mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

November 29, 2005

Doublespeak 2

Filed under: Politics — mlah @ 5:54 am


gay marriage

i wrote about my position on gay marriage pretty firmly here. so i won’t rehash it too much here.

this isn’t really about gay marriage after all, but about the doublespeak lefties use to try and demonize the right.

first off, i read a number of liberal blogs. liberal by my standards anyway. some of you are confused at my apparent tolerance of liberalness as endorsement. be careful, it is not always so.

i stand firmly on the right.

but one of the liberal blogs i read is titled moonbatty. and since this was an argument over there, i thought it would be polite to at least give her a link and some tracky love. and yes, i’m sure tracky love is deviant somehow.

the left calls any position taken against gay marriage as hate. which is wrong in some cases, and right in other cases i’m sure. it’s a pc campaign to paint the right position (like how i did that?) as a group who has positioned themselves on an emotion and not on reason. they’re trying to lie to the unsuspecting.

the lie they use is that gays / homosexuals …. whatever the pc term is. that gays are denied equal protection under the law.

that’s a lie. gays DO have equal protection under the law. they just don’t like the laws.

you see, the laws prohibit them from doing what they want, and don’t prohibit straight / hetero…. normal… mainstream… hmmmmmm. let’s use straight. don’t prohibit straights from doing what they want.

same thing? not so fast my friends!

i like to play golf (not really) but can’t play at the golf course as there are certain property rights, extended by laws that grant exclusive rights to the property owners. they play, i don’t. i don’t like the law.

am i being denied equal protection? no

simple argument. i have the exact same right to engage in a same sex union as any other person in the us. NONE. that’s equal. you may not like it, but we all have the same right in that respect, and it is being pursued by the law equally. equal protection.

gays use ‘equal protection’ to decry equal treatment they just flat don’t like.

now, if i, as a straight person was allowed to engage in straight AND gay unions, and gay people were only allowed to engage in straight marriages. THEN there would be unequal application of the law.

but that is not the case.


  1. So what you just did with the “now, if i, as a straight person was allowed to engage in straight AND gay unions, and gay people were only allowed to engage in straight marriages. THEN there would be unequal application of the law.”–that’s not “doublespeak”?

    As for what I consider to be anti-gay, au contraire. Read the thread again. I also called out Dear Mr. West and the other politician explicitly because of their anti-gay stance, and the anti-gay laws they tried to pass (in the face of their own gayness). Legislation against allowing gay people to work with children, for instance. When the biggest offenders against children are _not_ gay people. Rules about gays in the military are also anti-gay. etc. etc. Gay marriage is actually the issue I’m the *most* relaxed on. I don’t give a damn what it’s called. Sure, reserve “marriage” to the religous meaning of it, but “civil marriage”, or “civil union” needs to be open to people regardless of their gender, and saying “like cannot marry like” is discrimination, even with your lovely doublespeak, my dear mlah.

    Comment by moonbatty — November 29, 2005 @ 3:01 pm

  2. how is that doublespeak? how could i have been any more straightforward?

    whether or not denying like gender unions is discrimination or not is not the topic.

    the left claims that the current laws regarding marriage are deny equal protection under the law to gays. i am saying that you are falsely claiming unequal protection under the law in a cheap attempt to garner sympathy from the unsuspecting fence sitters.

    you very clearly DO have equal protection. i am denied just the same as you. that’s equal. whether or not the law is just is a different matter.

    Comment by mlah — November 29, 2005 @ 5:01 pm

  3. Moonbatty is not correct in her rebuttal to Mlah. Now I gotta go read her blog entry — and Mlah’s archive. Dammit……. wait a tick, Moonbatty implies the Abe Lincoln was gay?? Where did this enter into any rational, scholarly discussion of anything?

    I’ll only respond to one item in Moonbatty’s response to Mlah.

