What Would Jesus Drive?

Fresh and renewed after a week of rest after their successful ten year boycott of Disney, the American Famaily Association has set their eyes on that other great domestic Satan- Ford Motor Company:

A conservative Christian group launched a boycott against Ford Motor Co. Tuesday, saying the second-largest U.S. automaker has given thousands of dollars to gay rights groups, offers benefits to same-sex couples and actively recruits gay employees.

“From redefining family to include homosexual marriage, to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to support homosexual groups and their agenda, to forcing managers to attend diversity training on how to promote the acceptance of homosexuality… Ford leads the way,” American Family Association chairman Donald Wildmon said in a statement.

Apparently when doing God’s work, you damned well better be driving a Chevy- cuz those folks at GM know how to keep the fags in place. With the auto industry in dire straits, I hope this boycott is as successful as the Disney one:

The AFA recently ended a nine-year boycott of The Walt Disney Co. over Disney’s decision to extend benefits to same-sex couples and promote gay-related events at its theme parks. The boycott appeared to have little effect, since Disney reported higher earnings and increased theme park attendance during that time.

And in case you forgot who these clowns are, they are the same jerks who earlier this week were deriding Arlen Specter over his position on stem cell research.

Life is really busy when you are a wingnut, and I can’t wait for the comments claiming I am anti-Christian for discussing these jerks. Really, though, at some point can we agree that at least we should thank Fred Phelps and his ‘God hates Fags’ goons for their refreshing candor? I prefer them over all these charlatans who pretend to have an air of respectability.

And, because irony knows no boundaries, I offer you this:

The ABC summer reality show “Welcome to the Neighborhood” portrays Christians as bigoted, self-righteous and judgmental.

The program features seven diverse families vying for a new house on a suburban cul-de-sac. The neighbors get to pick the winners.

But Movie Guide’s Ted Baehr said the Christian contestants will be the ones people love to hate…

“ABC is really making a tremendous mistake in terms of audience,” he said. “The audience out there wants positive portrayals.”

Baehr said TV shows that do not debase people of faith are at the top of the ratings.

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, suggested paying some attention to the sponsors of the program.

“Find out who the advertisers are and contact the advertisers,” he said. “That’s the best way to impact a television program or series.”

But he cautions: Be careful that in your calls to ABC and its sponsors you don’t become the stereotype you’re protesting.

Where would people get the weird idea that members of the AFA are bigoted, uncouth, self-righteous, judgemental or prejudiced?






61 replies
  1. 1
    ppgaz says:

    I knew there was a reason why I drive nothing but Ford products. I’m advancing a Gay Agenda.

    So my beloved 2005 Mustang is Satan’s own ride. No wonder I am having a devil of a good time driving it.

    I think I’ll get another one for the missus.

  2. 2

    Reading the post it occured to me that, particularly for the Auto industry, it’d be extremely lucrative to recruit gay couples because of the dominance of unions in that sector. Give them some token marriage benfits, less than straight couples’ benefit (negotiated by the unions) they get their marrigage situations acknowledged, some benefits (whiich is better than nothing) and the car maker gets a better deal.

    The market finds a way, or something.

  3. 3
    Tim F says:

    Hm, why is it that left-wing nutbars get their own category but the right-wing flavor just go into ‘general stupidity?’ If it wasn’t for that I wouldn’t necessarily know I was reading a GOP blog.

  4. 4
    caleb says:

    “But he cautions: Be careful that in your calls to ABC and its sponsors you don’t become the stereotype you’re protesting.”

    …and the punchlines just write themselves.

  5. 5
    Stormy70 says:

    Gee, another TV show making fun of Christians, and another Christian group boycotting. Ho Hum. Very cliche. People picking out their own neighbors? The show sounds boring.

  6. 6
    Halffasthero says:

    I am so sick of reality shows I could care less anyway. I take pride in the fact I have seen maybe 5-10 total shows ever. Including COPS. It is lazy programming.

