Friday, June 03, 2005

Coverage from non readers and sloth at the Chemist

One of the things that makes the Recididope hysterical is his claims he doesn't read
this blog. He doesn't read this blog but I get more coverage in his blog then my own.
He correctly mentions that I was involved in getting a poster banned from Front Page Magazine. The poster used an ethnic slur ZOG and broke the rules. He was warned and did it several times. My response would have got me banned nor was I the only complaint. The other person liked to refer to womens body parts and I was one of about 100 people who complained.

Moonbat Central is a major site with several hundred visitors. I supported Richard Poe's attempt to clean house. Unlike this Blog Poe runs a major site with about 100
times the vollume. He does not have the time to monitor his board. A major commercial enterprise is different from the Beak Speaks. We are a small blog I cater to my readers sometimes writing a post with individual readers. My dedication to free speech is unquestioned. I have not and never will ban a poster. Unlike the Recididoofus I endured 100% personal attacks. I rather enjoy those attacks as they provide comedic opportunities.

The Recididoofus , Chemist and JRH do not seem to understand this blog has grown bigger then I dreamed . The days when they could pooh pooh the size of this blog are over. I do not link articles or make short three word posts. Every post takes effort
and there are no rush jobs or polls here either.

The problem with the liberal blogers in general is that seldom visit conservative blogs. I visit several to keep me sharp lean and mean. The general problem with some
of these liberal blogs is the bobble head syndrome. The Chemist has one real Conservative Amicus an Anti Communist Moderate Me and Bum from Jersey who is independent. The rest of his cast marches off the map way too the left.

The problem is that they have a double standard B and Kafkaesq object to the term
leftist so I subbed leftist utopians. I recognize that there are patriotic liberals
like B and Kafkaesq. However when we discuss Guantanamo and the behavior is called typical American behavior we are entering anti - Americanism. The fact that the rhetoric of an anti- american , anti-semitic marxist clown is matched by those on the Chemist. There is almost a masochistic Self loathing of America by some readers there.

I remember the near riot that ensued when I described the forum as the blame America
first club. I stand by that remark and I add that some are way too soft on communists.Communists are not to be coddled , they are to be loathed and made into pariahs. The culture of excuses lies and rationalization and historical ignorance is appalling. The Recidivist likes to deny the 100,000,000 dead in Communism and he likes to trivialize the 6,000,000 Jews in the Holocaust. Communism =death and Mayhem.
Yet some of the readers are talking about good Communism and making excuses.

There is a near masochistic sentiment on some of the liberal sites.The problem with some is that they are more consumed by hatred of Bush then concern over America's welfare. I am waiting for one of the liberals to offer another strategy on the war on terror. All I hear is Bush lied troops died. What is the alternative plan for dealing with the issue. Even more preposterous are the idiots that try to make it a skin color issue. There are plenty of brown people in India but it is not a target. I
keep waiting for the patriotic dissent I disagree with this policy . I hear excuses
cabals, slogans and zero vision.In fairness to the Chemist only one of his wacky group has advanced the Neocon Israel being responsible for the war. He has never said that stupidity but he has not denounced it either.

The Chemists crew also is quite sensitive over my charges of Anti-semitism. The Chemist is not responsisble for the blogs of anyone else but at times he has posted
reprints from 167. The most infamous was the Zionism is racism slur but this was long ago and he has not posted anything since.

I am somewhat troubled over the lack of respect for religious people . The liberals feel they have carte blanche to ridicule religious people. Part of the problem with liberals is they assume they are smarter and better read then religious people and conservatives. Yet if you even think a single negative thought about Islam , you are a racist. The fact that Islam is not racial does not detter this mass stupidity.

I am proud to be an American . I do not agree with every policy but there is a limit
to my patience. Disagreeing with policies is normal and healthy. Blaming America and paroting Euro-Anti -Americanism does not make you an intellectual. This behaviour makes one a lackey . Even if you do not agree with the policy and this is not typical American behavior.... The key is to show some pride in one's dissent.

The Beak is nobody's flunky and I care what they think in Paris TX . I do not give a
second thought to what they think in Paris France.

56 comments:

ACPatriot said...

Hey beakerkin,

I was curious, and I decided to check out your blog. I didn't expect a post insulting all of TheChemist's freinds, which must include me.

You wonder why we don't visit your blog? It's because of posts like this one. Try posting about current events or political issues, instead of mass personal attacks.

Incidentally, TheChemist is quite a religous person so it is ludicrous for you to suggest that he disrespects religous people.

Personally, I do have some disrespect for religous people because I view them as supersticious. I don't understand the difference between "believing in the Easter Bunny" and "believing in Heaven". They are both equally fantastic.

Finally, you say here that we "have no alternative plan for the war on terror". Don't be ridiculous. First of all, you can't make war on a word. The concept of a "war on terror" is flawed.

That said, our "alternative plan" is to focus on eliminating Al-Quaeda and finding Bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so the notion that we are there for the "war on terror" is just silly.

If you reply and expect me to reply in return, please follow these guidelines:

a) do not insult me
b) Stick to the topic at hand. Try to make cogent arguments.
b)

beakerkin said...

AC

Welcome to the blog

In general you can ask B I am a gracious blog host. I do respect liberals in general and you will
see plenty of praise for B and Kafkaesq on this blog.

The Recidivist is a unique situation and deserving of the ridicule and scorn. He has posted
material that is decidedly anti - semitic , anti - american and more.

He has made a series of absurd claims that are comedic fodder.

I invite everyone to my blog and it
is much bigger then people assume.
I enjoy a good back and forth debate and you will find I am a nicer guy and more liberal then you assume.

The Chemists personal relationship
with god has nothing to do with his
constant denigration of religious
figures like the Pope. His constant
negative comments about religious
conservatives are disrespectful.

The fact is I agree with him on many social issues such as abortion. Yet I make my points without the over the top rhetoric.
His mono occupation with the Gay agenda is absurd . Religion is not
PC and there is a natural religocentricity. The views of gays within a religion are varried.
The point is that a church has a right to interpret scripture as it sees fit.

I have zero problem with a Church saying I am going to hell as a non-
Chritian. I have a problem if the church advocates violence.

Your comments on religious people are your own views. Nobody knows what happens after death that is why they call it faith. I do not
denigrate religious beliefs as this
is an internal matter.

Your sentiment about Bin Ladden is a perfect example of patriotic
dissent and that is positive. However, this is seldom what I hear . What I mostly see on the Chemists site is Americans aping
European Anti - Americanism ?

Your view of terrorism is outdated
and not current wisdom. Current wisdom is that terrorists work with states and intelligence agencies. Thus the removal of terrorist sponsoring regimes make the world safer.

Terrorists do cooperate despite differences. Mugniyah,Bin Ladden and Abu Nidal have all colaberated
in the past.

ACPatriot said...

Beakerkin, just because Bush & Co says something does not make it current wisdom.

"Your view of terrorism is outdated and not current wisdom. Current wisdom is that terrorists work with states and intelligence agencies. Thus the removal of terrorist sponsoring regimes make the world safer."

the phrase "Current wisdom" itself is a contradiction. My personal definition of wisdom is colloquial knowledge that has proved to be useful. Anything current can't really be called wisdom because it hasn't yet withstood the test of time.

