The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

I musta gotten some windex in my eyes while cleaning the bathroom tonight.

Yeah. That's it

Windex.

That was awesome.

This is just tragic. Completely and utterly tragic.

Lech Walesa, the famous leader of the Solidarity movement in Poland and that nation's first post-Soviet, democratically elected president has now affirmed himself as an infamous homophobe.

In an interview, Walesa was asked about civil partnerships for gays and lesbians and went off on a tear about how gays and lesbians who would serve in Poland's Parliament should not be allowed to sit on the front benches, and, better yet, should be forced to sit behind a wall.

Walesa said in a television interview on Friday that he believes gays have no right to sit on the front benches in Parliament and, if represented at all, should sit in the back, "and even behind a wall."

"They have to know that they are a minority and must adjust to smaller things. And not rise to the greatest heights, the greatest hours, the greatest provocations, spoiling things for the others and taking (what they want) from the majority," he told the private broadcaster TVN during a discussion of gay rights. "I don't agree to this and I will never agree to it."

"A minority should not impose itself on the majority," Walesa said.

In other words, democracy, freedom and equal rights... for some.

What a horrible blemish on his legacy.

As noted in a prior post, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the highest ranking Catholic authority in the U.K., resigned on Feb. 22 after it was disclosed that he had been making sexual advances to his male subordinates.

O'Brien released his statement of contrition today:

In recent days certain allegations which have been made against me have become public. Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them.

However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal. To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness.

O'Brien was leading the cause against gay marriage in the U.K. and made deplorable statements like this:

(Gay marriage) represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

All the while, he was putting the moves on male subordinates and then, when caught, was going to contest the allegations that were actually true.

I wonder how long it will be until someone suggests he become a candidate for beautification or sainthood.

I just cannot understand how you can be so self-loathing. How do these people function mentally?

ZaneRockfist wrote:

I just cannot understand how you can be so self-loathing. How do these people function mentally?

Lots and lots of illicit sex and power games.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
In recent days certain allegations which have been made against me have become public. Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them.

However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal. To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness.

O'Brien was leading the cause against gay marriage in the U.K. and made deplorable statements like this:
.

I can hear Jon Stewart paraphrasing this in my head,

"In recent days I thought I could get away with blatantly lying through my teeth, and then those pesky witnesses with their actual real names came up..."

Tanglebones wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:

I just cannot understand how you can be so self-loathing. How do these people function mentally?

Lots and lots of illicit sex and power games.

Sex is way hotter if it's sex you're not supposed to be having?

I have said before and will say again that the arguments against gay marriage come down to two things:

1. My God says it's wrong.
2. Gay sex, particularly between two men, is icky.

And now we have Peter LaBarbera, the president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, giving us his thoughts about gay sex:

LaBarbera: If you want to just think of how wrong homosexual so-called marriage is just ask yourself: how do two guys consummate their marriage? Yuck.

The sad tragedy here is LaBarbera's simplistic and one-dimensional view of what consummating a marriage is. What a pity for his wife.

His view also shows that this is exactly what concerns a lot of the myopic views on gay marriage. We as a society should never allow gay marriage because of the sex practices that gays are involved with - especially anal sex. It also shows that LaBarbera is an ignorant clown. Contrary to what LaBarbera and his ilk think, not all gay men engage in anal sex and there are plenty of heterosexual couples that enjoy anal sex.

But gay sex is icky (or yucky in this case) so let's use that as a basis for discrimination!!! LaBarbera must live in a fantasy land if he thinks his view deserves anything other than a huge dose of mocking.

And I more than happy to help him out on that front.

You know... you have to wonder why Peter LaBarbera is so focused on anal sex.

Actually, we're all adults. We probably don't need to wonder so much. We can figure it out.

The opponents of gay marriage are more focused on the sex than the couples that want to get married.

Sex is easy. You can do that without a legal contract.

The opponents of gay marriage are more focused on the sex than the couples that want to get married.

Also more than the people already married... or does that go without saying? Heyooooooooooooo!

