This whole “gay rights” movement becomes more suspect every time it rears it’s head in the media. It seems to have a bit too much muscle to be a grassroots, organic phenomenon…which leads me to beleive that it is largely foundation- and corporation-supported.

Here is what happened at the last one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Osd013NnH1E

Push, shove, and step on a old ladies cross.
Just all part of the Obama agenda.  They also took away her freedom of speech.  Couldn’t even talk to the reporter.

How worked up will you get when I get to vote on your marriage Chad?

How smart do you think that women was to try and take center stage at a No on 8 protest with her cardboard cross sign in Palm Springs for gawds sake? That’s like the headquarters of the Gay Mafia.

Good to see ol’ Chad’s still waging his war on the English language.

Christopher C NC,

I’m proud of her.  Go to Folsome Street San Fransico.  You will see why she did that.  She’s protecting her grandchildren from the bad “choices” some individuals make.

shadmarsh,

Dito.  Did I spell that right?

Dito.  Did I spell that right?

No.

I guess my comment about the “gay marriage” crowd being establishment dupes won’t get published…but really: aren’t there more pressing issues to be protesting and demonstrating over? E.g.: the Northcom-designed police state; the crimes of the Federal Reserve and IMF; soft-kill genocide through our food, water and medicine.

She is protecting her grandchildren from loving, committed, stable relationships? What kind of a grandmother is she Chad?

She’s protecting her grandchildren from the bad “choices” some individuals make.

Those “choices” that Prop 8 affect don’t impede the lives of all the people opposed to it.  Tell me:  what makes them bad?  How will it harm you, Chad?

I wish I had known about this rally sooner.  On this short notice, I won’t be there.

Chadder,

A) it’s Folsom St.
B) teh gays live in and around The Castro (a street and a neighborhood).  Occasionally the quarantine breaks down and one or two escape, but those are isolated incidents.
C) I have it from a good source that Obama’s first order of business shall be forcing you into a gay marriage—though I have also heard that he wants to preform a few abortions first—so who knows. I think you and Don would make the perfect couple.

Chad, do you like Gladiator movies?

Ken Hanke,

Thank’s for letting me no.  I probably missspelled this postt 2. 

But seriously, here’s one for you. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7722407.stm

We are giving away free tickets when this movie come out.  How many do you want?

As a defender of liberty and a strict separation of church and state, I oppose Prop 8 on the grounds that the government has no right to interfere in a free individual’s right to peaceably and voluntarily contract with others.

This attempt by the religious right to impose their peculiar religious values on others is a direct violation of individual rights and First Amendment prohibitions on the Establishment of Religion.

The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

Christopher, sadmarsh, and Cheshire

shadmarsh said, 

<>Occasionally the quarantine breaks down and one or two escape, but those are isolated incidents.<> 

Does this look like one or two escaped and a isolated incident?
Warning - News worthy, but extremely graphic sexual content.
Once you click on this link it will take you to another warning page.  From there you can see
your so called “isolated” incident.  This link is a news site.  It is not a porn site.
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/

It just doesn’t stop there.  This kind of thing happens all over the world.
Now you know why this grandmother is so upset.

Like I and the Carolina Stompers have always said - “We don’t care who you sleep with.  That’s your business.  But don’t bring your business into ours.”

Let’s also get this straight - We all know someone that might act feminine or a woman that might be butch.  If someone beats up a person because he or she may be this way then that someone needs to go to jail.  Personally I think they need a 2x4 up beside the head.  My wife is a hairdresser.  We just happen to know people that are this way and they are our friends. 
They even agree with what I am saying.  2 of them joined the Stompers.  Why the hell you 3 and others that post here can’t get this through your head I don’t know.

The way you have sex is not a civil right. You choose the way you have sex.
You might decide that you don’t want to have sex with anybody but a sex toy. 
If that’s your choice then ok. 
But it is not a civil right.

Men and women pro create and
marriage is between a man and a woman. 
It is tradition, biblical, and a legal contract.

If you and your sex toy want a legal contract then take it up with the manufacture of the toy.
There are plenty of attorney’s around.

