Wingnut Of the Day: Sally Kern
I was thinking of a feature called “Wingnut of the Week,” but they’re coming at us so fast and furiously that “Wingnut of the Day” seems more appropriate. Welcome back to Liberaland, Sally Kern, the Oklahoma state legislator who said last year that homosexuality is our biggest threat, “even more so than terrorism or Islam.”
Kern’s latest venture into wingnuttia is the “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation For Morality”. Here
WHEREAS, “It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand” (John Adams); and
[...]
WHEREAS, “Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people” (John Adams); and
[...]
WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
[...]
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;
So the premise is that the good Christians who founded this nation are being disregarded by a new era of immorality led by the gays, the abortionists and a president who doesn’t promote clean and pure living.
BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment,and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.
Here’s what Kern said last year when she went on her gay-fearing tirade (h/t Think Progress).
I said it yesterday and it bears repeating today. One state needs to secede – Texas would be a good choice – and let all the tea baggin, Obama hatin, racists, bigots, and homophobes live there.
4moreyears Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I agree Southern Girl Lip as long as we can keep Austin, like not being in Texas at all.
Otherwise, no one will miss Oklahoma who has moved into first place in Rogue State Trooper abuse ahead of even Texas and Utah.
Don’t forget that Sally Kern, like Michele Bachmann, has a conceal and carry permit and in 2008 forgot to take her piece out of her purse and got busted at the state gov house. They let her go “put it up” in the car.
Don’t we sleep better knowing that the mainstream prayer mother legislatures are packing?
June 30th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Defectives like Kern are the single greatest threat to the long-term survival of the human race.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Alan said: Kern’s latest venture into wingnuttia is the “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation For Morality”.
K: Alan, are we to take from your comments that you are against traditional christian morality?
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“…traditional christian morality?”
If this Okie twit practiced any kind of real “christianity” she wouldn’t be making proclamations.
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Whatever Rocko.
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Which doesn’t answer the question I put to you…
EricG Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 12:54 am
“are we to take from your comments that you are against traditional christian morality?”
That’s all how your choosing to define ‘traditional Christian morality.’
If you are talking about burning witches, stoning adulters, killing you daughters, etc. or if you are talking about being faithful to your spouse, being honest with your peers, being worthy of trust from others, etc. then you might be talking about the latter and not former with all these vague labels.
I think ‘morality’ seems to be most vigirously redefined by conservatives and fundamentalists with all the rest of the world not having ay trouble understanding a simple word and a simple concept.
pizzaman Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:55 am
EricG:
You contrast one kind of “Christian morality” with another, and then reject the one and accept the other. Perfectly fine. But then how do you then rail against people like me, who am fairly conservative, or even against Kern, who is very conservative. She is not a witch-burning daughter-killer, adulterer-stoner. I bet she beileves prescisely what you defined as the better Christian morality. (Note, that “better” was not put in quotes, because it really is better than witch burning and daughter-stoning.) So at least you’re beginning to see you’re way out of the fog relativity which only last week caused you to say that no one ever knows what God wants.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Kreeg,
I think you can take from Alan’s comment that he tinks this kind of pompous grandstanding has NOTHING to do with “traditional christian morality” or ANY morality.
It is theater and buffoonery at it’s best!
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Lefty said: I think you can take from Alan’s comment that he tinks this kind of pompous grandstanding has NOTHING to do with “traditional christian morality” or ANY morality.
K: Why so? What part of the founding father’s statements does he disagree with?
L: It is theater and buffoonery at it’s best!
K: While I’d agree that it is a ‘do nothing’ proclamation what makes it ‘buffoonery”?
OldLefty Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Kregg
What does this woman’s rhetoric have to do with ANY of the founding father’s statements?
In the end, most people don’t believe that she believes a word she is saying, and if she does, she is as silly as someone who took Al Sharpton and his whole Tawana Brawley show.
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Lefty, here are the resolutions:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and
BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing that “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord,” and humbly implore all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of Almighty God; and
BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.
K: What part of these resolutions does she not ‘believe a word she is saying’?
K: As to Al and Tawana, a large number of your lib friends swallowed on that one…
OldLefty Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Kregg,
I was referring to the “Gays even more so than terrorism or Islam.”
As for the founders, so she cites Adams, not others who offer other veiws.
And none of this has anything to do with HER version of morality…..she is not really saying anything that Osama bin Ladin, who has also called on Americans to “reject the immoral acts of fornication (and) homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury,” in an October 2002 letter,
has not said.
As for Sharpton a lot of ‘cons’ fell for ted Haggart, and for the Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks story to.
It doesn’t matter who falls for what, demagoguery is demagoguery, and people like this don’t ring true any more than Sharpton.
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Kregg,
The resolutions sound like sound, honest, heartfelt resulutions. And they make all the sense in the world.
How about conservatives coming up with a leftist wingnut of the day. I am sure there are plenty out there to choose from.
placefield Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Just look through this site and it is obvious that there are plenty of wingnuts to go around. Myself probably included on occasion.
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I think you are right-on there Placefield.
TDro319 Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
So when are you and Kregg gonna start your own website, Daddio? I’m sure looking forward to your “leftist wingnut of the day” – not.
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Daddio said: The resolutions sound like sound, honest, heartfelt resulutions. And they make all the sense in the world.
K: I’m sure they are. They also sound pretty generically christian. And, given that about 80% of Americans state a generic belief in God I don’t see them as offensive to the population as a whole. I’m not sure I would have done them myself but to each his own.
EricG Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 12:58 am
I disagree completely.
These ‘heartfelt’ words are encouraging a extremely unamerican connection between church and state.
One of the most unpatriotic and disrepectful actions we as Americans can do with this nation handed to us from our forefathers is to instill the mixing of the power of The Church and the power of The State.
And that is exactly what I hear from the right wingers like yourselves.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:22 am
Eric,
You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.
We are not a theocracy, and for that I thank God.
This is clearly stated in our constitution.
craig7120 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:08 am
I thank the voters.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:23 am
Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” was meant for the federal government. He believed the states should solve religious issues not the federal government.
“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”–Thomas Jefferson in his second inaugural address.
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:55 am
Daddio,
The state resolve religious issues? How does that make sense?
How do you get that as an endorsement of State religion?
Jefferson also said:
“T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, ever one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.”
In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.
What does that have to do with claiming that people who believe in the wall, “HATE CHRISTIANS??
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:16 am
You know Lefty, as long as you and your fellow liberals who use the FALSE CLAIM that conservatives believe that those who profess the “wall”, “HATE CHRISTIANS”, then we can not have an honest debate over the issue.
I catagorically reject your claim that I view you as a Christian hater.
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:26 am
Daddio,
Tell it to the ‘War on Christianty’ pundits, who fill a whole season with this nonsense.
It is a big part of the GOP rhetoric.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am
I do not accept your premise that all conservatives believe you or any liberal “hate Christians” because you believe in the “wall”.
To put it simply Lefty–You and your liberal buddies are WRONG on this. Don’t lump the majority in the same boat with the minority who say that.
