rate in the US pre-Roe was about the same as after; in Brazil, where it's illegal, there are three times as many abortions, that's six times the US rate"
Do you have a source for that? How could anybody possibly know how many ILLEGAL abortions there were when they were off the record? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Just look up "illegal abortion rates," you should get plenty of hits (maybe someone could show me how to post links here) . . .
Finding out's a matter of police reports, medical reports (especially emergency rooms), autopsies, and interviews with abortionists and operation survivors; by your rather dumb logic we shouldn't be able to find out murder or robbery rates either, I mean, they're ILLEGAL!
Realitycheck,
It is very easy to post links here. It’s the same as pasting a link in an Email. Simply copy the URL from the address bar and paste it in the body of your post. When your post appears in the thread, the link will be highlighted in blue and will link to the external website.
There are some nifty tricks that you can do to make your link appear as original text, but you will have to get that technique from someone more computer savvy than I.
Who is FORCING anyone to have a gay marriage again? NO ONE? So you are just bloviating as usual with NO POINT. I refuse to follow you off topic AGAIN into your abortion obsession. When it is marginally relevant get back to us.
RINO,
How does gay marriage affect you? Should the Jim Crow laws been put to a vote? What about the Civil Rights Act? In my mind, the above measures are similar. A minority group of people were seeking to be treated like everyone else. If put to a vote, the Jim Crow laws probably would have survived when the Court struck them down. Was that unfair? What about Loving v. Virginia when the Court struck down a law that said a White person could not marry an African American, should that have been put to a vote? Should all social issues be voted upon or just those that have to do with sex and love?
What laws should courts interpret and what laws should be sent to the people? Should we vote on every tax increase? At what point do we not trust politicians to appoint judges? I have always thought of legislators are our voice in matters. Sometimes they hear us correctly, sometimes they don't. If we don't like their appointments, we replace them.
The interesting thing about your argument, to me, is that for the past 6 years (except for the past half year), Republicans have had control of the Federal Government and appointed all of the judges they have wanted to.
As I have pointed out before, comparing the civil rights of minority races and/or women, etc. to the gay movement is completely illogical and must be rejected completely.
Very simply stated, race and gender are genetic, and cannot even be considered as a preference or choice. Being gay has not been proven to be genetic yet, and therefore, we cannot treat it the same way we would racial equality issues.
Genetic or not, love chooses you. That’s what is at stake. Why should the government be allowed to dictate, to you or I, with whom we can fall in love and spend our natural born lives?
Government restriction of liberties is supposed to be anathema to Americans. What gives?
The myth that is America unravels in the light of reason.
Roundhouse
What a beautiful, elegant posting.
Thank you.
Thank You, Mescal.
And how are gay people currently restricted or forbidden from "falling in love and spending our natural born lives" with their partner? It seems to me that they can do both of those things freely right now. They can even proclaim that love in public in their pride parades.
Are you arguing that unmarried individuals have the exact same rights as married individuals? That is patently untrue. Healthcare benefits, end of life decisions, inheritance, etc. are all benefits of marriage contracts over single relationships.
The point is that the government shouldn't recognize same sex relationships. They shouldn't try to control what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom, but they shouldn't sanction marriage for gays. as it would basically amount to a government endorsement of homosexuality. The government should just stay out of the issue all together. They should let gays do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, but they shouldn't give them certain benefits which would legitimize their relationship.
Then, following your logic, why does the government currently endorse heterosexual marriage? At least, that is what I predict the next liberal will ask you here.
There is a simple reason why the government endorses heterosexual marriage, and it is because that is the natural union that hopefully results in children being produced. Children represent two things: the continued existence of the human race, and a future tax payer for the government.
What does the government have to gain from legalizing homosexual marriage? Nothing.
"What does the government have to gain from legalizing homosexual marriage? Nothing."--john
Not true. The government has an obvious interest in marriage/monogamy. For one thing, marriage/monogamy is proven to reduce the likelihood of sexually transmitted diseases.
Also, should my wife and I be banned from ever being married? We never produced a "natural" child, but we have adopted several children. I imagine gay couples who are married would be more stable and suitable for adoption, just like my wife and I.
I applaud your practice of adoption with your wife. It is the American way, and it's the #1 way to help curtail abortion. However, I do not agree with raising children in any situation other than with a mother and father. I know it happens, and thats a shame.
Additionally, society/government does not need to instill "gay marriage" in order to cut back on STDs. Any couple that is loyal to one another, regardless of marital status, helps reduce the spread of STDs.
"Any couple that is loyal to one another, regardless of marital status, helps reduce the spread of STDs."--john
While that is undoubtedly true in theory, it cannot plausibly be argued that unmarried couples have an equal obligation to fidelity that married couples have. The addition of a contract is the key. They can be equal, but in reality they are not necessarily equal.
Marriage is good for the economy and it's good for society and local communities by creating kin and family. It's not difficult to see why marriage, regardless of the sexes of those joined in union, is beneficial.