Bush's "current wisdom" that you espouse above has only brought the death of thousands of Americans (in Iraq) and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

You are using the same "wisdom" that despots and meglomaniacs throughout history have used to justify their actions. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Napaloean, and others have all used the same idea of "attack them before they attack us". Our war against Iraq was a war for energy, pure and simple.

Iraq was not in league with Al-Quaeda. PERIOD. Attacking Iraq did nothing in the "war on terror". If you really think we should attack terror sponsoring regimes, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia.

Finally, as for your other point, you're right, Churches can interpret their scripture as they see fit, but that does not give them the right to legislate their morality. I feel that this country is not free, because those of us who are not religious are forced to follow Christian guidelines that we find absurd (such as gay marriage being illegal). (No, I am not gay, but I think they should be allowed to do as they please.) Tonite for example I was forced to go home from the local bars early because of a Christian law that does not allow alchohol to be served after 2 am.

TheChemist and I are both tired of Christian hypcrites claming they love this country, and love freedom, but then leading us into religious fascism. I think people should be free to practice thier religion, but dont' force it on me.

beakerkin said...

AC

What religious fascism are you refering to ? Bars closing at 2am
is a local community ordinance. Communities have the right to set
standards on commercial behavior.

Religious Christians that I know are patriots that do love their country. I have never heard a bigoted word from them. They have
knowingly welcomed me to their churches and treated me kindly. They do not run around spouting conspiracy theories for 9-11 or
the war in Iraq that are anti-semitic. That last statement was not aimed at you or the Chemist ,
it was aimed at 167.

Your view of terrorism is plain wrong and Saddam has a lengthy history of sponsorship and harboring terrorists. Abu Nidal and Abu Abas lived where ? Both of
those men have colaberated with Al
Queda.

Saddam was involved in WTC 93 and I am a survivor of that blast. You can read Laurie Mylroie who has taught at Harvard. Ramzi Youssef the architect was a Baluch
and an Iraqi intelligence asset. Youseff's Uncle was the Number three man at Al - Queda Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Terrorists of various stripes including Hezbollah and Al Queda
do colaberate and co- ordinate operations. Terrorism is asymetrical warfare and financed
by rouge regimes with the full co-operation of rouge regimes. Saddam
was one of the prime sponsors.

You are still operating under the old assumtions. Terrorists are not
shadowy stateless rouges . They
opperate with extensive financial
and intelligence co-operation. When
the books on Bin Ladden are closed
you will find that he received money from rouge elements in the Saudi Royal family and has had ties with elements of Pakistans intelligence service.

Warren said...

AC said:

Iraq was not in league with Al-Quaeda. PERIOD.
I'm afraid that's not true. If you are going to speak in absolutes, then you should make sure you know what you are talking about.

Finally, as for your other point, you're right, Churches can interpret their scripture as they see fit, but that does not give them the right to legislate their morality. I feel that this country is not free, because those of us who are not religious are forced to follow Christian guidelines that we find absurd (such as gay marriage being illegal). (No, I am not gay, but I think they should be allowed to do as they please.) Tonite for example I was forced to go home from the local bars early because of a Christian law that does not allow alchohol to be served after 2 am.

That's funny!
I suppose those other "Christian" laws kept you from murdering anyone or stealing a car on your way home from the bar!

I just can't seem to find any law in the "Christian" criminal or zoning code that says; "Thou shall not suffer a bar to be open after 2AM".

If you don't like the law, petition your legislator to change it. Some Christians might oppose it, maybe on religious reasons, but the last time I checked they were free to do so. Maybe you could even get a law passed to disenfranchise Christians.
In Islamic countries, they call it dhimmi.

The only hypocrites I see are the ones that wish to deprive people of religion from their political voice.

justin said...

Warren, AC's group is already working to disenfranchise Christians. What he and his kind do not understand is that the actions of the extreme left starting in the 60's to ablolish from public anything religious has created a back lash of what is called the extreme right. Sorry AC your group created this monster and you have to live with it. Main stream liberals and Main stream conservatives do not accept or condone the actions of either extreme right or extreme left.

However, AC you exploded all over the board until you imploded with the true reason for your being upset. Geee you were forced to leave a bar at 2a.m. The law was not written and passed by any religous group. It was written and passed by a group of Main Stream Americans (liberal and conservative) who were tired of seeing the carnage on the roads by drunk drivers. Read your history you will see how dramatically the death caused by alcohol dropped just by closing the bars at 2a.m.
Oh by the way AC before you go off yes I like a good cold beer and I do go to bars and have no problem with them closing at 2am.

As for gays being allowed to do as they please. Ummm dude you are opening a can of worms you will never get closed if you let people do as they please. Change comes from within and by promoting understanding. It is groups like act up that give gays a bad name. Seems they are the only one in the public eye as are the radical christian groups who give christianity a bad name. Most gays are working within the system to change it.

Beak my throw me off his page after this but here goes.

Just so you know that I know what Im talking about AC. I am Gay, a conservative gay to boot. I raised two wonderful boys (who by the way are both straight) who have a understanding of life more than I think you do. I have a lover, we are committed to each other and have never talked about marriage(why the hell would we want to join a institution that has a 50% failure rate?) Yes, we should have rights but you know we have a legal system that has given each of us the same rights that married people have. We both have professional careers, have a myrad of straight and gay friends, go to a main stream church that we are accepted in. So AC you see most of us do not accept either the extreme right or extreme left which are both minorities that give both sides a bad name.

Work with in the system to make change and leave the hate at the front porch you will get a lot more done. I worked directly for Regan for 8 years and Bush (the elder) for 4 years. Oh yeah they knew I was gay. Didnt make a tinkers damn to either one of them as long as the job got done. And you would be suprised how supportive they both were of gay right.

Neptune said...

Isn't it odd that anti-Judeo-Christian Atheists, like ACPat, fume against Christians who they claim are trying to force their religious dogma on them , through political activism and yet they support and encourage the Muslims who openly avow that their goal is to force an Islamic theocracy on the Worls, through violence and terrorism.

Atheists like ACPat, wail and whine about what they call the terrible perecution of Homosexuals, by religious conservatives, because traditional Christians believe that marriage should be between a male & female. Yet they defend the Muslim practice of murdering Homosexuals in public executions and the Muslim's status of women as property, under the banner of cultural diversity.

It seems that the Marxist-Atheist, like ACPat, believe in cultural diversity for everyone but Christians and conservative Jews.

ACPat's religion is Atheism and he sees anyone who is an enemy of Christians as a natural ally.
Hypocricy, Thy name is Atheist.

beakerkin said...

Justin

Why would I throw you off for being Gay. I support Civil Unions
and have always preached respect
and tolerance. In NYC there are plenty of Gay Republicans . I have met quite a few and they take
more abuse in NYC for being Republican then being Gay.

Being Gay is really a non- issue for me. I see it as another variant
like being left handed or having freckles. I like pettite Brunettes
and you don't.

My major concerns are fairly mild
but legitamate. What age do we start Sex Ed and what message do we teach ? The message should always be aimed at respect . Sadly
some of the messages include technique.