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am
Daddio,
I’ll take you at your word, because I think there has never been a connection between morality, religion, patriotism and political part or leaning among rank and file people…….politicians and strategists are a different story.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:49 am
Another reason to replace all those who currently serve, ( I use the word serve very lightly), in Washington. In my words, the vast majority are nothing by power hungry and who would like nothing better than to rule as some form of totalitarian government. In my opinion.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Dear Kregg,
See my post above. If you don’t already reside in Texas, please pack your things and move there. If you can’t tell that this is buffoonery, you need to start singing, “God bless Texas.”
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
So, SGL, tell me what is ‘buffoonery’ about it.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:54 am
“WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and…”
Apologizing for America, are you? Why do you hate America so much? Why don’t you say all the good things America does? YOU… YOU… America hater!!
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
So, Vegas, do you agree with her statement?
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Kregg,
Of course not!! We’re a nation which legislates Freedom, Justice, and Equality, not Religion, Morals, and Values. This lady wants a Theocracy.
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Vegas, where does she state – or imply – any such thing?
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Did you read here “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality”? It is thouroughly implied there.
The fact that she takes it upon herself to condemn and judge others completely hypocritizes her entire message.
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Vegas said: The fact that she takes it upon herself to condemn and judge others completely hypocritizes her entire message.
K: So you disagree with her statement – “…this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and…”?
K: Where in this statement is she condemning and judging individuals?
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Kregg,
I wasn’t specifically speaking about this statement. I was speaking about her overall message. This particular statement, I disagree with, because we are not PROMOTING any of those things she mentions. All she does is wrongly accuse America of being the main PROMOTER of such things.
America is a country which defends Freedom. Many of these freedoms are disliked by many and make them uncomfortable. Things like being Free to decide if you want to watch porn, have extra-marital sex or homosexual sex, homosexual marriage, being able to divorce if your marriage isn’t working out… Many self-righteous individuals take it upon themselves the judge and condemn others who are Free to do these things and thus choose to. Should we eliminate these Freedoms, Kregg?
Abortion is a different story: I, personally, think we need to find out the earliest point in which a fetus can be considered a human and stop abortions there. But I dismiss the opinion that America is a PROMOTER of abortion. We’re not. We PROMOTE Freedom.
Sex trafficking and child abuse are illegal, and thus not promoted by our nation, but are unfortunalely committed by some of our citizens. And not only by atheists. In fact, both are prevalent among the religious.
Illegitimate births, sadly, happen. We’re not perfect. Some of us make that unfortunate mistake, but I still fail to see how America PROMOTES these things.
EricG Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 12:59 am
Well said, Vegas.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:26 am
Yep,
Well said.
flap Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“I, personally, think we need to find out the earliest point in which a fetus can be considered a human and stop abortions there.”
Vegas, you religious zealot! How dare you try to use so-called “science” and “reality” and “facts” to push your woman-hating anti-abortionist views on the rest of society!
CHOICE! CHOICE! CHOICE! REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!
VegasLib Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Aha. It’s Flap! You’re so smart. Don’t like my SEEMINGLY conservative view here?
flap Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“Don’t like my SEEMINGLY conservative view here?”
Vegas, I don’t even necessarily view it as a conservative issue! Conservatives and Republicans tend to be more against it…but I wish it were equal and perhaps I could tolerate the Democratic Party a bit more.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“…where does she state – or imply…”
It’s implicit, if you read English.
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Rocky said: It’s implicit, if you read English.
K: Since you obviously ‘read English’ please point out for me WHERE in this lady’s proclamation where she either STATES or IMPLIES her desire for a theocracy.
EricG Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 1:03 am
“and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal”
You’re so used to trying to make everyone in the world exactly the kind of Christian you happen to be you can’t even see it when it’s right in front you.
‘Everyone get Christian!!! Then we’ll be fine!!!’
.. or …
People could just think for themselves.
Kregg Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 1:46 am
Eric, where do you get this stuff?
June 30th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Let’s set a few things straight…
Liberal pundits like Alan make a buck by stirring the pot like Conservative pundits Linbaugh and O’Reilly (one of their classics was taking the Presidents comments about Iran’s “Supreme Leader” out of context.) So then, if we try to take the “hate” out of it, perhaps it becomes a bit clearer.
I don’t think that all liberals are out to destroy the country. That logic is just silly. Further, I don’t believe all liberals want to change the USA into a socialist or communist country. The liberal, like the conservative, brings good and bad ideas.
Additionally, this is a country that is supposed to allow freedom of speech and the free flow of opinions in the marketplace of ideas. One should not be excluded from the table simply because they formulate their worldview from a Christian, Moslem, Jewish, or Atheistic perspective.
If there is only one party or one voice, where is the diversity? Where is the majority working to form a synthesis of ideals that brings greatness? How do we arrive at a place where the sum is greater than the individual parts? How do we get to the point where we can resolve to put aside our parochial desires for the common good fulfilling the notion of e pluribus unum.
Now, this lady feels strongly about her Christian values. Further, she believe that they are foundational to an understanding of order that is beneficial to the nation’s health. This doesn’t make her any more evil, hateful, or judgmental, than a person who brings opposing views.
Our choice is to engage in the details of her argument or exclude her from the debate because we don’t like what she says.
I would suggest that exclusionary talk and personal attacks are the real “hate speech.” Thoughtfully and reasonably engage what she says, but stay away from the cheap, brown shirt tactics of the likes of Alan (Wingnuts) and O’Reilly (Pinheads and Patriots).
EricG Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 1:11 am
“Now, this lady feels strongly about her Christian values. Further, she believe that they are foundational to an understanding of order that is beneficial to the nation’s health. This doesn’t make her any more evil, hateful, or judgmental, than a person who brings opposing views.”
Absolutely! I’ll remember you said that when someone tries to bash me for saying that I believe that Jesus loves everyone, even gay people … actually, especially gay people.
“I would suggest that exclusionary talk and personal attacks are the real “hate speech.” Thoughtfully and reasonably engage what she says, but stay away from the cheap, brown shirt tactics of the likes of Alan (Wingnuts) and O’Reilly (Pinheads and Patriots).”
I agree that exclusionary and personal attacks ultimately do not promote a healthy and intelligent public debate. But people choose to accept Bill O’Reilly’s version of ‘truth’ and if all the liberals of the world remained mute then the reality of politics (like you have aptly described) would remain a mystery to most people.
The tactics of hate and division are the favored tactics of Republicans and conservatives.
Alan is a puff-ball …. or whatever way you want to say that he is really not that hard on the right wing.
‘Wingnuts’ works just fine. I’m a ‘pinhead’ and a ‘Demon-cat’ and a ‘puke’ and a on and on and on….
It’s on your hands. Whip your party into shape and I’ll work on mine…
June 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Imposing anything biblical would make this a theocracy.
I wonder if she’s related to Minn. Rep. Bachmann.
Ding-bats of a feather….
CherylCarroll Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I’ve said time and time again the last couple of weeks that we are a theocracy. You people are still living in some sort of democratic-republic dream of America.
EricG Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
It’s not logical, Cheryl.
If we are living in a theocracy and I’m just ignorant of this fact then why are abortions legal and some people are entirely apart from all religion, vastly misinformed about it, and still vote legally thus having an effect on the the government.
We are a republic with democratic-district representation, something like that…
It’s true that the public demands religious leaders and if you are a atheist your not getting elected. But The Vacation has to pass down the laws for us to have a full-blown theocracy.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Boogie said: Imposing anything biblical would make this a theocracy.