Government restriction of liberties is supposed to be anathema to Americans. What gives?
Unless, it means restricting the liberty of being a radio personality. Since the left is searching for ways to require the government to step in and restrict the amount of time a radio personality can be on air. But, since the left is doing that, then all is hunky-doery.
You Hypocrit
It’s a matter of personal liberty vs. the public airwaves. There is no comparison.
YOU are the one claiming they are different. It is up to YOU to prove it is a choice. Left handedness has not been PROVEN to be genetic yet its pretty hard to believe it is a choice. Tell us the day YOU chose to be heterosexual. I think the women of the world will want to make it a day of mourning. Since YOU are trying to make the claim it is ok to discriminate against them YOU cough up the evidence it is a choice. Again with the rightwing logic bereft tactic of trying to reverse the burden of proof. Even WERE it a choice so is being a communist. Yet their rights are protected, they still have free speech even though it is an unpopular minority. Ya got nothin. In fact I have yet to see a cogent argument in any post you have ever made.
"YOU are the one claiming they are different." --They are different. They love members of the same sex, and I love members of the opposite sex, thats different.
"It is up to YOU to prove it is a choice." --Although it may be an inner feeling as to what sex you will be attracted to, you CHOOSE who you physically act that love out with. I have always been hetero, i've always known it. I can see they same being true for gay people, and thats fine, i'm not arguing that. The choice part enters when you choose to act on those feelings with another person. It is my choice to have sex with a woman, but my inner feelings of heterosexuality is not forcing me to do it. This is where I differ with you, it seems that you support the idea that because somone is homosexual, they have this inner drive that forces them to physically be with another man, leaving them unable to stop themselves. Not so. I dont have to physically be with a woman because my inner feelings tell me I am straight, I CHOOSE to act that feeling out in the physical world. Thats what I mean by homosexuality being a choice.
So, let's clarify: Are you pro gay rights because you think that gay people are controlled by their inner sense of being gay, and connot stop themselves from physically acting out their feelings?
Are you arguing that everyone is essentially heterosexual. Some just deny it for whatever reason?
Not at all, I'm not sure how you got that. I'm arguing that if you have inner heterosexual feelings...you don't choose that, you choose to PHYSICALLY act heterosexuality. If you have homosexual inner feelings...you don't choose that, you choose to physically act homosexually.
Maybe someone else is getting this. I don't understand what you are saying at all.
I'll give you an example of what he's saying. I think that it would be fun and quite exciting to go out and have sex with as many women as I possibly could. But I don't do that, and the reason is because the Bible says that that's a sinful thing to do, and I stay away from it. I'm attracted to the opposite sex, but I can control myself and not go out and have sex with everyone that I want to. That's the best example that I can come up with, and I think that's the point that he's trying to make.
Good example. However, I'm sure everyone here will miss the point and take it as you trying to paint homosexuals as people who just want to run around have have sex with tons of people. That is clearly not the intent of your post.
After that example, this is as simple as I can make this: Being homosexual may not be a choice, but physically acting in a homosexual way (a relationship, sex, whatever) IS a choice. The same logic would apply for heterosexuals.
I think I understand what you are getting at. You are saying that homosexuals have a choice as to whether they act on their homosexuality just like us heterosexuals have. I hope that is not a misrepresentation. I am trying to understand your point.
It seems like a bit of a glib point to make considering society and or the Bible provides us a moral way to act, whereas, homosexuals must choose either insincere heterosexuality or sin. To me, it is worse to be insincere. Maybe we disagree on that.
Yes, you've got it.
When you say "homosexuals must choose either insincere heterosexuality or sin," I'm not sure I agree. If the gay person is not religious, their lifestlye choice would not be a sin. To a religious person, the choice of performing homosexual acts is a sin. It depends on who your asking. If I asked most gays, I doubt they would tell me they have knowingly chosen a life of sin. If they are religious, they probably would use one of the many trite arguments that try to interpret scripture as not really being against homosexuality.
It appears that it would please many conservatives if homosexuals would simply choose to be celibate or not express their sexuality as us heterosexuals are seemingly allowed to do blatantly in the open. I do not believe in that. I believe my rights as a heterosexual are not more important than theirs as a homosexual.
I believe that as long as someone's pursuit of happiness does not interfere with another person's equally valid pursuit, then there is no problem.
What I am sure of is you make a lousy prophet and ought to stop pretending you have amazing mind reading powers just becuase YOU have a biased view of liberals. It makes you look the fool
Good for you, that is you made a choice but that choice OUGHT to be available. YOUR moral decision should not be a benchmark for others. They should not be constrained from THEIR freedom because YOU wouldnt like their choice.
So they should be denied the right to their pursuit of happiness?
