Savage: "If you're insane, hate the family ... hate your mother and father, hate the Bible, hate the church, and hate the synagogue," you oppose CA gay marriage ban
SUMMARY: On his radio show, referring to a California ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, Michael Savage stated: "If you're insane, hate the family, hate man and woman, hate your mother and father, hate the Bible, hate the church, and hate the synagogue, of course you're in favor of 'no' on Proposition 8." The next day, Savage said that "people who don't have families ... don't understand what the family unit is. It's the strongest bond on Earth, which is why homosexual marriage is such a threat to civilization itself."
On the October 29 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said of a California ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, "[T]here's a ballot initiative on homosexual marriage that is more important than you could imagine. It's called Proposition 8, and you must vote 'yes' if you're sane. If you're insane, hate the family, hate man and woman, hate your mother and father, hate the Bible, hate the church, and hate the synagogue, of course you're in favor of 'no' on Proposition 8." The next day on his program, Savage stated: "[T]he people who don't have families don't understand that, as difficult as family life is, life is impossible without it. They don't understand that. They don't understand what the family unit is. It's the strongest bond on Earth, which is why homosexual marriage is such a threat to civilization itself."
Media Matters for America has documented Savage's history of making on-air anti-gay statements. For example, on October 1, Savage asserted that "the government has no right to force people to accept homosexual marriage. It is why the West is dying. It is why we're melting down as a nation." During that broadcast, Savage also said of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom: "Today it's the gays, tomorrow it'll be a man marrying a horse. If he could get elected saying that a man should be allowed to marry a mule -- a donkey or a mule, he would do that, too, saying it's a civil right to marry a mule -- that any man should have the right to have sex with an animal, because that's his right and the animal isn't complaining about it." Media Matters also noted that on his June 16 show, Savage said, "It's not a joke when you pervert an institution like marriage, which is in trouble enough," and added, "Our children are being destroyed by this."
Additionally, as Media Matters noted, Savage formerly hosted a television program on MSNBC but was fired after he described a caller as a "sodomite" and told him to "get AIDS and die." Savage has also repeatedly referred to "the homosexual mafia," claimed that "the homosexual dance of death" is the "seminal issue of our time," compared gays to "drug addicts," and repeatedly called gay parenting "child abuse."
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the October 29 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Now, in the state of California, which leads both for the good and the bad in many ways politically, there's a ballot initiative on homosexual marriage that is more important than you could imagine. It's called Proposition 8, and you must vote "yes" if you're sane. If you're insane, hate the family, hate man and woman, hate your mother and father, hate the Bible, hate the church, and hate the synagogue, of course you're in favor of "no" on Proposition 8, which is where most of the Democrat politicians are, because they are exactly what you think they are.
From the October 30 broadcast of The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: What it is, is that a family man knows that life is filled with briars and stones and this and that, and that the -- they have -- the people who don't have families don't understand that, as difficult as family life is, life is impossible without it.
CALLER: Yes, yes. On Daryl --
SAVAGE: They don't understand that. They don't understand what the family unit is. It's the strongest bond on Earth, which is why homosexual marriage is such a threat to civilization itself.
Well, of course, I hate all those things like Savage says. But he forgot, since I have already voted No of Prop 8, that I also hate babies, hate the handicapped, hate old people, hate young people, hate white people, hate black people, hate all people.
I just wanted to make Savage's point a little stronger, and my state of insanity does not cloud my judgment.
If I were Savage, I would hate syphillis as well.
If I were Savage, I'd probably like syphillis actually.
For Kyle 4:02 pm....and that is nothing to clap about.
In all reality Tommy, there isn't much difference between you and Weiner-Savage. You're both the lowest common denominator in society.
I don't know your history Harley, but let's remember scale first. Our friend Tommy talks to me, you and maybe a few dozen others, many of whom are twins or triplets.
Second, there is mystery to Tommy. Is he a paid agent here planted to massage the dialog slightly away from where it would go otherwise, and introduce an element of doubt in less than obvious reality, as well convert susceptible commenters away from posting what they really think to some extent through subtle peer pressure exerted through relationships he establishes--- to the favor of the GOP? I say yes, but really we just don't know. Either way he knows he is limited in what he can do here and shrewdly only tries to do what is possible. Unlike Savage, the situation doesn't allow his endorsement of McCain to have any good effect. The kind of audience he has is very different. He shrewdly therefore takes the side of Obama as from this position he will still be able to somewhat effect the conversation here.
Perhaps he is the "lowest common denominator in society", but he has not shown that here.
Well, I hate a-holes like The Savage Weiner...
Oh, Weiner. It's like you have a window into my soul. *sigh*
It must be draining for Weinerdude to have to live amid so much hate.
Now, I see your mistake. You've still got your soul.
In the other thread you said you were going to sell the color TeeVee.
Thank God i took the advice of my financial advisor before the economy collapsed.
His advice was to sell my soul before everyone is forced to sell theirs. I'm glad I sold mine before there were so many on the market. I got top dollar and still have the TV and Betamax.
the people who don't have families don't understand that, as difficult as family life is, life is impossible without it.