All Homosexual acts can be done by
heterosexuals. Thus I do not think that a distinct topic of Gay technique is required.

As you know I do strongly support
Civil Unions. Marriage has a religious meaning and I do not want the government defining religious terms. I know plenty of well adjusted Gay couples in NYC.
One person joked about my love of Broadway and Renoir .

I accept a natural cleavage between
religious and Civil Law. Thus I accept that some denominations say
I am going to hell as a non Christian. I also understand that some religions do not allow Gays to perform certain functions. Gays
are not permitted to be Cantors in an orthodox temple. This is because religion is just not PC .

Gays can pick from many fine Churches , Temples and Shrines that welcome Gays.

I wish that some who support Gay rights would be as respectful of
religious people as they are for Gays. I wish we could just blow up
the entire way this issue is being
discussed and boil it down to two
themes.

1 Gay people are human beings who
are entitled to respect and dignity. Their basic rights in Civil law are Human rights.

2 Religon is not and never was pc.
Government should not define religious terms.

I am glad that you are a Gay Conservative and that you spoke up.
Remember I stand with everything Rudy G endorses . He has a unique
vision and leadership that all of
America needs.

beakerkin said...

Neptune

There is truth to that statement as
AC and his ilk are very concerned over the Koran and treatment of
Muslims. Yet they have zero concern
for the rights of Gays, Christian,
Jews and other minorities in Muslim Countries.

In the case of AC Patriot and the Chemist their main concern is the war in Iraq. These issues are not as high on the radar as Gay Rights
and bashing Bush. I am certain AC
does condone that behavior but I would just like to hear it once.

The case of 167 is unique as he spins major lies and refuses to back them up. He has called Israel a deeply homophobic country and claims gay bars have been firebombed. Gays in Israel have more rights then the USA and any Muslim country. 167 calls any use
of Islamic History racist.

AC is a good guy but it would be nice to seriously know what type of religious thocracy he sees in the USA.

justin said...

sorry beak the comment was meant as a tounge in cheek sarcasam directed at AC. I think I have read you enough to know that you are one of the more honest moderate bloggers around. And oh by the way nahhhhhhhhh you aint going to hell I checked the reservation list and you weren't on it sorry big guy all those right wing extremists will be suprised when they do get to see the list of upcoming tenants.

High 5 dude keep up the good work.

Neptune said...

Justin,
You and your partner are welcome in my Church, anytime.
I live near Richmond, Va.
I attend a local Presbyterian Church. We are not affiliated with any of the National Presbyterian associations. We are Independent.
Where I live, we merged the congregations of several, Presbyterian, Methodist, Weslyan and Episcopal Churches and built a new Church about 18 years ago.
We call ourselves the Presbyterian Ecumenical Church.

We practice the "Don't ask, don't tell policy ". There are a few Gay people who attend our Church and probably more than we realize.
We don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as nobody is abused.

Our Church doctrine is that Same Sex marriage is wrong, but we have no problem with Civil Unions.
Our position is that promiscuity is a sin, whether Homosexual or Heterosexual promiscuity.

The definition of Sin is disobedience to the Will of God.
The origin of Sin is Love of Self. Putting our will above the will of God. Putting our will above others. Putting our selfish desires above that which is good for our brothers and sisters.
We are all sinners because we are all selfish, self-centered and self absorbed.

That is the message of the Bible. Obey the will of God, Put the good of others above your selfish desires and try to be more tolerant of the weakness of others. Try each day to be a better person than you were yesterday.
That is all that the Prophets of Istael said. That is all that Jesus said. That is all there is to say.

Neptune said...

Beak,
Atheists are just as bigoted and narrow minded as they accuse the Christian Fundamentalists of.

The Christian Fundamentalists say that they have a monopoly on the truth. They say that they know the truth and condemn all other interpretations of Scripture, as heresy.
The Atheist say that they have a monoply on the truth and anyone who disagrees with their Atheist theology is a superstitious fool.

Atheist accuse religious conservatives of trying to force their religious dogma on the government, yet that is exactly what the Atheists try to do.
Atheism is a religious philosophy, the same as Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism.
It is a belief system and the Atheist try to impose their belief system on the government, our schools and our court system.

Robert Bayn said...

Beak,

I think you just summed up the problem with republicans, and a portion of americans.

beakerkin said...

Neptune

You are right about the atheist.
The idea is to respect all religions. Thus I have no problem
with Christmas trees or Religious symbols. Atheists take the issue to moronic levels.

Have my rights been lessened by a Christmas display ? No.

Rob : What Justin said earlier is true. You can not hope to advance
the cause of Gay Rights without adressing moderates. The antics of Act Up set Gay Rights back years.

Thus when people like the Recidivist lampoon religious Christians ( never Muslims) he is hurting his cause immeasurably. The
trick is to bring in moderates like
myself as part of the cause.

I guess the way to start is with those two points. The country will be a better place when the discussion starts from there. Sadly the onus is on the Gay Community as it is seeking change.
I hope and pray that we live and see the day where the Gay Community
starts the discussion on those two points. The vast majority of people will see the future and we can move ahead.

Robert Bayn said...

Not talking about the "gay issue" i'm a little more rounded, then just that, one of my focal points yes, but not on my last comment.

Jason_Pappas said...

Warren is right, Saddam dealt with Al Qaeda and other terrorists. I have no problem with someone who says “I wasn’t convinced this was the right next step; I’d have held off.”

But that’s a long way from those who vilify Bush and see all sorts of sinister motivations. There’s loyal opposition and there’s opposition that doesn’t deserve our respect.

Not all dissent is respectable – you have to earn it by being rational and fair. The viciousness of the left in the last two years is extreme. I have no problem with a Chuck Schumer - I could vote for him - but Michael Moore hates America and wishes us harm.

Robert Bayn said...

i must hate america too! glad to know this, guess i will pack by bags and move too canada since right wing fundies say libreal people like myself "hate america" Of course thier right, thier never wrong, no never, could'nt be that, libreals are just anti-american godless faggots, Little over board? probally!

beakerkin said...

Rob

What Jason and I say about dissent
is pertinent. You also know where I
stand on Gay Rights.

It is fine to say that the policy is wrong . This is a far cry from talking about Cabals , endlessly
bashing the President and vilifying our country.

There is Patriotic Liberal dissent
but some are aping European Anti-Americanism.

Always On Watch said...

I am a Christian conservative, but I don't believe that I am trying to force my religious views on others. I wish that others would not denigrate or ridicule my religious convictions. And it is certainly not my mission to run around proclaiming the eternal destination of others. How would I know that? I am not the Judge! Besides, I have enough to do in taking care of my own spiritual matters.

Judeo-Christian culture = Western values. This is the values system which so promotes freedom and thus allows blogs like this one to exist.

PS: Not a hit-and-run post. I'll be back later. Time to get outside and enjoy the summer weather!

Jason_Pappas said...

Robert refuses to acknowledge that there is respectable dissent and vicious scurrilous defamation of our country. I wonder why?

Actually, I don’t have to wonder. What the left is trying to do is damn any criticism of dissent. They’d like a taboo against such criticism. We’re supposed to hear someone say “Bush is Hitler” and respond with “Might you consider that you assessment is a tad too strong?”

