[BlackGriffen]

So much for the liberal media.

The ad and CNN's refusal.

The closest thing to a controversial image? This:

The ad closes with images of the Reverend Fred Phelps holding a sign that reads "God hates fags" at the funeral of hate-crime victim Matthew Shepard.

It's not like they fabricated the guy or something.

Like I said before, the "mainstream media" is corporate. That is, it is driven primarily by its own profit concerns, not the public interest. Individual journalists are different, of course, but as a whole, the check writers and gate keepers are just that.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

LAWL!

"Our commercial has a simple message--the GOP can be an inclusive majority party uniting all Americans, or it can be an intolerant party hijacked by the radical right's divisive social agenda," said Log Cabin executive director Patrick Guerriero.

What a spin. I guess it's better than being hijacked by the intolerant radical left's divisive social agenda.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LAWL!



What a spin. I guess it's better than being hijacked by the intolerant radical left's divisive social agenda.

Great idea. Ridicule your moderate allies right out of the party. That's a surefire winning strategy.



BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Radical left? Zim, have you ever met any Log Cabin types? The ones I have met are, for the most part, way to the right of me.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Radical left? Zim, have you ever met any Log Cabin types? The ones I have met are, for the most part, way to the right of me.

Simey I wasn't calling them that.

But I DO think it's funny that they point out this conspiracy theory, when they are doing THE EXACT SAME THING.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Simey I wasn't calling them that.

But I DO think it's funny that they point out this conspiracy theory, when they are doing THE EXACT SAME THING.

Have you seen the ad? There is no conspiracy theory. Just a call for tolerance using Ronald Reagan's words.

And by the way, Reagan stood up for gay rights. Google Reagan and Briggs Amendment

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Radical left? Zim, have you ever met any Log Cabin types? The ones I have met are, for the most part, way to the right of me.

Well, I guess I was wrong about the moderate bit. Even so, ridiculing one's allies, especially in a close election, is unwise at best.

BG

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Have you seen the ad? There is no conspiracy theory. Just a call for tolerance using Ronald Reagan's words.

I am speaking about this

it can be an intolerant party hijacked by the radical right's divisive social agenda," said Log Cabin executive director Patrick Guerriero.

When THEY TOO are trying to hijack a party with their own divisive social agenda.

And by the way, Reagan stood up for gay rights. Google Reagan and Briggs Amendment

Hey, so do I. RIGHTS.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Well, I guess I was wrong about the moderate bit. Even so, ridiculing one's allies, especially in a close election, is unwise at best.

BG

You must have me confused with Kerry. My beliefs aren't changed by the polls.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
When THEY TOO are trying to hijack a party with their own divisive social agenda.

You might want to look up the definition of 'divisive.' I think passing a discriminative constitutional amendment may qualify.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
You might want to look up the definition of 'divisive.' I think passing a discriminative constitutional amendment may qualify.

discrimination just in itself is not bad.

Saying "This is bad, this is good" is discriminating.

As a society we decided what we deem as "normal behavior" that we think society should accept as the norm.

Now, this doesn't mean that said actions should be banned.

BTW there is no discrimination. I am not allowed to marry a man either.

What they want is rights ADDED.

While I agree with most of the rights, I don't believe the couplings should be called "marriage"

[Spoogepieces]

Discrimination is part of life. Part of nature. Part of man's being since day one.

Legislating equality to those who aren't the same in the first place is completely unnatural and against the existence of mankind.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You must have me confused with Kerry. My beliefs aren't changed by the polls.

Beliefs are one thing, behavior is another.

By all means, continue, though. It's good news for Kerry, frankly.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Beliefs are one thing, behavior is another.

By all means, continue, though. It's good news for Kerry, frankly.

BlackGriffen

I don't think my actions help Kerry one bit.

But then again I don't feel self-important.

These people are acting like it's a MINORITY of the right that feels this way. They act as if a minority is pushing their "values" on the majority of the party. When it's the other way around.

That is what I was originally complaining about.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What they want is rights ADDED.

How many of the other constitutional amendments discriminate against a group of Americans? Go on and count them. It's not a big number.

For reference, I'll also provide the definition of divisive for you:
Creating, or tending to create, division, separation, or difference.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What they want is rights ADDED.

As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, as a right or anything else. That means it's an open question for the states.

