Homosexuals are abusing the court system in their drive to become accepted as ‘normal’. While California’s Supreme Court takes on the latest vote by the people, eHarmony.com has been forced to set up a dating service for homosexuals.
Online dating service eHarmony said Wednesday it will launch a new Web site which caters to same-sex singles as part of a discrimination settlement with New Jersey’s Civil Rights Division.
All because of this:
McKinley, 46, said he was shocked when he tried to sign up for the dating site but couldn’t get past the first screen because there was no option for men seeking men.
“It’s very frustrating and it’s very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can’t,” he said. “And the only reason I can’t is because I’m a gay man. That’s very hurtful.”
Oh, my, it was hurtful! Make me puke.
eHarmony had this to say:
Theodore B. Olson, an attorney for eHarmony, said that even though the company believed McKinley’s complaint was “an unfair characterization of our business,” it choose to settle because of the unpredictable nature of litigation.
“eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships,” Olson said.
In other words, they were the victims of legal extortion.
Remember the good old days? You know, when people thought, hey, I can’t sign up here but I want to! I wonder if there are others out there like me? Maybe I could….start my own business!!!
Ah yes, the good old days. Who needs ‘em when you have lawyers?
Filed Under Front Page · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
98 Responses to “Push For Homosexual Equality Out Of Control”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
eHarmony should now just give gays really crappy service. The situation will then take care of itself. They can just use the excuse that there are no models or studies that allow them to match same-sex people.
Interesting, I look forward to reading more regarding the merits of the case. eHarmony has won a similar case in the past and settled one for adulterers.
Being a dating service associated with Rush Limbaugh, my first thought was that these guys wanted to get into the lucrative market of gay pairings. But they wouldn’t want to piss off their present customer base, so ….. let’s take a nuisance lawsuit that we can win and roll over.
That way we can achieve market penetration, we’re victims, and keep our
homophobeloyal customers. Brilliant!But then I’m a cynic when it comes to love and business.
I can’t wait to see the commercials.
When I first saw this I thought, what a brilliant idea.
As Rush Limbaugh’s dating service eHarmony can’t expand into gay dating without losing their
homophobeloyal customers.So let’s take a nuisance lawsuit of a type that has been won before by eHarmony and roll over.
The big bucks roll in and everyone’s happy. Heck it may even bring in more customers and gain beausoup free publicity. Brilliant!
But then I’m the cynical type when it comes to love and business.
I agree that this litigation was frivolous.
This is interesting… On their home page, the choices for your current marital status are:
- Single
- Divorced
- Separated
- Married
Yes, married!
Maybe if they would all “come out of the closet”, someone could form a company to meet their needs. They could call it “eGay”
I would say “F U, I’m shutting down before going to eFanniepackers.com”
#3 bob42
Yes eHarmony was sued by a married fellow that was settled before court.
If there’s a significant market for eAdultery.com I’m sure someone has looked into it.
Hope and Change.
Since when does someone have the “civil right” to force a private business to cater to them?
This has gone past frivolous. It is ridiculous and nothing but an attention getter. Our court system needs to be revised so that the Judge in the court has the option of tossing the case on it’s a$$ out the door and letting the one who filed the frivolous suit pay all expenses. BOTH SIDES of the expenses.
Because one person wants the site to change to serve him is no reason to cause the entire site to change. Send the idiot packing with with a free pass to buy your own dot com dot com and get instructions to build his own business.
By the time this crap is over someone is going to file suit because he will not be allowed to date his motorcycle/horse whatever.
#6 Shamaal: “eHarmony was sued by a married fellow…” I’m guessing he’s no longer married.
I filled out the info on the home page and the next page again asked about current marital status. This time, “married” was not among the selections.
I have to wonder if eHarmony didn’t see a profit angle in settling this, rather than fighting it. Much of the intellectual property they’ve developed could be used to serve a similar market for same sex singles, but the downside would be “blowback” from the homophobe community in the form of boycotts, etc — Unless they could explain that they were forced to do it.
Duh, do you think?!
The people at eHarmony should be ashamed. Homosexuals are doing everything they can to normalize thier deviant behavior. It’s sick and it’s wrong. The more normal people cave to the homosexual minority, the more we all lose our rights. It’s sad.
Bob42, what’s your definition of a homophobe?
If eHarmony’s motive was profit then they could have done the homosexual dating service a long time ago without a law suit being filed.
With all the other homo hookup sites available what do you think the motive of the “injured party” was when he filed the suit?
eHarmony should have bought him a one way ticket to San Franciso and called it even. I think even the courts would go along with that.
#13 Jimb, my definition of a homophobe is a person that suffers from an irrational fear of persons who are not heterosexual.
So what stops us from suing any random company for not providing the product we want? This is absolutely RIDICULOUS. Can I sue Kroger for not selling auto parts?