K: By the dictionary definition of ‘theocracy’ – having God as a central focus : a theocentric civilization – then we’ve been a theocracy since our inception. Or, didn’t you read the ‘whereas’ statements in her resolution and who they are attributed to?
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
For those who wish to keep their terms correct:
Theocracy, noun, a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
CherylCarroll Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Kregg~ I don’t like you.
Kregg Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 12:19 am
Cheryl said: Kregg~ I don’t like you.
K: Gee, that would be a first… But, do you mind telling me why?
EricG Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
“Theocracy, noun, a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.”
Yes … that’s the correct defintion.
Do you … want a cookie?
Kregg Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 12:22 am
The Eric said: Do you … want a cookie?
K: No, I want you to use the damn dictionary so you won’t be making statements like “…The Vacation has to pass down the laws for us to have a full-blown theocracy.”
EricG Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
“then we’ve been a theocracy since our inception”
Just a perspective from a highly religious and I would say plain biased stance on American History could someone possibly say such a statement.
If this was true … they would written this into the Constitution, same as the whole myth of America being a ‘Christian Nation.’
If The Founders wanted to mimic the Church of England they would have done as much!
June 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I think we should take a vote, you know we all embrace democracy, right?
So let’s take a vote…………
Are you in favor of legalizing homosexual marriage?
Yes or no please………….
Are you in favor of legalizing polygamy?
Yes or no please………….
If you wish to remain consistent in your ideology then your vote should be consistent as well.
Let’s see how many intolerant polygaphobes there are amongst us………..
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Are those crickets I hear chirping?
Hmmm….. I think maybe so.
Did we all suddenly lose our voices?
Struck by a bolt of sudden shyness?
That’s “OK”, I’ll go first.
Homosexual marriage, I vote no.
Polygamous marriage, I vote no.
See how easy that was?
Now the rest of you posting on here grab your keyboard’s and pull those levers………
C’mon now, we live in a democracy.
Vote.
TDro319 Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
We get it, Trees. You don’t want equal rights for gays. Now get on with your life and accept your “I hate gays” campaign is losing terribly. Many states are beginning to accept same sex marriage. And that’s too bad for you.
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
So we’ll put you down for a “yes” vote in regards to polygamy……..
Or are you an intolerant bigot when it comes to polygamists, TDro?
Hmmm??
TDro319 Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Stupid question, Trees. I’m a liberal. I don’t believe in intolerance and bigotry (unless it’s against intolerant bigots like you). I vote yes on gay marriage and yes on polygamy.
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
And so it’s just a matter of time then, isn’t it?
AJ, that slope just got really slick and slippery………
“slip slidin away”……..
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:36 am
Ha ha ha ha
Good one trees.
I’m still not taking the ridiculous ‘play it all the way out’ inevitable conclusion bait though.
pizzaman Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:43 am
Hey, libs:
This is what I was talking about. You substitute name-calling for honest answering. When someone makes an honest point that seems to have merit, you meet it with sarcasm rather than take it head on. So for example, if in response to a lib who claims not to have the foggiest idea of what God wants, I point out that there is a God who hated what happened at Dachau, I’m sarcastically called “God.” If I say I think reverse discrimination as in the New Haven firefighter’s case is wrong, I’m called a racist. If I say homosexuality is wrong, I’m called a homophobe and a hater. The intention of this name-calling is to win by intimidation rather than by reason. Many libs remain thoughtful and intellectually honest, but the number who’ve substituted bumper-sticker responses for real thought is amazing. The irony is that since Eisenhower, it’s liberals who’ve thought themselves intellectually superior.
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:08 am
Hey, “cons”:
‘Substituting name-calling for honest answering’ was the tactic promoted by Newt Gingrich’s 1996 GOPAC memo:
Language, A Key Mechanism For Control, in which the GOP is told to ALWAYS use words like “immoral, unpatriotic, anti- (issue): flag, failure, family, child, jobs , betray, bizarre, cheat, corrupt, cynicism, decay, decay, greed, hypocrisy, impose, intolerant, lies, permissive, self-serving, shallow, steal, traitors, waste…blah, blah, blah.
VERY brainwashey.
So if you believe in separation of church and state, you are said to hate Christians.
Connect bad GOP policy to current problems ….you are part of the blame America crowd,
Criticize a Republican president….you hate America, (not so when you criticize a Democratic president).
Express concern for the 4th amendment…..you support the terrorists.
The GOP WON for years on bumper stickers.
Since Nixon , the GOP seems to consider ANY facts or principles as weakness, and anyone who relies on facts or principles as “elites” (another Gingrich bumper sticker word).
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:13 am
lefty…it was also the tactic of the serpent in the garden of eden…and we all know the great serpent is a democrat ;)
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:17 am
GuidoVanHorn said,
“we all know the great serpent is a democrat”
………………….
Satire, Serious??
When I hear what some of these Media “pundits” say, I can’t tell anymore.
craig7120 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:17 am
LOL GVH
That’s why snakes are our friends, the prey on vermin.
steve Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
Oldlefty
Right on for your post at 9:08am. The Sanford follies have some members ofthe GOP and long standing members of the party saying,we are a party of sinners. We need to reach out to all of America.
The reasons you stated is the very reason America is being turn off by the GOP. Rejecting Rush and all hardline neocons will help as well.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:38 am
You think the Dems are making the same mistake by embracing the likes of Franken, very liberal, and Obama who was ranked as the most far left liberal in the Senate? Then there is Olberman and Maddow. The Rush and Hannity of the left.
steve Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:49 am
What about the lies of the guy he deafeted ? Very conservative and a very sore loser.
flap Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
TDro: “I vote yes on gay marriage and yes on polygamy.”
Flap: TDro, why is incest not allowed if you want polygamy? If some dude wants to marry his biological sister, isn’t that their right?
Pizzaman: “[libs] who’ve substituted bumper-sticker responses for real thought”
Flap: The abortion issue is the very embodiment of that, Pizzaman. There can’t be honest debate with most because of red herrings, strawmen, and bumper-sticker sloganeering.
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
yes. no.
apples. oranges.
placefield Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I vote yes, yes.
crh3e Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Putting homosexual marriage in the same category as polygamy is a tired, old attempt at stealing away an individual’s right to land, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (you might want to add child marriage in there as well to further your stupid argument). What two consentual adults do as far as wanting to get married is none of my business and shouldn’t be the business of the governments. We are in this mess because the government is in the business of marriage and needs to get out. The government should simply recognize civil unions between two consentual adults and leave the marriage part to churches.
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“…leave the marriage part to churches.”–crh3e
In total agreement with you there. \
Government should stay out of marriage and if a church does marry a gay couple then the state should not recognize that marriage.
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Government should stay out of marriage and if a church does marry a (heterosexual) couple then the state should not recongize that marriage.
OldLefty Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I feel that marriage is a state issue.
Both the church and the state will marry you, but the church cannot divorce you or divide your property.
CherylCarroll Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Old Lefty~ Very interesting comment… but I think that in Orthodox Jewish communities the couple allows the Rabbi to settle their estate and determine custody for children (when applicable).
I think that marriage HAS been treated as a state issue. But isn’t the problem for gays that if they’re married in one state, they may not receive the same “married” status in another state?
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Wha??
What makes it old and tired?
Oh, cause you said so.
The fact is that it is relevant, it defeats your argument, and so for this reason you would really like to portray it as unworthy of the discussion.
