Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Gays + marriage = mismatch

Letter by Joseph B. Cristel, Carbonado on Jan. 6, 2012 at 6:04 pm with 315 Comments »
January 6, 2012 6:04 pm

Gov. Chris Gregoire, after two years of struggling with the gay marriage issue, has finally decided to throw her Catholic faith and thousands of years of social law under the bus of political correctness.

And (no surprise here) the editorial staff of The News Tribune agrees with her (editorial, 1-6). Of course they think it should be done by a democratic process, but if that fails they assure us it will be crammed down our collective throats by our social engineering courts!

The ramifications of same-sex marriages are huge for our society, and yet we are told that “it is the right thing to do,””the time is ripe” and “it would put Washington on the right side of history.” Yada,yada.

We’ve heard this stuff from them before. In 2008 they sang the praises of that “transformational figure,” Barack Obama. You know how that’s working out. If this foolish advice is allowed to take root it will destroy the foundations of our society.

Leave a comment Comments → 315
  1. took14theteam says:

    Great letter Mr. Cristel. Be prepared for the leftwing attack machine.

  2. dinseattle says:

    Oh good grief. My husband and I both agree that if a gay couple wants to get married, let them. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones that get hosed in divorce? Why should gay couples be exempt from that? Equality for everyone!

  3. bobcat1a says:

    It’s really sad the way society has totally collapsed in Iowa…and New York and Connecticut and New Hampshire and Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. It must be pure agony to live in one of those places where you have to live with same sex couples in the neighborhood.

  4. “The ramifications of same-sex marriages are huge for our society”

    Please Mr. Cristel explain these “huge ramifications”.

  5. surething says:

    Ridiculous letter.

  6. scooter6139 says:

    Joe is letting his bigotry show.

  7. Blah -blah–blah. To the letter writer? How does anyone else’s marriage affect the quality of your own? Concentrate on your own marriage relationship and keep your nose out of others.

  8. No silly social contrivance has huge ramifications
    these days except nuclear weapons.

  9. muckibr says:

    So far it looks like 8 in support of the same-sex marriage issue, and just Joe Cristel and took1… against. Hmmmm!

  10. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    Good letter and here is my list on why we should not have gay marriage.

    1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman
    2. Marriage is for procreation
    3. Same-sex couples aren’t the optimum environment in which to raise children.
    4. Gay relationships violate the sacred institution of marriage.
    5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species.
    6. We shouldn’t alter heterosexual marriage, which is a traditional institution that goes back to the dawn of time.
    7. Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences.
    8. If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools.

    And the big one is:
    9. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex.

  11. Publico says:

    How does one make a reasonable comment about a ridiculous letter?
    I can only feel somewhat sorry for the author’s lack of understanding. He must have developed his views by listening to someone else with similar views and never listening to the other side which is how one develops a reasoned view.
    The author’s view probably comes from a strong religious influence and therein lies the problem. The habit of religion is oppressive, an easy way out of thought.

  12. Pecksbadboy says:

    Mr Cristal,

    You have no trouble cramming you religious beliefs down the throats of your children before they are old enough for reasonable thought.

    What are the “huge ramifications” if one of your children wished to convert to the Muslim faith or told you they were of their homosexual persuasion?

  13. keepinitreal says:

    “8” ?

    Well that explains the alts anyway.

  14. ImAKoala says:

    taxedenoughintacoma,
    Really? Your list of arguments against gay marriage are absurd.
    You say that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. That is just because the laws haven’t changed to keep up with the times. There was also a time when a black man could be a white man’s property. Just because it was once ok doesn’t mean it always has to be that way. I’m sure you’ll agree that abolishing slavery was a change for the better, right?

    You also assert that marriage is for procreation. I wonder what your views are on hetero marriages that do not produce children. My husband and I have been married for 10 years and have decided against having kids. Since we are not procreating, is our marriage valid in your eyes?

    You also claim that same sex marriages are not the optimal environment to raise kids. Do you have some data to back up that assertion?

    “Gay marriages violate the sacred instituion of marriage.” Not everyone believes in your god. Sorry, I follow the laws of the land. Your pretend fairy man in the sky holds no sway with me. I would assume that most homosexuals have similar views. So what do we care if your so-called sacred instituions are violated?

    “Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species.” With 7 billion people on the planet and a population that is growing exponentially, shouldn’t our concern lie with slowing the population growth rate? Certainly we have shown, as a species, that one thing we are good at is breeding. Marriages that do not produce children should be the least of everyone’s worries. I feel personally that I am doing the planet a favor by not adding to the population. See also the response to your point number 2, which is really just saying the same thing in a different way.

    Your point # 6 is really the same as #1, so I won’t address it again.

    Can you explain how allowing homosexual marriage will, in any way, contribute to bestiality, incest, and polygamy and all manner of other “horrible concequences”? (Which apparently, are too horrible to name specifically?)

    If gay marriage is promoted in public schools (really?), consider it payback for intelligent design being taught in school. :)

    Your last point, (the big one, as you say) is like saying “if the black men didn’t want to be slaves, they should have been born white!”

    I usually read the comments here, but don’t comment myself. Your letter was so ignorant and absurd I just couldn’t help myself.
    Misty

  15. Stupid letter and here is my list on why we should have same-sex marriage.

    1. Marriage is an institution between two consenting adults who love each other.


    2. Marriage is for love


    3. Same-sex couples are just as capable at creating an optimum environment in which to raise children as anyone else.


    4. Gay relationships enhance the sacred institution of marriage.


    5. Marriages are for ensuring the commitment between two people in love.


    6. We should alter heterosexual marriage, which is a boring traditional institution that goes back to the dawn of time.


    7. Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards accepting people for who they are instead of rejecting anyone and everyone who is not exactly the same as everyone else.


    8. If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be accepted in all of society.

    And the big one is:


    9. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is wait a a short while until it’s legal here in Washington state, go to any of 6 other states where it’s already legal, or wait a little while longer until it legal in all fifty states, because it will be eventually.

    BUT THE REALLY BIG ONE IS,

    If there are still people in this country who cannot accept the legalization of same-sex marriage, then those people can always move to a country where it’s still illegal. May I recommend: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc… And we will be a better country when those bigots finally do go away.

  16. aislander says:

    There is no compelling reason for the state to endorse gay “marriage.” The ONLY reason the state has any interest in marriage, aside from those aspects that can be dealt with contractually, is not just the possibility, but the probability of offspring. Most marriages–not all, but most–result in children.

    The ONLY real reason I can see for this push is to make some people feel better about themselves, while taking another whack at the culture. That’s just not reason enough.

    I hate that there are three threads (so far) on this subject, since it results in the duplication of points that have been made elsewhere. I guess I’ll wait until tomorrow to repeat here the other arguments I have made…

  17. ImAKoala says:

    muckibr :)

  18. Thanks ImAKoala. I liked your comment too!

    aislander, is that all you can do is keep repeating the same stuff over and over and over again? Remember what you said on another thread, that just because you keep repeating something false over and over it just doesn’t make it true. Try thinking up some new stuff for a change. Or, at least post those dozens of Bible references you said you have.

  19. spotted1 says:

    If you support gay marriage you articulate and caring. If you do not support gay marriage you are considered backwards and out of touch. Even if the arguement is articulate and intelligent.

    Bring on gay marriage. It isn’t the worst thing you will have to deal with…

    Gay divorce…now that will be a circus sideshow of its own…nothing worse than gay divorce…as stated by an individual who is in fact gay…

  20. HistoryFan says:

    For centuries marriage has been between a man and a women. Just think, all those dumb unenlighted people for thousands of years have been yearning to be enlighted and reeducated by those few in today’s world. How were we ever able to survive without such enlightenment? Those who flip their nose up at what a marriage is turely are so Sanctimonious. If you want to love someone of another gender, do so and enjoy. Don’t fundamentally change what marriage is, between a man and a women.

  21. mathius says:

    If you agree your wrong, if you dont agree your wrong. This is just another way for the government to distract use from the problems they are creating. Look with the domestic partnership rights and laws gays have they actually have more rights then straight couples have. Straight couples are not covered under the domestic partnership laws. They have to get married to get the same rights. Hey I dont really care ether way, the fabric of this country is so messed up that im stocking up for the end of this nation. So while you all bicker about all these stupid things and dont see the country and the world fall apart around you I will be safe with my family in a well stocked safe area. See how well your issues stand up when anachy comes breaking down your doors. Get with it people and wake up.

  22. lamofred says:

    The ramifications of same-sex marriages are huge for our society”: so explain what these huge rams are, and how your life is so affected by two gay people who want to get married? Whats business is it of yours? Nobody’s forcing you to go to their wedding, or to snoop around in their bedroom, which is really what people like you want to do.

  23. papasan says:

    @taxedenough:
    1. MAYBE right, but who wants to be institutionalized?
    2. If a Married straight couple fails to procreate, whether by CHOICE (eeeew, not THAT ugly word!). then are they supposed to divorce, or continue to live in sin?
    3. think that the only people that still don’t believe the decades of research are living in a bayou in Southern Mississippi. And that’s only because they just recently started getting television in color.
    4. So? According to the same Bible that you read (I’m just guessing here) we should be taking adulterous women to the outskirts of town and stoning them. (Lev. 20:10) Well, now we don’t do that anymore. Why? Society has changed, grown, EVOLVED (another dirty word!) to where STONING is called what it is: murder. Go with the flow!
    5. NOT true. Maybe it’s because society is starting to accept Gay unions, buy there seems to be a LOT of Gay/Lesbian couples around and the population is STILL climbing. Besides, there is no way that you can PROVE that statement.
    6. Heterosexual marriage as old as “the dawn of time”???? REALLY??? You’re going to use THAT as an argument? Are there cave drawings somewhere that my class on Anthropology hasn’t heard of?
    7. Legalized incest? Beastiality? Slippery slope? I just HAVE to know, where in the name of God, Mohammed, Buddah and Vishnu did you get this? Did you read it? Did you hear it on the radio? I know that there is one guy out there hooked on Oxycontin that tends to spew nonsense, but even HE wouldn’t say THAT.
    8&9, well I’m just going to leave those to there to merinade for a while. Sir, you are a very troubled man. Afraid of what others are doing in their lives and in their homes and even more afraid of how it will effect YOU. Start chanting this over and over (I’m normally not big on chanting, but well, it couldn’t hurt) “It’s none of my business. It’s none of my business. It’s none…” Well, you get the point. Why do you care about who the guy up the street, Across town, or up State marries, loves, cares for, or sleeps with? If 2 people are deep enough in love to want to live their lives together forever, adopt and raise children in a loving, safe environment, you should greet them with open arms and a basket of fruit. Worried about the “sanctity of marriage”? Go to Las Vegas wherte you can get married in 10 minutes by an Elvis impersonator. THAT is an insult to marriage, when it becomes a bad joke.
    If Jesus taught ANYTHING in his brief time here, it was for us to LOVE EACH OTHER. Period.

  24. papasan says:

    @Mathius. Seriously. Seek help.

  25. beerBoy says:

    Gotta wonder how the “small government” anti-gay marriage folks feel about these laws:

    Oral sex is illegal in 18 states.

    In Virginia, it is illegal to have sex with the lights on.

    It is illegal for husbands in Willowdale, Oregon, to talk dirty during intercourse.

    Sexual intercourse between unmarried couples is illegal in Georgia.

    Engaging in any sexual position other than missionary is illegal in Washington, DC. ( Arrest the Congress)

    In Connorsville, Wisconsin, it is illegal for a man to shoot off a gun when his female partner is having an orgasm.

    In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, it is illegal to have sex with a truck driver inside a toll booth.

    Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal in Florida.

    It is illegal in Utah to marry your first cousin before the age of 65.

    Sex with animals is perfectly legal for men in Washington state, as long as the animal weighs less than 40 pounds.

  26. denismenis says:

    Well, let me see.. since corporations have been conferred personhood, doesn’t that make them polygamists? After all, a whole group, male and female, connect legally with contractual oblilgations to further their common interests.

    Just askin’… (levity intended)……

  27. TheSlag says:

    One could only hope all the religious zealots foaming at the mouth over equal rights for people they don’t understand would fight just a little to make the world better. As long as there is rape, clergy child rape and cover-up, sexual violence in the military and in jails, domestic violence you guys have a lot to clean up. Make sure your own house is in order before you attack others. This ignorant letter brought up Barack Obama. I think a more appropriate parallel is Saudi Arabia (the home of BinLaden). There, women can’t drive and are not allowed to decide who to marry, because religious zealots impose over them. Land of the free, only for those who submit to you?

  28. TheSlag says:

    On second thought, it makes sense the writer hates on Obama as much as on gays. Joe in Carbonara wants his world to remain all white and all in charge, and all with his religous rules. Maybe he ought to venture from his lumber home in Carbonara. The world in changing, and not towards a more snowy white. And for the better, for young people recognize that intolerance creates dysfunction.

  29. Pacman33 says:

    The same could be said for a public employees union if it were possible to find a collective bargaining agreement ethical enough to be notarized at the UPS store.

    They have been sticking it to multiple hundreds of thousands of taxpayers for decades.

  30. TheSlag says:

    Interest of the wealthy has been sticking it to taxpayers. That’s why working by the sweat of your brow is taxed MUCH higher than making money from money. Your job creators have not created anything but wealth and jobs overseas. Keep focusing on denying rights of minorities, because you don’t understand what makes the world go around.

  31. Pacman33 says:

    Hey Slag,
    The only intolerance is coming from the Same-sex crowd. Religious folk and those who defend one’s right to freedom of religion are only minding our own business and don’t want a thing from anybody.. It is the gays who are committing the actions. It is the gays who want. It is the gays who demand. It is the gay who are doing the taking and infringing into other’s personal lives.