Yes, you can and you will lose if you go to court. Kroger however is free to say for their own reasons, whoops you’re right and start selling auto parts.
eHarmony had already won a similar case regarding gay dating. My tinfoil hatted speculation based on absolutely no evidence other than cynicism is that eHarmony wanted to participate in the gay dating business without alienating their significant Rush Limbaugh listening base.
This conveniently permits this to happen.
I dunno, Meglet. Is it hurtful?
Isn’t it interesting that the conspiracy theorists conveniently leave out the state siding with the hurt one in this specific case?
eHarmony caved and/or is just after the $$. Some things are worth fighting for.
Do you people not have anything better to do with your lives than bash a discrimination news story?
eHarmony probably did not think of this option, it should have been there. The gay community represents one of the biggest markets out there in the dating lifestyle. Most gays that are actively dating are successful and have a lot of disposable income. I’m quite surprised eHarmony never did this sooner.
I get it you hate gay people unfortunately for your sake they aren’t going anywhere. Why do you people care so much about people you will probably never meet? Why do you feel strongly against gay marriage? Why should you care if someone thousands of miles away wants to get married?
STUPID
BTW I quickly counted the amount of commenters on this post - roughly 15. Stats indicate that one in 1 in 5 people are gay. I know I am not gay so that leaves the rest of you. Hmm, I guess what I am trying to say is that THREE OF YOU ARE GAY.
I hope I didn’t ruin your day.
jimb #13;
bob #16;
Don’t forget that those who strive to adire to Judaic-Christian teachings regarding marriage/morality would also qualify under bob’s list of homophobes.
No one here, nor on eharmony expressed fear of the person, only opposition their action.
This is a clear example of judicial tyranny. Since a court might say so, drop your moral position and go with the flow. I think eHarmony made a big mistake in not fighting this to the very end. They could have done a lot of good. It’s their choice though.
jaymac;
Obviously, you get nothing.
Where would they go? Who’s trying to send them anywhere?
There’s a gay couple living together at the end of my cal-de-sac. I’ve worked with gay managers, cross dressers, etc. This was very assuming for you to have said this.
My cal-de-sac is not that far.
Who’s been stupid here?
There are 60 million gays in America? Where’s that stat stated? If this were remotely true, would California have had to vote TWICE in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman?
You did.
#22 jaymac4
Really? Biggest markets? Tell me then: why didn’t Mr. McKinley simply go to another dating service to arrange his tryst? Could it be that this market isn’t quite as big as you think?
You are wrong. I don’t hate homosexuals. I do not like the methods they are using to force themselves into acceptance.
Geez louise. If you are going to stretch the truth, at least make it somewhat believable. Now, if you said 2%, I might be inclined to think, hmm, maybe. But 20%? Absurd.
#22 jaymac4
Got a source for that?
#20 BigJ
Actually I would say that leaving relevant facts out are essential to any good conspiracy. Playing to irrational fears is complicated when contrary information is provided.
#22 jaymac4
BTW, don’t think I’ve forgotten that you mocked me and made fun of my name. You are hurtful.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, how could I forget.
BTW my mustache is coming in nicely and for the record I don’t consider you one of the 3 gays here
#23 Darren10, I don’t see how you can take my #16 and arrive here:
By all means, adhere to what you believe in, and live your life in the way you see fit.
<snork>
Now I gotta clean the DDP off the keyboard
Add on to No. 4: I’ve decided to utilize my talents and make a list of “Top Ten” suggestions for the gays to create their own website. They don’t to threaten eHarmony with legal actions. They can name it one of these:
1) eGay
2) eHomo
3) eLightInTheLoafers
4) eQueerNation
5) eOddCouple
6) eVillagePeople
7) eFruit
9) eStrange
10) eWeird
Now I know this is a subject that there are other website names that could be associated with the gays so feel free to add to my list.
In case you are too afraid to look or tell anyone you can find some gay online dating sources here
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=gay+online+dating
I won’t tell anyone
Some stats on gays disposable income -
http://www.mygayweb.com/info/advertising/
#32
#11 HomoPromo.com
bob;
I can’t find it but didn’t you recently make comments that declared gays are trying to overcome opression from [Christian] churches’ and their teachings? Or did i mistaken you for someone else? My apologies if I did.
Either way, i’m opposed to gay marriage because it’s inherently immoral. Is that homophobic?
jaymac’s got the gay hookups.
16 - Is calling homosexuality a sin, much like adultery or heterosexual sex outside of marriage (fornication?), and being against its codification into law, thereby changing the definition of marriage, a sign of “an irrational fear of persons who are not heterosexual”?
No.
To various of the preceding posting participants, regarding the percentage of the USA population which claims to be gay:
(And btw, these days, it would be safe to guess that well over 90% of those who are gay male, lesbian, or bisexual have already all come out of the closet.)