The fact is that polygamy is an even stronger argument for discrimination than homosexual marriage, using the gay lobby’s own arguments.
1. It is normal.
2. It involves loving people seeking a committed relationship.
And additionally;
3. It could actually be viewed as beneficial to society as the “more fit” males would be more actively breeding, enhancing the gene pool and advancing the “evolution” of humankind.
4. Also it (polygamy) has religious adherents who could present a strong case of claiming religious persecution/discrimination, and being denied freedom of religious expression.
Old and tired indeed………
Then using your logic what three consensual adults do as far as wanting to become married is none of yours or the government’s business either………
This is why almost none of you homosexual marriage supporters will participate and vote.
I’ll give Placefield a nod of approval for at least standing for what he believes.
Vegas Lib is always flip flopping on the polygamist marriage issue as he sees the legitimacy of my argument but realizes it is morally indefensible. Vegas, both of these issues involve redefining the definition of marriage and you cannot discriminate against one group for the benefit of another.
Traditional marriage is not discriminatory as it allows ANY two of the OPPOSITE sex to become married, and it has historicity in it’s corner.
I’ll bet Daddio and the rest of the conservatives will have no problem casting votes.
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Trees,
Homosexuality is homosexuality and polygamy is polygamy. I’d either not vote on polygamy or vote no on it only becuase I think that the more variables a union has, the more prone to failure it is and we have enough divorces as it is already.
If government doesn’t want to recognize gay marriage then it should not recognize hetero marriage.
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
VegasLib,
Right is right and wrong is wrong. We can argue the point all day long. I don’t think I or Trees will change your mind and you will not change my mind on this topic.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Homosexual behavior is wrong in my world. Therefore marriage between anyone other than one man and one woman is wrong.
You disagree. Fine.
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
And heterosexuality is heterosexuality.
Comparing homosexuality and heterosexuality is comparing apples to oranges if I borrow your logic.
If I follow your line of reasoning then homosexuality should not be recognized as pertinent to the marriage discussion.
Additionally homosexuals are very emotionally unstable and their unions are typically short lived, and are extremely prone to failure………..
If the definition of marriage is changed and modified then any and all groups who wish to redefine it forthwith will be able to do just that.
Those who oppose polygamy by the logic you espouse are quite simply intolerant bigots.
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
My goal here is not to redefine marriage. My goal is to spread the message of equality, and I know you guys don’t view this issue as an equality issue. If I can’t change your mind on that, then my words are in vain, but I’ll never lose the hope of one day being able to make at least one other individual see why this IS a Freedom and Equality issue.
All I ask is for you to have sympathy and just think, “would I be content if I wasn’t allowed to marry the person that I love?” Ask yourself that question then see why these people are keeping on keeping on with what to most them, this is an issue of Freedom and Equality that they are being denied.
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
It is just plain and simple not a natural thing to do. It goes against nature’s law and God.
To me it has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with what is right according to God. It is a faith thing that I have with my believing that God looks at homosexual behavior as an abomination.
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Willio,
I know that you think you know what God’s Will is towards these people: Hetero = right. Homo = wrong. Plain and simple, right? I don’t blame you. It’s what you’re mind has been molded into throughout your life.
For you, these people’s feelings, being with good will or not, will be simply and abomination because it is what you know… or think you know.
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Come on VegasLib, I thought you were better than that. I never said I “know what God’s Will is”.
God calls men who lay with other men as they would a woman an abomination. He says that in the Old Testament. Not my words.
I know what I have learned by reading the Bible and what I have been taught is Church. What makes that so wrong? You go to church? If you do, do you just roll your eyes at what your pastor or church school teacher teaches you?
If who I learn from is oh so wrong, then why am I to believe what you have learned or been taught is oh so right.
For you, these people ought to be married simply because you believe it is good because it is what you know… or think you know.
placefield Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The point is it does not mater what someone thinks God’s will is. As an individual it is your right to feel homosexualaty is a sin and gay marraige is wrong. The big problem is having these viewpoints legeslated into law.
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
The big problem is with me is having gay marriage legislated into law.
placefield Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
When I formulate my opinion on if I agree with denying a person the right to do something I ask myself one question. Does the ability of someone having this right take away someone else’s right. If the answer is yes then a judgment call needs to be made. In this case I fail to see where the ability of gay’s to get married steps on anybody else’s rights at all.
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The thing is, Daddio, that what your religion teaches you or my religion teaches me should not have to be imposed and forced onto others. That is what has been happening throughout history and that is what has got to stop. Not only that, but the phrase “men who lay with other men as they would a woman” can be intrepreted in different ways to see it fit any agenda. God would have made sure His message was clear enough if He really meant gays would fry in Hell if they practiced what they felt.
Religion is being forcebly imposed onto these individuals with the denial of Freedom and Equality because others believe that they should be denied marriage because they believe God wants it that way. It’s undeniably legislated religion and it’s always been.
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Placefield,
Magnificent point.
EricG Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Daddio – “God calls men who lay with other men as they would a woman an abomination. He says that in the Old Testament. Not my words.”
You Jewish? That’s cool if you are. But I thought that it was Christanity that you were into and, this may come as a shock, Chistanity is based off the New Testament and what we call the New Covenent. Ever heard of this stuff?
The old rules be gone, the Savior has come.
And exactly did Jesus do to spread hate against anyone, for any reason?
It takes a very jaded perspective to think Christ approves of bigotry against gays or any person for that matter.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:45 am
Geez,
Between Placefield, Vegas, and Eric some very good points have been made.
You cats are rockin’ it tonight.
flap Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Vegas: “I think that the more variables a union has the more prone to failure it is…”
Flap: That’s your opinion. Just like I think gay marriage should not be legal, YOU have reasons why you think multiple consenting adults should not enter into a committed polygamous relationship.
Isn’t saying “only 2 in a marriage” kind of religious (and thus arbitrary if you use strict secular standards) in nature and biased against those who wish there to be more?
VegasLib Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
flap,
It is my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours. I’d probably just not vote on this issue. I care not about it. If three or four or five consenting adults wanna give polygamy a try and they’re legally allowed to do so, then “live and let live” I guess. IMO, though, I can’t see how you can have a love triangle, or square, or whatever and succeed at it. My opinion. (and, no, you won’t change my mind) (:
flap Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Vegas: “It is my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.”
The question is, Vegas, should we be forming laws based on current opinions versus cultural and religious tradition and history?
Many are for gay marriage but few are for polygamy. What is it BASED on, though? I think it’s not necessarily logical to be for gay marriage and then not be for polygamy. If it boils down to consent and (supposed) equality, which are the arguments used, why not?
“wanna give polygamy a try and they’re legally allowed to do so, then “live and let live” I guess”
If they’re consenting, and we’re making marriage purely secular, then what’s the problem? Also, why should incestual marriages be forbidden if it’s consenting? Is it our role to say “Hey, your kids may be retarded, you’re polluting your already shallow gene pool, and it’s nasty”?
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
The question is, Vegas, should we be forming laws based on current opinions versus cultural and religious tradition and history?
They always are, otherwise we would still have 60 year old men legally marrying 13 year olds.
flap Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“They always are, otherwise we would still have 60 year old men legally marrying 13 year olds.”
So you’re in agreement with me that incestual consenting relationships should be allowed?
