E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe blogosphere is abuzz with the story that broke last night, when the Human Rights Campaign released internal memos from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's largest and most visible anti-same sex-marriage group, calling for the use of a racial wedge strategy to fight campaigns for marriage equality.
“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks -- two key Democratic constituencies,” one of the NOM memos says.
“The documents, marked “confidential,” were unsealed yesterday afternoon in Maine by court order, as part of that state’s ongoing ethics investigation into NOM’s campaign finances.
The memo spells out specific steps to enact, including:
Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”
Here is an excerpt on NOM’s Hispanic strategy:
"The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation."
NOM also spells out its plans for the 2012 presidential election:
"From a political angle," the NOM document says, "this strategy will require electing a pro-marriage President in 2012." Strategies for defeating, ("sideswiping," as the document calls it) President Obama include "expose Obama as a social radical," and "raise such issues as pornography, protection of children, and the need to oppose all efforts to weaken religious liberty at the federal level."
NOM is a 501(c)3 and cannot endorse presidential candidates, but the former chairwoman of NOM’s board, Maggie Gallagher, endorsed Santorum in January.
Public opinion has moved considerably in the three years since the memos were drafted. The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (conducted Feb. 29 through March 3) shows a plurality favors same-sex marriage -- 49 percent say so versus 40 percent who oppose. That's a reversal from 41-49 percent in October 2009.
Among African Americans, a majority (50 percent) said they were in favor (41 were opposed). That's a big change from October 2009, when just a third (32 percent) were in favor and a majority (53 percent) were opposed. Among Hispanics, in the most recent poll, 55 percent said they were in favor, 30 percent said they were against. That's also a change from October 2009, when the margin was tighter (45-40 favor to oppose).
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign -- which supports efforts to legalize same-sex marriage -- criticized NOM. “Nothing beats hearing from the horse’s mouth exactly how callous and extremist this group really is,” Solmonese said in a statement.
NOM posted a statement on its website today, saying it is "proud of [its] strong record on minority partnerships."
It added: “Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right, but the voices of these and many other leaders have provided powerful witness that this claim is patently false. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage.”
NBC's Domenico Montanaro contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
There's a surprise (insert eye roll here).
Mike, going to the hospital is not free and never has been. You are accepted in no matter what, but then billed full price later unless that particular hospital has a special program. When I was in college full time and had to go to the hospital on my way back from visiting my family in Utah, years later I ended up paying for everything plus fines and fees for being late causing the total bill to be three times what the initial hospital bill was. I even got myself into a bad situation because I CALLED THEM to repay them after I pulled my credit report and realized I had been charged (thinking exactly what you thought, that it was free because I was at least a full-time student). They wanted an immediate $1000 and then $500 per month. I told them I could afford $200 per month, but they said no-go and then attached my wages causing me an extremely difficult financial burden at the time.
So you are dead wrong. It's never free, and they have no heart when they finally get back in touch with you, no matter WHAT the situation was at the time when you had to go to the hospital.
Never go to Rocky Mountain hospital in Wyoming. They don't care if you're a student or just dead broke because your company let you go during a recession. They will come after you with a vengeance. It's either die then, or die later because you can't buy food and have to starve.
This "effective tool " by these people disgusts and angers me.
Instead of looking for ways to help the world get along, they are searching for ways to sow the seeds of hate and destruction...
i defy just ONE of these NOM members to explain HOW their marriage is hurt, how their life is worse in any way, because two people of the same sex want to legally join their relationship in the government defined state of marriage.
These folks live in Fear, and sow Hate. I somehow don't think anyone's God is on their side in any way
Hate and bigotry looks rather absurd when exposed to the light.
Let's face it, NOM's main message is bigotry, hate, prejudice, all in "God's Name". Jesus must be insulted.
I find it interesting that one of Limbaugh's advertisers called the same behavior as NOM has been trying with JCP & Starbucks "Internal American Terrorism", do you think Limbaugh will say the same about NOM now? The Right-wingers called such tactics "bullying". Will they now come out against NOM or languish in their normal hypocrisy?
The only way they stand up for marriage is when it meets their personal religious (and rather bitchy) criteria.
I can not answer for NOM, but the habit of homosexuals and their camp followers to label those who oppose same sex marriage, following in the footsteps of hundreds of millions before, as mere bigots and haters is juvenile. and using the fondly silly logic of homosexuals that because you oppose them, you may be a latent homosexual, one must suppose that homosexuals have their own inclinations toward hatred and bigotry.