    “Don’t Ask” in the military is NOT anti-gay. It is a matter of preserving good order and discipline. Back in the day (before Clinton), I was asked the standard battery of questions like have I ever espoused or belonged to a group espousing the violent overthrow of the government, am I or have I ever thought of being homosexual, that sort of thing. A positive answer to either would have prevented me from being assigned to a position of trust. Post-Clinton, and the new policy, the military CANNOT ask you whether you are (or have ever thought of being) gay. Now, you are free to be as gay as you like, as long as (1) you keep it to yourself, and (2) don’t get caught practicing the sexual side of homosexuality. Sure, you’re free to go out and get a room at a motel and do some same-sex snogging all you want, but don’t let anyone know about it. Don’t do it on ship, or in the barracks, or on post (or at least, make damn sure you don’t get caught – and the same proscription stands for heterosexual couples). Don’t let your comrades know about it. Because, whether you wish to admit it or not, Moonbatty, there are only about 3% of the population engaging in this sort of behavior. For many others, it is repulsive, or against religious tenets. I dare say, for a majority of others. Especially in the military, which by definition tends to be one of the largest demographically “conservative” elements of our society. And which is composed largely of young males — who, all testosterony, are likely to express their repulsion in physical form. For the safety of the homosexuals in the military — who are, as I’ve pointed out, allowed to serve as long as they “Don’t Tell” — their best interests dictate that they follow this policy. Orders not to beat the crap out of someone you suspect is gay are weak, because there have been and will ever be fights going on in the military. Something about “warrior” conditioning and celebration of all that testosterone. Sure, you can bring the miscreants to justice, but what does that do for the poor, dead “faggot”? It’s about good order and discipline. Not about being “fair” to “gay rights.” And it’s not “anti-gay” but rather “gay neutral.” What Moonbatty leftists want is a military (and society) that celebrates gayhood.

    Comment by yup — November 29, 2005 @ 5:14 pm

  4. I for one still can’t see what the problem is. If gay people want to get married, how is that going to affect us straight people? Is the mere act of two guys (or two girls) getting married somewhere going to affect the sanctity of your straight marriage? NO. Your marriage is still the same. On the same note, news flash: marriage isn’t sacred anymore. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Nobody cares. “But marriage is a holy union in the church!” Last I checked, this isn’t a theocracy, and nobody cares what your religion thinks about gays or their union. If two people love each other, then they have a right to join each other in marriage (even though I personally think b u t t s e c k s is gross).

    Comment by medium john — November 29, 2005 @ 6:39 pm

  5. C’mon, MJ, you don’t have to spell out “b u t t s e c k s” — go ahead and use a proper term for it: buggery.

    All people in the US who have a “wedding license” issued by a state are in fact entered into a civil union. The “marriage” was performed by a religious entity, if at all. Mlah has pointed out the camel’s nose of government entering into the marriage tent in his Feb 2005 posting on the subject.

    Perhaps half of the US population no longer considers marriage a sacred thing. Neither, by the way, is an oath considered sacred any longer. Lie all you want, ‘cuz the man can’t prove anything (the legal defense popularized by Bubba C).

    Comment by yup — November 29, 2005 @ 10:21 pm

  6. I’m glad I’m not Ghey!!!

    Comment by CT — November 30, 2005 @ 2:56 am

  7. mj, how does it affect my marriage (not) if gay marriage is legal.

    how does it affect my life if two gangs have a gang war and shoot half of each other? doesn’t effect me at all.

    but, as a moral person. if i have the power to stop a wrong, and i do NOTHING, then i am party to that wrong. i have in effect co-commited the wrong.

    if i watch a girl get raped and i have the strength to stop her attacker, i have helped rape her. i know a lot of people do not feel that way but i do.

    now, as to how it actually affects marriage? it’s the simple process of encroachment. you will see this as you get older, and no i am not trying to talk down to you and say i’m right because i’m older. when i see you next week, we can talk a bit more over the somewhat legal beverage.

    first, gay marriages are going to be legalized. because whu shouldn’t they? gays are people. gays are citizens. gays pay taxes. why shouldn’t gays be allowed to couple as they want? notwithstanding that they can cohabit now, they just can’t enter into religious contracts which contravene most religions.

    the next step, which will come 10-15 years from now will be. why can’t gays get married in the church? they are citizens. they pay taxes. they gave offering to the church. why shouldn’t gays be able to enjoy marriage in their favorite church?

    they will claim in court that they offered monies to whichever church in good faith (hah) as youngsters not knowing their sexuality. after puberty they realized they are in violation of religious tenets and cannot get married there due to religious prohibitions. and courts will compel churches to allow the ceremony, then perform the ceremony, or refund the monies.

    the issue for me is not a matter of gay marriage. it is an issue of big government running religion.

    and specifically, this post is about the word games lefties use to try and convince people they are right. but they aren’t, they’re just goof at lieing.