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
So you’re in agreement with me that incestual consenting relationships should be allowed?
Nope, the society that helped me form my morals taught me that was wrong. I know you are probably pro incest because the bible told you it was OK (or at least used to be, until the marriage rules were changed), and indeed is how the human race was started, but I don’t think you are going to find many people who agree with you.
flap Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“I know you are probably pro incest because the bible told you it was OK”
Explain to me why a completely secular society should not allow incest. The society taught you it was wrong because…?
And why should we not allow incest because YOU were taught it was wrong?
I don’t think incest is okay, but just because I think it’s not okay doesn’t justify banning it, analogous to gay marriage or polygamy.
placefield Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Besides the ick factor of incest (which may be partially pheromone driven) have you ever heard of the dangers involved in doubling up on super recessive genes?
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Since when did marriage become about having kids?
The arguments for homosexual marriage are consistently about people involved in a “loving” relationship, and that’s it…………..
Marriage isn’t for the purposes of procreating, remember?
Marriage is for any number of people who love each other and desire to be married, at least that’s the argument being put forward by the gay rights activist’s.
placefield Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I would like to follow you down this rabbit hole right now but my lunch is over and I got to get back to work.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Place,
That’s exactly why gay marriage is insanity.
Its logic doesn’t hold up to the test of being applied to the real world.
The arguments made in defense of gay marriage are absurd and abstract.
The behavior is abnormal.
If I told you that the proper way to eat peas was by shoving them into my nostrils and sucking them back into my throat through my sinuses you would think that’s abnormal behavior, and you’d be right.
If gay marriage were normal it would be widely practiced by an equally sized portion of the population.
If gay marriages were normal we wouldn’t be having this discussion……..it would be as common as heterosexual marriage.
“Someday it will be”, that’s the rallying cry.
And Flap is right, if homosexual behavior is “normal” then incest is “normal” too……..
And someday incestuous marriage will be accepted as “normal” by those intolerant to it now.
An incestuous couple could adopt kids, or be artificially inseminated too…….
Anyone opposed to incestuous marriage is quite simply just an intolerant, narrow minded, bigot.
Psst……TDro, this is your cue to come in and agree with me…………….
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Sorry place, but the “ick factor” is “out of bounds” here at Liberaland in regards to marriage preferences, you’ll need a “do over” in your argument on this aspect.
According to Libland standards the “right” to marriage has nothing to do with the ability to produce offspring either………
Another “do over” is required here as well I’m afraid…………
We’ll just put you down for being in favor of incestuous marriage, mmkay?
Unless you have a valid reason for denying them that allows you to remain consistent with your other positions we’ll just have to consider the matter closed.
Incestuous marriage it is, all in favor, say aye.
Um Cara Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Incestuous marriage it is, all in favor, say aye.
So far it’s just you and God who are in favor of incest. I mean, He could have started the world any way he wanted – but he chose to have brothers and sisters have sex with each other to populate the planet?
I know He changed his mind later (you posted the bible verse), which just proves that marriage standards do change over time.
Otherwise we would still have incestuous marriage.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Well I did tell you that it would be harder to argue against polygamy and incest than homosexual marriage but you just wouldn’t listen and insisted on opening the door via homosexual marriage.
Now that’s its open we’re just gonna hafta live with the consequences, hope you’re happy….
Don’t lose hope, we still can have incestuous marriage……………
Go gay marriage go…………..
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Trees,
I vote No and No.
VegasLib–I like apples and oranges and peaches. Especially peaches. But I don’t think Trees was talking fruit. :)
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Willio: ‘But I don’t think Trees was talking fruit. :)’
Smart observation. (;
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Was that a shot VegasLib? :)
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Willio,
It’s whatever you choose to take it as. (:
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Hi Willy.
I knew you’d cast your votes, thank you for participating.
How’s everything with you?
I’ve been busy lately and don’t get to stick my head under the hood here at Liberaland and look around as much as I used to………
Keep on with the keeping on brother, trees
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Hey Trees,
I’m great. God has blessed me tremendously.
I still get on most days but I am not here for any length of time. Busy here also.
I guess I must enjoy the abuse from the left. :)
John G. Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Hey, trees, great idea. I vote no to homos and yes to polygos. Now I just gotta talk my wife into it. Any Joseph Smith fans out there have any good talking points?
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
LOL. Come to Vegas! There’s a lot of Joseph Smith fans here. Gotta say though, Salt Lake City is where they really preavail. Haha.
They’re nice people.
John G. Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I’m a little further south of you, and there are plenty of Saints around here too. And they are typically good people. Gotta say, though, its fun to watch the young uns ride their bikes around in ties, sweltering in the heat, trying to convert anyone who will listen.
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Yea. I do feel for the young ‘uns here. It’s like 108 right now. They make sure they built their, what do they call them? Kingdom Halls? No. That’s J-dubs. Well, their temples. They always build them next to schools to try and influence the young people. I’m a bit weary about that.
placefield Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I never made that correlation before but there is one right next to the highschool I went to.
VegasLib Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
There’s one next to every major high school here in Vegas. My Mormon friends tell me they build them next to school so the young ‘uns can take classes there in the morning and then go to their regular high school in the afternoon… Makes sense, but I’m still weary though.
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Vegas said: Makes sense, but I’m still weary though.
K: Why are you weary about the LDS church building near schools? And, how would you view them doing so in light of the Catholic church building entire school systems…
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:00 am
they’re called seminary buildings and they aren’t for worship. Vegas has it right, they are for seminary classes. If you attend seminary through all 4 years of high school you’d have studied the “standard works” of the church 1 year of Old Testament, 1 year of New Testament, 1 year of Book of Mormon and 1 year of D&C/Church History.
In some locations classes are held before school in other locations they have agreements with the school districts to allow students to have release time in which they are allowed to go during the school day, they recieve no credit for class time. Where I grew up they have both early morning and release time classes. lost credits have to be made up by independent study/correspondent courses or in my case the high school actually provides 3 or 4 classes before regular hours, like English, Spanish, PE that can be taken.
It’s all voluntary and there isn’t anything all that insidious about it.
Kregg Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 1:25 am
John said: Any Joseph Smith fans out there have any good talking points?
K: Just tell her that with a second wife she’d only have to put up with you for 1/2 the time.
libpatriot Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:04 am
:-)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:18 am
which Joseph Smith?
this one?
josephsmithmassage.com/
or this one?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Joseph_Smith
June 30th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Wow from this lady you’d think the founding fathers were perfect men who had no moral issues to deal with in their day. It’s not like Adams and Jefferson wrestled over the issue of slavery. Also, there were alcoholics then too. One of Adams son died from it.
EricG Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
It’s true. They were well-spoken, intelligent, revolutionary slave owners.
flap Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:18 pm
They provided an excellent framework to correct current and future injustices. Were they “without sin”? Of course not.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever my be conceded to the influence of refined education…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”–George Washington; Farewell Address.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”–John Adams
“The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.”–Samuel Adams
EricG Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
“if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves”
So I read all these same quotes and always find it funny when the right wing tries to paint themselves as holding a ‘deeper’ understanding of the founders to others when most have not even read the same books that the founders had been influenced by (other than the Bible) and then presume to read their minds so deeply.
“Universally viscous” would be the best way to describe Rush Limbaugh or just about any right wing radio jock.
