@RonaldBarone, I'm not nearly as "angry" as the liberals who demand that I abandon my conservative principals. At least I'm capable of giving a considerate argument. They simply insult everybody (I seem to recall fellow gays wishing Mary Cheney's first child would die of SIDS).
@melthefretmaster OK, I looked for this case of anyone wishing Mary Cheney's first child would die of SIDS, I found a single comment by an anonymous poster on the story about that birth from the site "Equal Family". So unless you have a better source than I could find don't be trying to extrapolate that single commenter of unknown sexual orientation to "fellow gays".
@amarkanable the fact that it was said is quite enough. The two websites that I had bookmarked that quoted the sources have long since been taken down, but the fact that it can still be found should be more than enough for you.
@melthefretmaster No it's not "more than enough" for me. I'm sure you know as well as I do that one could post a picture of kittens and rainbows and some troll will find some horrible nasty thing to say about that. You didnt qualify your statement with "some anonymous troll who may or may not actually be a gay liberal said this", you said "fellow gays". You don't see the huge difference of this?
@melthefretmaster PS, I've seen the comment section of the articles on the advocate you debated in recent days, so I do realize there is a small and unfortunately vocal part of the gay population who do say nasty things (and have the guts to link it to their facebook account). But every time a hetero says something nasty, do other straight people say "I seem to recall fellow straights saying"? Also screenshots/wayback are very useful for recording things for posterity's sake.
The fact of the matter is that until the Republican party ends it's unholy alliance (pun intended) with the RR/MM, most openly gay and lesbian people will just not feel comfortable aligning themselves with the Republican party, and will side with Democrats because unfortunately we have a two party system. It's the political binary that costs Americans. Sure, other parties technically exist, but when it comes down to the presidency, the choice is only between two.
Like civil unions, gays adopting, the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, repealing DADT/DOMA, passing a fully inclusive ENDA, and gay people having even the most basic of civil liberties. Republicans, desperately trying to hold onto the RR/MM, adamantly oppose all of the above. Democrats, by and large, support all of the above. Therein lies the answer to your question.
One last comment, it's very admirable that you're trying to change the Republican party for the better from the inside. But the bottom line is, while it's true that Democrats aren't exactly the best of allies, Republicans openly and shamelessly pander to the religious right/moral majority. You're also right that many Democrats, like Republicans, are against gay marriage. But that seems to be the only common thread between both parties. Lets consider other gay rights issues.
John McCain drank the Bush koolaid and chose Sarah Palin in a shameless attempt to appeal to the religious right/moral majority. It backfired and cost him the election. He has no one to blame for that but himself. Americans of all political affiliations were so beyond fed up with the Bush administration that they didn't want to elect a man who sacrificed his integrity to become Bush 2.0, that's probably the single most contributing factor to why Barack Obama is president today.
I'm on the opposite side of the political isle, but I admire that you're not inflammatory in your conservative beliefs and that you argue them in a level-headed intelligent manner. But at the end of the day, I know a lot of Obama voters, myself included, are disappointed in him so far. But if you really want to know the reason why we liberals voted for him, and why many moderates/centrists voted for him as well... I have two words for you: Sarah Palin.
WOW!! As a fellow homosexual person...Scratch that...as a fellow homosexual American, I have to say I am so proud of you and the fact that you put your voice out there like that. I am a conservative as well, and I think that the hardest closet to come out of was the conservative one. Thank you for your voice Mel! You are an inspiration!
Really I think your a great girl you believe in something thats different from me i don't care if your liberal or conserative, i dont do around doing those things infact i see many conserative bash on me becuase im a bisexual women and they hate me tell me i am going to hell and tell me god hates me. i think its not the label that we say we believe in that makes us do things stupid i think its just people not just liberals but ALL of us
okay wait wait wait you lost me when you said democrats, then went into black people im lost. do you mean as most black peopel are democrat? Really I am a liberal, i dont care if your a repulican/conservative, as long as ur for gay rights im fine. What annoys me is that black people actually voted against gay marriage when the lot of them run around talking about how their ancestors where treated :/ makes no sense to me seeming they are treating gays the same way
i applaud your opinion and freedom of speech. i had originally typed in gay hypocrisy in the search bar to find a video similar to mine. it is enlightening to hear other peoples thoughts. that said, i'm posting my hypocrisy video (not as a direct response) because it is about hypocrisy. maybe you'll draw a more youthful crowd.
O.o Most gays just want their marriage, Im a liberal, i just want to marry my loved one, ill protest with the state not the churches because the church cant sign a paper to give me the rights but washington can. we need to fight for our rights in a civil manor
Wheather I agree with you or not, it is refreshing to here someone speak the truth as you did here. Your assertion that more hate comes from the left is right on, but hypocrisy seems the new norm in politics. As a former republican, I'm disgusted by both political parties. As a new independant, I thank you for your well stated opinions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yup, the most important thing about you isn't your lesbianism - it's your extreme WHITENESS and racism. Thanks for at least being honest and upfront with it.
OMG I thought I was the only conservative lesbian on the face of the earth. You just gave me a nice warm fuzzy feeling. I totally agree with your message and your views. Good going!!!!
@jokojayisback This country is going down the tubes in debt, in spending, and in culture...the dumbing down of America is hard at work. When your budget is out of control at home, do you keep spending money? Well, you can but you'll go broke---that is what Obama is doing--spending constantly and its being done for a reason---to ruin this nation and then get the commies in control and in Soviet Russia and all commie countries gay people are silenced or thrown in jail!
What's really insane is being conservative OR liberal. Political parties should be outlawed because all they do is allow extremists to gain power, and they don't truly represent the will of the general people. Republicans don't know jack about realistic economies, and Democrats don't know jack about keep this country safe. That being said, I was quite saddened when my fellow Californians passed Prop 8, whether marriage is a right for everyone or not, outlawing it wasn't the answer.
No, they are not oxymorons. What is it the LGBT community likes to tout? Oh, yeah, TOLERANCE. I celebrate everything I am, including the fact that I'm a lesbian, equally. Being politically conservative does not denote self-hatred. In case you missed it, I am waaaaay out of the closet. You're placing the same limits on me that the gay community refuses to accept.
Lgbtq and Republicanism are oxymorons. And, I'm not a Dem either. Why not explore the internalized self-hatred before expecting anyone else to accept the talking points you're regurgitating from the oppressor? The fact that you are lesbian should be a grand thing worth celebrating, not keep in the closet. Closets are only for clothes and shoes.
and which culture is that? you also seem like someone who is easily insulted. or perhaps one of those who is looking for an insult, to pick a fight. vent frustration. are you depressed? not trying "come up" with anything, genuinely curious.
Ooooo-kay. You tell me my shirt looks like a "tailored black balloon" and I'm not supposed to be offended? You seem like one of those folks who just likes to see anger where there is none. Take a gander at the way you wrote it again and tell me exactly how I was supposed to take it, especially considering some of the instigating comments I've gotten thus far.
Classic liberal ideals were far different than modern ideals. Today, American liberals want a different sort of thing. JFK was a liberal I could like, but Clinton? Obama? Scary.
Your entirely correct that over-reaction is playing into the hands of the h8ers, but as you attack Democrats for not sufficiently supporting Prop 8, and cite polls, note that Republicans supported 8 by 77% and Democrats opposed it by 65%. How is it that 65% for us is not enough (and it's not!) but 23% is? And why support liberal ideals? Have you read any of the liberal philosophers? Hume, Locke, Diderot, Montesquieu, Voltaire? Maybe you'd want to know better what liberal ideals are.
Thank you, melthefretmaster! I am a Christian, straight woman. My only sibling, however, is gay, and I love him dearly (as well as his companion of 22+ years). I am also a registered Independent, but a conservative. When I have chosen to respond to any Prop 8 videos on youtube, the ugliest, profane,, name-calling, hate-filled messages I have received have been from gay people. My attitude was fast becoming one of "Why bother?" You reminded me that not all in your community are irrational.
Also there never was any such thingas "interracial" marriage, for there is only one race: humanity. So then, there was always INTRAracial marriage (marriage within one race between man and woman).
Human beings do not have to practice homosexuality or lesbianism; we have the ability to discern between good and evil. But faith in Jesus Christ naturally results in good works. All men have fallen short of the glory of GOD, and yet He died for us in spite of ourselves.
Since humans are then of GOD's race/offspring, they ought not to suppose that their race is according to man's imagination. GOD made of one blood, all nations of humanity. There never was different "races", therefore, humans who practice the sin of homosexuality, can not equate a behavior with what GOD actually created. GOD created us in His image and as such, desires a people for Him. This is possible thru Jesus Christ, Jesus did not come to condemn, but to free us from our wrong ways..
As a Christian, I never did consider myself racially 'black' but rather a GOD-created human being and that no matter what I did, Jesus loved me so that I would be free from a guilty past. So I understand exactly where you're coming from because I was once in the world; but you have to understand that those who are with Christ are going to be hated by the world because the world killed Jesus merely because He stood for Truth.
I did find the debate responses of McCain and Obama on Gay Rights interesting. It was exactly the same. I was surprised that people who were castigating me for my distrust of Obama were saying that he was for the LGBT Community. How did they hear the debate and get that I have no idea. By the way I'm Libertarian. The Rabid nature of the Gay and Black Community convinced me that voting for their "Savior" was not in line with either my beliefs or my understanding of what is best for the Country.
Look beyond marriage. McCain is against the Matthew Shephard Act, ENDA, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, and just about any other law that gays want passed. Obama is wrong to be against marriage, but he is with us for all the other stuff. That makes Obama better on gay rights. McCain would have done NOTHING (not ALMOST nothing, but NOTHING) to advance gay rights.
John, I am also against the Matthew Shepard Act. What happened to him was sick and wrong, and it was a tragedy, but hate crimes legislation will not get us anywhere. Hate speech legislation is even worse. I agree with ending DADT, but I'm curious as to why so many gays love Bill Clinton when he gave us DOMA and DADT.
While I disagree with you on the Matthew Shepard Act, I think reasonable people can disagree on hate crimes legislation in general. However, since we have extensive hate crimes legislation in place already that covers race, national orgigin, religion, etc., we either need to add sexual orientation and gender identity or repeal all hate crimes legislation. How do you feel about that? And isn't it problematic, no matter how you feel, that the other ones will never be repealed in a million years?
I think all hate crimes legislation should be repealed. Why should the life of any person have more value simply because they're in a protected class? And in this day and age, why do we need a protected class? All crimes should be punished harshly, regardless of the motivation.