Yeah......just like it's juvenile to label those who oppose mixed-race marriage as bigots and haters.
NOM, bigots and racist...Why's that not surprising?
This just makes me smile from ear to ear. When ever bigotry is exposed and the right wing are left to lick their wounds is a good day. These people have no shame! They wanted to link Obama and pornography and what else. NOM should stand for National Organization for Morons.
I am black and I am OPPOSED to gay marriage. If I start allowing gays to marry based upon some perverted ideology then I must allow pedophiles the right too marry, people who want to marry there animals the right marry and sex offenders the right too marry. It is suppose to be about sexual equality rights.
no, you're completely wrong (of course). Gay marriage based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment would only apply to two human adults..not children, not animals. good lord, how many times does this have to be pointed out?
Donald has been told that many times before and he doesn't care. His homophobia is overpowering. Anyone who would (repeatedly) equate homosexuality with child molestation or bestiality is too full of hate to understand the concept of fairness.
the interesting thing is that his post has a +1..is he shilling his own posts...or is someone else so dull they don't understand this fundamental concept that gay marriage doesn't require child molesting too?
@vermontguy
The 14th amendment doesn't only include human adults. It includes ALL ages of American Citizens
I'm pretty sure sex offenders can get married as is......you can't deprive someone of that as a punishment for a crime (several supreme court cases on this.....why do I have to be the first of three replies to bring it up?).
Children and animals cannot consent, in addition to the fact that children are put under special legal standing as the government has a legitimate interest to protect them....more SCOTUS cases.
Just read Donald's new reply......constitutional scholar he ain't. But I will address his bigger idea: yes there are some things you find icky that might be constitutional, but not because of gays, because they were constitutional to start with.
@jock59801
i compare the sexual acts because they all are sexual perversions. If i allow 1 perversion due to them claiming they are born that way then I must allow all perversions whom claim the same thing if done so in a ethical manner. I believe a male was created for a female, period!!
Correct, but children cannot give legal consent to a legal contract like marriage.
But it sounds like you want special rights and privileges for yourself which you'd deny to others. You're no better than the bigots of the old south, or the racist Southern Baptists who opposed mixed-race marriage.
And that has what, exactly, to do with the legal contract of marriage? Are you so dumb that you think denying gays the right to marry will keep them from having sex?
So.. wouldn't that include anything beyond making a baby then? Some states still have moral laws on the books that try to tell people what they can and can't do in the bedroom.
Donald is making the same argument as Santorum.
Nobody is asking you to allow 'perversion". It's not your to give. I can't stand brussel sprouts, but you don't need my permission to have some.
When you boil it all down, the primary argument for resistance to same-sex marriage is that it's icky.
@University of Chicago Student
Sure minors can consent. When I was 15 years old I liked 21+ year old women with nice shaped bodies and maturity, I wasn't into girls my own age because they were too immature so I had too lie about my age because society said it was wrong. I was told by society that it was wrong and I couldn't understand why because I wasn't getting hurt nor trying to hurt anyone else. They keep feeding me some bullcrap about how she is too old for me and how I should find someone my own age.
Sure you're Black. Don't be ridiculous.
donald: well, DUH, yes, but the equal protection clause AS APPLIED TO MARRIAGE only applies to those able to legally consent to a marriage contract, not to underage children. duh on you. :)
I gotta laugh at the ego of people like donald who think that in america is it their RIGHT to "allow" (or not allow) others freedom based on THEIR own view of acceptable behavior.
Hey donald, I think that you posting here is a Perversion..so you don't mind if we make it illegal, do you? after all, that's your own "logic". :)
We never should have let white people marry black people. Next, white people will be marrying cows and horses.
@skrekk
How does race always somehow get injected to a conversation when speaking about homosexuals lol..It is 2 completely different things.
@sam-298381
Agian, How does race always somehow get injected to a conversation when speaking about homosexuality lol..It is 2 completely different things.
@vermontguy
Well you just were proven wrong by your initial statement lol but regardless there are "emancipated" minors who can marry adults in America. These "emancipated" minors are still minors !! duh....
@Steve in CO
I stated that if I allow 1 perversion then I must allow all perversions in done so in an ethical manner. I believe human beings are not born gay because there is no gay gene and I believe males were created for females and vice versa.
What is the Republican obsession with beastiality? Is it because the only people in America who actually practice beastiality are 13 year old farm boys who tend to grow up Republican? Is it guilt?
