Savage called Media Matters "the homosexual mafia"
On the July 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage repeatedly referred to Media Matters for America as the "homosexual mafia" and falsely claimed that a July 3 Media Matters item accused him of "insult[ing] Muslims" because he criticized descriptions of neurosurgeon Mohammed Asha -- one of the suspects arrested in connection with the failed car bombings in England -- as a "brilliant neurologist." In fact, Media Matters simply spotlighted Savage's attack on women who wear burqas, which immediately followed his comments regarding references to Asha as a "brilliant neurologist." Savage said: "Why are they calling one of the Muslim doctors -- one of the terrorists -- a 'brilliant neurologist'? What has he done that makes him brilliant? Dr. Mohammad Asha came in on asylum. ... Oh sure, come in. Bring your entire brood with you. Bring your ... I'd like to use the word I'd use in a bar -- bring your wife with you in a burqa." Savage then said: "[W]hen I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi ... a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children."
As Media Matters documented, on the July 2 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, Savage wondered aloud why Asha was being referred to as a "brilliant neurologist" and criticized the decision to grant Asha and his wife asylum in the United Kingdom. Savage then proceeded to compare women who wear burqas to Nazis. Media Matters included his preceding comments about Asha as part of its policy of publishing the full context of all remarks discussed in its items.
Savage revisited the topic on the July 3 edition of his show, saying, " 'Brilliant neurologist.' I love that line for the Muslim doctor. What made him brilliant? What did he do that was brilliant? I asked that and the homosexual mafia at Media Matters said, 'He insulted Muslims by saying "brilliant neurologist." ' " Savage added: "What, he was a Muslim who was a neurologist? That automatically made him a brilliant neurologist?"
Earlier in the program, Savage had said: "The radical left, the homosexual mafia, and the Islamists are all working together to undermine talk radio to begin with." He continued: "Now, you have to ask yourself, 'Why would the homosexual mafia, in the form of Media Matters, and the Islamists agree that conservative talk radio should be picked off and taken off the air?' " Savage further stated that Media Matters is "continuously try[ing] to catch me in saying something they don't agree with. And yet, what they don't understand is I'm actually trying to save them from destruction." Savage has previously referred to Media Matters as a "gay smear sheet" and a "gay website that attacks me every day."
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 July 3 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Now, I know many of you are on vacation time. I understand that as well. Most of the country is in this kind of dozy, lazy, sleepy business as usual. I don't blame you. I don't blame you for wanting to pretend America is what it was when your father was in this country. No, it's not your father's America. It is not your father's America at all. The radical Islamists are amongst us. They are in cahoots with the radical leftists. They are vigilant and they work 24/7. The radical left, the homosexual mafia, and the Islamists are all working together to undermine talk radio to begin with.
Now, you have to ask yourself, "Why would the homosexual mafia, in the form of Media Matters, and the Islamists agree that conservative talk radio should be picked off and taken off the air?" You have to answer that question yourself because a) you know that liberalism is a mental disorder. We know that what Islamists will do should they win anywhere. They'll kill homosexuals. They'll take away all of the freedoms of women. They'll impose Shariah law, which means no law whatsoever; it's gangsterism.
And yet here's homosexuals at Media Matters. You want to talk about the gay mafia, you don't have to look any further than Media Matters. That's what it is. That's why they continuously try to catch me in saying something they don't agree with. And yet, what they don't understand is I'm actually trying to save them from destruction. Since I can't save them from self-destruction, maybe I can save them from destruction by the Islamists. But I could care less about them. That's their problem. This must be something their mother drank. I don't know what it is.
[...]
SAVAGE: "Brilliant neurologist." I love that line for the Muslim doctor. What made him brilliant? What did he do that was brilliant? I asked that and the homosexual mafia at Media Matters said, "He insulted Muslims by saying, 'brilliant neurologist.' " What did the guy do that made him a brilliant neurologist? What, he was a Muslim who was a neurologist? That automatically made him a brilliant neurologist? Did he discover something I don't know about? How could he have discovered something in neurology if he was busy plotting to maim people, the brilliant Muslim neurologist?
From the July 2 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Why are they calling one of the Muslim doctors -- one of the terrorists -- a brilliant neurologist? What has he done that makes him brilliant? Dr. Mohammed Asha came in on asylum. "Oh please, can we come into England? We're oppressed in our home country." Oh sure, come in. Bring your entire brood with you. Bring your, bring your -- I'd like to use the word I'd use in a bar -- bring your wife with you in a burqa.
You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see -- how do you like that? -- a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children. Don't give me this crap that they're doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It's not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, "You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can." That's how I see it! What do you want me to do, mince words with you? I'm not going to mince words. We're too far gone in this country.
Let's face it.
Savage is totally NUTS.
All he can do now is pander to the crowd who say Rush Limbaugh is "too liberal."
He's not nuts, he just has the mentality of a junior high school boy. Insulting someone by calling them gay is about as mature as making incessant poop jokes.
occasional poop jokes are ok though. baby bush smokes his.
He's just upset that he pools poorly in the DC area. He's probably next for replacement now that Bill O''Reilly was given the boot.
Rush limbaughis just a panderer to the republicans, shurely anyone can agree with this.
a more correct way to put it is to say that he is a conservative alternative to the corrupt/lying/peice of crap republicans.
I wonder if a Differentmccain can comment on the homosexual mafia. I mean, is it like the REAL mafia? Do you guys get "made" like in the Sopranos or what?
Savage, what an idiot.
Can anyone explain what the "homosexual mafia's" agenda really is? Ok, maybe marriage equality, but outside of that what are they really after anyway? And who's in this mafia membership anyway? Do they have meetings detailing their strongarm tactics and who they want to whack? Or is it far more subtle?
Savage plays his gay baiting card whenever he wants to juice up the sound of his own voice apparently........I would imagine his opinions on this topic have about as much influence as say, the gay mafia itself.
"Ok, maybe marriage equality, but outside of that what are they really after anyway"
Marriage equality? Since when did special rights for a certain group of people become "marriage equality?"
Since when did one group of people (gays) wanting the same rights as another group of people, (heterosexuals) become SPECIAL rights instead of the same rights? Do you even spend one second thinking about these mindless talking points before you regurgitate whatever it was that Limbaugh, Weinerdog or Hannity TOLD you to spew?
Solon,
I pretty sure the answer to that is no. Now the mystery is why would a seemingly intelligent man interpret a group of people who happen to be homosexual wanting access to the same civil rights as every other US citizen as wanting "special rights”. I believe this demonstrates the belief of some that some people are better than others and therefore they should receive more rights, a bonus if you will for being better. Bigotry is indeed irrational.I've never heard Limbaugh or Hannity talk about the gay marriage issue, and I listen to both of them fairly often. I just made my own observation. Marriage has always been a committment between one man and one woman. Gays have the same rights as everybody else has. The have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Letting gays marry would give them special rights that no other minority interest group has. If you let gays have the right to get married, you would have to give the same rights to other minority interest groups such as polygamists, NAMBLA types, animal lovers, etc.
It was only a matter of time before beastiality was thrown into the mix. Typical Neo-con double reverse play.
Perhaps those groups are constantly used as an 'ultimate' result of the homosexual agenda because the groups mentioned are so close in reasoning with the homosexual groups. They all are sexually perverted and all feel "their" lifestyle is protected by civil rights. Women are born women, blacks are born blacks...they are due "civil rights". Homosexuals "choose" that lifestyle and are NOT due civil rights. Just like all the other perverted sexual deviants CHOOSE their lifestyle they cannot demand treatment above and beyond what they already have just because they are perverted.
Sorry! But a chosen lifestyle does NOT earn civil rights status.
When did you choose to be straight? You must have done so. It's odd that I've never, ever heard anyone say that they "chose" to be straight, yet we're supposed to believe that gay people "choose" to be gay.
I believe it was Jerry Falwell who said that being gay is a choice, then said he never chose to be straight when asked shortly afterwards. He must have been lying, right?
Because otherwise, if this extremely important life decision never enters the minds of straight people, but it does become an issue for gay people, that shows an inherent difference between the two groups!
Or is your argument that people are born gay, but they don't deserve rights for choosing to act on their natural sexual attractions? That would seem awfully stupid. Either way, your argument falls apart at the seams, as always.
Good point. And not only that. The word "choice" suggests two or more options were once considered. It seems like an admission by these conservatives that they once actually considered homosexuality, but rejected it.
I don't remember ever considering whether I liked women or men more in terms of sexuality. That is what makes it difficult for me to believe it is a choice. Why would homosexuals be any different in the way they feel about sexuality?
That's right. 2 or more choices...I chose to be straight. There are choices out there and to be straight is what I chose to be. I wasn't born that way, but I was raised with the available choices. I chose to be straight, just as gays CHOOSE to be gay.
Okay, Auto, just because you say something with conviction adn firmly believe it to be true, soed not make it a fact. Just because you believe that being gay is a choice, doesn't make it reality. Unless you have "chosen" to be gay yourself or have a trusted friend who says they "chose" to be gay, then you have no proof of your contention. You are simply parroting propaganda (not that this is anything new). Why would someone would "choose" to enter a group that is discriminated against, beaten and killed for their "choice", hated and lied about every waking moment, live in fear and hiding for much of their formative years and youth until they have the strength to come out (or never do so and die miserable). Please explain to me oh wise and all-knowing of other people's inner thoughts.
I do not know why they choose that, any more than I know why some choose to murder when they know they will face the same persecution.
So you actually considered being gay at one time? Seriously?
Not any more than I considered murdering anyone (I like the way you consistantly put different meanings into simple statements) . But, the point is that there are choices, and different people make different choices. Can you agree with that?
No. I never considered homosexuality for even a moment. Believing there is a "choice" suggests a consideration between two things.
Perhaps the fact that you have actually considered homosexuality leads you to an entirely different outlook on the subject than I can possibly comprehend.
Perhaps the fact that you have actually considered homosexuality
What "fact" is that? Are you making things up again? Probably, since that is your only recourse now that you've lost this entire arguement....again. You've been on quite a losing streak, lately, huh?
If you didn't consider homosexuality, then how did you make a choice?
Knowing of a choice doesn't mean you consider it. I've always known murder is a choice, but I've never considered doing it.
Here's what you said before:"I chose to be straight". But at the same time, you didn't consider any other options. So how is that a "choice", exactly, if you really only had one option?
Enough with the damn murder references. Not only is that criminal, it's morally wrong because it harms others, which is nothing like homosexuality. More importantly, that's a specific act, not a sexual lifestyle. The nature of the two things are completely different.
Not only is that criminal, it's morally wrong
Criminal and moral change from day to day with the legal system. It used to be criminal to kill babies, now you demand all accept the practice as a "right". You're fighting a losing battle in this one so you may as well take (not-so) OM's advise and quit while you still have some credence left.
Homosexuality is not moral. And your decision to not practice it does not need participation in it to make up your mind. No different than your participation in murder does not need to take place for you to know it is not moral.
This might shock you but I doubt seriously ANYBODY here accepts YOU as the arbiter of what is and what isnt moral. Feel free to stand on your pedestal and declare that YOU are the one that makes such choices. You can go ahead and throw in that you are Napolean Bonaparte if you want. The two claims are equally delusional
This might shock you but I doubt seriously ANYBODY here accepts YOU as the arbiter of what is and what isnt moral.
It doesn't shock me, I expect it! However, God tells over and over again what He thinks is and what He thinks isn't moral. And, homosexuality isn't moral according to God. It makes NO difference to me whether 'anybody' accepts my opinion, because that's all it is...opinion and I'm perfectly happy with my opinion.
Thats fine for YOU when you think you can define morality for others is when you tip over into complete delusion
That's a good way of deflecting the truth, solon. It isn't MY morality that I follow, so you have no point....again.
AUTOsidekicK!! Uuummm... when did God tell you what is *moral* (notice how close to 'normal' this sounds), and what did SHE say is moral? Should we follow morality, as transcribed by UNHOLY DIRTY DIRTY HUMANS?? Or, should we listen to the divine in all of us...
"L", for you to call someone "unholy" you must have a rationale of what "holy" is. Do you? What is "holy" in your world?
'Holy' is what I think is good in this world... notice it is SUBJECTIVE- just like YOUR beliefs as to what is 'moral'... and, to answer you, what IS 'holy', in my view is respect and goodwill towards onesself and others... being caring and sharing, truthful, kind, generous, courageous, accepting of others, forgiving, etc...- you know, all the things you learn as a 6 YEAR OLD!!
Good is not subjective. There are absolute right and wrongs. I have had this discussion with my wife about other cultures. She has said that what's immoral here might not be immoral in say, the middle east because their culture is different. For them it's not immoral to stone an aduldterous wife(notice how the husbands never get stoned..)to death. It's "right" for them.
That's a very egocentric and narcissitic way to view the world I think. Some things are gray. But some are black and white.
And I can't believe that anything Savage would say would generate so many posts. The guys mildly entertaining but he's obviously not to be taken seriously.
Of course I do, you just arent bright enough to get it. YOU dont get to define for anyone else what is and isnt moral based on YOUR take or YOUR religious beliefs. Not everyone believes like you do. Perhaps YOU think homsexuality is immoral, that isnt the last word on the matter and your OPINION does not obligate everyone to believe the same way.
Of course I do, you just arent bright enough to get it. YOU dont get to define for anyone else what is and isnt moral based on YOUR take or YOUR religious beliefs
Back to the name calling?.....must have lost another arguement.
I never claimed anyone had to follow my idea of morals. You claim I said that, in which case you are wrong again. I never claimed to define morals for anyone else, I stated what my beliefs are, in which case you are wrong again. Try your favorite phrase: reading comprehension! You don't do too good when you're not cussing and cursing the other poster, do you?