Oh yeah-- he doesn't know mine.
What if I just hate Troglodyte Screechmonkeys like Savage, and would vote "No" just to get a rise out of them?
I have yet to hear one of these knuckledraggers explain just how Gay Marriage is a threat to civilization. They repeat this hysterical talking point ad nauseum, but can't seem to describe the mechanism by which Gay Marriage will destroy the world.
Reading comprehension problem, Nerz?
"[T]he people who don't have families don't understand that, as difficult as family life is, life is impossible without it. They don't understand that. They don't understand what the family unit is. It's the strongest bond on Earth, which is why homosexual marriage is such a threat to civilization itself."
What part of that don't you get?I'dd add orphans to the threat list as well.
I'dd add orphans to the threat list as well.
And don't forget bears. Godless, tree-hugging bears.
Not bears with families, like the Berenstain Bears, or the three bears. Just gay bears like Yogi & Boo Boo.
Yogi and Boo Boo were gay? I'm crushed! Does that mean Quckdraw McDraw was doing Ba Ba Booey?
Make that Quickdraw McGraw.
And we all know about Huckleberry Hound.....
It's "Baba Louie", not "Ba Ba Booey". And Quickdraw was a horse, while Baba Louie was a burro. Ergo, while they could have a loving relationship, they could NOT be gay as Arizona christo-husbandry laws specifically state that "ANY equine pairing which would...decidedly produce a sterile offspring (e.g. mule)..." is unnatural, and therefore unlawful. And because the Arizona law refers to these two specific families of the genus equus without regard to gender, it covers by proxy any stallion/stallion pairing.
Pardon my skepticism, but your ignorance of Quickdraw McGraw makes me wary of your knowledge of Huckleberry Hound...
Correction: I absentmindedly wrote "stallion/stallion pairing" where I obviously meant "stallion/jack pairing".
I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this error, even though the most stoopidest reader would have inferred that's what I meant.
"Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?"
The Third shoe your all ignoring is Mr. Jinx and his two catamounts Pixie and Dixie. The damage they did to the national psyche stills sears.
I don't know how wise these guys are in the ways of science...but here's to adding a little balance to the humor being floated on this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyF93_kwGeI
Don't want to be gay? Simple. Don't put your schlong in another guy.
This oft used talking point is so mind-numbingly stupud! When will you people get this through your thick, overhanging brows: Being gay means WANTING to. Whether or not you ever ACT on the desire is irrelevant. It's about the PREFERENCE, not the ACTION.
Hate to burst your bubble, but anal sex isn't a requirement to be gay.
There are plenty of gay men who aren't interested in anal sex, lesbians have zero interest, but there appears to be some mild interest among the straights however.
Exactly. My same-sex partner and I do not engage in anal copulation.
Just because you're gay, doesn't mean you have to have some sort of anal penetration. I think it's straight folks who like it more, anyway.
it really blows some straight people's minds when you tell them this fact.
"What??? Gay guys not into anal?? Then...wait? What do they do??"
THAT'S None of your BEESWAX, buddy.
So many straight people think intercourse is the end-all be-all of sex. That penetration is the prize. They consider everything else foreplay, so they just assume we're all about tapping that a$$, when the reality is that some folks just don't think it's fun, or can't get over the fact that it has a day job.
So, a pair of jacks beats two stallions....got it
Signed,
A Stoopiderest Reader
That's because the only weapon they have is fear, there are no facts. The worst thing that can happen is for gay marriage to be part of the landscape, for if it happens and it doesn't rock the sanctity of marriage to its core, then how can they validate their bigotry, they can't. And that scares the hell out of them.
I think that about sums it up. I guess they're trying this initiative in California so they can pretend they saved it from sliding off into the ocean.
The ID folks did biblicly prove the gays cause eathquakes after all.
On the other hand, if you're insane and hate yourself, you have a promising career in radio...
Ultimately, marriage is for making babies (heterosexual intercourse) and raising them (with a mother and father). This is nature. I didn't make it this way, but that's the way it is. If you don't like it, get an ACLU lawyer and sue God/Mother Nature (take your pick). See how far you get.
When gay couples can produce children (without a turkey baster and some gravity boots), these realities will change. Don't hold your breath.
Now you can call me names, but the fact is I don't hate anyone for their sexual orientation. I think discrimination based on that is terrible. It's none of my business whom someone sleeps with. However, when people want to redefine words and go against thousands of years of history, based on the selfishness of their own generation, I'm not joining them. And, I don't care if they are gay or straight.
Savage goes a little overboard here, but, in the end, he's right.
The ability to bear children has never been a requirement for marriage. How do you justify adding it in for same-sex couples?
The case you present is a rationale for marriage that is never raised except in this particular context. In other words, it's a smokescreen erected for the sole purpose of opposing same sex marriage.
And your case still doesn't demonstrate how the institution of marriage is in the least damaged by allowing same-sex marriage.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about "requirements." The word "marriage" means something, with certain implications, but not requirements. You want it to mean something else. I don't. Heterosexual couples can produce children (but they don't have to). Homosexual couples cannot. The two are not equal.
