A Response to the Extreme Anti-Gay Comments by My Brother, Newt Gingrich

[HAL 9000 96]

The definition of marriage is not something that should be handled by the state, but by the churches.

I'm not religious at all, and I want religion to stay the hell out of the state, but this goes both ways. The state needs to stay out of religion.

If special benefits and privileges weren't given to married couples, then prop 8 wouldn't be an issue.

With exception to a few, I don't think anyone want's to oppress gay people. They just want to protect their beliefs from being transformed through government coercion.

The government should recognize every couple equally. No privileges. No favoritism.

Touché. I guess that means a redefinition of marriage so that its equally recognized for all.

Somehow I feel as if you've said this before and those with rational minds have recognized your sound words.

You brought up and I gave you your shot and all you could come up with stuff about black guys' sex organs as the only thing worthy of study for schoolkids. You could have used famous gays in history at the very least but your fixation on interracial gay porno images seems to leave you with little else to discuss the issue thoughtfully.

Hey, you're the one overtly worried about sex in history, so I imagine that you'd be worried about black d*cks during Black History Month -- it's a fair comparison. If you're not worried about the "sex" part, there's also the fact that they actually have relationships beyond sex, and there's a history behind their suppression, the latter of which being a focal point in a history class, if you ever went to one. If this is too difficult for you to grasp, let me know. You look like a cartoon character flying all over the screen slipping on banana peels with your slippery slopes.

The definition of marriage is not something that should be handled by the state, but by the churches.

I'm not religious at all, and I want religion to stay the hell out of the state, but this goes both ways. The state needs to stay out of religion.

If special benefits and privileges weren't given to married couples, then prop 8 wouldn't be an issue.

With exception to a few, I don't think anyone want's to oppress gay people. They just want to protect their beliefs from being transformed through government coercion.

The government should recognize every couple equally. No privileges. No favoritism.

Marriage licenses are not given by the churches, so they have no say so in marriages for everyone else. Church does not apply here.

But see the logic in Matt's post- if marriage is a religiously-defined institution (historically true), then it is up to the secular governments to redefine secular marriage so that equality can be guaranteed and recognized.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I'm sure Gay History Month will be a real crowd pleaser in a lot school districts. Think of the charming class assignments for the kiddies. What sort of visual representations can we expect to represent the month?

very funny. i'm sure something like breast cancer awareness month (also october) would be more appropriate.

i'm all for breast awareness month.

breast cancer awareness.

it's an important issue, more important than gay awareness in my opinion and something that everyone should be made aware of. more pink!!

we first must start off making people aware of breasts. then we can move on to the breast cancer.

well... eric just called me flat chested.... he needs awareness training

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I'm sure Gay History Month will be a real crowd pleaser in a lot school districts. Think of the charming class assignments for the kiddies. What sort of visual representations can we expect to represent the month?

very funny. i'm sure something like breast cancer awareness month (also october) would be more appropriate.

i'm all for breast awareness month.

breast cancer awareness.

it's an important issue, more important than gay awareness in my opinion and something that everyone should be made aware of. more pink!!

we first must start off making people aware of breasts. then we can move on to the breast cancer.

well... eric just called me flat chested.... he needs awareness training

see?

[IAMX 3,055]

The definition of marriage is not something that should be handled by the state, but by the churches.

I'm not religious at all, and I want religion to stay the hell out of the state, but this goes both ways. The state needs to stay out of religion.

If special benefits and privileges weren't given to married couples, then prop 8 wouldn't be an issue.

With exception to a few, I don't think anyone want's to oppress gay people. They just want to protect their beliefs from being transformed through government coercion.

The government should recognize every couple equally. No privileges. No favoritism.

Touché. I guess that means a redefinition of marriage so that its equally recognized for all.

Somehow I feel as if you've said this before and those with rational minds have recognized your sound words.

You brought up and I gave you your shot and all you could come up with stuff about black guys' sex organs as the only thing worthy of study for schoolkids. You could have used famous gays in history at the very least but your fixation on interracial gay porno images seems to leave you with little else to discuss the issue thoughtfully.

Hey, you're the one overtly worried about sex in history, so I imagine that you'd be worried about black d*cks during Black History Month -- it's a fair comparison. If you're not worried about the "sex" part, there's also the fact that they actually have relationships beyond sex, and there's a history behind their suppression, the latter of which being a focal point in a history class, if you ever went to one. If this is too difficult for you to grasp, let me know. You look like a cartoon character flying all over the screen slipping on banana peels with your slippery slopes.

The definition of marriage is not something that should be handled by the state, but by the churches.

I'm not religious at all, and I want religion to stay the hell out of the state, but this goes both ways. The state needs to stay out of religion.

If special benefits and privileges weren't given to married couples, then prop 8 wouldn't be an issue.

With exception to a few, I don't think anyone want's to oppress gay people. They just want to protect their beliefs from being transformed through government coercion.