Demosthenes wrote:
The opponents of gay marriage are more focused on the sex than the couples that want to get married.

Also more than the people already married... or does that go without saying? Heyooooooooooooo! :lol:

Hmm. So if they are so obsessed with the evil of gay sex and if married folks have sex less often, doesn't it follow that they should be encouraging gay marriage?

Paleocon wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
The opponents of gay marriage are more focused on the sex than the couples that want to get married.

Also more than the people already married... or does that go without saying? Heyooooooooooooo! :lol:

Hmm. So if they are so obsessed with the evil of gay sex and if married folks have sex less often, doesn't it follow that they should be encouraging gay marriage?

You are like a logic ninja-wizard.

Yonder wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
The opponents of gay marriage are more focused on the sex than the couples that want to get married.

Also more than the people already married... or does that go without saying? Heyooooooooooooo! :lol:

Hmm. So if they are so obsessed with the evil of gay sex and if married folks have sex less often, doesn't it follow that they should be encouraging gay marriage?

You are like a logic ninja-wizard.

Well, they make it easy. I like to think of myself more as a logic shark circling a capsized yacht.

Committees in the Minnesota State house and senate are voting on bills to legalize same-sex marriage today. They are both expected to pass the committee votes which is a fairly big step from there being a constitutional ban on the ballot last November.

Part of the testimony against the bill was an 11-year-old delivering this little gem:

MPR article[/url]]"Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don't think we can change that children need a mom and a dad," Evans said. "I believe God made it that way."

So, we should apparently base all of our legislation on what 11-year-olds are force-fed in church? That's nice.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Committees in the Minnesota State house and senate are voting on bills to legalize same-sex marriage today. They are both expected to pass the committee votes which is a fairly big step from there being a constitutional ban on the ballot last November.

Part of the testimony against the bill was an 11-year-old delivering this little gem:

MPR article[/url]]"Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don't think we can change that children need a mom and a dad," Evans said. "I believe God made it that way."

So, we should apparently base all of our legislation on what 11-year-olds are force-fed in church? That's nice.

Did she follow that with the eminently-logical "which is why I think divorce should be illegal, and we should stone adulterers to death."

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

Committees in the Minnesota State house and senate are voting on bills to legalize same-sex marriage today. They are both expected to pass the committee votes which is a fairly big step from there being a constitutional ban on the ballot last November.

Part of the testimony against the bill was an 11-year-old delivering this little gem:

MPR article[/url]]"Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don't think we can change that children need a mom and a dad," Evans said. "I believe God made it that way."

So, we should apparently base all of our legislation on what 11-year-olds are force-fed in church? That's nice.

Did she follow that with the eminently-logical "which is why I think divorce should be illegal, and we should stone adulterers to death."

Not to mention that should your mommy or daddy die, your remaining parent will be immediately assigned a new spouse, to ensure that no child should have to deal with the horrors of only having one parent.

Jonman wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

Committees in the Minnesota State house and senate are voting on bills to legalize same-sex marriage today. They are both expected to pass the committee votes which is a fairly big step from there being a constitutional ban on the ballot last November.

Part of the testimony against the bill was an 11-year-old delivering this little gem:

MPR article[/url]]"Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don't think we can change that children need a mom and a dad," Evans said. "I believe God made it that way."

So, we should apparently base all of our legislation on what 11-year-olds are force-fed in church? That's nice.

Did she follow that with the eminently-logical "which is why I think divorce should be illegal, and we should stone adulterers to death."

Not to mention that should your mommy or daddy die, your remaining parent will be immediately assigned a new spouse, to ensure that no child should have to deal with the horrors of only having one parent.

Can it be a pelican like in that Patton Oswalt set?

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Committees in the Minnesota State house and senate are voting on bills to legalize same-sex marriage today. They are both expected to pass the committee votes which is a fairly big step from there being a constitutional ban on the ballot last November.

Part of the testimony against the bill was an 11-year-old delivering this little gem:

MPR article[/url]]"Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don't think we can change that children need a mom and a dad," Evans said. "I believe God made it that way."

