She's so persuasive and eloquent. Who could possible argue against her logic?

Frankly, I'm afraid to say anything about Muslims. Why? Because they kill people.

That's why I don't say anything about Freddy Krueger, either.

Why do liberals embrace Shariah law even though "beheading your wife" seems to go against the feminist movement's mantra? Why do liberals embrace Islam knowing it frowns on homosexuality?

Because they have the same goals. Progressives, communists, liberals, globalists and Muslims want to destroy America. When that goal is reached, they will fight for top billing. It will be bloody.

It's true. I only support gay marriage to hasten the rise of the great Caliphate.

My friend was a flight attendant in the Middle East in the '80s. Isn't that when we started giving them a lot of money for oil?

You may be tempted to reply "No, it wasn't." But let's not question the great mind that brought us so many memorable characters on SNL such as.... umm, yeah.

And speaking of Baptists … why can't the "good, peaceful Muslims" denounce the actions of the "bad, violent" Muslims?

Yeah, how come that has never happened in all the years since 9/11? Not one Muslim has EVER said anything against the attacks!

The Muslims don't want their "hijab" searched at the TSA. They are "modest." They've been advised to refuse the "pat down" and the "naked scan" and pat themselves down! Napolitano hasn't yet decided what to do. Heaven forbid they be treated like the rest of us! This is ridiculous! How many bombs do you think you can hide under one of those big, black sheets?

I'm going to say "six."

Did you see "Glee" this week? Sickening! And, besides shoving the gay thing down our throats, they made a mockery of Christians – again! I wonder what their agenda is? Hey, producers of "Glee" – what's your agenda? One-way tolerance?

Yeah! To hell with Glee and their anti-Jesus agenda! And that kiss thing, shoving down throats, Darren Criss... wait a minute, Darren Criss shoving down ... Anyway, back to the rant:

Not only are they plotting our demise, but laughing at our stupidity, mocking our open arms and freedom, demanding rights above our own and soon the transformation of our churches and synagogues into mosques.

Preach it, sister! I don't want National Cathedral turned into no mosque!

Find the truth. Read the whole thing here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=276421

Conservatism has never had a brighter, more steadfast elucidator of its great truths than this humble, Christian woman!

I may have missed some posts, but in Zeke's hyper-socialist business reorganization plan I see no mention of:

1. The fact that companies actually save up large portions of their earnings beyond costs. Apple, for instance, has tens of billions in the bank for a rainy day. His plan would seem to preclude that.

2. He seems to be ignoring the actual owners of the company -- shareholders. Or are we truly socializing all ownership, and ending the shareholder market for raising capital?

Not that his notional system would be functional, anyway. Like all extremely socialistic systems, it would fail because people don't act in rational or egalitarian manners all that often.

Everyone uses devices differently. I will likely skip iPad 2, and wait for the next model. I use my iPad every day, for both entertainment and productivity (I type a great deal both on the screen and on a keyboard dock).

This, to me, is the perfect iPad upgrade: it keeps Apple in a very strong competitive position, likely to maintain their tablet dominance, so the software will continue to flow -- but it doesn't compel me to go out and spend another $600. Particularly since I just bought a new Mac last week!

I never miss Flash on my iPad. In fact, I've turned Flash off by default on Safari on my Mac.

Here is an interesting thought I had that I would love to have more discussion on.   

Is it the place of the president to decide that a certain law is unconstitutional and refuse to defend it in the courts?

Is it incumbent upon the Administration to defend every law that's ever challenged, no matter how valid the challenge? If they lose at a lower level, should the DOJ not have discretion on whether or not to seek an appeal?

It is the job of the President to execute the laws, which Obama is continuing to do in the case of DOMA. But I don't see any requirement that he be forced argue before the courts that a law he believes to be unconstitutional is actually correct and proper.

Pretty sure the Dems have not been following the rules as of late.

They went hog-wild, and gloated about it, in Obama's first 2 years.

What rules did the Democratic majorities break during Obama's first two years?

Ordered a 13" model (baseline with a beefed up hard drive). My only disappointment is the resolution on the 13" machine. I've been using 1280x800 for five years, though, so I'm used to this resolution -- the presence of the 1440x900 display on the 13" Air made me think that Apple was going to increase pixel density across the board.

The new laptop will have a much faster chip, twice the RAM and 60% more hard drive than my current system, so it'll be a nice upgrade. Also, my present MacBook is the non-Pro aluminum model that they shipped for a few months in 2008-09 before restoring the white plastic model, so this will be my first actual MacBook Pro.

His actual support for gay marriage as president would do far far more for that cause then this does.