So let's go to the states. Civil marriage is a creation of state law. Therefore, it was "added" in the first place, as are virtually all state laws. So there's nothing wrong with wanting to "add" rights or privileges - it's a simple matter of having the legislature define them.

Until a few years ago, I don't think the marriage laws in my state even mentioned gender - the anti-gay crowd had to add new language to prevent gays from marrying.

What you really mean to say is that you want the law to be defined in such a way that excludes gays. That's your right. But arguing that they want rights "added" is virtually meaningless.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
How many of the other constitutional amendments discriminate against a group of Americans? Go on and count them. It's not a big number.

I say we do away with the polygamy law too! And the bestiality and the pedophiliac one as well!

DISCRIMINATION BE DAMNED!

For reference, I'll also provide the definition of divisive for you:
Creating, or tending to create, division, separation, or difference.

Because in this world there is division, separation, and difference. These are facts. Not ideological political correctness.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, as a right or anything else. That means it's an open question for the states.

So let's go to the states. Civil marriage is a creation of state law. Therefore, it was "added" in the first place, as are virtually all state laws. So there's nothing wrong with wanting to "add" rights or privileges - it's a simple matter of having the legislature define them.

Until a few years ago, I don't think the marriage laws in my state even mentioned gender - the anti-gay crowd had to add new language to prevent gays from marrying.

What you really mean to say is that you want the law to be defined in such a way that excludes gays. That's your right. But arguing that they want rights "added" is virtually meaningless.

Nope, I'm not gay and not allowed to marry a man either. There is no "special treatment"

[daimoni]

.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Not nearly as divisive as your "Zimphire Hates Fags" commentary.

I do NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT hate homosexuals. Why you feel the need to project such a thing is beyond me.

You should be ashamed of yourself. True conservatives stay out of body politics. You give Republicans a bad name. Go to Hell.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't think my actions help Kerry one bit.

But then again I don't feel self-important.

"Even the ocean is composed of nothing but many drops of water," --Dunno, sounds quote-like

"If you want to change the world, change yourself," --Again, dunno, I've heard it many places, though.

You're more important than you realize. You're an internationally published author, you know.

BG

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Nope, I'm not gay and not allowed to marry a man either. There is no "special treatment"

Not unexpectedly, you completely missed the point.

Once again, I wish the anti-gay marriage crowd would simply admit that it just doesn't like the idea of gays being married instead of hiding behind hollow arguments like "they want special treatment" and "they can't reproduce." Sadly, I don't expect this to happen.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Not unexpectedly, you completely missed the point.

Once again, I wish the anti-gay marriage crowd would simply admit that it just doesn't like the idea of gays being married instead of hiding behind hollow arguments like "they want special treatment" and "they can't reproduce." Sadly, I don't expect this to happen.

Oh, my beliefs don't dictate what I think should happen. I think gays SHOULD get rights. I am all for that.

I just don't think they should call gay couplings "marriages"

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Not nearly as divisive as your "Zimphire Hates Fags" commentary.

You should be ashamed of yourself. True conservatives stay out of body politics. You give Republicans a bad name. Go to Hell.

Calm down please.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh, my beliefs don't dictate what I think should happen. I think gays SHOULD get rights. I am all for that.

I just don't think they should call gay couplings "marriages"

In other words, as I was saying, it's not a question of "special rights" or "adding rights," it's a question of how the legislature defines civil marriage, which is completely discretionary. You want it defined one way, gays want it defined another. Thanks for proving my point.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Radical left? Zim, have you ever met any Log Cabin types? The ones I have met are, for the most part, way to the right of me.

wHaT! Right wing homosexuals!?! Not possible!!!
[/Zimphire]

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
In other words, as I was saying, it's not a question of "special rights" or "adding rights," it's a question of how the legislature defines civil marriage, which is completely discretionary. You want it defined one way, gays want it defined another. Thanks for proving my point.

Your point? I said the same thing. We BOTH want it "our way" Both sides are pointing fingers saying each wants to control society.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
wHaT! Right wing homosexuals!?! Not possible!!!
[/Zimphire]

Huh? I know quite a few right wing gays. In my own town even!

And most are women!

Imagine that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Your point? I said the same thing. We BOTH want it "our way" Both sides are pointing fingers saying each wants to control society.