In a sense Adams is calling for bipartisanship and eluded to the fact that we hold responsibility as citizens to not be swayed by partisan propaganda and what we now call ‘political spin.’
June 30th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Speaking of Wingnuts–Al Franken is the latest wingnut to join the US Senate. Not only is he a wingnut and a failed comedien but he is a fruitcake with a temper. Will be interesting to see how he handles it.
A sure fire leftist vote everytime. The Dems are solidly in charge now. The economy is all theres. The Republicans cannot be blamed for anything that goes wrong. They basically have no voice and no vote in Congress, period.
EricG Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
“The Republicans cannot be blamed for anything that goes wrong”
So will your party finally take responsibility for their actions for will they continue to blame everyone but themselves?
Because it seems to me like they already exist in this ‘untouchable’ place for a lot of people.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
ERIC,
Will you finally take responsibility for dem actions…or will you continue to pin everything on the repubs?
TDro319 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“Al Franken is the latest wingnut to join the US Senate. Not only is he a wingnut and a failed comedien but he is a fruitcake with a temper.”
Now that’s a very “christian” thing to say, Daddio. Remember this statement the next time you feel the need to play the victim and talk about forgiveness for your fellow republicans who are serial adulterers.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
TDRO,
Try as you might to twist DADDIO’s words into an attack on christianity…you failed…again.
We call that obfuscation.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:32 am
I wouldn’t call Franken a failed comedien…he’s had a pretty long and distinguished career…and he’s funny.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
[...] Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern defends her claim that the recession is caused by “debauchery” such as pornography and same-sex [...]
June 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
wow..I cant believe theres still bigots like that…
June 30th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Trees,
Like I said, I think you do a strong job arguing for polygamy, and possibly some day your efforts to re legalize polygamy in the United States will bear fruit, but when you try to tie it to same sex marriage, your efforts fall flat.
You see, they have nothing to do with each other.
Your argument that ‘if we change the law to allow same sex marriage, it will necessarily lead to polygamy’ is just silly.
Marriage laws have been fiddled with since the beginning of time. I mean, at one time it was OK for brothers and sisters to marry (unless you think Adam and Eve’s kids had sex outside of marriage) – but that’s against the rules now. The marriage definition changed, brothers and sisters can not marry.
At one time black men and white women could not marry, but they can now. Would you argue that because the race laws around marriage have changed, it will inevitably lead to white people not being allowed to marry? Or some other ridiculous consequence?
At one time 60 year old men regularly married their 13 year old cousins – does the fact that the marriage laws have changed to no longer allow 60 year olds to marry 13 year olds mean that inevitably horrible changes to marriage around age will come about? Someday 70 year olds will be allowed to marry infants because we have meddled with the definition of what age people can get married at?
I understand you want to ride the momentum of same sex marriage to try and re legalize polygamy, but the two issues just aren’t related, Trees.
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Hmm…gonna hafta change a word in here…I think it might be this one…let’s try it again…
Is it?
There are supporters of polygamy who desire to make it legal, and want vindication and validation.
They are tired of being made out to be “abnormal” simply because they “love” multiple partners and desire to form a marriage covenant.
On what basis will you deny them their rights?
Gay marriage undermines the foundation upon which the very pillars of traditional marriage stand.
Topple those pillars, and traditional marriage falls.
There are unintended consequences to the gay marriage issue.
You know this is true.
What’s silly is your feeble attempts to deny it.
Bow to your sensei……….
Um Cara Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Is it?
Yep, see all my other examples of how marriage has changed, another change does not mean we will re legalize polygamy.
If you are such a ‘Marriage can not change’ dude, why aren’t you arguing for marriage to only be between brothers and sisters, since that is how it started?
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I get the feeling you’re looking for the biblical answer since you bring up origins, Leviticus 18 addresses the abolition of incestuous sexual relationships.
It pretty well outlines the whole one man one woman, unrelated by direct kin and not marrying your mother or father, marriage covenant concept.
You can Google it if you’re interested in reading what it says.
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
It also deal with not marrying your aunts or uncles or etc….
Um Cara Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Why would God change the law on marriage? Did he maybe not agree with your thesis that any change in marriage leads inevitably to chaos?
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Hmm… I could ask you the same thing….If you’re such a “the definition of marriage can be changed based upon the whims of a few” kinda guy, why are you opposed to legalizing polygamy?
Um Cara Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
why are you opposed to legalizing polygamy?
Come on… you know the answer.
I’m a conservationist. There wouldn’t be enough chicks if a few dudes married them all.
Gotta spread the wealth around!
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Shouldn’t everyone be free to make their own decisions in regards to the polygamy issue?
Are you actually advocating the rationing of women, and isn’t that view just a wee bit sexist?
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Hmm…could the real reason behind your legalization and promotion of homosexual marriage/lifestyle be in the interest of increasing the population/ratio of morenas to Um Cara?
That is a nefarious plan, my friend…………..
Doesn’t Um Cara mean “playboy” in some Brazilian context?
Have I unveiled some sinister plot???
Um Cara Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Are you actually advocating the rationing of women, and isn’t that view just a wee bit sexist?
Yep, I’m advocating the rationing of chicks. I’m a pig.
Oink Oink
Um Cara Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Doesn’t Um Cara mean “playboy” in some Brazilian context?
Nope, it means ‘a dude’ – ‘playboy’ is, literally ‘playboy’ (i.e. they use the english word for playboy when referring to a guy who is a ‘playboy’)
Hmm…could the real reason behind your legalization and promotion of homosexual marriage/lifestyle be in the interest of increasing the population/ratio of morenas to Um Cara?
Shhh! Don’t tell anyone!
Nah, in all honesty I’m a one chick dude. I’m a big cornball, all romanticky & I like serious relationships better than playing around. I have no idea how someone could have enough time/heart for multiple wives.
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
If anyone from the C.I.A. happens to be monitoring Alan’s activities on this site and is interested in employing me, I’m listenin’ and entertaining job offers………..
I have demonstrated the unusual ability of discovering secretive plans and exposing nefarious aspirations.
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Yeah, I understand, you don’t see any real harm to society by legalizing homosexual marriage, and I have a great deal of respect for you Um, I really do.
I see things differently, and you know I don’t fear or hate them (gays), I have genuine religious convictions and a real concern for the moral abyss our country has been sliding into for the past few decades now, and not just the sexual issues, but the glamorization of violence and the callous disregard for human life as well. Our society is becoming very jaded.
I actually spent a fair amount of time counseling a confused Christian recently, I think they were gay but I’m not sure, sexual orientation never really came up in our spiritual discussions, and I wasn’t overtly aware of the sexual issues until I got to know them better, and even then they were just suspicions based on background, upbringing, mannerisms, and idle comments they made during our discussions. This person I am referring to has a lot of issues, and I pray for him/her, I would like to see this person become well adjusted to society and living in peace and happiness. They have a lot of inner demons that were not of their making, how a child is raised is vitally important.
Anyway, polygamy will be legalized as an unintended consequence of the homosexual marriage juggernaut, I feel this to be inevitable……
I hope I’m wrong.
EricG Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
“I have demonstrated the unusual ability of discovering secretive plans and exposing nefarious aspirations.”
And what are your motives, trees?
A tree rebellion?????
A xeno-morphian take over!?!