    May I ask for what?

    What was the last GLBT ploy for sympathy and attention they crave like it was crack? I think it was called the Everything But Marriage Law. Why was it called that again? Oh yeah, it legally recognized same-sex unions the equivalent of marriage under state law. Senate Bill 5688 amended many state laws and place domestic partnership on an equal footing with civil marriage.

    What rights are they going to gain they don’t have already?

    p.s. I’m so tired of liberal creeps throwing the label ‘racist’ around like it doesn’t mean anything. I’ve just decided the first lefty that has the brass to say it to my face, is getting smashed square in the nose.

  32. denismenis says:

    Where on earth did public employees’ unions come into this string??

  33. TheSlag says:

    Your tolerant, religous message is: “I’ve just decided the first lefty that has the brass to say it to my face, is getting smashed square in the nose.”
    Yeah, we know that. We see in in the Taliban.

  34. auwing1978 says:

    Bottom line: if you deny someone something based on their sexual orientation it is discrimination. Discrimination in marriage based on sexual orientation is not an going to survive repeated legal challenges….period. As more and more gay and lesbian couples, many with adopted children, come into the mainstream of American society, the notions of gay marriage being the downfall of Western Civilization will erode over a few more generations. Our great-great-great grandchildren will write essays in U.S. History classes comparing and contrasting opposition to Interracial Marriage to Gay Marriage. Letters To The Editor like Mr. Cristels crying “huge ramifications” will be included in the footnotes of those essays. demonstrating the hysteria of the argument.

  35. Pacman33 says:

    Since same-sex spouses already enjoy equal rights under the law as everyone else, under the current law, per SB 5688 and then confirmed with R-71. What is the incentive for this action that adds to the full plates of our legislators? The GLBT are certainly not known for their evangelical reputation or for their massive mobs lined up at the entrances of churches, waiting to fill up the church pews across the state on Sunday mornings? Despite the deception from proponents they ALREADY enjoy equal rights. In fact, MORE rights than straight married couples under 62. Untruths and distortions has become standard dialog for apologists of same-sex marriage. Along with lazy attacks and petty name calling it appears to be an attempt to compensate for an absence of justification.

    Can anyone honestly and clearly explain,(w/o the b.s.), what the goal of this action plans to achieve? What is to be gained ? Exactly what right or rights in addition to current law would be awarded?

    It is reprehensible those question have not been answered by those who would gladly infringe on another’s right to freedom of religion. Some people have no shame. I know I won’t receive an honest answer, only b.s. delusions that pretend SB 5688 doesn’t exist, so I took a shot at it. I choose D.

    (A) Yet another attempt for the same-sex crowd to present themselves as a victim of hate and oppression in order to to indulge in the attention and sympathy, the gay community reveres so much and craves like a drug.
    (B) An effort of petty self-validation. Destroying or stealing a symbol of tradition and culture of a legitimate and recognized sect of society to compensate for their own self-perceived deficiencies as a respected group in the community. Most likely this choice in a futile attempt to pacify the idea of ‘equality’ same-sex marriage advocates speak of. Only they know, no matter how many religious ceremonies they defile and how many rights of others they infringe on, until they figure out how to procreate and provide a mother and a father for a child, they will never be Equal.
    (C) The sweet taste of revenge through hijacking, redefining and defiling the tradition and sanctity of an ages old religious ritual revered as holy by those who dared share a different belief. Retribution to those who wouldn’t forfeit the right to freedom of religion and submit to the demands of the gay marriage advocates.
    (D) All of the above.

  36. TheSlag says:

    copy, paste, copy, paste, repeat at nausea

  37. TheSlag says:

    “Can anyone honestly and clearly explain,(w/o the b.s.), what the goal of this action plans to achieve?”
    Okay, pac, we’ll spell it out one more time:
    “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

  38. Pacman33 says:

    “Where on earth did public employees’ unions come into this string??”

    The same place corporations did. Your comment.
    I liked your attempt at an analogy so I came up with my own.

    I surprised you didn’t make that determination yourself.
    Well, maybe I’m not.

  39. beerBoy says:

    As the old joke says, if you really want to reduce the amount of gay sex you should legalize homosexual marriage.

  40. auwing1978 says:

    It does make me chuckle a bit too that lots of folks posting here would find themselves in lockstep agreement with the Taliban on this issue.

  41. denismenis says:

    My analogy stuck with personhood and contracts, with stated levity.

    Yours went off on a tangent of unions and taxes with inferred anger.

    It’s no wonder I didn’t get it, as there is little parallel between humor and anger. But so much of what passes for debate here resides in the latter that, admittedly, it’s frequently useless to use the former.

  42. Pacman33 says:

    “Exactly what right or rights in addition to current law would be awarded?”

    Slag relied with “b.s.”

    Again the religious folk aren’t doing anything to anybody. It’s the gays doing the infringing. No one except for the gay marriage crowd is doing anything.

    If that excerpt means what you think it means (it doesn’t), then why do you need a law? Why aren’t you in court getting a decision? If that excerpt means what you think it means (it doesn’t), then a Christian could make Muslim mosques worship Jesus as Allah because they think Mohamed is offensive. Women could demand sermons to contain equal worship of Mary in the name of discrimination. Nevertheless, if your ‘copy and paste’ meant what you think the bill of rights implies we wouldn’t behaving this conversation. It would be the law.

    What civil rights are they going to gain from a new law? Anybody?

  43. Pacman33 says:

    Anger? How does one speak of the quality of debate only to then resort to falsely imply a state of emotion …. ? Clearly displaying a lack of ability to address content.

  44. bobbysangelwife says:

    Same sex marriage, no.

  45. Murigen says:

    This can be fixed by one simple act…get rid of state marriage licensees and start issuing state civil union licensees for everyone. This whole bru ha ha is about a legal contract between consenting adults. The state just issues the license required for the contract to be recognized.

    Taxed, your list makes no sense it never did. It’s the kind of list that is put together to try and cause fear. Fear that can be used to control the population.

  46. Sroldguy says:

    One step at a time.
    First the states and then federal.
    Equal rights for all.
    Or should that be equal money for all?

  47. Just think what a heaven on earth we would have now if people seeking justice and equality in our nation had not won their decades- and centuries-long struggles. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful life and culture in the USA if we still had slavery, women couldn’t vote, mixed-race marriages were still illegal, disabled people were still put out of sight, etc.? (/sarcasm)

    I am old enough to have been part of the discussions on mixed-race marriages and civil rights in the 50’s and 60’s, and the arguments people used then are almost exactly the ones people use now against gay marriage.

    People fear equality for others because they themselves are fearful of people who are unlike themselves and would rather live in that fearful world than educate themselves. Their anger and hate feeds on their fear and the fear stirred up in others. There is a frenzy of fear and hate on this issue among the far right, and no logic or facts or reason or persuasion gets through. Their little mean world would collapse if reason and logic prevailed.

    Look at their arguments, they are all based on unfounded fear. I like living in a world of hope and reason, unlike the anti-gay marriage crowd.

  48. auwing1978 says:

    @Tuddo: 3 pointer…you nailed it.

  49. 1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman Says who?
    2. Marriage is for procreation tell childless couples
    3. Same-sex couples aren’t the optimum environment in which to raise children. opposite sex marriages have a higher failure rate
    4. Gay relationships violate the sacred institution of marriage. What is “sacred” about something that ends in divorce half the time?
    5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species. See #2
    6. We shouldn’t alter heterosexual marriage, which is a traditional institution that goes back to the dawn of time. who is “altering” opposite sex marriages?
    7. Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences. You already have incest, beatiality, polygamy, compliments of opposite sex marriages
    8. If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools. “PROMOTED?????”
    And the big one is:
    9. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex. Thus you can become homosexual, right?

  50. muckibr says:

    How about we take a NEW approach to the issue of making same-sex marriage leage in Washington state?

    A UCLA study estimates the impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry on Washington’s state budget. The study concluded that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in a net gain of approximately $3.9 million to $5.7 million each year for the State. This net impact will result from savings in expenditures on state means-tested public benefits programs and from an increase in sales tax revenue from weddings and wedding-related tourism.

    http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=uclalaw/williams

  51. bobbysangelwife – I don’t think anyone was telling you that you have to marry someone of the same sex, but thanks for your answer, anyway.

    As I read these “anti” comments, I’m reminded that the same people that would talk about the “sanctity of marriage” are the people that would endorse Newt Gingrich over Barack Obama. The rationale is consistently ridiculous.

  52. “Since same-sex spouses already enjoy equal rights under the law as everyone else, under the current law, per SB 5688 and then confirmed with R-71.”

    However, they do not enjoy the same rights under federal law.

    “Look with the domestic partnership rights and laws gays have they actually have more rights then straight couples have.”

    That’s not true. Under federal law, domestic partnerships have less rights, with the exception of elderly, straight couples.

    “Straight couples are not covered under the domestic partnership laws.”

    Not true! See RCW 26.60.030

  53. The anti-gay marriage group is the same folks that make a fuss about “Happy Holidays” as opposed to “Merry Christmas”

    See the common thread of “control issues”?

  54. aislander says:

    Wow! Group wallpaper. Isn’t THAT illegal in some states, beerBoy?

    Should be…

  55. hypocritical – Libertywhatever posts continual nonsense and aislander complains about a group of people posting a common thought.

    Of course, in the land of paranoia, a group of people are all the same person.

  56. keepinitreal says:

    Too funny ai.

  57. keepinitreal says:

    Homosexual people are just as free to marry a person of the opposite gender as heteros.

  58. “which is a traditional institution that goes back to the dawn of time”

    Oh, I’m sure that the hunter/gatherers had religious ceremonies prior to the act of procreation. Since mankind dates back some 50,000 years and diety religions are more like 5000 years old, there is about a 45,000 year gap in your assertion.

  59. keepin – and you are free to leave them to make their own choices, which appears difficult for you.

    Where’s Larry?

  60. or is it James?

  61. real: Change names like changing sock, but whine about others

  62. flag comment

  63. “Too funny ai” Ha Ha Ha Ha. = “I (keepinitreal) can’t come up with anything at all intelligent to add so I will simply pander to my hero aislander, who also cannot come up with anything at all intelligent to add to the debate.”

    Yet, they will whip out words like “wallpaper” and “deflect” whenever they feel like it, even though THEY (keepinitreal and aislander) are the ones who most often wallpaper these threads with deflections.

    Hey keepinitreal! After the law is changed so that same-sex marriages are legal in Washington state, why don’t you marry aislander since you seem so in love with him now?

    That’s NOT a slam or a personal attack or name-calling. It is a serious question from me to you (and aislander). The two of you already act like you are lovers on these threads. Why don’t you look into getting hitched? Perhaps someone could perform a cyber-wedding for you here on this blog. SERIOUSLY!

    (Well, it’s at least as serious as ANYTHING you have written so far, if not more so!)

  64. aislander says:

    No control issues involved with imposing–by any means necessary, apparently–minority viewpoints on the larger culture.

    So those imposing those changes AREN’T controlling but those who prefer not to be changed ARE?

    But, change is always good, right? I mean if you’re bored, why not?

  65. thousands of years of social law

    Have you done any reading on the history of marriage? If so, I’m thinking you wouldn’t be so sure that the legal contracts have always been as they currently are. Women were property and traded like commodoties (thus the practice of exchanging the dowry), polygamous and/or additional consort arrangements weren’t uncommon, and yes – even gay marriage has been recognized in Western Civilization.

    Check out The Oneida Community

    Founded by John Noyes in 1948, the Oneida colony in upstate New York cultivated a form of group marriage called “complex marriage” in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. The community also practiced “scientific breeding” in which potential parents were matched by committee for physical and mental health.
    http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

    Specific to your claim about historical denial of same sex marriage:

    The first recorded mention of the performance of gay marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[20]

    At least two of the Roman Emperors were in gay unions. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Nero “married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony… with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse” A friend gave the “bride” away “as required by law.”[21] The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[22] The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.
    [....]
    Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Portugal and Iceland.
    [....]
    In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of “enbrotherment” (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions
    [....]
    On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada’s population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in those areas.[1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

  66. aislander says:

    So…stalking is okay, but arguing seriously against profound societal changes isn’t? Got it!

  67. aislander

    A. Who is “stalking” who? If you are referring to me, then you are the stalker DUDE, because I posted 2 comments on this thread before YOU ever showed up.

    B. You have YET to post any “serious argument” on the topic in your 4 comments. All you have posted is you same lame OPINIONS, and opinions are not arguments.

    Post something with some proof for a change, like those dozens of Bible quotes you said you had on that other topic.

  68. Harry_Anslinger says:

    Considering ‘taxedintacoma’ regurgitated bigot talking points that have been trounced as the absurd nonsense that they are I won’t pile on. However I’m sad that he didn’t follow up by saying he was simply being sarcastic. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt due to the complete idiocy of ‘flat-earth’level logic rooted in the middle-ages.

  69. aislander says:

    “a group of people posting a common thought…”

    I’ll be looking for anything that resembles a thought, but if you have one, be kind to it: it’ll be in a strange place.

    In the mean time, I’ll be prepared for more of the emotionally-driven mob delirium I’ve seen so far…

  70. Harry_Anslinger says:

    There is nothing wrong with incorporating christian principles into one’s life, especially into a well-adjusted self actualized human being that in the United Stated of America lives under the premise of constitutional freedom and the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. However those that somehow can’t cope with the freewill choices of others betray the very ideals of freedom. Do I believe that homosexuality is defined as ‘wrong’ from a biblical standpoint? I will admit that I do. That does not give me the right to repress the freedom of others. Religious zealotry is unnacceptable when forced on the secular areas of civil society.