He's moving in that direction, step by step. Next step will be for either Michelle or Biden to voice their support for gay marriage.

Talking Points Memo: Obama DOJ says part of DOMA is unconstitutional, will no longer be defended

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination.

Big, big news for the GLBT community. This is something you'd never see a modern day Republican president do.

I'm for the idea of a union, and what they used to stand for.

You keep saying that, but you never offer any specifics. What did unions stand for before that they do not stand for today?

But they have mutated into an extension of the Democratic Party and all the bad that goes along with that.

Since at least the 1920s, the unions have always been overwhelmingly supportive of Democratic candidates (aside from the Teamsters in some states) because the Democrats have consistently supported policies that are better for working Americans than have the Republicans.

I have nothing against public employees getting their fair share. Why shouldn't they? But they shouldn't continue to outpace a similar private employee while taxpayers continue to pay for it and it runs states into the ground financially.

What's going on in Wisconsin is a manufactured "crisis" that didn't exist a few weeks ago, when Gov. Walker granted huge tax benefits to a handful of corporations, throwing the budget out of balance. Why is it the state workers, and not these tax cuts, that are "running the state into the ground"?

Unions were to help the employee against greed in the private-sector. And i'm all for that, on principal. But why are they needed in the public-sector?

Because public sector employees are even more at risk of unexpected changes in their employment conditions, as every two years there's a potential for a sudden shift in who's running their state/national/local government. Having a union blunts the impact of these changes, and allows the public sector to attract talented individuals who might otherwise pass over public jobs because of the volatility.

The doctors aren't as unethical as the scumbag governor who ginned up this fake crisis just to try to bust unions representing some public employees (namely, employee groups that didn't support him in the last election). He should be recalled.

Another thing to consider would be to maybe do away with state-paid workers and let the private sector work it out.

The private sector isn't an appropriate actor to do most of the things we need government to do, because the objective of governmental operations is to achieve a specific social goal in the most egalitarian way possible. This is incompatible with a private enterprise's goal, which is, invariably, to make money.

Why does it all have to be cuts?

Why does it all have to be tax increases?

It shouldn't be. But Republicans across the country have drawn the line against any effort to raise revenue -- even things that close up abused loopholes, as opposed to raising marginal rates, which is where I think we should begin.

I dont feel that tax increases are the best way to solve a budget crisis in a bad economy.

The problem is that most states don't have any fat left to cut in their budgets. Now they're making the sorts of cuts that will damage their future: cuts to education, which will decrease future productivity, cuts to infrastructure, which will just require even more expensive roadwork and repairs in the future. State budgets aren't out of balance at this point because of run away spending, but because of a revenue problem caused by the lingering effects of the recession. Cutting deeply now, though, may lead to longterm underfunding of critical needs like education, which is robbing ourselves of future productivity, growth and revenues.

Unfortunately, most state budgets disallow what should be the proper tool to use when you have a budget that's been cut to the bone, but revenues that presently aren't high enough to cover costs but are expected to rise back up to that level in the future: short and medium term borrowing.

Why does it all have to be cuts?

I can virtually guarantee that tax dollars are not being used to pay for their present lodgings.

they're using their own money?

They're probably spending money out of their own pockets and their campaign coffers. Also, outside groups and donors will provide whatever help is legal. In the walk out to stop Delay's Mid Decade Gerrymander, major Democratic donors provided some of the airplanes used to leave the state, and picked up some of the hotel costs in Ardmore, Oklahoma. Also, Willie Nelson sent a ton of whiskey to the Killer Ds.

I'm sure it'll be an issue in their next employee review.

I can virtually guarantee that tax dollars are not being used to pay for their present lodgings. Texas Democrats walked out in 2003 in an attempt to stop Tom Delay's mid-decade partisan gerrymander of our Congressional districts. When the majority party won't allow any discussion, amendments or input by the minority party, sometimes your only tool is to bust quorum. It's a tactic a old as democracy.

Hell, I even once led a walkout of the Patrol Leader's Council of by Boy Scout Troop, when the Scoutmaster and Senior Patrol Leader wouldn't allow us to vote on their unilateral decision to not hold midyear elections for a new PLC.

So Fireball, would you have been just as 100% ok with the republicans in the house walking out and hiding to stop say a vote on President Obamas healthcare bill or something similar?

It would have driven me nuts. But in the end, it's not like this will stop what is going to happen from happening. Walk outs don't actually stop legislation, unless you run out the legislative clock and for some reason a new session can't be called, an amazingly rare occurrence.

In the end, this governor's bill to address his manufactured budget crisis is going to pass.

