Say Anything Blog

Can anyone spell - A N A R C H Y?

Elected officials across America are now a law unto themselves. If they don’t like a law they don’t obey it and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about, because no one is willing to enforce the law and send these people to Jail.

By the way, calling herself an evangelical Christian doesn’t make it so. If I call myself a Democrat but I support everything the Republican Party stands for, what am I, a Republican or a Democrat? If Freddie Oakley decides on her own whether or not to obey those (Government and Law) in authority over her and which scriptures she agrees with or not, then she is a Christian in name only and there are many of them even in the Church. Being a Christian means submission to Christ in all things, humility, peaceableness, kindness and not becoming entangled in the political affairs of this world.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

“I don’t think that religion belongs at the office. I think it’s wrong. I don’t go down and tell my pastor how to preach and I don’t want him to stand behind my counter,”

This moral double standard crap is getting ridiculous.  So according to this lady, it is not ok to say that gay marriage is wrong, but it is ok to say that gay marriage is right. 

You know, this whole relativism crap is making for fools.  There is no justice without moral absolutes, period.  Get use to it.

Jeez-louize.

HG said: “There is no justice without moral absolutes, period”

Absolutely right!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

In the first place, it is a flat-out lie to say that CA has “banned” gay marriage.  There is no such thing as “gay marriage”, so it can’t be banned.  The law actually codifies the requirements for marriage, and they are as they have always been:  something between a man and a woman.  Marriage has always been heterosexual.  Whatever homosexuals do, it isn’t marriage.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

“It is a very unpleasant task and it gets harder every time I have to do it,” said Freddie.

So why doesn’t she just quit?

Oh that’s right—she’s not just a Clerk, she fancies herself a policy maker.

What a moron.

[Feet make good soup!]

Nman, you got it right. Just because the cat had her kittens in the oven don’t mean you can call them biscuits.

This woman needs fired, and pronto. This falls into the same category as pharmicists deciding which drugs they will dispense. Uncomfortable with your job? Fine, find other employment.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9...You are too funny! Hahhahahhhaaa.

So, her head’s a little inflated over the importance of her job.

Yeah, I’ll agree with that.

Wanting to “send her to jail” might be a bit harsh.

She’s staging a protest.  Her cute little marriage certificates have no legal weight.

This is well within her right to freedom of speech, and I think her heart is in the right place.

I know the majority of you have religious beliefs opposed to the idea of gays marrying.  Let me politely remind you (as nicely as I can) that our founding fathers created a Constitutional Republic - *not* a democracy, for cases exactly like this.

Wikipedia quote:

“Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.”

I’m sure you’ll find that once gays have their equal rights, settle down with each other and start their married-couple dinner parties, that your own lives will continue on exactly as before without a hitch.

Marc: First, she is a government employee and she has no right to create law or do anything outside current law under the color of her governmental office. If anyone is going to break the law or violate their oath there must be applicable penalties enforced or we are not a nation under law.

While I am against Gay Marriage and special rights for people choosing the gay lifestyle; I will agree that your points about a Representative Republic and protection of minorities is correct; but, will life go on as before if homosexuals are granted marital rights under law?

“Devalues marriage: Giving same-sex couples the right to marry devalues true marriage. Imagine if at the next awards ceremony, everyone received an award. Would anyone value the award if everyone received one? Any adult is permitted to marry another adult of the opposite sex. But you can’t marry a child, you can’t marry a blood relative, you can’t marry someone already married, you can’t marry someone of the same sex.”

“Counterfeit: Arbitrarily granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple doesn’t constitute marriage. It is a counterfeit of true marriage. It is like trying to tape two same-sex electrical plugs together to form an electrical current.”

“Children: Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal family unit. It promotes procreation and ensures the benefits of child rearing by the distinct attributes of both father and mother. Two research papers by Timothy Dailey for Family Research Council (Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk and Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse) document concerns about children raised in gay marriages.”

Further, there are negative financial issues for society, like retirement benefits paid to a larger number of people, insurance and on and on that would have varying degrees of negative financial impact on our country.

Lastly, while you and a growing number of vocal atheists and secularists will either disagree and/or not care; there is a terrible moral and spiritual impact upon society, caused by a state sanction of a perverse lifestyle choice. This opens the door under equal protection for polygamous marriages, group marriages, and a wide variety of alternative marriages as marriage itself no longer has any real meaning other than what society and any moment in time chooses to apply.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Scare tactics and slippery slopes.  You like being the “special class”, I get it.  However..

Slavery existed through all human history in almost every culture in the world.  You could say it was “traditional”.  A tiny sprinkle of years ago, that changed.  Southern Christians quoted scripture till they were blue in the face, and predicted doom to the world and the end of all civilization.

(Yes, I realize that’s a dramatic shift in topic - please bear with me.)

That was a massive shift in human behavior, involving millions upon millions of people and suffering beyond anything we know in our cushy rich and modern American lives. 

We adapted.

A hundred years from now, this marriage debate will barely show up as a blip on the historical radar.  Hopefully, your blog comments on the topic will be lost by then, because the quotes will embarrass your great-grandchildren.