Who's more dangerous, the guy who beats his neighbor with a baseball bat because his neighbor slept with the guy's wife, or the guy who beats his neighbor with a baseball bat because his neighbor is black? Who's more likely to offend again? These are all questions taken into consideration for sentencing, and it is proper for the legislature to take them into consideration when enacting laws
And remember, the suspect class(ification) is "sexual orientation." That means that if a gay person beats up a straight person for being straight, the gay person is guilty of a hate crime. No one's life is more valuable; we all have a sexual orienation.
Again, if you're against all hate crimes legislation, I can respect that, even if I still disagree for the reasons I've stated. However, the fact is that I CANNOT respect having race and national origin and especially religion (I noticed there were no quotation marks around "hate crime" in Pro-8 articles when the woman with the cross was assaulted) be covered by hate crimes but not sexual orientation and gender identity. Since the others won't be repealed, adding those two is the only answer.
There is no such thing in the United States as "hate speech" legislation. All hate crimes bills simply enhance ACTIONS that are already crimes if those ACTIONS are taken against someone because of the specified characteristic. We do it with murder/manslaughter and no one seems to have a problem with it. You don't get arrested for thinking about murdering someone or for saying someone deserves to die (unless there is credible evidence that you are an actual threat to carry taht action out).
Not yet. It's already happened in other countries, and people are talking about it here. I went to a PFLAG meeting not long ago where it became the topic of discussion, and people who'd seemed perfectly rational before became quite adamant that "something needs to be done about all this hate speech." I was shocked at what they suggested. If it's going on there, I know it's being talked about in other circles. That scares the hell out of me.
WE ARE NOT OTHER COUNTRIES! Do you know that in Germany you can be put in jail for denying the holocaust? Europe does not have the same bill of rights we do. It does not have the same freedom of speech and freedom of religion that we do. But again, you're relying on the always faulty slippery slope argument. If you're afraid of hate SPEECH laws, then fight them when they come up. Don't fight hate CRIME laws that are valuable.
We may not be, John, but there are plenty of people out there who wish to act based on those models! Our bill of rights doesn't mean much to some, including our new President-elect, who is VERY anti-Second Amendment. Bill Clinton did things that flagrantly violated people's Constitutional rights, and everyone still thinks he was great!
The first amendment is pretty clear on freedom of religion, and even clearer on free speech. I would also point out that no matter what Barack Obama or Bill Clinton believes, the US Supreme Court (those damn activist judges striking down duly enacted legislation) made it very clear that the Second Amendment protects the right of private inidividuals to own guns. Assault rifles are another thing, don't know you how feel about them.
But again, you offer no reason to think that a sea change in our first amendment jurisprudence is coming, just more fear. There are also people in this country that think gays should be executed, which they do in other parts of the world. I'd say that's just as likely to occur in US law as sending pastors to jail for saying homosexuality is an abomination.
It's just like all this crap in Cali about having to teach gay marriage in schools. The answer to the educational concern is deal with education directly; it's not to stop marriage, which is wholely unrelated.
To a degree, it is related. What about the teacher who took her class on a "field trip" to a lesbian wedding? Or the kindergarten teacher who all but forced a class of five-year-olds who barely knew how to write to sign GLSEN "pledge cards?" It's not farfetched to fear things like that will become more frequent.
The teacher who took her class on the field trip had the permission of every parent involved. And again, the place to take that up is IN THE SCHOOL WITH THE PRINCIPLE OR SCHOOL BOARD! Are you really suggesting the best way to stop dumb field trips is to stop any event that may be the subject of such a a trip from taking place at all?? It's a totally ridiculous argument, and they've really got you going if you buy into it.
And by the way, the GLSEN pledge cards would have occurred with or without gay marriage. The way you deal with it is make clear to teachers what is acceptable and what isn't. You fight the real problem and not a straw man.
California has hate crimes legislation that covers sexual orientation. Was the woman with the cross at the protest arrested for saying being gay was sinful? No.
And actually, hate crimes laws are NOT as valuable as you think. What, pray tell, do you think they've accomplished so far? Do you think the bad guy is gonna stop and think before committing a hate crime any more than he does before he commits any other crime? Explain your reasoning for this, please.
You're argument is basically that deterrence doesn't work. That's not a very conservative position. Why do we have the death penalty? Why do we have laws at all? We still have lots of crime, right? Like I said, people who target victims based on their being members of a class of people are more dangerous than people who target very specific victims for very specific reasons. Deterrence and incapacitation are two good reasons to put these people in jail for longer.
Deterrance does work, but it must be applied evenly. A few extra years tacked onto a sentence isn't going to make a person rethink their actions. Why is my life worth more than, say, my sister's because I'm gay and she's not? And on which statistics do you base your argument that those who commit bias-motivated crimes are more dangerous than others? When I was in corrections, the most dangerous ones had never committed a hate crime.
I was simply asking you an intuitive question about who is more dangerous. It's just simple common sense that if someone is willing to beat someone just for being black, that person has more potential victims; he's much more likely to go out the next day and beat someone else up and go out the day after that and beat someone else up. The guy who beats up someone who specifically "wronged" him seems less likely to offend again.
And again, you completely ignore my earlier argument about how this is not about one person being "worth more" than someone else. If a gay person beat your sister for being straight, that gay person would be just as guilty of a hate crime. The fact that straights are more likely to beat gays for their sexual orientation alone doesn't change the fact that the law is evenly applicable.
And since you agree that deterrence works, I think the onus would be on you to show that this particular form of deterrence, i.e., adding a few years to crimes motivated by bias, doesn't work. There's a difference between saying it doesn't work and having a philosophical objection to implementing it based on your false sense of it treating some people as more worthy than others. BTW, if you were attacked as a corrections officer, the law treats that attack as more serious than attacks on others.
I am only 24 years old and I wasn't paying attention when the Bill Clinton stuff was going on in the early 90s. However, it is my understanding that Clinton tried very hard to allow gays to serve openly, but was thwarted by Congress, both dems and repubs. DADT was the best he could do at the time. That said, I think it was despicable for him to sign DOMA, and I think Barack Obama is wrong on marriage equality, and there will come a time when his civil union compromise will not be enough for me.
Bullshit. When Clinton had his heart surgery in '03 and Kerry went to visit him, he very famously told him to stop supporting gay marriage and ending DADT. He told Kerry that people wouldn't vote for him if he held those ideals, and he needed to back off. If Clinton really wanted gays to be able to serve openly, he would have done it. He was the C in C, not Congress. It was up to HIM and he blew it spectacularly.
Look, I'm not here to defend Bill Clinton. He's a despicable political pragmatist for what he told Kerry, which I have heard about before. But the sad thing is that he was right. Kerry lost by a small margin, and his support of gay rights probably helped do him in.
But, Bill Clinton's lack of courage on this issue doesn't change the underlying fact that we're right to demand our rights. I'm waiting for the Cali Supreme Court to show the courage that Clinton didn't and overturn Prop. 8 even though it puts their jobs in real jeopardy. Hopefully you'll see real political courage in the coming weeks.
We may be right to stand up for our rights, but my point is that we have to be wise about it. Accusations of hate, bigotry and other such nonsense isn't getting us anywhere; we're not going to win that way. It's been long since proven that we're only shooting ourselves in both proverbial feet by trying to shock the rest of the country into agreeing. Didn't we learn anything from Dr. King?
See, I'm with you except for one thing. You call the accusations of hate and bigotry "nonsense." It's not nonsense; it's the truth. Just because it may not be in our interest to harp on it doesn't make it any less true.
But it is nonsense. Merely voting to ban gay marriage doesn't require hate. I don't believe they're doing it out of spite because I know them. I used to BE them. I'm not looking back with regret, I'm simply speaking from experience. They genuinely, honestly care, but as long as we're pointing fingers and deliberately trying to shock them, they're going to keep their walls up. Any human being would do that, including us.
Merely voting to ban gay marriage requires at least bigotry. Whether that bigotry is fueled by hate or just simple ignorance is worthy of a distinction, but it's bigotry nonetheless. I used to be them too, and I was a bigot.
The difference is that I wasn't so dense that I couldn't see it when confronted with it. Maybe the anger stems from the frustration with just the sheer stupidity of these people that will not budge no matter what. It's no surprise that a vast majority of college-educated people voted against Prop. 8. That's what makes me most angry: that it is nothing but sheer stupidity and lack of education that causes the bigotry.
You know, when I hear elected officials like Mike Huckabee say with a straight face that gays don't have a claim to civil rights because we haven't had our "skulls crushed," how can I react with anything but rage? This is supposed to be an intelligent person. He then says with a straight face that Prop. 8 "didn't prohibit anything." I get angry just re-writing it. THAT'S the nonsense, and there's NOTHING we can do to get it through these people's heads!
Mike Huckabee is talking through the hole in his ass. I don't take much stock in what he has to say because he's a bottle or two shy of a six pack. As I've said, there's a time for violence, and this is not it. Huckabee insulted me, too, but consider the source. I will grant that they're ignorant; not necessarily bigoted. They'll be a lot more willing to learn if we're willing to wisely teach and stop insulting them. We're feeding the martyr mentality with this crap.
OK, well, I think I will end this productive discussion while we agree, lol. I'll just say, the problem is that Mike Huckabee is typical of the type of mentality we're dealing with here, and I just think it is extremely difficult to penetrate.
my compliments. Hubby & I are internet radio DJ's - this was the topic of our rant last Friday night.
Its ridiculous and absurd for same sex marriage to not be legal. But as you point out - the freak shows and the terrorists grab attention, other folks who ask for your support do not reciprocate.
The comments listed here are excellent as well. Thank you for putting it out there, Mel, gonna try to circulate this.
I'd also like to recommend Tammy Bruce, a classical liberal aka conservative radio talk show host who happens to be lesbian; who happens to be my personal favorite out now...
political correctness is crap, that is the issue, being a bully is easy. the gay radicals want to be bullies. they want to claim it as a civil rights issue. fine. protest in peace, if you are right... right will win out. learn anything from Dr King ? learn how to act. Not from the radical 60's hippie commies like bill ayers et al.
At least it wouldn't lead to polygamous or incestuous marriage. Those things are illegal for a litany of reasons; incest is dangerous, for starters. It often disguises sexual abuse and if children are produced, they invariably end up with all manner of birth defects. Polygamy? It can also mask abuse, and is a poor model for kids. It can be abused as well by people wishing to marry only for citizenship.
That's pretty weak reasoning. (talking only about your first sentence). If those things are so bad, they why should we encourage them at all with even the benefits of marriage?
Now, incest often disguises abuse, and causes birth defects. Valid reasons to prohibit it. Do those reasons apply to gay marriage? If not, where's the slippery slope?
