LeftWingConspiracy.com

13 Comments

1. JamesF:

   There is no bigotry. All of those who claim they do not have equal rights are ignorant. What they really want are new rights, plan and simple. Every “pink” man has the right to marry a woman and share any benefits among the marriage, the same as every straight man. Straight men do not have the right to marry men. These would be NEW rights.

   6 November 2008, 10:57 am

2. Lefty McLefterson:

   That’s a lie James. Proposition 8 expressly REMOVES the right of homosexual couples to be married in California!

   Gays are the last minority that it’s apparently okay (among your circles) to discriminate against.

   Why should you care that a gay couple gets to marry? Why should any of us care?

   I love how conservatives talk about making government smaller, but they want the government involved in the most intimate details of our lives. They may not want to be involved in taking care of society, but they want to be in our bedrooms, our doctor’s offices, and apparently walking down the aisle at your weddings as well.

   6 November 2008, 11:16 am

3. JamesF:

   Read what I wrote again, Lefty, and do not call me a liar. What I stated is absolutely TRUE! Homosexuals want NEW rights. I do not currently have the right to marry a man, neither do they – we have the exact same rights.

   Also, it doesnt remove a right, it clarifies a right. Judges are not legislators and cannot amend a states constitution. Obviously the people of California decided that they did not agree witht he courts opinion and decided they needed t amed the constitution to prevent judges from abitrarily finding things in the constitution that were not there.

   I dont really care if homosexuals are allowed to marry, but at least be intectually honest when discussing the issue of creating new rights.

   I am more concerned with things like taking a first grade class to observe a lesbian wedding being done without parental consent, along with groups stating that the school system has no responsibilty to inform parents of this event and that the parents have no right to prevent their child from attending this event. When this happens, then they are the ones pushing their morality onto others.

   As for making governemnt smaller – I do think that is a good thing. However, I do not see how Prop 8 changes the size of government at all. Addititionally, conservatives generally believe in smaller FEDERAL governement, with the understanding that most governing should come at the state or local level. Prop 8 is a perfect case of a state deciding its own laws. If a citizen of the state decides the issue is important enough, they are free to move to another state that is more in line with their beliefs.

   As for the last minority to be discriminated against, try thinking about the unborn (or even those “temporarily alive” according to out President-elect) children who are killed in masses without a say so. At least the blacks and pinks have not had that done to them in a long time!

   6 November 2008, 1:50 pm

4. Lefty McLefterson:

   James,

   Your statement that they want new rights is false. A lie. What do you call somebody who lies James? A Republican…hahaha

   Prior of 11/4/2008 same-sex marriage was a constitutionally protected right in California. The California supreme court recognized that right back in May. Since that ruling approximately 18,000 same-sex couples have married. I’m not sure when Prop 8 will go into effect.

   Proposition 8 clearly and unambiguously removes the right for same-sex couples to get married. The title of Proposition 8 is “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry” You can call it clarification if you’re straight, but if you’re gay you’ve just been told that you can’t marry who you want to.

   If you’re the parent of a child then you can certainly bitch about a field trip to a lesbian wedding. Are you really worried that your child will somehow become indoctrinated to be pro-gay? Do you think your kid might catch gay…like the flu?

   Where do the citizens get to stop in making laws? If a ballot initiative passed that said we could all keep illegal immigrants as pets would that be okay with you since it was a state deciding its own laws? How about if we re-enact slavery? States rights don’t extend to the extermination of the rights of any minority just because it’s popular with the majority.

   As for you standing up for the rights of the unborn. When I see that you’ve adopted several unwanted kids then you can talk. You can certainly try and turn this into some abortion thread, but it’s not happening on my end.

   6 November 2008, 2:20 pm

5. JamesF:

   Prop 8 has already taken effect, but is not retro-active.

   As for prior to 11/4/2008 it being a protected right is mis-leading at best. It was only recognized for 6 months, and clearly the people of the state disagreed with the Supreme Court.