Apparantly the point is they should willingly deny THEMSELVES the right of pursuit of their happyness
"The interesting thing about your argument, to me, is that for the past 6 years (except for the past half year), Republicans have had control of the Federal Government and appointed all of the judges they have wanted to"
And the Supreme Court is more conservative than it was before. Roberts and Alito have shifted the court to the right. Bush delivered on his promise to transform the court.
Also, as to the Civil Rights Act, that's the perfect example of the government solving a social problem rather than the courts. The government gave blacks civil rights through the democratic process, and no one will ever take that away. The democratic process won out, and we didn't need the court to solve a complicated social problem for us.
"Also, as to the Civil Rights Act, that's the perfect example of the government solving a social problem rather than the courts. The government gave blacks civil rights through the democratic process, and no one will ever take that away. The democratic process won out, and we didn't need the court to solve a complicated social problem for us."--rinohunter
B.S. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in REACTION to court decisions. Without those court decisions to prompt Congressional action (designed to limit further court decision scope), there is no reason to believe blacks wouldn't still be second class citizens. You are blatantly misrepresenting the importance of the courts in that history.
RH, if the concept of an unborn baby is real to you, then live your life according to that.The general consensus is that murder can only be commited against human beings. Although I know vegetarians who consider a hamburger murder, and you obviously consider an abortion murder, you have the freedom to observe your beliefs and hold yourself to that standard.
The women of America are not here to breed for the census takers.
And yet, the Bible is mute on the question of abortion. Abortion unquestionably existed during Biblical times, but the religious thinkers of the time never spoke on that matter. Ever wonder why?
This is almost certainly a result of the Biblical belief that you became a human being when you took your 1st breath... beginning with Adam. God breathed life into the 1st man after fashioning him from clay. The Bible expressed the belief that you became a person when you actually physically ENTERED this world.
How ironic that the Religious Right have largely formed themselves around an issue that the Bible... their most sacred text... expresses complete indifference about. It's not 'God' & it's not Jesus who have sent them on this snarling, fuming, spit-misting crusade of theirs, for they never uttered a single word on the topic. Instead, it has become the issue of their false prophets... the ones who are far more concerned with winning elections, making big money, forcing people to toe their line, & enforcing their own NONBIBLICAL standards of morality.
Interestingly, these are the same people who, historically, resisted integration, the actions of the ACLU, feminism, the peace movement, & every other political movement that has sought to EXPAND individual rights rather than restrict them. They deeply despise the Constitution, for it aids those individuals... us... who seek to resist the forces of conformity. It is human liberty that they most detest... all the while cynically usurping such terms in their attempt to shield themselves from the lens of reality.
They are wolves in sheep's (!) clothing.
And you are a MORON similar to most conservatives today. We dont vote on rights issues. MANY initiatives are overturned as unconstitutional. If we VOTED miscegenation would probably STILL be illegal in Mississippi. We understand you are too stupid to understand this though it has been explained to you before like I said you are a moron like most conservatives
And you're simply a character assassin who personally attacks others when you can't debate the actual issue. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the issue of abortion, and the people should be able to vote on it. The Constitution neither forbids abortion nor says that it is a right. Issues like that should be voted on by the people. You're simply scared to let the people vote on the issue, because you know that you can't win in the ballot box. You have to have liberal judges force their agenda on the rest of us since you can't win at the ballot box. The same goes for gay marriage as well.
You need to read the Ninth Amendment again.
The 9th Amendment has been misinterpreted by liberals into being something that it's really not. The 9th Amendment does not give Americans unlimited rights. If it did, there would be no need for the rest of the Constitution. The Constitution could simply consist of one line which said, "The American people are entitled to unlimited constitutional rights."
So the Supreme Court misinterpreted the constitution and we know that because YOU SAY SO? Where did you get your degree in Constitutional law again? Man, why are we spending all this money on the Supreme Court. Lets disband them and when we have a constitutional question we will just ask RHINO. Nah thats a bad idea he never knows what he is talking about. Unlimited rights is a strawman argument. No one said they were unlimited but that doesnt mean NO rights exist the Constitituion doesnt specifically enumerate in fact that is EXACTLY what the 9th amendments says that there ARE. By your logic there wouldnt be if it doesnt say it in the constitution it isnt a right and we have to vote on it but the ninth amendment says such rights DO exist. HMMMM which has more authority on this subject an anonymous poster on a website or the constitution itself. Let me mull that over a while, that is while laughing hysterically.
We have the right to liberty. To our own bodies. All of us, even the women. Liber....to be free.
Rino
The Founding Fathers were pretty clear on this point: the Constitution is not there to define what rights belong to the people... rather, it exists to restrict the AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT. All rights are assumed to belong to the individual UNLESS OTHERWISE CEDED TO THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT. The Constitution's importance... it's uniqueness... as a legal, cultural, philosophical, & ethical document is that it's sole purpose for existence is that it recognizes the inherent dignity & natural rights of THE INDIVIDUAL!