Other wise leave our American, biblical, traditions alone.

So what you’re saying is, you like gay porn, you just don’t like gay people?

I think he’s saying he likes freedom except when it makes him feel icky.

Can’t we just go see Spartacus together and get along?

This is a basic civil rights issue.  I know of many gay couples that have much more respect for the sanctity of marriage than you conservatives, who usually end up divorcing two or three times in your lifetime.  Why don’t you guys propose a constitutional amendment banning divorce if you’re so concerned about the sanctity of marriage?

What’s the matter with this Chad the fear monger guy. Sounds like he’s in desperate need of some lovin. Let us all love Chad for a moment. Ahhh. There doesn’t that feel better.

Forget the movie Chad, we’re two confident men. Let’s go dancing.

How smart do you think that women was to try and take center stage at a No on 8 protest with her cardboard cross sign in Palm Springs for gawds sake?

This is quite possibly the stupidest argument you could make.
How does it possibly matter? Free speech is free speech and she was practically assaulted for expressing herself.

It’s bulls**t and casts a pall over the entire movement and the perception of tolerance. Those who attacked her should be ashamed of themselves for strengthening the arguments of those that would oppose homosexual civil unions.

Chad Chad,

What does naked men with their wongs hanging out on Folsom St in San Francisco have to do with 2 same sex adults getting married?

Chad, in reference to these links above to gay porn - there is also plenty of straight porn for you to link up with. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with straight porn, right Chad? In the end, this porn has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage and everything to do with Chad. Chad’s desire to express his feer and his homophobic feelings. Not to mention his need to express his perversion of church as state.
Chad, don’t be afraid of those gay people, they won’t hurt you. I promise.

Ah yes!  The Obama liberals name calling begins.
I know this is the best yall can do.  It’s ok. But how the hell we lost the election to a bunch of 4 year olds is beyond me. 

I’ll be on Charter Channel 10 Nov. 24th Monday night at 9:00 PM.
These posts on this weeks Mnt. Xpress and their articles is my topic.
Great reporting Mnt X. 

Going to a wedding this weekend so I’m gone.  Uhhhh it’s a straight wedding I’m sure.

And J Bugg - What time do you want to pick me up?  I’m ready to dance. 
I’m a champion square dancer you know.  So bring your buddy Mittan.

I’ll pick you up at 9:30. I put out on the first date also.

“Can’t we just go see Spartacus together and get along?”

Don’t worry Jason.  If Chad has eaten shellfish, or has been tattooed or has had sex during menstruation then he’s goin’ ta hell with the rest of us.

Of course! You can watch Chad spew his verbal diarea on amature television Monday, Nov 24th at 10pm on Charter Cable. HAHAHA

Bobaloo it was not an argument about free speech. It was questioning the women’s wisdom for forcing herself into the middle of an emotionally charged situation. For her or you to expect everyone to behave as you think they should is denying the human condition. People get upset. Deal with it.

If she was more interested in her freedom of speech than making a scene she should have used another approach.

G Das,
You said -
<>Chad, in reference to these links above to gay porn - there is also plenty of straight porn for you to link up with. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with straight porn, right Chad? In the end, this porn has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage and everything to do with Chad. Chad’s desire to express his feer and his homophobic feelings. Not to mention his need to express his perversion of church as state.
Chad, don’t be afraid of those gay people, they won’t hurt you. I promise.<>

G das, in reference to your post - there are plenty of churches you can link up with.  Of course, there’s nothing wrong with church, right G das?  In the end, church has nothing to do with leaving little old ladies alone and everything to do with G das.  G das desire to express his fear of God and Gods word.  Not to mention his need to express his perversion of grown adults having sex in public in front of children.
G das, don’t be afraid of those Christians, they won’t hurt you unless you keep messing with their kids minds.  I promise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwTtC1GKtz4

dude,

you need to put an “i” and then “/i” in those brackets,without the “” of course.

Bobaloo it was not an argument about free speech.

Yes, it is, whether or not you want to admit it.