My recollection (within the past year or two, and sorry, I don’t have a source reference; do your own research) is that approximately 3% (three percent) of the population is gay/etc. Add half again as an allowance for error, and then factor in family members and other sympathizers, and realistically, the maximum logical percentage is generously stated at 10%.
Now, getting back to the business aspect of the issue. Even if that figure of 20% were to be accurate, where is the logical profit motive in running a high risk of alienating a large portion of 80% of the target market, in a business endeavor made successful by having a focus on traditional values and heterosexual relationships????
And all these issues, without getting into the question of what makes it Constitutional for the government (in this case, via the courts) to dictate the business choices a given business makes.
#36 Darren10
Didn’t I see you trying to sneak into the back door at South Beach in the Gayborhood?
#35 Darren10, The answer to your first question is subject to your own interpretation of my comments. I intend no disrespect to anyone who believes in a higher power and lives their own life according to their chosen beliefs.
Fine. Don’t marry a guy. Nobody is asking you to. As for being homophobic, only you can know for sure. Do you fear homosexuality? If so, why?
41 - Your suggestion has been that if we oppose the legalization of gay marriage, that we’re homophobes. At least the way I’m seeing what you write…
#39
People can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forfty percent of all people know that.
Homer Simpson
#42 Nope. I’m sorry if I haven’t made it clear.
If you oppose equal treatment of all under the law based on your personal irrational fears of homosexuality, then you are a homophobe.
If you oppose equal treatment of all under the law based on the notion that the government should have the power to control the most personal aspects of a citizen’s life, than you’re just a big government loving authoritarian. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
It’s none of the government’s business.
Jaymac4, you shouldn’t be left off the hook for the absurd declaration that “1 in 5 people are gay.” Please cite evidence.
#41 - I oppose the marriage between dogs and men as well. But I happen to love dogs and men - they just don’t belong married to each other; as do not adults and children; 3 or more people, etc. Marriage is to be between a man and a woman ONLY in order to preserve the human species. The historical purpose of marriage is to procreate. If 2 gays want to live together and have a contract that allows them to visit each other in the hospital and all the other “reasons” that they give to be married, then fine. But this is one thing that MUST stay as was originally purposed.
#33 jaymac4
You make my point!
This lawsuit was not about discrimination - it was about forcing a law abiding business to service (heh) a group they didn’t want to. There are plenty of choices out there for those who want to find someone with a wide stance. No need to sue for that.
If you call lack of legal gay marriage a lack of equal treatment under the law, then you mischaracterize the argument.
And I still believe you’re saying that if I oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, meaning that a you’re not entitled to have your lifestyle receive society’s stamp of approval by redefining marriage for you, that you believe I’m indeed a homophobe.
Which is also erroneous. Labels such as “homophobe” and “hater” are an attempt to re-cast the argument.
Even 10% is an urban myth so where 20% came from is fantasy-land.
#44 jaymac4
As it appears you have done with your “Stats indicate that one in 1 in 5 people are gay.” comment.
Poll shows less than 3 percent of Americans are gay
Come jaymac - where’s your statistics? I’ve listed 2 sites (and there are many, many more) that destroy your 20% myth.
bob42
Anyone with a rational, logical objection to homosexuality based upon their religious and moral beliefs is neither phobic nor a homophobe.
jaymac4
One of the larger social/cultural scams being run by a broad sample of Americans, particularly the print media, is that disagreement with someone’s lifestyle choice, political opinions and religious affiliation constitutes hatred of that person. It only reveals the weakness and intellectual laziness of the accuser who would not have to resort to such silliness if he cared enough to construct a cogent argument for his position.
To Everyone
The most important issue in this case is liberty. There is no compelling legal or moral reason for EHarmony to have to accept homosexual members if it does not
want to do so. There is, likewise, no reason for dating services for gay men to accept members who are heterosexual. Why should a Jewish dating service be required to accept Christians or Muslims ? If Episcopalian lesbians want to create an exclusive dating service, then they should have the freedom and liberty to do so. This is just one more corrosion of freedom and liberty for the American people and the erosion of our long held belief in the freedom of association as stated in the Constitution.
Please note the implied threat of these sorts of regulations and laws and then see Fairness Doctrine.
#49 Jimb,
How so? My argument has always been that it is none of the government’s business in the first place. Government does not equal “society” unless you’re into big government authoritarianism to the degree exemplified by Sharia law.
Please do tell, why is it any of your business?
#54 Texpat, same question to you, sir.
#53 dcgirl
focus on the family say 3%, gays say 10% so let meet in the middle say at 7%. That means that at least 2 of you here are gay
Be proud of that! Go out to the shooting range and fire off your gaynes.
Amen, brother and amen sister!
#54 why would someone care so much about other peoples lifestyles? I cannot believe that someone being gay is still being talked about in this day and age.