  7. 7
    Johno says:

    I hereby declare awkward, vaguely shameful missionary-style sex between married parners as driving a Ford.

  8. 8
    tim says:

    I hereby declare awkward, vaguely shameful missionary-style sex between married parners as driving a Ford.

    Hm, that has possibilities. “A noted women’s health expert who served on policy committees was the subject of public criticism today by his ex-wife, who said he had claimed that he “couldn’t tell the difference between driving a Ford and making santorum”.”

    Sorry to have contributed to driving this thread way down hill.

  9. 9
    brenda says:

    The crayzies att the extreme don’t represent everyday Christians, I’ve had southern baptist friends who felt embarrased by them. But she felt she couldn’t say anything, even in her own church for fear of the reaction she’d get.

  10. 10
    Mr Furious says:

    Ah ha, they’re picking on the wrong company. Ford is selling 15,000 new Mustangs a month now. It’s the car to have, and will be for a while…

    Somehow I don’t think this boycott’s gonna have an impact.

  11. 11
    Jon H says:

    “I hereby declare awkward, vaguely shameful missionary-style sex between married parners as driving a Ford.”

    Wouldn’t “driving an Oldsmobile” be more appropriate?

    That even lends itself to icky double entendres, like “not your father’s Oldsmobile”.

  12. 12
    Johno says:

    Jon H: Sure, but though it’s a neater turn of phrase it lacks the frission of topicality of “Ford.” Also, I drive an Oldsmobile, and I’d prefer to keep those seats (and the nice brown paint job) clean, thank you very much! It’s a *family* car.

    um… I would also like to apologize for dragging this thread into the sewer.

  13. 13
    ppgaz says:

    Clean? I don’t even allow prepared food, in approved containers, to be CARRIED in my Mustang. No smoke, trash, eating, gum. Sit down, buckle up, keep your hands in your lap, and hold on. Don’t touch anything.

  14. 14
    SeesThroughIt says:

    I’m still waiting for one of these nutters to explain what exactly the “gay agenda” is. To be treated like regular Americans like they’re supposed to be–ya know, this country being about liberty and equality and all? Those bastards!

  15. 15
    SeesThroughIt says:

    I’m still waiting for one of these nutters to explain what exactly the “gay agenda” is. To be treated like regular Americans like they’re supposed to be–ya know, this country being about liberty and equality and all? Those bastards!

  16. 16
    Brian says:

    So, people who don’t believe homosexual couples should have all the rights of married couples and people who don’t believe homosexuality should be accepted as a normal, natural lifestyle are just stupid huh? Sounds like a liberal position. If people who believe in fundamental, Biblically based Christian values want to boycott businesses/people/organizations who promote homosexuality as normal and fun, they have the right, guaranteed by our constitution, to do so. Who are you to call it stupid? What do you stand for?

  17. 17
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Nobody’s saying they can’t boycott, Brian. We’re just pointing out that, well, they’re stupid for thinking their boycott means anything, and they’re stupid for thinking America is the land of equality in which some are more equal than others.

    What do I stand for? Letting people be people. I can’t fucking stand far-right assholes, but I don’t think they should be denied any American rights just based on them being highly objectionable people.

    So to answer the question in your first sentence, yes, they are stupid. Allowed to protest all they want, but stupid just the same.

  18. 18
    John Cole says:

    If people who believe in fundamental, Biblically based Christian values want to boycott businesses/people/organizations who promote homosexuality as normal and fun, they have the right, guaranteed by our constitution, to do so. Who are you to call it stupid?

    Hey- they can boycott whatever they want, and I can make as much fun of them as I want to.

    They can also protest those flthy colored folks from Africa, too. Need to stop supporting companies that support them.

    And them pornagraphers in Hollywood that want all of us to get AIDS.

    And what about all those companies that support the right to vote for women?