It was questioning the women’s wisdom for forcing herself into the middle of an emotionally charged situation.

It doesn’t matter. She had the right to be there as much as anyone else.

For her or you to expect everyone to behave as you think they should is denying the human condition. People get upset. Deal with it.

For you to excuse their behavior towards her because of “human condition” is laughable. They’re adults, not tantrum-throwing children. Or they should be anyway.

If she was more interested in her freedom of speech than making a scene she should have used another approach.

The protesters were making a scene as well, and expressing their freedom of speech at the same time. How anyone thinks such behavior is acceptable is beyond me.

I watched the video Bobaloo. Stomping on her cardboard sign, shouting her down and putting themselves between her and the camera hardly constitutes a grave breach of behaviour.

If you however feel it is a horrendous affront to her freedom of speech, then contact her with the name of a constitutional or civil rights attorney who would take such a case and press charges. Good luck.

I’m baffled that you think a mob getting in an old woman’s face, surrounding her, screaming at her at the top of their lungs and ripping a cross out of her hands is a-ok.
If the situations were reversed, you’d be up in arms.

Like I and the Carolina Stompers have always said - “We don’t care who you sleep with.  That’s your business.  But don’t bring your business into ours.”

And like I always say, “I don’t care what you choose to believe so long as you don’t try to force me to live by your beliefs.” That, by the way, is also bringing your business into ours—actually, more so, since no one is trying to make you sleep with a guy or marry one, but you’re all about telling me I shouldn’t do the former and can’t do the latter.

Yeah, those idiots need some testosterone suppressant.  I think we all can agree that was an out-of-control mob.  Treat it like a mob.

Next point, Chad:
“We don’t care who you sleep with.  That’s your business.  But don’t bring your business into ours.”
You can dish it out, can’t you?  Can you take it as well?  You wish to infringe on the constitutional right of freedom of religion by forcing YOUR beliefs down someone else’s throat, whether they like it or not.  What about my freedom of religion, Chad?  Say you get to inject religion into the government like you want:  which religion?  Asatru?  Any of the native tribal religions, such as Cherokee?  Greek?  How about Voodun?  Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or maybe Shintoism?  I know, I know…you want Christianity.  So:  are we going with Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox…right.  Protestant.  (Then why are the words of the Pope being held so dearly?  Protestants broke with the Catholic church!)
Okay…we’re down to Protestant.  Episcopalian or Lutheran?  Baptist?  Calvinist?  Each one has points they disagree on.

How about you simply tell me what part of the bible tells you that gay marriage is wrong?  Let me guess…it’s going to be in the Old Testament.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Jesus effectively render the Old Testament null and void?  That’s what the big difference is between christians and jews is, isn’t it?  (That and bloodline.)

Before you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, consider this.  If the Old Testament was so essential they wouldn’t dream of excluding it.  The christian bible is considered the New Testament.  They’re mass-distributed without the old testament, because the coming of Jesus rendered it obsolete.

Sleep with whom you like.  Believe what you wish.  “...But don’t bring your business into ours.”

Dang it, Ken…beat me to it!  Too long-winded for my own good.

I am baffled that you are trying to make a federal case out of a scuffle at a protest Bobaloo. It’s all on film. You’ld think the local authorities would press assualt charges of some degree if it was warranted, but I doubt the objectional behaviour rises even to that legally.

Too long-winded for my own good.

Strange. That’s usually a charge aimed at me. (Ask anyone who’s ever edited my copy.)

great point matt!

Too bad the “corporate gay rights movement” didnt have 20 million from the mormon church like the pro 8 movement did!

Same sex marriage? Huh? What’s this country coming to. Let them have civil unions. We reserve marriage for aman and a woman because children are often involved.

Dave: I am quite aware that many churches are now PACs, FEMA re-education centers, Zionist recruitment centers, etc. So when a church takes a legitimate stance on an issue, it has no credibility in the public eye…not to mention the questionable means by which churches promote their message.

Aside from the seperate moral debate and the apparent agendas at play that are never discussed, this issue is a corporate-created distraction.