Ultimately, marriage is for making babies (heterosexual intercourse) and raising them (with a mother and father). This is nature. I didn't make it this way, but that's the way it is. - DFensFoster
You are clearly stating that children are the purpose of marriage. That is your personal opinion and it is nothing more than that. Children are a frequent component, but as long as that's not a requirement then it's a complete irrelevancy with regard to same-sex marriage.
The word "marriage" does mean something, but it doesn't mean the same thing to all people in all cultures or even in all legal contexts. How can I want something with no one meaning to mean something else? You're the one who wants to apply a very narrow meaning to marriage that has never matched reality.
Homosexuals can have and raise children. Whether they can or not is irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. You're flailing with no logical basis to your case.
Did you have to use the term "erected"?
Isn't it balanced out by "never raised" in the previous sentence?
Hmm, then why did my mother get married at the age of 50 to a man in his late 50's? There was no way in hell she could have more children so I guess the marriage should have been void. I also know men and women unable to conceive who are married... well I guess not really married since they can't have kids. To put it simply, your statement is moronic.
You call me moronic when you incorrectly infer something in my statement which isn't there. That says a lot about your reasoning, or lack thereof.
Ok how is this instead: what is really moronic is claiming that there is a nature to marriage. As if marriage is a naturally occurring thing rather than something we do. To claim the "nature of marriage" is about having and raising kids is just moronic. Even if you are trying (quite poorly) to say that is why the government recognizes marriage you will still be wrong. The raising of kids are just one of the many aspects of marriage that the government is concerned with as is clear by all of the other rights...oh, I'm sorry.. advantages... no.. maybe protections given to married couples. If the "natural reason" for marriage was to have kids, why is that? Simply put there are a lot of reasons for getting married. Hopefully the main"natural" reason is because you love the other person and plan on spending the rest of your life with them.
"get an ACLU lawyer and sue God"
Guess what, WetParry, God doesn't make our laws.
Now, you were about to explain how Gay marriage harms anyone or anything....
Have you ever heard of the laws of nature? Laws of physics? Laws of biology? Read a book.
That might be relevant if the laws of nature, physics or biology had anything whatsoever to do with marriage, but they don't. Just curious, though: If the "natural" reason for marriage is producing offspring, then why is it that the vast majority of animals are not monogamous?
Wow. You've raised the bar on non-responsive answers. You response makes no sense even in the bizarro fantasy world most Cons live in.
Actually, I have heard of those laws. However, I am unfamiliar with the book which documents how the Laws of Nature apply to marriage, which is a legal contract. Maybe you can enlighten me.
I actually think that's a good idea. Sue god and then when he fails to show up in court, you win.
Too late.....it's been done.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081015/ap_on_fe_st/suing_god_2
I don't live in Nebraska any more, but I try to follow Ernie Chambers....he's an amazing legislator, and he drives my right-wing relatives to apoplectic fits on a regular basis. He must be doing something right!
Now you can call me names (WTParry)
Thanks,finally!
Ignorant Dickwad! fanatical bigot! French Swine! Roman Dog! Nattering Nabob of Numbskullery!
You forgot Dorknozzle (credit to Rachel Maddow).
FYI
This WTParry guy is now labeled DFensFoster. It might be the clown from last week who was playing with peoples screen names and personal info.
"Ultimately, marriage is for making babies"
Says who? Marriage is a man-made institution. Man can, therefore, redefine marriage as he sees fit.
This is the only reasoned response I have read. I agree with you. But man redefines marriage at his own peril. Only the future can give us the result.
Says who? And why is it "his", when the word "man" in this context means mankind. Methinks your sexism has been laide bare.
Funny. My wife and I got married, and we're not going to have any children, so does that make my marriage null and void as well?
Same sex marriage isn't going to harm society one little bit. You can't prove that it will, and ultimately, it won't. Folks like yourself always argue about "the family" being harmed, or going away. Get off of it bub. The family is however a family wants to define themselves. I know this gay couple, they're not married since I live in North Carolina. They have adopted 3 kids (you know, kids nobody wanted), and they have raised them well. They have 3 children who love them without end, and they're kids are great.
Gay couples can have kids, and it doesn't involve a turkey baster you vulgar POS. You say you don't hate anyone for their sexual orientation, and yet, here you are screeching about how gay marriage is bad.
As someone else said, God doesn't make our laws. The Constitution of the US doesn't mention God anywhere. The people who have a hard time with gay marriage are the Christian idealogues who somehow think that the country is going to come crashing down should a couple of men get married, and make a solid family unit of their own. Let me let you in on a little secret. Haven't gay people been getting married in CA for a couple of years now? How about MA? Yes, and yes. Guess what has happened? Nothing. Some folks got to show their love for one another, and yes, they made the family unit stronger in the country.
In the end, we just want everyone to have the same rights. Don't you? Well, apparently not...