    Comment by mlah — November 30, 2005 @ 3:06 am

  8. I think that in order to strengthen your statement you need to state specifically how you see gays do have the same rights as hetero’s. Why? Because that is the basis of the gay battle over marriage/union…and you haven’t stated specifically how they are wrong.

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — November 30, 2005 @ 3:34 am

  9. simple. we have the same abilities under the law. and we are prosecuted for violating the law just the same. whether or not the law allows them to do what they want is the subject of a different post.

    they cannot enter into homosexual marriages. i cannot enter into homsexual marriages. that’s pretty equal.

    further. if i enter into a hetero marriage, the police \do not bother me. and if gays enter into hetero marriages. they are not bothered for it either.

    the fact that they do not want to is a different topic. i’m writing about how the left cloaks their goals in seemingly innocuous language that has nothing to do with the topic.

    equal protection? not the case.

    Comment by mlah — November 30, 2005 @ 3:53 am

  10. Uh. The government doesn’t interfere with churches. People with service dogs can be kicked out of church, churches aren’t required to have handicapped ramps, etc. (Or so I was told repeatedly by many different sources. I admit that they may be wrong.)

    I do not think that the government has the right to force any church into doing anything.

    Civil ceremonies are NOT religous. They’re all about the BENEFITS and PROTECTIONS.

    Question: If a church supports gay marriage, are they currently allowed to perform a legally binding ceremony between two gay men or two gay women? No. Not even if they want to.

    Comment by moonbatty — November 30, 2005 @ 4:59 am

  11. the government does interfere with churches. the irreligious just likes to try and label it as secularism.

    why are there unions at all? it is the government infringing on religious institutions.

    the state should have nothing to do with any unions of any sort. each citizen is equal.

    why does a couple get special tax status? rights? they shouldn’t

    unions are a part of religion. any tampering attempted by the state should be stopped.

    Comment by mlah — November 30, 2005 @ 5:20 am

  12. I think I’m beginning to see what you’re saying. Being “married” and being a part of a legally binding union are two different things.

    Ok, I understand that churches who are morally against gay people (however stupid that is, don’t even get me started on it) can not allow gays to be married. But are they, or are they not, allowed to enter into a legal union?

    Now, I’ll be the first to admit that my political and current events knowledge is subpar beyond reckoning, but I seem to remember that only certain states allow it. Or used to anyway (god I need to start watching the news). That is the problem that I have. What does the government use as an excuse to stop gays from entering into a legal union? Is it the mere fact that they are gay? If so, whose job is it to declare what is or is not morally acceptable (in terms of sexuality) for the country, and then impose those morals on everyone in the form of laws? I took government last year (got a 4 on the AP exam ;]) and I have heard of no such position.

    Hmm, maybe I’m more liberal than I thought. This sucks, I don’t want to be a liberal hippie.

    Comment by medium john — November 30, 2005 @ 6:07 am

  13. liberal hippie mj.

    this post was not about who sets the rules for gay marriage. it’s about the fact that the lefties…. liberal hippies… obfuscate that issue with the term equal protection.

    they are implying that the police knowingly do not protect them from wrong doing.

    the issue is actually whether or not a state can grant unions at all. whether or not they can force the church to grant unions the state approves of, and just who they will allow to be united.

    the post is about them lieing. using terms which are obviously unacceptable, in an effort to fool YOU into supporting their lifestyle.

    don’t fall for their tricks man.