My rights... & yours... are not a matter of majority rule. Majorities are FREQUENTLY wrong. Majorities are frequently TYRANICAL. Fascists often enjoy the support of the majority, because trampling on the rights of 'weirdos', intellectuals, 'freaks', & 'internal aliens" is... historically... a much enjoyed pastime for otherwise discontented majorities. It's a unifying diversion. It makes us feel like we're all happily on the same page... as power elites quietly go about the lucrative business of picking our pockets & cajoling us into invading 'our enemies'.
So, no... the question of individual rights should NOT be determined by elections, thank you very much!
And you are ignorant beyond comprehension. Let me translate from wingnutese. WWAAAHHHH stop being mean to me its ok for me to call the left anti democratic and anti family but its so mean when you call ME rude things. WWAAAHHHHH. I am the only one who gets to throw mud its mean when liberals throw it back WWAAAAHHHHH.
Cant debate the issues? I mop the floor with you regularly as do most the liberals on this site. Only your ability to remain isolated in complete delusion allows you to keep thinking otherwise. You are like batting practice except you dont seem to KNOW how utterly EASY you are.
Sorry, but the fact remains that you're a character assassin with very little else to offer. Maybe you and George can go on vacation together and personally attack each other all day long. It's something that you both love to do, and I'm sure that you would amuse yourselves quite well.
WWWAAAHHHHH says Rino. You are a moron. AND you make plenty of personal attacks you just want the exclusive franchise on them. Not going to happen. If YOU leave off with the attacks and rude mischaracterizations I will leave off the attacks and we can talk about the issues. As long as you feel the need to call us anti family and say most of us are anti Democratic you deserve what you get. Feel free though to snivel so pathetically WWAAAHHHH only the Rhino gets to be rude and insulting WWWAAAHHHHH, its is very amusing
Solon,
You should know better than that. I don't use personal attacks here and you know that. I simply come here and attack an incredibly flawed ideology. The fact that it's so easy to do is probably what irritates you the most. I suppose that you simply have to resort to personal attacks and name calling, because you can't refute a single point that I make. And by the way I've never called you a moron or idiot the way you call me that on a regular basis. You lied on the previous thread.
Solon can't even identify the fact that when we label liberals as anti-family, we are not tossing around a personal attack. We are simply lablebing the end result of the ideology and causes they support. Don't pay attention to it Rhino, they sit up on their intellectually enlightened thrones that, by default I guess, are higher than that of conservatives. Minus the fact that I have a masters degrees, and I'm sure you are college educated as well...being conservative kicks all that education right out the door.
And when Solon calls you a moron or idiot its not a personal attack, its just based on the end result of your simplistic and illogical arguments.
Dead on, Jimmy! Dead on!
Breathtakingly incisive.
You are right I cant identify that as a fact because it ISNT a fact its an OPINION and an insulting OPINION. When you have some vague idea about the difference between the two you MIGHT have an epiphany and understand the point I tried to make
You are a liar. You called me a jerk and a hateful person, a character assassin and YES you make personal attacks on us because of our ideology. It obviously isnt that easy to refute us which is why you virtually NEVER do and we mop the floor with you day in and day out. In fact you almost NEVER address facts or issues. You do what you just did. Baselessly assert that our ideology is incredibly flawed that is not an argument its an insult. That is virtually all you do. Spew out hateful opinions in this pious psuedoauthoritative jargon. You rarely make points. Such dumb characterizations are NOT arguing the issues anymore than it would be arguing the issue of the war to say conservatives argue from ignorance and only like the war because they love to get Americans killed. THAT is the kind of argument you make almost every time, no logic, no facts, no insight just rude characterizations and insultingly false definitions about what liberals are, want, and think. You are one of the most hateful posters on the site even with your calm delivery. If you cant see this its either because you are being dishonest or delusional. Its possible you are so brainwashed that you have convinced yourself that there is no insult in saying liberals want to end the traditional family as we know it or we are anti family and anti democratic but it is blatantly ludicrous, those ARE insults.
"You called me a jerk and a hateful person"
I was responding to you using a hateful personal attack against me for no reason, and the fact that you personally attack others on a regular basis as well. If you go around and call people "idiots" and "morons," then you deserve to be called a jerk. What I said was simply the truth.
This is simple you either make personal attacks or you dont and you DO I proved that so when you say you DONT its known as a LIE. You may see it as for no reason but I challenged you ONLY to cough up the evidence for a baseless claim you made one you NEVER COULD support and you posted simply that I was misinformed. THAT is a personal attack. Now had you backed that up by showing in what WAY I was misinformed which you could not do since you were flat out wrong I wouldnt have taken it that way but you didnt. Anyway all of that is immaterial. YOU ARE A LIAR when you say you dont make personal attacks you do its that simple get over it and stop lying about it.
I agree, Solon.
It was just one more example of right wingers PROJECTING. They accuse the left of using the very same tactics that they themselves apply on a regular basis. Some are simply more subtle & more adroit at setting up such strawman arguments, attributing false motivations to the other side when they can't really dent their arguments.