We reserve marriage for aman and a woman

Define “we.”

Thomas Marx wrote: “We reserve marriage for aman and a woman…”

“You” can reserve marriage for whatever you like.

“We” only demand that you keep your religion to yourself and refrain from turning to the coercive force of government to impose your faith-based values on others.

Marx wrote “we reserve marriage for a man and a woman because children are often involved”

So, by that logic, women who are sterile or have gone though menopause shouldn’t marry?  Is marraige really about procreation, or a commitment to eachother.  In which case, I would think having children in a loving relationship would be a good thing.  Unless you think gay parents will make their kids gay, but that doesn’t explain why the straight parents didn’t have straight kids in the first place.  If you are a true conservative you would have to believe in individual and states’ rights.  Therefore, you could not object to states granting marriage to everyone.  Or, do you like big government helping out when it advances your own beliefs?

Hanke said,
<>And like I always say, “I don’t care what you choose to believe so long as you don’t try to force me to live by your beliefs.” That, by the way, is also bringing your business into ours—actually, more so, since no one is trying to make you sleep with a guy or marry one, but you’re all about telling me I shouldn’t do the former and can’t do the latter. <>

Keny, Keny, Keny,

You haters are going to have to learn to read my post better.  I said we don’t care who you sleep with.  One more time, “We don’t care who you sleep with”.  That is none of our business.  What you do in your bed room is your business. 

Here is the problem.  Gay, straight, bi, trans, how ever you associate yourself, should not infringe their sex life on children or the public. Period.  When displaying yourself like they did at Folsome and other events like here in downtown Asheville you are messing with the mind of a child. 

And by the way Ken, the gay movement is all about trying to make men sleep with men and women with women.  It’s all over TV.  It’s all over the radio.  You want the way you have sex to be acceptable.

If your movement becomes acceptable to “children and the public”  how does your movement plan to stop the movement of an adult wanting to have sex with a child?  Six year olds with six year olds or younger?  People with animals?

And Dave, it was $38 million that the “gay rights” movement had behind them.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/15/BAJG144PTB.DTL

So…. you don’t want to see gay marriage because you are afraid it will lead to sex with animals???

Brilliant.

I love it when Chad comes around and posts here….. it’s always good for a few laughs.

Here’s an idea….. if you see a public display of affection you don’t like, walk the other way.

I don’t really know what would be more traumatizing to a child…. seeing two men making out, or seeing you or any of your cronies making out with their significant others.

I mean seriously, that stompuhs site looks like the weekend line-up at a funeral home.

I’m going to go poke out my mind’s eye now, thank you.

Chad loves any sort of dark corner of sexuality. It makes me shudder to think about what goes through his head at any given moment.

</b>Here is the problem.  Gay, straight, bi, trans, how ever you associate yourself, should not infringe their sex life on children or the public. Period.  When displaying yourself like they did at Folsome and other events like here in downtown Asheville you are messing with the mind of a child.</b>

“Infringe their sex life?” You might want to ask someone to proof what you say. In any case, that has nothing to do with the question of gays marrying—if it has any relation to anything. And so far as I’m concerned, you’re “messing with the mind of a child” when you force-feed them Christianity, too.

And by the way Ken, the gay movement is all about trying to make men sleep with men and women with women.

Nonsense. It merely tries to undemonize same sex relationships. There’s a huge difference. And, trust me, I think you’re safe.

If your movement becomes acceptable to “children and the public” how does your movement plan to stop the movement of an adult wanting to have sex with a child?  Six year olds with six year olds or younger?  People with animals?

This is perhaps the most amazing leap of (non)logic imaginable.

I would, however, be curious to know about a statement you made a while back when you were doing your “some of my best friends are” dance. You said—“My wife is a hairdresser.  We just happen to know people that are this way and they are our friends. They even agree with what I am saying. 2 of them joined the Stompers.”

So are you telling me that 2 of the Stompers are gay? How does this work? I presume they have to be properly self-loathing, consider themselves abominations and feel it’s perfectly proper that they should be second-class citizens?

Should children be exposed to Christian ethics?