    Comment by mlah — November 30, 2005 @ 6:13 am

  14. Mlah sed: “i have the exact same right to engage in a same sex union as any other person in the us. NONE. that’s equal.”

    No one is denying, dipbag, that same-sex marriage is currently almost completely illegal in the USA, which is all your statement affirms.

    “whether or not the law is just is a different matter.”

    “Whether the law is just” is the only question non-retards are discussing amongst themselves.

    Ooh, how shall we prevail against such brilliant legal reasoning?! You should probably just freely admit your irrational Hatred– it would be much more honest.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — November 30, 2005 @ 9:48 am

  15. F-in Gus is here saying in his shrill little voice how Hateful Mlah is — as well as anyone opposed to Gus’ sacred political agenda. How ironic that those so-filled-with-hate leftists project their emotions onto the people they hate. (And yes, I borrowed that from Malkin.)

    Why, Gus, when the Republicans offered that they might be open to gay “civil unions” during the 2004 campaign season, the hard core jihadist sinistra and their Dimocrat front men slammed that compromise as a hateful thing? When polls indicate a majority of those opposed to gay “marriage” are at best uncaring about gay “civil unions.” The civil union would effectively grant the same benefits to gay partners as a traditional marriage liscence, without resorting to rubbing in the face the vast majority of religious people (remember the 2000 census, with its 90% religiosity finding?) that the government is sanctioning gay “marriage.” And as we’ve already pointed out, most of us hets in traditional religious marriages (excepting some polyamorous unions that are acknowledged by fringe religions, for instance) are at the same time involved in a legally binding, formally state-sanctioned contract otherwise known as a civil union. (Also seen in the legal world is the informally sanctioned status of “common law marriage.”) It’s just simply refered to as a “marriage license” because, before the far-left became vocal about it and forced society’s nose into the poop pile, most of society never gave the matter a second thought because marriage is — has ever been — traditionally husband and wife.

    MJ, there are all sorts of government interference in religious institutions. For instance, if a preacher man uses his pulpit to endorse a political candidate, then the government has the option to withdraw the church’s tax exempt status as punishment. Unless, of course, the candidate is “acceptable” — for instance, Algore and Bubba C were rather adept at making campaign appearances in select churches/temples (often those with mostly minority congregations). That tax exempt status is important, because it allows the church to operate without worry of crippling tax burdens (most churches are not wealthy, relying on the donations of their congregants to pay for church property and ministerial expenses). It also guarantees that the church will not be subject to pressure — in the form of caprecious tax schemes — from government to conform to government ideas of religion (that pesky “Separation Clause” at work).

    As for the “justness” of gay marriage. Start at the beginning. Marriage is not a “right” — it is not ennumerated in the Constitution and is not spelled out in the citizen’s handbook. People can shack up all they want, have kids however they please, and so forth. There is a civil law recognition that by shacking up for a period of time and supporting each other as if they were husband and wife, the couple can be seen as effectively having entered into marriage, hence the “common law marriage” concept. However, the government can ignore any claim to “marriage” a couple makes, despite any religious sanctioning of the union, on the grounds that it does not meet recognized criteria (for example, polyamory as mentioned above, or close relational unions — siblings, first cousins, etc) and can in fact prosecute the participants in such a union for violating legal standards. Gus, and the jihadist sinistra movement, wants to change the legal standards generally recognized throughout the country, established over centuries of debate and legislation, which match the popular will of its citizenship.

    Comment by yup — November 30, 2005 @ 12:49 pm

  16. Hi Yup,
    I’ll say it to you, too, then: Hater! It’s pure irrational heebie-jeebies on the part of anyone arguing against gay marriage, so why not just say so? None of you makes *any* sense! I ain’t projecting shite– anyone can smell the Hate & Disgust on this issue, no need to be coy. The Constitution, to my mind, protects any act that the State doesn’t have a “compelling interest” to ban or regulate. And I’m just not seeing it here. Just because something has been a tradition doesn’t make it constitutional (see not letting blacks sit in the front of the bus, for example).
    You mention it being a case of “rubbing [it] in the face [of] the vast majority of religious people”– well, that’s not how it works around here, bud. If we made law based on that jazz, what would distinguish us from the freaking Taliban? It’s their problem to deal with, just like they have to deal with it if I take the Lord’s name in vain, eat shellfish or keep my business open on the Sabbath, whatever.

