First published in the Chicago Free Press, September 20, 2006
When it comes to same-sex marriage, it turns out that many Americans just don't care.
About 1,000 adults were asked as part of a new Associated Press/IPSOS poll about how George W. Bush is handling the country, how they might vote in the November Congressional elections, and what they thought about some top issues.
Including gay marriage.
Now a couple years ago-say, after the Massachusetts marriage debates-anti-gay marriage sentiment reached an all-time high, as much as 63 percent. People were furious and they were fighting.
But in this most recent poll, what percentage thought gay marriage was extremely important?
Only 22 percent, or about one in five.
Thirty-six percent said that gay marriage wasn't an important issue at all and 11 percent called it only "slightly important." Fifteen percent thought it was "moderately important"; 5 percent called it "very important." One percent of respondents weren't sure.
In fact, those polled adults thought that gay marriage was the least important issue they were asked about, coming after eight others including the economy, the situation in Iraq, health care and gas prices.
These adults weren't all Northeastern liberals, either, or secular city Dems. Most of them described themselves as conservative or moderate; slightly more respondents came from the South than from other areas of the United States; more of them were from the suburbs or rural areas than from cities; the large majority identified as Christian.
So. We have these 1,000 likely voters who are overwhelmingly white, mostly Christian, mostly conservative to moderate, and they're asked about same-sex marriage and THEY DON'T CARE.
They care more about social security than they do about gay marriage. They care more about terrorism. Actually, they care more about how much it costs to fill up their SUV than they do about whether someone in the next town or next state-or heck, next door-wants to marry someone of the same sex.
They're not for it. They're not against it. They just don't understand why it's an issue.
And this, my friends, is a good thing.
Really.
Conservative leaders (read: Karl Rove) have been spinning media webs for years, trying to insure that gay marriage becomes a wedge issue, like abortion. They want equal marriage to stand for everything that's wrong with America in the eyes of Mr. Mainstreet; they want it to be shorthand for everything America fears. If gays get marriage, they tell us, then no one will have marriage, because marriage will be meaningless.
These leaders hoped that Americans would be so afraid of instability caused by gays and lesbians that they would vote with conservative Republicans on every issue, no matter how misguided, in the belief that a vote for a Republican was a vote against gays, and a vote against gays was a vote against moral depravity. For a little while, it worked.
For a little while, liberals and moderate Republicans feared that gay marriage might be the issue that kept neo-conservative Republicans in the White House and in Congress for years to come.
But Americans have seen marriage in Massachusetts and they've seen civil unions in Vermont, and there are still straight people getting married and there are married straight people doing things that married straight people do.
Americans have come to realize that opening rights up to one group doesn't mean taking rights away from another.
All this might explain why, in Illinois, anti-gay activists recently stopped pushing for a referendum suggesting that the state's gay marriage ban be written into the state constitution. They were losing. So they gave up.
And in Virginia, Va4Marriage is struggling to raise money to support the passage of a same-sex marriage ban. Much of the funds they've raised so far-a measly $155,000-come from a single donor who doesn't live in the state.
A populace that doesn't care that much about an issue isn't going to fight against it.
Of course, a lot of this apathy must be because gay marriage has quietly receded from the headlines. New York turned its back on civil unions, as did California. Those defeats hurt, even though I'm betting they are temporary.
But apathy on this issue is OK for now. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is heading toward repeal. Let's take that major victory when it comes as a sign that the country really is turning around on gay rights. Let's take it as a herald for the eventual victory of marriage equality.
Because we will get same-sex marriage. And the best thing that could happen when that day comes is for America to hear the news, shrug, and just not care.
Corvino, John
{ 67 comments }
This doesn’t mean we should relax with regard to achieving marriage equality.
Right on, Jennifer!
I know it’s hard, but we need to take the long view regarding gay marriage. We will have the inevitable defeats, but we have made tremendous progress, and the momentum is with us. Younger people support gay marriage in greater numbers than older people.
My belief is that if we get a Democratic president after George Bush, he or she will be somewhat supportive of gay rights — perhaps even totally supportive. And that will open the flood gates for us. In a way, it’s good that Bush opposed us so much, since we can have a backlash to the backlash, so to speak.