What's to stop gay/lesbian incest from slowly being accepted? A psychologist friend of mine told me that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-90% of incest cases are actually abuse, often by parents. That includes same-sex activity. Were it not for my promise to keep my mouth shut about it, I might tell you about a case or two.
You're nonresponsive to my question. Does the incest argument apply to adult, consensual, non-related gay couples? Are those non-incestual gay relationships 80-90% abusive?
If not, then you've got your answer to what's to stop incestuous relationships if we allow gay non-incestuous ones. There is a material harm involved in incestuous relationships, i.e. abuse, that is not present in gay relationships. That nullifies the slippery slope argument.
Polygamy can mask abuse, and it can be abused for immigration purposes. Again, valid arguments. Do they apply to gay marriages? Are gay couples any more likely to abuse immigration through marriage than straight couples? Obviously polygamy lends itself to immigration fraud because there is no detriment to the citizen spouse (he can bring over a sham spouse still marry his real desired spouse). This doesn't seem to apply to gay marriages anymore than straight marriages though.
The "poor model" argument amounts to nothing but the tautology of "it's bad because it's bad." It doesn't answer the question, so I think we can strike it as an independent reason. Your others, however, were valid, and I addressed them. Now, again, do those reasons apply to gay marriages?
In a sense. Part of it is the vehemence with which straight couples wish to protect marriage. Yes, I agree, the divorce rate is over 50%. But are we really willing to keep fighting this issue and getting in a huff over it when we're just making asses out of ourselves? What do you call what happened in Palm Springs? That was a travesty. There is a time and place for means of violence, and this is NOT it.
So, let the bullies win is basically your argument. I don't think we're making asses of ourselves; I think we're doing what any group of people in our position would do. Was the Palm Springs thing the lady with the cross? I'm not advocating violence, but how can you blame these people? She's gonna walk in the middle of their protest and basically rub this in their faces? What happened wasn't right, but it's understandable, and she is foolish.
I'm not saying we let the bullies win. She was an older lady, and typically older folks don't understand just how angry people can get about this sort of thing. There is nothing in this wide world that can possibly justify what they did to that woman. It set us back light years.
You should blame them. You're talking about an older lady who doesn't understand the emotions involved in this arguemnt, she admitted she had no idea just how angry everyone was about it. She wasn't shouting, and her cross wasn't being used to bludgeon anyone. She was there to try to share the gospel and they did to her what they would have screamed bloody murder about had it been done to them. Equality, John...equality!
And, again, the difference is that we are right and she is wrong. It's that simple. She is wrong to use her religion to justify using the law to discriminate against us. We are not attacking her religion except in self-defense.
The problem is that we should be so far beyond this in America right now that it is absolutely staggering that this is even an issue. It is absolutely staggering that people are offended when this is analogized to race, even though it's not EXACTLY the same thing. It's the same idea, and that people can't see that just removes all respect for them I have, and I am becoming increasingly incapable of having a discussion about it because I just want to shake them and say WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!?
Black people wanted to do the same thing back in the 50's. They, along with many white people, couldn't figure out just what it was that made them less human. But if you recall, the black people didn't get violent. They didn't get indignant. They followed Dr. King peacefully, even in the face of high-powered water cannons and police in riot gear. When we face that sort of thing, I might agree with calling them "the Christian Taliban."
I'm sure no black person ever got out of hand at a protest. Come on now. I was at the national protest in Philly yesterday, and there were no incidents that I'm aware of. You act like violence is the norm at these protests because there have been a few incidents.
All it takes is a few! If the rest of us don't stand up and say, "no, you can't do that," and stop with the accusations of hate and bigotry, we're never gonna get anywhere. All we're doing is insulting them, and it only makes them want to fight back!
There's a difference between committing violent acts and accusing the other side of hate a bigotry. There should be no question that the other side is filled with hate and bigotry. I'd say it's mostly just ignorance, but the movement is fueled by hate a bigotry. Again, I agree that we need to focus on building bridges instead of burning them, but there comes a point where people just get fed up. I think a small dose of "we're not gonna be peaceful for much longer" is healthy.
No...actually, a church in Michigan was hijacked during services by a group of gay rights activists last weekend. It was a spectacle I couldn't believe they had the nerve to pull off, but they did it.
And I'm sure everyone just kept going with the service, right? No, I'll bet immediate steps were taken to get them out of there as fast as they could. And of course we're forgetting that these churches brought it upon themselves. Gays were not storming churches before the churches involved themselves where they didn't belong. I'm tired of apologizing for the gay community. It's time we started making life a little more miserable for these people because until we do, they will keep up their crap.
And why do you insist upon adopting their rhetoric? "Protect marriage"? You know, I just watched your whole video again, and you call us to be civil and talk if we want our rights, and that is what I'm doing here with you, but you are arguing their side! Comparing this to incest and polygamy? It's the same stuff they're doing. It seems to me that you're not just calling for us to "talk" and "use our brains," but you're actually disagreeing with us on the substance of marriage. Am I wrong?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here; these are the arguments they're using, and to a degree they're valid fears. Each of us knows that we were born with this orientation, but they don't understand that. They're not going to want to unless we're willing to be calm and rational about it, and I don't see that happening. You've got to come up with something better than justifications and further questions, otherwise they won't listen and we'll be beating our heads against a wall.
OK, fine. But what you fail to consider is that if they are willing to analogize incest and bestiality and pedophilia with homosexuality, then they have their minds made up already. If you can't change their minds, then you have to give them a reason why not taking our rights away is a good idea FOR THEM and is beneficial FOR THEM. Getting us away from their churches every week for the next five years might be a good reason.
And please, I'd like to know why gay civil unions don't lead to polygamous civil unions or incestuous civil unions. And I'd like you to tell me why polygamy and incest are bad in the first place, just as an exercise in reason here. Pretend I'm someone who's never heard of such things and who is an independent observer. Tell me why they are bad.
"There are plenty of GLBT folks who would sue..to force churches to marry them."
My parish will marry any couple who forks over the fee. This includes same sex couples. Membership in the parish is not required. One could argue my parish is running a marriage business.
What if my parish did not marry same sex couples? Wouldn't it be vulnerable to a lawsuit because it will marry for a fee? Businesses are not allowed to discriminate. This is the angle some people need.
Exactly, Tnt. If any entity--be it a church or otherwise--marries any couple willing to pay the fee, then it opens itself up to tremendous problems. But every church I've ever been a member of or worked for has required that the couple go through marriage counseling in their system before the pastor will conduct the ceremony.
Don't know what you're getting at here, but no church will be forced to marry any couple it doesn't want to. Catholic churches don't have to marry people previously divorced. Rabbis don't have to marry Catholics. Ministers won't have to marry gays. Maybe in other countries this happens, but we are very serious about the first amendment here; those other countries don't have the first amendment.
As long as a church is not receiving public funds to conduct marriage ceremonies, it will not be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to. Its tax-exempt status will not be jeopardized.
The case often cited to conjure of fear is the New Jersey case in Ocean Grove where a church pavillion lost its tax-exempt status because the church wouldn't perform civil unions. The problem is that the pavillion wasn't the church, it received tax-exempt status in the first precisely BECAUSE it held itself open to the public to perform marriage ceremonies. Even after this case, the church itself did not lose its tax-exempt status, just the pavillion that shouldn't have had it in the first place
I've seen gays sue the Boy Scouts for not letting them be scoutmasters. I've seen them sue churches for "hate speech." Lawsuits against churches for refusing to perform civil union ceremonies is coming up, I promise.
They sued the Boy Scouts and they lost, as they should. However, I'm not in favor of the Scouts getting sweetheart deals on their rent from cities. They are private, they get to do what they want, and they get to pay like everyone else. No special rights. I can also guarantee that no church has been SUCCESSFULLY sued for hate speech. Besides, what does MARRIAGE have to do with that?! If you've already seen it, why stop marriage, out of spite? Anyone can sue for anything. doesn't mean they'll win
Nobody wants to stop marriage out of spite, John. And it'll only be a matter of time before one of these lawsuits sticks and we end up with a precedent being set. Why shouldn't the Boy Scouts get such deals? What have they done that's so bad? They're a great organization. Other groups get the same deals, why shouldn't they?
Really? Had a poster online tell me he voted against Prop. 8 and is now happy it passed because gays are protesting. Sounds like spite to me. These law suits will not stick, and unless you have an intelligent basis for saying they will, you should stop asserting such. If you can explain how the first amendment can be reconciled with forcing priests to marry gay people, I'm all ears.
The Boy Scouts may do many great things, however they only do those great things for straight boys. We are a society that values equality and therefore we should not encourage organizations to continue to promote inequality, even though those organizations have the absolute right to do so. If the Boy Scouts rejected black boys, would you feel the same way? And don't tell me they are not the same thing.
"Anyone who sues to force pastors to do anything they don't want will be laughed out of court. It's just never going to happen."
The judge may laugh them out of court. But the media has a way of taking a grain of sand and building Mt. Everest out of it. I can see a small yet vocal group of radicals turning nothing into the next great political movement.
It will NEVER happen. If they try, this gay man will be the first out there fighting to stop it. That's not what we want, and those leading the charge against gay marriage know it. They have one goal, and that is to make sure we know that their religious beliefs hold more water in public policy than other beliefs. As long as they can keep us happy with civil unions, they've established their superiority.
It's great to see another gay conservative on here. The hypocrisy of the more visible/audible folk in the gay community has hurt ALL of us. Don't let the static on youtube get you down.
Something I need to inject here...just thought of it...black people have no need to fight for their civil rights anymore. They have them. In fact, a black man is more likely to get one of the jobs I want than I am because of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employment. In some cases race gives you more protection. But in most states, it's still legal to fire a gay employee for being gay. I don't want to hear about their civil rights.
In 2000 California banned same sex marriage while handing Al Gore the electoral college win.
In 2008 California banned same sex marriage while handing Barack Obama the win.
Oregon banned same sex marriage while voting blue from 1988 to present.
How many times does the Democratic party have to stick a knife in your back before you see that you are bleeding? What happened last Tuesday is not new. It's been happing for 8 years running.
I hate to tell you this, sugar, but when majorities of those two communities vote FOR the intolerance we're trying to defeat, they most certainly are advocating intolerance. Nearly 75% of black voters voted for Prop 8. Nearly 55% of Latinos also voted for it. What, pray tell, do you call that?
I say both yes and no. Reason being: about half of the people who voted yes on 8 don't want to see GLBT people obtain any rights at all because they don't see it from our perspective. The other half, I think, would support most other rights but don't want to give up marriage (instead supporting civil unions). Depending on the view of the voter, I might agree that it involves intolerance. I'm not willing to call all of them completely intolerant for not giving me what I want, though.