Donald, have you ever stuck a sheep's hind legs in your boots so she couldn't get away? Just curious.
Donald, I don't think you should be able to marry a white or asian woman becuase of the color of your skin. Ridiculous.
Donald: I don't think two consenting adults should be able to marry because they have the same plumbing. Equally ridiculous.
Who cares what you believe? Why should people be forced to follow your views? Even if gays aren't born that way, so what, they are free to love whomever they wish regardless of race or plumbing.
@RTyp0
No, this means sexual acts should be natural.
donald: see loving vs virginia for a discussion of the relevance of race to this topic...how the state anti-mixed race marriages were overturned based on the 14th amendment equal protection clause..and yet, somehow, that didn't mean that animals and children were endangered..thus proving you wrong (once again). duh.
"those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it". :)
Perhaps you should ask the NOM hate group, since it was their idea to use a racial wedge strategy.
And you were gullible and ignorant enough to fall for it.
Jesus Christ. Are you really this stupid?
Anyone with even a fleeting knowledge of civil rights knows that these are similar issues. MLK is rolling in his grave.
"Agian, How does race always somehow get injected to a conversation when speaking about homosexuality lol..It is 2 completely different things."
Actually, it's exactly the same thing. It's people like you trying to force your religious definition of "marriage" on everyone else. A large percentage of the people who agree with you on gay marriage, don't think you should be able to marry a white woman. Sorry, but that's the company you're keeping.
God doesn't even hate gay sex that much. If He did, it would be in the Ten Commandments. Therefore, gay sex is not nearly as bad as "worshipping false idols" or "coveting your neighbor's man servant".
So, relax. In God's eyes, it's a minor sin.
@sam-298381
Because people have sex with animals. I'm sure if we make it legal then there will be alot more people coming out the bestiality closet with flags waving. I'm sure there would be spots where they congregate and people will start making sexual references towards animals openly. I'm sure if an animal doesn't want a human being to have sex with it then it will not have sex but if it enjoys the sexual act then it will consent. I know it sounds sick and perverted but homosexuality is no different in comparison to heterosexuality.
I wonder if Donald Price knows who Bayard Rustin was?
I suspect he's completely clueless on the history of black civil rights.
@Donald Price,
Ok, so according to amendment X of US Constitution since marriage isn't expressed explicitly states have the right to dictate what the marriage laws are for their respective states; so long as the laws do not violate other amendments (IE the VIX, but this post is not about that). So go look up your state's respective "family code, marriage law, et al." and come up with some legal backing for your fears. If a minor is emancipated then they are recognized by law as adults, able to make and enter into contracts such as marriage pursuant to your respective state's marriage codes.
@RTyp0
You don't have to follow my views. In your home you can allow whatever perversion you wish as long as the door stays closed but in my home i will only allow heterosexuality, if done so in a ethical manner.
@vermontguy
Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are two completely different things. Having sex naturally and having perverted sexual acts are two completely different things. Is it clicking yet?
@skrekk
I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. If this goes along the lines of NOM then we are on the same-side of the fence.
Exactly. So why deny others the privilidge of getting married if it has no affect whatsoever on what you do in your home?
donald: why is it "two different things" legally? just because YOU, in your arrogance and ego, don't like one, doesn't mean others shouldn't have freedom. :)
is it clicking yet? :)
remember in the 50s it was "known" that black men were sexual perverts too,who raped women and children and animals, and letting them marry white woman was going to end civilization as we know it. lol. donald's "fears" are as baseless as those were.
@Steve in CO
MLK jr. has nothing to do with homosexuality and nowhere has he stated homosexuality is right/correct but he believed in Christianity which clearly states homosexuality is incorrect and he even preached it in a church. Go Figure!! How is his name even being brought up in this discussion. Are there any well-known gay civil rights activist that you can make reference too.
@RTyp0
because my tax dollars have to pay for their protection of rights so it begins to affect me. If they want to have an orgy in their home then so be it but I will not vote to allow them rights to do so with my hard-earned tax paying dollars. There is a huge difference between acceptance and staying neutral.
I hate frozen yogurt because it is not natural and tastes yucky. So therefore no one should be able to have it. However, I absolutely love ice cream. So that is the only frozen treat people should be allowed to partake in.
See what I did to your argument there?
@skrekk
Yes, i know who Bayard Rustin was but he is not MLK jr. so why not replace his name when making reference to homosexuality and civil rights rather than MLK jr. ????