Except their way doesn't restrict your rights.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Except their way doesn't restrict your rights.

I don't remember anywhere where it says "You have the right to marry who you choose"

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't remember anywhere where it says "You have the right to marry who you choose"

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:

How is that dodging? I was stating the facts.

I am not playing your "game of emotions"

There is no place that says anyone has a right to marry anyone.

I myself don't have the right to marry anyone I wish.

This just doesn't effect gays. There is no discrimination.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How is that dodging? I was stating the facts.

You didn't respond to his point: their way doesn't affect your rights.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You didn't respond to his point: their way doesn't affect your rights.

Huh? It sure does. I can't marry males either. But I choose not to anyhow.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Huh? It sure does. I can't marry males either. But I choose not to anyhow.

How does being able to marry members of the same sex restrict your rights?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
How does being able to marry members of the same sex restrict your rights?

It doesn't. No more than not being able to marry more than one wife restricts my rights.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It doesn't. No more than not being able to marry more than one wife restricts my rights.

Why do you hate your mother?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
Why do you hate your mother?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Huh? It sure does. I can't marry males either. But I choose not to anyhow.

That wasn't his point, and you know it. His point was that allowing gays to marry doesn't impinge your right to marry. That statement is either true or it isn't, and your response doesn't address it. But I'm not going to go in circles with you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
That wasn't his point, and you know it. His point was that allowing gays to marry doesn't impinge your right to marry.

Having guys marrying more than one wife doesn't either. LETS LEGALIZE IT!

You are making poor examples for your case.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Having guys marrying more than one wife doesn't either. LETS LEGALIZE IT!

You are making poor examples for your case.

I don't know how I feel about that issue, but I'd say it's a poor analogy because sexual orientation is not a choice, while polygamy is.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't know how I feel about that issue, but I'd say it's a poor analogy because sexual orientation is not a choice, while polygamy is.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/spitzer3.html

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/spitzer3.html

"Dr. Spitzer agreed that this study should not be used to justify coercion. Nor should it be used as an argument for the denial of civil rights."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
"Dr. Spitzer agreed that this study should not be used to justify coercion. Nor should it be used as an argument for the denial of civil rights."

Right and I myself aren't trying to deny them CIVIL RIGHTS.

But the fact remains.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by itai195:
"Dr. Spitzer agreed that this study should not be used to justify coercion. Nor should it be used as an argument for the denial of civil rights."

He's also said, among other things, that the study been misused by the Christian Right. All the study showed was that if a gay Christian tries hard enough, he can achieve "high heterosexual functioning," and even then it would only work for a very small percentage, and even then they would retain their homosexual desires. In other words, it does more to reinforce the genetic case than disprove it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Right and I myself aren't trying to deny them CIVIL RIGHTS.

But the fact remains.

I don't understand you. You say that you want gays to have full rights to civil unions, and yet you carry on and on about how divisive their agenda is.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't know how I feel about that issue, but I'd say it's a poor analogy because sexual orientation is not a choice, while polygamy is.

What about men or women who are inclined to not be tied down to one mate while others seem to have no problem with it? Some people spend their entire lives cheating on their spouse while others never do it. Perhaps if we allowed men/women to marry multiple partners then then it wouldn't happen.

If you are arguing that sexual orientation can't be chosen then perhaps we should examine whether or not men/women who want multiple spouses shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as well. Why bother having any criteria at all that prevents a person from getting married?

[itai195]

Feel free to explore that if you want. I never said there shouldn't be criteria for marriage, I just don't feel that sexual orientation is an appropriate one.

[Spoogepieces]

I'm just thinking out loud that if we break down the barriers for gays then let's just get rid of all the barriers period. If the argument hold that preventing marriage between gays has no logical basis then there can't be really any logic basis for every denying any intent to marry between two or more consenting adults. If two men want to marry one woman then so be it. If one man wants to have ten wives then why not? If two men and three women want to marry each other then go for it....

[zigzag]

I agree in principle but think it might be easier to make an argument that polygamy would harder for our society to manage than gay marriage. Our culture isn't really structured for polygamy - imagine 7-party divorce and child-support cases. The counter-argument is that since men are already impregnating and abandoning women and children outside of marriage anyway, we might as well provide a legal structure for those who can manage it. But I'm just speculating - personally, I have no problem with polygamy if that's what someone chooses.