  19. 19
    AWJ says:

    They have the right to do it, and we have the right to call them foolish for doing it. Sounds fair to me.

  20. 20
    Libertine says:

    Maybe they will start boycotting doctors and prescriptions because medical help un-naturally extends life and undermines “God’s Will”, it would fit in with their twisted logic…just a thought.

  21. 21
    Andrei says:

    “So, people who don’t believe homosexual couples should have all the rights of married couples and people who don’t believe homosexuality should be accepted as a normal, natural lifestyle are just stupid huh?”

    Yes.

    Next question.

  22. 22
    Adam says:

    Who am I to call them stupid? I am an American citizen, which means I have the right to call anybody, be it you, the AFA, our beloved host John Cole, or the President himself a raving moron. In this case I’ll call them stupid because it’s obvious they’ve let hate dictate their actions and have no interest whatsoever in spreading Jesus’s love.

  23. 23
    ppgaz says:

    Brian: Yes, they are stupid.

    People who are breaking no law are entitled to exactly the same rights and protections that are afforded all other citizens.

    Whether you like those people or not, or approve of their choices, notwithstanding.

  24. 24
    ppgaz says:

    And, Brian, if you don’t want people calling those views “stupid” then maybe you shouldn’t go around wrapping your narrow and mean ideas in bullshit wrapping paper labeled “Bible”.

    There is nothing Christian about what the so-called Christian right is doing here. It’s nothing more than an excuse to employ schoolyard fag-bashing simply because they can get away with it out in public and not enough people have the stones to call them on it.

  25. 25
    Stormy70 says:

    John – slow down, dude. I didn’t realize all those Christians were protesting black people and women’s rights. Gee, disagree on any platform having to do with the Sainted Gay Rights Lobby and you are a general all around bigot. Give me a break. Tolerance is a two way street. Why should Christians tolerate people who mock them and call them stupid. Then in the next breath tell them they are not acting like Christians. I am for gay marriage, but after reading the comments about Christians on this site, I want to go out and campaign against people like you.

    Your intolerance and dismissal of all Christians who disagree with you are causing this backlash. These people will never listen to your side until you quit calling them names. The Christain right is not the only group coming out against gay marriage, or have you missed the supermajorities voting against it in the blue states? Seems alot of Democrats are against gay marriage as well.

  26. 26
    SeesThroughIt says:

    “These people will never listen to your side until you quit calling them names.”

    No, they’ll just never listen, period, because they only thing they want is their worldview confirmed.

    Again, I put forth the question: What exactly is this insidious “gay agenda” these Christian wingnuts (not Christians in general, but Christian wingnuts) are so terrified of? Near as I can tell, it’s nothing more than demanding the equal treatment they’re supposed to have been getting all along. And yet these nuts want to oppose equality–AND claim the moral high ground? Please. I’m sorry, but that is stupid and worthy of derision.

    You’re right–tolerance is a two way street. So let’s see here…are the gays attempting to oppress the Christian wingnuts? No. Are the Christian wingnuts attempting to oppress gays? At any and every opportunity for years on end. So who’s being intolerant?

    Christian wingnuts call for the suppression and denigration of gays–they want Americans to not be considered Americans (yes, in a way analagous to how Black Americans weren’t considered full Americans–shit, it took them how long just to be recognized as human beings and not property?). That’s not tolerance in the slightest, and it is bigotry. A gay person fighting against that and demanding equal rights? That’s simply defense against bigotry. It is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to what the Christian wingnuts have been doing.

    By the way, we say these Christian wingnuts aren’t acting very Christian because they aren’t. The truth hurts sometimes.

  27. 27
    John Cole says:

    John – slow down, dude. I didn’t realize all those Christians were protesting black people and women’s rights.

    They were 40 years ago. They have taken thesame damn rhetoric and applied it to a new target, is all.

