A Fuzzy Thread

[bomelia]

Ah, Steve, very funny!

Lets see if we can keep the thread open after this. This is TRULY fuzzy logic:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html

95% percent of people who go to Miss America shows support gay marriage? Really? I think it is time to end the show. If a contestant HAS to be pro gay marraige, then its no longer the Miss America Paegent. As for Perez Hilton, he asked for it and he got it. Way to go Miss California.

20 years ago, such a question would NEVER have been asked. And now gays want to hijack one of the the most American of American traditions (other than baseball, but thats next) and turn it into a platform for "gay rights"????

Unbelievable

Mike

[427 S/O]

Unbelievable is not strong enough!, to put those young ladies on the spot with that question is beyond sickening.

[Joe Wicked]

The only part that really annoys me is the comment

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

If you don't want politics in the Miss California Family, then why are you not out raged at political questions. Tell the damned truth. You don't want politics that do not agree with your views. Had he simply told the truth I would actually defend his right to say that and enforce it. It is private as stated earlier. As is I think he is just another idiot

[427 S/O]

Gays have a mission, and that's to have total acceptance. It will never happen.......

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by 427 S/O

Gays have a mission, and that's to have total acceptance. It will never happen.......

I do not know what to think about that. I agree that is part of what they want. Sometimes it almost seems easier to say the heck with it and go with the flow. But here is the problem. With liberals it has always been this way: ask for everything, and then accept what you get. Go back a few years later and do it over and over again. Like a frog getting boiled in water, we don't even notice what is happening until it is too late.

Sadly, I think gays will get that and much more. This next census will prolly be used to prove that 25% of Americans are gay (it WILL be one of the questions).

True conservatives do the right thing and stick their ground. Somethings just ain't up for discussion (or should not be). Eventually, America will not have a common fabric. This is what will probably cause us to colonize the Moon, and then Mars.

Mike

[VRM]

Originally Posted by bomelia

I do not know what to think about that. I agree that is part of what they want. Sometimes it almost seems easier to say the heck with it and go with the flow. But here is the problem. With liberals it has always been this way: ask for everything, and then accept what you get. Go back a few years later and do it over and over again. Like a frog getting boiled in water, we don't even notice what is happening until it is too late.

Sadly, I think gays will get that and much more. This next census will prolly be used to prove that 25% of Americans are gay (it WILL be one of the questions).

True conservatives do the right thing and stick their ground. Somethings just ain't up for discussion (or should not be). Eventually, America will not have a common fabric. This is what will probably cause us to colonize the Moon, and then Mars.

Mike

Mike (and Perry too),
I suspect that gays will eventually have the same rights as you and I. I really don't understand why conservatives feel the need to butt (no pun intended) into other peoples affairs and tell them how they can live their lives. We have gay marriage in MA, and despite constant conservative complaining about impending doom it has not caused hetero marriages to crumble. People say it was activist judges that caused it to happen - that is a farce - there was nothing in the MA Constitution that prevented it, and the anti-discrimination bit finalised it.

I am NOT saying that gay marriages should be required of churches - they are private organisations and can set whatever criteria they want for membership and their ceremonies. This is only applicable as far as the laws go.

It's interesting to read Meghan McCains writings about the future of the GOP - some of which touch on this subject. Most of the younger people I know could really care less about whether somebody is gay or not - that hangup seems to exist mostly with the over 55 crowd.

I think Ben Franklin said it best - Mind your own business.

Steve

[Jamo]

I'm a bit bothered by the fact that whether someone is gay is a political issue. Maybe someday, a "reach around" will morph into "reaching across the aisle."

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

I'm a bit bothered by the fact that whether someone is gay is a political issue. Maybe someday, a "reach around" will morph into "reaching across the aisle."

That would be the long arm of the law, right?

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Jamo

I'm a bit bothered by the fact that whether someone is gay is a political issue. Maybe someday, a "reach around" will morph into "reaching across the aisle."

Who made it a political issue? Not the conservatives.

Steve, marriage is not a right. If you can find it in the bill of rights, lemme know where. Just like driving is not a right. Gay people already have the same rights as you and I. What they are asking for is for the state to condone their life style. It is a moral question. And whenever the government gets involved in moraility issues, it all goes to hell in a handbasket.

But I digress, since this is not a Fuzzy thought.