  71. ManuelMartini THANK YOU!!! What an excellent article to post a link to, in specific relation to the topic and range of discussion on this thread.

    EVERYONE needs to read the article linked to in Manuel’s 10:35 AM post. Especially the conservatives on this thread. (I’m talking to you aislander!)

    Here is just a clip:

    “Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.”

    Oh, and the article title is:

    Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
    (Liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives because they are)

    It explains why the Liberal presence on this thread more often provides actual documented factual information supporting the right to same-sex marriages, whereas the Conservatives most often simply degenerate to emotional outbursts (or as aislander says “mob delirium.”) unsupported by any facts.

    Thank you again Manuel! Excellent!!!

  72. ManuelMartini says:

    My pleasure.

    After months of reading these comments and subsequently reading the article, I thought this debate was the perfect place to submit it.

    There is nothing intellectually sound about opposing the marital union of two consenting adults. It is strictly an emotional response based on superstitions and similar lack of foundation.

  73. aislander says:

    ManuelMartini: I found the opinion piece you posted quite interesting, but, unfortunately not at all persuasive. There is an old saying: “If one is not a socialist at the age of twenty, he has no heart; if not a conservative at forty, no brain,” so the early adulthood IQ ranges (if accurate) are irrelevant.

    And here is why:

    The above truism means that, contrary to the perception of unbounded abilities typical of youth, experience teaches that one person or one group of people is simply incapable of running the lives of everyone else. Some of the nations mentioned in the opinion piece are themselves testament to that, bankrupt as they are precisely due to liberal nostrums.

    Rather than being more intelligent, liberals are simply those who have never quite grown up.

    As Harry Callahan is made to say: a person has got to know his limitations…

  74. Pac considers the constitution BS. Okay.
    He also likes to resort to physical violence: “I’ve just decided the first lefty that has the brass to say it to my face, is getting smashed square in the nose.”Pacman.
    Irrational emotional responses show what a fool you are, pac. Take a break, man, go for a walk… and don’t beat up your wife…

  75. SandHills says:

    C’mon and just put it on the ballot – let the voters vote their conscious without having to hear the overbearing and shrill opinions from those too far gone to the left or right of the political and moral spectrum. This issue will be divisive – maybe it will be good as a diversion to whatever tax initiatives Olympia politicians will try to get passed on the same ballot.

    But eventually this issue has to come to a head – because what plays well in King County, San Francisco, or New York, doesn’t in Charlotte, Dallas, or Birmingham. It might be all well and good that gays get the right to marry in one state, but not be recognized in another. It might not generate the same schism as slavery in 1860, but it will most certainly be defining issue between the ever widening divide between Red States and Blue States.

    King County may very well push this issue through the ballot in Washington – but I seriously doubt the Bible Belt states will ever accept this no matter how many other states do. So as long as those gay couples don’t ever expect to move to a non-gay marriage state …..

  76. aislander says:

    The whole timing of Gregoire’s diversion is suspect. It seems to me she is doing the magician’s trick of causing the audience to look at one hand while the other doing something else.

    There is something else in the works, or internal polling is showing some danger for the Dems, and they need the base to get worked up…

  77. Manuel, here’s the origination of the quote that aislander bastardized for his own purposes:

    Often attributed to Winston Churchill, The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”

    Translation: If you are not a Republican at age 20, you are heartless, but if you are still a Republican by age 30 then you’re just brainless!

    That would seem consistent with the article you linked to Manuel.

    Again, you have my Thanks for sharing that with us all, even the “conservatives’ here.

  78. aislander, from the script for the movie Magnum Force:

    Harry Callahan: Well, I just work for the city, Briggs!

    Lieutenant Briggs: So do I, longer than you, and I never had to take my gun out of its holster once. I’m proud of that.

    Harry Callahan: Well, you’re a good man, lieutenant. A good man always knows his limitations…

    Well, you may be a good man aislander, I really have my doubts, but you really have got to realize your limitations, and you are really seriously limited, man!

    Because, aislander, you are yet again WRONG when you write: “As Harry Callahan is made to say: a person has got to know his limitations…”

    At the end of the movie, when Harry blows-up Briggs, the actual quote is: “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

    So, what misinformation/disinformation are you going to post next aislander?

    “Go ahead, make my day”

  79. sandblower says:

    ai has come up with yet another conspiracy theory that the Dem base needs to be “worked up” because of some unknown polling taking place in some unknown venue. My experience is that there is a lot of unknown in ai’s world. It is consistent with what Manuel provided.
    What in the world goes on in the minds of Pacman, ai and the others in that crowd that causes such warped views of what really are simple expansions of the definitions of human rights? Could it be that those expansions are made necessary by the inherent bigotry in some of us? Nobody has ever convinced me that there are other coherent reasons.

  80. sandblower, What I keep seeing, in situations like this, is that there seems to be a deeply ingrained streak in some types of people that requires they have someone to legally discriminate against in order to make themselves seem more important. That’s their real problem with gay and lesbian marriage. When same-sex marriage is made legal here in Washington, and it will, they will need to find some other group to discriminate against. That means they’ll have to do some work, and they don’t like that.

  81. ManuelMartini says:

    Rights of minority sectors of society are not the decision of the electorate.

  82. Manuel.., I hope you are still here reading these posts, because I wanted to say that the following quote:

    “There is nothing intellectually sound about opposing the marital union of two consenting adults. It is strictly an emotional response based on superstitions and similar lack of foundation.”

    … is really one of the best, most succinct, and correct statements I have read on this issue yet.

    And, of course you are correct about “Rights”, but sometimes it does require a majority of the electorate to codify and implement protections of those Rights into laws.

    Thank you for your continued participation on this issue. You comments are very refreshing!

  83. “Rights of minority sectors of society are not the decision of the electorate.”
    Absolutely. Rights are inherit, equal rights for all. It’s not that difficult to wrap one’s heart and mind around it.

  84. arguing seriously against profound societal changes

    That assumes that recognizing same-sex marriage using the word “marriage” instead of the conservative politically correct version is a “profound societal change”

  85. beerBoy says:

    The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says “around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual.” The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

    Explain again how something that would likely affect less than 1% of the population and, even by accepting the NGLTF numbers and assuming that all of the gay, lesbian and bi-sexual individuals would opt for a same-sex marriage, would only affect eight percent of the population, is equivalent to a “profound societal change”.

  86. beerBoy says:

    Appropriate that aislander would cite a hyper-masculine fictional character on this thread.

  87. CrazyJim says:

    Rights for everyone! Seperate but equal never works.

  88. muckibr says:

    beerBoy, BUT you have to realize that these are the same group of people who believe along with their hero Newt Gingrich that: 1.07% of the US population which is Muslim can impose Shariah Law on the rest of the 98.93% of us.

    Now if the gays and the Muslims ever get together, do you think “they” will be afraid that “they” may have to accept the “profound societal change” of same-sex Shariah marriages?

    Yeppers, aislander did bring up Dirty Harry Callahan. And then he ran away. Not Harry/ The other guy. Do you think his feelings were hurt? I hope not, because I was just debating the issues with him. Nothing personal.

    Like Harry says, “She wants to play lumberjack, she’s going to have to learn to handle her end of the log.”

  89. took14theteam says:

    A brand new year, and Muck has forgotten his pledge to be nice. It must feel good to know you’re the thread police and judge. You get to decide who’s opinion is worthy and who’s isn’t You get to make fun of and degrade other commenters that has an opinion not worthy of your approval.

    Welcome back from your New Year’s vacation in that other country and time zone. I hope TSA reached in real far to make sure you were good to fly….

  90. keepinitreal says:

    Wow…

  91. muckibr says:

    Hey took1… If you can’t take a little ribbing from time to time then just go away. God knows I have taken a hell of a lot of crap from you and your pals on these threads. So man-up!

    I’ve tried to get you guys to be nice and show some common courtesy, to no avail. Do, if you can’t take what you dish out, then get out of here or quit being a cry baby about it!

  92. muckibr says:

    “Wow…” yet another deep thought from keepinitreal!

  93. aislander says:

    Deflection, diversion, projection, with a whole lot of hair-splitting thrown in, huh, took1?

    Too bad about MY new year’s resolution…

  94. keepinitreal says:

    No kidding aislander. Projection especially. Patterns have developed and they’re pretty easy to see.

    I’m actually surprised the moderator tolerates it.

    Not sure how my 10:03 comment evoked the juvenile 10:15 response. Strange.

  95. taxedenough gave us a litany of anti-gay marriage statements that prove my point about lack of reasoning and use of fear as the basis for being anti-gay marriage. Let’s take them one by one from the point of view of marriage as a legal entity in the USA, since that is what we are talking about, not religious opinions or sacred texts, just the Constitution and law.

    1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.

    Making a statement as support for the conclusion you want to end up with in an argument is a logical fallacy and doesn’t make a case for anything. We know this is not a logical statement and is a false one because several states allow gay marriage.

    Legally, this is in limbo. That is why we are having this discussion.

    2. Marriage is for procreation

    That is just one reason among many for marriage, but courts have listed numerous reasons for legal support for marriages. The statement itself is a belief, not a legal fact. Since childless couples receive all of the legal benefits of marriage, then the statement cannot be used as an exclusion under the marriage laws.

    3. Same-sex couples aren’t the optimum environment in which to raise children.

    This one has been proved through scientific studies as false. Studies have shown that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in heterosexual homes when it comes to social development and adjustment, and several studies have shown that children of gay couples actually fare better in school and make more money than do children in heterosexual couples with similar income and education levels. Here’s one report (there are too many to list here) that found children of gay couples scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

    4. Gay relationships violate the sacred institution of marriage.

    In our secular law there is no such thing as a “sacred institution.” The closest we have is our Constitution, and it is on that, and not any religious sacred text that we have to base our arguments. This is a belief of many religions, however, so it is a good thing that we have freeedom of religion in the USA because churches do not have to marry gay couples or interracial couples or short or tall couples. People who believe marriage is sacred can continue believing that. Life is good in the USA for believers.

    5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species.

    This is a repeat of #2, and is just as incomplete. Most species, including humans, could continue their species just fine without marriage. What the courts have said in support of marriage is that the family unit is the main foundation of our democracy. Tribal societies focus on direct lineage and, like Islamic tribal societies, discourage and even prohibit adoption. Democracies believe that children are best raised in stable family units and encourage adoption and care for children in safe, nurturing families. The legal benefits of marriage encourage family stability, and this is just as true in gay marriages as straight marriages.

    6. We shouldn’t alter heterosexual marriage, which is a traditional institution that goes back to the dawn of time.

    Heterosexual marriage is not being harmed or even discussed as an issue. It will continue just the same. This is what is called a “false dilemma” in logic and arguments. I don’t know what your definition of “dawn of time” is, but since you believe marriage is sacred, then you must believe in the pagan religions that existed when humans first started forming societies. There is plenty of historical and archeological records that show that marriage was not always heterosexual and many times did not look anything like what we call marriage today.

    7. Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences.

    The Supreme Court has already ruled on incestual marriages, bestiality and other “horrible consequences,” Marriage is a contract, says the court, between consenting persons and states may restrict marriages between close relationships, people too young or disabled to give consent, between a human and an animal or anything else that can’t give consent. This is fear-mongering and ignorance at its worst. States may restrict any marriage that causes harm to others, harms those involved in the marriage or harms society.

    8. If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools.

    This is one that is a positive, not a negative. Schools should be teaching the Declaration of Independence where it says “All men are created equal” and the Constitution, where it talks about equality and justice for everyone. Schools should stay out of promoting religious views or ones that go against our founding documents.

    All people and all marriages should be promoted, and gays and gay marriages should be promoted for the same reasons straight ones are. Homosexuality is part of the normal condition of life and schools should present it that way. We in our democracy believe that marriage is a stabilizing influence on society, supports democracy and assists children.

    9. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex.

    The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that this reasoning is a false one when Virginia, and some lower courts, had said that their law did apply equally to all against interracial marriages. They argued that people could still avail themselves of marriage if they married within their own race. The court decided that states can only restrict the choice of marriage partners based on the reasons I gave in #7 – causing harm to others, causing harm to democracy, causing harm to those who would be in the marriage.

  96. muckibr says:

    keep… it was your 10:02 post (not 10:03! Can’t you even keep your own posts straight!) and it’s pretty obvious to everyone why it got the response I gave it. Have somebody read it to you. You’ll figure it out.

    And I am so glad you mentioned that particular post because in my 10:15 I wrote: “Yet, they will whip out words like “wallpaper” and “deflect” whenever they feel like it, even though THEY (keepinitreal and aislander) are the ones who most often wallpaper these threads with deflections.”

    And just like I said, her is aislander once again throwing around the word “deflection” just like he always does when he has no valid arguments to make on the topic. He is so predictable!!! At least he’s added a few new variations, but it’s still the same useless “wallpaper” rather than topical debate.

    You guys are so darn comical!!!! You crack me up!!! You really really do!!! You’re funnier than Kramer of Seinfeld!!!

  97. muckibr says:

    tuddo, yours is about the fifth or sixth point-for-point rebuttal to taxednoughintacoma’s 1/6/12/ 9:27 PM post. Yet, taxed… has not responded at all to any of them, and neither have his buddies who prefer to spam the word “deflection” in their cry-baby “wallpaper” screeds instead of debating the issue.

    Do you think taxed… has gotten the message and just doesn’t have anything else to say?

    Maybe taxed… is a bit miffed that his buddies aren’t backing him up on this issue!

    What do you think?