  28. 28
    Stormy70 says:

    But not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a Christian Wingnut. Gay marraige is an overreach at this time by gay groups. Demographics were on their side. Young people are not against gay marriage, but people balk at being told what to do by a few judges in Mass. Do you see these groups freaking out about gay unions in Connecticutt? It is hardly mentioned because Conn. passed a law in the legislature. These politicians had the balls to put their money where their mouth is, and do their jobs. They did not pass the buck to the courts. My point is to start slow, and change people’s minds by showing that gay men and women can live in committed civil unions, and lead normal, productive lives. That will earn more respect than browbeating people over their religious beliefs, and calling them stupid. Catch more flies with honey, not hyperbole.

  29. 29
    DougJ says:

    Glad to see someone standing up the homosexual lobby. If if it weren’t for the man my family calls “George Jesus”, they’d be teaching gay sex in high-schools by now.

  30. 30
    Andrei says:

    “Gay marraige is an overreach at this time by gay groups.”

    In the same way civil rights for women and blacks were an overeach in their time? Come on. Give me a friggin’ break.

    “My point is to start slow, and change people’s minds by showing that gay men and women can live in committed civil unions, and lead normal, productive lives.”

    That has been shown, for the past 30 years at least. Not to mention the number of scholars throughout history have been gay to boot.

    How long must gay people suffer because some people can’t accept who they are? In a country that prides itself on being the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” forcing people to suffer because some people won’t allow them to lead free lives that the rest of the country enjoys is decidely unAmerican.

    People often times are unwilling to change their belief systems because it questions the very things they have justified their existence on. In the past, it was the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that blacks were nothing more than property, not human beings.

    Given the choice of upsetting a Christian over allowing gay marriage or forcing a gay couple to be treated as fifth class citizens when they are citizens of the country that claims to be the Land of the Free.. yeah, call it tough love, but people need to confront their prejudices if those prejudices are affecting the freedoms of classes of people in this country.

    Damn. And I thought that was what the GOP stood for.

    “That will earn more respect than browbeating people over their religious beliefs, and calling them stupid. Catch more flies with honey, not hyperbole.”

    Coming from you and the rest of those to the right of the aisle, that’s about as funny as it gets.

  31. 31
    brenda says:

    DougJ = flamebait

    The “homosexual agenda” as percieved by the religous right is ‘to have homosexualty accepted as normal.’ That’s where it would start, but they’d quickly move on to other groups they don’t approve of. They are a dangerous un-democratic movement who are currently trashing our country and dragging our flag through the cesspool of abu griabe that is guantonimo. Get mad about it and do something.

  32. 32
    SeesThroughIt says:

    “But not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a Christian Wingnut.”

    I agree with you on this, Stormy. In this particular case, though, it is Christian wingnuts.

    Also, kudos to my former home state of CT for actually being forward-thinking on the matter.

  33. 33
    DougJ says:

    Brenda writes

    “The “homosexual agenda” as percieved by the religous right is ‘to have homosexualty accepted as normal.'”

    And you deny that this is true. Luckily they won’t win. Election day showed that Americans will take George Jeus Bush over John F Atheist anyday. And that they still think marriage is between a man and a woman.

  34. 34
    wild bird fan says:

    Is Wild Bird now going by the name Brenda?

  35. 35
    cminus says:

    George Jeus Bush

    Wow, not only is he taking the name of the Lord in vain, but he’s not even taking the time to make sure he’s spelling it right. I’m beginning to suspect DougJ is a lefty trying to parody the “George Bush has the Mandate of Heaven” crowd. I mean, come on.

  36. 36
    ppgaz says:

    Sure, the wingnut standard tactic, mix the scary things up and blur the real issues.

    Rights for families, in re things like survivorship, etc, have nothing to do with what kind of sex is taught in schools.

    Personally, I think that public school sex education of any kind is a bad idea exactly for the reason that people with various warped agendas, be they gay or straight or pseudo-christian or vegetarian … are going to want to be “represented.” Well, begone, all of you. Public school is for the three R’s, not for family planning and sex therapy … I mean education.