Randy may have reason to expect a Democratic administration to “open the flood gates for us,” but I don’t remember the last one accomplishing all that much. Am I mistaken?
If you’re counting on a Democratic administration to open the gay marriage floodgates, you’re going to be waiting a while.
There are two reasons why Democrats won’t do it:
1) They lack the principle and political courage as a party to do so. Just look at chairman Howie’s intemperate comments about gay marriage on Pat Robertson’s TV show not long ago, and his ongoing war of words with the Washington Blade;
2) Once gay marriage equality is a fait accompli, the Democrats have lost their grip on the gay vote. Many gays who support Democrats do so holding their noses, disagreeing with their socialist agenda but supporting them due to “more important” gay rights concerns. Once those concerns are alleviated, many gay people will focus on other issues such as economics, tax policy, and the role of government and will support positions which are the diametric opposite of the Democratic Party’s.
I shouldn’t hold out high hopes for the Democrats to back us, and I shouldn’t have meant to imply that they will.
What I meant is that under two terms of George Bush, we have seen an high degree of antagonism against gays by the federal gov’t: Continuing persecution of gays in the military, vilification of gays for election purposes, state amendments against us, and so on.
The Dems may not back us, but I really dont’ think that they will harm us either. With that out of the way, we will see a much stronger grass roots movement to grant us our rights.
I am hoping that by then, people will be sick and tired of the religious right trying to ram it’s agenda down our throats and any yelping from them will be ignored. They’ve cried wolk too long for them to gain much traction in the future.
I hope that clarifies a bit.
Greg asks: Randy may have reason to expect a Democratic administration to “open the flood gates for us,” but I don’t remember the last one accomplishing all that much. Am I mistaken?
Yes, you are mistaken. One big step forward came from Janet Reno. At the time there was a suit brought by a gay FBI agent over his firing. She simply sent a statement to the court saying that the Dept of Justice does not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. End of case, guy got his job back and gays are now an integral part of the Federal Government. When an FBI agent can be gay, major roadblocks are out of the way. Apart from the military, the Clinton administration opened up the whole of the federal government to gay people.
The public saw openly gay people handling public offices. And saw that we were not the caricatures that the right had painted us to be. I feel that the openess to gays in public life shown by the Clintons, and their public friendship with gay people made a huge advance for us. Which is different from the usual view here. All I can saw is that after the Clinton administration, anti-gay ballot initiatives have had trouble passing unless they deal with marriage.
under two terms of George Bush, we have seen an high degree of antagonism against gays by the federal gov’t
And Democrats, if they win power, will use this as an excuse to not address the issue too. Their line will be “this debate is too divisive and polarizing, let’s move on to other things.” If gay people continue to raise the issues, they’ll be slammed by “moderates” as “promoting a divisive special-interest agenda.”
Of course, many of the same people getting slammed by the “moderates” will be endorsing them for re-election in the next cycle, citing the politicians “brave commitment to building a new $1,000 scholarship fund for gay students” or his/her “willingness to confront Fred Phelps.”
I feel that the openess to gays in public life shown by the Clintons, and their public friendship with gay people made a huge advance for us.
Oh absolutely. Clinton unequivocally supported gay federal employment — well, unless you want a job in the military, which is the single largest federal employer.
And he boldly stood by gays in his signing of DOMA, which not only bans federal recognition of gay marriage, but also bans recognition of civil unions, allocation of tax and social benefits to same-sex partners, same-sex partner immigration law, etc., etc., etc.
Clinton’s token moves, which had no real political cost, are an example of the Democratic “moderates” of which I spoke earlier. The “positive” moves don’t make a significant difference in the lives of many gay people and the negative moves significantly retarded the civil rights of gay Americans.
In fact, the legal position of gays on a federal level was actually worse when Clinton left office than when he entered — thanks in a large part to Clinton’s enthusiastic support of DOMA (an issue he even campaigned on in the Bible Belt).