  98. aislander says:

    “There is no discrimination. The rules are the same for everybody…”

  99. aislander says:

    “Same-sex “marriage” isn’t marriage. The very word implies a uniting of opposites…”

  100. yabetchya says:

    To the one who is the one who thinks he can be anyone.
    What a distressed obnoxious, friendless life of misery you must live in your abnormal idiosyncratic existence. You and your snail trail club attending your own little masquerade orgy just goes to show how much of a sick person(s) you are.
    I really wonder about their sanity, and their over all obsession with always having to disagree, or have the last word, but most of all their constant state of being odious. Are the people on here that happen to disagree with their views safe?
    For example…X6 has admitted to having inside information. (He will get his jollies off that this was brought up, that is just the way he is) They have been known to stalk, and with this Muckamerry band of the twaddle trolls, they could be considered level three offenders in accordance with the TNT forum rules.

  101. So, aislander, you would have sided with the State of Virginia in their argument that restrictions on interracial marriage did not restrict equality under the law since people could marry within their own race?

    Unfortunately for you and all of the other equality-phobes out there, this argument was thrown in the legal wastebin.

  102. aislander says:

    “sozo: I’m sure you agree that there is no substantive difference between a white man and a black man, or between a white woman and a black woman, other than that they are all individuals. Anti-miscegenation laws were, therefore, discriminatory on their face, but not a valid analog to maintaining the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

    There ARE substantive differences between men and women, and the law treats men and women differently in appropriate instances. There is no discrimination in the law regarding marriage, since all people of both sexes are under the same rules.

    Same sex couples can call their relationships anything they want, but they cannot ask for my endorsement of those relationships, which is what state-recognized same-sex ‘marriage’ requires, since the state operates in the name of its citizens.”

  103. aislander, if you believe men and women should be treated differently under the law, you are not just conservative, you are positively neanderthal.

  104. aislander, state recognized endorsement by you or any other individual is not required. The guarantee of equality under the law is already there in the Constitution.

    You are grasping at straws.

  105. aislander says:

    So…WOMEN have to register with Selective Service? Say it ain’t so! Men and women are treated the same in divorce and child-custody situations? Reeeeslly…

  106. muckibr says:

    aislander; Do you remember what I wrote on 1/6/12 11:43 PM

    Here, let me repeat it for you: “aislander, is that all you can do is keep repeating the same stuff over and over and over again? ”

    1. Well, here you go again! You just posted this above

    aislander – JAN. 7, 2012 AT 4:41 PM
    “There is no discrimination. The rules are the same for everybody…”

    2. Which is the same damn thing you posted on

    aislander -JAN. 5, 2012 AT 8:34 PM
    There is no discrimination in the law regarding marriage, since all people of both sexes are under the same rules.

    3. Which is the same damn thing you posted on

    aislander – JAN. 5, 2012 AT 4:20 PM
    There is no discrimination. The rules are the same for everybody…

    4. Which is the same damn thing you posted on

    aislander – JAN. 5, 2012 AT 9:00 PM
    I reiterate that there is NO DISCRIMINATION–everybody operates under the SAME rules.

    5. Which is the same damn thing you posted on

    aislander – JAN. 6, 2012 AT 4:36 PM
    And the state puts all sorts of other restrictions on the ability to marry, and keeping marriage between a man and a woman is in the same vein. No discrimination…

    Remember what you said on another thread aislander, that just because you keep repeating something false over and over it just doesn’t make it true? Why do you just keep repeating yourself aislander? It still is NOT true no matter how many times you repeat it!

    But then you posted this too:

    aislander – JAN. 6, 2012 AT 4:23 PM
    There are many restrictions put on the ability to marry, and the law does treat men and women differently, so it is obvious there is no immutable right to marry whomever one wants to.

    So you say there IS discrimination between men and women, even though you are wrong to believe such discrimination is legal or constitutional.

    And you also wrote this

    aislander – JAN. 6, 2012 AT 4:33 PM
    Therefore, discrimination based on racial characteristics is unconstitutional, but different treatment based on actual differences is not….

    You are saying that there is DISCRIMINATION, but you say it is not unconstitutional, but again you are wrong.

    There is DISCRIMINATION and it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the State of Washington is going to fix that, no matter how much or how often you deny it.

    Try thinking up some new stuff for a change. Or, at least post those dozens of Bible references you said you had for that other thread.

  107. aislander says:

    It’s not a question of equality before the law, tuds. Everybody of both sexes operates under the same rules. YOU’RE the one who’s grasping…

  108. aislander says:

    aislander wrote: “When ‘change’ was being imposed on Germany in the 1930s, the leaders there used the analogy of replacing a bridge.

    They said you don’t tear down the old bridge and replace it all at once, or people would object. You replace it one bolt, rivet, and strut at a time until there is no trace of the old structure remaining.

    The existing definition of marriage is one bolt in the structure of our culture–but it is a vital one…”

  109. muckibr says:

    yebetchya, I love you too honey!

  110. muckibr says:

    aislander is NOW simply cutting his old posts from other threads and pasting them here.

    That’s called SPAMMING isn’t it?

    He has nothing new to add.

    It’s not worth the effort to read any more of his RECYCLED posts.

    Keep repeating your same denial aislander. Nobody cares about you and your one OPINION any longer.

    Y’all have a nice evening!

  111. aislander, unfortunately, as Ihave pointed out, you lost that argument in court already. If the law is discriminatory, then saying everybody is equal under it doesn’t change the fact that it is discriminatory.

    Please read the Virginia case again. The Supreme Court lambasted Virginia for making the same assertions you are when talking about a basic fundamental human civil right like marriage.

    When the courts require penile-vaginal sex or mandates procreation in marriage as the only valid marriages, then I will believe you that physiological sexual differences are a factor in marriage. Unfortunately that would rule out a large number of straight marriages, too.

  112. aislander says:

    aislander wrote: “There are many restrictions put on the ability to marry, and the law does treat men and women differently, so it is obvious there is no immutable right to marry whomever one wants to.

    You can’t marry your sister, brother, father or mother. You can’t marry someone who is already married. You can’t marry more than one person at a time, although some advocates are using the existence of same-sex ‘marriage’ laws in some states as an argument for, and a predicate to, allowing polygamy.

    And same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates assured us all THAT would never happen…”

  113. aislander says:

    The law isn’t settled yet, tuddo, especially that created by judicial fiat…

  114. muckibr says:

    tuddo, you don’t have to go all the way to Old Virginny for a court case to prove islander wrong again. There are at least two listed in the link below, and then there is this, which marries-up quite nicely with your comment about the “penile-vaginal sex mandate.”

    On January 10, 2007, a group calling itself the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance filed Washington Initiative 957 (2007) to put one part of the Andersen decision into law by making procreation a requirement for all marriage in Washington State. The stated rationale was to prompt public examination on the premise that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and to create a test case whereby Andersen could be struck down as unconstitutional. The initiative was withdrawn by its sponsors on July 3, 2007 after receiving too few signatures to qualify for the November 2007 ballot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Washington

  115. aislander, about the draft. The Supreme Court ruled in 1981 that it was constitutional to draft only men because “combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to exempt women from registration.” The combat restrictions are solely the province of the military and the Executive branch, and the court does not rule on military decisions like this.

    Many legal scholars believe that, since the basis was the fifth amendment and not the 14th, and since women can now be part of combat units, this decision is ripe to be overthrown. However, since no one has been prosecuted since 1986 under the draft registration law, and since we have not had a draft in a long time, no cases have been brought.

    Also, military service is not a fundamental human civil right like marriage is.

  116. aislander says:

    So…if everyone IS equal under a particular law, tuds, how can it be discriminatory? Seems that, if it is discriminatory, it is discriminating against behavior. Laws do that all the time…

  117. muckibr says:

    Sooner or later aislander or one of his li’l buddies is going to start slinging out words like “deflection”, “wallpaper” again, or one the new words “diversion” or “projection” or some damn thing.

    When that doesn’t make any difference, then he’ll probably bring out some comment about this guy Alinsky, or a person named Godwin or some other person I have no idea who is.

    But, let me just say for the record that I can clearly see what aislander’s method is here on this topic.

    aislander believes if you tell a lie, often enough, and loud enough, then sooner or later people will start to believe it, even though it is still a lie.

    Hence, his recycled posts “There is no DISCRIMINATION”

    That my friends is the propaganda model promoted by Paul Joseph Goebbels, and that’s what aislander believes will work for him here.

  118. muckibr says:

    aislander’s comment above at JAN. 7, 2012 AT 5:30 PM  

    is a WORD-FOR-WORD COPY of a post he made on another thread on

    aislander – JAN. 6, 2012 AT 4:23 PM  

    SPAM!!!

  119. muckibr says:

    aislander’s comment above at JAN. 7, 2012 AT 5:21 PM  

    is a WORD-FOR-WORD COPY of a post he made on another thread on

    aislander – JAN. 6, 2012 AT 10:02 AM  

    SPAM!!!

  120. took14theteam says:

    muckier wrote on
    JAN. 7, 2012 AT 5:24 PM
    yebetchya, I love you too honey!

    Interesting that Muck, who was out of the time zone and country to celebrate New Year’s would have discovered the faked name of yabetchya in a prior thread when sum-one was creating numerous false “monikers” (to help Muck understand what I mean instead of using “alt”) and then use it here. And in a non-“nice” way.

    Kind of makes you go “hmmm”.

  121. aislander, how can any law be discriminatory? When it puts undue burdens on one group of people for no constitionally- supported reason, that’s how.

    You still haven’t read the Virginia anti-mixed marriage case yet, have you?

    That is why the Supreme Court had to be so definitive about marriage and the reasons why states could restrict it. If the arguments for treating certain individuals differently under the law don’t fit with those three basic reasons, then it is discriminatory.

    States can restrict marriage to people capable of giving consent and entering into contracts, but can otherwise only restrict the fundamental human civil right of marriage if it causes harm to others, causes harm to society or causes harm to a person in the marriage.

    They threw out the “tradition” reasons and the religious reasons and the “people can get married equally under the law, just to people they don’t want to” arguments.

  122. took14theteam says:

    Gotta love the spell check! muckibr corrected to muckler. Most likely one and the same for this place….

  123. muckibr says:

    Go “hmmm” all you want took1…, I simply spelled yebetchya phonetically and apparently misspelled it. I also recall one time when I misspelled it as yabetcha. What does that tell you? Not a damn thing, unless you’re among the “paranoid posse” which I think you might even be a sheriff of.

    There’s no spell check to correct misspelling of yabetchya (did I spell it right that time? Who gives a rip!)

    God! You paranoids can think of some of the dumbest things to comment on!!! I swear!!! Kramerica is here and you are it!

    Hey, you misspelled my screen-name! I’ll bet you created all those alts didn’t YOU!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH that’s so funny!

  124. muckibr says:

    P.S. How is saying “I love you too honey!” not nice?

    I’m guessing yebetchya, yabetcha, yabetchya was flattered by that.

  125. aislander says:

    tuddo: Sorry about the housekeeping. I quoted myself from other threads on this subject since various members raised points to which I had previously responded or addressed elsewhere. All such instances are surrounded by quotation marks…

    It would be interesting, though, to do a word or character count of this thread and others to see who is actually prolix…

  126. took14theteam says:

    No muck, I bet it was a subtle horse head in the bed for this comment:

    “For example…X6 has admitted to having inside information”

  127. muckibr says:

    RW98512
    DEC. 24, 2011 AT 9:46 PM  
    amjim hauled out yabetcha for Christmas. How nice!

    … and the rest of the message also says that YOU took14theteam and yabetchya, amjm, and a whole bunch of other alts!

    You were ALL those alts, weren’t you?

  128. muckibr says:

    “housekeeping?” How about apologizing for the SPAMMING?

  129. muckibr says:

    tuddo, you asked aislander “You still haven’t read the Virginia anti-mixed marriage case yet, have you?”

    He’s NOT going to read that case.

    All he’s going to do is wait a few more posts and then simply “Reiterate there is no DISCRIMINATION.”

    That’s all he’s got. He’s an empty sack.

  130. muckibr says:

    aislander, here is the link and a little tidbit for you to chew on while you read the Virginia Case tuddo has repeatedly asked you to read. Be sure to read it all the way to the end where you will find this…

    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),

    In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California’s Proposition 8 (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that “the right to marry protects an individual’s choice of marital partner regardless of gender”.[14]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    REGARDLESS OF GENDER

  131. aislander says:

    tuddo: Since anti-miscegenation laws and the laws defining marriage are not in the LEAST analogous, I would expect that the Supreme Court will rule that Virginia v Loving is not applicable. And we need to stop this habit that judges have of making law from the bench, anyway…

  132. ctdrules says:

    Homosexuality is a mental disease. There is no way for it to be a natural outcome since it leads to the extinction of the species. ‘Course the liberals here could care less just as long as it doesn’t affect them. Sad what our world has come too.

  133. Well dang! Where the heck have I been? I thought ALL marriages were gay! Every wedding I’ve ever been to, they laugh and hug, and eat cake, and throw rice, and tie silly tin cans to bumpers and make all sortsa racket…..How did this homosexuality bizniss get thrown into all this gayziness?

  134. Aislander the basis for our laws were written in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gives meaning to the phrases and history of our natinal beliefs. Whether it is women’s rights, rights of racialo minorities, rights of people with disabilities, or rights of religious minorities, we believe that the law must treat all people equally.

    I know that you believe only in equality for good Christian folk who think like you, look like you and act like you, habve sex like you and no others. You demonstrate it in everything you write. You attack me for believing in equality every time I write it.

    The Southern aristocratic land and slave owners who tried to make exceptions to equality in our constitution succeeded to some small measure, but we have worked hard over the last two plus centuries trying to make a “more perfect union” and get rid of the vestiges of inequality that linger.

    Those who would continue to have a society where only the “blessed” have the rights and benefits of society fight hard for their views and attack those of us who actually believe what the Constitution promises, but are fighting a losing battle. I can see how hard the march of history has been on you since you cling to the fear and quyote the hateful demagoguery of people in times past.