@historysaywhat?
The emancipated minor is still a minor lol... There bodies still have the same features as those who are not emancipated , etc.. Age is nothing but a number and it is scientifically proven that sex between an adult and minor is a harmless sexual act if done so in an ethical manner. The only harm comes from societies views.
@historysaywhat?,
Liking ice cream vs. yogurt? hmmm... Well pedophiles like sex with minors and some minors actually consent to having sex with pedophiles so they should be denied their rights because you don't like the taste of adult homosexuality/heterosexuality?
@Donald
No, Donald. Nobody is having sex with animals except for a few adolescent farm boys, and they're going go grow up Republican. Sex with animals/children/machinery has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's like the great Republican "flag burning" problem. It doesn't exist.
Bottom line. It's none of your business Donald.
Donald, children and animals cannot give consent. It is interesting that you think sex with children is harmless and ethical, but most people don't. If you really don't understand the concept if consenting adults, then that's your problem.
"Tastes yucky" was probably a poor choice of words.
Way to go with the straw man, allow me to clarify.
According to those lovely codes I asked you to look up before, across the states a minor cannot give expressed consent to enter a contract unless they are emancipated or meet very specific criteria dependent on the state in question. If a former minor and a pedophile meet those requirements and everything else is hunky-dory in the union pursuant to the law, no problema. If the child is say, 8 and meets NO criteria, illegal. If you think it is disgusting, too bad it is legal, attempt to change the law(s) in question. So just because you disagree with homosexual unions/marriages, you cannot force your view on others hence my ice cream analogy.
Donald, it does not cost you anything for other people to have rights. The only cost comes in when someone tries to take those rights away.
And if you don't care what other people do, then why are you constantly talking about it?
donald: lol, I love all your arguments being disposed of.
No, you can't oppose gay marriage because they would get marriage tax breaks..if you are opposed to married people getting tax breaks, then you have to oppose tax breaks for all married people, not gay marriage. lol.
clue for the clueless: I love how you argue that 'soon people would be talking about bestiality'. Lol, they already are..should we eliminate free speech too?
@sam-298381
Same-sex pedophilia has alot to do with gays. Google: NAMBLA, they're a proud organization within the LGBT community with thousands of members. They are fighting for sexual equality laws just like the LGBT community is fighting for same-sex laws. They both have same-sex. It all is gross and perverted but if I allow one of them rights then I must allow the other because they both claim they were born too commit perverted sexual acts.
@jock59801
Yes, minors can give consent and so can animals. If animals don't want you to have sex with them then they will move and/or become aggressive if they consent then they will get into whatever position they want that requires them to have sex. If a minor knows they like Cesar salad with croutons then why can't they consent to liking sex with an adults if don so in an ethical manner? I remember when I was a minor I enjoyed having sex with women who were in their 20's and vice versa. No one was harmed during our sexual acts and I actually started to fall in love with a 23 year old but for some reason society keep telling me that it was wrong.
Ok either this kid is just naieve and homophobic or we are being played by a troll and the laughter is echoing through the stairwell from his basement bedroom @ his mom's house. In either case, Im out.
@historysaywhat?
Thank you for clarification. So a minor who engages with a consensual sexual act with an adult in the USA is wrong and immoral but that same minor can travel to Bangladesh and engage in the same sexual act with an adult and their citizens say it's okay then they're some sort of sicko monsters? This boils down to MORALS just like homosexuality boils down to MORALS. I think 100% would agree that males were created for females and that a penis isn't suppose to go into an anus. Now if you choose to have perverted sex then that's your MO but just because you have lowered your morals for sexual gratification purposes doesn't mean everyone around you has too
@jock59801
It does cost money to grant rights. There is a public legal process and there is a public legal process that has to protect them. Where do you think the money comes from, a tree? lol
I am speaking on the subject because i fit the topic in discussion. Hence we are in a forum
By that logic, if we allow men to marry women, then we must allow old geezers to marry baby girls, and old grannies to marry wee lads! Nope, that "slippery slope" argument isn't logical, changing the rules doesn't mean we suddenly lose the ability to make any rules.
A man doesn't have the right to marry just any woman, both parties must be fully informed and give legal consent in order to marry. That automatically rules out both under-age children and animals as marriage partners.
Moreover, marriage is NOT a "license to have sex", one does not need to be married to legally have sex, nor is sexual activity required to remain married. Marriage doesn't legalize any illegal sexual acts. Rape is still rape, even if it is spousal rape.
