George Will on ABC’s “This Week”: Opposition To Gay Marriage Dying

Dec 9, 2012 Full story: lezgetreal.com 150
It is tempting to do two things in the analysis of the move towards Marriage Equality. The first is to announce the death of the anti-equality groups, and the second is to conflate same-sex marriage with abortion. Read more
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#55 Dec 9, 2012
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Are they the only civilizations that collapsed? I think you’re trying to determine a common denominator where is none. You need to study and then you may be able to post an intelligent hypothesis. That’s the problem with opportunistic haters, you make up stuff and then rely on lazy uneducated people to buy it foot line and sinker.
But he is so impressed with himself and how he sounds. Why bother with facts.

My denial us present. And accurate.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#56 Dec 10, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
LOL
Put some more water in the soup that'll make it thicker.
<quoted text>
Ad homoan cover for ignoance.

Bazinga!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#57 Dec 10, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Hardly. I simply note that most cultures collapse from within because of legalized or default moral degradation. The justification of a direct violation of evolutionary design usually signals a complete disintegration.
As SCOTUS has noted several times, marriage and family are the fundamental building block of society. When those are corrupted, the culture is fatally undermined.
Your denial is present.
<quoted text>
You touched on my point, "the crimes and abuses of so-called "normal"," but then turn around and exclude homosexuals. Hardly logical or honest, don't you think?
The 'fact' is that cultural collapse is a debated and unsettled issue. "The coupled breakdown of economic, cultural and social institutions with ecological relationships is perhaps the most common feature of collapse." The premise I hold to is that moral degradation allows other issues to careen out of control.
As to 'half-baked lies', trying to equate a redumbant couple to the fruit bearing evolutionary reunion of genders into one is hard to top.
You were saying...
smile.
david traversa wrote:
<quoted text>The sexual preferences of a minority can never be the cause of any nation's collapse.. That leaves who, according to you, as responsible for such happenings? It's a well-known scientific fact that there's no such thing as a completely normal person, straight or gay; though, no doubt, you fancy yourself as one of the elect few.. A human being can never be described as redundant (not "redumbant" PLEASE!!).. Just because they didn't reproduce, Leonardo da Vinci, Donatello, Christopher Marlowe, Walt Whitman and Walter Piston could be described as "redundant" according to your low and narrow standards of judgement.
If you read what I wrote, I didn't lay the blame entirely on gays. It is the culmination of moral decay, a denial that undermines all kinds of choices. These culminate in a perfect storm.

I completely agree there is no normal person. I even acknowledge myself as a 'monster mutation'. I'm a genetic chimera and a hermaphrodite. But more importantly, I believe all people are broken. We take good things and abuse them. We take bad things and make them worse. Our motives in even good acts are stained with pride or worse.

I didn't describe a person as redumbant, I described a couple pretending to be married as redumbant. A cynical assault on the insult of asserting such idiocy.

No question that in spite of our brokenness, all of us are capable of good and great things. My premise is simply that denial undermines that potential.

I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian. I appreciate a honest and reasoned discussion. If you want to cover brokenness however, the barbarian in me will sink the knife of reality to the hilt into the belly of denial and twist it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#58 Dec 10, 2012
KiMare homophobic lesbian wrote:
The purpose of marriage is to let your inner lesbian marry a straight woman. No more degrading, unhealthy, anal for me I'm getting married to my poor poor wife and procreating. She married a man obsessed with anal and she got a lesbian!
Bark!
My, my, my! Look at that ad homoan, gay twirl, sissy fit!

All over two simple points of reality you have no way around.

1. Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

2. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

Fatal cracks in the pillar of denial.

Maybe if you stomp your feet a little harder?

What happens if you face reality fully? It is hard either way, but you aren't asking th whole world to pretend with you.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#59 Dec 10, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Love, of course, precedes marriage. How can the antecedent prevent the precedent?
<quoted text>
2. The rights and responsibilities of marriage flow from the unification of two lives--financially, spiritually, and intimately. Marriage law simply recognizes the reality of two lives intertwined.
<quoted text>
3. Many rights and responsibilities can be obtained through contract negotiation. But this is an extensive and time-consuming process. Such contracts have frequently been challenged by other relatives and overturned by courts. Many other benefits of marriage cannot be obtained by any other institution.
<quoted text>
4. I'm not sure what you mean by this red herring.
<quoted text>
5. Same-sex marriage desecrates nothing, but rather honors the traditions of all cultures. And your evident claim that no cultures recognize same-sex marriages marks you as ignorant, disingenuous, or--most likely--a lying POS.
<quoted text>
6. Including more families in this fundamental building block will enhance society. No marriage meeting your stricter definition will be changed in any way.
1. My point. There are countless love relationships that do not led to marriage.