   Rather than belittling those who disagree (like asking if being gay is a communicable disease), maybe you should consider that there are some people who believe that gay marriage is immoral and do not want to have there kids taught differently. Some of this arguement really is rooted in a differnce in opinion about who should be responsible for bringing up children – the parents or the state. Based on the decision that an uniformed electorate just made, it is clear to me that the state is not doing an acceptable job in educating out youth:)

   OK, gay marriage…check. Abortion…check. Limited government…check. Education…check. What other topics can be brought up by Lefty’s most recent poster?

   BTW, I do want to say that this is another creative poster slogan, and it did make me laugh. ALthough I am not sure that the gay communityy would like ot be called pink, as that is based on a sterotype:)

   6 November 2008, 3:57 pm

6. Lefty McLefterson:

   There are some who believed and still believe that interracial marriage is immoral. Somehow we’ve figured out that it’s okay to tell them to get over it. Those who feel that gay marriage is also immoral should also get over it.

   If they don’t like gay marriage then don’t be part of one.

   I vascillated between using the word pink and gay. In the end my extensive contacts in the gay mafia said that pink was funnier and not offensive. Of course I’m willing to listen if anybody wants to vent about being offended. I’m not going to do a goddamn thing about it, but I’ll listen.

   6 November 2008, 4:03 pm

7. ccs:

   they were taken to the wedding with parental consent forms. don’t believe the hype. you make it sound as though you drop your kids off at school and they go on an impromptu trip to a gay wedding chapel.

   don’t you remember grade school? you had to have parental consent to go to the f*cking zoo.

   make it obvious what you’re concerned about–which is, if you’re going to take this angle, that your kids will be taught something contradictory to what you believe in at home. more specifically, that they will be taught something contradictory about something you’re very sensitive about.

   hypothetically, you could have said the same thing about civil rights or religion. as far as religion goes, i remember having to read the bible in a public high school–but from a literary standpoint.

   it’s a bunch of brainwashing. technically, telling a kindergartner to scream no if someone touches their “swimsuit areas” is sex education. i like how the republicans spun that one out of control too.

   this is a bit of a stretch, but i have to throw it out there…
   what i loathe most about the evangelical right, is their willingness to co-opt all other branches of christianity and all ethnicities. what about the concerns of JFK being a Papist? But, sure, let’s spin up the latino catholics if they will contribute to our social cause. Can you imagine Romney as your republican nominee? what would the protestant right think about that? They would be up in arms! On the other hand, it’s perfectly all right to let them donate huge sums of money to Prop 8 campaigns…. there’s a brand of hypocrisy on that evangelical right that i abhor. i won’t vote republican until i see that hypocrisy purged. powell was right.

   6 November 2008, 6:09 pm

8. ccs:

   furthermore, you can teach morality at home. but you can (and should) teach tolerance at school. it would be irresponsible to send your kid out into society all spun-up and ready to crucify.

   if something exists in society–like homosexuality–then it’s fine to acknowledge that it exists and to leave it at that. genie’s out of the bottle, man. teh ghey is out there.

   my problem with the morality argument is that it equates objectively teaching the existence of a phenomenon with imposing a certain morality upon it. many republicans would not be offended at all to have “homosexuality equals sin” taught at school… it seems that the second you teach a kid to tolerate the existence of something, a republican will screech that you have taught them to accept it in their personal life.

   how about this? would you be offended if a teacher told your kid to stop using the word “faggot” or “nigger” or “dyke” or “islamofascist”? is that teaching of tolerance equivalent to imposing a morality on your kid? does it really contradict whatever you’d teach your kid at home?

   so whatever, man. education should remove ignorance. yes, homosexuality exists. yes, the act of sex exists. yes, straight sex is how babies are made. etc. i’m tired of all the whining about this kind of education being equivalent to moral instruction. get over it. frankly, it’s probably more dangerous to pretend it doesn’t exist and more detrimental to an orderly society. but, if you’re willing to tolerate random acts of violence, teenage pregnancies, etc…

   6 November 2008, 6:26 pm

9. ccs:

   or here’s an easy way to put it.