@vermontguy
I am opposed to gay marriage because i believe it should be between a man and woman, Where did you get tax breaks?
Of course people are talking about bestiality and/or pedophilia and probably doing it as we type but that doesn't mean we buckle under pressure and allow them to openly commit the behavior all in the name of sexual equality.
@CM-6969
The point is once you start redefining something then you are opening up Pandora's box. The only word we are hiding behind now is "consenting". Well the reality is that people practice and enjoy pedophilia and bestiality and it isn't going to go away. We can throw them in jail/prison but they will only be replaced by new people in society and eventually those people will get out of prison. Do you think that there is a cure for pedophilia? lol ....Do you think there is a cure for bestiality? lol...
Apparently you don't know who Bayard Rustin was, otherwise you wouldn't have made this profoundly ignorant comment:
I suspect you know nothing at all about Rustin. You might want to learn who he was, and what his roles were in gay civil rights and black civil rights. Rustin was the gay rights activist who (amongst many other things) organized MLK's march on Washington, and who introduced MLK to the broader national stage. Rustin was out, and MLK knew he was gay - as did all the other civil rights leaders at the time.
I can see why NOM thinks people like you are gullible and easily manipulated by racial wedge issues. They seem to be right.
@Donald Price,
A minor who engages in LAWFUL consensual sex with an adult is fine. I'll give you a second to read that again....there. LAWFUL LAWFUL LAWFUL LAWFUL, got it? Conversely, a minor who engages in UNLAWFUL consensual sex with an adult is NOT fine. As for the Bangladesh escapade, if the act is LAWFUL in the land, no problems.
Now for the deconstruction of your attempted rebuttals:
"I think 100% would agree that males were created for females and that a penis isn't suppose to go into an anus." Subjective, ambiguous, lacking facts, irrelevant conclusion, a poor counter-argument. By the same token I believe the male genitalia was put on this good green Earth to replace an Atari controller if my other one breaks. Oh, and 100% of people agree with me, I think.
"Now if you choose to have perverted sex then that's your MO but just because you have lowered your morals for sexual gratification purposes doesn't mean everyone around you has too" Possible ad hominem attack. My rebuttal: If society has absolutely no morals you are free to place whatever morals on yourself as possible. Conversely, if you create an uber-moral society you run the risk of depriving people of their rights whether or not you agree they should have them. So you cannot possibly ask other people to relinquish their respective rights to preserve yours. Oh, and morals are subjective, so attempting to create a moral society is possibly one of the most immoral acts you can commit.
@skrekk
You didn't answer my question. why not replace his name when making reference to homosexuality and civil rights rather than MLK jr. ????
@historysaywhat?
Re-read what you just wrote lol... We are talking about MORALS!!
I can see that you are like most homosexual activist who don't wanna admit that you believe that a penis was created for a vagina but would rather try to hide behind some futile point of view.
@Donald Price,
...lol? I did, and I was talking about laws, you were playing the moral cards. Yes, a penis has a use for makin' the babies, but I'm sure others find it more useful for other acts. A spanner was created for taking nuts off of bolts, but in a pinch you can use it for a hammer or an impromptu doorstop.
Oh and now this game again:
"I can see that you are like most homosexual activist who don't wanna admit that you believe that a penis was created for a vagina but would rather try to hide behind some futile point of view." False conclusion and assumption, drew a conclusion from means and premise that assumes the conclusion, definite ad hominem attack. Thank you for playing.
@historysaywhat?
Then we are talking about 2 different things. I am speaking about morally accepting the thought that gays should be allowed to marry.
My morality says that the sex lives of other adults aren't my business.
My morality says that all citizens deserve equal treatment under the law, and that no one should have special rights.
Apparently your morals are rather twisted, and you think other people's sex lives are your business, and that straights deserve special rights.
@Donald Price,
Ok then, an analogy should help here. According to my personal long held beliefs from either religious or other means, I believe that it is immoral for people to cross their left leg over their right while sitting in a comfy chair. The image provokes unhealthy thoughts and lust. Therefore all people should be banned from doing so. My personal beliefs however allow for the right leg to be crossed over the left, yada yada yada. Therefore all people must, if sitting in a comfy chair, either cross their right over their left or not at all.
To everyone and hopefully you, recognize that as an absurd and silly argument. Now go and replace it with all the appropriate terms and all of a sudden it is transformed into the argument against same-sex marriage. You are free to posses whatever morals you darn-well desire, but those morals cannot be forced on the populous. So to go back to the above situation, I am free to sit with my legs uncrossed or right over left only, but I cannot make you follow my morals. Follow?