    I’m not sure what the problem was with the proposed civil unions. Maybe that whole “separate but equal” thing that was hashed out in the Civil Rights era with schools? Maybe they differed slightly as to rights? I really can’t answer that. Kerry didn’t push the issue, btw, he was content with civil unions.

    Mlah– oh, you actually *did* express your Hatred earlier, how good of you! “as a moral person. if i have the power to stop a wrong, and i do NOTHING, then i am party to that wrong.” So in your head not only is it a “WRONG”, IMMORAL, you then equated gay marriage with RAPE! Did everybody see that?! Talk about political manipulation via language! A little review: rape involves a victim and a victimizer. Gay marriage doesn’t harm anybody. “Morality” is in the eye of the beholder. If it can’t be PROVEN to harm anybody, then “morality” ought not account for anything in the legal arena. Cuz this is America, baby, fuck yeah!

    Your other baseless paranoid fantasy, that the gov’t might one day *require* churches, etc., to perform gay marriages, is beyond idiotic. Your next fear on this “slippery slope” will be that men will be *required* by the gov’t to marry other men! Enforced gayness! Eeeeeek! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition NOW, before the sinister depths of the Homosexual Agenda play out in full! As American was founded on freedom of religion, I somehow doubt that anyone would stand for this, including me and all my ACLU chums, bro.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — November 30, 2005 @ 9:13 pm

  17. you moron gus. take off the liberal glasses. nobody saw it because it didn’t happen. if a man is beating someone and i do nothing, i am party to the beating. if someone robs a bank and i have the power to stop it, and i do nothing, i am party to it.

    but no. i did not equate gay marriage with bank robbery.

    you and all your aclu chums would never defend a straight male being required to perform homosexual activities by the state, they would more likely endorse the requirement.

    try again gussie gus

    Comment by mlah — November 30, 2005 @ 9:47 pm

  18. This is where I stick up for homosexuals.

    No, they do not have all the same protections hetero’s have.

    Many states have “common law” marriages, which give the same protections as a lawful marriage. Protections regarding children, wills, etc.

    Even in states with no common law spouse recognition, states make different provisions for spouses and family in times of death when a will is not available to determine wishes.

    There are many things that gay couples are not entitled to that hetero couples are entitled to. Things that need to be mandated by law. I know you don’t have a problem with civil unions. However, civil unions need to be legalized in order for things like tax codes to equatable between the two groups.

    So when I state you need to be specific in order to strengthen your argument, this is what I’m talking about.

    That day at lunch you told me you had no problem with civil unions. However, even in civil unions, things like raising children, divorce, and all the other legal issues that are addressed for heteros need to be addressed for homosexuals.

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — December 1, 2005 @ 9:33 pm

  19. not having the right to marry is not the same as being prosecuted for a law while others are not.

    everyone who tries same sex marriage is prosecuted. that’s equal. therefore equal protection.

    not liking the law does not mean the police do not defend you.

    maybe the law is unjust, but it is NOT unequal protection

    Comment by mlah — December 1, 2005 @ 11:40 pm

  20. Funny how the jihadisinistra movement are so “we’re all about equality and everyone is equally free to do what they want” and go on to point out that it’s their right to “take the Lord’s name in vain, eat shellfish or keep my business open on the Sabbath.” But then they scream bloody murder when the non-government affiliated Boy Scouts of America ban openly gay people from joining; or when a Bible study group uses a publically funded edifice (school, library) just as any group of citizens (such as the local Gay and Lesbian Outreach or Communist Party of America organizations) are entitled to do; or when the Catholic Church officially bans the ordination of gay men. Seems that everyone’s free to do as they like, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of the pro-gay, anti-family, anti-Christian agenda of these do-gooders.