I'm vulgar, but you call me a POS. That's rich. I didn't say gay marriage was bad; I said it doesn't exist. It redefines the word. It's Stalinist more than anything else. Just wait until hate crimes get caught up with it and then we'll see if no one is hurt. I know many atheists who think that gay marriage is not marriage simply from the scientific/biological perspective. Attempts to bring religion into the argument gives you a scapegoat, but it's a straw man. I do want everyone to have the same rights. We do. I can marry a woman and so can a gay man. What about a guy who wants to marry his dog? Shouldn't he have the same "rights" according to your over emotional pseudo-logic? Where does this end?
DFens (formerly WTParry) there are so many flaws in your thinking that it's hard to know where to start, but I'll show you the problems with a couple of them;
I do want everyone to have the same rights. We do. I can marry a woman and so can a gay man.
During segregation/Jim Crow laws, black people had the same rights as whites-- they could associate with people of their same race. See how weak that was?
What about a guy who wants to marry his dog?
Legal contracts (such as marriage) exist between consenting adult humans. By your "logic", a gay person shouldn't be able to buy a car, as it would lead to chickens driving on our roads.
Seriously, the arguments you're trying to pass here have been tried, and demolished, years ago. I'd recommend that, before posting on a topic here, you review some older threads on similar topics. Another wingnut may have already made a fool of himself for you.
DFensFoster,
"I didn't say gay marriage was bad; I said it doesn't exist. It redefines the word. It's Stalinist more than anything else."
You really have no sense of history... do you? Under Stalin, like Hitler, Lenin, dictators of every kind over the centuries have always gone out of their way to kill or persecute those that were openly gay or lesbian or different than themselves.
Since homosexuality has been a part of human history (I admit not as much as hetrosexuality) it still is part of us humans! Always has been! When someone or a group of someones try and claim otherwise they are ignoring a truth about humanity... that it is not all black and white! And this leads to intolerance and ignorance about a part of our society that will always be there!
Bear in mind also that marriage, as we know it today is barely 300 years old... marriage until about then was all about land ownership and peace among nations!
Example 1: I'm a baron, you are a peasant, I come to your village, I see your daughter (as young as thirteen back then was acceptable), I offer you 10 acres of 'my' land plus X amount of gold and a promise of peace to your village for X amount of years, you accept, your daughter comes with me to my castle, she has my kids... basically... that was marriage.
Example 2: I'm the king of France, you are the king of England, we are close to going to war with eachother, you offer your daughter as a gift in 'marriage' because you think that your country might fall so you do this to keep the peace between our nations (think BraveHeart)... that was marriage!
So... based on the history of us humans it seems that marriage is tangible and can be whatever... truth be told... if a person was to want to 'marry' a goat... as weird as that is... who is to say that it is wrong? You? GWB? Sarah Palin? Limbaugh?
Do we live in a free society or not? Are you saying that this person or that person can not do this or that simply because you don't like it? Or a church? or even political leaders?
It seems to me that conservative thinking minds always end up being the ones that go out of their way to try and define what is good and bad for everyone to do and yet never take responsibility for doing so even though they keep trying to defend undefendable positions while using the same morals and ethics that everyone else uses...
It hypocritical in the extreme!
I don't think racism and bigotry are positive family values. Therefore, I don't think racists and bigots should be allowed to marry or raise children.
How do you feel about that wtparry (racist troll)?
Calling me a "racist troll" reveals your strong emotion. Unfortunately, it reveals a lack of reason, as well. I have not brought race into this. You have. That would means you see things in racial terms. That makes you a racist. And, the fact that you call someone with whom you have disagreement a "bigot" indicates you have no tolerance and, therefore, are a bigot. As far as "troll"... I'm 5'11" so I'm not a troll.
I can agree with you on one point. Let's say we have a child with two prospective adoptive parents. One couple is heterosexual with the husband an unemployed meth-head child molester and the wife a catatonic alcoholic. The other couple is a stable well-employed committed gay couple. Given that situation, the child would be much better off with the gay couple. Only a bigot (possibly a racist troll) would argue otherwise.
So you're saying that the gay couple here is preferable because the heterosexual couple is involved in lifestyle choices which are detrimental to themselves and their adopted children? Thanks for that false equivalent. Logic 101 is a good start. You might look into it.
Hey, why stop there? Why don't we say only people of a certain IQ can get married and have kids? Why don't we say how many kids you can have (like China)? Why don't we say only people of the same race can get married (like we used to do)? Why don't we say only people between certain ages can get married (like say, 22-35 because it's about making babies right?)?
Jeesh wtparry(add numbers here), you're an idiot, I hate to break it to you. And honestly, we can all tell the trolls who roll in here, because they almost always have numbers after their names (there are exceptions of course, like peebs and ed).
I haven't called for a ban on reproduction. I don't know where you got that from. Perhaps from the name caller Kyle Broflovski. You lack of understanding what I have said and then calling me an idiot proves you to be similar to Kyle. Both of you show that emotion has replaced reason. I highly doubt you "hate to break it to" me. I guess that would make you a liar in addition to a non-thinker who can only name call and not argue with evidence. This "troll' business in strange. A troll is a giant or a dwarf with an exceedingly ugly appearance. I am a bit above average in height and considering the looks of the women that I have been with (I have never had to pay for it), it is not possible that I am ugly.