    But again, the issue gets blurred because some have an agenda to blur them. Rights and equal protection are the issue. The government has no right to limit in any way the rights of people who are obeying the law and just want to live their lives as they please.

    So some gays have nasty sex ideas? Gee, no straight people have nasty sex ideas, then?

    Cut the crap and quit acting like the sex police. Free people don’t need sex police.

  37. 37
    Stormy70 says:

    ppqaz – I agree with you about no sex ed in school. Teach the three Rs.

    Quit comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement. And speaking of the civil rights movement, you might want to convince that particular group about Gay marriage before you start in with Christians, Muslims, etc. Civil unions are the first step to getting what you want. Skip that step, and you have the backlash you have now.

  38. 38
    Andrei says:

    “Quit comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement.”

    Not until you explain how it is that denying homosexual couples the same freedoms as extended to heterosexual couples is any different than denying women or blacks certain freedoms back when that kind of discrimination was the norm.

    Sure, I’ll grant that gays are allowed to vote. But beyond that, what else do they get? They’ve been beaten, brutalized, discriminated against, and yes even killed for being gay. While the scope is different, probably having more to do with a 1 in 10 factor of the gay population compared to the rest of the population, how is their plight really that different than what any other group that was persecuted or descriminated against been through?

    Just because blacks can be as homophobic as anyone else doesn’t mean that we can all allow injustice to occur until the black community understands or sides with the plight of gays. That’s absurd.

    What part of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are homosexuals supposed to not enjoy just because some small-minded people can’t handle what other people do in the privacy of their own bedroom?

  39. 39
    brenda says:

    DougJ; I’m not anyone else but me. Brenda is my real name, I’m not someone else, but then I’d expect this from a troll.

  40. 40
    Stormy70 says:

    Gee, all the gays I know have great jobs, and are well respected in their personal life as well. I’ll ask them if they are feeling oppressed because they can’t get married right this minute. However, most of them are Texans, which mean that they are very independent-minded, and don’t trust left-leaning “gay rights” groups. The gay guys I know carry guns, so getting physically attacked isn’t one of their worries. Besides, what part of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” covers marriage? Start with civil unions, and you might start getting somewhere.

  41. 41
    ppgaz says:

    Story, if I were a gay rights activist, which I am not, I would grab civil unions in a heartbeat, and shut up. Their insistence on calling it “marriage” is just a dumb move. It gets them nothing in the law, and a ton of opposition. Cutting off nose, to spite face.

    Having said that, I do in fact compare the thing to the civil rights movement. For this reason alone: The gratuitous gay-bashing. It’s mean, it has no foundation in reason or any understanding of the common good, and it’s done for the simple reason that it can be done.

    Bill Clinton said that he stupidly messed around with Monica for the worst possible reason: Because he could. He was right. It’s the same with gay-bashing. It’s done for one and only one reason: Because it can be gotten away with. There is no other reason for it.

    Last but not least, I think that marriage itself should be dropped as a government activity. It is a church institution, and should remain one. If the government wants to recognize marriages as civil unions and make laws that affect them, well, fine. But who the hell is government to tell anyone who they can be with?

    And if they can’t tell you who to be with, why should they be able to tilt the law against people they don’t like?

    That’s what the Civil Rights movement was about: Treating people you don’t like the same way you treat people you do like. You personally don’t have to do that. You are free to despise as you please. But the government doesn’t have that luxury.

  42. 42
    Stormy70 says:

    ppqaz – I am not a fan of anyone who resorts to gay bashing as a way to promote their arguments. However, not all right-wing Christians are gay bashers. I attend a church in Grapevine that has over 18,000 members, and I have never heard a sermon that mentions gay people, or members who have spewed hatred for gay people. Christ would not have condoned hatred against gays.