My morality says that the sex lives of other adults aren't my business but when it becomes my business then i do not agree unless it is natural between a man and a woman.
My morality says that all citizens deserve equal treatment under the law, unless it's concerning a sexual perversion.
Apparently your morals are rather twisted, and you think you should impose your perverted ideology onto others and those that don't accept it have twisted morals.
@Donald Price
"My morality says that the sex lives of other adults aren't my business"
End of argument, then stay out of it.
"but when it becomes my business then i do not agree unless it is natural between a man and a woman."
How can it become your business? Are same-sex marriages harming you someway that would make it your business?
"Apparently your morals are rather twisted, and you think you should impose your perverted ideology onto others and those that don't accept it have twisted morals."
Oh come on now, the direction of the twist is all relative. As for imposing my "perverted ideology" onto others, no I think not. No one is forcing you to accept the ideology, but by outlawing same-sex marriage you are forcing them to accept your ...oh how did you say it, "perverted ideology", savvy?
Sounds like Donald wants to use the government to impose his sharia laws on everyone.
@historysaywhat?
Having moral beliefs based upon opinion is different then morals based upon facts. There is no evidence that human beings are born gay so therefore it is inconclusive to believe human beings are born gay. Thus the reasoning to base a moral on the fact that something isn't natural is completely understandable to a common sense mind.
@Donald Price
Good argument, I agree that evidence is inconclusive, but see my above post again. There is inconclusive evidence that people are born putting their left leg over their right, yet we cannot outlaw that. So to a common sense mind, you cannot outlaw a behavior/choice unless it deprives others of their rights.
IE: you CAN outlaw someone killing another out of choice as it deprives the victim of their right to life.
IE: you CANNOT outlaw the ability for someone to marry a person of their choosing as it would deprive them of their right to pursue happiness.
Caveat: You CAN outlaw the ability for a 18 year old to marry a 3 year old because substantial proof exists that persons of a young age do not posses the proper mental capacity to make rational decisions and enter into a legally binding contract. The same goes for beast and machine.
@historysaywhat?
Homosexuality is destroying our communities(high rates in STD, down low men, etc..) and gay marriage doesn't last so it will erode the institution of marriage.
Pedophilia if done so in an ethical manner is none of my business but if someone ask me do i agree with it then I will tell them no.
@Donald Price
www.(remove)cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
According to the CDC half of all marriages fail (conventional marriages mind you), how sanctimonious is this institution? Where are your facts to prove that gay marriage fails more than 50% of the time?
If you can keep your nose out when pedophilia is ethical, why not homosexuality if ethical?
As for STD rates, it is true that STD rates are higher in the homosexual population. However, this statistic is by percentage only. As the sample size is so few, one case of a STD in the homosexual community carries a greater impact per capita than in the hetrosexual community. Ergo, this argument is misleading.
@historysaywhat?
Why destroy marriage further?
Again i stated if i'm asked. I don't go looking for pedophiles or homosexuals.
it is true that STD rates are higher in the homosexual population. END OF ARGUMENT!!
@Donald Price
Without and evidence to substantiate your claim that divorce rates are higher that 50% in homosexuals, it can also be assumed that homosexual marriage will improve the institution. That which is supplied without evidence can be dismissed without none. End of that.
I am part of a group of human beings in this room, a select group a population of one. Lets call me a "Zijuyts". I get a cold. 100% of Zijuyts get colds vs. ~30% of the population, therefore bla bla bla. See what I mean?
There is scientific research that shows homosexual relationships don't last. I can provide the scientific research that shows 90% of same-sex relationships have a provision allowing an outside sexual partner. Before I post it... if I provide the evidence will you concede that your incorrect or will you continue to play pretentious head games?
Getting illnesses are natural, homosexuality is not natural. After the entire human genome was mapped there was no gay gene that was found. Therefore, this evidence tells us that when nature is creating the blueprint for human beings homosexuality is not a part of it but rather something that is artificial after birth.
Actually, divorce rates are lowest in marriage equality states and highest in the bigoted bible belt.
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country, and has had marriage equality the longest.
Good grief dude.. Educate yourself before spewing such nonsense and embarassing yourself further:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFeXwKnCUNI
Then provide it.
I would say that you're the one playing "pretentious head games," but the truth is you're just not that smart.