Why is it when the righteous right wants to pursue their agenda they decide the people should have a vote on the topic, but when it does not suit their agenda they say, "we are a representative government and the politicians know better than the people?"
You have no more of a right to vote on whether or not Steve gets to marry Roy than I have a right to vote on whether or not you get to marry your chosen adult companion.
Rhino, you're missing the bigger point here (not surprisingly). Allowing a vote on an issue as charged as same-sex marriage is akin to allowing a vote on slavery back in the 1850's. Sure, let the people vote on it, but the collective opinion of the majority might not always be correct. The same is with interracial marriage. The point is, it's not up to the majority (heterosexuals) to decide the fate of the minority (homosexuals). For those of you who feel that way, you're wrong. The law is on the side of the minority - to protect them from the tyranny of the majority. This is an example of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is why voting on this issue is the wrong way to go.
Unfortunately for you there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution. It doesn't exist. The Constitution is silent on the issue. If you want gay marriage to be a constitutional right, then call your local congressman and tell him or her to bring up a constitutional amendment making gay marriage a constitutional right. Just don't expect the Supreme Court to make up a non-existant right.
Again. Ninth Amendment.
There is no right to heterosexual marriage in the consitution either. It is not numerated. There for the right is held OUTSIDE the constitution, held by the states and the people. And since my state constitution does not mention it either, and says the left over rights are mine.....so goeth with abortion for all women.
Since the bodies of the documents only cover the numerated powers and jurisdictions of the entity created by that document, there is no case for government intervention in reproduction, with the exceptions of the abuse of minors and the laws concerning genetic relatives. All else should be fair game, according to basic US law.
There is no more human, no more female, right than the choice of reproduction, to reject genes before they become a burden on the host mother. I personally would never try to put any woman in that situation, but I can imagine many sad reasons why they do not wish to carry a man's child to term. The use of force on a woman to breed for the state....that's just plain wrong.
Great post. According to Rino's own logic, there is no heterosexual right to marriage because the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention it.
Rino has apparently painted himself into a corner...again.
You're right. There is no right to marriage in the constitution, period. If the majority wanted to do away with the term "marriage," they would have the right to do so. If that ever happened, (as it obviously wouldn't) Congress would immediately pass a Constitutional amendment making marriage a Constitutional right. As soon as Congress or a state makes a law outlawing marriage, then I'll be worried about it. But that won't happen until hell freezes over, so I'm not too worried about it.
I don't think anyone would want to do away with marriage altogether, because we all pretty much agree the natural right to it already exists. The fact that your logic would lead to the conclusion it doesn't exist is telling.
Savage seems to not realize that democracy is not only majority rule but minority rights.
SINCE WHEN DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET TO VOTE ON CIVIL RIGHTS OR EQUALITY FOR ALL AMERICANS??? WHAT IF SOME OF THE EXTREMISTS WANTED TO VOTE ON SEGREGATION, THE WOMEN'S VOTE, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF DISCRIMINATION. OUR CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR ALL AMERICANS, OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SAYS "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL". WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD AND WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE MINORITY OF RELIGIOUS NUT CASES AND FANATICS RUNNING AROUND TRYING TO LIMIT THE FREEDOMS OF THE AMERICANS THEY DO NOT APPROVE OF, PEOPLE LIKE THE LATE JERRY FALLWELL, GOD REST HIS TROUBLED SOUL, WHO SPENT HIS LIFE TEACHING HATE AND BIGOTRY AND TRYING TO GET HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS MADE INTO LAWS AND TURNING OUT OF HIS SCHOOL NEW GENERATIONS OF ZEALOTS AND HATE MONGERS WHO MAKE IT THEIR BUSINESS TO PROMPTLY GO TO WORK ATTACKING PEOPLE THEY DON'T AGREE WITH AND TRYING TO MAKE THEIR LIVES MISERABLE. THEY ARE CREATING THE OPPOSITE EFFECT IN THE WORLD THAT JESUS TAUGHT. RELIGION IS A PERSONAL EXPRESSION OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S BELIEF IN GOD AND IT IS EACH INDIVIDUAL'S BUSINESS, A VERY PERSONAL AFFAIR AND NOONE HAS A RIGHT TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON WHAT IS IN ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL'S HEART, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT IT IS. ONLY THE SICKO FANATICS DO THAT AND THEY WILL NOT WIN BECAUSE THEY ARE A DESTRUCTIVE FORCE IN OUR SOCIETY BUT SANITY ALWAYS PREVAILS.
MASSACHUSETTS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PROGRESSIVE, LEADING AND BELLWEATHER STATE AND SHOULD BE LOOKED TO FOR GUIDANCE BY ALL THE OTHERS.
Everything woody said, except in lower-case.