Actually, in internet-speak, a troll is someone who posts idiotic comments to articles (like Media Matters), not looking to further the discussion, but to inflame and incite.
Pick up a book already.
Every single republican I know over the age of 50 is divorced or on their second marriage. No exceptions. None.
The only republicans I have ever known whose marriages lasted are now dead.
I would say a single Republican is probably divorced, but if he/she is on second or third or? marrige, they are no longer single. And if you only know divorces or re-married Republicans, you need to widen your circle of acquaintances.
what about couples who can't have children or choose NOT to have children or remarry at an older age and can't have children? Your argument doesn't hold up. My wife and I are not a threat to civilization because not all people are gay. This guy has the appropriate last name. SAVAGE.
Marriage is not for making babies. Plenty of people have babies without getting married and plenty of married people don't have or want kids.
Marriage has changed over the centuries. It used to be a transaction where the father sold his daughter to her husband. Now women are equal and marriage is a partnership -- a legal partnership. It's created by a contract, that you get from the state. In Loving vs. Virginia, SCOTUS found that marriage was a fundamental right, and thus allowed interracial marriage.
Since marriage is a fundamental right, the SCOC found that laws banning gays from marrying each other to be unconstitutional, and without merit. If marriage is about babies, that needs to be in our laws, and enforced as such before it can beo be considered a legitimate excuse to ban it for gays.
Whatever happened to "freedom"? You know, if someone were to come after him (again), he'd cry that his "freedom of speech" rights were being violated, which he is desiring to do to people who choose to be homosexuals.
I oppose the gay marriage ban, but let's run through his checklist:
Hate mother and father - I never knew my father and my mother (who I was very close to) is long dead
Hate the Bible - Which one? There's so many Bibles out there and most of them say different things. /sarcasm. No, I don't hate the Bible, and IIRC the Bible doesn't get into homosexuality that much (and one of the parts that do, even the right is trying to distance themselves from)
Hate the Church/Synagogue - Depends on what comes out of it. Overall, no.
I understand what a family unit is. Even my government school touched up on it about 8 years ago.
And now back to gay marriage. If two consenting people choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, who am I (or anyone) to stop them? We have freedom in this country and those freedoms stop when someone else's are violated. Who's freedoms (and rights) are being violated when two people of the same gender decide to pursue a romantic relationship?
And besides, as we've seen, homosexual couples can still have their own children (with the help of scientific reproduction methods, surrogate parents...), so population isn't much of an issue.
And in regards to the sanctity of marriage, which is worse, two women getting married or a man and a woman getting a divorce?
And one last thing, didn't even America's Hockey Mom make a few pro-homosexual statements during the VP debate? (I could be wrong, but IIRC she did)
Yes, but aren't you concerned about Savage's freedom as well? You want to take away his freedom to oppress others?
If he saw a gay person in the street, shouldn't Savage have the freedom to punch him in the face for making him feel uncomfortable/uncertain about his sexuality?
You know, I've read and re-read your post a few times. While I'm glad you don't have a problem with gay marriage (and thank you for that), I cannot help but to be offended and flabbergasted at your insistence that people "...choose to live a homosexual lifestyle."
Since when did you have a choice about your sexual orientation?
If you did have a choice, why did you choose the orientation you chose?
The point here, if you've not figured it out, is that homosexuality is not a choice.
I know. I'm a raging queer in SF.
Guys like Savageweiner help me understand why you would choose raging...
You know, I've read and re-read your post a few times. While I'm glad you don't have a problem with gay marriage (and thank you for that), I cannot help but to be offended and flabbergasted at your insistence that people "...choose to live a homosexual lifestyle."
Since when did you have a choice about your sexual orientation?
Since you started developing it.
If you did have a choice, why did you choose the orientation you chose?
Because people wanted to. Whether it was to make a statement or conform to tradition or some other reason... You'd have to ask the individual.
The point here, if you've not figured it out, is that homosexuality is not a choice.
And, as you can tell, I happen to disagree, as I come from the school of thought that homosexuality is a choice, and in that, I can accept the homosexual lifestyle as the American way of life allows for the freedom to do so. I also consider attraction in general to be a choice (which really becomes explainable in the case of extramarital affairs), but that could be getting on a tangent and OT
See, the thing is, it's not a choice. I, for example, knew that from a very young age, that I liked girls. It wasn't a choice, it was just there. Nobody chooses to be gay. Like he asked before, when did you "choose" to become heterosexual? You never did. You never sat down one day and said, I'm a heterosexual, you just knew that you were, because the opposite sex was the one you were attracted to. Thing is, it works the same way for gay people.
I hate the term "homosexual lifestyle". The so called homosexual lifestyle is for the most part, not any different than the heterosexual lifestyle. Gay people go to work, pay their taxes, fall in love, fall out of love, hurt, feel, and basically amble along in life just like their hetero bretheren.