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddq4529g_299gv6q33fh

“And by the way Ken, the gay movement is all about trying to make men sleep with men and women with women.”

I just Loled my pants!

Chad-Have you ever considered joining the Taliban? I think you might find you are well-aligned with their belief system.

It sounds like Chaaaad Nesbiff may actually be bi-sexual suppressing is desires for men.
If Chaaad was a real heterosexual man, comfortable in his own skin about his sexuality, he wouldn’t be posting hate, division and homophobia.

Chaaad Chaaad, again these links to porn that you have posted have nothing to do with the issues, and I’m thankful that as humans continue to evolve, your backwards, mindless ways will continue to be less and less influential. 

History show, Chaaad’s views are lined up with those that have fought to: hold onto slavery, resist civil rights, suppress women’s rights, suppress voters from voting,  and the list goes on. They’re hatred is now focused on homosexuality, but as humans begin to wake up, this fight will continue to slip away. Soon, Chaaad and his people will be left to fight only amongst themselves.

shadmarsh

B) teh gays live in and around The Castro

Looks like pot meets kettle on your obsession with spelling and pointing out others faults.

Hanke,

I said,
<>If your movement becomes acceptable to “children and the public” how does your movement plan to stop the movement of an adult wanting to have sex with a child?  Six year olds with six year olds or younger?  People with animals?<>

You didn’t answer the question.

This is the question politicians are asking.
What is your answer?  And do you even see why we conservatives disagree with your opinion.  I see your side.  Do you see ours.  No joking around.  I’m serious.

I am straight and I have rules I have to follow set forth by society.
I can not marry an animal
I can not marry a first cousin
I can not marry my sibling
I can not marry a child
I can not marry the opposite sex.
If I have to abide by the rules why should everyone not abide by the rules? They are set in place for society, not for individuals.

I am sure it would be pleasing to many not to have rules at all. Why can’t you murder someone who pisses you off? Because society does not agree with it.
Just because society is in agreement with biblical doctrine doesn’t make it all about religion being shoved down our throats.

Cheshire,

New Testament words for clarifications on what the NT says:
Jesus Christ says in Matthew 19:4-6
“And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?  Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

God ordained marriage, not man. A believer can love all his neighbors and still believe his neighbor is wrong and he can still vote for something that his neighbor doesn’t want (Prop 8) without being a bigot.

In the New Testament is Jesus states that He came not to destroy the law but to fulfill the law in the Old Testament.
(Mat 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.)
The NT speaks to homosexuality issues quite clearly:

“Rom 1:20-28 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
  Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
  Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.
For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
  And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”

You do NOT have to believe what God had to say in His bible, and I can not force it upon you, it is your choice, Christianity doesn’t work by force.
God is all about liberty to choose between right and wrong.
I just happen to have complete faith that God is who He says He is and He does what He says He will do and I make my choices accordingly.

Chad, let’s get real here. If you are going to deny a civil right granted from the authority of the government to an entire class of people based on the extreme behaviour of some of its members, than no heterosexual men would be allowed to marry. Need I list the foul things that plenty of straight men do?

shadmarsh

Looks like pot meets kettle on your obsession with spelling and pointing out others faults.

wrong again.  look it up.

Christopher C NC said

<>Need I list the foul things that plenty of straight men do?<>

Yes.

You didn’t answer the question.

Actually, I did sort of answer your question by calling the whole idea “the most amazing leap of non-logic imaginable.” Put plainly, your supposition is such a blatantly ridiculous aggregation of nonsense that it doesn’t warrant an answer. It’s the kind of reasoning that white folks were giving against black folks having equal rights back in the 60s. It’s the same kind of reasoning that men once used against the idea that women should be able to vote, and before that they should be able to own property. It’s coin of the realm when it comes to demonizing any group of people you’re afraid of.

This is the question politicians are asking.

What politicians are asking this question? (Fellow Stompers don’t count.) I’ve never heard this question put forth by any politician I’d vote for.

And do you even see why we conservatives disagree with your opinion.  I see your side.  Do you see ours.  No joking around.