    Gus is also derisive of community standards in the passage of legislation, and erroneously couples his gay agenda to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s (can you see Dr Martin Luther King agitating for the right to bugger another man?). He sneers that bowing to popular will in legislation is tantamount to turning the country over to the Taliban. Catch phrases, by the way, nothing but boilerplate screed coming from the Left. By Gus’ own standards, there should be laws enacted to specifically allow people to engage in bestiality, marry their own children, and forcing parents to turn over their children to the adminstration of the State for proper indoctrination. Oh, wait, that last bit is already being done thanks to the radical left 9th Court. Gus apparently wants the government to write laws specifically allowing each and every activity a citizen is allowed to engage in, to regulate every conceivable activity (and where’s the freedom in that, I ask you) on the basis that it causes nobody some unspecified harm (never mind that the law allowing abortions encourages the psychological harm to the expectant mother and repeated use of the technique, such as in lieu of contraceptives, inevitably harms the female — do some studies on women in Russia who have access to free and unrestricted State-sponsored abortions and the practically non-existent birth rate there) because “[i]f it can’t be PROVEN to harm anybody, then ‘morality’ ought not account for anything in the legal arena.”

    And as for the government getting into the regulation of church and religion: look North. Look at the new anti-discrimination laws in Canada (and in Europe) which specifically prohibit a person from making derogatory comments about homosexuality (such as, “it’s a sin”). Look at the harrassment that Christian churches (not to mention plain ordinary folk) there have been under as a result of these laws. This is what awaits us in the good ‘ole USA as soon as the jihadisinistra’s can get their court orders in place.

    And Gus once again proved my point, that the jihadisinistra’s use labels to vilify anyone who does not agree with them. He says that I, and Mlah and others who disagree with him, are Hateful. We are bigoted anti-Gay people. I won’t get into the cliched “I have several friends who are …..” (fill in the blank with your favorite group of people), but Gus should pay attention to Mlah’s pointed references to some of his friends/respondants and their obvious affiliations. Were he such a hater, I doubt those people would be his friends, nez pas?

    Comment by yup — December 2, 2005 @ 6:37 am

  21. Hetero’s don’t get prosecuted for marriage, unless it’s an age or blood relative issue.

    How is that equal? Mlah, I gotta admit, your point is lost on me here. You have yet to prove how anything under this topic is equal.

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — December 2, 2005 @ 9:24 am

  22. MB, how about: I demand the legislature and judiciary recognize my right to simultaneously marry 5 women. I am being deprived of this right by unjust laws made by hyper-religious nutjobs who are letting their morality issues cloud the debate! I, and a number of others in this country, am being denied equal treatment under the law! I demand justice!!

    Comment by yup — December 2, 2005 @ 10:29 am

  23. Yup…some people would agree with you. Some people would not.

    Just like some people feel they can marry a teenager.

    Or marry their first cousin.

    But we also have a Constitution that all men are created equal. It doesn’t say “except for homosexuals”. (And yes, I’m pretty sure they existed back then.) We have created laws enforcing no discrimination based on a number of things…things that can’t be helped like being disabled, or black. So why should sexual preference be the one time our laws can discriminate without repercussion?

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — December 2, 2005 @ 7:11 pm

  24. Hey Mlah, been a while since I posted on your site. I see all this discussion for and against gay marriage. Long messages folks. I have a relatively short one.

    Why the hell does this matter at all in any way shape or form? There is no valid reason to allow or disallow same sex marriage/civil unions… Are there no longer any valid things to fight for? Who gives a flying fuck if they get married? What possible harm could it do? I think it’s just another reason for hate. Are there not important things that people could be fighting for or against? You guys need some suggestions on things you can fight against? Here, I’ll give you a list… when these are taken care of feel free to hate each other again: poverty, war, genocide, corporate fraud, global warming, genocide, polution of our fresh water, murder, sexual abuse, child abuse, spousal abuse, alcoholism, gang violence, third world hunger, divorce and organised religion. What?!? Yeah I said it. The values behind organized religion are great but more death and hate on this planet has been caused by conflicts in religious views. I am spiritual and I am sickened by intolerance and killing in the name of the Lord. Love thy neighboor. Not love thy neighboor of the opposite gender.

    In closing… really though… who gives a fuck?! You are wasting your energy fighting a pointless fight. We should be incouraging love.

    Comment by Sean — December 3, 2005 @ 3:23 am

  25. Sean,

    First of all, you really contradict yourself with your tone in your reply. “I am spiritual and I am sickened by intolerance and killing in the name of the Lord. Love thy neighboor. Not love thy neighboor of the opposite gender.”

    Yet your angry tone and your repeated use of the word fuck indicate you are full of some level of anger.

    Perhaps your requested change of the world, to include the hate you state is caused by organized religion, could start with yourself. Perhaps you could learn to tolerate people with differing opinions. I’m saying like the opinions. I’m saying tolerate.

    While I personally don’t have issues with gay people getting married, and do believe in equality for all, I do recognize there are many people for whom homosexuality is repulsive. It’s their opinion.

    By reasonable discussion and persuance of said discussion, there will eventually come a final decision and solution to the issue.

    Hopefully we can do it without flaming each other.

    That’s my spiritual two cents worth.

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — December 3, 2005 @ 8:42 am

  26. Ah love. O Ambilvalent One, next time you run into an armed mugger, or a terrorist bent on killing you and your family, just give ’em a big old hug. That’ll take away all their hate.

    MB, can you cite incontestible scientific evidence that gayness is NOT a lifestyle choice? Because that is one of the major stumbling blocks many have on the issue.

    Global warming. It’s either gonna plunge Europe into a new Ice Age, or turn it into the Sahara Desert North Annex. Studies issued in the recent past by kyoto-ites claim both. Hmmm. They’re covering their bases, predicting diametrically opposed (yet equally bad) outcomes based on the same input data. Guess mankind should just be eradicated altogether to put the Earth back in balance. Ooops, that means some major genocide going on. Sorry Sean!

    I know, we’ll force everyone to be gay, so that we won’t have anymore births going on, and the human population will die out within the next century. There, equal “gay rights” for EVERYONE, or else!

    Comment by yup — December 3, 2005 @ 8:44 am

  27. mb. i’m saying there is a difference between a law being unequal, and the police enforcing a law unequally.

    try to grasp the concept. if the governemtn says it is ok for men to drink beer, and illegal for women. the law is biased.

    but the police going out and arresting women for drinking beer is NOT unequal protection under the law. their job is to enforce the law.

    if the police do not like the laws they enforce, they have a vote just the same as the rest of us. but they will enforce the law nonetheless.

    you, and/or gays may not like the current laws on marriage. the current laws may or may not be biased/just/fair. that is a separate issue.

    the police enforce the law as it is written. they arrest people who are in violation of that law. regardless of gender, race…… anything else.

    that IS the DEFINITION of equal protection.

    i maintain that the left is waging a campaign to sway the unsuspecting to their point of view by LIEING, and using the term unequal protection (not true) when they are actually campaigning against a law they deem unfair.

    THAT is what THIS post is about.

    Comment by mlah — December 3, 2005 @ 11:48 am

  28. When I said “I am spiritual and I am sickened by intolerance and killing in the name of the Lord. Love thy neighboor. Not love thy neighboor of the opposite gender.” It was to indicate that it wasn’t specific to who we should love.

    Yeah. I haven’t bashed anyone for their opinion have I Madame Butterfly? My use of the dreaded “fuck” word was merely to express my shock that it matters enough to argue about. I’m not trying to express any surprise over whether someone supports gay marriage or not. I’m trying to express surprise that matters enough for all of us to type out so much about it.

    To me “love” is about being able to repect another person’s choices as well as the true sense of the word. Being gay is not illegal. Now they are fighting so that their loving relationships can be validated the same way straight relationships are. Don’t we all fight for what we belive in? The church can ban gay religious ceremonies. Who cares. Some people are fine with civil unions. How about we just call civil unions Marriage? People are just squeamsh about calling it marriage. It’s the age old “I don’t care if they’re gay, I just don’t want to see it”. There are no valid arguments for or against gay marriage… well, maybe one… the tax benefits. I don’t know about the US but in Canada you get breaks on your taxes, insurance and blah blah blah. If I’m married and have kids my car insurance drops almost 60%. I need to get married and have unprotected sex… of the vagina variety. Don’t tell my girlfriend… but I will marry her because it makes her happy and when she’s happy I’m happy. To me marriage is merely that. I think it is the same reason most people get married. To make the other happy and the tax breaks… Uh… I’m out of things to type. Can someone let me know if made any valid points?