Really? Then explain this:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors
This Donald Price thread was an amusing read for a while, until he got a little too creepy with the whole "sex with a minor is harmless, if done in an ethical way" stuff ... yikes.
@emmygee
that's the same thing I say about homosexuality . YIKES!!
@Donald Price
I stepped out for dinner, so let us see this evidence. Note, evidence must be from a reputable source such as a reputable news site with good sources, science related site with verifiable sources, or a .gov website. So, nut up or kindly shut up.
http://www.marriageresourcesforclergy.com/site/Articles/articles011.htm
by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
Family Research Council
the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:
· relationship duration
· monogamy vs. promiscuity
· relationship commitment
· number of children being raised
· health risks
· rates of intimate partner violence
Finally, this paper will present evidence from gay activists themselves indicating that behind the push for gay marriage lies a political agenda to radically change the institution of marriage itself.
RELATIONSHIP DURATION
Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.
LMAO ......Now I'm sure you will try to construe up some BS to void this research but it is what is. Now will you admit that your incorrect or will you keep playing pretentious head games?
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., is senior fellow in the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council. Dr. Dailey and Peter Sprigg recently co-authored Getting It Straight: What the Research Says About Homosexuality.
From their website:
Since 1983, Family Research Council (FRC) has advanced faith, family and freedom in public policy and public opinion. FRC's team of seasoned experts promotes these core values through policy research, public education on Capitol Hill and in the media, and grassroots mobilization. We review legislation, meet with policymakers, publish books and pamphlets, build coalitions, testify before Congress, and maintain a powerful presence in print and broadcast media. Through our outreach to pastors, we equip churches to transform the culture.
Hardly unbiased.......
Tell ya what, I'll accept this evidence if you accept this one:
www.(remove)loveandpride.com/informationcenter/tips.aspx?categoryid=8
Please find a REPUTABLE UNBIASED source. To paraphrase someone anonymously.... Now I'm sure you will try to construe up some BS to say yours is better but it is what is. Now will you admit that your [sic] incorrect or will you keep attempting to play pretentious head games?
@historysaywhat?
Again the facts are the facts and it is what it is. He has a PH.D, What degree do you have?
LMAO I SWEAR GAY ACTIVIST CAN'T SEEM TOO ACCEPT REALITY!!
@Donald Price
Responding with a personal attack in place of evidence, smooth. I have a B.S in Chemical Engineering and am in graduate school, how about you? I know Ph.Ds who have a BS MS PhD PE and still take 45 minutes to turn on the projector in class. Degrees do not necessarily mean the person knows what they are talking about, so if this man with a Ph.D belongs to a special interest group that "equip[s] churches to transform the culture", how can you expect that the information is unbiased and trustworthy?
Oh, before you go opening your mouth and giving me a title how about you ask? I am NOT an activist for the gays or any other group. You spoke with a very very poorly supported argument. I tore it down for amusement mostly. But hey, if what I did here makes me in support of the gays then by damn am I proud to be standing up with them.
ROFLMAO. Tim Dailey's "Ph.D." is in religion, not in a relevant field like psychology. In fact, all of Dailey's education is in religion. The guy sounds like a real nut, and is currently employed by a well-known hate group.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=010654
William Shockley also had a Ph.D, and he was convinced that black people are dumb because their brains are so small.
I'd like to know what Donald would do if he found out he'd slept with a woman who used to be a man.....kill himself? Become gay? Shoot T-girls? I know he'd have some sort of break-down, as it's obvious his mental state is out of kilter......Or maybe he's just being paid to be a troll.....hell, he might not even be black!!!
As always, can ANYONE tell us how allowing OTHERS to marry hurts them or the institution of marriage?
anyone? anyone? buehler? :)
anyone? anyone? donald? :)
Of course they can't answer that and have to defer to the Bible and "God's word". Homophobia has no logical underpinnings.
Personally I'm not gay, I like the curves of a woman too much, but hey, to each their own.
Cue crickets...
Obviously, they don't have any rational answer, and the real reason they want to deny gays the right to marry is the same reason they want to ban contraceptives - they want to to Punish the Sinners.
Sorry, in a religiously free nation, you don't have a right to enforce your religious rules on non-believers. If you don't want to be in a "gay marriage", then don't marry the same sex, and butt out of other peoples plans for marriage.
Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Anyone against gays will be on the wrong side of history. Just as those that opposed ending slavery, opposed civil rights for minorities and women, opposed interracial marriage etc.
The irony is that I would bet that the vast majority of the white folks in that "NOM" organization would prefer to have a white gay guy living next door than a black person no matter who that black person was...
As Chris Rock famously said, "None of you white people would change places with me, and I'm RICH!"
ah...but how about a gay hispanic person? how would that compare to a heteo black? hmmm...tough choices...
One day there will be a museum exhibit about NOM and the people who operated it..........and we all know I don't have to say what the message of it will be.
There are only so many years left a person can behave as a bigot and not be condemned by society.
Here it is:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/future-us-history-students-its-pretty-embarrassing,19099/
Nomskulls is what they are. If marriage is such a sanctity, then divorce should be make illegal. Like if you are Catholic--when you have to pay big money to get an "annulment" (even when you have children, if you can believe). Or is it the sanctity of multiple marriages? Why not bring back fault divorce? Why not make cheating against the law (with penalties)? And what is the purpose of marriage? Why to have kids. No contraception for anyone. And I do mean anyone (get condoms off the shelf--they promote both sex outside of marriage or not having babies while married, which is the only reason to be married.). And people who don't have children? Stick a probe into each of them to see why not. Is something wrong. Let's all look on the ultrasound machine at the uterus and scrotum. All of us. We want to see. What is wrong with you.
The "Racial Wedge" strategy is hardly new. Obama, the divider in Chief, has used it effectively over the past four years and is even now using it by helping to incite mobs over the recent Florida shooting.
When, before this week, has he talked about black people? I believe that you believe what you are saying, but there is just no difference between Obama's ideas and Clinton's (and Romney's for that matter), and I will always believe the country became so divided because they couldn't stand a black guy in the white house.
I'll vote for Romney if you like......he'll have the same policies, but for whatever reason, you'll like him.
He did not incite anything. Your hatred of him makes you criticize anything he does. He was asked a question and answered. Also, were you born four years ago? Or have you ignored this country's history with creating "racial wedge" issues?
niyol, the Republican candidates gave stronger views on the Florida shooting than Obama. Why aren't you critricizing them for "inciting riots."
om nom nom
They done did it now.
Anti-same-sex marriage people are so confusing, You surrender your sex to someone else when you get married & no longer have control over it from that point on
I mean like, who the hell would ever invite those people to a wedding anyway? They are already poking their noses in your bridal chamber/cheap motel
My God! Covert, racially divisive strategies being hatched by conservatives! Who ever heard of such a thing?!
This is pretty bizarre stuff and, just a wild guess here, these people are probably all Republicans. Most of us remain mystified about why Republicans think gay people marrying each other is a threat to anybody. With all of their accusations of "government overreach", why do they think people need the government to tell them who they can marry? And why would they think that blacks and Mexicans, two groups they already despise as being "not like them", would support their paranoia?
Sorry dudes and dudetts.
I'm black
and
I'm not buying it.
Marry on Gay people :-)
nom is a great name, seeing how nom nom nom is the sound they usually hear after tapping their foot in airport washrooms
So who did they end up getting? Who were theses "attractive young blacks and hispanics" they hired to lure their communities away from tolerance? I want names. Now that we know what the job description was, I'd like to know who applied, who got the job, and what their slick rap was when they got the ball rolling. Let's see how they feel now that the jig is up, and the world knows that all they are is an "attractive" face of the right race for a bunch of shadowy bigots to put on their bigotry.
You want the black community to pile on? Simply suggest that George Zimmerman is gay. Facts are irrelevant.
Here you go black people. Want to join up with this tool? I didn't think so.
Today isn't even my birthday but what a great gift. I am so glad to see the NOM is exposed. Wonder what the spin to this will be? LMAO
Gay sex is a minor sin. It didn't even make the 10 commandments. Coveting your neighbor's man servant is a worse sin than gay sex.
You're right, let's all sin because it's only minor. <sarcasm>
Anyways, it's not in the Ten Commandments because it was absolutely unthinkable at that time. Nobody needed God to tell them gay sex was wrong.
That's an
A s s u m p t i o n . . .
...lol, but they needed God to tell them that murder was wrong?
I'll bet you any amount of money that there is no one in this group NOM who could give you a history of marriage. As a matter of fact I don't think they could give you a history of anything since they are so blinded by hate. Frankly I don't care if gay people want to get married that's THEIR business, how that would affect them I cannot imagine what goes through NOM's minds is a complete mystery even to them I bet.