I see why you disagree, but I find the reasoning manifestly absurd and the whole point of view morally repugnant in the extreme.

I’m serious.

I’ve been perfectly serious in everything I’ve said here.

So, what about those gay Stompers? Still waiting to hear about that.

<>Need I list the foul things that plenty of straight men do?<>

Yes.

I reckon Chad wants some pointers.

I just happen to have complete faith that God is who He says He is and He does what He says He will do and I make my choices accordingly.

Fine. Just don’t try to rule my life by those choices.

Hanke said -
<>It’s coin of the realm when it comes to demonizing any group<>

Dude you tellin’ me that that Folsome thing isn’t a bunch of demons.  That gay’s and straights shouldn’t be fighting that type of thing?

<>What politicians are asking this question?<>
Here you go pal.  Loud and proud - http://www.gop.com

<>but I find the reasoning manifestly absurd and the whole point of view morally repugnant in the extreme<>

Never mind that first question.  You answered it with your above statement.
You like that Folsome thing don’t you Hanke?
And I’m serious.

The two Stompers you are referring to have been reading the posts.
If they want to speak that’s up to them.  But I really don’t think you want to tackle them.

“Chad loves any sort of dark corner of sexuality.” I think Mr. Bugg said it well enough about why Chad would like to see a list like that. The only pointers he may need are on spelling.

Dude you tellin’ me that that Folsome thing isn’t a bunch of demons.  That gay’s and straights shouldn’t be fighting that type of thing?

I’m not telling you anything of the sort (though I don’t believe in demons). I’m telling you that this particular bete noir of yours has less-than-nothing to do with the issue of Proposition 8. You’re cherry-picking a single extreme case and linking it to something completely unrelated. You are—as I said—trying to demonize homosexuality by showing it as something it mostly is not. Just as heterosexuality isn’t mostly guys in raincoats offering candy to 8 year-old-girls.

Here you go pal.  Loud and proud - http://www.gop.com

Gee, I don’t see anything about the subject at hand. Where and who are these (predictably Republican) politicians wringing their hands over gay rights as the first step to bestiality?

You like that Folsome thing don’t you Hanke?

Really, Nesbitt, you’re the one with the big cobra tattoo and the flexed muscle poses. You’d look far more at home there than I would. It’s definitely not my dish of tea and I’ve no interest in it. And it’s Folsom, not Folsome. But I noticed one really interesting thing about the spread (a spread marked with innuendo—“what appeared to be a hash pipe”—and obviously designed with an eye toward outraging the reader). I couldn’t find a single image where children were being subjected to any of this. Not one. Why is that? Surely, the person who so lovingly depicted all that outraged him would have captured that had it been there for him to capture.

The two Stompers you are referring to have been reading the posts. If they want to speak that’s up to them.  But I really don’t think you want to tackle them.

So that’s it for the gay Stompers, huh?

And, by the way, how does a Star Trek fan like yourself deal with the issue of George Takei’s same sex marriage? What’s your take on that?

Hanke,

Here are the children at Folsom
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/01/miller-lite-approved-toddlers-at-the-folsom-street-fair/

Mainstream Obama media wouldn’t show this but Fox News did.

My take on Takei is the same of what I have been posting - Who cares how he has sex.  It’s his business.  Why make it everybody else’s?

So I take it you do like that Folsom thing.
Since you can’t give a straight answer to anything.  You ought to run for office.

My take on Takei is the same of what I have been posting - Who cares how he has sex.  It’s his business.  Why make it everybody else’s?

Because he chose to make it so by getting married to another man, so it’s public property. It also ought, by your opposition to gay marriage, bother you, it would seem.

So I take it you do like that Folsom thing.

I know you have comprehension difficulties, but what part of “It’s definitely not my dish of tea and I’ve no interest in it” defeats your ability to grasp that I don’t “like that Folsom thing?” But I realize you have now developed a need to demonize me and want to connect me with it.

Ken,

No, I just don’t see your movement fight it.
If you want my side to better see your movements opinion, we would like to see you fight that kind of thing.