    Tell, me, what do you fear about equality so much that you would deny it to a tiny group of our citizens? And don’t give me that “separate but equal” or “they can marry, but only those whom we good Christians say they can marry”, stuff. That is exactly what I am talking about in your quoting of the hate-filled arguments of the past.

  135. keepinitreal says:

    Wow, aislander is issuing a thorough smack down of the leftist redundants.

    Kooky part is, how they will make disparaging homophobic comments toward people they disagree with on a thread about homosexual marraige, and then expect that they would actually persuade anyone to be sympathetic to their agenda… after personally attacking them.

  136. yabetchya says:

    Muckbir says…….P.S. How is saying “I love you too honey!” not nice?
    I’m guessing yebetchya, yabetcha, yabetchya was flattered by that.

    No you freak.
    “I love you too honey!” is bloodcurdling coming from you.

  137. Some smack-down. All of aislander’s comments have been wimpish to say the least. Even his numerous SPAMS.

  138. yabetchya, you are also took14theteam aren’t you?

  139. aislander says:

    People who profess not to know who Alinsky was or what he taught are certainly doing a fine job of employing his methods. The kooky thing is that, if you call attention to it, YOU are the one being accused of doing precisely what the paper-hangers do. As Alinsky taught…

    I AM grateful for the Ignore Button…

    I wonder, though, if the stolidly earnest on this thread believe that any behavior that people assert defines their identity should qualify them for “protected” status. Human sacrifice? Bestiality? Polyandry? Polygamy?

    The arguments all apply, if we want perfect equality regarding behavior…Or would we still be filled with hate if we draw that line farther down the road?

    People DO have intrinsic rights–simply by virtue of their humanity–but do those rights extend to requiring us all to exalt and glorify their behavior? Marriage is, after all, society’s exalting and glorifying the union of two (at this time, anyway…) people. And, so far, those people have been men and women by virtue of whom they are and not by how they behave…

  140. aislander: “Or would we still be filled with hate if we draw that line farther down the road?”

    You are filled with hate aislander. It’s plainly evident in your words. You just won’t admit it. It is the only possible reason you feel the way you do, and write the hate-filled words you write.

    I feel sorry for you. I will pray for you.

  141. keepinitreal says:

    No kidding aislander, and they continue to put forth rabbits hole that would wound make Lewis Carroll envious.

  142. aislander says:

    Yeah, keepinitreal, I’ve decided to ignore the rabbit holes, insults, and deflection (unless not ignoring suits MY purpose) and just keep putting forward my arguments. It’s actually quite liberating!

  143. aislander says:

    X6 writes: “What is “sacred” about something that ends in divorce half the time?”

    That is a bogus stat. Sixty-five percent of first marriages endure until one of the partners dies. People who divorce tend to do it serially, which, if you include marriages other than first marriages, skews the stats–which is the object, I think. The idea is to make people believe that half of new marriages fail…

    Pacman33: denismenis wrote of “inferred anger,” which means the anger was in HIS mind, not yours. If you didn’t imply it, it wasn’t there.

  144. muckibr wrote at
    JAN. 7, 2012 AT 5:53 PM
    “Sooner or later aislander or one of his li’l buddies is going to start slinging out words like “deflection”, “wallpaper” again, or one the new words “diversion” or “projection” or some damn thing.”

    DID I CALL THAT OR WHAT!

    aislander at 10:35 PM “deflection” It’s his favorite word to keep from having to answer tuddo and others who have asked direct questions that he refuses to answer.

  145. Well, I predicted it and aislander proved it. He ignores reasonable argument, legal issues and logic and uses the fear-mongering tactic of the far right in invoking bestiality, polyandry, polygamy, and even human sacrifice to make an agrgument against gay marriage.

    If we use the reasoning of the Supreme Court, the final adjudicator of what the Constitution says, we would know that marriage is a basic human civil right that can only be restricted by the states if it harms others, harms society or harms the people involved.

    Saying that gay marriage will cause bestiality and human sacrifice is just plain fear-mongering prejudicial bigotry. Plain and simple.

    The reason, legally, that bans against interracial marriage and bans against gay marriage are alike and nothing like bestiality or human sacrifice is that neither one of them fit any of the reasons the Supreme Court says states can restrict marriage.

    Another similarity is that the far right said the same fear-mongering things about what interracial marriage would bring to America that they are saying today about gay marriage.

  146. aislander says:

    keepinitreal: I am living rent-free in sum-one’s head, as the saying goes, but the accommodations are a little run down, the plumbing leaks, and the foundation is more than a little cracked. There are a bunch of passages that lead nowhere, but the worst part is the utter lack of light. It’s going to take more than wallpaper to renovate THIS dump…

  147. aislander says:

    tuddo writes: “Saying that gay marriage will cause bestiality and human sacrifice is just plain fear-mongering prejudicial bigotry. Plain and simple.”

    …which is why I didn’t say that, tuds, but if identity is defined by behavior, where would YOU draw the line, since you assert that it is discriminatory to deny that?

  148. Well aislander, if your little love-note to keepinitreal was your attempt to irritate me it didn’t work. Yes, you are in my mind, but you are also in my heart because I feel a real sincere sympathy for you, and I am seriously praying to God to redeem your flawed mind and soul. God Bless you aislander. I do pray for you.

  149. aislander, if you agree that the things you mentioned, bestiality and human sacrifice are nothing like gay marriage and have nothing to do with it, then why bring them into the discussion? Is it one of your famous “deflections?”

    Are you the one claiming that identity is caused by behavior? I certainly am not. That is why I said that penile-vaginal sex has nothing to do with the definition of who can marry.

    The identity we are talking about in the law are human persons, and their ability to benefit from a basic human civil right – marriage – and what legal restrictions that can be placed on that right.

    Just like the color of one’s skin, place of birth, national origin, hair color or any other extraneous factor that has nothing to do with marriage, a person’s genitalia should have nothing to do with restricting marriage.

    Chaz Bono could get legally get married, and apparently, by the news reports, he doesn’t even have any genitalia yet.

  150. LibertyBell says:

    And we don’t need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin’s day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

  151. Homosexuality is not natural. There’s no disputing this. End of story.

  152. muckibr says:

    natural |ˈna ch ərəl|
    adjective
    existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind :

    heterosexual |ˌhetərōˈsek sh oōəl|
    adjective
    (of a person) innately sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.

    innate |iˈnāt|
    adjective
    inborn; natural

    homosexual |ˌhōməˈsek sh oōəl|
    adjective
    (of a person) innately sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.

    If it’s innate it’s natural!

    Thus endeth the lesson.

  153. “I wonder, though, if the stolidly earnest on this thread believe that any behavior that people assert defines their identity should qualify them for “protected” status. Human sacrifice? Bestiality? Polyandry? Polygamy?”

    Q. How can you tell when someone knows they’ve lost?
    A. When they bring up the slippery slope and demonize their opponents at the same time.

  154. “Homosexuality is not natural. There’s no disputing this. End of story.”

    Conservatism is not natural. There’s no disputing this. End of story.

  155. beerBoy says:

    lanq – Natural Law is neither natural nor law. Kinda like common sense.

  156. Old but simple story. Put 100 homosexual men (or women) on an island. Go back in a hundred years, and see how many people there are. End of story.

  157. Bb, I don’t recall mentioning natural law.

  158. lanq, it is your opinion that it is not natural. In the scientific sense, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.

    The far right, including Exodus, the ministry that says gays can change, but refuses to or hasn’t been able to provide science one shred of scientific proof of their assertions, defines “normal” as “common or in the majority”. They define the word they way they want to and then proceed to use that definition to say homosexuality isn’t normal. That, in any logic class would bring a big FAIL to their arguments.

    Since restrictions against gay marriage have not been tested in the Supreme Court, we don’t know what they will say. However, using past court arguments, we have:

    Marriage is a contract between consenting people and is one of human’s inalienable civil rights that can only be restricted if it causes harm to others, causes harm to society or causes harm to those in the marriage. People get to choose whom they marry and the state does not.

    Restrictions in states’ marriage laws have been viewed through this prism and found constitutional or unconstitutional using those filters.

    The Supreme Court may add another filter if this issue comes up, but I don’t know what it would be. Would it be an “icky” factor or a religious one? Who knows what might happen if we get any more right-wing activism on the court. Since corporations are people according to the far right justices, I guess we can marry a corporation, but gays won’t be able to marry.

    The discussion should center on same sex marriage and not homosexuality. We don’t ask the two people in an opposite sex marriage whether or not they are heterosexual or demand only heterosexual sex in their relationship. It is not a prerequisite, and it would not be a prerequisite for a same-sex couple to be homosexual or have homosexual sex.

    Anti-gay marriage people focus so much on the sex act itself, you wonder sometimes why they are so perversely interested in other people’s sex lives. Marriage is about a lot more than sex.

  159. tuddo, Put 100 homosexual men (or women) on an island. Go back in a hundred years, and see how many people there are. Now tell me again how natural it is. End of story.

  160. ehil, I did notice that you didn’t refute my contention. Actually, it can’t be refuted, so you’re simply reduced to making ignorant comments.

  161. lanq, your arguments fail again. We are not talking about the USA requiring all marriages to procreate. Put 50 heterosexual men and 50 post menopausal women on an island and come back in a hundred years. I guess sex or marriage after menopause is not natural to you.

    I can see that big headline now in Fox News:

    “Obama and the liberal elite nullifies all post-menopausal marriages and requires fertility tests for other marriages.”

    Is that the requirement you are looking for in opposite-sex marriages, that they produce offspring or they are illegal? If not, then change your argument to something real.

  162. ManuelMartini says:

    What does procreation have to do with marriage? Not all married people procreate, nor want to procreate.

    As to “natural”, what is not natural is being obsessed about the sexual practices of two adults to the point of denying them full access to the law.

  163. tuddo, Put 100 homosexual men (or women) on an island. Go back in a hundred years, and see how many people there are. Now tell me again how natural it is. End of story.

    Some men can’t procreate. Some women can’t procreate. It is an indisputable FACT that two men (or women) on their own cannot procreate. Therefore it is not natural. Homosexuality? I just don’t care. If some guy falls in love with some other guy, I don’t care. But do you really want to open that door? Should Washington recognize polygamous marriage?

    Oh, and you Fox News straw man was awesome. Anyway, now we know exactly where tuddo’s coming from, the far left. Congrats.

  164. ManuelMartini says:

    I’m not sure how homosexuality has anything to do with polygamy, but polygamy was once very acceptable and still is today by certain religions. I have virtually no problem with its practice.

    Using the logic applied earlier in this thread, “any polygamist that wants to marry ONE partner is welcome”.

  165. ManuelMartini says:

    Do only the “far left” mind their own business concerning sexual orientation of consenting adults?

  166. Legal polygamy would be a financial nightmare. Homosexual marriage is about money, don’t forget. It’s not as though homosexuals can’t live together if they want.

  167. ManuelMartini says:

    How would legal polygamy be a “financial nightmare”? As to homosexual marriage being about “money”, please explain that also. Unless opposite sex marriage is about money, you’ve stated a falsehood.

  168. aislander says:

    So…WHO’S not minding his business? Certainly the faction that’s agitating for the majority to change its mind is not…

    Besides, we are not talking about denying anything to people who ARE different, we are talking about denying our glorifying and exalting certain behavior.

    Neutrality: yes; approbation: no…

  169. ManuelMartini says:

    homosexuality isn’t “behavior” anymore than heterosexuality is “behavior”

    Those obsessed with homosexual relationships, activity and unions are not minding their own business.

    Behavior is a choice. Maybe you can tell us when you chose to be heterosexual, as opposed to homosexual, if you truly are heterosexual. Since you claim it’s a choice, then you must be able to change your mind about your sexuality.

  170. “ehil, I did notice that you didn’t refute my contention.”

    I noticed that you didn’t refute my contention either.

    “Actually, it can’t be refuted, so you’re simply reduced to making ignorant comments.”

    It can be – and has been – refuted. You can say otherwise all you want, but that doesn’t make it true.

  171. If you can’t figure it out, then I’m surprised you know how to type. I see no reason to overturn a hundred thousand years of social conduct to placate a small voting bloc. Oh, and don’t go there. They were the rich and powerful. Everyone else did it the regular way.

  172. ManuelMartini says:

    lanq, you made the claim. Now back it up or admit that it was baseless. Is heterosexuality “social conduct”? Earlier you claimed it was “natural” and “procreation”.

  173. ehil: “You can say otherwise all you want, but that doesn’t make it true.”

    Put 100 homosexual men (or women) on an island. Go back in a hundred years, and see how many people there are. Now tell me again how natural it is. End of story.

    Are you saying that in the above scenario, there would be offspring? Not too bright, ehil..

  174. Manuel, you’re a liar. I said that homosexuality was not natural. That point is indisputable.

  175. “we are not talking about denying anything to people who ARE different”

    So you’ve changed your mind and now support gay marriage? Good for you.

  176. ManuelMartini says:

    Put 100 sterile men or women, or those chosing to not have children on an island. Go back 100 years later and tell me how many people you have. Does that justify not allowing those coupled to enjoy the bonds of marriage and all of its entitlements?

  177. ManuelMartini says:

    lanq, I’ve not lied. I’ve quoted you.

    Logic says if I lied, you did.

  178. ManuelMartini says:

    Since when it the ability and desire to spawn children the designate on what is “normal”? Would that make the use of birth control “abnormal”?

  179. “Put 100 homosexual men (or women) on an island. Go back in a hundred years, and see how many people there are. Now tell me again how natural it is. ”

    Put 100 far right conservative men and 100 very liberal women on an island. Come back in 100 years and see how many offspring there are. Probably very few, proving that conservatism isn’t natural.