What I find so interesting is how Savage (and, apparently, a few of the posters here) overlook the utter irony in the Massachusetts' legislators' decision. According to the Massachusetts Constitution, it only takes a MINORITY of the TOTAL Legislature (a mere 50 out of 200 members) in two consecutive sessions to get a measure before the people to vote on YET it requires a MAJORITY of the popular vote for that measure to become law. What other state does this? To the best of my knowledge, for a law to become a part of most States' Constitutions, the law has to be passed by a MAJORITY of the State's Legislative Chambers (in some, it may be a simple majority while others may require a 3/5 or 2/3 majority, but a majority nonetheless). Yet, in Massachusetts, a mere 1/4 of the total Legislature in two consecutive sessions is enough to send a measure to be voted on by the people.
Does anyone else know of any other state where a legislative minority can actually trump the will of the legislative majority?
I tried to email Michael with this comment, but the server did not recognize "paulrevere.com." HA! I wondered in what newspaper was the headline to which he referred: "Gays conspire with corrupt politicians..." I also asked for a list of the legislators whose votes were bought by the gay mafia and a list of the members of the gay mafia and how much they donated and to whom.
Paul Revere was from Massachusetts. I wonder if he was gay?
Just kidding of course.
I too wonder about this "gay mafia"
It sounds like a very interesting organization (in weiner's imagination). They have the power to influence an entire state's legislature, but yet gay rights issues still have a very difficult time getting enacted.
Weiner-boy paints them as this evil force that is a danger to the entire country, but seems to have very limited powers. But I think weiner really believes they exist, since he obviously does not wish to fund their "evil activities" (I mean look at this hair, he's obviously never had a decent hair cut).
(Using my magical mental abilities): Expect the Fundies to use this as a fund raising point for the next few years, "attacks on democracy, thwarting the will of the people.....etc." Its of course pure BS, but they do it all the time fundie-fund raising
Can you imagine a hot new series to replace the sopranos on HBO. The Falsettos.
Or... if you REALLY want to get down & dirty... the CASTRATOS!
That was really funny. I hope you don't mind if I use that sometime.
Oh and for all those who missed it. (off topic, but funny)
The Adam from the creation museum is in a little trouble :)
Pam's
I guess if your playing the part of Adam in a creationist museum, you should probably think twice about having a web site called bedroomacrobate (which has been pulled, could not bring up the site, just old pictures from it) and hanging with drag queens.
I believe that "ye who rants the loudest" is perhaps hiding something he doesn't want us to know about himself! That is often the case with those who denigrate others in cases like this. Who knows...
I'm going to need to send Dr Wiener a box of tissues, and a cuddly stuffed animal to help him cope with the reality of all those gays taking over civilization on Wiener's watch. I hope crying himself to sleep at night doesn't take too terribly long, and that he gets some rest.
Poor, poor Doktor Wiener, unable to persecute those horrible gay people the way he'd like.
There were some previous comments about whether the guy is even serious about his comments. I tend to think we confuse serious political expression with show business. Savage is show business. He understands the demographic of talk radio, and plays to the audience. Whether he truly beleives any of the bizarre stuff he says is not at all certain.
The big lie he told was that referendums are what it is all about. He clearly doesn't know the constitution, which makes no such provision.
We are a representative democracy. The electorate will have a chance to deal with the 45 reps who wanted to be friends with Michael Savage at election time.
I love how people on the left try to smear him by questioning his sexual oriention based upon his rants against the agenda. If your not aware, he has been married to the same woman for forty years and has two grown children. His daughter Rebecca is married and is an elementary school teacher and his son Russ is the president and creator of ROCKSTAR ENERGY DRINK and lives in Las Vegas.
And your point is WHAT, exactly?
One of my best friends had been married for over 20 years and had a son before he came out, and I can't tell you just how many "happily married men" are interested in a little "M4M" side action. Savage (not even his real name--like MOST of the "happily married men" looking for that M4M side action hiding behind an alias) can't hide behind his marriage as some sort of "proof" of his heterosexuality.
I dont care if he is gay. I wouldnt consider it a smear if he were other than the hypocrisy.
SOLON
You say an awful lot of words but you really don't say much of anything at all. It's like listening to the adults on Charlie Brown, " blah, blah, blah..."
I feel for you. It really isnt my fault though that you are too stupid to understand simple logic. Tell you what I understand that higher brain function is far beyond your wildest dreams but perhaps you can shoot for RECOGNIZING IT.
I'm not even trying to diss, okay, but how does Savage know so damn much about what happens inside Gay Bath Houses? The dude talks about them ALL the time. Knows what people talk about inside, where they are located, where one would need to park if one wanted to visit discreetly. Kind of weird, if you ask me, that this is one of his favorite tropes.
Savage has lived in San Francisco since 1974. He was around during the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. He wrote a book in 1986 called "Maximum Immunity", in which he dedicated an entire chapter on AIDS. How could he NOT KNOW about their existence, especially living in San Francisco.