Odd, that Robert calls me a fundie – I’m not religious and never have been. My neighbors in the West Village, where I lived for 20 years, can tell you I’ve never expressed a homophobic word in my life.

But he just can’t see any distinctions.

Robert Bayn said...

I never said you was homophobic, and i never have called bush hitler. But i do not beleive just because people disagree with republicans and bush and his policys it makes them anti-american, in fact it makes them more of a american!

beakerkin said...

Rob

Hold on there !!!!!!!!

Jason has raised a valid point that
I concur with. Saying that you disagree with the policies of Bush
is fine. Neither Jason or I question your partriotism.

However is todays Recidivist idiocy with Karl Rove's picture
with the familiar Nazi emblem over his mouth Anti American. Is the mass hysteria over alleged Koran
abuse over the top ?

Your critique of Bush does not make you more Patriotic then I .


Jason: I just purchased my first car a 94 Cadilac. If I am going into VT I am going in style.

Robert Bayn said...

But to assume Libreals all agree that the bush administration is nazi's is unfair and wrong. If one says i'm less of a american for taking my stand for morals i beleive in, i will say the same back, bottom line.

Robert Bayn said...

Your critique of Bush does not make you more Patriotic then I .



And neither does supporting Bush.


We agree?

Neptune said...

To Robert Bayn,
You say that we shouldn't lump all liberals together.
OK, then don't lump all Christian conservatives together.
Most Christian conservatives are more tolerant than the radical left.

Jason_Pappas said...

But to assume Liberals all agree that the bush administration is nazi's is unfair and wrong. - Robert

But some do! What shall we think of those that do? Would you say they don’t hate America? How could someone love a country that votes for a Hitler? That doesn’t describe a country I could love – how about you?

My point is that you judge individual dissent by its merits – there are all kinds. I respect some, and don’t respect others. I’m not saying we’ll agree on what to respect. I’m only saying dissent isn’t automatically respectful.

beakerkin said...

Rob

I never ever make the claim that all liberals are unpatriotic. I have been on record praising B of Moral Authority, Kafkaesq of USD Law. If your critique is that this is not the best policy to pursue to make us safer I praise you as well.

The message we send out with our dissent is important. Bashing the President and American History is wrong. If the issue is Iraq let the dissent remain there without talk of looney cabals.

Neptune raises a valid point and
remember on other sites I appear as a redmeat conservative. Christian Conservatives have treated way better then the leftist utopians. I am glad you venture here and hopefuly you will learn that we are a tad more open minded then generally assumed.

Robert Bayn said...

I never lump all christians together, i do however talk about the extreme religious right, big diffrence.


Beak,

I'm open to a debate the issues, thats why i'm here.

What i say is never meant in a personal way, however denying the problems in the religous right, is hurting the republican party. I don't agree with libreals who call bush a Nazi.

beakerkin said...

Rob

I am glad you are here and that we
exchange civil points. The problem
with some on the left is that they
have no pride.

Nobody is asking anyone to support
Bush Policies. It would be nice if
someone on the left would say to some of the extreemists you are giving us a bad name.

Jason_Pappas said...

A Cadillac, beak? Nice. My one and only car was a ’73 Buick that got 10 miles per gallon. Opps, that just put me in the evil-doer list with the Greens. It also put me in the red back then ... :)

Neptune said...

To Robert Bayn,
Nice dodge Bob.
You cleverly sidestepped my challenge.
You said that you never lump all Christians together.
Of course you don't. You have no problem with liberal Christians who agree with your leftwing positions.
However you lump all conservative Christians together and label them rightwing extremist.
I call that bigotry.

Robert Bayn said...

Reap What You Sow, as long as right wing extremist sow bigiotry they will reap it. =o)

Robert Bayn said...

so i'm a bigot because i don't conform to your conservative agenda, no sunshine, that makes you the bigot and intollrent.

Neptune said...

To Robert Bayn,
Thanks Bob. You just made my point.
You brand all Christians, who disagree with your leftwing agenda, as rightwing bigots.
That makes you the intollerant one , here.

Robert Bayn said...

Example Of Right Wing Extremist - since i'm being called a BIGOT..i will clear things UP


http://www.godhatesfags.com

Pat Robertson "gays need to get out of our party"

American Family Organzation (James Dobson) Boycotting companys that offer same sex benefits even though it effects them in no way.

Catholic Association of Michigan - Push a law that said Doctors could refuse treatment to Gay Patients.

Jimmy Swagert "if a gay man hit on me, i would kill him"

Professed Christians Dancing on the Grave of Matthew Sheppard celebrating his death and as they said his entry into hell

These are the people i speak of, who indentify themselves as conservative christians, i do not condemn all conserivative christians, i only condemn those who are spreading a message of hate.

Clear Enuff!

Robert Bayn said...

well when you grow up and learn how to read let me know, you called me a bigot first, only return the favor =o)

beakerkin said...

Rob

You are wrong on this one.

Lets talk about mathematics and advancing your cause. You have to
reach out to Neptune. Neptune has stated that he isn't interested in
persecuting you.

The way to advance your cause is to
hold the door open for people like
Neptune and me. Do you know the Recidivist calls me a homophobe ?

The way to advance the cause is to realize that all Christian Conservatives are not the same.
They all do not follow Falwell and Robertson.

I faced a similar situation where
JRH,B, AC Patriot were upset over
my term leftist as too broad. I switched the term to leftist Utopian to seperate liberals from
Radicals.

Robert Bayn said...

hmmmmm Beak, once again, problem reading? did i not state not all do......hmmmm

Robert Bayn said...

Anyways i have stated my point, thats all i need to do. Out of respect for you and your blog, i will leave it at that.

Thanks Beak for having the Open Forum to do so.

Neptune said...

Calm Down Bob, You're getting hysterical.
Sure doesn't take much to yank your chain.
I must've have touched a sensitive nerve.

Bob is a Bigot, Bob is a Bigot, Bob is a Bigot.
SIKY-SIKY-SIKY.

beakerkin said...

Rob

Neptune is a moderate and exactly
the type of person you need to bridge the gap to achieve your goal. Being a radical is easy but it accomplishes zero.

I am going to try role reversal and adress Neptune as you.

Neptune ( AS Me being Rob)

I respect your religious beliefs
but gay rights are human rights
based in secular law. I am not seeking to change you religious
views.

Civil Unions are based in secular
law and do not detract from your
religious views of marriage.

I am stating your message affirmatively and encouraging Neptune to join .

Warren said...

Justin said...

Warren, AC's group is already working to disenfranchise Christians. What he and his kind do not understand is that the actions of the extreme left starting in the 60's to ablolish from public anything religious has created a back lash of what is called the extreme right. Sorry AC your group created this monster and you have to live with it. Main stream liberals and Main stream conservatives do not accept or condone the actions of either extreme right or extreme left.

I know, Justin, and agree with you totally.

I just like to tease them out and see what else they have to say.

BTW, somtimes when you pull the Beaks leg, it comes off in your hand.

:^)

ACPatriot said...

I don't have time to reply to all of you...