Mike

[VRM]

Originally Posted by bomelia

Steve, marriage is not a right. If you can find it in the bill of rights, lemme know where.

Mike

Mike, it's in there...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The individual states grant these rights, not the Fed.

Steve

[bomelia]

That does not make it a right! The state grants driving licenses AND marriage licenses and business licenses. There is a huge difference. The state can decide to revoke your drivers license (and business license). Ok, they cannot revoke your marriage license. But they can deny it. And they can revoke/deny your business license. Based on what? Behavioral norms/ practice norms, etc. Gays are NOT being denied rights. Societal norms are in play.

If this REALLY was a rights issue, this would have been settled by now. The fact that it has not been settled means other methods and strategies are at play. Actions designed to "change" the norms. Conservatives do in fact resist change for the sake of change.

I really wish folks would sop confusing "rights" and "priviledges"as granted by the state. Our rights are derived from principles... things that do not change. They are also based in a belief that there is something bigger than us. Thats why liberals feel free to "unchain" rights.

Mike

[VRM]

Mike,
Who decides what is the 'norm'? I would prefer that individuals decide what is the norm for themselves rather than the group decide what is the norm for everybody. I think that the country was founded on individual liberty, and that liberty is the most important thing that we have as Americans. Trying to impose your religious morals on somebody else seems un-American to me.

The 14th Amendment says that states cannot deny any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. MA Constitution says that equality under the law will not be abridged or denied because of sex. The MA marriage law does not provide for any clause against same sex marriages.

You can call marriage a privilege or a right, but there are state and federal legal rights extended to people who are married that gay people do not have access to because some people feel the need to mind somebody elses business.

Conservatives like to say that the Conservative viewpoint is all about personal freedom and responsibility. That only seems to be true if it does not interfere with with the morals the right wingers are trying to cram down somebodies throat.

I'm sticking with Franklins viewpoint; Mind your own business.

Steve

[cobra de capell]

This thread has gone non-fuzzy.

[427 S/O]

Mike, one of you best post............

[cobra de capell]

Welcome back, Fred!

How about this warm and fuzzy thread - a real chuckle.

Now we have members supporting sodomites.

[Ron61]

Freddie,

Those things would have to be put there by Brent just like the stars and cups were. Welcome back. Mike is going for a record of days before his thread is shut down.

Ron

[Jamo]

Actually, for the exceptionally well qualified, we give special recognition: "Banned" stays under their name permanently. We're making it easier to attain.

...and for those who are qualified to understand (though it has been repeated many times), the First Amendment has no application to this private site.

[Jamo]

Mike...great post, but me thinks you're a bit guilty of mixing up rights with privileges when you compare marriage licenses with business and driving licenses.

And while CDC is quick to mount a stone outcropping with finger pointed while he screams "Sodomites!" (which in some Southern States can mean simply allowing a female to be on top), the fact of the matter is that the debate is a political and moral one, regardless of who is pushing it.

Personally, I could care less who's screwing who and how they screw, and there are few here who are more "conservative" than me. I happen to know more than a few conservative gays, and it troubles me that they feel they have to choose between their political/economic positions (Republican) and their anal diversions (Democrat). It also bothers me that insurance companies, retirement plans and credit providers do, in fact, distinguish between married and unmarried partners in providing benefits/protections, even in states allowing for civil unions.

I guess I'm conservative enough to not only want government to get the phuk out of everyone's life, stay off their property, leave their guns alone, stop stealing their money...but also to stay out of their bed.

[Jamo]

...and BTW, that being said...I'm also damn tired of gays of dancing around and sashaying their asses while they procalim how damn gay they are (just as I'm damn tired of hearing how black, jewish or white someone is). Hilton should've been kicked off the show, and Miss California provided an honor for doing no less than Ms. Parks in refusing to give up her seat.

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Jamo

...and BTW, that being said...I'm also damn tired of gays of dancing around and sashaying their asses while they procalim how damn gay they are (just as I'm damn tired of hearing how black, jewish or white someone is). Hilton should've been kicked off the show, and Miss California provided an honor for doing no less than Ms. Parks in refusing to give up her seat.

Do We need to remind you that gay bashing is cause for thread locking?

BTFW: YeaYuh brutha. Phuck Perez (No pun intended, was it?)

Miss California is a HERO in my book.

Mike