Also, I don't know if a walk out like this would work at a federal level: part of a walk out is leaving the state, because every state and the federal government have laws that can compel a member who is refusing to show up at a legislative session to do so. You leave the state to evade these laws (which is why it's important to do the walk out suddenly, as you can be arrested and detained to prevent your action if the majority is aware in advance, as happened to at least one Texas representative). The Feds would be able to dispatch an officer to haul you in no matter where you were in the country, and hiding in another country would play, politically, a lot worse than crashing in a hotel across state lines.

I'm sure it'll be an issue in their next employee review.

I can virtually guarantee that tax dollars are not being used to pay for their present lodgings. Texas Democrats walked out in 2003 in an attempt to stop Tom Delay's mid-decade partisan gerrymander of our Congressional districts. When the majority party won't allow any discussion, amendments or input by the minority party, sometimes your only tool is to bust quorum. It's a tactic a old as democracy.

Hell, I even once led a walkout of the Patrol Leader's Council of by Boy Scout Troop, when the Scoutmaster and Senior Patrol Leader wouldn't allow us to vote on their unilateral decision to not hold midyear elections for a new PLC.

While the word marriage is synonymous with a joining or coupling, the fact is the roots of marriage are religious in nature.

Not true. The institution of marriage first arose in Egypt, and the first recorded marriages were wholly secular in nature. Even in the Western World, marriage in the Roman Empire didn't get entangled with religion into well into the first millennium.

The Apple designer is Johnny Ive.

I wasn't attracted to the opposite sex until I was around 12 years old. Before that, my sexual identity, as it were, was pretty much zero. I was male but I didn't really notice girls.  This could be due to my autism.

I think you'll find that's a pretty standard age for everyone. At the onset of puberty, everyone suddenly becomes interested in sex, and after some confusion, gay kids realize they're interested in their own gender, and think to themselves, "Well, crap. That's not what I expected."
  

So for the most part, gay people are truly only attracted to people of their own gender? How does someone who is bisexual fit in? For some reason I think bisexual is more common than 100% gay - am I wrong?

Bisexuality seems to be very rare amongst men, and less rare amongst women. Which also points to potential genetic factors in determining sexual orientation.

That's the part I find the most understandable. I do apologize if I have offended in any way. It's not my goal.

Not at all. I'm happy to answer your questions.

Insomuch as I have free will, I feel that being gay is a choice. You have the choice every day to act on your impulses or not. The 'I was born this way' argument always seemed more like a way to make the religious understand a little more.

Being gay is not an action. I am gay all the time, whether I am having sex or not. Even were I to have sex with a woman, I would still be gay while engaged in that action. It's not a choice. If it were a choice, there would be almost no gay people -- when we all first realize we're gay in our early teens, the most common reaction is to try to suppress that "wrong" part of ourselves. If we could choose, most of us would have then chosen to not be gay anymore.

I've known I was gay since I was 12 years old, and it was clear before that -- in kindergarten, I liked to be on the girls teams, and would try to kiss the other boys. I also have some of the morphological differences common amongst gay males, indicating a strong likelihood of genetic influence on my sexuality.

To your earlier post the first yahoo search poll I found was 2 years old from 2009 where it was 57% opposed gay marriage so thats where I got my numbers from, if things have changed then so much the better. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx

I don't know that numbers swung that much in reality. For most people, this isn't an issue they think about much or care about much. While there are large groups on either side with hard and fast positions, and increasingly more people are fixing on a position of support, there's a large swath of the country that doesn't really care, and if asked one day would answer one way, and if asked another would answer another. Polling for opinions like this is less accurate than polling likely voters regarding political candidate support.

As to one last point, I think it may be entirely possible that President Obama truly does oppose gay marriage, I cant read his mind I only can take the statements he has made that show his opposition. 

I can't claim to know, either. But I do know how Democratic candidates deal with this issue, and how they often feel forced to halfheartedly profess a position on this issue that they do not actually agree with, for fear of losing close elections.

Are african americans as a group more religious?   Or the religions that they gravitate towards more anti gay then others?

Not only are African Americans much more likely than the average American to be religious, they are much more likely to be members of an evangelical Protestant denomination.

Ok and I can understand that, but the issue is that in this country the majority of people disagree with your viewpoint, they are liberal, conservative, democrat and republican...

That's not true. Most recent polls show the nation fairly evenly divided on the issue of gay marriage. The last one I have on file shows 48% opposition to 42% support, with a majority of Democrats supporting, as well as a large majority of self-identified liberals. There is no vast national consensus against gay marriage -- in fact, support for gay marriage today is far higher than support for interracial marriage was at the time Loving v. Virginia was decided.