I'm not opposed to Civil Unions in theory. I think getting the community caught up in semantics and diction is exactly what those opposed want. But I would only support this option if Civil Unions conferred ALL the same Federal rights onto GLBT people that marriage currently does for heteros (hospital visitation, inheritance, immigration, tax benefits, etc.). Short of this, u create a second class of citizen. I just don't see it happening and with DOMA I think its near impossible.
DOMA only refers to marriage itself. Civil unions wouldn't necessarily be the same thing, and thus would likely fall outside that law. I wish we could have the exact same thing, but it's not likely right now, and arguing sexual orientation isn't like arguing race. We don't exactly have a genetic marker for it yet. I don't understand their argument about it, either, but sometimes being diplomatic gets you what you want far faster.
The Mormons put up cash. But they did not walk people into the voting booth at knife point and make them vote yes.
So called Liberal Obmama loving Blacks walked right in and voted Yes. That doesn't make them a target? That doesn't make them beyond ridicule? It does the to the legions of gay liberal apologists who will excuse this.
Actually, I'm conservative socially as well. Personally I think we should be happy with civil unions and leave marriage alone. Same thing, different name, what's the big deal? Do we have to get in a snit over it? And no, I don't think the Constitution should be used to define marriage. It doesn't now. McCain was right--it shouldn't ever. No on 8 failed because they were running ad hominem attacks rather than showing real people.
1. Would it be wrong to assume that you are politically conservative (fiscally conservative) and socially liberal?
2. I think the reason why Gay Marriage was defeated in CA was because the NoOn8 ppl failed 2 reach out 2 more religious groups especially in Black churches,at least accdg 2 1 insider,Minorities,not only black ppl,have strong religious beliefs that's keeping them frm supportn marriage 4 all
3.Would it be a great idea to simply remove the definition of marriage from the constitut'n?
Chrisfrost03, have you been hiding under a rock, or are you living in denial? There was a protest this weekend in Palm Springs where a religious counterprotester was physically attacked and her cross stomped on. You don't call that hate? Standing up for equality does not require that. It also doesn't require verbal threats of violence, which continue to pour out of gay liberal blogs. "Burn down their churches?" "Watch your backs?" Gimme a break.
Wow so you mean to tell me that there are no lunatic republicans. In any protest there are going to be radical people. The majority however were very peaceful and non threatening. You can't just nitpick a few and call the whole protest violent.
Name for me, if you will, a single protest led by political conservatives in which people were assaulted or threatened. There have been so many messages spewing hatred and threats since Prop 8 passed that I'm losing track. The peaceniks are always the scariest ones.
By the way because you don't seem to realize...the African American community is known to be a socially conservative community based on their strong church affiliations. The reason for the protest of the mormon church is because of the millions of dollars they put into false political ads. Don't get me wrong blame can be shared but it should not be turned around and used against a group that is seeking equality.
It's funny how you guys keep repeating things that everyone already found out is wrong lmfao!
Obama was only declared the most liberal senator for the one year in which he casted too few votes to have an assesable record. He was spending too much time campaigning but for the years in which he DID case enough votes he's actually ranked the tenth.
People holding a protest outside of a religious institution (one that funded a proposition to write discrimination into the CA constitution) is hardly a threatening act. The democratic party is doing a hell of a lot more for equality than the republican party. If you don't care for equality then so be it, but to call the democrats and the gay community hateful for standing up for equality is entirely wrong.
That's nonsense, and if it were true you would have backed it up with a statement of fact. Google Sarah Palin in Alaska in 2005 when she vetoed a Bill that would have overturned a Supreme Court decision to take rights away from gay partners of state employees. That's something the MSM didn't tell you. California did this in 2000 with Prop. 22, Oregon did it to you in 2004. NO DEMOCRAT endorses gay marriage but Ellen dances with Barack Obama and disses Sarah Palin. So embarrassing to be gay now.
Justified? JUSTIFIED?!? You must be joking! Hate is never right, no matter who it's aimed at or what the circumstances are! I may have little tolerance for white supremacists, but I don't hate them. There is NOTHING in this world that justifies anybody in this case threatening to do harm to the religious people. Especially not when it was the black community that pushed it to win! Go protest in Watts, you coward!
The problem is that the Republican party doesn't even pretend to care about gay rights. The only hate coming from liberals right now is completely justified. We're not targeting other people except into self-defense. I agree that it may not help, and it might feed into the martyr mentality on the religious side. That doesn't mean we're not right to be hateful at this particular moment. Tolerating intolerance is not the way it works. We are not hypocritical for being angry at intolerance.
I'm not intolerant of anything accept intolerance itself. How can you blame me? If I tolarated intolerance, it would kind of defeat the purpose of calling for tolerance in the first place, wouldn't it? Their not wanting to allow us to have our relationships recognized by the secular government as a marriage is INTOLERANT. I don't care what they do in their churches, ok? If I wanted to force their churches to recognize my marriage, THAT would be intolerance. That's not the case.
That's the problem, though. There are plenty of GLBT folks who would sue, given the chance, to force churches to marry them. It's already happening in Canada. And I hate to tell you this, but if you want tolerance, you will have to tolerate them. They're not being intolerant, they're just asking us to leave the institution of marriage alone. Why can't we just be happy with civil unions?
Don't you see that the only reason they want to "protect" marriage is just to make sure we know that we're not quite equal to them? Just to make sure they can keep us in our place? You have to realize that Canada and Sweden are not the US. They don't have the first Amendment. It will be a cold day in Hell before American pastors are forced to marry people they don't want to. Rabbis don't have to marry Catholics, and Priests don't have to marry divorced people. It's all a distraction.
Sure, there might be some rogue people that will sue. They certainly won't have the backing of the ACLU, who fight just as hard to protect religious freedom and speech as anything else (see the case about the girl with the "be happy, not gay" t-shirt in her high school). Anyone who sues to force pastors to do anything they don't want will be laughed out of court. It's just never going to happen.
There will always be those who want to "keep us in our place" so to speak, but I'm not willing to believe that of the entire lot of them. I know too many. They have a good point; if we allow this, what's to stop incest and polygamy from being considered? I refuse to agree with NAMBLA and bestiality arguments, but the others do hold merit.
That is an absurd suggestion and demonstrates an ignorance of both the first amendment. The free excercise clause restricts government from interfering or restricting a religious belief or doctrine. This doesn't prevent the government from acting in order to STOP an act or action deemed to be illegal or offensive (i.e. polygamy, human sacrifice, rape, etc.), but it in no way makes accomadation for the government to COMPEL an act (like presiding over a same-sex marriage).
I love this...you admit the government cannot restric a religious belief or doctrine, then go on to say that a lawsuit against churches refusing to marry gay couples is "a suit against hate speech." Don't look now, but your duplicity is showing.
If someone's "faith" taught them to believe that people with blonde hair were evil, and they go around saying: "people with blonde hair are evil"; not an issue, Free Speech!But, if this person of "faith" begins actively advocating and campaigning for the restriction of the constitutional rights of blonde people, then that turns into hate speech. You are free to think Jews are evil; you are not free to advocate that Jews be denied the same constitutional rights as others. It's not duplicity.
But where in the Constitution is marriage granted as a right? Fred Phelps staunchly advocates bringing back the death penalty for homosexuals, and as wrong as he is, he's free to express that opinion. If the law they're advocating is wrong, then the rest of the law will stop it, or the system of checks and balances will weed it out. This is the democratic process in action. Marriage is not a "human right," no matter how you look at it.
She's right. I know many conservative gay men--so glad to see more females who are conservative, too.
Marksnotebook 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol what a joke
imcrazy85 1 year ago
finally something with some substance.
good work
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
wow
you are an angry lesbian lol
RonaldBarone 1 year ago
@RonaldBarone, I'm not nearly as "angry" as the liberals who demand that I abandon my conservative principals. At least I'm capable of giving a considerate argument. They simply insult everybody (I seem to recall fellow gays wishing Mary Cheney's first child would die of SIDS).
melthefretmaster 1 year ago
@melthefretmaster OK, I looked for this case of anyone wishing Mary Cheney's first child would die of SIDS, I found a single comment by an anonymous poster on the story about that birth from the site "Equal Family". So unless you have a better source than I could find don't be trying to extrapolate that single commenter of unknown sexual orientation to "fellow gays".
amarkanable 2 weeks ago
@amarkanable the fact that it was said is quite enough. The two websites that I had bookmarked that quoted the sources have long since been taken down, but the fact that it can still be found should be more than enough for you.
melthefretmaster 1 week ago
@melthefretmaster No it's not "more than enough" for me. I'm sure you know as well as I do that one could post a picture of kittens and rainbows and some troll will find some horrible nasty thing to say about that. You didnt qualify your statement with "some anonymous troll who may or may not actually be a gay liberal said this", you said "fellow gays". You don't see the huge difference of this?
amarkanable 1 week ago
@melthefretmaster PS, I've seen the comment section of the articles on the advocate you debated in recent days, so I do realize there is a small and unfortunately vocal part of the gay population who do say nasty things (and have the guts to link it to their facebook account). But every time a hetero says something nasty, do other straight people say "I seem to recall fellow straights saying"? Also screenshots/wayback are very useful for recording things for posterity's sake.
amarkanable 1 week ago
The fact of the matter is that until the Republican party ends it's unholy alliance (pun intended) with the RR/MM, most openly gay and lesbian people will just not feel comfortable aligning themselves with the Republican party, and will side with Democrats because unfortunately we have a two party system. It's the political binary that costs Americans. Sure, other parties technically exist, but when it comes down to the presidency, the choice is only between two.
lovetellslies 1 year ago
Like civil unions, gays adopting, the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, repealing DADT/DOMA, passing a fully inclusive ENDA, and gay people having even the most basic of civil liberties. Republicans, desperately trying to hold onto the RR/MM, adamantly oppose all of the above. Democrats, by and large, support all of the above. Therein lies the answer to your question.
lovetellslies 1 year ago
One last comment, it's very admirable that you're trying to change the Republican party for the better from the inside. But the bottom line is, while it's true that Democrats aren't exactly the best of allies, Republicans openly and shamelessly pander to the religious right/moral majority. You're also right that many Democrats, like Republicans, are against gay marriage. But that seems to be the only common thread between both parties. Lets consider other gay rights issues.
lovetellslies 1 year ago
John McCain drank the Bush koolaid and chose Sarah Palin in a shameless attempt to appeal to the religious right/moral majority. It backfired and cost him the election. He has no one to blame for that but himself. Americans of all political affiliations were so beyond fed up with the Bush administration that they didn't want to elect a man who sacrificed his integrity to become Bush 2.0, that's probably the single most contributing factor to why Barack Obama is president today.