Scientific evidence increasingly indicates that sexual orientation is an irreversible biological fact of life.  It’s not a “lifestyle choice”.  How will you cope with that?

The Pope could only keep Galileo locked up for so long before word of the spinning planet got out.

Even among your own faith, you will lose support.  Christian Southerners had passage upon passage in the Bible upholding one’s right to own slaves. 

In context, your best New Testament scripture reference opposing homosexual behavior most likely refers to Roman Pederasty (grown men exploiting minors) as that was the most common form of homosexual behavior at the time.

Jesus himself never brought it up.

Don’t even get me started on Leviticus.

It is my opinion that our morality in some areas, such as slavery, is evolving past what the bible can teach.

Holding on to old prejudices - especially one with such insignificant Biblical backing - will only get you seated on the wrong side of history.

"If the negro is denied the right to marry a white person, [and] the white person is equally denied the right to marry the negro[,] I see no discrimination against either.”

- Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull

“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.”

-Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

“The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage.”

-A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

Sound familiar to you too?

Further, there are negative financial issues for society, like retirement benefits paid to a larger number of people, insurance and on and on that would have varying degrees of negative financial impact on our country.

i get all teh gay’s work tax moneyzz :D

zomg if gays gets teh marriage they gets teh insurance and retirement too!!!

Nooo!!1!one1!!  thatz just for meeeeeee notfair notfair

Marc said, Scare tactics and slippery slopes.  You like being the “special class”, I get it.

Wow. You’re an ass. You completely blow off as “slippery slope” the point about polygamists wanting to get married. As if they don’t exist. Like they wouldn’t use the same exact “equal rights” argument that you’re using.

I’m sure you’ll find that once gays have their equal rights...

They have equal rights now Marc.

Holding on to old prejudices - especially one with such insignificant Biblical backing - will only get you seated on the wrong side of history.

One could say the same about your prejudices against marriage.

And Marc, opposition to “gay marriage” is not the same as the racial restrictions of past. Not even close.

Race is incidental to marriage and in particular - the definition. Meaning that it does not matter.

You can’t claim the same about gender. To change the gender requirements is to change the meaning.

I suppose you can call me a “bigot” now because I also believe that this nation/culture shouldn’t allow nine year olds to get married. I’m discriminating (not a bad thing) with age there.

Sheez, this stuff again?

Silly faggot—dicks are for chicks.

But seriously, if you look at the non-reliious justification of marriage, rather than it being left completely to the offices of the church, is because of a compelling state interest that marriage and having children is the keystone of a stable, prosperous and ongoing society.

No marriage, either no babies or babies out of wedlock.  We’ve seen the tragic results of ‘single-parent families’ or as they were traditionally known—bastards—has given rise to an entire raft of societal ills.

That children-out-of-wedlock stigma was there for a very good reason, even if you removed the moral or religious element.  The kids with mummy and daddy (generally) had a better quality of life, were healthier, better educated, carried fewer issues into adulthood, whereas the little bastids have tended to remain lower income, get involved with criminality, or they themselves have illegitimate offspring on the taxpayer dime.

Homosexuals can’t have kids because there is no purpose-built Flap A into Slot B.  They have to make do with the AIDS petri-dish poopchute.  That should tell you something right there that something is very wrong with this picture.

It’s not a privacy issue, because if it was, noone would ever know about it because it was dealt with in private.

It isn’t, nor has it been.  Ever since they terrorized a bunch of weenie psychologists to take homosexuality off the crazy list, they’ve been pushing, pushing, pushing to:

-- have access to other people’s little boys;;

-- lower the age of consent—for little boys;

-- recruit little kids, such as the below-ther-radar Gay Days that were held at Disney, coincidentally exactly when high school kids were having field trips there;

-- adopt other peoples kids (why rent when you can own?);

-- force this perverted lifestyle on the rest of an unwilling society by threatening their jobs and academic careers, using the courts and administrations.

Did I mention that the lifestyle, if you want to call it that, is still the major contributing factor to contracting, carrying and transmission of AIDS / HIV?  Which, by the way is still 100 percent incurable and fatal.

Shouldn’t society be able to take steps to defend itself against dangerous and deadly diseases?

With regard to the clerks’ so-called First Amendment issue, that is an absolute bunch of BS.  If someone exercises their 1rst Amendment rights to discuss religion in the workplace, they are toast. 

Government workers have long been restricted in their public involvement in politics.  Her job is to carry out her adminstrative duties quickly, efficiently and to the best of her ability.  She does not MAKE policy, that is done by the legislature on the macro scale and by designated departments of administrative agencies on the micro scale.

She needs to be fired and then she can strip naked, paint her body with stripes and hide in a cage if she likes—she shouldn’t be doing so on the taxpayers nickel.

...for great justice

Marc: It appears you have been thoroughly and properly taken to task by Move_Zig and likwidshoe;

Those using the argument about slavery and/or racial segregation as a comparitive social injustice to the homosexual agenda always - I mean always, forget to mention that it was Christians, not secularists or atheists that fought against slavery and racial discrimination. Yes, many southern white ministers supported slavery and used the Bible to justify that racial injustice; but it was also white Christian clergy in the South, the North and even in Europe that led the battle to end slavery (John Newton who wrote “Amazing Grace,” was a major voice in Britian); and it was white ministers and churches all over the country that joined African-Americam ministers in the Civil Rights movement.  So much for your attempt to lay slavery at the door of the Christian Church - it is nonsense and you know it!