First you claim I had no point. I of course did and only pointed out an obvious reason why you might not get that point. You were being civil and it was probably uncalled for. I will try to be more circumspect, on the other hand since you have at least twice claimed I NEVER make posts without insults I dont know how much trouble I ought to go to.
Second, you have to be kidding about cussing or cursing. Do you know what those words mean? I dont care EITHER you are trying to claim that you DO have the right to say what is moral for everyone I mean the statement you made that homsexuality was not moral didnt say that was YOUR belief rather stated as fact, OR as I stated at least twice thats fine believe what you will however the context of this discussion is what proper for a society to about gay marriage if you are confining your beliefs to that only and not trying to impinge them on society as a whole then you arent making any argument at ALL about the topic so no I am not wrong you are just reaching. Try to keep up, remember what we are talking about again? Thats right do you have anything to contribute or are you just demostrating your great piety by arbitrarily and irrelevantly telling us all about YOUR beliefs?
Auto, it is pointless arguing the gay stuff on here. These "progressive" people have no core beliefs, no substance. I have previously pointed out to them the point you made: if being gay is a choice, then it deserves no civil rights. Also, I have pointed out that if it is genetic and science can pin down the problem, we will be able to come up with a cure for it. And yes, if genetic, it is a disease with the very harmful effect of preventing an otherwise healthy person from joining with another person they can produce children with.
Those really are the only 2 ways that homosexuality can be explained, choice or genetic, and neither of them deserve to be rewarded with so called "marriage rights." However, despite the clarity of the situation, the people here will never buckle to you no matter what evidence or truth you present. Save yourself the anger; pass these value-less people off as nutbags, and people like you and me can go about living our normal, wholesome lives.
Why do some people need 'a cure' for their sexual orientation? I am fine with who I am- and so are gay people... And if being a bigot is YOUR idea of 'wholesome', then you would have no problem with the 'gay homosexual mafia' impeding on your rights to marry, correct?
Yes you have previously made the point of how stupid you are. How wonderful of you to do it again. Insanely ignorant. If it is genetic then it is a disease? You mean like being left handed? You are a bigot, a very ignorant bigot. Since your rant was basically an outpouring of ignorance and bigotry there is no realy need to address it further. It is so much better to let the stench of it hang there like rotting meat only more offensive. YOU are a complete moron, I mean you do know that right?
If it's genetic, and a "disease", then you shouldn't have any problem with gay people marrying each other until you find a "cure".
Why would you deny such a thing to someone because they were born with a disease? That's truly despicable.
So if your basis for "choosing" heterosexuality is purely your moral take on it, then if that factor is removed you could be gay. If homosexuality were not immoral in your mind, then you could very well choose that path.
Which means you must find men and women equally attractive. Because if you don't, then you're doing what you find to be the natural thing to do.
Autopsychic,
Just put down the shovel and climb out of the hole.
Really? Did you put a lot of thought into being straight?
If it was really some sort of concious decision, then you must find men as attractive as you do women. Otherwise, there's no choice to be made.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
You CHOSE to be straight? That is so odd. I remember when I was about 8, I really wasnt thinking about sex yet, I went to see the movie One Million BC. A terrible movie that was made mostly to show of Raquel Welch's body and what a body. I remember thinking, even at that tender age, I gotta get me one of those. That big hairy guy? Not so much. You cannot show this is a choice. You only baselessly assert that because it allows you to make the argument you just made. Well that is YOUR assertion so its your burden of proof to back it up. So cough up your evidence this is a choice.
I can't believe it but I'm actually going to agree with you here. At least as far as the "choosing" part. Who would choose to be gay?
As far as deserving access to marriage I'm not so sure they're entitled to that"right" but if they want the same misery and the loss of assets as the rest of us I say, be careful what you wish for.
Sure why shouldnt they be as miserable as the rest of us. Actually I love being married but thats me.
Auto, can you really believe that someone wakes up and decided to be apart of a group who is treated by some as lower than human waste? You are living on planet Mars if you believe that people DECIDED to be gay. Pastor Ted Haggard has tried for most of his life NOT to be something that he is, GAY and being "married" can't change that.
I'm interested to know how YOU can say what pastor Ted thought for his entire life, or even what he battled with. From everything I've read, he chose one lifestyle then didn't like it and chose another. Being in his profession, he certainly knows the ramifications of his choice. But, since YOU know what Ted thinks and feels maybe we should ask YOU why he chose what he chose!
The way I see it, pastor Ted's essence is homosexual. He tried to deny it to himself and to the world, but you can only deny your true self for so long. The truth eventually sets you free.
His "essence"?!? Ha ha ha....that's a good one! I wonder what God will say when he uses that excuse.
I think you would do much better to rehearse your own excuses.
What that be the War God of whom you speak?
Haggard may be bisexual, but there's no possible way that he's merely gay. He wouldn't be able to have three kids if he was gay. If he was only attracted to men and not women it wouldn't have been possible for him to have sex with his wife.
You can make a distinction between heterosexual, homosexual and bi-sexual. Personally, I can only understand my own orientation and cannot identify with bisexuality or homosexuality. I will have to take your word for it.
Personally, I can only understand my own orientation and cannot identify with bisexuality or homosexuality.
You're starting to sound like quite the 'homophobe'. Why do you hate gays? How does hating gays, like you say you do, fit into your liberal belief system?
And your becoming quite the mindreader. Where did I ever say that I hate gays? It is simply a foreign concept to me that I don't pretend to understand as well as some of you conservatives who seem to be more familiar with those kinds of thoughts.
I do not believe in judging homosexuals or limiting their rights the way many conservatives want to do. I simply give homosexuals the benefit of the doubt as I hope they grant me.
You are kidding right? Of course it is physically possible for Gay men to have sex with a woman. There are many Gay men that are married and have children that is what the closet is all about
How could they get an erection if they aren't turned on by women?
Close your eyes and fantasize.
This isnt the venue to explain basic sexual stimulation to you. I cannot believe someone should have to.
Maybe that's because you can't explain how a GAY man can be sexually stimulated by a woman that he's not supposed to be physically attracted to.
I shouldnt have to. Just how dumb are you anyway? Ever make love to your wife and fantasize she is someone else? That is only a minor hint again this is not the venue to go into details here and anyone above the age of 10 shouldnt need them.
Ever make love to your wife and fantasize she is someone else?
No. If that's how you do it, then you might consider seeing a marriage counselor. Hate to think you have such disrespectful feelings toward her that you can't even appreciate her for who she is.
Are you kidding me? This is a pretty common thing. Also I made no assertions about what I DO, man you guys really dont know much about sex do you?
"Ever make love to your wife and fantasize she is someone else"
No. And that's pretty messed up that you actually do that. Talk about doing something incredibly warped and incredibly dumb. You really do need marriage counseling or perhaps psychological counceling if actually do what you claim you do. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.
First I never said I did any such thing. You asked a question, I was only partially answering to give you a bit of a hint. You have some serious sexual hangups and I think its YOU that needs counseling. You really dont know anything at ALL about sex do you?
Rino, I'm just curious...
Where does all this supposed knowledge you haev of gays and what they can and can't do come from?
It's just common sense. It's not hard to figure out. If you're not sexually stimulated by the opposite sex then it's not possible to have sex with them. A ten year old could figure that out.
So all that prison rape that goes on...it just happens that everyone who does that was already gay?
I think that would be 'bi-sexual'. But, I don't know any prisoners, so I'm just guessing. Perhaps you have first hand experience and that is where you draw your knowledge of prison life from?
So everyone who commits rape in prison was bisexual before going to prison? Either way.
Funny, you were just whining about people insulting you and claiming that showed they were losing the argument. Yet, you're suggesting I'm a convict who's engaged in homosexual rape?
Heal thyself, jackass.
Yet, you're suggesting I'm a convict who's engaged in homosexual rape?
You didn't deny it. I don't recall doing any whining, perhaps you interpret when I was running all you supporters of the gay lifestyle into the ground as being 'whiney'. Otherwise, I think I'm just stating the facts as I see them.
You are so delusional you are getting taken apart like happens every time you try your weak and massively ignorant arguments. Ya got no game man. Dont you get yet how absolutly easy you are? Surely you cant be delusional enough to think you even hold your own in ANY of these debates. You are batting practice at BEST.
You weren't complaining about Solon insulting you? Really?
Of course I deny it. You are only furthering your hypocrisy here by refusing to withdraw your idiotic comment.
The statistics show that most people who claim to be gay are actually bi-sexual to some degree. I claimed that Haggard was probably bi-sexual. I never claimed that he was completely straight.
Auto, the good pastor stood before a congregation of his followers and preached each Sunday that homosexuality was a sin and then found and gay escort to spend time with.
My gay friends have all told the story of trying, some desperately to not be gay. Why would anyone CHOOSE a lifestyle that will have people who no nothing about them judging them? Hair color you choose. Eye color you can change. What God made you is what you are.
If we try to create a society LESS judgemental maybe people like the good pastor and others will realize that people have NO right to judge, only GOD!
"Only God judges"
Isn't that what I just said? Would you be wiling to wait until you meet Him before you decided to follow His rules? It seems simple, to me, if you believe in God then you do what He says, right? Why risk His wrath trying to do what you want?
The problem is that no one knows for sure exactly what God wants us to do. Some do a good job pretending to know.
Sure we know. Just read the Bible. Oh, wait, you only believe in the parts that don't conflict with your personality. Sorry, then you're right 'you don't know'.
Thanks for the perfect example to demonstrate my point.
: )
Example? Didn't you say (previously) that you only believe 3 or 4 books of the Bible, and that the rest are open for individual interpretation?
Reread the post you replied to. You can't really be this dense.
Some do a good job pretending to know.
Oh, you were talking about yourself. I thought you meant God was pretending to know how He wants us to live our lives. Sorry, my bad
I stand corrected. You are that dense.
I know you're talking about me. I remember you saying that you only believe in the Gospel's of the Bible and do not believe that Jesus is God, so I just had fun with the fact you pointed out " Some do a good job pretending to know " when you don't know either, but complained about me not knowing.
I just have a problem with people who argue the Bible is an absolute authority when people often interpret it differently. My argument is that no one can really know for sure whether their interpretation is correct or not. It comes down to a matter of opinion. That goes for myself as well. If I have ever represented my own religious opinion as absolute fact, then I was wrong. It is not my intention to presume that kind of authority. I admit I may come across that way in my frequent role as the devil's advocate in some of these conversations.
Always such a wrathful god...always so intolerant and angry. So ready to hate. Your god's alter-ego is Archie Bunker.
It seems simple, to me, if you believe in God then you do what He says, right?- Auto
It also says, "Slaves, obey your masters." That's new testament. It says if you -- Jesus says you must hate your mother and father and brother and sister if you're going to follow me. You want to take that literally? Does that mean I have got to hate my parents to follow Jesus?
"Jesus says you must hate your mother and father and brother and sister if you're going to follow me"
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Jesus said to love everybody. That's utterly ridiculous.
"Jesus says you must hate your mother and father and brother and sister if you're going to follow me"
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? That's utterly ridiculous. Jesus said to love everybody.
It is NOT ridiculous. Apparantly you dont know your bible.
Try Luke 14: 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
See that is the thing. Much of the bible takes interpretation, like all sacred literature does. So claiming that liberals reject the bible because we interpret this part or that part differently is just inane.
The passage simply means that Jesus should be #1 in our lives. It means that we should love him more than anybody else.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html
That's interesting. I thought you were a Bible literalist. The argument your link describes calls such language hyperbole, which I would think a literalist would necessarily object to.
Thats fine you have your interpretation. THAT is the point. It is about interpretation and it was FAR from ludicrous to cite this as saying you have to hate your mother and father as that IS what it says.
It's obvious that the verse is saying we should put God first and a believer's devotedness to Jesus Christ should be such that, by comparison, it looks as if everything else is hated. All terms which define affections are comparative.
I guess if you don't love Jesus Christ, then that verse would seem harsh.
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. The "one man, one woman" thing is arbitrary and it could easily be adjusted to "one consenting adult human to another" and that would exclude ALL those animal lovers and pedifiles that you mention. We are talking about marriage in the legal sense, which is nothing more than a civil contract. If you don't want your church to accept gay marriage, then go nuts, but we are not talking about that, we are talking about a civil contract that excludes certain people who are not involved in harmful behavior (which is how pedifilia can be excluded). Marrying animals can be excluded because an animal cannot enter into a legal contract. Case closed.
The main reason that gay marriage should remain illegal is a reason that nobody ever mentions. The government simply shouldn't recognize homosexual relationships. If it did that, it would be condoning the homosexual lifestyle, which is something that the Bible says is an abomination. The government shouldn't stop two gay people from living together and having sexual relations within the privacy of their own home, but neither should it recognize homosexual relationships. Gays are not being discriminated against. Nobody is stopping them from living together and sharing a life together.
Rino,
We don't condone or condemn things because the Bible says it. We do so based on our consititution and our laws. The Bible is a wonderful book and a wonderful guide to live by, if you so choose.
Tommy,
Each of us have different values that we share, and I disagree with you that the government shouldn't legislate morality. They do it all the time. I vote for people who share my values on issues that the Bible is clear on. Others vote for people who share their values. Their values are simply different from mine. We all vote for candidates who share our values on particular issues, and we battle it out through the arena of ideas. It's called democracy. The issue should be decided by each individual state. The people should have the right to vote on such a controversial issue.
Rino,
We weren't talking about voting preferences, of course you and I and everyone has the right to vote for people who share our values. And it isn't about legislating morality, it's about making laws that coincide with biblical beliefs - you would agree that is at odds with our consitutition?
Sanctioning civil unions between two people who are committed to one another and giving them equal rights under the law is a good thing. How that is harmful to anyone escapes me.
But we respectfully disagree.