I don’t really care who sleeps with who or what makes people happy, if no one is getting hurt what should it matter?
55 - Now you’re changing the argument. First, if I was opposed to gay marriage, I’m a homophobe. Then, when I attempt to debunk that idea (and Texpat does a better job at it) it is simply none of my business.
Here’s the deal: What 2 (or more) grown adults do sexually or relationally is none of my business.
When they ask me to re-define one of the building blocks of society to make them feel more “included” and/or validated, then it becomes my business.
Simple
56 - Even if 7% of people are gay, that doesn’t make 2 out of a relatively small sample automatically gay.
But then, statistics don’t really matter, do they? You’re trying to make a point, aren’t you?
Nobody here cares if people wanna be gay, straight, celibate, or otherwise. But when society has to essentially re-define itself to make a small group of people feel better about themselves, then that’s a problem.
Think about it: What will gay folk gain by re-creating marriage in their image?
txpat
Weren’t we supposed to have a drink some time? I’d love hear you explain your kooky views
Why didn’t you invite more people?
Sheesh. You think you’re the only one that likes live music?
#57 Jimb, I again reject your accusation that I’m “changing the argument” and suggest that you are simply avoiding a valid question.
There’s a difference between asking for equal treatment and “feeling” included or validated. Individuals are responsible for their own feelings, on both sides of this debate.
I think it’s a valid question, so I’ll ask it again. What gives you the right to define the personal relationships of others? Why do you think government should have the power to do so?
Marriage between one man and one woman has been a de facto standard for generations. The only reason that this is even an issue is that gays are agitating for what they call “Equal Treatment”.
In reality, that’s a specious argument - but hey, whatever.
Bottom line, nobody’s trying to define the personal relationships of others. Sleep/live/cuddle with whatever willing partner you want. But society agreed on this definition of marriage long ago. We’re just trying to preserve that definition.
And I still maintain that you have sneaked in the fallacious suggestion that those who are opposed to gay marriage are homophobes. Now you’re just leaving it lie there and ignoring when someone calls you on it.
#56 jaymac
I haven’t the slightest idea what these statements have to do with my comment in #54.
#55 bob42
I understand your position on this subject and we have agreed to disagree in the past. However, I do believe your assertion that any governmental involvement in the social arrangements of citizens is somehow equivalent to Sharia Law is inflammatory and rather crazy.
#59 jaymac
Since I am really am interested to hear how liberty and freedom of association are considered kooky ideas in that weird little corner of the universe you inhabit, please see the following:
The conditions for us to have a drink together are:
A) It has to be in a gay bar
B) Since you asked me out, I’m your date and you have to pick up the tab….for dinner , too. (preferably Capital Grill)
Careful, Texpat. He’ll want you to put out!
Solves that question regarding the marketability of the idea.
Thanks Texpat, but all I asked was for anybody to explain why this most personal of relationships was any business of theirs, or the government’s. So far, still no answers.
Sharia Law is an extreme example of what can happen when you accord to government powers which it should not have. I meant no equivocation, but I’m still asking for justification from those who so vocally support a government with enough authority to dictate who other citizens might love or freely associate with.
Any takers?
#67
Who is argueing the government should have the authority to dictate who other citizens might love or freely associate with?
#67 con’t
Your arguement is/would be government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage period so really you don’t have a dog in the race, so what is your beef?
#68 GJT
I’m wondering the same thing. The government is doing nothing to prevent homosexual citizens from loving or associating with whomever they choose. They are saying, in most jurisdictions that a social convention in which they have a vested interest, heterosexual marriage, should be restricted to those, surprise, who are heterosexual. I said it years ago, and I will say it again, all those people who fought against civil unions in the past helped create the present situation with the homosexual lobby. If they had been offered civil unions years ago, across the states, it would have stymied the onslaught for official marriage. I will concede, however, there is a certain portion of the homosexual population who will not be satisfied until heterosexuals are condemned and confined to concentration camps.
As far as the statements earlier regarding E-Harmony’s motives for settling this case, we all know companies and their insurers have to make these cost based decisions all the time. In this volital subject, political backlash only adds to the pressure.
My sweetie worked for a staff council office of a large insurer for many years and it was unbelievable the outragious settlements they agreed to just because of litigation costs. Finally in the late 90’s they started fighting them, they won most of the time but it was costly.
#64 texpat
Watch out for the “barmaids”, especially the big blonde b*tch with the 5 o’clock shadow.
#35 Shamaal, Your #11 added to Robert M’s #33 is devilishly clever. LOL, however managed to spare the keyboard.
#70
texpat
I agree with you on civil unions and the historical climate, but not understanding why it is not a viable solution now.
#74 GJT
It’s not, but there was a window of opportunity that has since passed.