When, "Maximum Immunity", was published that is when his politics surfaced. As shown here in his closing comments in his chapter on AIDS. I find it to be common sense but some may find offensive.
THE POLITICS OF AIDS
It is interesting that both spectrums of the political world have refused to publish an independent view of the AIDS epidemic. "The National Review", a "conservative" periodical, and "The New Republic, a "liberal" periodical, both rejected my offer to present the latest data regarding this disease. I suspect that the "right" does not want to acknowledge that there IS a major problem while their favorite son is in office, while the "left" would have us believe this disease is quite democratic and strikes all groups equally, without regard to lifestyle.
The reason we are hearing about the dangers of AIDS spreading into the "general" population can be traced to propagandists in the homosexual community and certain researchers who stand to gain more funding if the disease is seen as a general threat. (Apparently, this alarmist note was rung by some members of the AIDS Medical Foundation, according to a recent article in a homosexual-oriented newspaper. This stratagem backfired, of course, even causing one of the cofounders to resign in protest from the scientific committee. See "New York Native", October 7-13, 1985, p.25). But generalizing the risk and setting off an alarm reaction in the general population has had an effect opposite to the one desired by those who wish to generate sympathy for people wirh AIDS. People now tend to blame the KNOWN risk groups for spreading this infection. This will INCREASE the pariahlike status of homosexuals, bisexuals, and intravenous drug users, not the amount of sympathy. Second, research funding is likely to be DECREASED by groups calling for spending the moneyto quarantine patients and those in known risk groups. Third, vigilante action is likely to be unleashed should unthinking mobs led to believe they are at risk.
For these reasons, I hope the facts about AIDS are made known as widelt as possible, both in the United States and throughout other countries where the disease is spreading. By altering risky behavior and learning which nutrients are immune enhancing, all of us can stimulate our natural resistence to this and other diseases, while those at risk for AIDS or those diagnosed with the disease can avail themselves of the alternative therapies that show great promise.
Homosexual activists have claimed that much "disinformation" about how AIDS is spread is being promulgated to "punish" their cohorts. It would be wiser for them to accept the blame for bringing this disease to present levels and to acknowledge that AIDS is primarily a disease of male homosexuals. By putting ones own house in order, the world sometimes follows suit. It is true that attitudes and behavior are rapidly changing among responsible homosexual men, but these people were never in the group at highest risk. Those who practice orgiastic sex, with many partners, and use street drugs are not likely to respond to reason. (One clinician, who asked to remain anonymous, told us that several AIDS patients returned to "bath houses" for anonymous sex each time their symptoms diminished!)
Freedom is not license, which our human rights activists have failed to realize. The rights of the overall population are also to be protected . By protecting only the sick or the handicapped-that is, by attempting to bring the entire society to a single common denominator-we may eliminate the healthiest from protection. Magistrates in England have faced this problemand have decided they have the right to hospitialize people diagnosed with AIDS, whether or not the patient so desires. By allowing such very sick people to come and go as they please as outpatients, we may actually be encouraging the spread of this disease.
Having said what has not been said publicly (by health officials, who voice similar concerns privately), I must reiterate my appeal for compassion and first-rate treatment for the sufferers of this horrible complex of diseases. The purpose in trying to isolate causes, be they lifestyle associated, political, or sociological, is not to lay blame but to move rapidly to stem the spread and treat the patients. All of us will agree that these are the goals of any rational public health program.
More cut-n-paste from a Wienerdog worshipper. If I want to read Weinerdog I will bang my head against a wall until the insane impulse passes
Obviously things have changed since this book was written in 1986, for better and for worse.
The fact that you would be willing to bang your head against a wall over that tells me everything I need to know.
The fact I would rather bang my head against a wall than read the insane rantings of the Weinerdog should tell you all you want to know about him but since you are a Weinerdog Worshipper that little nugget will probably escape you just like his obvious insanity does.
I'm gonna buy a t-shirt with "I (heart) Lesbians" on it, just to drive Savage nuts.
i get tired of people playing the homophobe card. Savage is against gay marriage. why does that make him a homophobe. its a convenient way to attack persons who disagree with homosexual marriage. go at it!!
Oh please all his bizarre talk about some gay Mafia and other hateful and bigotted things the man has said about Gay people? The man is a homophobe the term was coined for people like him
You're kidding right? There are countless ways to civilly and tastefully express that you don't personally agree with gay marriage, and the hateful hyperbolic rants that Savage dives in to whenever he wants to attack the gay rights movement or homosexuality in general are *anything but* civil.
My Aunt and Uncle don't agree with gay marriage, yet I'd never call them homophobic. Savage, on the other hand, whose words drip with patently mean homophobic sentiment like venom, is a textbook homophobe.
just cause you say it doesnt make it , solon
seems like anyone who disagrees with gay agenda is called a homphobe
Peruse the insane rantings of the Weinerdog on this site and see for yourself. It may seem that way to you IF you are exceedingly simpleminded. I dont think Rhino is homophobic Nor Another American and have never called either of them homophobic but hey I have to cut Weinerdog Worhshippers some slack. Take reality it little bit at a time we dont want the shock of actual reality to put you into a coma
I actually hope science finds homosexuality to be completely biological. I hope they identify every genetic/biological factor that makes homosexuality exist. This way, like any other disease or abnormality that we have identified, we can start working on a cure for this biological abnormality.
