Since all RepubliCONs and other right wingers believe that Iran is the enemy, it is important that we not act like them. If anything, we sould do the opposite. I say, make being a fundamentalist imbecile illegal. This should get broad bi-partisan support. We don't have to be too harsh. Make them live at least 50 miles from an interstate highway and only allow travel to a Walmart twice a month. Since it won't help, don't allow their kids to attend school.

Better yet, let's allow a married man to take a second, third, and fourth wife. Let's allow a grandmother to marry her adult grandson. After all, aren't they all consenting adults? Their fundamental right to marriage is being infringed upon! Anyone who is against this is a bigot and a fundamentalist!

Also, let's allow a man to marry a horse, a dog, a rock, or combinations thereof. After all, if marriage should not be confined to be between a man and a woman, why should marriage be confined to be between two human beings?

In all seriousness, the concept of gay marriage is absurd. It is out of touch with the world view (including Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and all but a tiny fraction of Europe), where the concept of gay marriage is considered a joke. Bush has made this country a laughing stock to the rest of the world. There's no need to make it worse by allowing gay marriage.

And no, I am not a republican. I am a Democrat who is tired that the Democratic party is being hijacked by the gay agenda.

I wan't aware you had to be a right winger to "believe" Iran is an enemy?

"Tonight on the eleven o'clock news: when newbs pull out the slippery-slope fallacy!"

*yawn* Next moron, please...

Tyrone Freeman:

And no, I am not a republican. I am a Democrat who is tired that the Democratic party is being hijacked by the gay agenda.

I too am a Democrat and a Californian too. It's very chilling to me that our state constitution can be changed and the rights of a minority class determined by a simple majority vote. It is especially chilling that two religious organizations, LDS and various Catholic organizations, primarily the Knights of Columbus, funded the pro prop 8 vote. As a black man I'm sure you recall that until 1976 the Mormons taught that black people could not go to heaven, unless they were exceptionally good, and even then God would only allow them through the pearly gates after turning them white. The Catholic organizations didn't give a damn about the decades of the sexual abuse of children by hundreds or thousands of priests. Their moral high ground on family values is chin deep in a cesspool

You are tired that the Democratic party is being hijacked by the gay agenda. We're even. I am equally tired, and horrified that the California Constituation has been hijacked by bible thumping, knuckle dragging religious hypocrites.

KatherineKatherine:

*yawn* Next moron, please...

During an argument, when a person launches into personal attacks and name calling, it's usually a good sign that that person has lost the argument.

Tyrone Freeman:

KatherineKatherine:

*yawn* Next moron, please...

During an argument, when a person launches into personal attacks and name calling, it's usually a good sign that that person has lost the argument.

The fact is, your slippery slope fallacy was moronic. When you compare same sex marriage to marriage between a man and a dog, you not only lose the argument, you are also being very offensive to gay Americans. Incidently, I'm 68 and I remember the same slippery slope argument used against overturning antimiscegenation laws beginning with California in 1948. As a black man, aren't you offended that some folks in those days compared the marriage of a black man to a white woman as being compared to marriage between a man and a dog?

More of the same... conclusory statements without evidence or logical reasoning to support the conclusion. While you may find offensive the idea of a man marrying a dog, the overwhelming majority of the world finds the idea of a man marrying a man equally offensive.

Interracial marriages have always been prevalent throughout history. For instance, Asians married Europeans (see Mongol history), Asians married people from the Middle East, Africans married Arabs, etc. By contrast, there has never been a civilization which recognized gay marriage. Even the decadent Romans and Greeks which tolerated homosexuality, never treated homosexual relationship as having the same standing as a marriage between a man and a woman. For at least this reason, comparing the banning of interracial marriages with the banning of gay marriages is absurd.

JimSanDiego:

Tyrone Freeman:

And no, I am not a republican. I am a Democrat who is tired that the Democratic party is being hijacked by the gay agenda.

I too am a Democrat and a Californian too. It's very chilling to me that our state constitution can be changed and the rights of a minority class determined by a simple majority vote. It is especially chilling that two religious organizations, LDS and various Catholic organizations, primarily the Knights of Columbus, funded the pro prop 8 vote. As a black man I'm sure you recall that until 1976 the Mormons taught that black people could not go to heaven, unless they were exceptionally good, and even then God would only allow them through the pearly gates after turning them white. The Catholic organizations didn't give a damn about the decades of the sexual abuse of children by hundreds or thousands of priests. Their moral high ground on family values is chin deep in a cesspool

You are tired that the Democratic party is being hijacked by the gay agenda. We're even. I am equally tired, and horrified that the California Constituation has been hijacked by bible thumping, knuckle dragging religious hypocrites.