Wow, just when I thought no one could match the immaturity of antifascist, along comes jaymac4.
In a single post, he completely misrepresents our point of view, states absurd stats that he has no ability to back up, and just for kicks, insults everybody here.
That’s about par for the course of liberal trolls though.
BTW jaymac4, do you know that your math skills are atrocious? 7% of 15 is not 2.
FYI, our main arguements against gay marraige are as follows:
1) Gays want children to be taught that homosexuality is as normal and healthy as heterosexuality when it is not.
2) Gays want to use this as a means to silence anyone who speaks out against homosexuality and exposes it as a dangerous and immoral lifestyle.
3) It opens the way to the legitimization of all other perversions.
Any rational person who actually reads our arguements would be able to comprehend that none of these postions are homophobic.
No one here has called for gays to be rounded up. There are no calls for killing them, even as they call for our deaths on their websites. There is no retaliation from the Christians, Mormons, or Blacks to the intimidation, the vulgarity, the assaults, the vandalism, and quite frankly, the criminal behavior that the gay community has displayed the past few weeks since the election.
The venom and hatred is coming from the gay community and you jaymac4.
jaymac #41;
I can guarantee you that you did NOT see me sneak into the Gayborhood…what were *YOU* doing there?
What gives you or your government the authority to regulate marriage, or its definition?
After posing the question several times on several threads, the best answer I’ve seen is mob rule.
In utter futility, what gives YOU the right…?????????
Dr. bob42 (Homo phsychiatrist);
I don’t fear it per se; but I’m opposed to it. I do “fear” it corrupts society, completely demeans marriage, goes directly against God’s plan of happiness, there’s nothing eternernal nor sacred about it. does opposing it strictly on moral grounds count as homophobia? Thst was really my question.
I do think I did confuse you with somebody else tohugh. I’m sorry for that. I just can’t remember what thread to look to review what I’m thinking about.
LOL, who’s being the mob here bob? Gay activists or the religious “zealots”?
gayjaymac;
LOL, that was funny.
bob
Just saw this:
Than I guess you think opposing gay marriage strictly on moral grounds IS homophobic. That wuld mean all those who strive to live according to Judaic-Christian principles ARE homophobic.
Good job bob.
From texpat;
THAT would be WWIII if done in the Middle East.
#58
NO ONE is asking you to redefine yourself or your society they just want the right to be able get married and enjoy the same liberties that millions of unhappy couples in America get. YOUR world will not change. The shear stupidity of any argument against gay marriage is akin to the civil rights movement.
‘all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’
Sound familiar? Just because you do not approve of how two people love each other doesn’t mean you get to govern over them, let them be unhappy for the rest of their lives legally.
#60, 61
I tried to get more people but the Bush administration tanked the economy(this is going to be good)
Thanks, I love photography
#64
I’m a vegetarian so we’ll have to eat somewhere else and I can introduce you to my gay friends, they’ll love you
#76
My apologies, I naturally assumed you could count where my post was at that time #56. My NEW math was based on that number.
I’m sorry I should never assume you would be able to count again. My bad, I own up to it
Can you tell how it isn’t normal? Can’t be from the bible, there is one line in there that says something to the tune of a man may not lie down with another man. Where is their scientific proof that it isn’t normal? I really want to know, if you can prove it I will change my view and try to change every gay person I know
How exactly is this a ‘dangerous’ lifestyle? I hope you’re not going to use HIV/AIDS argument because we all know those diseases do not discriminate. I’d really like to hear how it is dangerous. Maybe you’ll bring up drug use or something but I suggest going back percentages and weighing gay drug use against hetero drug use. Again if you can prove this I will lead the charge against gays.
I was unaware that gangs of gays were running the streets into the ground, can you share your source so I can be totally paranoid as well? Where and when did these ‘vulgarities, assaults, vandalism and criminal behavior’ take place?
#76 There is no venom and hatred coming from me, just confusion. I don’t understand why some people care so greatly about the gay community like it is some demon that once it gets it’s way everyone will be gay. Why can’t they share in the same laws as us straight people? Why can’t they get same sex benefits? The majority of people(re:all) I’ve met that are anti-gay are extremely religious.
NOW, I never used the term homophobic but it is obvious from your paranoid remarks about gays being immoral, dangerous and not normal shows all the signs of someone with homophobic tendencies and dare I say ‘closeted’ extremism.
Before any of you come to your own defense and say you know gay people and you speak to them on a regular basis, I don’t care. I’m talking about American’s getting the same rights as everyone else REGARDLESS of their orientation
#79
You call me gayjaymac and Dr. bob42 a Homo p
hsychiatrist? What are you, 12?Fred Phelps called he wants his psychosis back
One last thing, where in the bible does it say the following things:
Gay people are immoral, dangerous and not normal?