So, we should apparently base all of our legislation on what 11-year-olds are force-fed in church? That's nice.

Well, let's be fair - everyone was happily passing around that video of some elementary school kid talking about her two moms a few months back like it was infallible innocent wisdom. I said it then and said it now - maybe we shouldn't let children or people with the reasoning of children really decide these things.

As long as we're only using them to sway people's opinions it's cool.

LouZiffer wrote:

As long as we're only using them to sway people's opinions it's cool.

The Bible clearly states that mixing together different kinds of cereal is an abomination.

Well gay couples raising children is a float in the parade of horribles that stems from allowing gay coupling. Oddly enough, the children have to sit behind the horse f*ckers.

LouZiffer wrote:

As long as we're only using them to sway people's opinions it's cool.

*snip video*

Hey, if the folks against marriage equality want to just cop to the idea that their propaganda is effectively as deep and meaningful as cereal commercials, I'm cool with them doing whatever.

Bloo Driver wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

Committees in the Minnesota State house and senate are voting on bills to legalize same-sex marriage today. They are both expected to pass the committee votes which is a fairly big step from there being a constitutional ban on the ballot last November.

Part of the testimony against the bill was an 11-year-old delivering this little gem:

MPR article[/url]]"Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don't think we can change that children need a mom and a dad," Evans said. "I believe God made it that way."

So, we should apparently base all of our legislation on what 11-year-olds are force-fed in church? That's nice.

Well, let's be fair - everyone was happily passing around that video of some elementary school kid talking about her two moms a few months back like it was infallible innocent wisdom. I said it then and said it now - maybe we shouldn't let children or people with the reasoning of children really decide these things.

I don't think we should ignore the experiences of children. That elementary school kid talking about her two moms was talking about her personal experience right? That's a far cry from saying we should have 11-year-old theologians tell us what the laws of our non-theocracy should be. Especially ones that are so anti-Catholic.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think we should ignore the experiences of children. That elementary school kid talking about her two moms was talking about her personal experience right? That's a far cry from saying we should have 11-year-old theologians tell us what the laws of our non-theocracy should be. Especially ones that are so anti-Catholic.

This. Two completely different situations.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think we should ignore the experiences of children. That elementary school kid talking about her two moms was talking about her personal experience right? That's a far cry from saying we should have 11-year-old theologians tell us what the laws of our non-theocracy should be. Especially ones that are so anti-Catholic.

This. Two completely different situations.

I'm not entirely sure that's even a good line to make. That kid had two moms and was okay with it, and then some other kid has two moms and he's not happy about it because he wants a dad because that's "normal". I guess we dismiss the kid in the second case because that's just society imprinting on him, right?

Bloo Driver wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think we should ignore the experiences of children. That elementary school kid talking about her two moms was talking about her personal experience right? That's a far cry from saying we should have 11-year-old theologians tell us what the laws of our non-theocracy should be. Especially ones that are so anti-Catholic.

This. Two completely different situations.

I'm not entirely sure that's even a good line to make. That kid had two moms and was okay with it, and then some other kid has two moms and he's not happy about it because he wants a dad because that's "normal". I guess we dismiss the kid in the second case because that's just society imprinting on him, right?

That wasnt the issue though, it was that one child was speaking of their experience, while another was speaking on something they had been told about.

Bloo Driver wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think we should ignore the experiences of children. That elementary school kid talking about her two moms was talking about her personal experience right? That's a far cry from saying we should have 11-year-old theologians tell us what the laws of our non-theocracy should be. Especially ones that are so anti-Catholic.

This. Two completely different situations.

I'm not entirely sure that's even a good line to make. That kid had two moms and was okay with it, and then some other kid has two moms and he's not happy about it because he wants a dad because that's "normal". I guess we dismiss the kid in the second case because that's just society imprinting on him, right?

No, I would listen to a kid actually demonstrating why their same sex parents failed to do their job because of the fact that they were same sex. I don't believe this exists, but if it did, I'd take it into consideration.