lovetellslies 1 year ago
I'm on the opposite side of the political isle, but I admire that you're not inflammatory in your conservative beliefs and that you argue them in a level-headed intelligent manner. But at the end of the day, I know a lot of Obama voters, myself included, are disappointed in him so far. But if you really want to know the reason why we liberals voted for him, and why many moderates/centrists voted for him as well... I have two words for you: Sarah Palin.
lovetellslies 1 year ago
WOW!! As a fellow homosexual person...Scratch that...as a fellow homosexual American, I have to say I am so proud of you and the fact that you put your voice out there like that. I am a conservative as well, and I think that the hardest closet to come out of was the conservative one. Thank you for your voice Mel! You are an inspiration!
flobrew 1 year ago
Really I think your a great girl you believe in something thats different from me i don't care if your liberal or conserative, i dont do around doing those things infact i see many conserative bash on me becuase im a bisexual women and they hate me tell me i am going to hell and tell me god hates me. i think its not the label that we say we believe in that makes us do things stupid i think its just people not just liberals but ALL of us
XxBareFangzxX 2 years ago
okay wait wait wait you lost me when you said democrats, then went into black people im lost. do you mean as most black peopel are democrat? Really I am a liberal, i dont care if your a repulican/conservative, as long as ur for gay rights im fine. What annoys me is that black people actually voted against gay marriage when the lot of them run around talking about how their ancestors where treated :/ makes no sense to me seeming they are treating gays the same way
XxBareFangzxX 2 years ago
i applaud your opinion and freedom of speech. i had originally typed in gay hypocrisy in the search bar to find a video similar to mine. it is enlightening to hear other peoples thoughts. that said, i'm posting my hypocrisy video (not as a direct response) because it is about hypocrisy. maybe you'll draw a more youthful crowd.
dakotaviggiano 2 years ago
most gays are left wing facists!
kfag101 2 years ago
O.o Most gays just want their marriage, Im a liberal, i just want to marry my loved one, ill protest with the state not the churches because the church cant sign a paper to give me the rights but washington can. we need to fight for our rights in a civil manor
XxBareFangzxX 2 years ago
Leme get this strait.... Gay, LESBIAN, REPUBLICAN?!
WOW! Someone who votes for what they believe in? OPPOSED to voting democrat just becuase "That's what lesbians do"
Kudos to you girl!
mahnameiswin 2 years ago 5
Wheather I agree with you or not, it is refreshing to here someone speak the truth as you did here. Your assertion that more hate comes from the left is right on, but hypocrisy seems the new norm in politics. As a former republican, I'm disgusted by both political parties. As a new independant, I thank you for your well stated opinions.
HulaArt 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yup, the most important thing about you isn't your lesbianism - it's your extreme WHITENESS and racism. Thanks for at least being honest and upfront with it.
fourthavefreespirit 2 years ago
OMG I thought I was the only conservative lesbian on the face of the earth. You just gave me a nice warm fuzzy feeling. I totally agree with your message and your views. Good going!!!!
shananagans5 2 years ago 3
Check out tammy bruce's website. SHe has a radio show that you may like, also.
BooKittyRadley 2 years ago
You look like a big, scary lesbian. Can you bench over 250?
jokojayisback 2 years ago
My bench maxes out at 160 right now. Leg press, though, is at 600.
You should see my tattoos. ;-)
(I'm really just a big teddy bear.)
melthefretmaster 2 years ago
I'd expect a hug :-D
ExplorationB 2 years ago
@jokojayisback Why would you say that? Insults just prove how stupid you are.
Marksnotebook 7 months ago
@jokojayisback This country is going down the tubes in debt, in spending, and in culture...the dumbing down of America is hard at work. When your budget is out of control at home, do you keep spending money? Well, you can but you'll go broke---that is what Obama is doing--spending constantly and its being done for a reason---to ruin this nation and then get the commies in control and in Soviet Russia and all commie countries gay people are silenced or thrown in jail!
Marksnotebook 7 months ago
What's really insane is being conservative OR liberal. Political parties should be outlawed because all they do is allow extremists to gain power, and they don't truly represent the will of the general people. Republicans don't know jack about realistic economies, and Democrats don't know jack about keep this country safe. That being said, I was quite saddened when my fellow Californians passed Prop 8, whether marriage is a right for everyone or not, outlawing it wasn't the answer.
drmoo46 2 years ago
No, they are not oxymorons. What is it the LGBT community likes to tout? Oh, yeah, TOLERANCE. I celebrate everything I am, including the fact that I'm a lesbian, equally. Being politically conservative does not denote self-hatred. In case you missed it, I am waaaaay out of the closet. You're placing the same limits on me that the gay community refuses to accept.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Lgbtq and Republicanism are oxymorons. And, I'm not a Dem either. Why not explore the internalized self-hatred before expecting anyone else to accept the talking points you're regurgitating from the oppressor? The fact that you are lesbian should be a grand thing worth celebrating, not keep in the closet. Closets are only for clothes and shoes.
rasaxSF 3 years ago
and which culture is that? you also seem like someone who is easily insulted. or perhaps one of those who is looking for an insult, to pick a fight. vent frustration. are you depressed? not trying "come up" with anything, genuinely curious.
nasiri78 3 years ago
Ooooo-kay. You tell me my shirt looks like a "tailored black balloon" and I'm not supposed to be offended? You seem like one of those folks who just likes to see anger where there is none. Take a gander at the way you wrote it again and tell me exactly how I was supposed to take it, especially considering some of the instigating comments I've gotten thus far.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
wasn't trying to "come up" with anything. your shirt is just shiny. you seem like a really angry person.
nasiri78 3 years ago
Angry person? No, just irritated. Are you aware that "black balloon" refers to heroin use? That's insulting in this culture.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
are you wearing a pleather blouse? or is that a tailored black balloon?...???!
nasiri78 3 years ago
Are you serious? It's a thermal shirt. It does get cold this time of year in Arizona.
Is that the best you can come up with?
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Classic liberal ideals were far different than modern ideals. Today, American liberals want a different sort of thing. JFK was a liberal I could like, but Clinton? Obama? Scary.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Your entirely correct that over-reaction is playing into the hands of the h8ers, but as you attack Democrats for not sufficiently supporting Prop 8, and cite polls, note that Republicans supported 8 by 77% and Democrats opposed it by 65%. How is it that 65% for us is not enough (and it's not!) but 23% is? And why support liberal ideals? Have you read any of the liberal philosophers? Hume, Locke, Diderot, Montesquieu, Voltaire? Maybe you'd want to know better what liberal ideals are.
JackFertig 3 years ago
Thank you, melthefretmaster! I am a Christian, straight woman. My only sibling, however, is gay, and I love him dearly (as well as his companion of 22+ years). I am also a registered Independent, but a conservative. When I have chosen to respond to any Prop 8 videos on youtube, the ugliest, profane,, name-calling, hate-filled messages I have received have been from gay people. My attitude was fast becoming one of "Why bother?" You reminded me that not all in your community are irrational.
odhe1lo 3 years ago
Humans who practice homosexuality can not use the argument concerning race because GOD only created one race: mankind
So whoever came up with the idea of "races" (an evolutionary concept) was dead wrong in the first place...
Anyway that's my two cents, have a wonderful day.
mrjames84 3 years ago
Also there never was any such thingas "interracial" marriage, for there is only one race: humanity. So then, there was always INTRAracial marriage (marriage within one race between man and woman).
Human beings do not have to practice homosexuality or lesbianism; we have the ability to discern between good and evil. But faith in Jesus Christ naturally results in good works. All men have fallen short of the glory of GOD, and yet He died for us in spite of ourselves.
mrjames84 3 years ago
Since humans are then of GOD's race/offspring, they ought not to suppose that their race is according to man's imagination. GOD made of one blood, all nations of humanity. There never was different "races", therefore, humans who practice the sin of homosexuality, can not equate a behavior with what GOD actually created. GOD created us in His image and as such, desires a people for Him. This is possible thru Jesus Christ, Jesus did not come to condemn, but to free us from our wrong ways..
mrjames84 3 years ago
The simple answer to your questions ma'am is:
Jesus
As a Christian, I never did consider myself racially 'black' but rather a GOD-created human being and that no matter what I did, Jesus loved me so that I would be free from a guilty past. So I understand exactly where you're coming from because I was once in the world; but you have to understand that those who are with Christ are going to be hated by the world because the world killed Jesus merely because He stood for Truth.
mrjames84 3 years ago
I did find the debate responses of McCain and Obama on Gay Rights interesting. It was exactly the same. I was surprised that people who were castigating me for my distrust of Obama were saying that he was for the LGBT Community. How did they hear the debate and get that I have no idea. By the way I'm Libertarian. The Rabid nature of the Gay and Black Community convinced me that voting for their "Savior" was not in line with either my beliefs or my understanding of what is best for the Country.
angeleliza41 3 years ago
Look beyond marriage. McCain is against the Matthew Shephard Act, ENDA, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, and just about any other law that gays want passed. Obama is wrong to be against marriage, but he is with us for all the other stuff. That makes Obama better on gay rights. McCain would have done NOTHING (not ALMOST nothing, but NOTHING) to advance gay rights.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
John, I am also against the Matthew Shepard Act. What happened to him was sick and wrong, and it was a tragedy, but hate crimes legislation will not get us anywhere. Hate speech legislation is even worse. I agree with ending DADT, but I'm curious as to why so many gays love Bill Clinton when he gave us DOMA and DADT.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
While I disagree with you on the Matthew Shepard Act, I think reasonable people can disagree on hate crimes legislation in general. However, since we have extensive hate crimes legislation in place already that covers race, national orgigin, religion, etc., we either need to add sexual orientation and gender identity or repeal all hate crimes legislation. How do you feel about that? And isn't it problematic, no matter how you feel, that the other ones will never be repealed in a million years?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I think all hate crimes legislation should be repealed. Why should the life of any person have more value simply because they're in a protected class? And in this day and age, why do we need a protected class? All crimes should be punished harshly, regardless of the motivation.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Who's more dangerous, the guy who beats his neighbor with a baseball bat because his neighbor slept with the guy's wife, or the guy who beats his neighbor with a baseball bat because his neighbor is black? Who's more likely to offend again? These are all questions taken into consideration for sentencing, and it is proper for the legislature to take them into consideration when enacting laws
J0hn3577 3 years ago
And remember, the suspect class(ification) is "sexual orientation." That means that if a gay person beats up a straight person for being straight, the gay person is guilty of a hate crime. No one's life is more valuable; we all have a sexual orienation.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Again, if you're against all hate crimes legislation, I can respect that, even if I still disagree for the reasons I've stated. However, the fact is that I CANNOT respect having race and national origin and especially religion (I noticed there were no quotation marks around "hate crime" in Pro-8 articles when the woman with the cross was assaulted) be covered by hate crimes but not sexual orientation and gender identity. Since the others won't be repealed, adding those two is the only answer.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
There is no such thing in the United States as "hate speech" legislation. All hate crimes bills simply enhance ACTIONS that are already crimes if those ACTIONS are taken against someone because of the specified characteristic. We do it with murder/manslaughter and no one seems to have a problem with it. You don't get arrested for thinking about murdering someone or for saying someone deserves to die (unless there is credible evidence that you are an actual threat to carry taht action out).