Okay, tommy, I'll bite. How is it "at odds with our constitution" to follow Biblical principles when deciding laws? It seems to work for murder and stealing and lieing. Are there some laws that are on the books that "aren't" based on Biblical principals??
You can't legitimately base laws on matters of faith. It's arbitrary and unfair to people who don't believe in the Bible. If our laws are based on the ten commandments, why is dishonoring your mother and father not a felony? Why is it that the government doesn't dictate it mandatory to worship God, and no other deities, and no idols?
The reason that murder and theft are illegal is because they harm other people. That's based on societal, humanistic principles. As I've said many times, it's not as if Moses brought forth "thou shalt not kill" and everyone was slack-jawed in amazement that such a thing was wrong.
Lying is a perfect example to refute your case, thank you for bringing it up. There is no law against general lying. If your friend lies to you about something they did, it's not like you can call the cops on him. It's only a legal issue when it affects someone's livelihood (libel or slander) or when it's in the course of a criminal investigation. That's the perfect distinction to prove the point! As a general moral issue, it's not illegal, but when societal and humanist issues come into play, then it is.
The Bible merely coincides with some legal principles, by no means does it dictate them. I hope this helps clear that up for you.
That seems to be the main arguement, huh? "Moral" laws v. "legal" laws. Honor thy father/mother seem to make moral sense since they would have more knowledge and experience and would give good guidance. Don't murder makes good moral sense, and don't steal make good moral sense. Legal laws change as man's moral gauge changes, but Biblical morals stay constant. Perhaps one day there will be a society that thinks murder is moral. But, it will still be immoral according to Biblical standards.
Yes, Biblical morals do stay constant, that's a key factor as to why they are irrelevent as far as the law goes. They don't keep up with current circumstances, and that's what the law has to address. Society changes, circumstances change, and that's why the law can't be based on a set of principles cemented in time.
Why would society accept murder? There would have to be some extreme extenuating circumstance in order to do that. If that was the case, wouldn't you want law to be able to adjust to those extreme circumstances? I know I would, because there would have to be an awfully good reason for that.
"why would society accept murder"? Haven't you heard of societies that are cannabilistic? Would you consider that murder or simply survival? If you say survival, then why are we not allowed to do the same thing? If you say murder, then there's the answer to your question.
Jesus, don't you remember what you type?
"Perhaps one day there will be a society that thinks murder is moral. But, it will still be immoral according to Biblical standards.
The context here is clearly a society that didn't accept murder, and largely adheres to Biblical standards. So now you're talking about real societies, not "perhaps one day".
If that's a matter of survival in the societies you speak of, then we can't do the same thing here now because the circumstances are different. If we have a future society where overpopulation has exploded beyond all control and food supplies are low, then cannibalism would be largely accepted. It would be horrible, but people will do it if the other choice is death.
You didn't answer the question, but it doesn't matter, you went on a rant that was unrelated.
So, by your acceptance that Biblical morals stay constant and legal morals constantly change, that could explain why liberals (in general) wish to change the constitution to allow more immoral activities. That would explain why liberals (in general) seem to think the constitution isn't Biblically based, because if it were then their heads would explode from having to obey a religious artifact.
Thanks for helping clear that up.
I answered your question. I'm not an expert on cannibalistic societies, I don't know if survival really depends on it or not. But I said if it is survival, the reason we can't do it now is because we don't need to do it. The circumstances would be different. What did you ask that I did not address?
The reason liberals believe the Constitution was not based on the Bible is because it's not. Religion has no place in governance whatsoever. That's exactly why they shall not make any law respecting the establishment of it. If you choose to base your behavior on faith, that's your choice. You don't get to force it on everyone, though, sorry.
A better question is why conservatives think THEY are the ones that get to decide what is and what ISNT moral and I for one in NO WAY accept that all bibilcal morals are considered to be an unchanging constant. Eat Pork? Lobster? Ban your wife from the house during menstruation? Sell your childern into slavery?
Eat Pork? Lobster? Ban your wife from the house during menstruation? Sell your childern into slavery?
How are any of those examples related to morals? Eating food is a moral activity? Banning your wife from the house is a moral issue? Selling you childern....(BTW)who was doing that?
They're in the Bible. I thought that was God's word, and what you lived by.
barbie, you missed the question. I asked what makes those 'moral' activities. Is eating a moral activity? If you don't know, that's fine. I wouldn't expect a rational response from those who don't know.
They're immoral according to the Bible. That's the point. The nature of the activity has nothing to do with morality, that's why Biblical morals don't necessarily mean squat.
Its using the same source ie levitican laws for the same prohibitions as homsexuality, this is really quite simple any five year old with a normal IQ should be able to understand the point, find one to explain it to you.
All those are in the same levitican laws as the prohibition against homosexuality. Eating shellfish is called an abomination just like homosexuality is. IF you are going to base your view that the bible says its wrong so its immoral to homosexuality how are you excepting THESE things?
Again you show you dont understand history. Cannabalistic tribes didnt eat their children or neighbors. It was a ritualistic practice eating parts of their enemies killed in battle. A heart if the enemy was courageous or the brain if he was cunning. So unless you think that soldiers killing one another is murder then your argument is a weak one.
"Why would society accept murder"
We already have. 45 million babies have been murdered in this country since 1973. Extending the right to murder to those who have been born wouldn't be that much of a stretch. I doubt if our founding fathers could've ever imagined that we would have abortion on demand in this country which leads to 1 million deaths per year. Circumstances change, and it wouldn't surprise me to see other forms of murder become legal within 100 years or so.
You have an addiction to slippery slopes. There must be some sort of 12-step program for people like you.
You really are out of your mind, you know? I mean really, nobody supports abortion because they like "killing babies". So why on earth would it carry over to people who are born? It's truly absurd, because nobody would ever push for that. Seriously, seek some professional help. Please, I'm being sincere, check yourself in somewhere.
It's truly absurd, because nobody would ever push for that.
One word: euthanasia
It seems there is a slippery slope in your own backyard. When those who support killing the elderly and handicapped stop supporting it, then your statement will make sense. It does not, now!
It seemed to me Rino was talking about infanticide or run-of-the-mill homocide, not letting people who want to die do so. I don't think hardly anyone wants to kill people who want to continue living, so there's not going to be any great movement for that.
Of course, that would be wrong, and people should have their painful, miserable lives stretched out as long as you say they should be, based on some two thousand year old book. Letting people die equals murder.
Ah, the joys of moral absolutism.
And exactly WHO is advocating killing the elderly and handicapped? Not allowing THEM to decide when they want to die but KILLING THEM? I know of no one.
Here's one liberal who thinks the government should kill off the weak and the elderly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
That is just one person. It doesn't prove anything except that this individual has extreme views.
That's hilarious! Everytime anyone talks about extremist right-wingers who actually have voices in the media (Coulter, Beck, Savage, Robertson), we hear that they don't represent anyone and/or nobody takes them seriously. But one obscure liberal is going to be the start of a massive cultural shift that's going to lead us to kill people against their will.
Brilliant!
OK when he represents a movement or has some reasonable claim to speak for liberals get back to us until then there is still no liberal euthanasia agenda
" Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in, among other things, the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. "
Think about what YOU'VE said regarding the elderly and pain/suffering. So, now there's at least 2 liberals who support euthanasia. And, since most (if not all) liberals think alike...it is an agenda! Face it, you liberals think alike because you are told to. When you get the ability to think on your own perhaps some of these 'culture of death' ideas will start to fade away and people will focus on LIVING instead of DYING!!!
Oh my God I can't stop laughing.
Here's someone who tells us over and over that the Bible is God's word. According to who? Did God personally tell you this, or did people tell you?
ALL faith is based on the teaching of man. You give us these planted axioms about what God thinks is immoral, then you have the nerve to talk about liberals believing things because they're told to?
Wow!
ALL faith is based on the teaching of man
NO! The teachings of God. Who, BTW, gives us free will to do as we please and make the choices we want....right or wrong- we make our own choices. Liberals just do as they are told with no free will or ability to comprehend.
What God? Have you spoken to Him? Has he presented Himself to you?
See, before you were saying that you chose to be straight, based on the immorality of being homosexual (otherwise, you could be gay, because you made a choice in the matter). So, unless God has spoken to you directly about these matters, then you are just doing what other people are telling you to do. You are denying yourself your implied attraction to men because someone is telling you that God doesn't want you to be with one.
What God? Have you spoken to Him? Has he presented Himself to you?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And did he produce good ID?
WOW. Your ignorance is reaching the level of insanity. You need to increase your medication. Be sure to get your mommy to give it to you since you are WAY too stupid to read the directions for yourself. I certainly never advocated euthanasia, you are obviously mistaking your own sad inability to think for yourself or even at all actually with other people. Liberals are not the onese that repeat the propaganda parrot talking points endlessly, that would be YOU. Then again being incapable of thinking for yourself which is apparant to everyone who is brave enough to even read the tripe you post I guess you just assume everyone listens to a screechmonkey and repeats what he says like you do. No see us liberals are actually capable of higher brain function sadly it is clear you never will be. I think its time you left your mommy's basement and went to play with the other special children. I am sure even they feel sorry for you.
"Think about what YOU'VE said regarding the elderly and pain/suffering. So, now there's at least 2 liberals who support euthanasia."--autopsych
And conversely you support prolonged elderly pain and suffering against their own wishes? Sounds kind of selfish to me. It seems you confuse the idea of "murdering the unwanted" with the empathy needed to let a loved one go unselfishly with their dignity entact. Considering empathy does not seem to be your strongsuit, I can understand your confusion on that matter.
"And, since most (if not all) liberals think alike..."--autopsych
I can see where you might think that as we almost monolithically reject most of what you say. I suppose in a similarly generalized way most sane people also think alike.
"...it is an agenda! Face it, you liberals think alike because you are told to."--autopsychic
Actually I was raised in a very conservative area. There were no real liberals to tell me what to think. Just blowhard conservatives. My liberalism grew largely out of a rejection of much of what I saw and heard of conservatives and objected to.
"When you get the ability to think on your own perhaps some of these 'culture of death' ideas will start to fade away and people will focus on LIVING instead of DYING!!!"--autopsychic
It is pretty interesting to be lectured by you about thinking on my own. Especially after you have referred me to your religious guru's website on one occasion when you had some apparent difficulty replying to one of my posts.
That notwithstanding, I believe the government has a genuine and legitimate interest in making sure such important end of life decisions are made competently and that should be the ultimate extent of government involvement. If someone in their right mind makes an end of life decision regarding only themselves, it should simply be respected. Otherwise forcing them to live on, often in pure agony against their will in order to satisfy your apparent sense of entitlement to keep a bumper sticker on your car in good faith is utter cruelty.
They were never babies. And who are you to command a stranger's womb? Time for the real men to stand up, for the priests of Jehovah come to rape our women with their laws.
So biblical precepts remain constant? Then I assume you dont eat Pork or shellfish or lobster? Nor wear cloth sewn with two different threads? You dont do anything on the Sabbath?
Before I can answer that, solon...WHEN is the sabbath? And, how do you rationalize that ONE day as being the sabbath as compared to any other day of the week?
Hey, Autosidekick- why don't YOU tell us when the sabbath is... you apparently read stuff by.. by DIRTY DIRTY UNGODLY MALES!!
Well it depends. To the ancient Jews, almost unique in the world a day was from sunset to sunset not from sunrise to sunrise so to THEM it was Friday night to Saturday night. To modern Christians it is usually Sunday. I personally take it that I set aside a day to be and not to make or do. I dont have a problem that it isnt a certain day then again I am not a literalist. That is picking one of my examples. Eat pork? Lobster? Wear clothes sewn with two kinds of cloth? Make your wife leave the house during her menstruation period?
I personally take it that I set aside a day to be and not to make or do. I dont have a problem that it isnt a certain day then again I am not a literalist.
I don't know what being a "literalist" has to do with it. I didn't realize the Bible ever mentioned "Friday" or "Saturday" by name. As for eating pork and fish and wearing clothes, aren't those requirements directed at the Jewish people? You seem to be quite the Biblical expert, here, tell us who God was speaking to and what was His intent when He wrote that.
Of course I am an expert at what it means to me and since the bible says he will write his precept in our hearts THAT is what it is all about I already told you what it means to me. We dont have to have it spelled out in the bible since the Jews who WROTE it have kept the tradition since BEFORE the time of Jesus. That is why I started with what the Jews say. The point that is another way in which it has changed. The Jews are strict about it being Friday night to Saturday night. The Christians say Sunday. Keeping a Sabbath has evolved. Of course this might have been what was meant all along but it isnt what tradition has defined the Sabbath as all along. See these things arent written in stone.
Our founding fathers were very religous people who used biblical principles when writing the Constitution. Several of the ten commandments are laws that we currently have in the United States. Murder and stealing are the two main ones. We were founded under Judeo-Christian principles, and our founding fathers intented for our country to be "One nation, UNDER GOD." Of course the Constitution is the ultimate law of our country and not the Bible, but it's simply wrong to say that our founding fathers didn't have biblical principles in mind when writing the Constitution.
Now, where do you get the "under god" thing from? There's no mention of God in the Constitution, is there? It was put on money in the fifties, if I remember rightly. As well as in the pledge of allegiance, which you are claiming as proof of the intent of the Founding Fathers. The pledge was written in 1892, for crying out loud, even if it had originally held that phrase!
Again, the principles that happen to be in both the law and the Bible, regarding murder and theft, are principles that are agreed upon completely outside of the realm of religion. It's as if the Bible said that hitting yourself in the head with a rock was a sin, and doctors told you that it was a bad idea to do, would you claim that medicine was based on the Bible?
There is simply nothing in the Constitution that relies on faith of any sort. It is all based on societal, humanist principles. Just because the Founding Fathers believed in a creator, that doesn't mean they were basing anything on the Bible.
"Our founding fathers were very religous people who used biblical principles when writing the Constitution."--rino hunter
Actually many of the Founding Fathers were Deists and/or admired Deist inspired ideas and many of whom didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Give your examples of these supposed purely "biblical principles" I seem to have missed.
"Several of the ten commandments are laws that we currently have in the United States. Murder and stealing are the two main ones."--rino hunter
You said "several", but you only named two of them (ones that would seem to be illegal even in non-christian countries BTW). Are you trying to stretch things here? Where is coveting your neighbor's a$$ against the law? How about the First Commandment? If that was an actual law, we would necessarily be a theocracy.
"We were founded under Judeo-Christian principles,"--rino hunter
No. We were founded using Age of Reason and more generally Age of Enlightenment principles mainly by John Locke, Montesquieu and Classical Roman and Greek philosophies. Reason, Science and Rationality are the bases for our law - not religion.
and our founding fathers intented for our country to be "One nation, UNDER GOD."--rino hunter
And your basis for that is...mindreading? Under God wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1950's. It is kind of hard to see what argument you are making with that.
Of course the Constitution is the ultimate law of our country and not the Bible, but it's simply wrong to say that our founding fathers didn't have biblical principles in mind when writing the Constitution."--rino hunter
If it is indeed wrong to say that, there is scant evidence it is wrong in your post.
Of all the Commandments only THREE are laws similar to those in the USA...murder, theft, perjury. All of which are common to ALL law codes everywhere in every land on the planet! Moses' didn't invent those laws, they existed for ages before, if only oral custom.
All the other commandments violate our rights as Americans! We are allowed to covet our neighbours arse. We are allowed to commit adultery. Graven images and taking names in vain is perfectly legal. No government in our minds or our bedrooms, free to live, speak and think as we desire. Liberty! That's what it means, not being forced by religious laws to jail anyone one religion hates, all for total conformity. The First Commandment is a direct statement of religious establishment and rejects the First Amendment in body and spirit. Well, guess what, the Bill of Rights wins. We are allowed to have other gods or goddesses before your Jehovah.
It's time for new religion. The old ones just fight all the time. The world can change again, it has before.
You are amazingly wrong. This country was founded on Enlightenment principals not religous principles. And no not SEVERAL of the 10 comandments but only the two you addressed in fact our constitution PROTECTS the right to disobey the commandment against making graven images, Idolotry, and having another God before the biblical God. Many of our founding fathers were deists and distrusted the intersection of religion and government.
Thomas Jefferson said he knew of no example of a priest ridden people remaining free. Franklin said Lighthouses are more useful than Churches. Again you just assert that which you WISH were true but it is a fantasy.
"It seems to work for murder and stealing and lieing. Are there some laws that are on the books that "aren't" based on Biblical principals??"--autopsych
The things you mention can be reasonably demonstrated to be wrong independent of the Bible as is the case with most of our laws.
Our system of laws and the Constitution were wisely based on Age of Reason and Classical Roman and Greek philosophy of law and not much at all on Biblical principles - thankfully.
Murder and lying were crimes before the Bible was written. Or did Adam and Eve's children get punished for something else?
Right, they had 'moral' laws. 'Legal' law came later. That's what the Bible teaches throughout (IMHO)...morallity. Which in turn became guides for legal laws (which often change depending on whose morallity you follow).
Aspects of the Bible reflect moral law, just as our current laws do. They come from the same source. That's why our laws aren't based on the Bible.
I think you're confused because you are associating "morals" with "religion". They're not the same thing at all. I understand the moral reasoning behind not killing or stealing, yet I don't believe in God or the Bible.
Religion was not the mother of morals, you know. Humanity was.
"I understand the moral reasoning behind not killing or stealing, yet I don't believe in God or the Bible"
How can you have any morals if you don't believe in God? Where do you get your morals from? If there really is no God, then that means that humans are no better than animals. Animals have no morals, and if we were no different from animals we wouldn't have any morals either.
What differentiates us from animals is that we have a soul. God tells us what is right and wrong through our souls. Whenever you hear your conscience telling you that something is wrong, that's really the holy spirit talking to you. That's the voice that you hear.
"How can you have any morals if you don't believe in God? Where do you get your morals from?"
From a respect for people and society, and a sense of empathy. That's really much more important than faith, honestly.
"If there really is no God, then that means that humans are no better than animals. Animals have no morals, and if we were no different from animals we wouldn't have any morals either."
We have the ability to reason. That's a hell of a big difference from animals. Your assertion is so absurd it's almost difficult to believe you can actually believe it. By your logic, any sense of right and wrong, any level of thought higher than base primal instinct proves that there is an invisible father figure that watches over all we do. It's completely laughable.
"What differentiates us from animals is that we have a soul. God tells us what is right and wrong through our souls. Whenever you hear your conscience telling you that something is wrong, that's really the holy spirit talking to you. That's the voice that you hear."
Well, that's also a bit odd. I mean, societal standards and mores have changed over the centuries. How? If God is talking to us, telling us what's right and wrong, why does the behavior change?
Slavery, for instance, is not accepted in our society. But the Bible tells how to treat slaves, does it not? It doesn't say that owning them is a sin, right? So God pretty much admits that he wasn't telling people not to do these things at that time (through his written word, remember), yet today he tells people through their consciences that it's wrong. Hmmm. Did God change his mind? Or are these "soul" and "conscience" things updates on his original human design?
Again, the difference between humans and animals is that we can reason. A "soul" is simply a romantic rationalizion of a brain's recognition of its own existence.
"How can you have any morals if you don't believe in God? Where do you get your morals from? If there really is no God, then that means that humans are no better than animals."--rino hunter
Do you believe that the Golden Rule only makes sense if you believe in God? I think it would make sense regardless of whether a religious context is present.
Secondly, would you be good if you knew there wasn't a God? I would be good, personally either way. I like to live in a world where people are good to each other, so I try my best to be good to others. It is reasonable not to kill or steal if not simply because you would not want to be the victim of such crimes yourself.
"It is reasonable not to kill or steal if not simply because you would not want to be the victim of such crimes yourself"
That's actually a biblical commandment. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Also, I wouldn't have the same morals if I didn't believe in God. I don't think that I would go around killing people, but I'd certainly be more likely to have random unprotected sex with multiple women, take drugs, get drunk all the time, etc. I don't do those things now because the Bible says that they're wrong. But I don't think I would have any problem with these things if I didn't believe in God and biblical truth.
Uh .. I hate to burst your bubble there, Rino, but there have been many examples of "Godly" men who went around living pretty immoral lives on the side.
Being a Christian is no guarantee of being a good, moral person. Some of the worst people I know call themselves Christians. And some of the best people I know are atheists. Not everyone fits into this nice little box you seem to want to put them in. Too bad for you.
I'm not saying that all Christians are moral or that all atheists are immoral. I'm just saying that the Bible helps me to live a more moral life. There's a lot of immoral things that I would be much more likely to do if I didn't believe in biblical truth.
My point is that EVERYBODY has morals to some extent because God gives us morals. Even if you don't read the Bible, you still have a conscience that tells you right and wrong. Your conscience is really God talking to you, whether you realize that or not. If there was no God we wouldn't be able to tell right from wrong, because we would be no different from animals.
We are able to tell right from wrong because we can reason and have formed a society that enforces standards. If you're going to forward this nonsense again, I would like you to address my post above. Otherwise, you are posting something you know you can't support in any way.
Thank you.
"We are able to tell right from wrong because we can reason"
And God is the one who gave you the ability to reason. We wouldn't be able to reason without our creator who gave us that ability.
Yes, but of course you realize that is a belief and not a fact. Individuals are welcome to speculate for themselves where such abilities come from.
You've gone from nonreligious morality to creationism in less than one page. Way to veer off-topic, Rino! I suppose next you're going to tell us all about the Rupture and why Judas died two different ways in the Gospels, not that any of that matters.
Well then, God has given us a separate, independent system by which to form our own rules and laws, outside of the Bible or his voice piped into your brain. Therefore, morality does not depend on belief in Him, nor does the Constitution. There's two of your arguments that you have shot down on your own with one post. Impressive work, indeed.
The argument that "God gave us the ability to reason" is one of faith anyway. There's nothing about our intellectual abilities that indicates they could come about only through God's design. Your argument boils down to "since we can conceive of a higher power, there must be one". The possibility is not proof of the certainty.
If you want to believe in God, that's great. But it is obviously possible to have morality without that belief, or without the existence of the Bible at all.
You are entitled to your opinion, Rino ... as I am to mine. I disagree with your assertion that all moral thinking and conscience must come from God.
You have your right to your beliefs .. I just don't share them.
OK lets assume what you say is right, I cetainly have no quarrel with the assertion. Since God gives EVERYONE morals then they are not dependent upon a persons belief IN him. Therefore your first statement which implied without a belief in God a person could not be moral is counterintuitive.
No, in order for one to follow their conscience, they have to have the fear of God's wrath embedded in their brains. Otherwise, you don't have any reason to follow what he's directly telling you, not for anything like law or society or individual morals or anything like that.
It's only by some stroke of extraordinary luck that atheists like myself aren't complete sociopaths, it seems.
I think that is a major difference between the way liberals and conservatives often view religion.
It has been my experience that most Christian Conservatives will say they believe in Jesus simply because he was the Son of God and therefore what he said must therefore be true.
Whereas most Christian Liberals I know would say Jesus is the Son of God because it is self-evident from the wise and reasonable words of Jesus.
Okay. Maybe I should re-phrase what I said. People who don't believe in God can certainly be moral, because they are still made in the image of God. God still gives them guidance even if they don't realize it.
I'm just saying that if God didn't really exist, we wouldn't be able to tell right from wrong. We wouldn't have a conscience telling us when something is wrong. We would have no way of telling what is right and what is wrong.
You can say whatever you want but you are clearly assuming facts not in evidence that is a tautalogy the equivelent of saying God is perfect therefore he has to exist or that would be an imperfection. See you have to assume the premise to even GET to the conclusion. A logical fallacy by definition
I'm not surprised that you were ignorant of this, but that principle is not exclusive to Christianity. I believe in following the golden rule, even though I don't believe in the Bible or in God.
Here's some quick, useful reading for you.
So if you didn't believe in God, you could do any sort of thing, is that right? Your behavior hinges on punishment, not any sense of respect for your fellow man. Any good behavior you exhibit is purely a result of fear of an invisible, all-knowing entity, not because of any independent sense of right and wrong.
I've often argued that religion is all about controlling people's behavior, as opposed to actual spirituality. Thanks for supporting that point.
Wow, personally I didnt do most of those things before I was religious because I thought they were wrong. I did drugs, I dont see where the bible says not to, I mean Jesus first miracle was to change water to wine to keep the party going. I didnt sleep around because I think you shouldnt be careless with a persons heart. An easily understood moral principle based on empathy. Why do you conservatives have such a hard time understanding the principle of empathy, that you shouldnt do to others what you wouldnt want them to do to you?
"I did drugs, I dont see where the bible says not to"
The Bible says to obey man's laws unless they interfere with God's laws. Drug use is illegal, and it's a sin to take drugs because we are supposed to follow the law. The Bible also says that our bodies are the dwelling place of the holy spirit, and we should care for our body and not intentionally damage it. I don't believe that drinking alcohol in moderation is a sin, because it's legal and isn't bad for you as long as you don't get too carried away with it. And as you stated Jesus turned the water into wine and even drank wine in the Bible.
And smoking pot is less dangerous to the body than moderate alcohol use but that misses the main point. BEFORE I was religious I still didnt do things I thought would harm other people emotionally or physically. That is a basic moral precept. Its that simple. In fact when I became religious my moral compass didnt move a whit.
If you seriously believe that someone who doesnt believe in God cannot be moral your delusions border on phychosis. Right and wrong is easily discernable and many philosophers have written on the subject including David Hume, an athiest himself whom I personally heard the chair of the philosophy dept at Harvard call the most important philosopher ever to write in the English language,he wrote a book on the philosopy of morality.
Personally I cant even relate to such a bigoted statement. Perhaps YOU would have no moral standards without your fear of the judgement of God but for myself I was a moral and ethical person BEFORE I was a religious person. I think most people want to be good people and are motivated by that desire whether or not they believe in God.
Since when do prohibitions against murder and theft, which exist in ALL ethical contexts come from the bible just because they are in the bible. Of the 10 commandments only two are illegal. I notice it isnt against the law to make graven images. It is in fact protected BY our constitution to have another God before the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. The first amendment says directly that the government cannot establish religion so basing laws ON religion is unconstitutional. That is a simple fact. Thomas Jefferson said directly that
Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
Just like we allowed each state to vote on miscegenation laws. WAIT we didnt do that. We wrote the 14th amendment to the Constition instead. If we HAD done that miscegenation laws would probably STILL be on the books in Mississippi and Alabama
Perfect answer Tommy!!
The constitution should be the United State's governments MOST important document to follow, not any particular holy book. If we decide to go the route of Religious Fundamentalism than we are no different than Al Quaeda(sp) and other Religiously motivated terrorist groups...
I'm sorry, but that is a pathetic argument. We are talking about a legal contract here, not a religious cerimony. If your only basis for not allowing the law is based in the bible, then by definition it should be allowed, since we do not have a state religion and we should not maker laws based on one.
Also, if you think that gay people have similar rights as heterosexuals, go talk to a few and see what answers you get. There are a whole host of privilages and legal status that accomany marriage.
"it would be condoning the homosexual lifestyle, which is something that the Bible says is an abomination."
What does the Bible have to do with the Law of the land?
Weak....
Yes they are being discriminated against. The bible is NOT in any way the basis for our common law which is why only two of the 10 comandments are even illegal. And YOUR religious beliefs should not in ANY way get to limit what other people do that is causing harm to no one else. THAT is something only the law can do and YOU have no right not to be uncomfortable or even offended by the actions of others. You are free to be pious and judgemental you are NOT free to expect YOUR version of what is right and wrong to impinge on the rights of others to their puruit of happyness.