And on the Takei thing, you obviously can’t comprehend my posts.

By the way, watch Bill Oriely tonight.  You might find it intresting.

If you want my side to better see your movements opinion, we would like to see you fight that kind of thing.

What movement? I’m not really a part of any movement, I’m simply in complete sympathy with those who oppose Proposition 8. This whole Folsom Street thing has nothing to do with that. It’s merely a distraction you’re using to divert the point of the real issue. Nor am I interested in “fighting it.” I don’t like it—as I say, it’s not my sort of thing at all—but I can’t say its existence enrages me. Much of the outcry feels manufactured. All I saw on the sites you linked to were some pictures of people indulging in sometimes kinky sexual behavior (snapped and reproduced by a photographer with an agenda who seems most awfully interested in the subject—why else keep snapping away at the same people doing the same thing?). Most of this proved the old axiom that the people most likely to take their clothes off in public are the people you’d least like to see do so. The second link showed one picture of two little girls watching not sex acts, but the parade itself, and, if anything, looked like a case of dubious parenting.

And on the Takei thing, you obviously can’t comprehend my posts.

Oh, I think I comprehend your posts. You’re okay with gays and gay behavior—as long as they keep themselves in the closet like they did in the good old days when “they knew their place.” Right? Well, Takei obviously doesn’t subscribe to that view. Or are you saying that you’re okay with gay marriage?

By the way, watch Bill Oriely tonight.  You might find it intresting.

Many thanks, no. And it’s Bill O’Reilly.

Cake:  Thanks for pointing that out.  There’s a flaw with that bit, though it’s going way too off-topic to go into depth on here.

Chad, Chad, Chad.  You haters are going to have to read my post better.  I really don’t care whom you sleep with.  I do, however care when you start trying to force me to live by the rules of your religion.
Here’s the problem.  You’re forcing your religious beliefs on me.  Where’s it going to end, Chad?  Will the Code of Hammurabi compel me to cut off the hands of thieves?  Will I be obligated to strip the possessions from the rich so they may pass through the Eye of The Needle?  (Hey…that’s an idea!)

I thought about identifying my orientation, but that would be counterproductive.  The thing at stake here is the right to happiness of people you don’t know:  strangers living in proximity.  Nothing is being forced on anyone except the expectation to live peaceably with your neighbor.  Sex in public isn’t on the table…I mean…isn’t getting passed…oh dear…is not the issue!!  (haha.)

As for “it’s a gateway to pedophilia”... legamarriage requires age of consent:  old enough to enter into legally-binding contracts by free will.  What part of “consenting adults” did you miss?

Modern medicine has know that there is a medical difference between hetero and homo for over 100 years.  You can have just about any genetic variation in the human population ... from a sexual standpoint you can have those with sexual organs that don’t work, those with one set of sexual organs and the opposite hormonal make up, etc.  A hermaphrodite did not ‘choose’ to have that make up.  Someone with no sexual hormones did not ‘choose’ that.

If you find that homosexuals have a genetic make up that defines that sexual preference, denying rights to that group is hypocritical. 

I find it interesting that both Biden and Obama both don’t want to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman.  What’s up with that?

There is a pesky little thing called the US Constitution and IT GUARANTEES the same rights of all individuals (PERIOD) .... it also guarantees the separation of church and state (i.e. protects many religions, and prevents the subjugation of the many religions by another), most States constitutions have similar clauses regarding religion.

This law, and others like it will be overturned because they attempt to LIMIT an individuals’ rights that are guaranteed in the US CONSTITUTION
we can not pick and choose which parts we want to follow or interpret.

This conversation thread has taken an unfortunate turn.  It has gone from being a useful discussion of individual rights to a useless discussion of specific and peculiar sexual peccadillos and either the moral condemnation or approval of them and various other ancillary and irrelevant points.

This issue is not about the pros and cons of certain sexual mores.  The bottom line here, in my view, is one question: Do I have a right to peaceably and voluntarily enter into a contract with my neighbor to our mutual benefit?  (And that includes the right to enter into a marriage contract of my own free will with the full expectation that the government (through the law and the courts) will recognize and honor that contract and may possibly be called upon to adjudicate disputes or breaches.)