There is no objective scientific evidence that proves homosexuality is a genetic trait; the evidence has never answered the simple question are any alleged biological differences noted a cause or effect. Thus, we must conclude, based on available scientific evidence; that it is a lifestyle choice, albeit with a predisposition created by social and other factors. People of so-called color do not choose that color or ethnic differences; in matter of fact, we are all of one race - human and all of one color - flesh, albeit with various tones, shades and hues.

With my previous post and those of the two other people mentioned it appears clear that your position that homosexual marriage should be a ‘right’ of homosexuals is specious at best, absent any merit in law, clearly an aberrant lifstyle choice and destructive of those involved, their sexual partners, any children and extended family involved and society as a whole. That being said and I believe absolutely clear; no Christian hates homosexuals or wants to see them treated with disrespect or do anything to directly cause them harm; while maintaining that marriage is a privilege not a right and society has an interest in keeping it between one man and one woman

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Quote: “they’ve been pushing, pushing, pushing to:

-- have access to other people’s little boys;;

-- lower the age of consent—for little boys;”

Wow.  I don’t know a single gay man who thinks about man-boy sex as much as you’ve just exhibited.

Quote: “major contributing factor to contracting, carrying and transmission of AIDS / HIV?”

You want a “major contributing factor” to HIV??  Lets try the Catholic preachers in Africa who expressly forbid condom use where millions die of STD’s - including AIDS - every year.  You could almost call it a deliberate genocide.

Let’s divert all attention away from the absolute failure of the RightWing-sponsored abstinence-only sex ed program. 

On the other side of the coin, a monogamous gay couple will NEVER contract HIV.  Legal marriage encourages monogamy. 

So..  “Shouldn’t society be able to take steps to defend itself against dangerous and deadly diseases?”

Yes.  It should.  Sooner, rather than later.

Side note:  Why did you bother typing all that out when a simple “ew” would have sufficed?

"no Christian hates homosexuals or wants to see them treated with disrespect”

You must have missed Zig’s post.

Marc: Unfortunately, the issue of sexual relations with children is both a gay and heterosexual issue. It is pedophilia and affects mostly men and from both sexual orientations. So to suggest it is a homosexual issue or as you suggest not at all a homosexual issue are both wrong.

Again your anti-Christian hatred rears its ugly head. The Christian faith, whether Catholic or Protestant views sexual relations as only to be between a man and woman in marriage and while it is obviously an enjoyable activity - it was created for procreation. Even in nature, for you atheists, sexual relations is designed for procreation and even if misused for recreation and it causes the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the Church cannot be faithful to the precepts of the Church and condone sexual relations outside the sacrament of marriage. It is the fault of people claiming to be Catholics or Protestants and disobeying God that are spreading sexually transmitted diseases - not the clergy and certainly not God’s Law. If a person chooses to disobey God and not use protection they are reaping what they are sowing and the result is their fault not the Church.

Monogamous homosexuals is almost a perfect contradiction in terms as the evidence is that homosexuals have many more sexual relationships even outside committed relationships than heterosexuals.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

“no Christian hates homosexuals or wants to see them treated with disrespect”

There are only like 8 billion counter-factuals to that. Fred Phelps? Whoever said that ain’t thinking.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie I have no idea what you are talking about and I don’t think you do either.

Granted Christians, because the Bible condemns homosexual conduct, along with many others sins, quite naturally are opposed to homosexual conduct as a moral and spiritual matter; but no true Christian, having the Love of God in their hearts hate or desire to harm to any human being in any manner whatsoever. They, like their Creator, love everyone of God’s human creations, even their enemies, as Christ loves them; and while never approving of that behavior which God condemns, nonetheless they love the sinner as they too are sinners with the only difference being they are saved by the Grace of God.

Granted some Christians in opposing homosexuality may appear to hate the people when in actuality it is only the sin they hate; but I assure you it is wholly contrary to Christianity to hate anyone or treat anyone in any way but love, and in that love, also warn them of the dangers involved in pursuing sin for their eternal welfare.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

"Monogamous homosexuals”

You’re talking to one. 

In a way, it’s a shame we can’t talk face-to-face.  The anonymous nature of the web lends itself to a lot of mud-throwing. 

Anyway, I’m clearly outnumbered and on the defensive, so it’s probably best if I duck out of this little conservative haven.

Good evening, gentlemen.

mrac: It would be unfortunate if you duck out, you are civil and debate these issues in an intelligent manner and at least from my position there is no acrimony.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Marc’s problem with “marrying his boyfriend” is not that he’s being treated unequally because of his sexual orientation—it’s that he’s being treated equally, despite his sexual orientation.

Your being gay doesn’t make the idea of “two daddies—no mom” any less tragic.  My being Christian doesn’t make it more so.  Separate simply isn’t equal, no matter what your “orientation” happens to be.

[Feet make good soup!]