First, you guys decided to label me with a bunch of stuff that's untrue. I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. I'm not "anti-judeo Christian". I've never uttered that phrase in my life. I'm not working to "disenfranchise Christians". On the contrary, I want everyone to be able to vote.

What I'd like to focus on: Why shouldn't two consenting adults be allowed to married and consult sexual relations as they see fit in our "free" country? Sodomy is still illegal in some states.

In the same vein - Justin - I don't care if you are a gay guy that doesn't want to get married. I'm a straight guy that doesn't want to get married. Does that mean that I think no straight guys should be allowed to marry? You seem to imply that since you are gay and you don't want to marry your partner that it's fair that no gay marriage is allowed, and that's ridiculous.

Perhaps you can make a case for bars closing early for safety (but it works in Europe), but there is no reason not to allow gays to marry aside from Christian bigots and homophobes trying to legislate their morality on the rest of us.

Finally, for all of you that still think there was a link between Saddam Hussein's regime, go read this article, and join the rest of the world. There was no link, PERIOD.

What do you guys think of Saudi Arabia? There is much more evidence of a link between that country and Al-Quaeda. Are you cool with us attacking innocent Iraq first?

beakerkin said...

AC Patriot

I am in favor of Civil Unions and Gay Rights in general. Who gave AC
Patriot the right to redine religious terms ?

If you read the link you provided
Cheney is saying what I knew from day one. Saddam was linked to the WTC 93 blast and I am a survivor of that blast. It is mere coincedence the Ramzi Youseff in 93 and Al Quedas no 3 are uncle and nephew . Abu Nidal, Mugniyah , Hussein and Bin Ladden have cooperated in the past.

You are just dead wrong.

Jason_Pappas said...

What do you guys think of Saudi Arabia? There is much more evidence of a link between that country and Al-Quaeda. Are you cool with us attacking innocent Iraq first? – AC

Saddam’s Iraq is innocent? Surely you jest. I won’t restate Saddam’s sorry history to refute what you say since we all can recall the horrors. Innocent is not a word I’d use with Saddam.

I’ve been a critic of Bush on Saudi Arabia. I just talked about it the other day on my blog (link)

Now I realize that in war the order of battles doesn’t always start with the worse enemy and proceed to lesser ones. We invaded Italy before Germany. However, it is disgraceful to call Saudi Arabia a friend. They spread Islamist hatred around the world and turn young people into munitions ready to explode. Read Dore Gold’s book: “Hatred’s Kingdom.”

Always On Watch said...

Sorry I missed out on the exchange yesterday, but I'll post a few points here in case anyone returns.

1. Boycotting is not hate-mongering.
2. Dancing on the grave of Matthew Shephard is hedonistic. I personally do not know any Christians who would commit such an act. I am disgusted by such behavior.
3. "God hates the sin but loves the sinner." While I believe that homosexuality is a sin, I would not wish death to any homosexual. Jimmy Swaggart's words as quoted in an above comment, indicate that he needs to do more Bible-reading (New Testament) and to spend more time in prayer.
4. Pat Robertson's comment was a stupid utterance. He needs to separate his politics from his religious convictions. He does not have to associate with anyone whom he doesn't like, but shouldn't be making proclamations for the entire Party.

Justin said...

AC said -In the same vein - Justin - I don't care if you are a gay guy that doesn't want to get married. I'm a straight guy that doesn't want to get married. Does that mean that I think no straight guys should be allowed to marry? You seem to imply that since you are gay and you don't want to marry your partner that it's fair that no gay marriage is allowed, and that's ridiculous.

I did not imply that since I dont want to get married no one should AC. I simply stated that this whole marriage thing is overblown. The vast majority of gays are not looking for marriage they are simply looking for the same rights as married couples. My commment was we do not want to join a institution that has more than a 50% failure rate. Most Gay people will tell you that they are not looking for marriage as defined in law and in the bible. They are looking to have the same rights regarding health issues, and what they build together. A law on civil unions would cover this however, until that is done there are laws on the books that afford gays those rights they are called civil contracts. That is what Devon and I have, we had our lawyer draw it up and believe me it is as iron clad as any marriage liecense.

I am gay and I believe there should be civil unions with the same legal rights that are afforded straight couples However, marriage is a matter of historic precedence going back as far and further as Naomis son and Ruth when as he was dying he put a ring on Ruths finger and said with this ring I thee wed. When Naomi was leaving Moab she told Ruth that the contract was no longer inforce since her son had died. Ruth said and your people shall be my people and your God my God. Marriage was a contract between family's for the purpose of carrying on the familys leinage. Some believe that the marriage vows end at death and some like Ruth dont.

I am not going to get all bent out of shape because the state does not recognize marriage between two gay people. We can go to any MCC church and get married if we want. We can have a lawyer draw up a binding contract that even the state of Texas has to recognize. So tell me is it worth all this hate that is being brought out by both sides.

And AC as to your comment it works in Europe why not here. A lot of things work in Europe that I would never want to see working here. But, that is another story

Ooooh btw AC I dont hate you and I dont think your nuts I just dont agree with a lot you said but would defend your right to say that to the death.

formerly
1st Lt J Morris
Chaplin
U.S. Army

Warren said...

ACPatriot said:
First, you guys decided to label me with a bunch of stuff that's untrue.

We only have your words. If you don't like our "label", use different words.

I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic.

Who cares? Judging from your rhetoric, its a distinction without a difference.

I'm not working to "disenfranchise Christians". On the contrary, I want everyone to be able to vote.

Actually, the disenfranchisement of Christians is implicit it your choice of words. You wish to re-define marriage. The people you find so terrible do not.

The issue was brought before the public and defeated. The wheels of democracy grind and instead of the outcome you advocate, another path is chosen. You lost because you do not have popular support so you wish to disenfranchise those you characterize as:

Christian bigots and homophobes trying to legislate their morality on the rest of us.

You want everyone to vote but you don't wish the votes of those that disagree with you to count.


In the process, you paint anyone that disagrees with you as "Christian bigots and homophobes".

I hate to explain this in such pedantic terms but:
Nobody is free to do whatever they wish, that is why there are laws. You are free to attempt to change them through the legislative process but you are not free to characterize, without criticism, those that disagree with you as homophobes and bigots without incurring their wrath.

Just because you are unwilling, unable or incapable of understanding their position does not make them bigots or homophobes. The very use of those words is meant to be inflammatory and implies someone with a personality disorder and neurotic psychological problems.

The flip side of that coin would be me calling proponent's of abortion, no matter their reasoning, of being willful advocates of mass murder.


Sodomy is still illegal in some states.

In some places its illegal to sell sauerkraut, it must be called "Liberty Cabbage". Its also illegal to commit suicide.

No one knows what you do in the privacy of your home. It is illegal to perform sexual acts of any kind, in public, and other people shouldn't be subjected to your sexual activities no matter what they are.

Perhaps you can make a case for bars closing early for safety

I think he did!

(but it works in Europe)

So go to Europe and be "free"!

but there is no reason not to allow gays to marry aside from Christian bigots and homophobes trying to legislate their morality on the rest of us.

Well Justin, I guess its all settled, you 'must' be a Christian bigot and homophobe!

I'll tell you, these guys sure have a way with words.