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Not yet. It's already happened in other countries, and people are talking about it here. I went to a PFLAG meeting not long ago where it became the topic of discussion, and people who'd seemed perfectly rational before became quite adamant that "something needs to be done about all this hate speech." I was shocked at what they suggested. If it's going on there, I know it's being talked about in other circles. That scares the hell out of me.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
WE ARE NOT OTHER COUNTRIES! Do you know that in Germany you can be put in jail for denying the holocaust? Europe does not have the same bill of rights we do. It does not have the same freedom of speech and freedom of religion that we do. But again, you're relying on the always faulty slippery slope argument. If you're afraid of hate SPEECH laws, then fight them when they come up. Don't fight hate CRIME laws that are valuable.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
We may not be, John, but there are plenty of people out there who wish to act based on those models! Our bill of rights doesn't mean much to some, including our new President-elect, who is VERY anti-Second Amendment. Bill Clinton did things that flagrantly violated people's Constitutional rights, and everyone still thinks he was great!
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
The first amendment is pretty clear on freedom of religion, and even clearer on free speech. I would also point out that no matter what Barack Obama or Bill Clinton believes, the US Supreme Court (those damn activist judges striking down duly enacted legislation) made it very clear that the Second Amendment protects the right of private inidividuals to own guns. Assault rifles are another thing, don't know you how feel about them.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
But again, you offer no reason to think that a sea change in our first amendment jurisprudence is coming, just more fear. There are also people in this country that think gays should be executed, which they do in other parts of the world. I'd say that's just as likely to occur in US law as sending pastors to jail for saying homosexuality is an abomination.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
It's just like all this crap in Cali about having to teach gay marriage in schools. The answer to the educational concern is deal with education directly; it's not to stop marriage, which is wholely unrelated.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
To a degree, it is related. What about the teacher who took her class on a "field trip" to a lesbian wedding? Or the kindergarten teacher who all but forced a class of five-year-olds who barely knew how to write to sign GLSEN "pledge cards?" It's not farfetched to fear things like that will become more frequent.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
The teacher who took her class on the field trip had the permission of every parent involved. And again, the place to take that up is IN THE SCHOOL WITH THE PRINCIPLE OR SCHOOL BOARD! Are you really suggesting the best way to stop dumb field trips is to stop any event that may be the subject of such a a trip from taking place at all?? It's a totally ridiculous argument, and they've really got you going if you buy into it.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
And by the way, the GLSEN pledge cards would have occurred with or without gay marriage. The way you deal with it is make clear to teachers what is acceptable and what isn't. You fight the real problem and not a straw man.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
California has hate crimes legislation that covers sexual orientation. Was the woman with the cross at the protest arrested for saying being gay was sinful? No.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
And actually, hate crimes laws are NOT as valuable as you think. What, pray tell, do you think they've accomplished so far? Do you think the bad guy is gonna stop and think before committing a hate crime any more than he does before he commits any other crime? Explain your reasoning for this, please.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
You're argument is basically that deterrence doesn't work. That's not a very conservative position. Why do we have the death penalty? Why do we have laws at all? We still have lots of crime, right? Like I said, people who target victims based on their being members of a class of people are more dangerous than people who target very specific victims for very specific reasons. Deterrence and incapacitation are two good reasons to put these people in jail for longer.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Deterrance does work, but it must be applied evenly. A few extra years tacked onto a sentence isn't going to make a person rethink their actions. Why is my life worth more than, say, my sister's because I'm gay and she's not? And on which statistics do you base your argument that those who commit bias-motivated crimes are more dangerous than others? When I was in corrections, the most dangerous ones had never committed a hate crime.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
I was simply asking you an intuitive question about who is more dangerous. It's just simple common sense that if someone is willing to beat someone just for being black, that person has more potential victims; he's much more likely to go out the next day and beat someone else up and go out the day after that and beat someone else up. The guy who beats up someone who specifically "wronged" him seems less likely to offend again.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
And again, you completely ignore my earlier argument about how this is not about one person being "worth more" than someone else. If a gay person beat your sister for being straight, that gay person would be just as guilty of a hate crime. The fact that straights are more likely to beat gays for their sexual orientation alone doesn't change the fact that the law is evenly applicable.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
And since you agree that deterrence works, I think the onus would be on you to show that this particular form of deterrence, i.e., adding a few years to crimes motivated by bias, doesn't work. There's a difference between saying it doesn't work and having a philosophical objection to implementing it based on your false sense of it treating some people as more worthy than others. BTW, if you were attacked as a corrections officer, the law treats that attack as more serious than attacks on others.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I am only 24 years old and I wasn't paying attention when the Bill Clinton stuff was going on in the early 90s. However, it is my understanding that Clinton tried very hard to allow gays to serve openly, but was thwarted by Congress, both dems and repubs. DADT was the best he could do at the time. That said, I think it was despicable for him to sign DOMA, and I think Barack Obama is wrong on marriage equality, and there will come a time when his civil union compromise will not be enough for me.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Bullshit. When Clinton had his heart surgery in '03 and Kerry went to visit him, he very famously told him to stop supporting gay marriage and ending DADT. He told Kerry that people wouldn't vote for him if he held those ideals, and he needed to back off. If Clinton really wanted gays to be able to serve openly, he would have done it. He was the C in C, not Congress. It was up to HIM and he blew it spectacularly.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Look, I'm not here to defend Bill Clinton. He's a despicable political pragmatist for what he told Kerry, which I have heard about before. But the sad thing is that he was right. Kerry lost by a small margin, and his support of gay rights probably helped do him in.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
But, Bill Clinton's lack of courage on this issue doesn't change the underlying fact that we're right to demand our rights. I'm waiting for the Cali Supreme Court to show the courage that Clinton didn't and overturn Prop. 8 even though it puts their jobs in real jeopardy. Hopefully you'll see real political courage in the coming weeks.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
We may be right to stand up for our rights, but my point is that we have to be wise about it. Accusations of hate, bigotry and other such nonsense isn't getting us anywhere; we're not going to win that way. It's been long since proven that we're only shooting ourselves in both proverbial feet by trying to shock the rest of the country into agreeing. Didn't we learn anything from Dr. King?
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
See, I'm with you except for one thing. You call the accusations of hate and bigotry "nonsense." It's not nonsense; it's the truth. Just because it may not be in our interest to harp on it doesn't make it any less true.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
But it is nonsense. Merely voting to ban gay marriage doesn't require hate. I don't believe they're doing it out of spite because I know them. I used to BE them. I'm not looking back with regret, I'm simply speaking from experience. They genuinely, honestly care, but as long as we're pointing fingers and deliberately trying to shock them, they're going to keep their walls up. Any human being would do that, including us.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Merely voting to ban gay marriage requires at least bigotry. Whether that bigotry is fueled by hate or just simple ignorance is worthy of a distinction, but it's bigotry nonetheless. I used to be them too, and I was a bigot.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
The difference is that I wasn't so dense that I couldn't see it when confronted with it. Maybe the anger stems from the frustration with just the sheer stupidity of these people that will not budge no matter what. It's no surprise that a vast majority of college-educated people voted against Prop. 8. That's what makes me most angry: that it is nothing but sheer stupidity and lack of education that causes the bigotry.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
You know, when I hear elected officials like Mike Huckabee say with a straight face that gays don't have a claim to civil rights because we haven't had our "skulls crushed," how can I react with anything but rage? This is supposed to be an intelligent person. He then says with a straight face that Prop. 8 "didn't prohibit anything." I get angry just re-writing it. THAT'S the nonsense, and there's NOTHING we can do to get it through these people's heads!
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Mike Huckabee is talking through the hole in his ass. I don't take much stock in what he has to say because he's a bottle or two shy of a six pack. As I've said, there's a time for violence, and this is not it. Huckabee insulted me, too, but consider the source. I will grant that they're ignorant; not necessarily bigoted. They'll be a lot more willing to learn if we're willing to wisely teach and stop insulting them. We're feeding the martyr mentality with this crap.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
OK, well, I think I will end this productive discussion while we agree, lol. I'll just say, the problem is that Mike Huckabee is typical of the type of mentality we're dealing with here, and I just think it is extremely difficult to penetrate.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
You are welcome, ladimel.... and to you my friend... nice work.
jalapenoluver 3 years ago 2
Thank you, Tammy. Had no idea you'd seen it!
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
well done mel!!
my compliments. Hubby & I are internet radio DJ's - this was the topic of our rant last Friday night.
Its ridiculous and absurd for same sex marriage to not be legal. But as you point out - the freak shows and the terrorists grab attention, other folks who ask for your support do not reciprocate.
The comments listed here are excellent as well. Thank you for putting it out there, Mel, gonna try to circulate this.
Thank you, Tammy, for sharing the link with me.
ladimel 3 years ago
I'd also like to recommend Tammy Bruce, a classical liberal aka conservative radio talk show host who happens to be lesbian; who happens to be my personal favorite out now...
nitsudg 3 years ago 3
love the video...
political correctness is crap, that is the issue, being a bully is easy. the gay radicals want to be bullies. they want to claim it as a civil rights issue. fine. protest in peace, if you are right... right will win out. learn anything from Dr King ? learn how to act. Not from the radical 60's hippie commies like bill ayers et al.