2. Again, there are countless relationships that are intertwined. They are defined in distinct ways because they describe distinct realities. Your definition of marriage is a dumbed down attempt to equate a imposter relationship with marriage.

3. Marriage laws were developed over time to address specific and unique issues. Most originally entailed protecting a work at home mother and biological children. Children in default situations already have numerous protections. Gay couples don't need those protections. It is dishonest to assert legitimate rights cannot be gained without imposing an imposter relationship on marriage.

4. Then how do you know it is a red herring???

I'm simply noting that equating the union of male and female, a rejoining that roots back to simple life forms developing into genders, with duplicate genders is utter idiocy. One is rooted in millions of years of evolutionary refinement, the other is a repetitive genetic disorder.

5. You are being extremely dishonest (and that is a kind way of putting it). All major religions and cultures have rejected homosexuality a normal. The simple fact is that it is an assault on cultural and religious sensitivity to call gay unions marriage. Marriage has been present in every single culture of 8000 years of human history. Gay unions being called marriage have yet to establish themselves in a single culture and spread. Less than 20 years of the present handful does not a historical precedent make.

6. My definition of marriage is hardly 'stricter', it is simply accurate.

Moreover, you are attempting to equate default families with a natural family. Every legitimate study has shown a marked decrease in child health and the subsequent benefit to society. Your assertion that such a momentous shift will have 'no affect' is ridiculous.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#60 Dec 10, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

7. And what crucial distinctions would those be?
<quoted text>
Isn't this the same red herring that made no sense the first time you posted it?
<quoted text>
8. Some children have only one parent. Some children have no parents. Some children move from one foster home to another. Some children grow up in dysfunctional biological families. With or without same-sex marriage, gays have raised children and will continue to raise children for all time. The only thing you will accomplish by refusing to recognize same-sex relationships is to condemn children to live with unmarried parents and, therefore, have fewer advantages in life.
<quoted text>
9. Huh?
<quoted text>
10. The very existence of homosexuality empirically contradicts your claim. If homosexuality was a reproductive dead end, homosexuals would not exist. But they do exist in thousands of species.
<quoted text>
11. All monogamous relationships are healthy. I am not sure what you are getting at.
<quoted text>
12. Huh?
<quoted text>
13. It is you who dilute the commitment of two lives together down to a single sex act. We are the ones who recognize the fullness of the relationship. We are the ones who recognize that any two idiots can reproduce together. That does not create a relationship or a marriage.
<quoted text>
For all practical purposes, same-sex relationships are equivalent to opposite-sex relationships.
7. Seriously? You equate the union of opposite genders with a duplication of one gender??? I expect an honest discussion to take my time up.

Every single aspect of a male and female is distinct. From body to brain. Intuition to instinct. The union of a male and female create a distinct being. The collision of two males simply creates redundancy.

8. All children have one father and one mother. Default situations are sad and show the serious consequences of the loss. I am not precluding lessor alternatives, I am pursuing the best for children.

The horrendous consequence of your proposition is the DELIBERATE birthing of a child devoid of one gender and at least one parent. Something that is a diabolical and criminally selfish act at the expense of a child.

9. Heterosexual sex is the design of nature. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

10. You show your ignorance of evolution and genetics. Genetic mutations occur all the time. Many mutations are repetitive abnormalities. Transsexuals admit their brain was assigned to the wrong body. GLB's are simply a lessor genetic defect.

11. Marriage is by far the most healthy relationship. According to sociologists, it is marginally monogamous because to mutual children. Gay unions are highly fractured. They can never have the bonding of mutual children. This is a significant place where denial about distinctions of marriage and gay unions is exposed.

12. Simple. Every single relationship that exists has been 'birthed' by a mother and father. No other relationship can claim that distinction. In fact gay unions are a direct evolutionary failure of survival of the fittest.

13. Silly. I just listed numerous distinctions beyond reproduction. Moreover, you attempt to desecrate the singular honor of birthing and raising human fruit in the only natural setting as if it were nothing. You equate the union of Mars and Venus with the collision of Uranus and Uranus. The list goes on...

As to your last assertion, I would suggest you seriously deal with your denial.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#61 Dec 10, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a problem, you see.
If I'm standing next to someone who keeps telling me the sky is purple, I eventually stop listening.
We cannot sit and argue forever with people who are extremely committed to distorting reality because ... they hate gay people.
So what you say meets the fate that probably scares you must -- it goes ignored.
Seriously.
This includes Marram and McMike.

Calling me ignorant and hateful is a intellectual cop-out.