I need explicitly true language from the bible where it says this so please be succinct. I don’t need you analyzing passages to suit your position, we all know where over analyzing the bible gets us, more sects than you can shake a stick at.
I need a direct quote that resembles my question above
Let the games begin
Sorry, “progayjay”.
That’s more accurate. Whe I posted the original name alteration, itwas to express admiration for your humor, not to insulte you.
Before indulging you into theology, how often do you/have you read the Bible?
Good archived comments, photos, and video of the “gay mob”.
If you condone any of it or do not think it intimidating or even “terrorizing”, please let me know.
Gays lost NOTHING in Prop 8. People make laws governing behavior all thetime. Liberals have marginalized this fact in the United States by declaring there must be a “compelling state interest” of sorts in order to pass any law. That is nowhere in the Constitution.
#85
Thank you for linking me to someone who could be described as a lower class Ann Coulter, I never knew that was possible. Link to a more neutral news source please not someone Geraldo Rivera had this say about her
This seems like a better source for Michelle Malkin crap. She is filled with Insane Rage
http://www.michellemalkinisanidiot.com/
BTW you didn’t answer my question
Facts are facts jay.
What Malkin linked are facts. Watch the videos. Google these stroies and you’ll get the same results. you don’t want to than you’re stuck wit Michelle Malkin. Any progay sites apologizing for these diepicable acts? You’re not so I’ll assume you too condemn them unless you state otherwise.
I’ll get to your stupid question but it’ll take time. You didn’t answer mine neither.
That is actually exactly where I wanted to go with this. What is the biological purpose of homosexual sex? Don’t say pleasure, because that is the by-product, the same as heterosexual sex.
As soon as you can provide a simple scientific purpose for homosexuality that fits an actual biological role, then you will made your point that homosexuality is normal.
Otherwise, it’s as abnormal a behavior as they come.
As a matter of fact, I am going to use the HIV/AIDS arguement. That is because gays have a much higher rate of contracting AIDS than heterosexuals. The same is true for prostitutes and drug users (both illegal activities). From a quick Yahoo search:
http://www.amfar.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/record.html?record=86
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25427506.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/aids/2001-05-31-aids-africa-americans.htm
Now, I’m not saying homosexuality should be criminalized, but neither can it be claimed that it is as safe as heterosexuality.
Then you obviously have not been paying attention to the news for the past two weeks. This website has documented many of the incidents.
Oh, but we’re like Malkin too, lower class Ann Coulters, right?
[quote]Why can’t they share in the same laws as us straight people? Why can’t they get same sex benefits? The majority of people(re:all) I’ve met that are anti-gay are extremely religious. [/quote]
I’ve already gone down the list of major objections and provided you proof to back it up.
Good. I don’t either. You can believe whatever the hell you want about me. You haven’t been right once yet. I’ve no problem with people having the wrong idea about me.
When those “rights” of a minority are being used to censor a majority of people, I have a serious problem with that.
From either political, scientific, or moral standpoints, I cannot back gay “rights”.
#87
It has been fun bugging the crap out of you but you are now on ignore
#88
You provided NO PROOF and then returned the question to me, great job
I’m not going to dispute the fact that the gay community are most affected by those conditions and that their lifestyle isn’t to blame. It is but don’t throw all gay people into the mix. Not every gay person lives that lifestyle. And to say that gays have a much higher rate of contracting the disease is insane. Their blood is the same as ours. Perhaps something like ‘they are more at-risk than heteros’
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
Seems to me like you have all the rights in the world to speak your mind, when and where were your rights taken away? Can you be specific on what rights were taken away, from whom and when?
It’s obvious I am talking to a brick wall and we all feel strongly about this but I beg you to leave people alone and let them do whatever they want to do in their own homes. And do not read this as me defending or condoning illegal behavior such public damage or violence. I am defending the many voiceless peaceful population that just wants to live a normal life.
Just because you view this as ‘abnormal’ doesn’t make it so. I view your thoughts as archaic and devolved but I respect the need for them. We need views like yours so we always stay on our toes and don’t get complacent. Eventually your kind will fade away and will be viewed the same as ‘blood-letting’ doctors of yesteryear are viewed - kooks.
As someone who was raised in the church I find it appalling that so called scribes choose to interpret Gods word to suit their needs. The same thing happened in the south with the Civil Rights movement. The same thing happened with the Women’s Suffrage movement.
Please can you someone PLEASE answer my question?
Before you get all high and mighty and quote Leviticus 18:22 ask yourself if you adhere to some other rules in the bible as well
Have you ever spoken to or seen a woman on her menstrual cycle? Lev 15-19-24
Have you ever worked on Sabbath? Exodus 35:2
Do you own any slaves? You can. Leviticus 25:44
Ever had lobster or shrimp? Leviticus 11:10
Ever shaved your side burns? Trimmed your beard? Do you even have a beard? Leviticus 19:27
Have you ever played Football? Leviticus 11:7-8
Have you ever cursed? If so we get to take you out. Leviticus 24:10-14
If you answered yes to any of these questions congratulations you might be gay
jaymac4,
No, you are letting a brick wall come between you and rational thought. Go back and read the post. I don’t care what people do in their homes IF they are consenting adults. Period.
What I object to are the methods which the homosexual community is using in their attempts to force acceptance of their lifestyle.. And the post is an example of that.
You may well be right on that. For a period of time. Just ask the Romans. After their society was destroyed, kooks returned and built greater societies. And after these new societies are reduced to rubble by ‘tolerance’ and acceptance of deviant lifestyles and the ‘kooks’ are forced to create new societies, the process will repeat itself. Hey, it ain’t my fault. History is history.
I’m not sure what you want in a Biblical sense. Mostly the Bible talks about how certain behaviors separate us from God and the consequences of that. The rules in Leviticus are just that, rules, and not proscriptions for maintaining a relationship with God. Just my opinion of course.
Also, I d/l’d your latest mix. Not bad once I got past the language. And the Sept Dr. Sketchy rocked. Didn’t much like the November one, if you get my drift.
BigJolly
I couldn’t make the September Dr Sketchy, I was shooting ACL and I was not present for the last one and glad I was for that
If you see a DJ there sometime come by and say hello, I’ll buy you a drink
I respect the clear voice that you and Texpat have and would love to engage the both of you in person some day about this and many other topics. You both seem educated and compassionate in your arguments. I respect your views although I do not agree with the ones I have seen here
Also, to be clear whenever I make a new remark I am referring to the people that comment and not the piece itself.
The above is a quote from an article by Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason magazine.
Yesterday, Reason Senior Editor, Radley Balko, wrote this:
Balko was prompted to write after he read the article containing this from Contributing Editor Jacob Sullum:
It’s a good day when Texpat, Radley and Jacob all agree on something.
jaymac;
Presumptions, presumptions, presumptions. Believe men, you’ll get a direct response. You’ll just have to wait a while. Like a few more hours at least. Got things to do right now.
In the meantime, think about the gays bashing Christians that I linked you and apparently you don’t even want to bother looking into it. Ignore Malkin’s opinions. I could care less. She’s archived news reports on the vulgar and threatening attacks gay activists have launched on Christians. you can google the exact same reports if you take the time to work on that. I just made it easier for you.
Meantime you can go drink sketch and dance like a true monkey.
BJ - Is that a command or just a declarative statement? I keed, I keed!
Too much too late? I think so. No doubt people have packed their bags here and took off to other threads. But since the challenge was made, here it is. My really big reply.
[Begin]
Since we have had two folks here in this thread directly ask for theological reasons to stand against gay marriage, I thought I’d indulge them. Humor them if you will. If this does any good, I’ll be pleased. If not, than I guess I’ll learn something myself in terms of where to pick my battles. Please understand that what I express if deeply rooted in my faith which I’ve concluded to be God’s very truth. All are free to interpret what I say and apply in into their own lives as they deem correct.
First a direct answer to jaymac’s biblical challenge regarding homosexuality.
He referenced Leviticus 18:22 which declares, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Note that this was reiterated in the New Testaments using similar verbiage “defile with mankind”. 1 Timothy 1:10 reads, “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind.” Homosexuality is inherently immoral and defiling.
Why should people vote to defend marriage between a man and a woman? First and foremost, because they ARE allowed to vote and they express their opinion when voting. It is the gay activist who seeks to deny the people the right to vote on this very issue. Even after an amendment to the state constitution was passed, gay activist STILL want to challenge it in court. That violates the very authority of not only the amendment; but of that state’s constitution as well. If a court, specifically, four people can overturn an amendment, than really, why bother having Legislative and Executive branches of government? Just let four people decide what is law and what is not. Hardly a democracy but that is the raw face of where gay activists are taking the state of California. Apparently with the governor’s blessing might I add.
There’s also the principle of establishing good morally-founded laws to govern our land. I do not know how many else here have perused American Destiny, but I find it very inspiring. I do not pretend to know in depth knowledge as to the specific quotes from our Founding Fathers so any one who desires to refute these quotes, feel free to do so. Please source your information and I’ll be glad to look into them (time permitting).
James Madison is credited as saying, “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, there would be no need of government.” But clearly there IS a need of government. Madison himself understood this as he was the primary author of the greatest political constitution ever written by man. So I ask, how did our Founding Fathers opine that man becomes angelic?
Thomas Jefferson:
““The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses.”
(source: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh,editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p.315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809. ”
““God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
(Source: Thomas Jefferson, Notes on State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Mathew Carey, 1794),p. 237, Query XVIII. ”
Benjamin Franklin:
““And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?..]Without His concurring aid…we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword
down to future ages.”