    Civil unions get you in the door, and people do not have the emotional response that marriage invokes. Gays will have to accept that not everyone will accept them and their lifestyle. So what? Not everyone accepts my lifestyle, a Star Wars Geek with an addiction to Blogs. ;-)

  43. 43
    ppgaz says:

    You got that right. Blog addicts get no respect. The universal response I get when I mention my blog habit is just laughter.

    On the gay bashing thing, I can’t figure out why the vast majority of Christians don’t tell the Dobsons to take a hike.

    Anyway, I gotta jump into my Ford Gaymobile and get over to the grocery store.

    Have a good evening.

  44. 44
    Andrei says:

    “Gee, all the gays I know have great jobs, and are well respected in their personal life as well.”

    So are the ones I know. But I live in Silicon Valley, which is one of the largest openly gay male communities on the planet. Before this, I lived near Northhampton, MA, which is one of the largest openly gay female communities on the planet.

    But that was not the case living in other parts of the country, where being gay for most still meant having to keep it largely hush hush. How many of your gay friends in Texas are willing to engage in PDA in the middle of downtown Houston or Dallas?

    Having been born and raised in Houston, and still have all my famly back there, I’d say my experience is that there are small pockets of areas where gays can probably act normal in Texas, but largely, that is not the case whatsoever.

    “The gay guys I know carry guns, so getting physically attacked isn’t one of their worries.”

    Yeah… There’s a good standard to hold to. I’m sure that works for all the gay teenagers who routinely get threatened in high school if other classmates find out they are gay.

    Brilliant!

    “Besides, what part of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” covers marriage? Start with civil unions, and you might start getting somewhere.”

    Hmmm… how about the pursuit of happiness part? If heterosexuals can marry for love and aim to achieve happiness in marriage, explain to me again why gays should not be allowed to pursue the same goal?

    As forcivil union, that’s not a pragmatic approach to the issue in my opinion. Once you label something a new term, in the eyes of the law and legislation, it can still be treated differently. Laws is all about language, so a new a term is a new thing.

    IOW, unless you explicitly grant all the same rights given to marriage to civil unions, civil unions might legally be allowed to be treated differently. If people or corporations then do things like offer health benefits only to married couples, not to couples of civil unions, they actually might have a stronger leg to stand on in the eyes of the law.

    To bypass that, you’ll basically have to grant to the same legal status to civil unions as assigned to marriage, in which case, why the need for a distinction in terminology between the two except to pacify the small minded in our country who can’t seem to allow gays and lesbians to treated with the same diginity in the eyes of the law as everyone else? And given the state of divorce rates, and the kinds of kinky sex people engage in the privacy of their own bedrooms, just how “sacred” is marriage anyway in this modern age?

  45. 45
    madPatter says:

    Do people here support polygamous marriage? What about incestuous marriage (in the case where there is no potential for children)? If not, why are these cases not covered by the same pursuit of happiness type aguments that are being used for gay marriage?

  46. 46
    Stormy70 says:

    Andrei – I frown on all PDAs. Keep that crap in the bedroom. As for school, everyone gets ragged on for something, and you learn to toughen the hell up. The real world isn’t full of fairy tales and moonbeams.

    I lived in the panhandle growing up and we knew who was gay, and we didn’t care. Hell, most were in my church youth group, and we were all good friends. We have gay people all over, not just in select enclaves, and they seem pretty well adjusted to me. Of course, they don’t go around looking for reasons to be offended at every little slight. I see gay guys hold hands in Austin all over the place, Dallas, too. People around here are more live and let live. Civil unions are a more practical solution at this time, or did all the no gay marriage amendments passing in California, Oregon, etc. not show you that gay marriage is not going to be accepted right now. You don’t like it, then work to change people’s minds and then the laws.

  47. 47
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Are you seriously trying to equate homosexuality with incest, madPatter? Sounds like you’ve been huffing from the Santorum files.

  48. 48
    Andrei says:

    “If not, why are these cases not covered by the same pursuit of happiness type aguments that are being used for gay marriage?”