I love history, care to discuss it?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#62 Dec 10, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys, look at the "logic" here. Think for a moment.
Does something glaring occur to you?...
... It should. If what this person said were even TRUE, there's still a gigantic problem with it: It conflates *sex*(antigay viewpoint) with *homosexual actions*(antigay viewpoint) and *immorality*(antigay viewpoint).
Could it be that *immorality* caused these civilizations to collapse?
Not gays, mind you: The *false* conflation of GAYS with IMMORALITY gave people the view that the societies in question were IMMORAL,
and we know that for far more than 8,000 years, humanity has been clinically obsessed with forcing a definition of morality upon everyone.
So yeah, I am not only not buying this so-called "logic," but I can explain *exactly* why, and 100.0% of the times that I explain *exactly* why I don't buy it, the antigay either have no response or their response is another pack of see-through nonsense which I can deconstruct immediately.
They never have a *sound train of logic*, you see.
You touch on reality but confuse my point.

The specific cause of a cultural collapse IS debated. I assert that for all the causes listed, MORAL collapse undermines decisions in all the other causes.

I simply assert that homosexuality (and abortion) represents the acceptance of extreme immorality by a culture, thereby signaling the end.

:-)

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#64 Dec 10, 2012
KiMare wrote:
The pattern of history is that when a culture embraces gay sex, it collapses.
:-)
Interesting observation, should you actually be able to prove it. How long before these cultures collapse?
Netherlands
Belgium
Spain
Canada
South Africa
Norway
Sweden
Portugal
Iceland
Argentina

Not to mention the many states here in the U.S.

If what you suggest is true, the world is going to have a lot co collapsing
to do.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#65 Dec 10, 2012
And there are more people on food stamps than ever before. And Jay Leno's Jaywalking, plus a number of other indicators, say we're getting dumber and dumber. Hmmm, wonder if there is a correlation here.
AzAdam

United States

#66 Dec 10, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, my! Look at that ad homoan, gay twirl, sissy fit!
All over two simple points of reality you have no way around.
1. Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
2. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Fatal cracks in the pillar of denial.
Maybe if you stomp your feet a little harder?
What happens if you face reality fully? It is hard either way, but you aren't asking th whole world to pretend with you.
Smirk.
1. Marriage IS a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. It serves the same purpose for same sex couples where it is legal. That's good for everyone.

2. You forget that it removes legal barriers to caring for ones spouse such as simplifying property and inheritance rights. This benefits straights and gays alike by enabling gay couples to care for each other, thus reducing the chance society as a whole will need to do it.

3. Anal and vaginal sex are both harmful in that you expose your blood stream to another persons blood stream. Thus the advantage of constraining evolutionary mating behavior.
Anal sex is no less harmful if practiced by straight or gay couples. Not all straight couples do it. Not all gay couples do it.

4. Demeaning? This is completely crap. You find gay people less deserving of respect, therefore gay sex is demeaning. But even if you disagree, you can understand that for someone who believes gay people are deserving of equal respect, gay sex would not be demeaning.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#67 Dec 10, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Value and humanity are founded in reality.
Marriage at it's most fundamental identity is a cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay unions are a direct violation of that, hardly 'a part'.
:-)
People don't need to get married to be involved in "evolutionary mating behavior."

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#68 Dec 10, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Hardly. I simply note that most cultures collapse from within because of legalized or default moral degradation. The justification of a direct violation of evolutionary design usually signals a complete disintegration.
As SCOTUS has noted several times, marriage and family are the fundamental building block of society. When those are corrupted, the culture is fatally undermined.
Your denial is present.
<quoted text>
You touched on my point, "the crimes and abuses of so-called "normal"," but then turn around and exclude homosexuals. Hardly logical or honest, don't you think?
The 'fact' is that cultural collapse is a debated and unsettled issue. "The coupled breakdown of economic, cultural and social institutions with ecological relationships is perhaps the most common feature of collapse." The premise I hold to is that moral degradation allows other issues to careen out of control.
As to 'half-baked lies', trying to equate a redumbant couple to the fruit bearing evolutionary reunion of genders into one is hard to top.
You were saying...
smile.
If you are blaming the collapse of a culture on "moral degradation," you'd better give credit to heterosexuals for that too -- look at the divorce rate and the rate of unwed mothers, young teenagers having sex and the proliferation of porn on the internet. If you point one finger, three are pointing back at you, bub.

Smile.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#69 Dec 10, 2012
Chance wrote:
And there are more people on food stamps than ever before. And Jay Leno's Jaywalking, plus a number of other indicators, say we're getting dumber and dumber. Hmmm, wonder if there is a correlation here.
Your post is living proof that we're getting dumber and dumber.