See, the thing is, it's not a choice. I, for example, knew that from a very young age, that I liked girls. It wasn't a choice, it was just there. Nobody chooses to be gay. Like he asked before, when did you "choose" to become heterosexual? You never did. You never sat down one day and said, I'm a heterosexual, you just knew that you were, because the opposite sex was the one you were attracted to. Thing is, it works the same way for gay people.
If I make out with a guy, I'm perceived as gay. If I make out with a girl, I'm perceived as straight. And I can choose to do either action.
(Heck, people have called me gay on several occasions like when I compliment a guy on his looks)
And also, attraction isn't a choice that's made and completed overnight. It takes time to build and finish.
I hate the term "homosexual lifestyle". The so called homosexual lifestyle is for the most part, not any different than the heterosexual lifestyle.
So why hate the term? As they aren't that different, wouldn't that just place homsexuals on the same field as heterosexuals, where they should be?
Sounds to me like you're one of the lucky few in this world that can decide which gender he's going to perform oral sex on. That must be so handy. Out cruising the bars on a saturday night, and after finding that none of the women will give you the time of day, knowing that you can instead wake up in the morning, your head resting satisfyingly on the firm belly of a young stud you picked up instead, your fingers playfully fondling the hair on his thighs...
I remember in my youth going home alone several evenings, frustrated. If only I had known that I could have just changed my mind...
Neon, I have to join you in your envy of the sexually flexible. I knew before I was in Kindergarten that I had very different feelings towards boys & girls. While I wanted to throw a baseball with the boys, punch them in the arm, shoot toy guns at them, I wanted to do very different things to the girls. I had no idea what those things were, but they made me feel all fuzzy-headed just trying to figure out what they were.
Some of the ones who made it clear to me, as a tyke in the late 60s;
Samantha from Bewitched (and her Evil Twin, Sabrina)
The little girl on the Barbara Ann bakery truck
Eartha Kitt (and the others) as Catwoman
The Laugh-In go-go bikini girls
Raquel Welch, especially as well-kept cave woman.
I wonder if it will ever dawn on the "Sexual Orientation Pro-Choice" crowd how much they're confessing to, even to those of us with no psychological training, when they admit that they've battled nature to be heterosexual.I know I had as much choice in my orientation as I did about in my height and eye color.
Good points.
I can only think of one way to put it: I admired and emulated The Rifleman, but I wanted to bathe with That Girl. I didn't take inventory of society and then make those decisions. They just sort of came to me...
Not to be too picky, but Samantha Stevens didn't have a twin. You're thinking of her cousin whose name was Serena, not Sabrina. Sabrina was the teenage witch who had her start in the Archie comics.
Why do I feel as though I shouldn't know all of that?
Cripes, I stand corrected Bill. Cut me some slack on the details, it was 40 years ago, and it was hard to pay attention, as I was always watching for my mom coming into the room so I could get my hand outta my pants.
well I happen to be from the school of reality, being gay is not a choice. I never chose to be gay. I have a natural attraction to men, and no attraction to women. Do the math.
There has been no scientific study showing that people can successfully change their orientation from gay to straight. Even the "success" stories from the Jones and Yarhouse study openly admit their sexuality is now "complicated" and also state that they STILL have homosexual thoughts and feelings.
Gay folks define ourselves by our desires, not our actions. I was gay long before I ever had sex, and even during some long stretches of unintentional celibacy I was definitely gay. There's no gay lifestyle, just like there's no straight lifestyle.
The only choice I made was to accept the hand I was dealt and do my best to be a productive member of society. Homosexuality is no more a choice than having small breasts are a choice. While yes, the appearance can be changed, but the core cannot.
Alaska's hockey mom (not America's) is saying that her first amendments rightto free speech is being infringed upon by the hateful media with their criticism of her.
This shows her "profound ignorance" of the constitutional protections given to the press.
I doubt the word profound has ever been applied to her before.
You're assuming his brain hasn't completely rotted away from all the syphillis?
Well, if it did, Joe would probably be there to help him.
Memo to Michael Savage: GET HELP...!
I really have to wonder about guys that get so bent out of shape about others sexuality. The only possible reason I would care about someone elses sexual orientation is if I wanted to have sex with them.
The Savage Nazi once again pledging allegiance to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.
Actually Weiner, we vote no on Proposition 8 because we hate.....you!
For once...should I dare say it? Savage is right!!
I for one am against Homosexual marriage. I think it is very important that Proposition 8 passes in my state...