Most of the people in the world who disagree with your views are not bible thumping hypocrites. For instance, I am an atheist. My friends from China and Russia are all atheists. Yet, we are all offended by gay marriage.

Just so you know, the activist judges in the CA Supreme Court overturned the will of the people (who previously voted to ban gay marriage). Would you be offended if the CA Supreme Court overturned laws against child molestation, legalized child molestation, and granted rights to child molesters to abuse children? You would be offended, wouldn't you? You would argue that they are going against the will of the people who through democracy enacted laws to guard against child molesters.

Well, guess what? That's analogous to what the CA Supreme Court did earlier this year in overturning the will the people. Last I checked, we live in a democracy.

Thanks for taking my thread title and filling it up with stupid. I appreciate it.

Its starting to occur to me that I don't really need to make a big effort to argue against conservatives that much anymore, because the country is starting to tune you guys out anyways. Whatever. Society sucked for 10,000 years, then liberalism was invented in the enlightenment, and the west has gotten more liberal and better than the rest of the planet for the last 300 years. Nothing succeeds like success.

Your grandparents tried to keep black people from voting. Your parents tried to keep women from holding jobs. You've got your own failing ignorance projects today, and this is just another example. Smile real wide for the cameras boys, you're going to look great in the history books!

jwschmidt:

Thanks for taking my thread title and filling it up with stupid.

Sad, true, and funny all in one.

jwschmidt:

Thanks for taking my thread title and filling it up with stupid.

They not only filled it up with stupid, they added a lot of dishonesty. I suspected all along tht Tyrone Freeman was about as black and atheistic as the Pope, but I became convinced when he threw his "Russian atheist" friend into the argument.

Its a tie! Both sides are stupid.

liberalism was invented in the enlightenment, and the west has gotten more liberal and better than the rest of the planet for the last 300 years.

Wow,,.,where to start. Lets go with the obvious. This would be true if the Nazi's (Western Europe) didn't try to kill EVERYONE, including gays. Most of Europe is not full of liberal pansies, just like manly cowboys aren't around every corner in the US, just Texas and San Fransisco.

Yes the slippery slope argument from gay marriage to horse marriage is a fallacy, but the slippery slope argument that gay marriage can lead to incestuous or polygamist marriage is valid. If marriage is just not for one man one woman, but two consenting adults then why not allow incestuous marriage? The problem with the gay marriage argument is that if the arguments for it is valid, then why are those same arguments nullified for other taboo marriages? All the logic in the world can't get proponents of gay marriage around incestuous marriage. Some would argue that it is for the child's best interest to ban incestuous marriage, but that is the exact same argument used to justify banning gay marriage. In any case the point is moot if the incestuous female can't produce children. In addition, contraception and abortion are widely available to reduce or terminate pregnancies. Polygamy seems easier to argued against by limiting marriage to two consenting adults, but there is no real reason to limit marriage to two other than it is tradition. Man and woman have been the tradition, so changing marriage to gay couples is not a ringing endorsement of tradition.

The other problem is that marriage has been primarily a religious ceremony that the state recognizes, not the other way around. Religious groups do have a valid argument that if gay marriage is legalized then they will be forced to perform gay marriages against their beliefs. There is no constitutional freedom to marriage, there is a constitutional freedom of religion. Comparing the gay marriage struggle to blacks and civil rights also seems disingenuous. There is a ongoing debate if gayness is a choice or not, there are negative consequences for either answer. It is hard to say it is not a lifestyle choice when watching a gay pride parade. What is not in dispute is being Black. You either have a certain percentage of African genetics or you don't.

Considering the weakness of the gay marriage argument to change tradition, the fact that it is unknown if being gay is a choice or not, and that marriage has be a religious institution rather than a state institution- it seems the civil union is the best compromise. There is no reason why the state can't confer the same benefits to both groups.

I think the larger issue is that gays want moral acceptance and not to be seen as immoral act. Gays reject the separate but equal argument, not because in practice it was not equal as it was with racism, gay reject it because it is not a moral equivalent. The gay community blames this moral rejection on religious intolerance, thus it is a condition that is perpetrated via the church. What the gay community fails to realize is that if being gay is genetic, it is also possible that straight people may be genetically inclined to find being gay repugnant. If this is the case, no law will overcome it. The church doctrine against gays may not be the cause of this repugnance towards gays, but a manifestation of a natural revulsion. Is resistance to morally accept gays out of a natural repulsiveness (an evolutionary response to encourage reproduction perhaps) or a cultural response (nurture).

These "Christians" need to just move to Iran because we will not allow our government, per the Constitution and our forefathers, to become the theocracy they want. Or they could just move to Texas and continue building compounds there...lotsa room.