I have a spoon here! I can defend myself from aggressive plant life……
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Aggressive plant life……
He he he
RDM Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Aggressive Plant Life? Huh?
Can Vegetarians Eat Animal Crackers?
June 30th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Has Sally Kern spoken out on the morality over the infidelities of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada) and/or Gov. Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina)?
June 30th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Anyway, polygamy will be legalized as an unintended consequence of the homosexual marriage juggernaut, I feel this to be inevitable……
Are you more anti polygamy than anti gay marriage?
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I’m opposed to both, arguing against polygamy would be a more formidable task.
It’s kind of like asking would I prefer drowning or falling from a great height.
Um Cara Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Gotcha – I thought maybe after all this the reason you were against same sex marriage really was because you thought it would lead to the re legalization of polygamy.
It’s kind of like asking would I prefer drowning or falling from a great height.
Not really – but w/ regards to that, I’d have to go w/ falling from a great height (especially if I had a working parachute).
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
No, no parachute.
I find both of those scenarios to be equally unappealing.
Lee Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Trees,
Your arguments trying to equate polygamy and homsexuality are very weak. The most important issue you omit is consideration of ‘equality’. There is never equality in a polygamous relationship and even if the adults are consenting, the lack of equality often leads to vulnerable people getting hurt.
If you add consideration of the history of the practice, its more closely related to slavery than homosexuality.
Then on the topic of homosexuality itself which has no such problems with equality or a history of people being abused and taken advantage of by their partners. Here there are two basic drivers behind the opponents of gay marriage.
One is evangelical prejudice and the second is cultural prejudice largely driven by historical adoption of the first. I’m yet to see any ‘facts’ provided by you or any other vocal opponent that cannot be exposed as originating from a partisan evangelical thinktank of one form or another.
Also, the following is strictly my own observation, but I think our nation is becoming more educated and more worldly and the more we continue down this process, we will eventually reach the tipping-point that makes gay marriage acceptable to the majority.
I don’t see this ever happening for polygamy, for the reasons above.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:10 am
anti-polygamy laws have a long and clear tone of anti-religious bigotry…the federal laws concerning Polygamy were pointed and designed specifically with one religious following.
If you want to make it an equality issue, Gays are being passively discriminated against, and Mormons were actively discriminated against.
unless you are speaking of equality in terms of the marriage relationship…in which case it’s of no concern to the government and legislation shouldn’t be dictated on that principle. Not all marriages are equal in nature, and not all partners demand that all things be equal, many men and women are content with marriages with designated roles, the point is that the government isn’t legislating how YOUR marriage works as the details of our lives are still our own personal business.
TDro319 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:23 am
As long as my tax dollars don’t pay for all their offspring, I have no problem with a husband having multiple wives or a wife having multiple husbands.
Kregg Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:45 am
Lee said: Your arguments trying to equate polygamy and homsexuality are very weak. The most important issue you omit is consideration of ‘equality’. There is never equality in a polygamous relationship and even if the adults are consenting, the lack of equality often leads to vulnerable people getting hurt.
K: Lee, I think your arguments are weaker than you figure Tree’s to be. If ‘equality’ is being able to legally marry ‘whomever you love’ then polygamy is every bit as “equal” as you figure gay marriage should be. If two gay individuals can ‘marry whomever they love’ then why do you figure that three hetero individuals can’t ‘marry whomever THEY love’? And, who are you to champion ‘history’ to denigrate polygamy while denying the history of traditional marriage to champion gay marriage?
flap Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“even if the adults are consenting…leads to vulnerable people getting hurt.”
Uh, what’s your point? People make poor decisions in life. You want to regulate CONSENT on people getting into marriage? If gay marriage is allowed then it is perfectly sensible to allow polygamy.
If the paradigm of one man one woman is broken, isn’t the next paradigm of 1 and 1 pretty arbitrary as well? If we don’t use culture, religion, or history to define marriage, shouldn’t CONSENT between adults be the only necessary ingredient?
Trees has a very strong, logical, well-thought out argument. Pretty much put the SMACK DOWN on you libs. If this were UFC then I’d say it was an arm bar and a tap out. Nice work, Trees.
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Flap,
“Trees has a very strong, logical, well-thought out argument. Pretty much put the SMACK DOWN on you libs”
…………………..
Where do ‘you cons’ get this kind of thinking?
It makes sense to you, only in the context of your world views.
They said the same thing about people choosing their own mates, or marring outside of their religion or their race.
One could also have said, “If the paradigm of one man one woman of the SAME RACE is broken, isn’t the next paradigm of 1 human and human or pretty arbitrary as well?”
One to one has nothing to do with it.
Besides, if we must depend on culture, religion, or history to define marriage, there was a lot of polygamy, marital abuse and young people being forced into marriage…..some pretty unsavory stuff in religion, and history,
flap Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
“Where do ‘you cons’ get this kind of thinking?”
We cons don’t discriminate based on sex!
WWE SMACK DOWN, OLD LEFTY!
SUPLEX! BODY SLAM!
“If the paradigm of one man one woman of the SAME RACE is broken, isn’t the next paradigm of 1 human and human or pretty arbitrary as well?”
Race is a bit different than same sex, Oldlefty. You still can’t provide a good reason why polygamy or even incestual marriages should not be allowed. If we TRULY want to be progressive, gay marriage should not be the logical endpoint. I think you realize that whether you want to admit it or not. If marriage is PURELY secular, then all consenting marriages…including polygamous and incestual marriages should also be allowed.
The word “unsavory” is only a valid term in context of some sort of transcendent absolute moral code, which, without a religion saying “these morals are from God,” unsavory has no real meaning. What’s unsavory to you may be savory to another and might makes right.
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Flap,
You think of race as being different NOW, but back then people did not.
I think that You have not provided a good reason why polygamy or even incestuous marriages have anything to do with gay marriage.
I think what YOU MAY realize, “whether you want to admit it or not”, is that if you were born in 1900, you MIGHT be, (Don’t want to be presumptous), saying the same thing about the white guy who wanted to marry the black girl, or the Methodist who ran off with the Jewish boy. That was the “ transcendent absolute moral code” at the time.
I don’t think marriages are purely secular, in the sense, that churches should not be forced to marry anybody, but the legal side, is secular, (the church can not grant you a divorce).
The people who believed that their “ morals are from God,”, are also people who owned slaves, force young daughters to marry old coots, and stoned adulterers.
When one person is unwilling, it’s unsavory.
By the way, what’s up with this,
“WWE SMACK DOWN, OLD LEFTY!
SUPLEX! BODY SLAM!”
Is this the intellectual version of laughing at your own jokes?
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:04 pm
It didn’t make any sense to me either, Lefty – but one thing I am sure of, it wasn’t the ‘intellectual version’ of anything.
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Thank You! Um.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:31 am
As long as my tax dollars don’t pay for all their offspring, I have no problem with a husband having multiple wives or a wife having multiple husbands.
—
under your desired healthcare plan your tax dollars will pay for everyone’s children…so you have a problem with all breeders under that logic.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:50 am
Hey Flap, how are you Brother?
Sorry I missed you earlier, God Bless, trees
flap Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Oldlefty: “Is this the intellectual version of laughing at your own jokes?”
Um Cara: “It didn’t make any sense to me either, Lefty – but one thing I am sure of, it wasn’t the ‘intellectual version’ of anything.”