DMKego 3 years ago
At least it wouldn't lead to polygamous or incestuous marriage. Those things are illegal for a litany of reasons; incest is dangerous, for starters. It often disguises sexual abuse and if children are produced, they invariably end up with all manner of birth defects. Polygamy? It can also mask abuse, and is a poor model for kids. It can be abused as well by people wishing to marry only for citizenship.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
That's pretty weak reasoning. (talking only about your first sentence). If those things are so bad, they why should we encourage them at all with even the benefits of marriage?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Now, incest often disguises abuse, and causes birth defects. Valid reasons to prohibit it. Do those reasons apply to gay marriage? If not, where's the slippery slope?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
What's to stop gay/lesbian incest from slowly being accepted? A psychologist friend of mine told me that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-90% of incest cases are actually abuse, often by parents. That includes same-sex activity. Were it not for my promise to keep my mouth shut about it, I might tell you about a case or two.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
You're nonresponsive to my question. Does the incest argument apply to adult, consensual, non-related gay couples? Are those non-incestual gay relationships 80-90% abusive?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
If not, then you've got your answer to what's to stop incestuous relationships if we allow gay non-incestuous ones. There is a material harm involved in incestuous relationships, i.e. abuse, that is not present in gay relationships. That nullifies the slippery slope argument.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Polygamy can mask abuse, and it can be abused for immigration purposes. Again, valid arguments. Do they apply to gay marriages? Are gay couples any more likely to abuse immigration through marriage than straight couples? Obviously polygamy lends itself to immigration fraud because there is no detriment to the citizen spouse (he can bring over a sham spouse still marry his real desired spouse). This doesn't seem to apply to gay marriages anymore than straight marriages though.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
The "poor model" argument amounts to nothing but the tautology of "it's bad because it's bad." It doesn't answer the question, so I think we can strike it as an independent reason. Your others, however, were valid, and I addressed them. Now, again, do those reasons apply to gay marriages?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
In a sense. Part of it is the vehemence with which straight couples wish to protect marriage. Yes, I agree, the divorce rate is over 50%. But are we really willing to keep fighting this issue and getting in a huff over it when we're just making asses out of ourselves? What do you call what happened in Palm Springs? That was a travesty. There is a time and place for means of violence, and this is NOT it.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
So, let the bullies win is basically your argument. I don't think we're making asses of ourselves; I think we're doing what any group of people in our position would do. Was the Palm Springs thing the lady with the cross? I'm not advocating violence, but how can you blame these people? She's gonna walk in the middle of their protest and basically rub this in their faces? What happened wasn't right, but it's understandable, and she is foolish.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I'm not saying we let the bullies win. She was an older lady, and typically older folks don't understand just how angry people can get about this sort of thing. There is nothing in this wide world that can possibly justify what they did to that woman. It set us back light years.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Really? An older lady has less wisdom about the spectrum of human emotion? Whatever, like I said, not the best idea, but I can't blame them.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
You should blame them. You're talking about an older lady who doesn't understand the emotions involved in this arguemnt, she admitted she had no idea just how angry everyone was about it. She wasn't shouting, and her cross wasn't being used to bludgeon anyone. She was there to try to share the gospel and they did to her what they would have screamed bloody murder about had it been done to them. Equality, John...equality!
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
And, again, the difference is that we are right and she is wrong. It's that simple. She is wrong to use her religion to justify using the law to discriminate against us. We are not attacking her religion except in self-defense.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
The problem is that we should be so far beyond this in America right now that it is absolutely staggering that this is even an issue. It is absolutely staggering that people are offended when this is analogized to race, even though it's not EXACTLY the same thing. It's the same idea, and that people can't see that just removes all respect for them I have, and I am becoming increasingly incapable of having a discussion about it because I just want to shake them and say WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Black people wanted to do the same thing back in the 50's. They, along with many white people, couldn't figure out just what it was that made them less human. But if you recall, the black people didn't get violent. They didn't get indignant. They followed Dr. King peacefully, even in the face of high-powered water cannons and police in riot gear. When we face that sort of thing, I might agree with calling them "the Christian Taliban."
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
I'm sure no black person ever got out of hand at a protest. Come on now. I was at the national protest in Philly yesterday, and there were no incidents that I'm aware of. You act like violence is the norm at these protests because there have been a few incidents.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
All it takes is a few! If the rest of us don't stand up and say, "no, you can't do that," and stop with the accusations of hate and bigotry, we're never gonna get anywhere. All we're doing is insulting them, and it only makes them want to fight back!
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
There's a difference between committing violent acts and accusing the other side of hate a bigotry. There should be no question that the other side is filled with hate and bigotry. I'd say it's mostly just ignorance, but the movement is fueled by hate a bigotry. Again, I agree that we need to focus on building bridges instead of burning them, but there comes a point where people just get fed up. I think a small dose of "we're not gonna be peaceful for much longer" is healthy.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
If I walked into a church and started kissing my male partner in the aisle, I'm sure I'd be rushed by someone.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
No...actually, a church in Michigan was hijacked during services by a group of gay rights activists last weekend. It was a spectacle I couldn't believe they had the nerve to pull off, but they did it.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
And I'm sure everyone just kept going with the service, right? No, I'll bet immediate steps were taken to get them out of there as fast as they could. And of course we're forgetting that these churches brought it upon themselves. Gays were not storming churches before the churches involved themselves where they didn't belong. I'm tired of apologizing for the gay community. It's time we started making life a little more miserable for these people because until we do, they will keep up their crap.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
And why do you insist upon adopting their rhetoric? "Protect marriage"? You know, I just watched your whole video again, and you call us to be civil and talk if we want our rights, and that is what I'm doing here with you, but you are arguing their side! Comparing this to incest and polygamy? It's the same stuff they're doing. It seems to me that you're not just calling for us to "talk" and "use our brains," but you're actually disagreeing with us on the substance of marriage. Am I wrong?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I'm just playing devil's advocate here; these are the arguments they're using, and to a degree they're valid fears. Each of us knows that we were born with this orientation, but they don't understand that. They're not going to want to unless we're willing to be calm and rational about it, and I don't see that happening. You've got to come up with something better than justifications and further questions, otherwise they won't listen and we'll be beating our heads against a wall.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
OK, fine. But what you fail to consider is that if they are willing to analogize incest and bestiality and pedophilia with homosexuality, then they have their minds made up already. If you can't change their minds, then you have to give them a reason why not taking our rights away is a good idea FOR THEM and is beneficial FOR THEM. Getting us away from their churches every week for the next five years might be a good reason.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
And please, I'd like to know why gay civil unions don't lead to polygamous civil unions or incestuous civil unions. And I'd like you to tell me why polygamy and incest are bad in the first place, just as an exercise in reason here. Pretend I'm someone who's never heard of such things and who is an independent observer. Tell me why they are bad.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
"There are plenty of GLBT folks who would sue..to force churches to marry them."
My parish will marry any couple who forks over the fee. This includes same sex couples. Membership in the parish is not required. One could argue my parish is running a marriage business.
What if my parish did not marry same sex couples? Wouldn't it be vulnerable to a lawsuit because it will marry for a fee? Businesses are not allowed to discriminate. This is the angle some people need.
TntandJkT 3 years ago
Exactly, Tnt. If any entity--be it a church or otherwise--marries any couple willing to pay the fee, then it opens itself up to tremendous problems. But every church I've ever been a member of or worked for has required that the couple go through marriage counseling in their system before the pastor will conduct the ceremony.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Don't know what you're getting at here, but no church will be forced to marry any couple it doesn't want to. Catholic churches don't have to marry people previously divorced. Rabbis don't have to marry Catholics. Ministers won't have to marry gays. Maybe in other countries this happens, but we are very serious about the first amendment here; those other countries don't have the first amendment.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
As long as a church is not receiving public funds to conduct marriage ceremonies, it will not be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to. Its tax-exempt status will not be jeopardized.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
The case often cited to conjure of fear is the New Jersey case in Ocean Grove where a church pavillion lost its tax-exempt status because the church wouldn't perform civil unions. The problem is that the pavillion wasn't the church, it received tax-exempt status in the first precisely BECAUSE it held itself open to the public to perform marriage ceremonies. Even after this case, the church itself did not lose its tax-exempt status, just the pavillion that shouldn't have had it in the first place
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I've seen gays sue the Boy Scouts for not letting them be scoutmasters. I've seen them sue churches for "hate speech." Lawsuits against churches for refusing to perform civil union ceremonies is coming up, I promise.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
They sued the Boy Scouts and they lost, as they should. However, I'm not in favor of the Scouts getting sweetheart deals on their rent from cities. They are private, they get to do what they want, and they get to pay like everyone else. No special rights. I can also guarantee that no church has been SUCCESSFULLY sued for hate speech. Besides, what does MARRIAGE have to do with that?! If you've already seen it, why stop marriage, out of spite? Anyone can sue for anything. doesn't mean they'll win
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Nobody wants to stop marriage out of spite, John. And it'll only be a matter of time before one of these lawsuits sticks and we end up with a precedent being set. Why shouldn't the Boy Scouts get such deals? What have they done that's so bad? They're a great organization. Other groups get the same deals, why shouldn't they?
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Really? Had a poster online tell me he voted against Prop. 8 and is now happy it passed because gays are protesting. Sounds like spite to me. These law suits will not stick, and unless you have an intelligent basis for saying they will, you should stop asserting such. If you can explain how the first amendment can be reconciled with forcing priests to marry gay people, I'm all ears.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
The Boy Scouts may do many great things, however they only do those great things for straight boys. We are a society that values equality and therefore we should not encourage organizations to continue to promote inequality, even though those organizations have the absolute right to do so. If the Boy Scouts rejected black boys, would you feel the same way? And don't tell me they are not the same thing.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
"Anyone who sues to force pastors to do anything they don't want will be laughed out of court. It's just never going to happen."
The judge may laugh them out of court. But the media has a way of taking a grain of sand and building Mt. Everest out of it. I can see a small yet vocal group of radicals turning nothing into the next great political movement.
TntandJkT 3 years ago 2
It will NEVER happen. If they try, this gay man will be the first out there fighting to stop it. That's not what we want, and those leading the charge against gay marriage know it. They have one goal, and that is to make sure we know that their religious beliefs hold more water in public policy than other beliefs. As long as they can keep us happy with civil unions, they've established their superiority.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Great big ditto, Mel! :-)
It's great to see another gay conservative on here. The hypocrisy of the more visible/audible folk in the gay community has hurt ALL of us. Don't let the static on youtube get you down.
Good video. I hope to see more! :-)
--L.C. in Texas
BooKittyRadley 3 years ago
Something I need to inject here...just thought of it...black people have no need to fight for their civil rights anymore. They have them. In fact, a black man is more likely to get one of the jobs I want than I am because of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employment. In some cases race gives you more protection. But in most states, it's still legal to fire a gay employee for being gay. I don't want to hear about their civil rights.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
In 2000 California banned same sex marriage while handing Al Gore the electoral college win.
In 2008 California banned same sex marriage while handing Barack Obama the win.
Oregon banned same sex marriage while voting blue from 1988 to present.
How many times does the Democratic party have to stick a knife in your back before you see that you are bleeding? What happened last Tuesday is not new. It's been happing for 8 years running.