Does the government regulate obesity? Lust? Greed? Any other of the seven deadly sins? Why aren't these on your list of Things the government should regulate so as not to appear to sanction them?
In all fairness, the 7 deadly sins is not a biblical concept.
Rino: I'm assuming that you also think the government should legislate...
- That children who don't mind their parents be put to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Right? I mean, if we're going to use the Bible as our moral compass, we've got to use the whole thing; we can just willy-nilly parse the perfect instructions of God. Oh. Have we talked about what the Bible says about owning slaves yet? I think you're going to like it.You're establishing religion over the liberty of fellow American citizens...by your own words. There's a considerable number of Americans who know that Liberty doesn't require us to live with your War God's diktats commanding us all. Our rights are no less diminished because we do not worship your God of Bigotry. Mean old man Jehovah and The Bible has NO place in our governance. Please stop stomping on the First Amendment.
Hypocrit.
"If you let gays have the right to get married, you would have to give the same rights to other minority interest groups such as polygamists, NAMBLA types, animal lovers, etc."
No, you wouldn't.
This is entirely baseless and I refuse to believe that you are seriously suggesting that homosexual marriage would lead to a cascade of political movements as ridiculous as these. You are simply reaching for a reason, any reason to deny them the right to marry because you and all the other gay marriage opponents have run out of empty "destruction of marriage" arguments.
In yesterday's abortion thread, I recall that you were advocating the power of the people and of democracy to decide whether or not abortion should be outlawed. Now you are abandoning your faith in the voting public because of some ridiculous notion that it will lead to people legally marrying animals.
Can the people not decide for themselves that gay marriage is acceptable while maintaining that polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality should remain forbidden?
No. Not according to your own standards. The people have already decided in many states that gay marriage is not acceptable. If you accept gay marriage there is absolutely no way you can avoid polygamy with consenting adults. Every argument for gay marriage stands for polygamists.
And every argument against marriage is a warmed over argument for miscegenation laws.
That is utterly ludicrous. People don't argue for gay marriage based on the concept that homosexuality is a chosen behavior. We argue for it based on the concept that it's a genetic orientation. It's a hell of a big difference from polygamy there.
The argument is that if if two straight people can get married, two gay people should be able to as well. That does not lend itself to polygamy, bestiality or whatever idiotic slippery slope you want to slither down.
Leather, not true. Marriage can be defined between two consenting adults. No need for the polygamy or animal argument.
I don't understand the objection to polygamy myself. Marriage is simply a contract. Contracts can be made to accommodate multiple people. What business does the government have defining who can make and join the contract as long as the participants are sufficiently competent and informed as to the legal consequences?
Bestiality and pedophilia are the only areas where I would think you could easily draw the line as that would involve potential contractees that are easily argued to not be legally competent to engage in such a contract.
Thanks, OpenMind. I believe the same thing. Marriage is a social contract and as such can be tailored to fit any situation that involves consenting adults capable of entering into any contract this country recognizes as valid. While I am not a believer in Polygamy, how it would affect my life or the enjoyment of my own freedoms, etc is beyond me. Let people marry as many spouses as they wish! And more poweer to them, I say. Having a single wife myself, I fail to see the real attraction of marrying more than one women at a time anyhow (sorry, honey?)
Bestiality and Pedophilic marriages are an entirely different situation and thus bear no relation to this arguement at all.
Open, my only objection to polygamy is when young girls are forced into marriage. If three consenting adults decide to get married, hey more power to yea.
Pearlene,
That is indeed a reasonable objection. I agree. I think the parties should be legally competent (including age of consent laws already on the books), informed and not coerced in any way. I should have included that above. You make a good point.
Ah, but that is not polygamy - THAT is pedophilia, which unfortunately some polygamists also practice. It's important to make a distinction.
We already have state condoned polygamy. It's sequential, and it's practiced in red states more than blue ones. Some of our prospective presidential candidates, such as Rudy G. are sequential polygamists.
Freya sayeth, If a man can live and love with two women at the same time, the more power to him. I say we allow two wives, one for each arm.
To be fair, it would be reasonable to allow two (or more) husbands as well. The whole goose and gander thing.
I couldn't agree more. Then I could make two "honey do" lists instead on one. :)
I have corrected you on that before it is a FALSE statement to say marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Not only has polygamy been legal gay marriage has been legal historically in places like ancient Asia and in Europe in the past also what passed for marriage among the Native Americans included gay unions. Another meme you just repeat regardless of the reality. Your spin on the issue doesnt change reality either. It is like saying opposition to miscegenation laws are asking for special rights since black people have the same right as white people to marry within their own race of if an art school was restricted to right handed artists only that left handed people have the same right as anyone else to enter the art school and draw with their right hand. The argument is ludicrous and once again you just repeat the mantra which makes no discernable sense because it sounded good when Rush said it Weinerdog or whoever you got it from.
"Letting gays marry would give them special rights that no other minority interest group has."
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Please tell me you're not pretending this is logic. If we were even to begin to tread down that path, we could say the following:1. Gay men would gain the SAME right that straight women have now - the right to marry a man.2. Gay women would gain the SAME right that straight men have now - the right to marry a woman.3. If that "special right" was "created," it wouldn't be special - straight men would have the right to marry other men if gay men have that right, too!
There is no "special right" or exclusive right. Gay men and women would get nothing that straight men and women don't already have. Your point is, quite frankly, a stupid one. (not ignorant, not uninformed, not misguided - just stupid)
As to your comment about beastiality you are sick and depraved if your mind goes from homosexuality to beastiality. Get your mind out of the gutter but wait that is just ANOTHER example of your inability to think for yourself and your compulsion to repeat endlessly the ignorance of far right talking points.
You are of course, correct again, solon. The "special rights" claptrap falls apart upon the slightest logical inspection. It is pretty clear that although the religious right works pretty hard to deny and in some cases take away others' equal rights, they don't like being described that way even if it is entirely accurate.
What's wrong with beastiality? Why are you forcing your views on me? Why are you forcing your own moral convictions on me? People who engage in beastiality aren't hurting anybody, right? The Constitution gives people unlimited rights as well as long as those rights don't interfere with the rights of others, correct? So why do you want to force your moral beliefs on me?
Rino,
You find a duck of legal age that can absolutely without a doubt prove it understands a marriage contract and can sign its own mark (with a pen) and you have my endorsement.
; )
Did anyone say the Constitution give people unlimited rights? Why no they didnt that is a strawman argument. It says DIRECTLY that it gives rights other than those directly enumerated but no one is saying they are unlimited. So again you have no point.
Many liberal posters on this site have said that the Constitution gives us unlimited rights as long as those rights don't interfere with the rights of others. You may not be one of those posters, but many of your liberal friends have made that argument. I'm just going by what they said. It's not a straw man argument.
Did you say unlimited rights UNLESS? You DO know what the word UNLIMITED means right?
No. I said "as long as." Many liberal posters have claimed that drug use, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. are all Constitutional rights simply because they don't infringe on the rights of others.
I don't know if people have made that argument or not. The government does have the burden to show they have a legitimate secular interest in those issues - which could probably be generalized into whether someone is infringing on another persons rights/freedoms, but it isn't the whole story of what goes on.
Well I dont know anyone making that argument. I dont know any group arguing for euthanasia. I think your whole argument is a strawman argument. When liberals are actually calling for all those things get back to me. I know groups arguing for legalizing drugs, I know the REPUBLICAN Gov of New Mexico was before the current Democratic Gov, who doesnt believe in legalizing drugs. However I dont know anyone who says it is a constitutional right.
I believe Rino was probably referring to me. In my opinion, people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they don't harm others. If I've argued that was a Constitutional right, I would retract that. I believe drug laws are ineffective and misguided, but the government has the right to make them.
That being said, the bestiality argument doesn't really fit into that. That would be animal abuse, which I think is clearly wrong. More importantly, when talking about marriage, that's a legal matter. Even if we were to accept bestiality, that doesn't mean the government could allow someone to legally marry an animal.
Rights aren't unlimited obviously, but the government has the burden to prove that it has a legitimate secular interest when it chooses to address issues.
The government powers are purposely strictly limited because the framers realized if government powers weren't checked, they would arbitrarily curtail freedom without good reason. I don't know if you ever read court decisions, but they always address this point with regards to supposed rights involved in court cases.
...The [sic] have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Letting gays marry would give them special rights that no other minority interest group has...
Yes, the right to marry consenting adults whose sex makes them sexually and romantically unattractive to you is an important one. So important, in fact, that you really ought to be supporting the drive for gay marriage. Once that succeeds, you too will have the right to marry a whole class of people you couldn't possibly be sexually interested in.
But why wait? You can enjoy this right today by moving to Massachusetts, where I'm sure you'll find many gay men eager to marry someone who finds the idea of having sex with them repulsive.
We'll leave the light on for you.
Marriage has always been a committment between one man and one woman.
Obviously, you have never taken an anthropology course. That claim is simply false. It is empirically false. But then, such arguments are never really about facts, but about what right wing nut jobs want to be true.
There is the pro-marriage camp, those that support marriage, and there is the anti-marriage camp, those that would obstruct marraige. You clearly fall on the anti-marriage side.
Rino, you know that does not make sense.
Marriage can be defined as between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS! That leaves out the animals, polygamists and NAMBLA.
Lynn said in a former post that maybe one of the reasons that there is such outrage among some conservatives/republicans is because of the “icky” factor. It’s hard for some to imagine two people of the same sex, having sex. If that’s your problem, take your mind out of their bedroom (it doesn’t belong there anyway). Sometimes when I look at a certain heterosexual couple I can’t image them having sex but again, that’s not my business.
Polygamy already takes place and so far not one senator from the states where it does take place have done a thing about it. The same senators (Hatch and Roberts come to mind) are conservative Republicans who somehow find gay marriage a sin but polygamy something that can‘t do a thing about. We also know that in polygamist communities children are also forced into marriage with much older men. Where is the outrage, threat of “marriage” and fear for this practice?
People having sex with animals is there business since there is no law against owning an animal. Somehow I can’t imagine them married cause how would the animal reply to their vows.
Children have parents who are suppose to be responsible for them so NAMBLA issue is a non issue as well.
It’s hard for some to imagine two people of the same sex, having sex.
I dunno. Seems there was a Republican congress critter and a right wing preacher who didn't have too much trouble imagining it. Or getting it.
Bitter, sex between gay people is hard to accept for some, why, I don’t know. Other's simply lack the ba**s to stand up and say "yes I'm sexually attracted to a man/woman and who the hell's business is it". My gay friends have told heartbreaking stories about reactions when they come out which I understand. I can’t accept those who choose to stay in the closet but allow others from their party or church to treat other gays with cruelty and disregard. Heck I can’t understand the existence of the “Log Cabin Republicans”.
In speaking, unfortunately to members of my own family, the main reason they site against gay marriage comes down to sex. Why anyone should care who with or how another person has sex is beyond me .
You are a wise woman Pearlene. Well grounded I always enjoy your take on things
You've got to be kidding me. Gay sex is disgusting to think about because it's not natural. God gave males and females different body parts for a reason. The body parts fit perfectly into each other. That is why a man and a woman are able to reproduce and a man and a man can't. Gay sex isn't natural and is one of the grossest things imaginable.
Then change your mental channel, stop obsessing over gay sex. Nobody makes you watch pornography on TV and nobody makes you imagine gay sex.
I mean, when you see a man and a woman together on the street do you imagine them having sex? If not, then you have no argument against seeing a gay couple walking down the street.
I agree that gay sex is personally disgusting, but I don't pretend that most heterosexual couples are pretty gross as well. It is a private act and not my business. It is a matter of taste an opinion and you are nakedly trying to enforce your preferences on everyone. Using your own logic, why aren't you preventing unattractive people from marrying?
Rino, God gave male and females weighing 300lbs to "right" parts to have sex buy for me to imagine that is disgusting. The real question is why in the world would you give a damn who was having sex with whom. If you have a sex life why are you even thinking about someone else's!
You put it much better than I did. God bless you, Pearlene!
: )
I don't care about who has sex with whom as long as they're both consenting adults. I believe that it's wrong, but the government has no right to try to control what somebody does in the privacy of their own bedroom. My point was that it's simply disgusting to think about. But I'm not trying to stop anybody from doing it.
Sometimes I read posts like yours above and see what appears to be a deep level of denial. You should realize you support people who definitely want to control what goes on in people's bedrooms. You can deny that is the case, but the evidence they believe this (or at least pander to an element that believes it) does not support your repeated denials.
Putting all of that aside I accept you at your word that is not what you personally believe. You just need to wake up about the guys you seem to support.
"I believe that it's wrong, but the government has no right to try to control what somebody does in the privacy of their own bedroom."--rino hunter
You are very inconsistent on this point. You have argued both sides of it again on this thread as you have previously in others. I think you should really think about your position on this and get back with us when you know what you really think about it. Does government have the right to do this or doesn't it?
My opinion on this issue has always been very consistent. I believe that the government has the right to make sodomy laws, but I don't think that they should. If I was a state legislator I would vote against sodomy laws. You have to understand that there's a huge difference between sodomy as a LEGAL issue and sodomy as a POLITICAL issue. I believe that Congress would have been better off creating a Constitutional Amendment making sodomy a Constitutional right rather than simply relying on the Supreme Court to create a Constitutional right to sodomy which never existed. There's a reason why we have an amendment process. Our Constitution should only evolve through the amendment process, not activist judges.
"My opinion on this issue has always been very consistent."--rino hunter
Your opinion may be consistent (albeit wrong and unsupported by caselaw), but your words are often inconsistent on the subject.
Give me an example. I believe that I've always stated that I oppose sodomy laws but still feel that there is no right to sodomy in the Constitution. I don't believe that I've been inconsistent.
You must have the shortest memory I have ever seen. This is just getting repetative and silly at this point. Simply reread the exchanges I have already posted on two different threads now. If you don't get it, just wait. It will probably happen again soon enough and I will point it out then. Odds are you still won't understand.
No, you just don't seem to understand that sodomy as a LEGAL issue is completely different from sodomy as a POLITICAL issue.
If you think your arguments are completely clear, answer the following question where I am quoting you directly:
True or False - "the government has no right to try to control what somebody does in the privacy of their own bedroom."
If you answer true, then it goes against your previous arguments. If you answer false, then your above post makes no sense because you assert it in that post.
Your post in question makes no distinction between a political and legal argument (as if that would make a difference), so I suppose you expect me to read your apparently muddled mind to know what you are talking about at any given moment.
Ok. That is a little confusing. I'll clarify what I said. What I meant to say is that "the government SHOULDN'T have the right to control what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom." I believe that Congress should've created a Constitutional Amendment making sodomy a Constitutional right. I think that the government should stay out of a person's bedroom. I believe that sodomy should be legal, but I just disagree with you on how it should have become legalized. I believe that it should've been done through a Constitutional Amendment rather than having the Supreme Court create a right which never existed.
They didnt CREATE the right they recognized it is exactly what the ninth amendment was talking about rights exactly like that one. A right to privacy
You are of course WRONG. The government has NO right to make sodomy against the law because the Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional. This is not an opinion it is a simple FACT. What gives you the constitutional right to BREATHE? It is only mentioned in the preamble to the constitution that says you have a right to LIFE. The preamble also says you have a right to the puruit of happyness. Now that would have to be within limits but its hard to say that a homosexual, in the pursuit of happyness has no right to BE homosexual or to do the things that define homosexuality. Unless that right infringes upon another and I dont see how you can possibly argue it does then the right to each persons pursuit trumps their pursuit making someone else uncomfortable. Just because YOU decide in the face of the Supreme Court that YOU think something is legal doesnt make it in ANY way representative of reality. Where DID you get your degree in constittuional law again?
While I'm going to stay away from Rino's pathetic analogies about gay sex. I would say his head and his butt fit together perfectly.
Sorry, I'm not that flexible. You'd probably know more about that than I do.
Rino,
Some time last year, shortly after Zarquawi (sp?) died, Sean Hannity compared the question of "Should we ban gay marriage?" to "Did Zarquawi (sp?) deserve to die?"
Hey Rino,
A dog and cat cannot sign a marriage contract, and a minor cannot get married in the U.S. under the age of 18.
I think you are wrong about the minor getting married issue. That is still a state controlled decision if I am not mistaken...
yes, a state issue.
...yeah just like holding people captive and forcing them to work and/or have sex with their owners was a state issue. Now that was an abomination that people argued should be left up to the states.
The states with the worst age of consents with parental permission are Kansas and Massachusetts. Then comes Alabama, Texas, South Carolina and Missouri. All the rest are 16 or older. That's from the 2001 World Almanac. There may have been some legislation since then, but I doubt it.
What constitutes your criteria for "worst" example?
"The have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."--rino hunter
This from the guy who claims that no right exists until it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution (despite the Ninth Amendment). Where is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex enumerated?
Our elected officials give heterosexuals the right to get married. The Constitution doesn't. Our elected officials could take away marriage rights all together. But they would never do that, because they would obviously get voted out of office.
"Our elected officials could take away marriage rights all together. But they would never do that, because they would obviously get voted out of office."--rino hunter
In Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS unanimously rejected your argument in their decision:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
The state of Virginia did indeed try to deny interracial couples the right to marry and the Supreme Court unanimously told them they could not do that. Your argument has no legal basis.
You actually think our government gives us the right to mate and get married??? That right existed from the days we walked the savanahs of Africa. Man, can you bow any lower to the Federal machine?
No, marriage is a commitment between two SOULS, man or women, it does not matter. All that matters is that the love exists, the pair-bond formed and maintained. I may be straight, but to defend the rights of Love is my duty as a Freyan. Mating, marriage, and sex transcend the jurisdiction of the state where Liberty exists. To partner for love is a human right belonging to all, not a matter for legislation.
Today homosexuals live under a new kind of "Jim Crow" era. They don't feel "special" when being fired just for being gay, which is legal in most of these United States today. They don't feel "special" when they are thrown out of their apartment just for being gay. They don't feel "special" when they get thrown out of a house they shared with their partner, because they lack the legal standing under the law to inherit the property without a will.
If any American is barred from entering into a legal status that is afforded every other American, that person is not equally protected under the law and is therefore a violation of the 14th Amendment.
And what "rights" are being denied them? Give me an example of a constitutionally garaunteed right that they are being denied!
The right to marry. Are you arguing as Rino has that the right to marry doesn't exist because it isn't specifically enumerated?
If you're referring to the special rights that heterosexuals, e.g., my wife and I, enjoy now, you're right...it isn't equality. I know that wasn't your point - but you should have thought about it before posting. The reality may challenge the sensibillities of some, including me, but it's undeniable.
How is it a special right to so something millions of people in this country do every year? How is it a special right to be "equal" to every other hetrosexual, non related couple who want the benefits of marriage? How is a special right to want the "same" and "exact" benefits as every other married couple?
Maybe because of people like John Edwards...who claimed, "I'm not comfortable around those people"...when speaking of homosexuals.
Well that is his problem what it WASNT was in ANY way relevant to the question, that was a total non sequitur. You just shoehorned saying something about Edwards into a question that had ZERO to do with him OR with how he feels about gays. Weak and pathetic
My response was to the question, "How is it a special right to so something millions of people in this country do every year?"
Edwards is a former lawmaker and now attempting to lead our country as president. In light of that...his views on gay marriage are appropriate when discussing homosexual rights.
He has positioned himself in the past with the "no special rights" crowd...favoring homosexual unions but not marriage.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I still don't see how that defines gay marriage as a "special right".
Unless you're point is that Edwards is the ultimate authority on the subject.
Edwards is not an expert. However, past lawmakers...including Edwards...and their actions have brought us precisely to this point.
I'm not a proponent of homosexual marriage...but for those that are...they should cast a wary eye on presidential candidates like Edwards...and the representatives that they send to Washington.
That's where the battle is being waged.
The question was about gay marriage being a special right. As per current legal situation, it is up to the states. The only politicians advancing the theory of a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban it were republicans, a list which does not include John Edwards.
So why the reference?
....an eye on Edwards and both eyes on all the Republican candidates. They don't even want to allow Gays in the military. I still haven't figured that one out. What do they think that Gays are going to attack people in the fox hole? The truth is there is a heterosexual bias that has existed against homosexuals since forever. It’s a tradition that’s wrong as many traditions sometimes are. Moreover, sadly we the people have been attempting to codify our biases against one group or another since forever as well. It was illegal for people of different races to marry in much of the country for quite a while. When those bigoted laws were found to be unconstitutional interracial marriages happened and the world did not come to an end. Ironically the same arguments that were used for maintaining a segregated army and miscegenation laws are the arguments being used against Gays in the same vein.Civil marriage should be a right for consenting adults. The performance of religious wedding ceremonies will be determined by religious organizations as they see fit and that's perfectly appropriate. I'm not trying to force Gay marriage on the Baptists, but on the other hand my peeps the Baptists should not be allowed to force their practices on city hall.
Lynn,
1st, let me say you are on a roll today. Love your posts!
Now I have to say I disagree about gays in the military stance. The Spartans, the armies of Alexander being a few examples of where homosexuality in the military was more than tolerated. I suggest it is more culturally related.
The Romans had a highly sucessful general that was a eunuch. I don't think he got to many complains about his sexual status.
I don't think Eunuchs were necessarily homosexuals. And as for his sexuality, they've pretty much had any "choice" in the matter removed from them.
Lol. Thanks for the concern, Wes.
; )
The question was
How is it a special right to be "equal" to every other hetrosexual, non related couple who want the benefits of marriage?
Your answer was a complete non sequitur. It had NOTHING to do with the question. IF you had said that Edwards thinks it is a special right and backed that up it wouldnt have been but that ISNT what you did. You shoehorned an alleged comment by Edwards into an answer to a question it had ZERO relevance to.
Ok, if it makes you feel better...I won't pick on Edwards alone.
Among the several democrats seeking the presidency...Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards...none of them support gay marriage. They support a mixed bag of civil union type arrangements.
By their positions, they don't think that homosexuals have the right...special or otherwise...to marriage...else they would support it.
Your man Kucinich is in favor of homosexual marriage.
Yeah this isnt news to me. The point is your answer had nothing to do with the question. You used a non sequitur answer to take a jab at Edwards. Feel free to slap Edwards around metaphorically I dont care that much I just pointed out your answer wasnt in the same ballpark with the question.
Fair enough.
On a sidebar...the Pew Research Center has an interesting study on rating the ideology of various groups.
You fill out a quick survey and they give you a typology based on your answers. I'm not vouching for its validity...but it's good reading.
If you take the survey...I'd be interested in your results...I landed in the "enterpriser" group.
I think you'll find the link here. It's in the middle column...at the bottom...It's titled "where do you fit".
Wes, Cool survey......not surprising, I am in the enterpriser group too. Great minds...........
Glad you had fun with it.
I haven't taken the time to read thru all the group findings...but I will. It takes you on a variety of interesting trails.
I fell in the liberal group as well.
Found these stats interesting:
Enterprisers: 10% of registered voters
Social Conservatives: 13% of registered voters
Pro Govt. Conservatives: 10% of registered voters
Upbeats: 13% of registered voters
Disaffecteds: 10% of registered voters
Liberals: 19% of registered voters
Conservative Democrats: 15% of registered voters
Disadvantaged Democrats: 10% of registered voters
Bystanders: 0% of registered voters
On the topic at hand...I found this interesting...
Of the nine groups...8 of the groups strongly oppose gay marriage...the liberal group was the only one to strongly support.
There's a lot of data in the "Analyze the Issues and Coalitions".
You had to have pulled that one out of nowheres, there is nothing in the key description or defining values that specifically says they all strongly oppose gay marraige as you just suggested.
Cool your jets snoopy. I told you where to find it in the previous post...go to "Analyze Issues and Coalitions"...there you'll find a whole page of issues.
Wes, trust me I'm not getting spun up. I did check that out and did find the statement that liberals stand far apart from the rest of the electorate. I did feel that a disengenious statement, and looking at the "issues and shifting coalitions" section confirmed that the true split was actually 2 to 1 against gay marraige. It confirms that while liberals seem to be in a class by themselves when compared to the whole, the gap is closer than implied because there are more people identifying themselves as liberals vs. any of the other 8 groups.
The national total was 61-32 opposing gay marriage.
The eight groups...comprising 83%...opposed gay marriage between 55-90%. The group identified as "liberal"...comprising 17% of the sample... was the only subset supporting gay marriage...at 80%.
It is what it is...just public opinion. Lynn wrote a nice post on majority rule that puts it in perspective.
Wes, we just said the same thing. 2 to 1 against, 61 to 32 against. My point was that saying 8 for 1 against was disengenious.
But that's ok, and I really like what lynn said, she's got a knack for making the unobvious obvious!
Once upon a time the vast majority of Americans supported slavery. ( I'm sure the vast majority of slaves opposed it) It didn’t make it right. Wes, sometimes the mainstream is as wrong as it can be. I fear being called arrogant here, but I believe people emotionally and psychologically evolve at different rates. I think the people that opposed slavery and proposed the vote for women and those who were at the forefront of civil rights were just at another level and we the vast majority of the public had to catch up with them. They argued the correctness of their positions at their own peril but they did so and history has proven them right. I feel the same is going to happen with Gay civil marriage.
Lynn,
You could easily be right...everything changes with time.
I also agree that the majority can be completely wrong...at any time...on any issue. Governing by pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule.
That's why our founders set up a republican form of democracy...with the 3 branches and checks and balances. We are supposed to elect "leaders" who will go to congress and do what is right for the country...not just what the majority wants.
In my opinion that system is broken...not ruined...but certainly in need of a major overhaul and return to the principles of our founding fathers.
The executive branch has usurped power not intended for it...judges have legislated from the bench...and most importantly our representatives have become nothing more than street corner whores and pimps.
As a conservative...I'm damned disappointed in the republican party...yet that doesn't weaken my conservative stance...I've said it before...and I'll say it again...our country is ripe for a viable third party.
You said, "They argued the correctness of their positions at their own peril"...you could call those folks "real leaders" unlike the current crop of cowards and power mongers currently in office.
I have no disagreement with your post.
Lynn, Your wonderful post set the stage for an equally well said one from Wesley.......right on.
Thanks to you both.
I believe the country is ripe for a viable third party also, but it will be a long process. Need to start at the local level and build grassroots support. A third party, at the present, will be nothing but a spoiler on the national level, i.e. Nader, Perot. We need to elect third party(and perhaps even 4th party) candidates on local, state levels first and then into Congress before going after the top office. We could start by cleaning Congress of those that have lost touch with the people of the country, those that have been inside the beltway for over 20 or 30 years. I see some young blood in Congress that could shake things up with some support and seniority, but I fear by the time they have enough seniority, they too will be intoxicated with the power of leadership.
Agreed that a third party would be an uphill battle but here's a little blurb on Perot's third party run.
- Perot used the medium of CNN's "Larry King Live!" on February 20, 1992 to communicate for the first time his intentions to run if his supporters succeeded in getting his name on all 50 state ballots. With the Democrats dickering between two candidates with major public flaws, former Senator Paul Tsongas and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, Perot's poll numbers rose rapidly.
By April, 1992 he was clearly competitive with both President Bush and the presumptive Democratic nominee, Clinton. In several national polls, Perot was found to be in a statistical dead heat with both Bush and Clinton.