Finally, for all of you that still think there was a link between Saddam Hussein's regime, go read this article, and join the rest of the world. There was no link, PERIOD.

The 9/11 commission was only concerned with 9/11. "No collaborative relationship", doesn't mean much of anything in this context, except they found no evidence that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda on the 9/11 attack.

Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence. There is plenty of evidence of collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda. Using your reasoning, we can say that there was no evidence of collaboration between the Taliban and al Qaeda on the 9/11 attack, therefore we were wrong to take down the Taliban and invade "innocent" Afghanistan.

What do you guys think of Saudi Arabia? There is much more evidence of a link between that country and Al-Quaeda. Are you cool with us attacking innocent Iraq first?

You really like speaking in absolutes, don't you.

Much more of, "There was no link, PERIOD", would still be, no link, PERIOD.

I'll bet the bars were open all night long in Baghdad.

"Innocent Iraq" LOL!
Were you born yesterday? Don't you know about the first Gulf War and the armistice that ended it, how about the millions of tons of WMDs documented by the UN, which still haven't been accounted for to this day!

Under terms of the armistice, (Gulf War Agreement), the WMDs were to be destroyed and their destruction proven and documented. There is no evidence that he did either one!

How about, Saddam had WMDs which he had used before. He was also more than willing to traffic with terrorists and provided them with training facilities and advanced medical care.

And I know about WINDs of all types. I've trained with them while we still had them, before our stockpiles were destroyed. Do you want to know why the two that were used as IEDs didn't work? I can tell you.

12 years and 17 UN resolutions, the terms of the armistice violated, (time and again). In the face of a totally corrupted UN and Europe. We do the job that should have been done the first time, and you complain about bars closing at 2AM, and insist you are not "free" because they close the bar while you are still able to walk out on your own.

Did you know that between 15 and 22K Iraqi civilian's were killed by the terrorists last year? That a lot isn't it?

Now lets put that in perspective, Saddam is responsible for the deaths of between 500K and 1mil civilians during his reign.

You have no sense of proportion 'what-so-ever'!

While the Robertson's and Falwell's spout stupidity and bigotry, they have no platform to do it from without the help of the MSM which does it for the sole purpose of stirring up the passions of dimwits. And I don't mean Christians!

Meanwhile you leftist radicals make common cause with totalitarians of all stripe.

ACPatriot said...

Warren -

Who cares? Judging from your rhetoric, its a distinction without a difference.

What do you mean by this? Where in my "rhetoric" have I implied that I believe there is no possibility in the existance of a god? You are confused - Atheism implies a disbelief in the existance of a supreme being, and nothing more.

You wish to re-define marriage.

Again, where did I say this? What I wish is for religions to have the freedom to define marriage for themselves. A national gay marriage ban forbids this.

The issue was brought before the public and defeated.

Judging by this timeline only 12 states have voted to ban gay marriage so far. That is far off from your implication that the public of the US has defeated the issue accross the board.

But in some ways, you're right. I think that those bans go against the nature of freedom that has defined our great country, so I think that those bans should be overturned. To me, banning gay marriage is the same as banning black marriage, or japanese marriage, or even white marriage.

The nature of the United States is that the majority rules, except when that infringes on the basic human rights of minorities. The exclusion of one group from a universal freedom is pure bigotry, nothing more. In this country, it is justified by some right-wing christians who claim that their bigotry is justified by their religion. Fine, don't let gays marry in your church, but that doesn't give you the right to impose your morals on the rest of us.

I'm sure there are those that are against gay marriage who aren't in the right-wing Christian category. I'm sure there are some other groups that feel the same way. In the end though, it is the right-wing Christians who provide the impetus behind the movement. And since they are all trying to limit basic human rights in a minority group, I feel no qualms in labeling them as bigots. Since this particular bigotry is against gays, I'm sure the majority of them are homophobic. Hence, bigoted homophobes.

In some places its illegal to sell sauerkraut, it must be called "Liberty Cabbage". Its also illegal to commit suicide.

Yes, and these laws should be overturned! They can still be used to prosecute a person. In the anti-Sodomy states, a person can still be sent to jail for oral sex, and that's stupid.

No one knows what you do in the privacy of your home. It is illegal to perform sexual acts of any kind, in public, and other people shouldn't be subjected to your sexual activities no matter what they are.

When did I suggest otherwise?

"No collaborative relationship", doesn't mean much of anything in this context, except they found no evidence that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda on the 9/11 attack.

Actually, it means that Saddam's regime didn't collaborate with Al-Quaeda at all, not just with 9/11.

Regardless, the important point is that they didn't collaborate with Al-Quaeda in 9/11! This means that 9/11 did not give us any reason to attack Iraq, especially when we were still bogged down in Afghanistan, and still hadn't caught the people responsible! Why go after Saddam, when Osama's still running around?

"Innocent Iraq" LOL!
Were you born yesterday? Don't you know about the first Gulf War and the armistice that ended it, how about the millions of tons of WMDs documented by the UN, which still haven't been accounted for to this day!


For this, and the rest of your WMD rhetoric, I point you to this article on how there were no WMDs in Iraq when we invaded.

Our invasion of Iraq was built directly on the case that they had illegal WMDs, and indirectly that they aided Al-Quaeda with 9/11. Both allegations have proven to have been false. Why do so many people give Bush a free ride on this? I don't care if you think it's a job "we should have done". Bush lied to the American people to get us to invade Iraq, and he and his administration should be held accountable.

I agree that it is a good thing that Saddam's gone, but I disagree with the methods. The UN inspections had the situation under control. If you are really so concerned about human rights violations, then you would be loudly wondering why we aren't doing anything about Darfur. I think it is you who have no sense of proportion. Yes, Saddam and his regime did terrible things, but their deeds pale in the face of the genocides occuring in Africa all the time. Saddam should have been well down on our priority list, especially if you consider that the UN had a watchful eye on Iraq, but they are virtually ignoring much of the problems in Africa.

Warren said...

AC said:
"What do you mean by this? Where in my "rhetoric" have I implied that I believe there is no possibility in the existance of a god? You are confused - Atheism implies a disbelief in the existance of a supreme being, and nothing more.

AC:
Personally, I do have some disrespect for religous people because I view them as supersticious. I don't understand the difference between "believing in the Easter Bunny" and "believing in Heaven". They are both equally fantastic.

I do not think 'I' am the one that's confused here. The preceding statement above, (yours), is rhetoric. If nothing else I must assume that you give equivalence to a widely held mainsteam religious doctrine and a fairy tale. It leaves no room for the Agnostic statement, (i.e. I do not know).



"You wish to re-define marriage."

AC:
Again, where did I say this?

(sigh), Its implicit in your advocacy. For centuries marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

AC:
What I wish is for religions to have the freedom to define marriage for themselves. A national gay marriage ban forbids this.

No it doesn't! It keeps it from being a legally recognized union. Let me explain something to you you're probably not going to understand.

Over thirty years ago I took a vow before God, I take all vows seriously, I do not make them lightly. It doesn't matter if that vow is recognized by the State or not. The vow is binding even if we were to divorce, in the eyes of the Church, and 'I' believe God. We are still married. Till death us do part!

All Churches are free to perform the marriage ceremony on whomever they wish as long as they make it clear they are not legal contracts.