HOW do people like this Azzzhole KEEP their jobs? HOW?
by selling lots of ads on their shows, same way rush, hannity, et al do. let's be realistic, given the intellectual level of his audience, he could phone his show in every day, and they'd lap it up.
hemorroid medication manufacturers know this, so they pay big bucks, to advertise on his show. :)
Here's another angle that people don't consider. My husband came out of the closet in my forties. I found a support group of over 2 MILLION people whose lives were devastated by their spouses trying to conform to the SANCTITY OF HETERO MARRIAGE. Some really tried to make it work; some still do. Some were left devastated just when they were retiring. Some had brand new children. Now sure, people don't have to hide, but hate mongers like this perpetuate the lie that gay people are subhuman and this kind of thinking CREATES CLOSETED GAY PEOPLE. Families are destroyed, lives forever ripped apart becausse of gay people living in FEAR TO BE WHO THEY ARE. Its not a choice. As for people who claim biology - why do you even CARE who marries whom? How can it POSSIBLY destroy marriage? I will tell you what does - not accepting people - THAT destroys marriage. Read up on straight spouses and look at your bigotry Savage (you don't deserve the name, Doc). Sorry to be dramatic but this issue is FAR more important than this jerk. Its very simple. And by the way, you HAVE had gay teachers, you HAVE had gay neighbors, you HAVE had gay people all around you - better check your marriage - could you be INFECTED? Its like listening to SEGREGATION NOW etc. This WILL happen. GET OVER IT.
You are correct. Restricting marriage to heterosexual couples weakens marriage. My ex's coming out could have been a cause for celebration, but the trauma of our divorce felt like a death.
It was their finely drawn lantern jaws that was the giveaway.
"If you're insane ..."
Well, Mr. Weiner is FINALLY talking about something he knows something about.
Another moment of hilarity...for YEARS gay people were accused of leading promiscuous lives! AIDS was their PUNISHMENT FOR THESE HORRIBLE DEBAUCHERY!!! They weren't faithful or decent human beings. Now, when they want to have commitments they are accused of DESTROYING MARRIAGE!! But hey, I'm not against gay people, they say, some of my friends are gay.
Sound familiar? I simply CANT believe this man is THIS stupid. Obviously he's just whoring for money. Which is SO gay, isn't it?
Weiner is the insane one, as are his idiot followers. These clowns are definitly off their meds.
Actually, I just made the point that heterosexual sex can result in procreation; homosexual sex cannot. That is nature or Nature's Law. I didn't make it that way, but it is the context in reality.
Marriage as a human invention is something I agree with, if you care to look at my comments.
You are totally ignorant if you believe our laws (based on British Common Law) are not based on the Bible. You don't have to go to law school, as I did, to learn this. In fact all standards of behavior in Western society are based on the Judeo-Christian tradition that comes from the Bible. It has evolved, or in some cases devolved, but that is the source whether you like it or not.
You comments about dogs and hamsters are interesting. The Austrian legal system has bestowed "human" right on apes. Certain bestiality cases in Western countries have examined whether the animal with whom the human had sex with could give consent. So, we are already going down that path. Eventually, if Western society has not imploded yet, we will see child molestation legalized when the child gives consent. And it will be because of ignorant people like you who don't even know that our legal system IS based on the Bible.
So, which law school did you attend.... Regent University?
Our system of laws owes more to Greek and Roman tradition than to the Bible. Can you list any laws currently on the books which are found uniquely in the Bible, and not in other cultures? I guess you could point to the old "Blue Laws", or Sunday closing laws..... but they are rapidly disappearing.
Your child-molestation argument is nonsense. It is based on a classic Logical Fallacy, known as the Slippery Slope. Did you study Logic in Law School?
when I see Gorilla's marching on Washington,(unaided and uninfluenced by humans) Protesting for the right to have sex with, and marry humans, I'll consider this a legit argument. When I see Dogs starting a PAC to get a beastiality-sympathetic politician into office, I'll take you seriously. When I see babies writing letters to their congressman for the right to have sex and marry adult people, I'll take your points seriously.
But let's say they are serious.
Well, you don't need gay marriage to get there. If marriage is between a man and a woman, does a male human and a female dog count? Does a female human and a vibrator count? If marriage is between a man and a woman, what about a man and his mother -- that's a man/woman couple! And nothing in "marriage is between one man and one woman" prevents polygamy. Polygamy is being married to more than one person at the same time, it's multiple marriages happening simultaneously, not one big group marriage. Bob could marry 7 women seperately. There would be only one man, and one woman in each marriage, just that Bob would be married multiple times.
You don't need gay people have any of that reasoning. It's all been a possibility since the moment people first bestowed rights for marriage. So keeping gay folks out of marriage as some sort of stopgap is pure BS.
Throw out the dog, cat, hamster argument. How about a second/third husband/wife oncurrently?
Then your husband's wife drops a bomb on you. Dinner for eight and only seven spoons!
The principle is "two consenting adults". In the same way that pedophila and bestiality don't naturally spring from that principle, neither does polygamy. It violates it directly.
Something else to consider is that there is a tangible effect of a lack of legal recognition for a gay spouse. There are matters of hospital visitation, inheritance, taxes, etc, just as there are for heterosexual couples. For polygamy you're always going to need to have one wife (presumably the first) have legal rights superceding those of the subsequent wives, otherwise any conflicts will be difficult to resolve outside of litigation. Therefore, there's no difference for someone who marries one woman and has other women living in the same residence. The legal scenario is the same. The wife gets legal recognition for any societal/legal purposes, and the polyamorous dynamic remains the same. If the wife dies/leaves, then the man can marry the second in line. Inheritance without a will would be at the discretion of the recognized spouse. So there's no real need for legal polygamy as there is for sanctioned gay partnerships. It can be done without societal endorsement, with nothing lacking.