   if you’re too lazy or irresponsible or incapable of explaining to your kid “why or why not” then it’s much easier to just keep them in the dark about everything. and, bitter as that might sound, i mean that in all seriousness. if you don’t want it taught in school, then do you have it all planned out what you’re going to say to the kids when they ask? your speech, it’s all prepared, right? or if you’re not going to do it, have you coordinated the appropriate age with your parish so that your kid can participate in its program?

   there was a coworker of ours…. his wife thought there was a liberal bias in math class because her children were being taught “rounding off” and “estimation.” in her mind, not getting the right answer was unacceptable and amounted to being taught to accept “wrong” answers.

   obviously, there’s no place for teaching estimation in public education. we never used it in our profession, right?

   gimme a f*cking break.

   6 November 2008, 6:35 pm

10. JRF:

    LEFTY,
    DUDE,
    BRILLIANT! THANK YOU!

    Oh, the color pink was chosen by HITLER to mark HOMOSEXUALS in concentration camps. A pink triangle to be exact. The Nazis consider us aborrations that needed to be erradicated. Exactly like Jews and a few other MISTAKES OF GOD AND NATURE. The gay community adopted the once hate symbol and color as its emblem to empower it.

    James F, calling us pink does not stereotype, mock, diminish, segregate or insult us. WE TOOK CARE OF THAT )
    Good ol’ folks like Adolph and you do.

    8 November 2008, 7:19 pm

11. JamesF:

    Hey Lefty,

    Maybe if Obama hadnt been on the ticket, Prop 8 would have failed. 70% of blacks voted Yes, which is somewhat surprising, as you would think if it is a discrimination issue, they would have understood.

    One other thing to bring up in all of this is that I believe that judges are now legislators. They are supposed to interpret laws, not try to make them, which is what happened in May.

    I think your comparison to inter-racial marriages is a very good point. However, I do not think any doctors lost their medical license over that issue. If calling a hom-sexual union a marriage results in somehting like that, I think it would better if it were just called a domestic union. Why is it that the pro-gay marriage people do not accept this as a reasonable comprimise, even if it is just semantics? Instead they act in outrageous ways to provoke those who are morally opposed to their lifestyle.

    As for the religious people trying to impose their morals on someone, remmeber that it goes both ways. Anytime you disagree with someone one a moral ground, remember that if there is not a comprimise, then one side is ultimatley imposing its morals on the other, regardless if it originates from a moral standpoint or not.

    For CCS – I would have loved Romney as the Republican nomiee, he was way closer to where a canidate should be than McCain, especially in the fact that he had experience running business and State operation. He was my second choice behind Huckabee, who was first soley for his support of the fair tax.

    From JRF’s post :
    “James F, calling us pink does not stereotype, mock, diminish, segregate or insult us. WE TOOK CARE OF THAT ) Good ol’ folks like Adolph and you do.”

    So did you take care of that, or did Adolph and I? Why is that you immediately want to compare someone to the Nazis if they disagree with you? If you cannot support your argumemet in any other way than comparing your opposition to Hitler, then you probably need to do more research. This is similar to when Lefty called me a liar, when it is patenetly obvious that what I wrote was true.( I know the right to marry a woman probably isnt what interests a gay man, but they still do have that right)

    I honestly think that in ~ 2 years(after BO gets 2 appointments) this will be overturned by the US Supreme Court. However, I really hope that the people who gain these new rights use them to make their lives better, and not to force an additional adgenda which will affect others (like Dr’s losing licenses for refusing personal service, but offering the sevices of their partner who doesnt have the same moral objection) I also hope this doesnt just move the bar a little more forward – maybe the next thing will be people thinking that they should be allowed to marry multiple people, relatives, etc.

    9 November 2008, 6:07 pm

12. Ellen:

    I disagree with JamesF’s last bit of commenting in the last post,”maybe the next thing will be people thinking that they should be allowed to marry multiple people, relatives, etc.” Hmmmm, while you sound quite learned as a means to obviously to distance yourself from sounding bigoted (because that’s not politically correct or academic), this veiled comment tells me what you really think: you are making a moral judgment that extending the right to marry to same-sex couples is as abhorrent as bigamy and incest. That’s like jumping from black to white. That’s fear talking. This sounds like an argument that could have been made decades prior, whether it was about giving the right to vote to minorities, extending the vote to women, or even being more openly receptive to interracial couples. You may sound like you are advanced in your intellect, but this doesn’t sound so bright to let your moral compass govern what is really a civil matter.

    Secondly, as for “new” rights, I can’t comprehend how you’ve spin this. While I don’t agree with you that gays want NEW rights as the RIGHT to marry for gay or straight was already in play before prop 8, I want to know, WHAT’S WRONG WITH MAKING NEW RIGHTS? If it means advancing society to be more equitable, fair-minded and tolerant, what is wrong with a NEW RIGHT? Rights ensure that we are doing what we are supposed to be doing as citizens of a democratic society: protect one another from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation and to uphold fairness.

    Finally, what’s this inane argument that we all have the same right to marry? Marriage these days in the U.S. is not a contract between two families to strengthen a bloodline or make an heir or something like that, so the main purpose for marrying to procreate or join kingdoms is moot, and it really makes the point of a man and woman getting married moot as well. Today, marriage by any social standards is a union between two individuals who have chosen one another and have determined to legally declare it by a license and it doesn’t have to be consecrated by a church or which ever supernatural hero you believe in and the couple is not required to procreate. So, sure, we all have the same right to marry if you don’t take into consideration that we don’t marry for love, and this would make it understandable when you say that a gay man can marry a woman. However, there is a big difference here that makes this line of thinking insidious. Chances are slim to nil that an openly gay man would marry a woman, let alone fall romantically in love with one to want to get married, while on the flip side, a straight man can marry a woman too and probably for love. And, this is not a NEW right that gays are asking for, it’s for a right that was already in existence. Prop 8 is a moral JUDGMENT that eliminates the civil RIGHT of same-sex couples to marry. It saddens and angers me that bigotry exists in all places, especially in those communities which experiences the most.

    10 November 2008, 2:07 am

13. JamesF:

    Welcome to the discussion Ellen. Thanlks for adding bigot to the list of names I have been called in this topic.

    Of course voters who voted Yes on Prop 8 were making a moral judgement. However, you would have to admit that anyone voting no on Prop 8 also was making a moral judgement. Almost all laws are based on moral judgement. Should we not have a law against murder because it is in the Bible?

    From your first paragraph, I have gleaned that you find bigamy and incest “abhorrant”. There are any countries around the world that allow men to have multiple wives. Do you also consider these countries abhorrant? Why do you feel it is OK to make that moral judgement? I think the answer is that for each person there is a line that they feel should not be crossed.

    From your second paragraph, I think your statement tht gay marriage was “in play” before Prop 8 is misleading at best. In 2000, Prop 22 also passed (with a 62% approval) basically stating the same thing as Prop 8 this year.. What happened earlier this year is that a judges (or group of judges) decided to overrule the will of the people. Prop 8 merely re-asserted the law in a judge-proof way to prevent rogue judges from imposing their beliefs on the states population.

    As for new rights, I do not have any problem with new rights. But I beleive that there is a process laid out for this which involves the will of the people, similar to granting women the right to vote. That process (in a fedral sense) is amending the constitution. This requires overwhelming support of the people of all of the states, not simply a decision by the judcial arm of the government. There is a reason that the judicary is not supposed to legislate, and that is because they are not accountable to the people.

    I completely diagree with your definition of a right, but that is entirely off topic. However I will note that the USA is not a democracy;)

    So since you are for marrying for love, are you then OK with someone marrying their first cousin if the are in love? What if a 30 year old man and a 10 year old girl are in love, should they be able to marry? I assume that your answers were no, which again illustrates that all of these questions are MORAL JUDGEMENTS, regardless of which side of the issue you are on. If a large enough segment agree with one side, then that is the law the state will follow.

    10 November 2008, 2:16 pm

Leave a comment