I answer that question in the affirmative (that means: Yes).  This includes the right of homosexuals to marry in the same way and to the same effect as heterosexuals.

I further advocate that the government need not issue permits for people to freely associate.  The government should get out of the marriage business and restrict its actions to enforcing contracts.

It has gone from being a useful discussion of individual rights to a useless discussion of specific and peculiar sexual peccadillos and either the moral condemnation or approval of them and various other ancillary and irrelevant points.

Agreed, but it didn’t just go there—it was dragged there.

Do you know how you stop ‘the gays’ from being on your face, having pride parades and protesting for their rights? Stay out of their business and allow them to have the same rights. Problem solved.

Nothing destroys family values more than hatred.

I don’t mind straight people, as long as they act gay in public.

Has anyone checked on Ralph lately?

I’m offering up proposition 3:16 to the voters…  he who believes in the right wing agenda will inherit the kingdom of gays. 

I’m not really sympathetic to the conservative lifestyle—because it tends to infringe on certain human rights.  But if you pray harder, perhaps the gay people will miraculously disappear—or become slightly straighter.  I guess God is totally not listening right now—or he is busy enjoying the theater where some gay dude is giving a stellar performance as Jesus.

Chad, unfortunately, marriage—as humanely and logically defined—is an intimate union of two individuals.  We can continue to define marriage by the church of O’ Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, and Hannity—if you want.  But the reality is that a true Christian would have compassion and promote equal treatment, RIGHTS, and LAWS for EVERYONE, which would include marriage.  I know that most religious folks want to skip that part, because it seems kinda icky when two dudes want to cohabitate.  They won’t take anything away from you—as your legally married gay neighbors—but you may be subject to late night techno and splendid dinner parties.

“We can continue to define marriage by the church of O’ Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, and Hannity—if you want.  But the reality is that a true Christian would have compassion and promote equal treatment, RIGHTS, and LAWS for EVERYONE, which would include marriage.”

Before you bash FOX as the source of all discriminatory things, ask Biden and Obama why they don’t favor changing the definition of marriage.  They both have said they don’t want the change.

FYI - I think they should make the change, but let’s point the fingers at all those responsible, even those most capable of making that change happen, but refusing to do so.

Reality Check, what would you know about the doctrines and opinions of “true Christians”? You would have to first define “true Christian” and then find some semblance of a creed or confessional to measure those “beliefs” by. Of course this is off topic so lets put it back on topic.

What right does a homosexual in Asheville, NC have in attempting to disenfranchise the California electorate in determining their own state constitutional matters? Do you not think the people of California are well equipped to determine their own course of events and direction? Keep in mind this is the same electorate that carried California for Obama. Perhaps you think they are only foolish on those issues you disagree with.

Travelah, the true christian comment was a cut and paste from limabean above. 

Are you really saying that California is capable of taking care of itself?  I’m not in favor of barging in there or them here, but California is a socio-economic disaster.  You have to admit that.

The definition of Christian, in terms of being Christ-like—living in the image of Christ.  Which is irrelevant to me because I don’t subscribe to a book to know the difference between right and wrong.  I suppose I could have learned that in 12 years of Catholic school, but I will never admit to that.

I would assume that people fighting for equal rights and treatment—in America and not only California—are showing unity for one another in the effort to bring change everywhere.  I don’t think there is any reason why I have to agree on every issue with everyone who voted for Obama anymore than I would agree on every issue with someone who likes the same pizza I eat; neither do I have to agree with Obama/Biden for their public views on marriage.

travelah wrote: “What right does a homosexual in Asheville, NC have in attempting to disenfranchise the California electorate in determining their own state constitutional matters?”

—-

We do not live under the mob rule of democracy. Nor should we.

No mob should be able to vote to violate the rights of another.  Individual rights trump the shifting moods of a cranky mob.

Wherever a person’s rights are being violated, in what ever quarter, it is our obligation to reject that abomination with a full-throated denunciation.