There is no set group of people that is against gay marriage, if you feel the majority of americans, including a president I know you strongly support are personally attacking you, then no discussion on this issue can work with you.

President Obama does not argue against gay marriage, he just makes a mealy-mouthed statement and moves on. Why? Because, clearly, he actually supports gay marriage, but feels that he can't do so publicly for political reasons. That's irritating. It's also something I expect to change, if not in the next election, then during his second term. The Administration has already begun laying the groundwork for first Vice President Biden, and then the President, to come out in favor of gay marriage, probably in response to the inevitable ruling by the Supreme Court on the issue. Provided the Prop 8 case is allowed to move forward, that is.

Is religion the driving force behind a majority of americans opposing gay marriage?

Yes. The conservative branch of the Christian religion is deeply involved with the anti-gay movement. Gay rights, science, knowledge, freedom -- the conservative Christian movement is fighting the fruits of the Enlightenment wherever they may arise.

I would think that a group that sees the most challenges in equal rights historically in america would think differently, and I dont know why they dont.

The world doesn't work that way.

I've often felt that 'gay pride parades' where homosexuals flaunt their gayness in the most extravagantly flamboyant way possible are the biggest detriment to the gay lifestyle.

Like the idiot who paints his face at a football game, or the loser who shows up in Klingon makeup at a Star Trek movie opening, the 25 floats in a gay pride parade that are just like those of any other parade are ignored and the two floats with guys in leather underwear. It sucks.

In Dallas, lots of families with kids come to the gay pride parade every September. It's one of the best attended parades every year, and the idiots in leather underwear contingent is pretty small. Though they'll be the only thing to make the newspaper. Sigh.

One thing though that I think may be worthy of discussion on its own would be how we could even have a debate on things like gay marriage.  It seems by your definition saying that gays shouldnt be married is a personal attack against you.

I have never encountered an argument against gay marriage (while maintaining the institution of straight marriage in its present state) that doesn't at some level reduce down to the notion that gays are "disordered," that being gay is "wrong," or that gay relationships are less valuable and worthy of respect than straight relationships. Thus, every argument I've ever heard against gay marriage reduces down an attack on me at a very personal, very individual level. Perhaps there is an argument against gay marriage that both respects the integrity of gay relationships and opposes equal treatment of them, that would not be an attack on the dignity or morality of every gay person. If there is, I would be interested in hearing it.

More likely, though, your question is effectively the same as saying: "How can we have a debate on things like letting black people vote without it being an attack on black people?" You probably can't. Because just like there's no argument against letting black people vote that doesn't reduce down to racism, there's no argument, that I've encountered, against gay marriage that doesn't reduce down to bigotry.

Someone who holds an opposite view to you is not personally attacking you just by having an opposing viewpoint.

Someone saying that my relationship should not receive the same protections and benefits as their relationship (which is impossible in any separate but equal situation) *is* personally attacking me, unless they can produce an argument heretofore never heard in favor of discrimination. At some level, it reduces down to "gays are icky" or "being gay is wrong." And those are personal attacks on me.

Obviously, the original thread is locked. I hope that this post is okay, as it is not an attempt to continue the arguments contained therein, but to address and, hopefully, resolve the drama that ensued.

Zeke is mad at me because I used the words "Bigot trash" in a post. Now, I used these words in the same sort of chickenshit way that attacks are often couched in this subforum -- I didn't specifically indicate that I was referring to him. In fact, the words stand alone, and don't refer to anyone specifically. For years, this sort "no no no, that was a general statement, not directed at you" defense has been used as a shield by people who, like Zeke, have posted things again and again and again that insult me for being gay by in some way denigrating gays in general (in this case, as being unfit for marriage) paired with the absurd claim that the statement was not "directed" at me.

It's not right when people do this. And it was not right when I did it.

So, I want to apologize, to the board, and to Zeke specifically.

This is not a mealy-mouthed "I'm sorry if you were offended," or even an "I'm sorry if he's sorry," apology. Just a straight up one.

I apologize for typing those words, and posting them, and for the subsequent collapse of the thread, for which I take full responsibility.

Did, at some point in this thread, Zeke get officially reprimanded for his racist comments about Gellar, his homophobic comments or his attack on my religiosity? I don't recall that.

I've offered by PM to apologize for the comment he's up in arms about from me if he'll apologize for his comments directed at me.

Is it cool to tell someone they're "lost," ie going to Hell, which is pretty much one of the worst things you can tell someone who considers themselves a Christian?

Ultimatums always make things better.