    Put 100 very devout Catholics of both sexes on anisland without a religious official to marry them and come back in 100 years and see how many legitimate offspring there are. Zero, proving that Catholicism isn’t natural.

  180. ManuelMartini says:

    Since we are discussing “normal”:

    “The Republican party is hitting back against a report revealing that nearly $2,000 in party funds were spent to reimburse a trip to a topless nightclub.

    Federal Election Commission filings show that the Republican National Committee in February spent about $1,946 at Voyeur West Hollywood, the Daily Caller first reported, describing the location as a “bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001355-503544.html

    Now, unless one thinks that viewing lesbian bondage sex as “normal”, I would say that those participating in this practice shouldn’t be allowed to marry, because they are abnormal.

  181. lanq, just repeating a ridiculous argument that has nothing to do with marriage doesn’t make it any more pertinent. Also, making up your own definitiion of “natural” doesn’t work, either. FAIL.

    I take it your own personal definition of marriage must include procreation, or it isn’t a legitimate marriage. That is fine for your choice in life, and no one is restricting your personal right to believe that. But what we are talking about here is whether or not the government gets to take away a basic human civil right and make the choice of partners for people when there is no legitimate reason why it harms other people, harms society or harms the people in that relationship.

    I thought you far right conservatives were all about getting big government out of our lives?

  182. ” I said that homosexuality was not natural. That point is indisputable.”

    And yet many other species engage in homosexual behavior. Looks like your point has been disputed.

  183. aislander says:

    I think it is time to step back and take a critical look at what we are talking about.

    What is the functional difference between EBM (everything but marriage) and marriage? Is there one?

  184. ManuelMartini says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001355-503544.html

    Is viewing same sex bondage for entertainment classified as “normal”?

    If not, there are a group of people that shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

  185. Notice how you have to instill qualifiers? (sterile) Notice how, not once, did I ever argue the “naturalness” of anything? I pointed out, and this is indisputable, that homosexuality is _not_ natural. You can try to branch all you want, but this does not change.

    Oh, and I think it’s funny that you feign ignorance of the financial implications, yet the last line of your comment says it all:

    “Does that justify not allowing those coupled to enjoy the bonds of marriage and all of its entitlements?”

    Yeah …

  186. ManuelMartini says:

    Again, state the issue with finances or admit you have none.

  187. ehil: “And yet many other species engage in homosexual behavior.”

    Put 100 homosexual males (or females) of any species on an island. Go back in a hundred years, and see how many offspring there are. Now tell me again how natural it is. End of story.

    ehil: “Looks like your point has been disputed.”

    Umm, no, it hasn’t. :)

  188. “I pointed out, and this is indisputable, that homosexuality is _not_ natural.”

    Sorry to burst you bubble, but the fact that many other species engage in homosexual behavior disputes your claim. You’re confusing “natural” with “procreation” and the fact is that the two aren’t the same.

  189. manuel: “Earlier you claimed it was “natural” and “procreation”.”

    This is a lie. You are a liar. End of story.

  190. NATURAL (noun) existing in or caused by nature; not made by or caused by humankind.

    The fact is that homosexual behavior IS done by other species, which makes it, by definition, “natural”.

  191. aislander
    JAN. 8, 2012 AT 11:08 AM
    “Besides, we are not talking about denying anything to people who ARE different, we are talking about denying our glorifying and exalting certain behavior.”

    Okay aislander, HOW IS ANYONE TRYING TO GLORIFY SAME=SEX MARRIAGE?

    Just answer THAT question BEFORE you DEFLECT to another issue.

  192. tuddo: “I thought you far right conservatives were all about getting big government out of our lives?”

    Progressives want to create law recognizing homosexual marriage. I’m just fine with things the way they are. What’s your point?

  193. “Some men can’t procreate. Some women can’t procreate. It is an indisputable FACT that two men (or women) on their own cannot procreate. Therefore it is not natural.”

    Looks like Manuel was correct. You clearly said that if you can’t procreate, it isn’t natural. You owe him an apology.

  194. keepinitreal says:

    When people switch back and forth between their preferences, or swing both ways, it kinda makes it hard to convince people it’s not a lifestyle choice.

    Celebacy is a choice. Monogamy is a choice. It’s all a choice. Unless we are talking about rape, no one forces anyone else to have sex. It’s a choice. People choose to, and choose not to have sex every day. People choose their partners.

  195. aislander says:

    My question still stands, keepinitreal: What is the operative difference between marriage and EBM?

    My answer is that there is NO difference except the requirement that all the citizens of the state glorify and exalt–which is what marriage is all about, isn’t it?–same-sex unions…

  196. muckibr says:

    aislander is trying to DEFLECT away from answering the question, by creating a RABBIT HOLE.

    Don’t fall for this WALLPAPER DIVERSION of his.

    aislander brought up the following issue, but now refuses to explain himself, or maybe it’s just that he has no explanation for statement of his:

    aislander
JAN. 8, 2012 AT 11:08 AM
“Besides, we are not talking about denying anything to people who ARE different, we are talking about denying our glorifying and exalting certain behavior.”

    Before going down your new DEFLECTING RABBIT-HOLE DIVERSION islander, how about you just answer this question first?

    HOW IS ANYONE TRYING TO GLORIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

  197. Publico says:

    I best liked the post that asserted homosexuality was a mental illness. That position tells us a lot about the thought processes or lack thereof of the individuals who cannot seem to be able to get past the sex part of homosexuality and consider homosexuals simply as people whose rights, granted or otherwise, are the same as those any other free person enjoys. To deny those rights by making up exclusionary definitions is what history tells us is wrong. In broad terms it is called discrimination and there still is too much of it.
    The Catholic Church deserves the criticism it has been getting in this regard and so do members of the extreme right like Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney and other Republican candidates who support the discrimination being discussed. Check out their comments from last night’s circus event.

  198. aislander, everything but marriage means that marriage is excluded and therefore denies a basic human civil right. Therefore it isn’t equal and therefore unconstitutional unless it meets one of the filters that allows a state to restrict amrriage rights.

    Got it?

  199. aislander says:

    And, tuddo, do you get THIS: by usurping a word that HAS a meaning and changing the meaning of that word, the gay lobby is attempting to force everyone to celebrate their unions. IF there is no operative difference, how is there ANY discrimination or “denial?”

    The only thing that is being denied is the celebration of that union, and the choice to celebrate or not must not be coerced. Talk about totalitarianism!

    The citizens of the state must not be coerced into celebrating what many view as the dissolution of their culture…

  200. muckibr says:

    aislander, why can’t you just answer the question:

    HOW IS ANYONE TRYING TO GLORIFY and EXALT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

    You made that claim!

    Is it because you can’t answer the question, or is it because you are too gutless to answer the question.

    Don’t try to DEFLECT with anymore of your RABBIT HOLES aislander.

  201. tuddo, don’t quit your day job; you wouldn’t quite make it as a lawyer. Anyone can get married. In this, everyone is equal. And (and this is the important part) everyone faces _exactly_ the same restrictions on who they can wed. No one is denied anything that someone else can do.

  202. Parkland says:

    tuddo, don’t quit your day job; you wouldn’t quite make it as a lawyer. Anyone can get married. In this, everyone is equal. And (and this is the important part) everyone faces _exactly_ the same restrictions on who they can wed. No one is denied anything that someone else can do. Gays don’t want equal rights, they have that now, they want special treatment.

  203. aislander says:

    keepinitreal: As Dan Quayle once said: “A mind is a terrible thing to lose…”

  204. ManuelMartini says:

    Misquoting me, lanq, doesn’t constitute the “end of the story”. It’s the beginning of the story of you misquoting me.

    Since “natural” seems to be the new recurring theme, what is “natural” about a group of men viewing lesbian bondage? Unless you agree that this behavior (choice) is “natural”, there are a group of men that should not be allowed to marry based on being “unnatural”.

  205. ManuelMartini says:

    “Oh, and I think it’s funny that you feign ignorance of the financial implications, yet the last line of your comment says it all:
    “Does that justify not allowing those coupled to enjoy the bonds of marriage and all of its entitlements?”

    What does my statement have to do with financial implications? Again, you avoid supporting your assertions because you have no data to support. There is no “feign of ignorance”. It’s a test to see if you can prove your apparently baseless assertion. So far you’re making me look pretty good.

  206. Publico says:

    islands are composed of rocks and dirt at the beginning. Have you ever tried to reason with rocks and dirt at the beginning?
    Nobody is forcing anyone to celebrate anyone’s union. We celebrate specific events as we freely choose. Calling an event by a certain name does not constitute celebration.
    On and on they go stumbling in the darkness.

  207. ManuelMartini says:

    “by usurping a word that HAS a meaning and changing the meaning of that word, the gay lobby is attempting to force everyone to celebrate their unions.”

    Totally false. No one is forcing anyone to celebrate. The forcing is being done by those denying rights to homosexuals. As to “usurping a word”, it’s been done hundreds of times during the history of the English language.

  208. muckibr says:

    aislander, I guess it makes sense that you would quote another one of your Republican Deep Thinkers like Dan Quayle, but don’t fret, you are not losing your mind, YOU are just losing your manhood as YOU are afraid to answer the question to the issue YOU brought up yourself.

    HOW IS ANYONE TRYING TO GLORIFY and EXALT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

    You made that claim aislander! Have you the guts to defend it?

    Don’t try to DEFLECT with any more of your WALLPAPER or RABBIT HOLES aislander, just answer the question when you man-up the courage to do so.

  209. aislander says:

    So, then…what’s the point of insisting on the word “marriage?” Marriage IS a celebration of a union, is it not, and if EBM is the same in every functional sense, why usurp the word if not to force the unwilling not only to tolerate, but to celebrate?

  210. aislander says:

    The previous post was in response to MM’s comment…

  211. aislander says:

    BTW: What “right” is being denied–the right to force everyone to call your…er…arrangement “marriage?” I don’t recall that one…

  212. muckibr says:

    Yes, the previous 3 comments from aislander were for MM, because aislander hasn’t been able to put on his bigboy pants and defend the statement he made about glorifying and exalting same-sex marriage.

    aislander would rather deflect to his little rat-hole or rabbit-hole rather than post a comment justifying his totally unjustifiable statement.

    Either that, or his wife won’t let him wear the bigboy pants long enough for him to get his manhood back.

    No Guts, no Glorification or Exaltation explanation!

    Just answer the question aislander,

    HOW IS ANYONE TRYING TO GLORIFY and EXALT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

    I’m going to keep asking it until you do, or until you run away and hide.

  213. aislander, as I mentioned before, you would have been one in the South trying to keep everything “separate but equal” and that doesn’t comport with our national character, the reason our country is unique and, in fact, the reason it was founded. By refusing to allow freedom and equality for all, people like you ar actually usurping what it means to be an American.

  214. aislander, the Supreme Court did not say that civil unions were a basic human civil right. It said marriage was a basic human civil right.

  215. “by usurping a word that HAS a meaning and changing the meaning of that word, the gay lobby is attempting to force everyone to celebrate their unions.”

    Bovine byproduct. My wife and I don’t celebrate anyone’s marriages but ours, our family’s, and those of a few close friends.

  216. aislander says:

    So…tuddo…if I give you a “cottage,” and you prefer a “small house,” are you going to sue me because I insist we call it a “cottage” when it’s the same bloody thing in function?

    The difference is that the word “marriage” seems to be meaningful to both sides in this discussion. Why do you think that is, tuds?

  217. muckibr says:

    What certain people refuse to recognize is that there are two different and distinct types of marriage. One is a religious ceremony, and the other is the civil contract.
    No one, that I am aware of, is trying to force any religious organization, church, ministry, whatever, to recognize same-sex marriage. So, if that’s not happening, then what it their problem?

  218. muckibr says:

    No one, that I am aware of, is trying to force any religious organization, church, ministry, whatever, to recognize same-sex marriage. So, if that’s not happening, then what it their problem?

  219. muckibr says:

    Same-sex marriage advocates are simply asking that the state issue Marriage Licenses to same-sex couples, so they can be recognized by the government for the same benefits and rights as every other married couple. What is the big problem with that?

  220. muckibr says:

    Even with Marriage License in hand, a same-sex couple cannot force any religious organization to perform their marriage ceremony. The government does not have the constitutional authority to force a church to perform same-sex marriages. So what is the problem?

  221. muckibr says:

    Same-sex couples should be able to take their Marriage License to a judge, justice of the peace or even a ship’s captain to have them perform a civil non-religious marriage ceremony. What is the problem with that?

  222. aislander says:

    When the Court declared marriage a “basic civil right” forty-five years ago, it was speaking to the definition of marriage that everyone understood. You change the definition, you change the question. Therefore, this needs to be reheard.

  223. muckibr says:

    If a Married same-sex couple moves into your neighborhood, how does that threaten the sanctity of marriage for you or any of the heterosexual married couples in that neighborhood?

  224. muckibr says:

    If an un-married same-sex couple moves into your neighborhood, how does that protect that sanctity of marriage for you or any of the heterosexual married couples in the neighborhood?

  225. muckibr says:

    Perhaps the best alternative is to have the state, county and city governments recall and DESTROY all existing MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES. The government can the print and replace all former Marriage Certificates with “CIVIL UNION CERTIFICATES” for ALL couples gay or straight. After all, it’s simply a government document, NOT a religious icon. What would be the problem in doing that?

  226. muckibr says:

    Oh, and aislander

    Just answer the question

    HOW IS ANYONE TRYING TO GLORIFY and EXALT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

  227. “it’s the same bloody thing in function”

    Prove it.

  228. aislander says:

    It’s called “everything but marriage?”