Perot campaigned in only 16 states...When election results were tallied on the evening of November 3, Perot failed to carry a single state. (He finished second in both Utah and Maine.) The Guide to U.S. Elections lists Perot's overall vote total as 19,741,657, or 18.9% of the total popular vote.
It was the strongest showing by a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. It was unclear, however, how Perot would use his new-found electoral power. - CNN
His candidacy shot up like a rocket and fizzled nearly as fast. It was the right time...but he was the wrong guy.
I don't have the answer to the right candidate...but it could happen sooner than we think.
Yah surprise I'm a liberal. Ok fine, thanks Wesely.
Cool link thx. You probably could have guessed I got Liberal.
Tommy, the Enterpriser group is 97% Trekkies.
Count me out of that......I don't Star Trek from Star Jones.
That can't be true. I'm a trekkie. I recorded that fact that a total of 127 people died under Captain Kirks command of the starship enterprise. I've been dying to ask him how he would think himself a great officer given that fact...
and in only 56 episodes- Yikes! At least the Enterprise (I love the pun) had lots 'o people to spare...
I am sure you would not be suprised that I fall into the Liberal group. I was suprised to find it was the larges of the nine groups.
Solon not surprisingly I'm in the liberal group too. It's good to see we are gaining ground. To the Edwards quote Shrum said he said that but then again I really don't trust Shrum.
The second largest group was "conservative democrats".
Those poor "bystanders"...10% of the population and 0% of the registered voters:
- Young (39% are under age 30, average age is 37). Lowest education (24% have not finished high school). Less religious than any group other than Liberals (26% attend church weekly). Largely concentrated in the South and West, relatively few in the East and Midwest. One-in-five are Hispanic.
Thanks for sharing your results.
Like the resto of you in the elite 17%, I also scored 100.
(I wonder how many you had to get wrong to fall into the "enterprisers" group?)
Considering an enterpriser is an independent energetic spirit ready to act, I am very glad to fall into that group. (blowing on knuckles rubbing chest)
I thought that was the definition of a gremlin?
(walking on knuckles, beating on chest)
What is enterpriser exactly? An economic conservative with liberal social values?
A drop dead stunningly gorgeous studly hunky incredibly sophisticated suave filthy rich hysterically funny man that everybody wants know and be exactly like.
Other than that, just a regular guy.
Gawd, Tommy, I didn't know you knew me personally ;-)
With the IQ of a dustbunny
BarryCon;
You must have missed HBL's comment.
An enterpriser is one of those heretofore unseen crewmen serving under Capt. Kirk who is usually the first of the landing party to be killed by an alien on an unknown planet, and whose name in the credits is pre-empted by a commercial, in syndication.
Frankly, I'm surprised Tommy made it back from France for a second episode...
I got an "A" too Neon. Even trying to skew my results by typing in random racist slurs, Bible verses and ISLAMOFASCISTS!!! in screaming caps.
The Enterprisers had to strongly agree with "Unfettered Capitalism will help me live long and prosper".
Congrats!
And WE had to do it without the mind-meld, not like those cheating enterprisers...
I agree Wesley...but...
We proponents of Gay Marriage should be wary of those people you mentioned, but I would never not vote for one of them on such a ridiculous issue like this. What matters to me is Iraq, Health Care, Illegal Immigration and other REAL issues... The problem I have with many on the right about this issue is that they blow it out of proportion and use it to club their political opponents, instead of discussing the problems that REALLY matter.
What does John Edward's opinion have to do with anything they just said?
OMG!!!! You mean to tell me that, around gay folks, Edwards feels like I do around my in-laws?!?
Somebody get the rope...
That is not a direct quote ! Disgruntled former campaign aide, Robert Shrum claims that Edwards said that.
>>"...John Edwards...who claimed, "I'm not comfortable around those people"...when speaking of homosexuals."<<
Regarding this, can you supply a link to a quote? Mrs. Edwards recently said she's comfortable with gay marriage, but I, for one, am skeptical that her husband said this.
What special group of people? What's being asked for is that anybody at all can have a relationship with whomever they wish, as long as they are adults and there's no coercion involved, and to make that bond official as a legal marriage.
Special people? Special rights? Where?
In Rhino's mind
The special group of people are homosexuals. There's no movement to give polygamists and NAMBLA types "civil rights" as well. The point is that you have to draw the line somewhere, and I simply believe that the line should be drawn sooner than you do.
Oh no you don't.
I think marriage in general should be abolished. It leads to divorce, spouse abuse, in-laws, henpecking, desparate housewives, burnt pot roast... And it's a gateway relationship to man/goat marriage.
Rino Hunter was arguing before that nobody has the right to marry as it is not an enumerated Constitutional right.
Rino,
This slippery slope argument is ridiculous. Unless you can show some real evidence of any serious movement behind letting men marry 12 year olds, then to continue to bring this up is just a nonexistent diversion.
The fact is marriage should be a religious term and should be replaced with civil unions as far as the state goes. Then two consenting adults who choose to bond together in this legal arrangement should be encouraged to do so, regardless of their sexual orientation. If two men decide to legalize their union it in no way hurts or impacts one man and one woman from doing the same......if it has or does, please provide the proof that it's somehow destroying heterosexual relationships.
With all the divorces and shams made of marriage today, they don't need any help from gay people to make it worse.
Your point mirrors the one I just posted. People confuse marriage as a religious union to marriage as a legal contract. In the eyes of the gov't, you could easily say that this is a contract that can be entered into by two people over 18 years of age, no more. This would make it similar to any other type of legal contract that we have in our system. The issue of sex does not enter into any other type of contract, and why should it? What do hermaphrodites or people with sex changes do about marriage? Why should they be excluded?
If you don't agree with it on a religious basis, then join a church that doesn't recognize it.
Here you go:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786790/site/newsweek/
Rino,
I was referring to your NAMBLA argument, but polygamy is against the law as far as I know - as is sex with minors, but if you want to use those extreme examples to make your point, then by all means........
Why is the age of consent different in different states? Could it be because the people get to decide what's right? Shouldn't they all be uniform in conformance with the bible?
No, not at all. The people should get to vote on all these issues. My point with the Bible is that religious people have every right to vote their values into law if they wish. The American people and politicians have every right to legislate morality. The Constitution grants us freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
"The Constitution grants us freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion."--rino hunter
Where does the Constitutiona say that? I must have missed it.
As I'm sure you well know, the Constitution does both. It forbids establishment of, or interference with, religion. Rino' sargument was very old, very tired, and very wrong.
A really DUMB meme. There obviously could be no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. If I cannot choose NOT to follow a religious doctrine then that is not in the same ballpark as religious freedom.
All that the "seperation of church and state" ever meant is that the government can't force people to attend a specific church. The government can endorse a particular religion all day long. It just can't force people to attend a particular denominational state sponsored church.
You are of course comletely WRONG about that. IF that were the intent of the establishment clause, the wording would be no establishment of *A* religion, that isnt what it says it says no establishment of religion. Which is why the Supreme Court has consistantly ruled against your ludicrous interpretation. That is a rightwing talking point only repeated because you guys WISH it were true, it isnt, not even close. Wishing wont make it so neither will endless repitition.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against my interpretation because liberal activist judges have twisted what the Establishment clause really means. They've used it to try to banish all religous expression out of the public square, when our founders' intentions were to make sure that there wasn't a situation like there was in England where everybody was FORCED to attend the exact same church. Luckily the Supreme Court is becoming more originalist and religion friendly all the time. There's at least 4 current members of the Supreme Court who agree with my interpretation on this.
Hurray! Maybe they can get back anti-miscegination laws, segregation, white male supremacy, school prayer/religious indoctrination and anti-sodomy laws. The future looks bright for you rino! It will be a perfect world once again!
Thanks, but no thanks.
I don't know why they would want to bring segregation back when John Roberts explicitly stated that the Constitution is color blind and people shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of race. The only discrimination that the government is involved in now is reverse discrimination, but the conservatives on the Supreme Court are going to bring us a society in which people are judged according to the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
All of those decisions have been decried regularly by conservatives as "activist decisions". You are either terribly naive, ignorant or are arguing disingenuously at this point.
That's blatantly false and you know it. Only the last two cases that you mentioned have been decried by conservatives. Roberts and Alito both stated that they support Brown v. Board of Education, and Roberts heroicly upheld the principles of Brown v. Board of Education in the reverse discrimination case that came before the court. In his words,"The way to keep from discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Maybe you are just ignorant.
If you concede that Lawrence v. Kansas was an "activist decision" as you have argued because the state of Texas was within their powers to make such laws if the people wanted them, how is that any different from anti-miscegination laws being overturned on the exact same grounds in Loving v. Virginia which I quoted previously? In both cases, the SCOTUS said the state in question had no power to make such a law, which you disagree with and have called activist before on those very grounds.
The same can be said for Brown v. Board of Education. The state had enforced a system of racial segregation that I am sure you believe they had every right to do without federal interference from "activist judges".
These mostly Warren Court decisions are all linked together and they all go against your reasoning that the state can do whatever it wants to people and the SCOTUS cannot interfere to protect what you believe to be non-enumerated rights.
They are all tied together whether you realize it or not. Read some of the criticisms of the Warren Court by Buchanan, Sowell or any other conservative analyst and you can see that. If I had more time, I would list as many as I could, but time is short. Perhaps next time.
It is summed up pretty well in this article:
The 50th anniversary of the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education invites a reexamination of that much celebrated—and justly criticized—decision. The decision should be celebrated for its holding: racially segregated schools undoubtedly violated the 14th Amendment. The decision is justly criticized because the holding was purchased at the price of the Constitution. Indeed, the Brown decision established Chief Justice Warren as the demiurge of a new universe of judicial activism that still dominates our constitutional jurisprudence. Conservative reaction to this new universe was to call for a jurisprudence of original intent. This debate reached its apex in the 1980s when it erupted into a public dispute between Attorney General Edwin Meese and Justice William Brennan.
As is usually the case, you are allowed to continue in your delusions, but don't expect anyone with a decent memory to buy into it as well.
That is complete BUNK. IF all they wanted to do was stop the country from creating a state religion then they would have said they could not establish A religion it says they cannot establish religion PERIOD. As for YOUR take on the Supreme Court being wrong time after time WHERE did you get your degree in constitutional law again? OH you dont have one? Imagine my suprise.
That is simply rightwing mythology that is not supported at all by caselaw.
This is exactly why the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy by definition
Tommy, welcome back!
Thank you P_S.
RINO,
Your previous post about how disgusting gay sex is says it all. You like many of my fellow citizens have this need to control the actions of others, so no one can do anything that you don't sanction. This explains the obsession over the behavior of two consenting strangers. If you don't like Gay sex don't have it, and if you don’t like Gay people don’t invite them to dinner, that’s your choice; but this Gay sex is disgusting so therefore I don’t want to allow them to marry because it makes me sick is a ridiculously selfish argument. The thought of a dish of broccoli covered with chocolate sauce makes me nauseous but if someone likes broccoli and chocolate sauce and wants to eat it for breakfast lunch and dinner, why would I care? I'm not out attempting to outlaw the consumption of this combination because I find it disgusting. I doubt if you or I will be around to see the legalization of Gay marriage, but the legal preclusion of these unions will go the same way as denying the vote to Blacks and Women, the same way as the segregated army. Fight it as you might history has shown that you’re going to lose this battle to deny equal rights to law abiding productive citizens because simply because you don’t condone their mode of sexual expression. ….and don’t get me started on Autopsycho’s I chose to be strait argument. All I know is that one day I found the little boy next door irresistible and I wanted to share my bubble gum with him. I didn’t choose heterosexuality it chose me. I guess I was fortunate for that having already been born into two groups that didn’t exactly have favored status like the WCMs., belonging to a third would have brought about additional challenges. Although I believe those challenges have made me a stronger person. To wrap this up, I didn’t choose to be Black, female, or heterosexual it’s just what I am, and I must say I’m perfectly happy with who I am. I think Gay people should just be the best people they can be and continue to be diligent in their agenda to obtain equal rights under the law. All I can do to help is to support the best candidates and policies that won’t do them harm.Lynn,
For the record, I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. I'm against sodomy laws. The government shouldn't try to control people's sex lives. I simply believe that the government should stay out of the issue all together. They shouldn't try to control what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but they shouldn't give explicit approval of homosexuality by legalizing same sex marriage. The government should neither discriminate against homosexuals nor give them special rights.
Hey Rino:
A "Special right" in my mind is one not enjoyed by the group as a whole.
With that in mind, what rights are homosexuals asking for that are not enjoyed by the population as a whole?
A special right in my mind is a right that isn't afforded to every group that wants a particular right. Since polygamists, NAMBLA types, and animal lovers don't have the right to marry, neither should gays. If you're going to give gays special rights, then you're going to have to give all these other groups special rights as well. That would only be fair.
The point is that you have to draw the line somewhere, and I simply believe the line should be drawn earlier than you do.
"A special right in my mind is a right that isn't afforded to every group that wants a particular right."--rino hunter
So women's sufferage, black equality and interracial marriage are "special rights"?
Honestly, I think the whole slippery slope started when men and women were allowed to get married. Someone should have pointed it out then that the next thing you know, gay people will want to get married too. Obviously people weren't thinking ahead there.
The difference between gay marriage and your other examples is that the others don't fit into the mold of two consenting adults who are able to have an emotionally healthy relationship. You can draw the line there very easily, and none of those other groups have any chance of crossing it whatsoever.
Your special rights argument has already been eviscerated once yet you keep repeating it in the vain hope it will magically become true. It is harder to seperate a Bengal tiger from a porkchop than a rightwingnut from their delusions.
Those homosexual bastards and their "equal rights." A damn menace to society, methinks.