    A nice tactic used by some on the right. Equate gays with polygamists and incest while trying to cast a fog on the issue.

    Why don’t you answer this question, is being gay illegal? If being gay is not illegal; and we believe that tax-paying, legal and in good standing citizens in this country should be allowed to live free lives; and we recognize that marriage is now afforded with certain rights under the law, that marriage is no longer just a religious ceremony in the eyes of God, but also in the eyes of the government; why should gays be witheld from exercising rights afforded to married couples?

    Again, one way to give the gay population those rights is to institute civil union legislation, but you’d have to legally afford the rights from marriage to civil unions as well, in which case all you have done is created a new term for the *same* thing in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the government. So why bother do that — which has its own pitfalls and could become a slippery slope legally speaking — and just allow gays to marry?

  49. 49
    madPatter says:

    No, I’m not trying to equate homosexuality with incest. But, I fail to see how a civil rights argument for gay marriage doesn’t extend to the marriage of a brother and sister or the marriage of two brothers. Would these situations not be people pursuing happiness? I see two options: 1) go with the civil rights line of reasoning and allow every type of marriage or 2) draw an (essentially arbitrary) line somewhere. The problem with 2) is where to draw the line. The problem with 1) is that most people would not accept certain kinds of marriage, it seems even most of the “open-minded” proponents of gay marriage. Are there other options out there?

  50. 50
    Andrei says:

    “But, I fail to see how a civil rights argument for gay marriage doesn’t extend to the marriage of a brother and sister or the marriage of two brothers.”

    Because with the current laws in most states, incest is illegal while being gay is not. That’s why I asked the question I did.

    Polygamy is a different problem, with more complex legal issues, especially tied to religious beliefs. For all intents and purposes, it is also illegal in most states, while again, being gay is not illegal.

    IMHO, you either make being gay illegal in the eyes of the law (which seems an absurd concept given this modern day and age) to prevent gay marriage, or you give gay people the same rights afford to everyone else since being gay is not illegal. And yes, that also includes being allowed to serve openly in the military.

  51. 51
    Andrei says:

    “I lived in the panhandle growing up and we knew who was gay, and we didn’t care.”

    I’m glad you lived in a part of Texas that let gay people lead openly gay lives. I’m also glad that your perception of the issue is so accurate that all those people who “didn’t care” in Texas also don’t care in the rest of the country to the point that people wouldn’t care if gay couples got married.

    Oh wait… they still aren’t allowed to get married. I guess people do care for some odd reason.

    Wake up Stormy. You can’t in one breath claim people don’t care while also claiming people need to be slowly moved to change their cultural mindset. Well… you can, but it doesn’t give your arguement much credance.

  52. 52
    madPatter says:

    Andrei,

    I believe being gay is not illegal (are gay sexual acts illegal in some states?). Neither is a single man having relationships with multiple women (it may be frowned upon, but legal). Why then, should your above argument not apply to polygamy?

    I’d like to stress that I don’t want to equate homosexuality with polygamy or incest. I just don’t see how the arguments being put forth in favor of gay marriage don’t also support other kinds of marriage.

    And for what it’s worth, if laws are passed supporting gay marriage that’s fine by me. But, I don’t buy into the civil rights argument (unless someone can give me a reason why we have an inherent right to gay marriage, but not to polygamy or incest [assuming certain non-manipulative criteria are met]).

  53. 53
    Andrei says:

    “Why then, should your above argument not apply to polygamy?”

    Because being married to multiple partners *is* illegal on the books in many states. A single man dating multiple women is not illegal. Being gay is not illegal.

    You’re asking an apples and oranges question.

    Having said that, there are people who debate polygamy based on religious grounds. That’s atricky issue that deserves it’s own thread.

    However, my postion is that until being gay is *illegal* in the eyes of the law the debate that equates the circumstance of gay marriage to polygamy and incest is not rational.