(Source: Madison, Papers (1840), Vol. II, p.985, June 28, 1787.) ”
And before I bore people, let’s conclude with George Washington:
““Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principle…”
(Source: George Washington, address of George Washington, President of the United States…Preparatory to his declination ( Baltimore: George and Henry S Keatinge, 1796), pp.22-23.) ”
and
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.”
(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States…Preparatory to his declination ( Baltimore: George and henry S. Keatinge, 1796), pp.22-23.)”
I retrieved all these quotes from americandestiny.com. In summary, our Founding Fathers collectively believed that this nation, nor any nation, can be free but by abiding by religious and moral principles. What religious and moral principles? Those of Jesus Christ. The best way I know how to NOT receive the blessings of Jesus is to act to what is defiling before Jesus. And as mentioned earlier, homosexual behavior is inherently defiling.
Now there’s more to the picture here than just the act of homosexuality.
1 Corinthians 11 structures the eternal relationship between man and woman. In verse 7 we read “but the woman is the glory of the man.”. Skip a few verses to verse 1 and the reader finds, “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Not only does this apply to this mortal life but throughout all the eternities. No one will reach his or her eternal potential without this type of union. This in no way shape or form diminishes the necessity of Christ. He IS the very source of temporal and eternal happiness. And t reach the highest potential, man He has instructed man to abide by certain commandments and live within certain structures including norms and mores based upon true and eternal principles.
The first chapter of the book of Genesis provides the very foundation to which mankind are to form families. God created the first human male known as Adam. He then created the first human female known as Eve. President Gordon B. Hinkley in a General Conference address directly specifically to women of the church noted in the sequence of the creation s written in Genesis, “Having looked over all of this, He declared it to be good. He then created man in His own likeness and image. Then as His final creation, the crowning of His glorious work, He created woman. I like to regard Eve as His masterpiece after all that had gone before, the final work before He rested from His labors.” I wholeheartedly believe in Hinkley’s pronouncement regarding Eve as God’s crowning masterpiece of al His creations. God created Adam and Eve and gave them the world’s very first commandment: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” God also gave the same commandment to the creatures of the sea. Both these commandments respectively were followed by God saying, “it was good.” It would be foolish to conclude that God did not see as good ANY and ALL of His organic creations to multiply. (Daughters of God)
It is abundantly clear that God created organisms to multiply. Above and beyond all organisms, man and woman stand supreme. Of all God’s infinite creations, humans are the only that are children of God.
By divine design and for divine purposes God created man and woman to cleave together and bear children. This is the family unit. It has always been between male and female and always will be. I do not think for a minute that families disappear after this mortal life is over. God instituted marriage to last literally forever. This for whatever reason is essential for eternal progress. Movement towards gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt to defy this eternal structure. God has never ordained gay marriage, nor has He sanctioned it, and will lead people to be less inclined to seek God and godliness. Do understand that there are many really good homosexual people in this world. I’ve known many of them in one-on-one settings. I do not seek to berate them, mock them (though I do lie to have fun with the “universal” application of “gay” upon things that are merited undesirable, and perhaps that’s wrong and if so it’s one of my many weaknesses), scorn them, or anything of the sort. Homosexuals are children of God like any one else. They have a divine heritage like anyone else. They are heirs to the Kingdom of God like anyone else; but also like anyone else, in order to receive those blessings, they are to obey the exact same commandments God gives to all peoples everywhere. God has given commandments against fornication. This applies to pornography, cohabitation, standards of dating, etc. But to zoom back on topic, the practice of homosexual marriage and homosexual acts are wrong, inherently wrong.
That’s some of the theology behind homosexual behavior as well as family and marriage in general.
So to continue with how this affects me and society in general, I’d say my first and foremost concern is what would legal standing of having a defined marriage between homosexual couples affect future generations? I’ve made no attempt to hide the fact that I see gay activism not as much as creating equality for all as it is an attempt to gain leverage to shut up religion in general. Combine legal gay marriage with “hate speech” and we have a lethal dosage of government mandating what churches can or cannot say. However small t be, that is extremely volatile to our nation as a free people. I’m convinced that if freedom of religion falls, so will all other rights. Freedom of religion is the single greatest blessing of liberty our forefathers passed onto us. To me, the vulgarity and blatant threats from gay activists as well as the pornographic and outright lewd sexual behavior shown in gay parades, not to mention vicious anti-Christian depictions, all confirm what I think to be the truth behind gay activism.
FWIW, I read your post - thoughtful, lucid and cogent.
Shamaal;
FWIW, how about potent, sweet, and awesome???
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Been reading the whole long list of comments..and Jaymac - your comments apart from occasional snippets of humor, are very intolerant! How can you say you’re a good liberal, with such intolerant views?