Since: Jul 11

Los Angeles, CA

#70 Dec 10, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Marriage exists apart from government in many places. We even have civil unions.
You didn't know that?
What you obviously do not realize is the concept differences between "Civil Unions"/"Domestic Partnerships" and "Marriage".

I live in California, where we currently have access to "Domestic Partnerships". That only applies in CAlifornia. If I go to Nevada, a state which has no "domestic partnership" concept in its laws, I now become a legal stranger to my "partner" and there is no legal recourse for situations where I may need to make life-saving decisions for him, or vice-versa.

There have been several cases of people from marriage-equality states and non-marriage-equality states where they have worked a blizzard of legal documents and STILL were denied access to common courtesies, up to, and INCLUDING, being by the side of their loved one while that person is dying. These are things that are considered unconscionable for opposite-sex relations because marriage is "understood" in all fifty states, and only because of DOMA are same-sex marriages able to be bandied about and ignored at will.

One case that comes to mind is a couple from WA who were vacationing at Disneyworld with their family (in this case, they have 3 children). One of the couple became desperately ill, and was hospitalized. Regardless of the existence of a medical power of attorney that was signed by both parties years before, the hospital said that the partner had "no rights or reason" to be by the bed of her loved one while she lay dying alone. The hospital even restricted the kids from being able to visit the parent they have always known. According to interviews provided when this hit the news, witnesses in the waiting room heard a nurse tell the surviving woman "This is Florida. We don't have to care about your relationship here."

So you might think that it's irrelevant that people form life-long relationships with people of the same sex, which your posts certainly lead many people to believe. However, those relationships are as meaningful to us as yours is to you.

If you don't agree with same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. However, for those of us who are drawn to the same sex as you are drawn to the opposite sex, same-sex marriage is part of who we are. You can believe that we are wrong to want equality under the law. We believe you are wrong to deny equality under the law to us.
KiMare is a troll

Italy

#71 Dec 10, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You touch on reality but confuse my point.
I simply assert that homosexuality (and abortion) represents the acceptance of extreme immorality by a culture, thereby signaling the end.
:-)
Reality is you are, by your own definition, a monster mutation because you are a lesbian trapped inside a mans body. Which, by the way, makes you transgendered not intersexed; having a third nipple is irrelevant.
Homosexuality is immoral? Then you as a lesbian are immoral. I agree with you, you are immoral, but not because you are a lesbian.
Abortion is immoral? Is this why you never aborted your children despite the chance of them turning out like you? In your case you should have invested in contraception.
You have a gay marriage. You are married to a woman and are a woman inside your mans body. You have a gay marriage and you have children; that makes you a hypocrite.
Just why is a lesbian so interested in making spam posts on so many threads, so many forums, against anal sex?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#72 Dec 10, 2012
In the latest gallup poll, the ONLY age group with a majority opposed to marriage equality are those over age 65. A majority of every other age groups supports marriage equality, including 73% of those under age 30.

Support has increased by 10% in the past 10 years in EVERY age group, including the oldest and most anti-gay generation.

In 10 years this will all be over.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#73 Dec 10, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
In the latest gallup poll, the ONLY age group with a majority opposed to marriage equality are those over age 65. A majority of every other age groups supports marriage equality, including 73% of those under age 30.
Support has increased by 10% in the past 10 years in EVERY age group, including the oldest and most anti-gay generation.
In 10 years this will all be over.
Yep. Marriage equality is inevitable.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#74 Dec 10, 2012
It's also the reason we need to be smart and pick our battle in the future.

That means putting off any ballot votes in Oregon or Ohio or Colorado or Michigan to 2016 when the electorate is more favorable, instead of 2014 when it's mostly the anti-gay old geezers who vote.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#75 Dec 10, 2012
Actually I believe Colorado and possibly Oregon would be OK to do in 14. I think Colorado is already there but not as aware of Oregons figures.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
It's also the reason we need to be smart and pick our battle in the future.
That means putting off any ballot votes in Oregon or Ohio or Colorado or Michigan to 2016 when the electorate is more favorable, instead of 2014 when it's mostly the anti-gay old geezers who vote.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 8 min No Surprise 1,699
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 21 min Reverend Alan 17,792
News The Hoosier Nuremberg Laws 22 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 22
News Indiana's Religious 'Anti-Gay' Law That Wasn't 22 min Look in the Mirror 18
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 23 min doty 58,861
News Apple's Tim Cook: Anti-gay laws are 'dangerous' 23 min fyi 3
News LTE: In Open Letter to Clearfield Community, Lo... 28 min Sturm Ruger 10
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 46 min Page 30,887
News Child of Lesbian Moms Says Same-Sex Marriage Is... 47 min flbadcatowner 553
News Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 1 hr WasteWater 755
More from around the web