Many people 'like me', believe that marriage is a term that should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman. It has a sacred meaning.

Robert has already pointed out that for gay couples, a legal contract which will provide the same benefits as marriage can be drawn up in any State in the Union.

Your way lends itself to all kinds of litigation and silliness. Already some sicko has sued to have a State issue a marriage license, (I don't remember whether its a man or a woman), to marry their dog.

If your argument is that two people that love each other should be able to marry each other. How about two brothers? How about a Father and daughter? How about any combination you can think of? After all, those prohibitions all have their roots in religion.

I don't care what gays do, I never have. They are human beings just like I am. When My bother-in-law, "came out of the closet", I was the first straight person he told. He asked my advice but unfortunately, he didn't take it and told his father who hounded and castigated him until he killed himself. His father actually had the guts to tell the rest of his family that it was my fault.

He didn't tell me that he was gay because I'm a homophobe or bigot and I don't like the way you bandy those terms about. You apply them to people you know absolutely nothing about!

If marriage means everything, then it means nothing!

"The issue was brought before the public and defeated."

AC:
"Judging by this timeline only 12 states have voted to ban gay marriage so far. That is far off from your implication that the public of the US has defeated the issue accross the board."

Then by all means, go ahead and keep up the rhetoric, force the issue. [sarcasm] I'm sure moderate gay people like Robert will applaud your actions.[/sarcasm]

AC:
But in some ways, you're right. I think that those bans go against the nature of freedom that has defined our great country, so I think that those bans should be overturned. To me, banning gay marriage is the same as banning black marriage, or japanese marriage, or even white marriage.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Are you saying that banning gay marriage is the same thing as banning man/woman marriage or are you saying it is the same thing as banning interracial marriage?

If the latter then, I'm sure that judging from the reaction in the black community; most of 'them' will feel you are completely wrong.

The nature of the United States is that the majority rules, except when that infringes on the basic human rights of minorities. The exclusion of one group from a universal freedom is pure bigotry, nothing more. In this country, it is justified by some right-wing christians who claim that their bigotry is justified by their religion. Fine, don't let gays marry in your church, but that doesn't give you the right to impose your morals on the rest of us.

I've already told you what I think about the use of that rhetoric. If you continue it in the future, you will hear some of mine.

So show me where marriage has ever been a basic right or fundamental freedom. The State has always had restrictions on who could marry, (relation, minimum age of consent and in some States freedom from syphilis). Basically it has been handled in the same fashion as driving license with restrictions, collection of fees and issuance of a license.

AC:
I'm sure there are those that are against gay marriage who aren't in the right-wing Christian category. I'm sure there are some other groups that feel the same way. In the end though, it is the right-wing Christians who provide the impetus behind the movement. And since they are all trying to limit basic human rights in a minority group, I feel no qualms in labeling them as bigots. Since this particular bigotry is against gays, I'm sure the majority of them are homophobic. Hence, bigoted homophobes.

You are sure of a lot of things that seem to be nonsense to me.

Beak has point out that a majority of people are in favor of gay unions. Those are not the thoughts of homophobes or bigots. Your rhetoric is meant to be inflammatory. You seem to think calling people names will bring them to your cause, (or whatever it is with you). You only alienate people, like me, and others who won't say a word but will express their opinion at the ballot box.

"In some places its illegal to sell sauerkraut, it must be called "Liberty Cabbage". Its also illegal to commit suicide."

AC:
Yes, and these laws should be overturned! They can still be used to prosecute a person.

Then go ahead and try to do it.

In the anti-Sodomy states, a person can still be sent to jail for oral sex, and that's stupid.

Duh!

"No one knows what you do in the privacy of your home. It is illegal to perform sexual acts of any kind, in public, and other people shouldn't be subjected to your sexual activities no matter what they are."

AC:
When did I suggest otherwise?
How do these laws get prosecuted?

""No collaborative relationship", doesn't mean much of anything in this context, except they found no evidence that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda on the 9/11 attack."

AC:
Actually, it means that Saddam's regime didn't collaborate with Al-Quaeda at all, not just with 9/11.

It doesn't mean any such thing.

AC:
Regardless, the important point is that they didn't collaborate with Al-Quaeda in 9/11! This means that 9/11 did not give us any reason to attack Iraq, especially when we were still bogged down in Afghanistan, and still hadn't caught the people responsible! Why go after Saddam, when Osama's still running around?

Unfinished business. A armed State with the resources of a Government, represents a much greater danger than a bunch of disheveled terrorists hiding in caves. I won't go into the strategic reasons because you wouldn't understand.

""Innocent Iraq" LOL!
Were you born yesterday? Don't you know about the first Gulf War and the armistice that ended it, how about the millions of tons of WMDs documented by the UN, which still haven't been accounted for to this day!"

AC:
For this, and the rest of your WMD rhetoric, I point you to this article on how there were no WMDs in Iraq when we invaded.

It doesn't matter. Every intelligence outfit in the free world thought they were there including the Germans, French and Russians.

Had you rather we not thought them there and not invaded and then found out they did have them?

AC:
Our invasion of Iraq was built directly on the case that they had illegal WMDs, and indirectly that they aided Al-Quaeda with 9/11. Both allegations have proven to have been false. Why do so many people give Bush a free ride on this? I don't care if you think it's a job "we should have done". Bush lied to the American people to get us to invade Iraq, and he and his administration should be held accountable.

Like I said above, every intelligence outfit in the free world thought they were there. Saddam was threatening to use them on our troops even as we invaded. That would hardly indicate that "Bush lied".

Why did you lot give a pass to lying John whose whole life is built on lies?

AC:
I agree that it is a good thing that Saddam's gone, but I disagree with the methods. The UN inspections had the situation under control. If you are really so concerned about human rights violations, then you would be loudly wondering why we aren't doing anything about Darfur. I think it is you who have no sense of proportion. Yes, Saddam and his regime did terrible things, but their deeds pale in the face of the genocides occuring in Africa all the time. Saddam should have been well down on our priority list, especially if you consider that the UN had a watchful eye on Iraq, but they are virtually ignoring much of the problems in Africa.

Why AC, isn't it obvious?

We are a tad busy right now and 'the UN has the situation under control'!

ACPatriot said...

Warren:

It leaves no room for the Agnostic statement

It sure as hell does. Just because I consider every mainstream religion I have encountered ludicrous, does not mean that I consider the notion of a supreme being ludicrous.

Religion does not equal god. A disbelief in religion does not equal a disbelief in God(s). Do you understand?

(sigh), Its implicit in your advocacy. For centuries marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

why are you sighing so much Warren? Are you depressed? Anyway, I have never said I wished to redefine marriage. As I said before, what I wish is for the church to be allowed to define it as they wish. With all the legal benefits contained therein. In the same note:

All Churches are free to perform the marriage ceremony on whomever they wish as long as they make it clear they are not legal contracts.

That could be true, but it seems to contradict your point of view:

Many people 'like me', believe that marriage is a term that should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman. It has a sacred meaning.

Ask any person on the street on what they think of as marriage, and they will say something along the lines of a marriage being a pact between two loving adults, with the associating religious and legal consequences.