The government should recognize every couple equally. No privileges. No favoritism.

Marriage licenses are not given by the churches, so they have no say so in marriages for everyone else. Church does not apply here.

But see the logic in Matt's post- if marriage is a religiously-defined institution (historically true), then it is up to the secular governments to redefine secular marriage so that equality can be guaranteed and recognized.

It already is secular. The problem is the imposition of the church in these views upon the state. It would not go away with simply giving marriage to the church. The way it's going to be is the church simply has their own views of gay marriage, as does every other religious or non-religious person, and gays simply get married. What he proposes could work for, say, Greece.

Edited November 24, 2008 by SRVT

[mRx 16]

The definition of marriage is not something that should be handled by the state, but by the churches.

I'm not religious at all, and I want religion to stay the hell out of the state, but this goes both ways. The state needs to stay out of religion.

If special benefits and privileges weren't given to married couples, then prop 8 wouldn't be an issue.

With exception to a few, I don't think anyone want's to oppress gay people. They just want to protect their beliefs from being transformed through government coercion.

The government should recognize every couple equally. No privileges. No favoritism.

Marriage licenses are not given by the churches, so they have no say so in marriages for everyone else. Church does not apply here.

But see the logic in Matt's post- if marriage is a religiously-defined institution (historically true), then it is up to the secular governments to redefine secular marriage so that equality can be guaranteed and recognized.

Yep, the only way to accomplish this is through secularity. Removing "marriage" from what the State see's as a couple, will take religion completely out of it. All the while, protecting those who still wish to be married. For they will be seen as a holy married couple through the eyes of their church, but seen only as a legal couple to the State.

The marriage license that SRVT speaks of will be done away with, and a legal couple license (or something) will be used in it's stead. Because people are applying to be recognized as a couple through the state, not the church. And the benefits granted to a couple are given by the State, not the church.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm sure Gay History Month will be a real crowd pleaser in a lot school districts. Think of the charming class assignments for the kiddies. What sort of visual representations can we expect to represent the month?

very funny. i'm sure something like breast cancer awareness month (also october) would be more appropriate.

i'm all for breast awareness month.

breast cancer awareness.

it's an important issue, more important than gay awareness in my opinion and something that everyone should be made aware of. more pink!!

we first must start off making people aware of breasts. then we can move on to the breast cancer.

well... eric just called me flat chested.... he needs awareness training

see?

HAL 9000 endorses such training.

[HAL 9000 96]

It already is secular. The problem is the imposition of the church in these views upon the state. It would not go away with simply giving marriage to the church. The way it's going to be is the church simply has their own views of gay marriage, as does every other religious or non-religious person, and gays simply get married. What he proposes could work for, say, Greece.

Yep.

Its supposed to be secular. But see... there are always going to be people that have a hard time separating church and state. Always for what is convenient for their dogmatic view of the world, of course.

The definition of marriage is not something that should be handled by the state, but by the churches.

I'm not religious at all, and I want religion to stay the hell out of the state, but this goes both ways. The state needs to stay out of religion.

If special benefits and privileges weren't given to married couples, then prop 8 wouldn't be an issue.

With exception to a few, I don't think anyone want's to oppress gay people. They just want to protect their beliefs from being transformed through government coercion.

The government should recognize every couple equally. No privileges. No favoritism.

Marriage licenses are not given by the churches, so they have no say so in marriages for everyone else. Church does not apply here.

But see the logic in Matt's post- if marriage is a religiously-defined institution (historically true), then it is up to the secular governments to redefine secular marriage so that equality can be guaranteed and recognized.

Yep, the only way to accomplish this is through secularity. Removing "marriage" from what the State see's as a couple, will take religion completely out of it. All the while, protecting those who still wish to be married. For they will be seen as a holy married couple through the eyes of their church, but seen only as a legal couple to the State.

The marriage license that SRVT speaks of will be done away with, and a legal couple license (or something) will be used in it's stead. Because people are applying to be recognized as a couple through the state, not the church. And the benefits granted to a couple are given by the State, not the church.

Yes.

[peejay 327]

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.

Yes, yes, I see it now. In Bizarro World what has worked in the past must be discarded and replaced with the new vision of the anointed. The new vision of plural marriages of anyone to anybody must be the societal norm.

Too bad the only fly in the ointment is that many, many more millions and millions of Americans don't want it. If Prop 8 can't pass the smell test in the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes...how does that equate to an embrace by the unwashed masses that inhabit the vast majority of the USA? But, of course, it must be rammed down their throats for their own good. Right?

Those that live in Bizarro World clearly don't see the world the way it really is. Newt has his work cut out for him.

Modern society must be extremely bizzare for those that have a hard time catching up to the times.

If modern society = "Heather's Two Mommies" then I want no part of it. Neither does the vast majority of America. So, what's up with that?

[HAL 9000 96]

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.

Yes, yes, I see it now. In Bizarro World what has worked in the past must be discarded and replaced with the new vision of the anointed. The new vision of plural marriages of anyone to anybody must be the societal norm.

Too bad the only fly in the ointment is that many, many more millions and millions of Americans don't want it. If Prop 8 can't pass the smell test in the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes...how does that equate to an embrace by the unwashed masses that inhabit the vast majority of the USA? But, of course, it must be rammed down their throats for their own good. Right?

Those that live in Bizarro World clearly don't see the world the way it really is. Newt has his work cut out for him.

Modern society must be extremely bizzare for those that have a hard time catching up to the times.

If modern society = "Heather's Two Mommies" then I want no part of it. Neither does the vast majority of America. So, what's up with that?

What's up with that is that the vast majority of America, as you call it, is becoming more and more tolerant with time. Which means that sooner than later, intolerance like your own will be meaningless.

[mRx 16]

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.

Yes, yes, I see it now. In Bizarro World what has worked in the past must be discarded and replaced with the new vision of the anointed. The new vision of plural marriages of anyone to anybody must be the societal norm.

Too bad the only fly in the ointment is that many, many more millions and millions of Americans don't want it. If Prop 8 can't pass the smell test in the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes...how does that equate to an embrace by the unwashed masses that inhabit the vast majority of the USA? But, of course, it must be rammed down their throats for their own good. Right?

Those that live in Bizarro World clearly don't see the world the way it really is. Newt has his work cut out for him.

Modern society must be extremely bizzare for those that have a hard time catching up to the times.

If modern society = "Heather's Two Mommies" then I want no part of it. Neither does the vast majority of America. So, what's up with that?

I'm curious, what aspect of homosexuality do you disagree with, PeeJay?

Is it that you believe they are eroding your definition of marriage?

Or do you think that such couples just shouldn't have the same rights as other couples?

[peejay 327]

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.

Yes, yes, I see it now. In Bizarro World what has worked in the past must be discarded and replaced with the new vision of the anointed. The new vision of plural marriages of anyone to anybody must be the societal norm.

Too bad the only fly in the ointment is that many, many more millions and millions of Americans don't want it. If Prop 8 can't pass the smell test in the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes...how does that equate to an embrace by the unwashed masses that inhabit the vast majority of the USA? But, of course, it must be rammed down their throats for their own good. Right?

Those that live in Bizarro World clearly don't see the world the way it really is. Newt has his work cut out for him.

Modern society must be extremely bizzare for those that have a hard time catching up to the times.

If modern society = "Heather's Two Mommies" then I want no part of it. Neither does the vast majority of America. So, what's up with that?

What's up with that is that the vast majority of America, as you call it, is becoming more and more tolerant with time. Which means that sooner than later, intolerance like your own will be meaningless.

So, why is homosexual marriage been rejected in referendums to amend state constitutions across diverse sections of America in overwhelming numbers to define marriage between one man and one woman? What's up with that?

If it don't pass the smell test in Cali, what hope is there everywhere else? The People don't want it!

Edited November 24, 2008 by peejay

[Peikko 1,575]

People don't have to 'want it' but it would be nice if they could accept that gays are people too.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

People don't have to 'want it' but it would be nice if they could accept that gays are people too.

SHUT UP!!! ARE THEY?????????????? :blink: :blink:

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

More than that - why do people have to "want" something that has no appreciable impact on their own lives?

[peejay 327]

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.

Yes, yes, I see it now. In Bizarro World what has worked in the past must be discarded and replaced with the new vision of the anointed. The new vision of plural marriages of anyone to anybody must be the societal norm.

Too bad the only fly in the ointment is that many, many more millions and millions of Americans don't want it. If Prop 8 can't pass the smell test in the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes...how does that equate to an embrace by the unwashed masses that inhabit the vast majority of the USA? But, of course, it must be rammed down their throats for their own good. Right?

Those that live in Bizarro World clearly don't see the world the way it really is. Newt has his work cut out for him.

Modern society must be extremely bizzare for those that have a hard time catching up to the times.

If modern society = "Heather's Two Mommies" then I want no part of it. Neither does the vast majority of America. So, what's up with that?

I'm curious, what aspect of homosexuality do you disagree with, PeeJay?

Is it that you believe they are eroding your definition of marriage?

Or do you think that such couples just shouldn't have the same rights as other couples?

I stated before many times that I could care less whether homosexuals cohabitate or commit sodomy. I just don't believe homosexuality is or should be in parity with heterosexuality. I don't even base this on religious grounds. Marriage is between one man and one woman. This is the concept that is recognized and practiced worldwide for a multitude of reasons for a cohesive society. Homosexual parity with heterosexuality is a farce. Most of the world's cultures reject it.

"Heather's Two Mommies" is a farce and an abomination. That is the big enchelada of what homosexual marriage is all about. Establishing homosexuality in parity with heterosexuality. A minority believe that America should be about "Leave it to Beaver" with 2 Junes or 2 Wards. Most of America does not accept that and likely never will. Most of the world too.