Outside of equal rights, the only "agenda" of the Homosexual Mafia that I am aware of includes the gradual phasing out of pleated pants.
(I love that!)........very good.
That and man made fabrics as well as that awful aubergine color.
How about the right not to be discriminated against because you're gay? You can still be fired in this country for being gay.
Again another example of why I think this guy is just doing an act.
For such a tough talking hardass, why is he so scared of this "gay mafia" whateveer that is?
You may be right. To highlight any of Savage's homophobic references is fast becoming a big yawner.
True, but I appreciate them doing it. I don't listen to his show, but if it wasn't for mmfa I would know about Savage. I'm not out to silence, but I like to see BS being called out.
I would agree if he didn't use OUR airwaves to preach his hate. MM stand to expose him for the hate mongerer he is and to hopefully show who he is and what he stands for when a co-worker says "Hey you should listen to this guy". Rush has callers admit on the air that they got turned on to him by other people.
Savage- homophobic hate baiter-intelligence of a turnip
"The radical left, the homosexual mafia, and the Islamists are all working together to undermine talk radio to begin with." He continued: "Now, you have to ask yourself, 'Why would the homosexual mafia, in the form of Media Matters, and the Islamists agree that conservative talk radio should be picked off and taken off the air?' "
I actually caught this rant on the radio channel surfing on a long 4th of July ride. I could not believe the mindless hateful attack. How low can radio go? And he's considered mainstream? This really is the dark ages.
The attacks on Media Matters calling then the "homosexual Mafia" and then equating them with Islamic terrorists is completely senseless.
I would think ( yes I THINK) that anyone listening that has even a few brain cylinders operable would hear how psychotic this creature is.
How can any corporation or company anywhere support this kind of hate filed blather? He's as pathetic as they come.
I also heard him launch into an advertisement after spewing the above ( I'm sure his mouth was foaming) and saying his listeners " were the smartest on radio". Ummm, if your listening to Savage, I would highly recommend you get yourself to a detox program. He's as toxic as they come, and will poison you.
Gawd, who is this market of listeners? I've heard Glenn Beck claim he is the 3rd most listened to show after Limbaugh and Hannity.
Beck sounds semi-literate compared to Savage. Savages attacks are not harmless. He is definitely a hazard to one's mental stability.
All Media Matters has to do is post his rants. They would not and do not resort to his ridiculous name calling. I would be sorely tempted to strike back when attacked so viciously. nd all they do his point out his lies. I mean read the above excerpt again. Senseless and bizarre.
What we all have to remember when we see or hear these rediculous rants is that Imus got fired for his comment. Where is the general outrage and media coverage for these comments that occur daily and are 100x worse than Imus' (which was bad enough).
That's two, "why is this here" in this thread already. I see you are back.
You say 8 million listeners pay no attention to what he says? Hardly believable.
I don't believe I said that 8 million people pay no attention to what he says. If you can't accurately quote me, better to stick to your opinions without falsely summarizing mine.
I said people know his opinions on this subject, so what? He is entitled to be a homophobe if he wants to be. I was speaking of his influence, which I believe is neglible at best.
C'mon, you have to admit that it is fun to watch MMFA harp on someone and watch them have a public meltdown about it a la Bill O'Reilly. I enjoy when MMFA points something out and then points out the misinformation in the person's response etc. until they fly off the deep end. But I'm just sadistic like that, I guess.
Except regarding this latest gay slur by Savage, MMFA isn't pointing out any misinformation.....it's simply his opinion and they just don't share it.
Tommy molests small furry animals. IS that misinformation? Is it true? Is it just my opinion? That overworked baloney is stale. An OPINION can still be misinformation unless you DO molest small furry animals.
I shave them first, all that messy fur, yeech!
I hope just the females. I'd hate to think someone as intelligent as you is part of the notorious Homosexual Bestiality Mafia. They've taken over the numbers in my neighborhood. It's a damn shame!
You mean there's a bestiality mafia too?!
Maybe they need to form their own major league of sorts or something - and then compete against each other, this is growing so rapidly.
Think of the reality TV possibilities. "Who Wants to Marry my Goat" "Date My Horse" "Pimp my Goldfish"
And yet I said furry so was my OPINION really MISINFORMATION?
Tommy, the headline says, quite accurately, that Savage called them the 'homosexual mafia.'
That's not 'opinion.'
And whatever your game with mmfa's mission statement, I'd say that defending oneself against direct public attacks fits in there somewhere.
Come clean, Brock
HoMoMaFiA ?
Savage is onto you...
I have to disagree. The original post was about his statement that women in Burkas want to kill us all. That IS misinformation. Then, in his response, he lied about what portion of his daily rants were highlighted by MMFA. Both instances were misinformation. The homosexual mafia thing was an add-on.
Jeebus H. Christmas. I'm used to your "just the facts" approach to MMFA posts, but did you read the highlighted portions?
When you intentionally mislead, creating arbitrary linkage without evidence, propose non-existent motives without evidence, and attempt to impugn based on scurrilous association (Islamlists and Gays), that falls well outside the realm of "opinion". Closer to libel.
Umm, it's not misinformation to say that Media Matters belongs to a non-existent entity he just made up so as to malign Media Matters and liberals in general?
BTW I hope conservative radio never goes away, knowing what the other side really thinks is important to me and it keeps me on my toes.
This guy has some obvious sexual problems. Even though it is just an act, there is something to these conservative clowns who have to mention sex so often, especially regarding homosexuality. See also: limbaugh, beck, hannity, cheney (et a clue, dude, your daughter is a lesbian), and most other mouthpieces on the right.
I do not see an equivalent on the left.
Not with the same vitriol. Some religious conservatives (because not everyone who is a conservative is a holy roller) feel that their assertion that one-man,one-woman is the only way to go is being attacked, but even they claim it's an underhanded attempt by those terrible public schools, and not (usually) by talk-show hosts.
He's afraid that Carson Kressley is going to bust down his door and confiscate his Members Only jacket...
I believe that MMFA should discontinue posting the misinformation spewed by the Savage One..since MMFA has "outed" him, (he is a gay-misinformationist) he has not called this site and those on it VERMIN in quite a while. I miss that.
Well, let me go ahead and translate this for those of you who can't comprehend it (re:libs). By "homosexual mafia" Savage essentialy is saying that homosexuals play a big role behind the scenes in the media and through lobbying and that one becomes a pariah and gets fired if they insult this group in the mainstream media (see Washington, Isaiah) and will probably lose their job. He doesn't actually believe that there's some kind of hierarchy of John Gatti-type homosexual mobsters.....it's called hyperbole. At least Dr. Savage has the gravitas to say the truth about radical Islam.
Oh, now I see. So us "libs" are still right about Savageweiner being a loony, just less conspiratorial than we thought.
Thanks for clearing that up - and getting the "radical Islam" phrase in there too! I have completely different disrespect for him now.
Just because you disrepsect Dr. Savage doesn't mean the radical islam comments are untrue. You do realize that these people want to kill any non-muslim or westerner right?
Yes, until we stop raping their part of the world for our own profits and lazy attitude toward renewable energy. See that's the part the neo-cons leave off. They don't want to kill us because we let women drive, or because we like rock'n'roll, or because we're Christian. They hate us because we are screwing them in the middle east. Wouldn't you hate it if someone, like Saudi Arabia, came over here and made Kansas into a Muslim state and treated the Christians already living theire like crap? C'mon.
Are you really that clueless? First off, we're not imposing christianity on them, in fact you can still be executed for converting. Secondly, do you think the people who are profitting off the oil from our "raping of their lands" are all westerners? If you'd cross into the realm of reality for a moment you'll see that arabs are those who are proffiting as well. Quick question, why did radical islamics attack Spain? India? You should try injecting at least a minimal amount of logic into your posts.
I was referring to our support for Isreal. I made no reference to imposing Christianity on them, despite the fact that..... YES WE ARE!Fundy churces are sending missionaries and Ann Coulter even says we are, and should continue. You need to take a deep breath and realize that America is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. BTW, Spain is a western nation, as is the entire EU. You need to do some more reading before posting.
India's a western nation? Sending missionaries is not "imposing christianity" however the "convert or die" mantra of islamic terrorists is imposing one's beliefs on others. And about the Israel question, the jews occupation of Israel predates the palestinians and palestinians, arabs, muslims, etc. are currently living in israel, the opposite is not true for most muslim countries where you must be muslim to exist. I do realize that the US is not always right but in the case of supporting Israel over these animals from the 14th century (check their records on civil rights). You do remember what happened when the jews left Gaza right? Or was it a figment of my imagination that the blameless muslim terrorists started sending bombs into israel asap? Simply put, Israel has a claim to the land, they allow palestinians and muslims to live and pratices their own religions in Israel and Israel withdrew from Gaza and the radical islamic response was to immediately attack them from the lands the jews handed over. Quite simply, Israel is a superior state to the theocracies of most myslim countries and the US should always side with Israel over the babrbarians from groups like Al-queada, hamas, etc.
BTW, islamic terrorists are currntly ethnically cleansing christians in Darfur, and have recntly carried out attacks in Thailand, Somalia, pakistan, and other non-western countries....but I guess you should blame the jews for this to. Sig Heil!
This is where you made a reference to us imposing christianity on muslims in the middle east
Wouldn't you hate it if someone, like Saudi Arabia, came over here and made Kansas into a Muslim state and treated the Christians already living theire like crap? - You
You guys are 24 hour cower.
Actually, we're realist who are unencumbered by this liberal fantasy that everyone will get along if we just let them do what they want. The strategy of appesment doesn't work with people who are illogical, I thought we learned that by the chamberlain/hitler appeasment. We are not "cowering", we are just more realistic than those of you who think if we ignore the problem it will go away, and courageous enough to go against political correctness and say the truth.
Instead you are encumbered by your own delusions and they are legion
I apologize that the facts of the current radical islamic situation doesn't fit in with your liberal ideaology of "every culture is equal" but as of right now the west is FAR superior culturally. Until you can abandon your false views and accept the truth that it is a radical religious group that wants to kill (and has been killing) all those who's views don't jell with their own you'll continue to blindly denying the problem. 2 years ago today London was bombed, and it wasn't by catholics.
I am blithely ignoring no problem. I agree that the extremist Islamic terrorists are a major problem and one we need to deal with harshly and immediatly. We just disagree with HOW that ought to be done. The fact you think I am oblivious to this problem is just ONE of your many delusions.
When someone whose JOB it is to communicate to large numbers of people needs a mindreader like yourself to come in and explain that HE, by dint of his amazing mind reading powers, can explain what the Wienerdog MEANT, as opposed to, you know, WHAT HE SAID. He isnt doing his job well. Your post is worthless.
So you honestly can't comprehend the concept of hyperbole? I used to think you were intelligent, I should have know better, you are, after all liberal. It doesn't take a mind reader, just someone who doesn't take everything for face value and understands the concept of exageration, or does Alec Baldwin really want to kill Henry Hyde and his family? Were we to take everything everone said at face value he'd be in jail for making threats right now.
Michael Savage is an act. Most liberals get that. The conservatives who construct a world view around his routine are sad, insecure people who would prefer to indulge their worst personality characteristics rather than better themselves and their society. Fortunately, the neo-cons are on their way outa town. I hear they've been scoping Dubai, in case they need to run from prosecution. Good place for them.
I agree that a lot of what Savage does is an act (I never said it wasn't) in fact my point above is that his referring to mmfa as "the homosexual mafia" is hyperbole (ie, part of his "act"). Thank you for agreeing.
I dont really care what you think. YOU arent bright enough for your opinion to even register with me. The man is a professional broadcaster. You are here appologizing for his basic insantity by saying what he really meant was... Except that isnt up to you. He TELLS us what he thinks and what your amazing mind reading powers tell you he meant isnt what he SAID. Taking your tack someone could appologize for Sharptons Tawana Brawley fiasco by saying what he really meant was... You DONT have amazing mind reading powers, your even WEAKER attempt at an appolgy trying to say its obvious is also bunk. The only thing that is obvious is that the Wienerdog is in dire need of a Haldol/Thorazine cocktail and a few months vacation in a rubber room talking to people that dont exist.
That's weird, if you didn't care what I thought why would it warrant a response? You should really familiarize yourself with the terms, sarcasm, hyperbole, etc. Honestly, as I said before, cons understand these terms, that's why we understand that when libs fly off the handle they don't always mean what they say. Howeve, if mmfa aplied this logic they'd probably have about 4 topics a day. It's sad, really it is, that people like you use statements which are obviously exagerated for effect, and hold them up as "conservative missinformation". Is a little intellectual honesty too much to ask?
Since you have the intellectual capacity of a kiwi fruit you wont mind if I dont accept your terms about intellectual ANYTHING. You havent come NEAR the point. The Weinerdog is insane, if he needs YOU to read his mind and tell us what he REALLY MEANT, a tactic that could appologize for ANY statement, he isnt doing his job very well. Now any reasonably bright five year old could understand this, find one and get him to explain it to you.
I think the use of the term "homophobe" does not accurately describe Michael Savage. It seems to me that most people are not fearful of gays, or afraid of becoming gay. If you were to use the term homophobe in Savage's case in reference that he fears that gays and the "gay" movements (the liberal movements that use gays as promoters) are eroding the moral, ethical, and yes...religious values that his country was founded upon, I believe that you may be correct there.
But in reality, I do not think that Michael Savage is a homophobe. He would never call himself such. There is a difference between not liking a group of people or what they stand for and being afraid of them. Please remember in this politically correct world that there are still many people (half the country or more) that simply do not like the lifestyle or the agenda and find it to be repulsive.
It is my belief that Savage is of this viewpoint, as are most of his listeners.
To falsely portray an entire group of people whose only discernible similarity is their sexual orientation, by lumping them altogether by slurring them unfairly certainly looks like fear to me.