Before you say it, yes I agree there is a good chance they would say "between a man and a woman", but there is also a decent chance they wouldn't say that.

Regardless of that, my point is that gay people should be allowed the same freedom to marry as straight people, in both the eyes of the state and the eyes of God.

"What I wish is for religions to have the freedom to define marriage for themselves. A national gay marriage ban forbids this."

Robert has already pointed out that for gay couples, a legal contract which will provide the same benefits as marriage can be drawn up in any State in the Union.

First, that's completely false, only two states have such civil unions, Connecticut and Vermont. Try doing some of your own research next time. I'm getting tired of digging up articles to correct you.

And in CT and VT, Gays can marry within the church, and they can have a legally recognized union, but they just can't do it at the same time? Well, why not? If both these statements are true there is absolutely no reason not to allow Gays to get married in the church, in a legally recognized union. No reason except homophobia.

If your argument is that two people that love each other should be able to marry each other. How about two brothers? How about a Father and daughter? How about any combination you can think of? After all, those prohibitions all have their roots in religion.

Wow, so now you're equating gay marriage to incest. The reason that every culture universally prohibits incestual relations is not due to religion, as you suggest, but rather that such relations are biologically harmful. A culture will not long survive if incest is occuring, because a lot of recessive, harmful traits get expressed. These prohibitions transcend religions, and were probably around long before any current religions were created.

"To me, banning gay marriage is the same as banning black marriage, or japanese marriage, or even white marriage."

That doesn't make any sense to me. Are you saying that banning gay marriage is the same thing as banning man/woman marriage or are you saying it is the same thing as banning interracial marriage? If the latter then, I'm sure that judging from the reaction in the black community; most of 'them' will feel you are completely wrong.

To clarify, I equate banning gay marriage to banning marriage between any other group of people that otherwise share basic human rights. In fact, I do think it belongs in the same category as banning interracial marriage, but a better analog is just black marriage. Black people in this country are a minority, and for a while they were discriminated against in most facets of life, including legally. They weren't allowed to marry. I think the situation with marriage is very similar with gays. When you say "I think marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman", to me that belongs in the same category as the statement "I think marriage should only be allowed between two white people".

As for your sentance on the reaction in the "black community", have you researched this, or are you just referring to a stereotype?

So show me where marriage has ever been a basic right or fundamental freedom. The State has always had restrictions on who could marry, (relation, minimum age of consent and in some States freedom from syphilis). Basically it has been handled in the same fashion as driving license with restrictions, collection of fees and issuance of a license.

Unlike, say driving, marriage has been around for millenia, within probably every human culture. To me, this qualifies it as a universal human right. If you want to treat it like a driver's licence, then you still don't get around the discrimination issue.

How do these laws get prosecuted?

These laws have been prosecuted in the past. There are certain situations where the government or law enforcement is allowed to spy on you. Under those laws, if your neighbor saw you through an inadvertantly opened window, you could be prosecuted.
No one knows what you do in the privacy of your home. It is illegal to perform sexual acts of any kind, in public, and other people shouldn't be subjected to your sexual activities no matter what they are."

"When did I suggest otherwise?"

Unfinished business. A armed State with the resources of a Government, represents a much greater danger than a bunch of disheveled terrorists hiding in caves. I won't go into the strategic reasons because you wouldn't understand.

"Unfinished business" is not a compelling reason. Most of us aren't as bloodthirsty as you apparently are. I believe I understand the "strategic reasons", even in my incredibly stupid liberal state. However, I also understand that those "reasons" don't apply here. Iraq had been under severe sanctions for a long time. We barely let them breath in the 90s. If you're referring to terrorist sponsoring regimes, again, there are much more compelling targets, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Iraq was about oil.

That would hardly indicate that "Bush lied".

Perhaps not, but this does. This passage is especially telling:

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record."

This, taken along with the incredibly faulty intelligence we had on Iraq purchasing Uranium from Africa, and the fact that it turns out Iraq never had weapons, leads me to the conclusion that Bush knew Iraq didn't have WMDs any more and he fixed up facts to get us to go to war. You can draw your own conclusions.

ACPatriot said...

oops, sorry about the broken html. I think I'm done with this argument after this, so as not to impose on Beakerkin

Robert Lindsay said...

Homosexuality is not a sin, and neither is bisexuality. In fact, there is no such thing as sexual sin, and I am a Christian. Homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are orientations that are 100% fixed in the male by age 15. We don't know how they get set, but they do, one way or another, and there is no reason for anyone to be ashamed of their orientation. I also strongly feel that gays ought to be allowed to marry. Doctors MAY NOT refuse to treat gay patients, IMO, but I am not sure. Can a doctor say, "I do not want to treat this or that patient", morally or is that an Oath violation? Swaggart is an idiot. I have been hit on by guys 100's or maybe 1000's of times in one way or another and I never struck one of them, much less killed them. It's rather annoying, but it's no reason to punch someone, much less kill them.

All that said, situational or opportunistic homosexuality, generally practiced by straight males, is indeed potentially contagious and is subject to the tolerance level of society. Personally, I prefer a society that puts a strongly proscribes opportunistic male homosexuality. When it is widely allowed or even encouraged, you tend to see very high rates of it, especially in men in their 20's, and I think that is just awful. Opportunistic homosexuality is choice, and we should have the right to condemn various sexual choices. If you don't want to be condemned, stop doing it!

Further, the phenomenon of the gay ghetto seems rather surreal and bizarre to me. I think gays are better off assimilated into society rather than forming these weird ghettos.

Robert Lindsay said...

Now lets put that in perspective, Saddam is responsible for the deaths of between 500K and 1mil civilians during his reign.

That figure is not true. The wars against Kuwait and Iran don't really count. The best figure is 290,000.

Did you know that between 15 and 22K Iraqi civilian's were killed by the terrorists last year? That a lot isn't it?

There is no way that figure is true. The vast majority of these "civilians" are Iraqi security forces, Iraqi police, Iraqi city council members, Iraqi truck drivers delivering goods to US forces, Iraqi translators working with US troops, etc. Basically collaborators and the Quisling puppet security forces.

I agree with ACPatriot totally on the gay marriage thing.

beakerkin said...

I do not have time for Lindsay or lenthy posts.

AC Patriot you clearly are not grasping that marriage is a religious term . Jews alone have voluminous tracts on the subject. I do not want the government changing religious terms.

Gay rights are human rights and stem from civil law. This is why I strongly support Civil Unions. You are quibling over a word.

Never apologize for taking up space. Even though we disagree you
are always welcome here. I try to be a good blog host and the Recidivist and Lindsay are unique situations.

bum from jersey said...

great post. i think you are definitely on point. something else also to note, is that liberal blogs are often clones of one another. by reading one of them you can pretty much predict what the next one will be about.

i don't think liberals are neccasarily supporting communism but i think they fail to understand the difference between reality and theory. in theory, i guess, you can make an arguement for communism but in reality, ahd when you look at history, you really have no right to do so.

the whole attacking those who are religous and stuff, i think they are angry because they believe the president supports these people who believe religion is important. i don't think they really think they are racist or misguided...or at least i hope not. remember, liberals were nice when clinton was in office, now they are grumpy because he is out.