I don't hate you.

Thanks, brett

I am not baiting, and have not baited. I post a differing view, so some of you automatically assume it's baiting.

I have not once 'lost it' in these threads the past couple days like Fireball just did, and personally attacked anyone. But he did.

Noon today i'm gone here for good if nothing is done from either a mod or more members of this community about his blatant personal attack. And while you all may think it's just all about me, it will actually be about the integrity of the forum members and staff in upholding the CoC.

You poor, poor dear.

Did you, or did you not make a racial slur about gellar a few pages back?  Do you think racial slurs are okay if you are trying to be funny?  This illustrates exactly what this entire thread has been about - you want one set of rules for you where straight white men can feel victimized, and a different set of rules for everyone else.

He's also denigrated my civil rights as unimportant, and at one point pretty much told me I'm going to Hell. That's warm and fuzzy.

Don't look, Zeke, it's pictures of married people!

Oh.  Well then accept my apologies for personally attacking you by saying you may have participated in a personal attack, good sir.  Thank you for your explanation.

YAY! Now we're all having fun!



.... Why do I feel like I've gotten a bit loopy at this late hour? I'm never going to get used to living in the Eastern Time Zone....

Seriously?  You'd leave cause someone called you bigot trash and wasn't given a slap on the wrist for it?

Wait, where did I call him bigot trash? I just typed those words. On a separate line of a post. In no way intending, in my virginal innocence (umm, for the purposes of this sentence, let's pretend I'm 17 again), to besmirch his character.

That's my fact, it wasn't a reference to him. It's the name of a band I like.  Surely, if Zeke can just make up definitions and meanings of the terms he uses to suit whatever purpose he has at hand at the moment, I'm allowed to do the same?

My facts say that wasn't a reference to him. As he requires us to accept, out of whole cloth, the facts he asserts, despite their obvious inaccuracy, I too am insisting the same.

My book says so.

Zekester, paraphrased, over and over again in this thread: "Faggots are worthless people whose rights aren't worth disrupting my ignorant, uneducated worldview for. It is better that they be treated as the faggot garbage that they are than to have a word that I don't understand the history of have its meaning expanded. And if you don't agree with me, you hate God and America and are persecuting me."

His entire position is an attack on me, an attack on my dignity as a human being, and, in most cases, an attack on the basic concept of intellectual discourse.

But him is got book with big words by magic sky man, so I guess he gets to say whatever he wants, no matter how hurtful and hateful, and I just have to take it like a good little fairy.

2) spoken like a true progressive. And while I believe some change may be necessary from time to time, gays right to be deemed lawfully married should at the very least be waaaayyy down on the list.

Zekester: "Shut the fuck up faggot, and get in the back of the bus."

Bigot trash.

The likelihood that gay marriage will be legal throughout the United States within the next 20 years -- hell, maybe within the next 5 -- gives me joy on so many levels. Of course, there's the benefits to me of being a true and equal citizen and all the goodness that entails. But on top of it, like a cherry on a sundae, will be the endless pleasure of watching anti-gay vermin wail and moan and thrash about, unable to to accept that the law now treats me the same as it treats them, and unable to stop it. Ahhhh.... the subtle wonder of schadenfreude.

1) what part of what this country was founded on do you still hold dear and legitimate?

The Constitution and the fundamental notion that all men are equal under the law.

2) and how would you feel if those things(assuming there are any, one has to wonder) were being petitioned to be changed or taken away?

Our society has been evolving since it was founded, and with the span of time, in the direction of greater equality and the inclusion of people formerly excluded -- racial minorities, women, religious minorities, gays.... This is our greatest strength, our greatest virtue. It's what makes America a nation worth loving.

Marriage in the United States includes gay persons. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of married gay couples in the United States, and no amount of prostrating and protesting will undo that fact. Nor will such nonsense stop the inevitable flow of history towards greater equality in these matters.

I think all Internet political forums are doomed to collapse. It's impossible to establish and maintain and equal balance of posters from various ideological positions, but without that balance, those amongst the less-prevalent position will eventually begin to feel "ganged up" on, and likely will abandon the forum, reducing it first to an echo chamber, and then finally to a rarely-updated forum like this one.

You can't have a discussion with someone who won't provide support for their position beyond "Bible says this." There's no depth or credibility to their position, nothing that can be learned speaking with them, and no effort on their part to learn the weaknesses in their argument. If Zeke were to respond to criticisms of his arguments with someone other than just a flat restating of his position, and actually show some indication that the responses of other people serve any purpose other than to alert him that it's time to repost the exact same statement again, things would go much more smoothly for him.