  229. muckibr says:

    ehill, you can go back up this thread and look at every single one of aislander’s posts. (I have.) He NEVER provides any proof, links, or references to any of his opinions. They are just his opinions. You are supposed to accept them as truth, just because he says they are. You will probably never get anything from aislander that will prove anything. Just don’t want you to get your hopes up.

  230. muckibr says:

    aislander, are you about ready to comment on the question

    HOW IS ANYONE TRYING TO GLORIFY and EXALT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

  231. “It’s called “everything but marriage”

    Keyword: BUT. Try again.

  232. muckibr says:

    ehill, that may be way too subtle for aislander to get.

    Perhaps if you try:

    A Yugo is just as good as a Lamborghini, when you call it “Everything BUT a Lamborghini” instead of calling it a Yugo.

    Yah! That makes it “the same bloody thing in function” (at least according to aislander).

  233. aislander says:

    So…make it a referendum and let’s put this merry-go-round in mothballs.
    When that happens, I’ll do my best to affect the outcome in a way that is positive for society as a whole.

    I just want to thank everyone here for helping me to both create and refine my arguments…

  234. muckibr says:

    Well you’re welcome aislander. I am so glad to be of help. But, despite your paltry efforts, and even though it may lack of your “endorsement of those relationships,” which state-recognized same-sex marriage does NOT require, it’s going to happen. Sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.

    But wait! You still have not answered:

    HOW IS ANYONE TRYING TO GLORIFY and EXALT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

    Care to give that a shot now old man?

  235. took14theteam says:

    Tebow, please end this thread…… 98512 is going insane….

  236. keepinitreal says:

    Word. :)

    The alts (or maybe relatives) are arguing about a word.

    I am all for a referendum.

  237. aislander, granting equality under the law is benefitting society. Unless, and I have asked for over ten years now, there is harm to society, harm to others or harm to people in the marriage. Show that and I am on your side. All other arguments are deflection.

    No one has shown it yet. They have asserted it, and that is why we are here today. It took a while to gain evidence that there is absolutely no basis for the assertions, especia;lly about harm to children in gay marriages and families. The refusal to follow the Constitutional guarantees of equality under the law is based on fear, lies and bigotry.

    I read the Exodus website again today and one of the assertions they make is that Africa had no homosexuality before Wesern culture arrived. Fortunately for history, the western religious zealots that colonized Africa did not destroy all of the history, so such revisionist proclamations can be refuted by fact.

    The same lies and pure maliciousness about gay people goes on daily in many Christian churches and other places of discussion of this issue. Nonsense and pure lies are thrown about as if they were true.

    Evil and malicious lies like those will lose out and the truth will set us free. That is a benefit to society right there.

  238. jerryman47 says:

    Great letter Mr Cristell, as some people say, look out for the left wing attack machine…..and they sure have some good…and stupid opinions as you can see. Your Democratic Gregoire and News Tribune leads the pack on this issue. Welcome to and always has been liberal Washington State. The tax and spend Democrats with their liberal views, what a deal!!

  239. Publico says:

    jerry, you are off topic and “deflecting.” Ha HA HA HA.
    Yet another island.

  240. muckibr says:

    I believe I may owe some of the participants on this thread an apology for my sometimes terse exchanges with a certain other poster to this thread. I can assure you that I had no intention of being either unduly harsh or cruel in my words to the individual in question. My sole purpose was to try to restore in him some sense of appreciation of his obligations as a man and his responsibility to post honestly and truthfully in the words he posted to this topic. “If one could shame a denier, deflector and diverter,” I felt, “one might help him to regain his self-respect and keep him from further wallpapering this thread or needlessly creating new rabbit-holes to hide in.” This was on my mind. Now, I freely admit that my method may have been flawed, but I hope you can understand my motive. And that you will accept this explanation… and this… apology.

  241. When there are 233 (as of this reading) comments, bickering back and forth regarding what two people do in the privacy of their own lives, even though the majority of people think its not only weird but wrong, when there are so many REAL problems in this world, well, then I know the whole country has gone to hell in a hand basket. Thats probably about all your getting from me on this subject.

  242. beerBoy says:

    the definition of marriage that everyone understood.

    That is what is known as 3rd Person Effect – avowing that one can speak for “everyone” without any research or data.

    This faulty rhetoric is being used to buttress the circular logic employed – supporting an original assertion (allowing same-sex marriage would have devastating effects on our society) with restatements of that assertion in slightly different terms – and sophistry that somehow finds that, since everyone may get married in opposite gender relationship, it is somehow equal protection under the law.

  243. keepinitreal says:

    Dcr, there’s actually way less than 233 if you subtract all he off topic and personal attack posts from the one who offered an insincere apology above.

  244. keepinitreal says:

    above your post

  245. Well, “Real”….That is the basic standard of the screwy little kids who come in this sandbox to play…Regardless of topic.

    Haa! Pretty much a steady diet of “I’m right, youre wrong…..No I’m right your wrong and stupid….No I’m right your wrong and your mother dresses you funny!”

    Welcome to Tacoma!! :D

  246. The really funny thing is. Quite a long time ago, I realized that NOTHING in the “news” really has anything to do with me, or any of us.

    Turn on the TV, the radio, or open a newspaper, and listen to what is being covered….NONE of it has anything to do with anything.

    This article, and whether gay people marry, has noting to do with me, my life, or anyone I know. Pick any other news item, and i’ll bet next weeks paycheck that it has nothing to do with any of you either, save the possibility of a traffic or weather report!

    The real value of coming in here to post in these threads is like some bizarre, cheap entertainment…Kind of like watching Jerry Springer!! :D

  247. beerBoy says:

    aislander – there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that I don’t celebrate, knowing that the couple is horrible together and should get divorced.

    Anniversaries are the only time the partners and their spawn are forced to celebrate a marriage – the rest of us can just avoid them when possible and ignore them when we can’t avoid them.

    You are really grasping at straws on this thread dude.

  248. commoncents says:

    While I believe that gays should be allowed to marry I also believe the point is moot. We straights have so messed up the whole institution that in a few years relatively nobody will be getting married. According to one study, if the current rate of decline continues, sometime between 2028 and 2034 the US marriage rate will reach zero. Seems to me that since this will happen before Social Security goes to zero…why are we worried about that?

  249. Having this discussion in a reasoned, respectful way is pretty much impossible here. Too many immature, self-indulgent wanna-be pundits.Further, we’re dealing with competing world views here and agreement is not likely. But here’s my meager contribution…

    This is not about who has the higher IQ.
    This is not about denying the right to live together AS a couple.
    It IS about language, and it’s about “blessing” a union in a religious context whether people want to admit this or not.

    I can understand why it makes no sense to those who are have no respect for relilgion/spiritualilty. If your world view is totally secular, then of course you see nothing wrong with calling a homosexual union marriage.

    Also, I don’t think anyone said that this will “cause” bestiality, etc.
    I think the point was that we do have laws on the books that restrict sexual unions, between cousins and brothers and sisters and sheep. If you are going to demand absolute freedom in this arena, ARE you prepared to go down this path?

  250. To be precise, I guess there are no laws that prohibit sex between sheep. :0) I meant of course, between peeples and sheeples.

  251. ManuelMartini says:

    strange how someone who is contributing other than the subject matter, feels the need to cite “off topic and personal” posts

  252. ManuelMartini says:

    If you equate humans to farm animals, sozo.

  253. ManuelMartini says:

    Marriage between family members preceeds this discussion by hundreds of years. It’s not my choice, but was the choice of many.

    Marriage is not entirely religious. If it were, the City of Las Vegas would lose an important element to their tourism.

    As to higher IQs, I submitted that story and I find it very relevant to a simple issue such as equal rights. Only those who operate on emotion as opposed to logic would deny others the right they cherish.

  254. Pacman33 says:

    Unbelievable. Not one example of a right G&L would be awarded from a new law they don’t obtain currently. Nothing? I guess the left doesn’t feel the need to justify infringing on another’s rights to freedom of religion. I was hoping someone could have convinced me to support the proposal. Oh well, I guess I’m sticking with: ‘All of the above’.

    (A) Yet another attempt for the same-sex crowd to present themselves as a victim of oppression to indulge in the attention and sympathy, the gay community reveres so much and craves like a drug.
    (B) An effort of petty self-validation. Destroying or stealing a symbol of tradition and culture of a valued and recognized sect of society to compensate for their own lack of culture and fails at legitimacy as a respected group in the community.
    (C) A futile attempt to pacify the idea of ‘equality’ that same-sex marriage advocates speak of. Only they know, no matter how many religious rituals they defile, or how many rights of others they infringe on, or how many laws they make; until they figure out how to procreate and provide a mother and a father for a child, they will never be Equal.
    (D) The sweet taste of retribution through infringing, redefining and defiling the tradition and sanctity of an ages old religious ritual. A ceremony that has existed long before people decided to start being gay. Not being known for their reputation for religious enthusiasm, like a spoiled brat who conned their mom into making a sibling hand over a toy they were playing with. After 5 minutes the the gays will give it a girl toss into the mud after a brilliantly performed ‘Nanny Poo-Poo Dance’.
    (E) All of the above.

  255. “If your world view is totally secular, then of course you see nothing wrong with calling a homosexual union marriage.”

    News flash: We are discussing changing the law, and the law is secular.

  256. (F) None of the above.

  257. muckibr says:

    sozo wrote on JAN. 9, 2012 AT 7:51 AM  

    “It IS about language, and it’s about “blessing” a union in a religious context whether people want to admit this or not.” and “I can understand why it makes no sense to those who are have no respect for relilgion/spiritualilty.”

    Well, I DO have huge respect for my religion, the religious beliefs of others, as well as the spirituality that others may hold in their hearts though they do not profess specific religious views. As anyone who has read my posts over the last few weeks knows, I defend The Bible, and at times I have found it necessary to correct mis-used Bible quotes from others.

    And, I am IN FAVOR of the movement by our Governor to legalize same-sex marriage.

    Please DO NOT paint all people IN FAVOR of same-sex marriage as being non-religious. That is not the truth. The truth is, there are two forms of marriage: the religious ceremony and the state recorded non-religious contract. The only one our Governor is seeking to change is the non-religious form.

    sozo, you also wrote this in the same post:

    “Also, I don’t think anyone said that this will “cause” bestiality, ”

    Well, again you are wrong. If you look above at the comment posted on JAN. 6, 2012 AT 9:27 PM you will find this:

    “7. Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences.”

    AND, then look at the comment posted above on JAN. 7, 2012 AT 10:11 PM and you will find this:

    “I wonder, though, if the stolidly earnest on this thread believe that any behavior that people assert defines their identity should qualify them for “protected” status. Human sacrifice? Bestiality? Polyandry? Polygamy?”

    So, you see, it was brought up, with a specifically stated belief that same-sex marriage would be a “cause” of those other things. But, reasonable people know that is a lie.

    sozo, you began your post above with these two sentences:

    “Having this discussion in a reasoned, respectful way is pretty much impossible here. Too many immature, self-indulgent wanna-be pundits.”

    Well, truthfully, a bigger problem with having reasoned, respectful discussions here in this forum is because oftentimes some people just refuse to be honest. It would help if everyone just told the truth, and like you say, stopped being “immature and self-indulgent”. Nothing personal.

  258. muckibr says:

    P.S. sozo, even you have to admit your “sheeple”comment was quite “self-indulgent.” Be honest and say it was.

  259. muckibr says:

    FYI

    Republican Sen. Steve Litzow helps lead with gay-marriage support

    “I am a traditional Republican,” explained Litzow. “When you think about gay marriage, it’s the right thing to do and it’s very consistent with the tenets of being a Republican — such as individual freedom and personal responsibility.”

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2017179497_edit09litzow.html

  260. muckibr says:

    “Unbelievable. Not one example of a right G&L would be awarded from a new law they don’t obtain currently. Nothing? ”

    Wrong!

    Here is at least one (1) right that Governor Gregoire believes “would be awarded” when same-sex marriage is legalized in Washington state:

    “For all couples, a state marriage license is very important. It gives them the right to enter into a marriage contract in which their legal interests, and those of their children if any, are protected by well-established civil law,” she added.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-gaymarriage-governor-washington-idUSTRE80407G20120105

  261. muckibr says:

    Currently:

    Nine states — California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington — provide same-sex couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships. Same-sex couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state.

    http://sdgln.com/news/2012/01/04/breaking-news-governor-washington-says-its-time-marriage-equality

    Repeat: “Same-sex couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state.”

    In order to eventually secure the same federal rights and benefits for same-sex couples, enough states will need to grant those rights to create a mandate to the federal government to do the same. When Washington grants same-sex marriage rights that will bring this nation one step closer to equal rights for all.

  262. muckibr says:

    sozo: “Too many immature, self-indulgent wanna-be pundits.”

    Please see example above, posted on JAN. 9, 2012 AT 8:05 AM  

    To that poster: this is NOT an issue about changing or “defiling” anyone’s religion or religious beliefs. This is ONLY about changing state law. If you can wrap your head around that, then you should feel safe and secure in knowing that your religion is not under attack in any way.

  263. Copper2Steel says:

    Why is it that conservatives want government out of business, yet think government should be involved in people’s personal lives?? Seems backwards, IMO.

    To be married, a couple needs a license. The government issues licenses. As Governor Gregroire has stated, the government should not discriminate. Enough said.

    If a church/religion doesn’t recognize gay marriage, so be it. No couple needs a church/religion to get married.

  264. pac, spewing so much dislike and disgust, YOU are the reason why this is very important. You did the verbal equivalent of lynching people for the only reason that they are who they are. That is exactly why laws need to be applied equally to all people. Folks like pac always find another group to put down – that is how pac makes himself feel better.

  265. TheSlag, regardless of Pacman33’s motivations, can we agree that this issue is ONLY about changing a state law, and NOT about defiling anyone’s religious beliefs, practices or rituals?