You also have to bear in mind that if 5% of the population is gay, then that's 15 million people who have an interest in gay marriage. When you add in sympathizers, it's probably at least 80-100 million (for some sort of legal recogition, at least). I don't see the same level of support for polygamy, even if kept down to the 15 million figure. The Mormons are the only ones who would even be imagined to advocate it, and they've considered it grounds for excommunication since the 19th century. Who's going to make the push for it?
So it seems unlikely that there would be a significant groundswell for it even if there was some viable slippery slope in effect. There's no need for it and nobody to take up the cause as far as I know.
Who is to say it can't be more than two consenting adults involved? Tradition? Majority opinion? Or?
It's the principle that's being fought for. It's not "people should be able to do anything they want to do". It's "straight people can get married, so gay people should be able to get married to each other as well". There's nothing that leads to an argument for polygamy there. There needs to be some causation for changing the current status, and this doesn't create it.
And when a good portion of the population voices their disapproval of gay "marriage", they are in all likelyhood doing it because of principle also. If a person is ok with same sex civil unions, complete with the rights that would go along with that, but is against the use of the word "marriage" to describe same based on principle, who is to say who is wrong.
What does this have to do with polygamy?
Legal recognition is what's more important to me, personally. That will be what helps to mainstream the gay community. If the name is that big of an issue, that can wait for some future date, since I don't see what practical difference it makes right now.
I used polygamy as a parallel and we were able to get to the word "principle" to use as to why certain people feel certain ways. The "bigot", "Homo-phobe", etc prose does little to advance the conversation (or the cause) on either side. Just as it is one of my personal principles to not buy things I can't pay for and I apply that to my politics does not make me a right wing wingnut. It is an ingrained trait from my parents and personal observations, just as the issue of this topic. But in any case, it does not lessen most of the feelings here that Michael is truly a Dolt.
"Principle" doesn't always mean "right", you know. People who opposed interracial marriage would say they were doing so on principle, for the good of society, etc. But calling those people racists would be wrong, somehow.
Do you really think that the proposition is based on the idea that homosexuals should be allowed to have civil unions but not marriage? If that was really the concern, wouldn't the bill say "marriages will be known as civil unions" instead of banning gay marriage? Do you think the Mormons backing this bill approve of the very concept of homosexuality? It seems odd to pour this much money into something with no practical consequence.
The thing is that if you don't have a valid rationale for taking action against a group of people unlike yourself, then you are a bigot. I would say that it's the arguments that come from bigots and homophobes that do little to advance anything worthwhile, not the accurate labeling of such people.
the precedent of seperate but equal is never equal.
If marriage and civil unions are identical, then there is no need for a seperate word. If the parties involved have identical rights, identical responsibilities, and identical worth to society -- then the seperation is arbitrary and unnecessary.
If it's NOT arbitrary and unnecessary, then they are not equal. The only reason to make a seperate legal distinction is to safeguard people's values and sensibilities, something the government is not charged to protect or consider a legitimate reasoning. Religious Rights end at the nearest nonbeliever. You do not have the right to force your faith on others. A pluralistic society has to treat all citizens equally regardless of how they feel about each other. Reasonable minds may not approve, but the government cannot play favorities.
Prop 8 asks the government to play favorites. It takes rights away. Whether or not you agree the judges should've recognized those rights, they DID. Whether or not you agree gays should have those rights, THEY DO. Whether or not you agree they should be allowed to enter into the legal institution of marriage THEY HAVE. Prop 8 takes those rights away.
In the caveman days a woman would have elations with many men. This helped children survive in that more than one man was involved with suporting its survival. If your real dad sucumbed to caveman style hazards your support didn't disappear with him.
"elations" is a good word, however I don't think that's what you really were trying to say.
There is nothing inherently immoral about polygamy, so I see no unavoidable harm if society decides to make it legal. Problems have arisen in certain societies that practice polygamy when they force underage girls into marriage. It also potentially creates financial and legal problems when that many people enter into a legal contract based on emotional attraction. There are plenty of logical reasons to oppose polygamy without even citing morality or religion.
In reality, our laws and rights are subject to the whim of government and majority rule. The Constitution affords us protections against certain encroachments, but Bush and Cheney have demonstrated just how fragile those protections can be.
It would certainly be a boon to the Divorce Lawyers.
Ultimately, marriage is for making babies (heterosexual intercourse) and raising them (with a mother and father)...dFens
======================================================================
Thanks for your opinion. My grandparents, both of whom remarried in their 60s, thought it cute. But ultimately, it's just that - an opinion.
And by the way, gay couples are raising kids all over the place these days ... they are adopting the throwaway kids all those nice Christian hetero couples don't want anything to do with. Biology isn't the only thing that makes a parent.
Ultimately, marriage is for making babies (heterosexual intercourse) and raising them (with a mother and father)...
Which is why we should outlaw divorce and punish parents who have too few children (and don't get me started on childless couples).