If homosexuality is not in any part biological, and based completely off of life experience and nuturing of ideas, then this debate should be over. We do not grant special rights to people who make special personal choices.
"We do not grant special rights to people who make special personal choices."
Right, of course we don't. The inclusion of religious beliefs in the protected categories in every form of non-discrimination and hate-crime law is merely a typo.
What mindset or poison breeds a mentality that expresses desire to see a category of people stamped out? You continue to hope for a "cure" for diversity, I'll continue to celebrate it.
"This way, like any other disease or abnormality that we have identified, we can start working on a cure for this biological abnormality." --john
How do you know homosexality isn't a part of God's plan? Has it occured to you that creating homosexuals is a natural form of birth control? Considering they have been around for thousands of years without multiplying, it should tell you something.
Alright, if naturally occuring homosexuality is going to be considered a form of birth control, I guess it would only follow to say that naturally occurring sick-cell disease or spina bifida would be considered population control.
Except that those are afflictions. There is no reason to consider a homosexual to be "ill" other than you simply don't condone his/her actions for whatever reasons. Spina bifida and sickle-cell anemia have nothing to do with actions.
If you are merely considering the pain caused by homosexuality, it is often needless emotional pain at the hands of bigots and not at all physical in nature either.
As far as I am concerned, eliminating homosexuality from a biological sense is tinkering with God's plan.
I hope we find such exceedingly ugly bigotry as your post suggests to be biological and then we can treat IT like the disease it is. Lefthandedness could be described as an abnormality if you just use the fact most people are righthanded. YOU are the one who is sick as far as I am concerned not gay people.
This whole left handed thing is ridiculous. Being left handed does not have the massive influence of affecting major lifestyle choices, such as which sex you are going to love and be attracted to the rest of your life. Being left handed does not spark heated debate about people's rights. The whole idea of that argument is asinine when compared to something as influential as sexual preference.
Your denial of recognizing that biological homosexuality is something that should be treated shows your complete ignorance of widely accepted moral principals in society. Medical intervention is morally licit when designed to correct abnormality. Just like treating any other biological abnormality, like sickle cell anemia, we aren't re-making God's plan...we are simply bringing a known abnormality back into harmony with the rest of us.
I am not convinced homosexuality is at all "abnormal". It does appear to be a bigoted notion. Comparing it to a physical disease is faulty, because gays can be perfectly healthy and not suffer any debilitation of function which your comparison to those diseases would seem to suggest.
Diseases like the examples I gave are biological abnormalities that occur in a minority of people born.
If homosexuality is a biological condition, it too is an abnormality that occurs in a minority of people born. It also has the harmful effect of not preventing that person from joining with a partner he or she can reproduce with.
*Correction, take the 'not' out: "...harmful effect of preventing that person..."
We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes an "abnormality". Red hair and left-handedness could easily qualify under your apparently expansive view of "abnormal". I do not believe they are abnormal.
Your definition is so expansive in order to include the two apparently disparate things, it becomes irrelevant.
It's not that hard...abnormality is anything that is not normal. Things that are normal are things that happen the vast majority of the time. So, yes, red hair can be considered an abnormality. I think you are trying to paint the term "abnormality" as a negative describer, when in fact it is just simply a descriptive term that should not be taken positively or negatively. I can't believe I just had to explain that, but who ever said liberals were good with words? ("Depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...")
Also, you skirted around the major harmful effect of homosexuality: "It also has the harmful effect of preventing that person from joining with a partner he or she can reproduce with."
The bible condemns eating shellfish...so where is the uproar against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? It is funny how the fundamentalists and far-right pundits are obsessed with gay sex. It is even more baffling how they look the other way when religious leaders or politicians that back their views commit adultery, lie, cheat & steal. Perhaps their bibles have a special feature that allows morality to be a buffet that one can pick and choose from?
The simple fact is that all Americans should have the same equal rights regardless of their what they believe in. Until that day we are not a free nation. This is the 21st century despite the efforts of the Bush regime to turn the clock in America back to 1952.
At least America had a sense of pride and national identity in 1952. Minus some of the discriminatory practices that were in bad taste, the country as a whole needs to re-embrace the unity and shared values experienced during those times. The fact that society puts more emphasis on "celebrating diversity" today than celebrating American culture, identity, and unity is sad and disgusting.
"Minus some of the discriminatory practices that were in bad taste, the country as a whole needs to re-embrace the unity and shared values experienced during those times." --john
Bad taste? I think that is one of the biggest understatements I have read in a long while.