TntandJkT 3 years ago 2
"not only black ppl,have strong religious beliefs that's keeping them frm supportn marriage 4 all"
Barack Obama urged all of his supporters to vote no on 8. That is pinncle of reaching out. Look what good it did.
TntandJkT 3 years ago 2
"We are not hypocritical for being angry at intolerance."
Sure we are. The Mormons get called out. When do racist blacks and Latinos get their calling out?
TntandJkT 3 years ago
Mainstream Black and Latino political organizations are not advocating intolerance, not true for Mormons. That's the main differentiation.
nasiri78 3 years ago
I hate to tell you this, sugar, but when majorities of those two communities vote FOR the intolerance we're trying to defeat, they most certainly are advocating intolerance. Nearly 75% of black voters voted for Prop 8. Nearly 55% of Latinos also voted for it. What, pray tell, do you call that?
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
So you agree, voting yes on Prop 8 is intolerance?
nasiri78 3 years ago
I say both yes and no. Reason being: about half of the people who voted yes on 8 don't want to see GLBT people obtain any rights at all because they don't see it from our perspective. The other half, I think, would support most other rights but don't want to give up marriage (instead supporting civil unions). Depending on the view of the voter, I might agree that it involves intolerance. I'm not willing to call all of them completely intolerant for not giving me what I want, though.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
I'm not opposed to Civil Unions in theory. I think getting the community caught up in semantics and diction is exactly what those opposed want. But I would only support this option if Civil Unions conferred ALL the same Federal rights onto GLBT people that marriage currently does for heteros (hospital visitation, inheritance, immigration, tax benefits, etc.). Short of this, u create a second class of citizen. I just don't see it happening and with DOMA I think its near impossible.
nasiri78 3 years ago
DOMA only refers to marriage itself. Civil unions wouldn't necessarily be the same thing, and thus would likely fall outside that law. I wish we could have the exact same thing, but it's not likely right now, and arguing sexual orientation isn't like arguing race. We don't exactly have a genetic marker for it yet. I don't understand their argument about it, either, but sometimes being diplomatic gets you what you want far faster.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
"Don't get me wrong blame can be shared but it should not be turned around and used against a group that is seeking equality."
Are you saying that in regards to blacks, gays or both? It's o.k. for 7 out of 10 blacks to vote Yes on 8 because blacks seek civil rights too?
TntandJkT 3 years ago 2
Great video. You go sister!!!
The Mormons put up cash. But they did not walk people into the voting booth at knife point and make them vote yes.
So called Liberal Obmama loving Blacks walked right in and voted Yes. That doesn't make them a target? That doesn't make them beyond ridicule? It does the to the legions of gay liberal apologists who will excuse this.
I can hear the all too annoying refrain:
"But that's different."
TntandJkT 3 years ago
Actually, I'm conservative socially as well. Personally I think we should be happy with civil unions and leave marriage alone. Same thing, different name, what's the big deal? Do we have to get in a snit over it? And no, I don't think the Constitution should be used to define marriage. It doesn't now. McCain was right--it shouldn't ever. No on 8 failed because they were running ad hominem attacks rather than showing real people.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
1. Would it be wrong to assume that you are politically conservative (fiscally conservative) and socially liberal?
2. I think the reason why Gay Marriage was defeated in CA was because the NoOn8 ppl failed 2 reach out 2 more religious groups especially in Black churches,at least accdg 2 1 insider,Minorities,not only black ppl,have strong religious beliefs that's keeping them frm supportn marriage 4 all
3.Would it be a great idea to simply remove the definition of marriage from the constitut'n?
superc 3 years ago
Chrisfrost03, have you been hiding under a rock, or are you living in denial? There was a protest this weekend in Palm Springs where a religious counterprotester was physically attacked and her cross stomped on. You don't call that hate? Standing up for equality does not require that. It also doesn't require verbal threats of violence, which continue to pour out of gay liberal blogs. "Burn down their churches?" "Watch your backs?" Gimme a break.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Wow so you mean to tell me that there are no lunatic republicans. In any protest there are going to be radical people. The majority however were very peaceful and non threatening. You can't just nitpick a few and call the whole protest violent.
chrisfrost103 3 years ago
Name for me, if you will, a single protest led by political conservatives in which people were assaulted or threatened. There have been so many messages spewing hatred and threats since Prop 8 passed that I'm losing track. The peaceniks are always the scariest ones.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
lol- you look pretty scary in the video with the gun ;)
nasiri78 3 years ago
By the way because you don't seem to realize...the African American community is known to be a socially conservative community based on their strong church affiliations. The reason for the protest of the mormon church is because of the millions of dollars they put into false political ads. Don't get me wrong blame can be shared but it should not be turned around and used against a group that is seeking equality.
chrisfrost103 3 years ago 2
if they are socially conservative, why did they vote for the most liberal senator ever?
easyjet95 3 years ago
You have to stop listening to Sean Hannity lol.
It's funny how you guys keep repeating things that everyone already found out is wrong lmfao!
Obama was only declared the most liberal senator for the one year in which he casted too few votes to have an assesable record. He was spending too much time campaigning but for the years in which he DID case enough votes he's actually ranked the tenth.
LibertarianViewer 3 years ago
That's right, because he had a propensity to simply vote "present." That way he doesn't have to defend his position.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Exactly, Mel. His positions, if you were to ask me, are indefensible in the first place.
easyjet95 3 years ago
People holding a protest outside of a religious institution (one that funded a proposition to write discrimination into the CA constitution) is hardly a threatening act. The democratic party is doing a hell of a lot more for equality than the republican party. If you don't care for equality then so be it, but to call the democrats and the gay community hateful for standing up for equality is entirely wrong.
chrisfrost103 3 years ago
That's nonsense, and if it were true you would have backed it up with a statement of fact. Google Sarah Palin in Alaska in 2005 when she vetoed a Bill that would have overturned a Supreme Court decision to take rights away from gay partners of state employees. That's something the MSM didn't tell you. California did this in 2000 with Prop. 22, Oregon did it to you in 2004. NO DEMOCRAT endorses gay marriage but Ellen dances with Barack Obama and disses Sarah Palin. So embarrassing to be gay now.
snorp73 3 years ago
Justified? JUSTIFIED?!? You must be joking! Hate is never right, no matter who it's aimed at or what the circumstances are! I may have little tolerance for white supremacists, but I don't hate them. There is NOTHING in this world that justifies anybody in this case threatening to do harm to the religious people. Especially not when it was the black community that pushed it to win! Go protest in Watts, you coward!
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
The problem is that the Republican party doesn't even pretend to care about gay rights. The only hate coming from liberals right now is completely justified. We're not targeting other people except into self-defense. I agree that it may not help, and it might feed into the martyr mentality on the religious side. That doesn't mean we're not right to be hateful at this particular moment. Tolerating intolerance is not the way it works. We are not hypocritical for being angry at intolerance.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
But you are intolerant. You are pissed because people don't want to call it Marriage. and for them believing that you are angry.
easyjet95 3 years ago
I'm not intolerant of anything accept intolerance itself. How can you blame me? If I tolarated intolerance, it would kind of defeat the purpose of calling for tolerance in the first place, wouldn't it? Their not wanting to allow us to have our relationships recognized by the secular government as a marriage is INTOLERANT. I don't care what they do in their churches, ok? If I wanted to force their churches to recognize my marriage, THAT would be intolerance. That's not the case.
J0hn3577 3 years ago 4
Demanding that they step aside and let the government treat us equally is not intolerant of them.
J0hn3577 3 years ago 4
That's the problem, though. There are plenty of GLBT folks who would sue, given the chance, to force churches to marry them. It's already happening in Canada. And I hate to tell you this, but if you want tolerance, you will have to tolerate them. They're not being intolerant, they're just asking us to leave the institution of marriage alone. Why can't we just be happy with civil unions?
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Don't you see that the only reason they want to "protect" marriage is just to make sure we know that we're not quite equal to them? Just to make sure they can keep us in our place? You have to realize that Canada and Sweden are not the US. They don't have the first Amendment. It will be a cold day in Hell before American pastors are forced to marry people they don't want to. Rabbis don't have to marry Catholics, and Priests don't have to marry divorced people. It's all a distraction.
J0hn3577 3 years ago 2
Sure, there might be some rogue people that will sue. They certainly won't have the backing of the ACLU, who fight just as hard to protect religious freedom and speech as anything else (see the case about the girl with the "be happy, not gay" t-shirt in her high school). Anyone who sues to force pastors to do anything they don't want will be laughed out of court. It's just never going to happen.
J0hn3577 3 years ago 3
There will always be those who want to "keep us in our place" so to speak, but I'm not willing to believe that of the entire lot of them. I know too many. They have a good point; if we allow this, what's to stop incest and polygamy from being considered? I refuse to agree with NAMBLA and bestiality arguments, but the others do hold merit.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
Why don't you ask yourself first what's wrong with polygamy and incest, and then you will get your answer.
J0hn3577 3 years ago 3
And by the way, by your logic, under gay civil unions what's to stop polygamous or incestuous civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage?
J0hn3577 3 years ago 3
i guess you stumped her there. well done.
nasiri78 3 years ago
Um...no. I felt the suggestions were absolutely ludicrous and therefore did not merit the dignity of a response.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
That is an absurd suggestion and demonstrates an ignorance of both the first amendment. The free excercise clause restricts government from interfering or restricting a religious belief or doctrine. This doesn't prevent the government from acting in order to STOP an act or action deemed to be illegal or offensive (i.e. polygamy, human sacrifice, rape, etc.), but it in no way makes accomadation for the government to COMPEL an act (like presiding over a same-sex marriage).
nasiri78 3 years ago
I love this...you admit the government cannot restric a religious belief or doctrine, then go on to say that a lawsuit against churches refusing to marry gay couples is "a suit against hate speech." Don't look now, but your duplicity is showing.
melthefretmaster 3 years ago
If someone's "faith" taught them to believe that people with blonde hair were evil, and they go around saying: "people with blonde hair are evil"; not an issue, Free Speech!But, if this person of "faith" begins actively advocating and campaigning for the restriction of the constitutional rights of blonde people, then that turns into hate speech. You are free to think Jews are evil; you are not free to advocate that Jews be denied the same constitutional rights as others. It's not duplicity.
nasiri78 3 years ago
But where in the Constitution is marriage granted as a right? Fred Phelps staunchly advocates bringing back the death penalty for homosexuals, and as wrong as he is, he's free to express that opinion. If the law they're advocating is wrong, then the rest of the law will stop it, or the system of checks and balances will weed it out. This is the democratic process in action. Marriage is not a "human right," no matter how you look at it.
melthefretmaster