  266. aislander says:

    If this thread has proved anything, it has been this: It’s NOT about equal rights–no one has shown any functional difference between Everything But Marriage and marriage itself–it is about ownership of the word “marriage.” It is about dismantling the existing culture…

    It has also proved that it is about burying any disagreement with that agenda in an avalanche of empty and repetitive verbiage. I fully expect this post will be shoved up-thread with slew of looong, but jejune, comments…

  267. keepinitreal says:

    Seems a pattern of apologizing waaay after multiple personal attacks has developed, and apparently the moderator is willing to turn a blind eye to the offender.

  268. “no one has shown any functional difference between Everything But Marriage and marriage itself”

    Which means that everything-but-equality is the same thing as equality itself, and everything-but-white is the same thing as white itself.

  269. aislander says:

    …and THAT, keepinit, is what I meant by “jejune.” At least it wasn’t long. For a change…

  270. “It is about dismantling the existing culture…”

    So were the civil rights movement and the women’s rights movement.

  271. aislander says:

    It is shameful, keepinit, that lefties promoting radical usurpations hide behind the skirts of the civil-rights movement…

  272. aislander says:

    There’s a message?? I didn’t see a message. Did you, keepinitreal?

  273. aislander says:

    jejune: arid, banal, barren, bland, childish, dull, empty, flat, inane, innocuous, insipid, juvenile, meager, sterile, trite, unexciting, vapid

    Pick one you like better…

  274. What is dishonest in my post?

    I think a better word than PC for what’s going politically regarding the gay marriage issue is appeasement. Politicians are known for giving into pressure, and the gay lobby is popular and powerful. They will give into it every time.

  275. keepinitreal says:

    No, I didn’t either aislander.

  276. They all describe your comments fairly well.

  277. aislander says:

    I have long maintained, sozo, that the left bleats (sorry!) about being advocates for freedom, but that usually means the freedom to debase ourselves, rather than the most basic of liberties (after life itself): economic liberty.

    In a progressive Utopia, it will be more acceptable to shtupp pigs in the middle of a park than to open a lemonade stand. (The preceding sentence is not to be taken as an aspersion aimed at any members of the Occupy crowd. Although it could be…)

  278. BlaineCGarver says:

    This is truly funny. At this point, all any of us have are opinions. I would like to opine that gay marrage is wrong and not necessary to achieve legal parity. So, there….LMAO and all the “tolerant” people posting (unless you don’t agree with them) After all, the REAL distruction of socity was when we let women vote, wear shoes and go to school.

  279. “lefties promoting radical usurpations hide behind the skirts of the civil-rights movement”

    Usurp: Take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.

    Since we are talking about changing the law, there is by definition no usurpation. Looks to me like hyperbole is all you really have.

  280. aislander says:

    usurp (synonyms): accroach, annex, appropriate, arrogate, assume, barge in, butt in, clap hands on, commandeer, cut out, displace, elbow in, get hands on, grab, grab hold of, highjack, infringe upon, lay hold of, muscle in, preempt, seize, squeeze in, supplant, swipe, take, work in, worm in, wrest

  281. Synonyms are not definitions. Try again.

  282. aislander says:

    Get outta here, you knucklehead!

  283. muckibr says:

    I ask again: Can’t we all simply agree that what Governor Gregoire is proposing is ONLY a change in state law, and NOT any change at all to the religious aspect of marriage?

    Your religious rights, rituals and beliefs will not be affected in the least by a change is state law that will allow same-sex couples to simply get a piece of government printed paper on which to record their civil, marriage.

    If there are churches that do perform same-sex marriages, then you have the RIGHT to change to a different church if it happens to be yours. What is the harm in any of that?

  284. I demand the right to marry my goldfish!

    Then I’m gonna take out a life insurance policy on my wife “goldie”.

    Lets see, the average goldfish lives a few months…..Kewl! This summer I’ll be driving a red Ferrari!!!

    BeepBeep!!

  285. I have no idea how anything I’ve written here, which is actually very little comparitively speaking, could be viewed as “dishonest” or self-indulgent. I’d love to see the lens through which you look at life muckibr. On second thought, no I wouldn’t. I get enough of an idea from your dozens and dozens…and dozens of comments– in which your presumption of superior thinking skills is amusing.

    Someone upthread said something about how the marriage of the people in your neighborhood have no effect on you whatsoever, and in the moment, that may seem true. If you look at the bigger picture (beyond your neighborhood and your teeny little world) you will see that this change reflects a deep cut into the ethos and values of our culture, one that may seem meaningless in the moment but will be very meaningful in the long run, and not in a good way.

    This isn’t about PC as much as it’s about appeasement, in my opinion. Gov. Gregoire, and most politicians for that matter, are caving into the pressures of the gay lobby which is supported by folks who think they are kinder and nicer than those who object to this alteration. Why? Because they want to get elected and re-elected. Their “views” are established by which way the political winds are shifting.

    That’s why a man like Rick Santorum seems so alien. He actually says what he means…all the while protecting the rights of those who disagree with him.

  286. ManuelMartini says:

    No matter how wrong Santorum is, he says what he means.

  287. took14theteam says:

    Lame Duck fradoire is just doing something controversial because she is done this year. Stay tuned for more left wing crap to be shoved down our throats. Oh, wait, this state will welcome them.

    Never mind.

    And sozo, it is quite amazing that muckibr “discovered” this site not too long after Kardnos and a few other alts disappeared and has since taken over every thread in much the same way kardnos did.

    Say hi to RW for us muckibr (and X6) he seems to be missing since the fake alt incident afar Christmas. I hope he got over the flu.

  288. aislander says:

    I’m hoping for complications…

  289. muckibr says:

    sozo – JAN. 9, 2012 AT 4:28 PM  
    “I have no idea how anything I’ve written here, which is actually very little comparitively speaking, could be viewed as “dishonest” or self-indulgent.”

    In the first place in your JAN 9, post at 7:51 you wrote ” I don’t think anyone said that this will “cause” bestiality, etc.”, and I proved to you that at least two people did write and post that. Deny that now, and you are being dishonest.

    But also in that post you wrote

    sozo – JAN. 9, 2012 AT 7:51 AM  
    “Having this discussion in a reasoned, respectful way is pretty much impossible here. Too many immature, self-indulgent wanna-be pundits.”

    You followed that comment immediately with a self-indulgent immature comment referring to people that you don’t like as “sheeples.” That, my friend, is IMMATURE, and if you disagree, then again you are being DISHONEST.

    Here’s your post:

    sozo – JAN. 9, 2012 AT 7:52 AM  
    “To be precise, I guess there are no laws that prohibit sex between sheep. :0) I meant of course, between peeples and sheeples.”

    And in your 4:28 PM post you make this comment: “in which your presumption of superior thinking skills is amusing.”

    I don’t presume I have superior thinking to anyone else, but apparently you do or you would not have mentioned it. Perhaps I simply have superior thinking skills as compared to you. The fact that you can’t even seem to recall your own comments might confirm that.

    Sorry if the truth hurts.

  290. keepinitreal says:

    No took, I think he just got tired of logging in and out.

  291. took14theteam says:

    Sozo, I apologize for giving muckibr reason to make this about you with my comment (similar to what he did to aislander). Not sure why he had to drag you into it when i was talking about him.

    Although, it does look familiar what he is doing.

  292. The dangers of text as opposed to real conversation: My use of sheeples and peeples was meant to be a joke that was in no way aimed at anyone. I was making light of my grammatical screw up in the previous post.

    As for the other, if you do not understand the relationship between cause and effect, muckibr, I cannot help you.

    Finally, you write “I have found it necessary to correct mis-used Bible quotes from others.”

    And you say you don’t think you are superior to others, including those who have studied hermeneutics and exegeted scripture for a lifetime. Nah. You’d never presume that.

  293. muckibr says:

    None of the Bible quotes I have corrected thus far have come from anyone who has studied scripture for a lifetime. Trust me. Or, simply go back through the threads and that will prove it. What an absolutely foolish remark to make to justify your own deficit of integrity.

  294. ManuelMartini says:

    “And sozo, it is quite amazing that muckibr “discovered” this site not too long after Kardnos and a few other alts disappeared and has since taken over every thread in much the same way kardnos did.
    Say hi to RW for us muckibr (and X6) he seems to be missing since the fake alt incident afar Christmas. I hope he got over the flu.”

    Wasn’t someone making a comment about off topic comments, earlier in the thread? I think that was “keepinitreal”.

    I’m glad I spent a few months just reading these comments before making my first comment the other day. That way, I was aware of the blog drama before attempting to have a logical discussion on a topic.

    My observation is that there are several names that are worried about someone being several names. Logic tells me that the several names that are worried, is really one person using several names. I would find it nearly impossible to consider that several people are that worried about who is who.

    By the way, my real name is Manuel and I like Martinis. Who does that make me?

  295. ManuelMartini says:

    Oh, shoot. I forgot to say “my last name” is Manuel.

  296. muckibr says:

    Manuel who likes Martinis? Obviously, in some parnoid minds (or mind) that makes you

    da

    da

    da

    dum

    KARDNOS!!!

    (Just kidding Manuel. I could not resist. Sorry for the off topic aside. Really.)

  297. aislander says:

    sozo: The best thing to do with a bully is to hit him in the face as hard as you can. That perfect solution is impossible in this format, so the next best thing is not to engage. Some things, when ignored, go away; others like a cancer, do not. While unpleasant, and a cancer only to itself, this one may be profitably discounted…

  298. You know what just occurred to me? Only a REAL BULLY would tell someone to punch someone else in the face.

    Right aislander?

  299. One too many martinis Manuel. You attribute something to me that I did not say.

    muckibr, if do not know what it means to profitably discount something (or someone) you most definitely need to stop painting yourself as superior in ANY way intellectually. Interesting how the intellectually handicapped are inclined to labe what they don’t comprehend as “gibberish.”

    As for your comment about bullies, perhaps you would prefer “negotiations?”

  300. aislander, you are right of course, and I actually managed to ignore Kardnos much of the time, though not always. I was trying here to give muckibr the benefit of the doubt (I am not at all interested in the subject of posting under multiple monikers…don’t care one way or another) but he IS beginning to be much like Kardnos and worth of being discounted. It wouldn’t be so bad if he did not fancy himself brilliant.

  301. I am not now, nor have I ever been and card carrying member of the KARDNOS PARTY!

    sozo, ” It wouldn’t be so bad if he did not fancy himself brilliant.”

    Well then, it’s not bad at all, because I don’t consider myself brilliant. In fact, I prove that all the time on these threads by asking questions to help increase my knowledge. But some people here refuse to answer my questions, because they do think they are always right, never wrong, that their opinions are facts, and they don’t need to back them up with any documentation or references. That is the kind of person who thinks he’s better and smarter than everyone else, and that is your buddy aislander.

    You are known by those who you associate with, and I would think twice if I was you associating with aislander, and keepinitlarry and some of the others who think their opinions are facts, which they are not.

  302. keepinitreal says:

    “beginning” sozo ?

  303. sozo – JAN. 10, 2012 AT 7:49 AM
    “One too many martinis Manuel. You attribute something to me that I did not say.”

    Sorry but you are wrong again sozo. Manuel DID NOT attribute anything to you that you did not say. He was quoting a comment posted by took14theteam on 1/9/2012 at 5:53 PM, which happened to include your screen name.

    By stating this I’m sure you’ll infer that I’m trying to prove I’m “more brilliant than you” but I’m really not. I was just curious about that comment you made, did a little reading up-thread and discovered you were again wrong about something.

    Sorry, but that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

    Now, if you can prove that I am wrong about this, please do. And if you do I will apologize to you. I promise. That’s just the way I am. When I am proven wrong I can admit it, unlike some people on these threads.

  304. ManuelMartini says:

    sozo – it is you that should check your alcoholic intake. I didn’t attribute anything to you. I quoted another comment.

    As to anyone “fancying themselves as brilliant”, we’ll not expect you to be guilty any time soon.

    Muckibr – whoever this Kardnos person is or was, he or she definitely got someones undergarments knotted. I’ve been reading these comments for a few months and have never seen this person post a comment.

  305. Manuel, neither have I, but I frequently am accused of being a reincarnation of kardnos, and it just is not true. Yet, the paranoids persist.

  306. Manuel and muck… re your monikers and blog history, very few of us care one way or another.

    My mistake on the reading of your post, Manuel. Perhaps I NEED a martini!

  307. aislander says:

    Products of the same sort of domestic dysfunction, perhaps?

  308. And here I was beginning to believe that “aislander” is a synonym for “dysfunction” as seems clear in his comments.

    I am praying for you aislander and now for you too sozo. I’d like to think there is hope for you both to see the light that shines on the truth of equality for all, even gays and lesbians. If my prayers don’t work, perhaps my words on these blogs will eventually get through to you. So I shall keep on keepin’ on.

    God Bless You!

  309. aislander says:

    Yay! Mine was the 300th post in this thread!

    OH NO! Is this…off topic

  310. took14theteam says:

    Nope.

    Not for this dysfunctional blog family…

    ;-)

  311. aislander, I am so happy for you. You posted the 300th comment, Wow! What an accomplishment. Considering you never win any of the debates on these threads, it’s nice at least that you win the 300th post. Congratulations! This must be a very proud day for you.

  312. keepinitreal says:

    Surely, sumone and his scizo’s propelled aislander to the 300 flag.

    Dovetailing… so it’s not off topic.

  313. aislander says:

    Not 300th anymore, though. It is now 302. I think the moderator sabotaged me. Oh, well: sic transit and all that…

  314. aislander says:

    My apologies to the moderator. I counted the wrong post. Mea culpa…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0