  54. 54
    madPatter says:

    “A single man dating multiple women is not illegal. Being gay is not illegal.”

    Being married to multiple partners is illegal in most states. Gay marriage is illegal in most states.

    How am I comparing apples to oranges?

  55. 55
    Andrei says:

    “Gay marriage is illegal in most states.”

    IIRC, only 11 states have bans on gay marriage, and those are fairly recent due to the perceived threat of gays asking for equal treatment in the eyes of the law. The rest of the country has language that describes marriage as “a union between a man and a woman” but that doesn’t make gay marriage illegal per se. It just defines the term. Gays are asking for equality in that definition.

    Does ban == illegal? No. Illegal means punishment, even jail time. Gay marriage is not illegal in that sense. It’s just not recognized legally and towns are not allowed to issue marriage certificates. Polygamy and incest are punishable by our judicial system.

    There are challenges in the courts now on the constitutionality of these laws at the state level, and I guess we’ll ever see if it makes to the SCOTUS level, although I doubt it would until Congress attempts to pass a federal amendment that attempts to define marriage at the federal level.

    So, yes, the example of polygamy and incest is still apples to oranges imho.

  56. 56
    Sue Dohnim says:

    SeesThroughIt, you keep asking what the homosexual agenda is.

    Here is the gay activist manifesto that has practically been a step-by-step guide for destroying traditional institutions and taking over society. A lot of people here who are trying to humiliate opponents to gay marriage are following the scripts laid out in this book to the letter.

    For a more succinct statement of the homosexual (activist/militant) agenda, simply read the 1972 and 1993 Gay Rights platforms written up by hundreds of gay activist groups and note the preoccupation with changing the age-of-consent and polygamy laws.

    Don’t read any of this stuff if you want to remain ignorant and keep thinking that homosexuals and Christians are two big monolithic warring factions.

  57. 57

    Dawn Patrol

    Top 5 dumb things I did this week [From My Position… On the way!] …When The Pin on Mr. Grenade is Pulled, he is not our friend. Note to self: As far as grenades go, I dont schlep around the…

  58. 58

    Have you driven a Ford lately, you big queer-lover?

    In a puzzling display of hubris, the "good" "Christians" of the American Family Association have announced a boycott of the Ford Motor Corporation because of that company's

  59. 59

    Valuable news links

    Family Values: Mom Charged in Daughter’s Rape, DA says mother thought it was time for daughter to have sex. Twisted. Native American Values: Democracy Now, an independent media source I am completely unfamiliar with, has an interview with both Joe…

  60. 60

    Around The ‘Sphere

    Links are from sites with varying viewpoints. Opinion expressed do not necessarily express the views of TMV or its co-bloggers.
    Reveng…

  61. 61

    Around The ‘Sphere

    Links are from sites with varying viewpoints. Opinion expressed do not necessarily express the views of TMV or its co-bloggers.
    Reveng…

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Around The ‘Sphere

    Links are from sites with varying viewpoints. Opinion expressed do not necessarily express the views of TMV or its co-bloggers.
    Reveng…

  2. Around The ‘Sphere

    Links are from sites with varying viewpoints. Opinion expressed do not necessarily express the views of TMV or its co-bloggers.
    Reveng…

  3. Valuable news links

    Family Values: Mom Charged in Daughter’s Rape, DA says mother thought it was time for daughter to have sex. Twisted. Native American Values: Democracy Now, an independent media source I am completely unfamiliar with, has an interview with both Joe…

  4. Have you driven a Ford lately, you big queer-lover?

    In a puzzling display of hubris, the "good" "Christians" of the American Family Association have announced a boycott of the Ford Motor Corporation because of that company's

  5. Dawn Patrol

    Top 5 dumb things I did this week [From My Position… On the way!] …When The Pin on Mr. Grenade is Pulled, he is not our friend. Note to self: As far as grenades go, I dont schlep around the…

Comments are closed.