    That being said, if they could prove that bestowing the sanctity of marriage on a gay couple would cause deadly g-rays (gay-rays, so called because of the wide spectrum they cover), I would fight hard against gay marriage. I don’t want my branch of the family tree to die because I got too close to a source of gaydiation (i.e. The gay neighboors whose house is modern-contemporary with a smidge of haute couture flavouring). So Mlah, even if being gay is a choice, so are ALL the things we have fought for… that includes the right to choose for yourself whether you have bum sex or not in a straight or gay union. We are all entitled to tax braks and potentially joining the ever climbing percentage of divorcees.

    The funny thing here is that I’m arguing against the argument by arguing… I hate myself. Fuck.

    Comment by Sean — December 3, 2005 @ 1:40 pm

  29. you’ve still missed the point of my post. equal protection under the law is not the same thing as a law being discriminatory. and my point is that the left purposely lies to the public and decries their plight as unequal protection, when they DO in fact receive equal protection.

    Comment by mlah — December 3, 2005 @ 1:57 pm

  30. Mlah…I’ve not run into any stories claiming the law was not enforced across the board. The uproar I read about is always about the law itself. Near as I can tell, legal professionals are all too happy to enforce the law.

    Yup…how many years did it take before alcoholish was labeled a disease, and even stated to be hereditary? And in spite of doctors’ claim that this is the fact about alcoholism, how many non-alcoholics can still comprehend that it is a disease? That it can in fact be hereditary? After all, isn’t buying alcohol and drinking it a choice? As a matter of fact, I can say firmly I am one of the non-understanding non-alcoholics, given that I come from a highly alcoholic family line. However, since I’m not a doctor or scientist, all I can do is hope they are right, and go with the evidence shown.

    So, having used that similar social issue…How do you know homosexuality isn’t a biological factor? You’re demanding I prove it is. Prove the converse. Problem is, I know you don’t have the evidence to support the contrary. Neither one of us can say for sure. In my viewpoint, that means for the moment passing judgement is probably a foolish idea.

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — December 3, 2005 @ 9:58 pm

  31. PS…Mlah, I think we just boosted your blog’s value to high heaven!!!! 🙂

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — December 3, 2005 @ 9:59 pm

  32. no mb, i am not demanding you prove anything. i’m not talking in this post about whether or not gay marriage is right/wrong, should be or should not be legal.

    you keep missing the point that stares you in the face. if alcoholism is or is not a desease, me claiming that gay marriage should be legal because alcoholism is a desease is NOT a valid argument.

    it is a simple bait and switch manuever.

    you yourself just admitted that everyone enjoys equal protection under the existing marriage laws.

    should they be changed? are they just? NOT the topic of this post.

    can you fathom the joy of the left’s spin doctors when they succeed in swaying those who are not pating attention to their side with a simple sales tactic?

    know why gay marriage should be legal? because mark furman is a racist!

    Comment by mlah — December 3, 2005 @ 11:11 pm

  33. Equal protection under the law – I was assuming that this was referring to the protection the law grants to married couples (i.e. wills, partners rights, tax breaks etc etc) that are not equal for gays, becasue they are not allwed to marry?

    I don’t think anyone is claiming that the ‘equal protection’ issue has to do with getting arrested for getting married…..

    You have the same right to engage in a same sex union as everyone else – None. You have the right to ‘marry’ the person you love, a gay person doesn’t. I don’t see the doublespeak there.

    The reason that the debate gets framed in the realms of ‘hate’ is that I (we) honestly can’t see any other reason that you are aginst it. Prove me wrong, please do.

    Comment by ilovecress — December 5, 2005 @ 10:15 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress