“That’s their prerogative. But they’re full of it. Their position on marriage is about as coherent as their position on Afghanistan.”
Andrew Sullivan writing about the Obama Administration.
18 thoughts on “Best line of the day”
Comments are closed.
“That’s their prerogative. But they’re full of it. Their position on marriage is about as coherent as their position on Afghanistan.”
Andrew Sullivan writing about the Obama Administration.
Comments are closed.
What goes on in the privacy of one’s home is no ones business but their own.
This I am adamant about. However, once it leaves the privacy of one’s home it becomes a societal issue. Which I am wholly opposed to!
IF gays are allowed to be married, it only serves to cheapen the heterosexual marriages. It would mean that all marriages would be lessened in the respect and value system we have .
I do not care if one is homo or hetero. However, I am not fond of it being pushed and forced upon me. In either aspect, those who think it is so OK to teach children of 6-10 that it is OK to be gay are inane.
I am not saying that gays should go back in the closet But, I am not forcing my belief system upon them. So, why should I allow them to force theirs upon me?
Since when is what goes on in the bedroom of any consenting adults be fodder for protests and rallies? Should it not be what it once was a very private thing between the adults in question?
Robin Williams recently said: “What is all this about same sex marriages? After 20 years it IS the same sex.”
Let people be who they choose to be certainly. But, as with everything there is a time and place for it. The streets, the media, the schools, and courts are not either the time or the places for this issue.
Keep the issue where it belong in private, in the home.
Based on your comments and your physical description of yourself, hon, I don’t think you should be quite to quick to rule out a whole gender this way. I fear your options are probably pretty limited as it is.
Gender? Since when did gays become a separate gender?
I never thought of them that way, I think they are humans just as I am.
If you prick me do I not bleed?
So gays = not a separate gender and therefore human.
Wow, you’ve certainly got me there. All this time I thought both genders were human. My bad.
Maybe I’ve been too subtle. John, your badly written, poorly conceived, obnoxious and insulting comments make it quite obvious that you are an ill-informed person of below-average education and intelligence.
(Here is where you comment that you are have a Masters from Oxford! And are an economics professor at Yale! And read thirteen newspapers a day! Yep. And yet, somehow, none of those things taught you basic grammar or reading comprehension or how not to be a complete tool all the time.)
We are laughing at you. I imagine, however, that you are used to that. So keep blustering and we’ll keep laughing. People like you are entertaining for those of us who have been lucky enough to escape being people like you. Every comment you write makes us feel better about ourselves.
Those are Facts.
Well Jill it seems all you can do is attack and be rude, not my style.
No, I am not a yale or oxford man. I have a college degree in business if that matters (I think Not).
You continue to make assumptions based upon your own ideas rather than the facts. That is your right.
Rather than commenting upon the issues, you try and pick apart my grammar and capitalization. Yes, my grammar is imperfect I never claimed it to be.
Try just once reading the material. and responding to it in a decent manner.
If you are laughing or crying over what I have written that is great! I am only trying to inject a bit of conversation here. Obviously it worked! No matter what you think of me personally (which I could care less). At least, I have made you think about the subjects. Maybe even in a different way.
I call that success personally.
You can question my intelligence all you like. I do not question yours. But, your personal attacks and rude retorts only serve to prove my points, not your own.
I am not ill-informed just because I do not agree with your point of view. Someday you may realize that everyone does not agree with you as well. I am not asking you to agree or disagree just that you THINK!
FYI: I am 6’0″ and 240. your assumptions are far from correct.
And you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME.
Right through the heart!
BTW: I am married to a woman for 24 years tomorrow 2 children in college (one pursuing his masters degree, the other a freshman) 1 in D.C. Married for 4 years to a Nigerian, whom I Respect and Love. 1 child in High School.
I just love personal attacks, it means you have no basis for an intelligent retort.
On this issue of gay marriage, I feel much the same as JJF. What one does in the privacy of their own home is their own business. When they try to impose this on other who do not agree, that is another story entirely.
I do not wish to see the institution of marriage to be cheapened either. We were made opposite on purpose. Life in made up of x and y chromosomes, not just one or the other.
That is beside the point though. If a man and a man want to be together let them, just don’t make me agree with it. as a matter of fact I don’t.
Oh, OK, I’ll jump in.
“…once it leaves the privacy of one’s home it becomes a societal issue.” I agree. I mean, we are just surrounded and beaten over the head with heterosexual culture.” If I have to see one more television show with a man and a woman in bed kissing, or heaven forfend, holding hands, I think I’ll just have to divorce my wife any join teh gheys.
“Gay marriage cheapens traditional marriage?” What does “cheapen” mean in this context? Does it make hetero marriage less expensive? If so, I’m all for it! [rimshot] Please explain this — I’d like to know how giving legal status to the love that two human beings have for each other lessens my respect for my (hetero) marriage. Wait — “the value system that we have”? What? If you are talking about the civil value system as defined by The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, those documents have nothing specific to say about marriage one way or the other. If you are talking about a specific religious value system, then you and I may or may not share it, so please do not assume that we share a value system.
“I do not care if one is homo or hetero.” But you do, sir, you do. If you didn’t care, you would not be against people of whatever gender getting married. The reason that it once was “a very private thing” was that if same gender couples admitted their love (especially male same-gender couples) in any forum, they would be whomped by the hetero culture (viz. Stonewall). The majority culture tried to stomp out the minority culture, and the minority culture acted appropriately to defend itself. The battle for equal rights is still going on, see the relatively recent Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case.
“Let people be who they choose to be certainly.” But I’m not supposed to be myself out on “the streets”? I can’t represent myself honestly in court? “There’s a time and a place for it.” I present similarly asinine statements: (1) I think your wife should only show her Nigerian-ness when I’m comfortable with it, and it’s convenient for me. (2) The “IV” on the end of your name places too overt an emphasis on your family heritage, and makes me personally uncomfortable — change your name, because it’s YOUR problem.
Oh, and Robin Williams? He’s an icon for traditional marriage — two of ’em, one ending because of an extramarital affair. He’s not someone you want to be quoting on the subject.
[ducks, covers]
Well done, Hugh.
Me thinks DC needs to have paid better attention in genetics class.
JJF writes, “I do not care if one is homo or hetero. However, I am not fond of it being pushed and forced upon me.” Well, obviously you do. Moreover, what exactly is being pushed and forced upon you regarding gender issues and how is this accomplished?
Furthermore, I am unable to find any mention of JJF IV at Yale University, or the University of Oxford. Where precisely do you fit in at those institutions?
First off let me respond to John:
What I care about is that simple fact that, I am being told what I am to accept. Which is not what this country is about.
Also the answer to your Yale/Oxford query is yet to be published by ken (if he will) I did not make the comment nor did I encourage it. I am not a Yale or Oxford Man never claimed to be, and stated such the the post yet to be posted.
Now on to Hugh:
You have made some very good points yes. I am as anti-religion as one can possibly be. My views are based upon basic morality and my own experiences.
You too have misread the posts, My wife is white not Nigerian. My son-in-law is Nigerian. But I digress.
I do not show affection in public for anyone but my children. What goes on in my home stays there. I do not wish to as you put it “stomp out” anyone, nor do I intend to.
Cheapen in the idea of values, not money was my intent. Every single American no matter race, sex, creed, color or religion has the EXACT same rights and liberties as everyone else. The idea that we must allow special rights to any one group or sector of the public is wrong.
“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
– Benjamin Franklin
I have several friends who are gay (difficult not to) and they agree with me on this subject. They do not particularly like the attention their group is having focused upon them. I treat them as I would any other person with respect and dignity. This does not mean I have to agree with their lifestyle, accept yes, agree no. However, it is my choice to accept or not. Just as my hetero friends and I do not agree on everything either. I do accept their opinions and respect them equally. As I respect yours and accept them from you.
This is a far and wide reaching subject. As with everything there are solid and decent arguments to be had on both sides of the issue. I respect yours. Even if you do not mine.
The Robin Williams quote was meant to be satirical and real.
As for you feeling offended at my name that is your prerogative, I am not offended by yours. I am also not as easily offended as most.
All of John J. Franks IV’s comments have been posted. This and one other that he refers to here had been held for approval.
Well, I wasn’t going to join in the fray yesterday, but the dialog still goes on, so….
First, I would like to mention to JJF and others of like mind that gays wouldn’t have to go out and protest publicly, if they weren’t being denied their legal rights with regard to committed partnerships. Yes, they could conduct their civil marriages in private, but when one of them lands in the hospital, the other may have no rights to visit or make life choices for their partner; if one partner dies, the other could find that they have no right to the property they shared; or the right to keep a child they raised together. (Blood relatives trump lifelong partners in court in most states.) They also have no right to many of the legal, financial privileges other committed couples do, such as sharing on a spouse’s medical insurance coverage from work, or “married filing jointly” for a reduction on their taxes. They have been denied the right to serve in the military unless they hide their nature, and for a long time, even their private-sector jobs were at risk if it came out that they were gay. They were basically FORCED by society to speak up for themselves.
As for teaching children that it’s OK to be gay, since statistically speaking, I believe the figure is that 10% of any given population is gay (in all cultures over the ages), shouldn’t we be teaching acceptance of others and self to children? Is it better that they should go on loathing and physically, emotionally beating up on themselves or others for being gay? Likewise, if some kids have two same-gender parents, and the other kids are making them feel bad about it, isn’t it right to address the issue?
The “Majority” never seems to like it when a minority speaks out, but if they don’t speak out, nothing changes.
Debby,
There is no “legal” right to marry for anyone. never has been.
There are no rights “with regard to committed partnerships”
Gays are not being denied any right granted to heteros or any other person of American Citizenship! All rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are granted to every Legal Citizen period!
Anyone can make anyone they choose the beneficiary of their estate no matter who they are. The same goes for child custody. It is up to the person themselves to file proper legal documents of their intent upon their demise.
People can leave their estates to their cats legally, and have! So, that part of your argument is bunk.
As for the medical care that in most companies has been addressed, even DISNEY allows gay partners to be covered by an employee’s benefits.
Oblamo has “promised” to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. So that ends that issue. I do not oppose it either. I am glad for anyone who wishes to lay their life on the line for my Freedoms. I walk up and thank everyone in uniform that I am able to! I do not ask if they are gay. FYI: I live less than a mile from one of the largest Air Force bases in the country. So, I see thousand of soldiers and airmen daily.
As for the indoctrination of young children who have little if any idea what sex even is, is wrong period. On this I will not be swayed. Teach acceptance of society sure. But, to tell 6 yr old Johnny that “it is ok to be gay” is just flat out wrong! Johnny can not understand at age 6 or likely even 10.
Some things need a higher level of education and understanding before you can teach them the controversial ideas like this. A more mature person sure go for it, but young impressionable minds that can not comprehend the issue NOT A CHANCE!
Ok, I think I just about have said all I have to say on this issue.
Feel free to vilify, categorize, or think as you wish about me and my stance.
THAT is your FREEDOM of SPEECH in action.
BTW: I pay more in taxes being a married person than if i were single.
Like several of the people who commented here, I have a vested interest in this topic. There really isn’t much more I can say to further the arguments in favor of everyone respecting each other. What I can’t understand is why so many people care about this? With so many atrocities in this world, why is it, exactly, so inexplicably horrible to allow two people, of whatever gender, to express their love and happiness to the world? Marriage and commitment should be lauded, not derided. And if you think that the commitment isn’t real because it’s same sex, I shall show you a million examples of heterosexual people participating in unions that did everything possible to debase their commitment and the “sanctity of the union.”
And please, no matter what you think, simply by stating your value system you are assuming that mine is the same as yours. I assure you, with everything in my being, that can’t possibly be.
The primary reason I’m an atheist is because of arguments like this.
Excuse me Mr. Franks, but you are mistaken.
Constitutionally the privilege to marry cannot be granted to some couples and denied to others. The courts and ultimately the legislators will eventually come around to this, just as they came around on race in Loving v. Virginia.
You don’t have to go to the weddings. But if you do, in the words of the immortal coach Larry, “candlesticks always make a nice gift, and uh, maybe you could find out where [they’re] registered and maybe a place-setting or maybe a silverware pattern. Okay, let’s get two!”
Well, I do not see the relevance in the fourteenth amendment in the “right” of marriage. No place in the Constitution or Bill of Bights specifically or precisely states that Marriage of any kind is a Right granted to anyone.
So, My comment was entirely correct.
If I recall correctly:
The fourteenth was specifically written for black people allowing them to be recognized as legal American Citizens. Giving them the Right to be Americans.
It has little if anything to do with anything else. It was never intended to do anything else. This Applies to LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY. Apply it how you wish but the facts are the facts Sir.
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” This means each state has the right to legislate marriage ie. due process of law. Which in fact most do.
It is highly unlikely that the amendment will be applied to Marriage Gay or any other kind.
As far as I am aware there is no Federal Law against it now.
But hey that’s just me I suppose.
Great point though.