Flap: Whew, touchy libs. Relax.
And brother Trees, way to lay the logical WWE SMACK DOWN on Oldlefty.
–
Oldlefty: “I think that You have not provided a good reason why polygamy or even incestuous marriages have anything to do with gay marriage.”
Flap: Redefinition of marriage? Secular society? I think you’d have to institute a lot of logical gymnastics in order to try to think that these are not related. You haven’t provided a good reason why marriage should be redefined, Oldlefty. “Equality?” That extends to incestuous and polygamous marriages logically. Incestuous marriages actually more logically because it’s 1 and 1, but if we’re for REAL equality then any and all consenting people should be able to get into marriage. Don’t be bigoted towards people who want to practice polygamy or if a biological brother and sister decide they’re in love and want to make retarded babies.
Oldlefty: “I think what YOU MAY realize, “whether you want to admit it or not”, is that if you were born in 1900, you MIGHT be, (Don’t want to be presumptous), saying the same thing about the white guy who wanted to marry the black girl, or the Methodist who ran off with the Jewish boy. That was the “ transcendent absolute moral code” at the time.”
Flap: There’s no transcendent absolute moral code “at the time.” That’s my whole damn point. I’m not saying it’s easy to find out exactly what God has instituted as far as morals go, but other than that, we’re all just having a huge “I guess this is moral” and “I suppose this is right” and “let’s make this moral” debating session from now until eternity. And it’s MEANINGLESS if we as humans have created it because we have no ultimate touchstone. Without a transcendent moral code you really can’t logically prove to me that evil is actually evil.
Oldlefty: “The people who believed that their “ morals are from God,”, are also people who owned slaves, force young daughters to marry old coots, and stoned adulterers.”
Flap: Slavery is wrong because…? Marrying away young daughters is wrong because…? Stoning adulterers is wrong because…? Why is it that libs’ morality can be often be zeitgeistian/relativistic yet other things are “assumed” to be wrong? Based on what standard? Um Cara’s “Golden Rule” Basis For Morality?
My MAIN point about morality is that it’s worthless without a supernatural/transcendent source. There’s no touchstone for good or bad and might makes right.
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
“Without a transcendent moral code you really can’t logically prove to me that evil is actually evil.”
……………………………………………
WITH a claim to the existence of some a transcendent moral code, you can’t PROVE anything.
I’m sorry, but from what I see throughout history, this “transcendent moral code” is whatever you want or need it to be.
This is what Osama bin Ladin says too, and he is also sure.
I don’t want to comment on anybody else’s believes, I just see no connection between religion and morality.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Where do you think morals come from? If you look at it philosophically morals are a code of conduct put together by a group, religion, and is accepted by a persons or group as a guide for behavior.
YOu can put most any adjective before the word morals ie. nazi morals, christian morals, muslim morals. If you aren’t a part of the group that ascribes to the morals then you don’t follow those morals.
If you aren’t a religious person then you clearly see no connection between religion and morality.
Kregg Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“Without a transcendent moral code you really can’t logically prove to me that evil is actually evil.”
……………………………………………
Lefty said: WITH a claim to the existence of some a transcendent moral code, you can’t PROVE anything. I’m sorry, but from what I see throughout history, this “transcendent moral code” is whatever you want or need it to be.
K: Lefty, what I think Flap is saying is that a ‘transcendent’ moral code is essentially a ‘fixed point’. A moral code that does not change. A code that is bigger than man and, therefore, not changeable by man into something else. WithOUT a moral code that is unchangeable by man your statement is exactly correct – a moral code is whatever you want or need it to be. I believe his point is that there can be no commonly accepted definition of “good” or “evil” if everyone’s understanding of what “good” and “evil” is different.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Exactly Kregg.
And that is what objective reality is all about. (beheld by all)
If reality were merely subjective (personally interpreted) then everyone could have their own “truth”……..
And in defiance of the laws of rationality and logic everyone would then be simultaneously correct.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
It seems to me that “marriage” is a legal contract that has been established by individual state law (not federal law) and that it is discriminatory to exclude people from entering into any legal contract based on one’s sex. Therefore, prohibiting “gay marraige” discriminates because it excludes people of the same gender who wish to have access to establishing the same legal contract available to people of opposite sex.
How churches choose to deal with the issue is their matter. Since we are a nation that established freedom of religion, like it or not, we have to be consistent about how we apply the laws!
As to polygamy, it is not a legal contract which the state offers to either sex so to deny this practice is legally consistent.
Gay Rob Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:35 am
Thanx Mary…that is what I have been trying to convey to the “Evangelical Zombie Brigade”out there. But it is impossible to get through to such impervious minds.
But please read “The Lost Boy”. It is the true story of a young man who escapes a polygamous sect of people that was headed by Warren Jeffs. You remember him? He was imprisoned, (not for polygamy) but for having sex with a thirteen year old girl at his compound.
The young author portrays his mormon household and his mothers of being very jealous of one another and his uncle, as an equal opportunity child molester. He and his brothers were sexually abused by Uncle Warren numerous times!
Also, he mentions that the other elder husbands did not like it when the boys started to go grow up and wanted to get rid of them? Why? because they wanted to take on as many girls as possobible and the boys became competition to them.
As far as gay marriage is concerned…these homophobic bloggers are so obsessed about what I do in bed as opposed to understanding that sex is just one small component of the definition of love.
In other words…After sex, we all have to wash the dishes! Then we find out what true love really is!
June 30th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
btw..Alan I’m nuts about your “wingnut” logo…ahaha! Maybe you could make a decal of it & put it on your motorcycle!!!
Or even better..you could sell them on your website to us Liberalanders! Bet you’d make a fortune!
Or..another idea…would make a great design for your next book cover!
June 30th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Anything in the world to shirk responsibility for destroying the economy and degrading our nation’s standing in the world.
Next it will the Nazis who caused the recession, then it will be Saddam. Then God again, then maybe Satan did it and finally they’ll finish up by blaming the Muslims.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:12 am
well regardless of Saddam and the Nazi’s…I attribute a lot of the worlds ills to the influence of Satan.
anyway…because I’m lazy…is she putting this up for a vote as a law or a congressional resolution??? Because that is wrong…
If she’s passing it around as a petition of sorts or non-governmental pledge I have no problem whatsoever with this.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Good freaking greif. A threat! Hell! Her mouth is a threat.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:06 am
[...] state legislator Sally Kern, who earned the “Wingnut of the Day” monicker here, deserves credit for showing up on my radio show last night. Rightwingwatch [...]
July 1st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
[...] Here is State Representative Sally Kern: I was thinking of a feature called “Wingnut of the Week,” but they’re coming at us so fast [...]
July 1st, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“I was thinking of a feature called “Wingnut of the Week,” but they’re coming at us so fast and furiously that “Wingnut of the Day” seems more appropriate.”
Would a “Wingnut of the Day” be enough? We’re subject to the rapid-fire pronouncements of Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck, Palin, Bachmann, Joe the Plumber, Savage, Coulter, Hannity and Cheney. Perhaps the feature should be called “Wingnut of the Hour.”
July 1st, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Then we could add Franken, Colmes, Garafalo, Alec Baldwin, Letterman, Barney Fwank, Pelosi, Biden, Rangel, Olberman, Maddow, Matthews, Rosie O’Donnel, and Schumer.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm