More Ann Coulter

[pattersb]

Quote from traderNik:

It is difficult to comprehend this kind of post.

Liberals are not enforcing their beliefs - they are asking that everyone be allowed to choose what best suits them, according to their own belief systems

If you call that a 'belief' that liberals are imposing, then yes. The belief that no one should impose their beliefs on anyone else. Yes.

As always, I don't believe that conservatives don't understand this. They just know there's no way to reconcile the American value of freedom of expression with the Christian right agenda. Hence we have this kind of sophistry, where radical Christians claim that by saying that everyone should have a right to act according to his or her own beliefs, non Christians are 'enforcing their beliefs'. What a pathetic bit of double talk.

Frankly, I don't give a squat what or who people do or do not do.

The current movement would have the government legally recognize same-sex marriage, based on their BELIEF that is fine and dandy ... So, the suggestion that christian conservatives are "enforcing their beliefs", may be correct but it is not a one-way-street. We are being asked to accept an entirely new definiton of marriage based on the minority Belief. Not a trivial matter.

No one is suggesting that gays be persecueted, etc ... (Although, the obvious rebuttal is the citing of anti-sodomy laws that still exist, etc ... but those AREN'T mainstream conservative views ...)

The majority of people in this country, (across all religious, political bounds), believe marriage, by definition, is between a man-and-a-woman.

We live in a democray put it to referendum ... which the left wouldn't acknowledge anyways because of the low opinion of the masses.

this argument is moot anyway, marriage as an instituion is dying ..

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I used the F word, and I apologize to anyone that was offended.

I will restate my comments:

Why the _____ don't the evangelical Christians mind their own ____ing business, get their own ____ing log out of their own ____ing eyes, and let others live the life and lifestyle of their choosing.

No one is saying that all people should marry members of the same sex, but that those who do want to marry a member of the same sex should be allowed to do so, and not have some Christian telling them that that is not right for them to do so.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So it is an all or nothing deal, is that it?

We all have to believe the same thing?

Everyone must hold to the Christian belief systems, and accordingly are made to suffer because they don't share those belief systems?

Sure doesn't sound like the America I grew up with....

Why the ____ don't the evangelical Christians mind their own ____ing business, get their own ____ing log out of their own ____ing eyes, and let others live the life and lifestyle of their choosing.

No one is saying that all people should marry members of the same sex, but that those who do want to marry a member of the same sex should be allowed to do so, and not have some Christian telling them that that is not right for them to do so.

 

[mahram]

uh her body makes up for it, just put a bag over her head

Quote from Avid_Consumer:

is it just me or does she have a horse-face?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

We are being asked to accept an entirely new definiton of marriage based on the minority Belief. Not a trivial matter.

Forgive me, but it seems quite trivial to me.

What practical difference does it make to you or we as the case may be, if a very small percentage of marrieds includes gays?

How does it change the day to day marriage of straight people?

How does it change the sanctity of a marriage for straight people?

How does it impact the raising of children?

I really don't see how it has any real effect on you, or your "we" or your (individual or collective) lives?

Please explain how you would possibly be damaged if a gay couple who are living together right now down the street, who have adopted kids, suddenly are married?

Quote from pattersb:

Frankly, I don't give a squat what or who people do or do not do.

The current movement would have the government legally recognize same-sex marriage, based on their BELIEF that is fine and dandy ... So, the suggestion that christian conservatives are "enforcing their beliefs", may be correct but it is not a one-way-street. We are being asked to accept an entirely new definiton of marriage based on the minority Belief. Not a trivial matter.

No one is suggesting that gays be persecueted, etc ... (Although, the obvious rebuttal is the citing of anti-sodomy laws that still exist, etc ... but those AREN'T mainstream conservative views ...)

The majority of people in this country, (across all religious, political bounds), believe marriage, by definition, is between a man-and-a-woman.

We live in a democray put it to referendum ... which the left wouldn't acknowledge anyways because of the low opinion of the masses.

this argument is moot anyway, marriage as an instituion is dying ..

 

[Covertibility]

Americans talk about the sanctity of marriage is kinda funny with its high divorce rates....

Women's suffrage.......
Blacks denied just about everything in this country...
Loving v. Virginia

Bigotry always finds itself on the losing side.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

We are being asked to accept an entirely new definiton of marriage based on the minority Belief. Not a trivial matter.

Forgive me, but it seems quite trivial to me.

What practical difference does it make to you or we as the case may be, if a very small percentage of marrieds includes gays?

How does it change the day to day marriage of straight people?

How does it change the sanctity of a marriage for straight people?

How does it impact the raising of children?

I really don't see how it has any real effect on you, or your "we" or your (individual or collective) lives?

Please explain how you would possibly be damaged if a gay couple who are living together right now down the street, who have adopted kids, suddenly are married?

You make a good point. A relatively few gays getting married, most of them in blue state urban enclaves, would not seem to have much practical effect on the vast majority of traditional married couples. But we both know that has little to do with the debate. Some of the more timid opponents of gay marriage use that argument because they are afraid to come out and say what they really believe, namely that they don't want the government endorsing something they consider morally wrong.

For their part, the advocates of gay marriage are even more dishonest. For all their complaining, there is little practical reason for them to need to be "married." What they, or at least their activist core, want is for government once and for all to put its imprimatur on homosexuality as completely normal and equivalent in every way to heterosexual relations. Then other dominoes, like entitlement to the standard menu of benefits available to protected classes, eg discrimination, affirmative action rights, can fall into place. And as a protected class, they can silence anyone, like the church, who objects.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

There are very practical reasons for gay marriage, i.e. survivor benefits, health care, etc. and other legal tax rights/benefits that belong only to married folks.

I don't know why the word "normal" needs to apply at all. In this country, we have seen so much that was once considered abnormal, now become normal. It is a sloppy argument.

Go back 200 years and look at was normal compared to today.

As far as government's imprint of what is normal, as long as we have consenting adults, and until such time there are scientific studies that show children born/raised in a gay couple's home produce children who have more problems to society....the government should stay the hell out of telling people who they can marry, or what is a "normal" marriage.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

You make a good point. A relatively few gays getting married, most of them in blue state urban enclaves, would not seem to have much practical effect on the vast majority of traditional married couples. But we both know that has little to do with the debate. Some of the more timid opponents of gay marriage use that argument because they are afraid to come out and say what they really believe, namely that they don't want the government endorsing something they consider morally wrong.

For their part, the advocates of gay marriage are even more dishonest. For all their complaining, there is little practical reason for them to need to be "married." What they, or at least their activist core, want is for government once and for all to put its imprimatur on homosexuality as completely normal and equivalent in every way to heterosexual relations. Then other dominoes, like entitlement to the standard menu of benefits available to protected classes, eg discrimination, affirmative action rights, can fall into place. And as a protected class, they can silence anyone, like the church, who objects.