But he appeared in the Advocate a couple of times, does some AIDS work with charities, and didn’t discriminate in one of his bureaucracies, so he’s brilliant. Uh, no.
NE: Clinton’s record on gays is certainly mixed, but you should not deny the successes. Clinton hired the first openly gay man to head the Patent and Trademark Office, the highest level an openly gay person has yet to hold. There were many instances of openly gay people who served in the gov’t.
Clinton also took the very important step of signing an executive order that banned discrimination against gays in the federal government. This step is a real tangible step forward, and was the greatest advance gays had ever made at the federal level. Bush, to his credit, has not rescinded it, though conservatives tried to get him to do so.
With regards to DADT, we’ve been over that already. That was the result of a compromise by Clinton not because he wanted to make life more difficult for gays in the military; rather it was his campaign pledge that with a stroke of the pen he would eliminate the ban on gays altogether as the first act as president. He was politically naive at that point, and conservatives in the Senate began a campaign to prevent him from doing so even before he took office.
I agree with you about DOMA, however.
Lastly, you presume to predict what a Democratic administration will or won’t do once in office. That’s as foolish as trying to predict what a Republican Ad will do. And about as valuable.
you presume to predict what a Democratic administration will or won’t do once in office. That’s as foolish as trying to predict what a Republican Ad will do. And about as valuable.
It’s not unfair to judge parties and groups of people by their prior reactions to similar events. Iit’s safe to say that if a Democratic “third way” administration ala Clinton got in, it would do slippery Clintonian things (including stab gays in the back to get political power), just like it’s safe to say that if a Republican “neoconservative” administration ala Bush Jr. got in, it would do oafish Bushian things (like ruin diplomatic relations and overuse the military to achieve political goals).
Neither is particularly good news for gay people.
Lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton who told Howard Dean he had forfeited the right to be president when he signed Vermont’s civil unions law. Clinton was a political opportunist of the worst kind, promising lots and delivering next to nothing. Sure he appointed a gay ambassador to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick or wherever it was–but then he refused to let him take his lover with him. A politician paying off a political debt with a federal appointment is hardly the same thing as a principled stand for equality. As has been noted in other threads here, the DNC under Dean has closed its liaison office to the gay community–and is advising Democratic candidates to avoid gay issues as much as possible. Sure, we’ll get a few stale crumbs from the Democrats in the (increasingly unlikely) event they win, but I humbly suggest we deserve more than that in return for generations of political support.
“”"”1) They lack the principle and political courage as a party to do so. Just look at chairman Howie’s intemperate comments about gay marriage on Pat Robertson’s TV show not long ago, and his ongoing war of words with the Washington Blade;”"”"
All else aside, it can’t be denied that Dean has shown himself to be no friend of gays, and is more than eager to attack us for political advantage.
“”"”Once those concerns are alleviated, many gay people will focus on other issues such as economics, tax policy, and the role of government and will support positions which are the diametric opposite of the Democratic Party’s.”"”"”
I don’t think that is neccesarily so. From what I’ve seen, many gays find the marraige issue important because it affects us, but beyond that, I think there’s a considerable deal of apathy, especially when it comes to more abstract things like economic principles and so forth.
beyond that, I think there’s a considerable deal of apathy, especially when it comes to more abstract things like economic principles
I don’t think people will move on to discuss the relative virtues of Keynesian versus Friedman-style economics, but when marriage equality is registered, lots of gays will start to bitch about their high taxes as opposed to the hardships their families encounter as a result of marriage discrimination. That was my main point. I agree with everything else you said too.
“”"”, lots of gays will start to bitch about their high taxes as opposed to the hardships their families encounter as a result of marriage discrimination.”"”"
I don’t think that many will. At least, I don’t think many will beyond a superficial level. Most probably don’t care if its free markets, socialism, democratic capitalism, etc. As long as it gets results, its fine with them. I mean, I don’t think any of them are about to embrace libertarian philosophy on principle, and once they see the improvement they want in the economy they’ll just stop thinking about it.
Well, then. I guess it’s decided by consensus. Both Democrats and Republicans have no interest in helping gays, both just give lip service but will never ever do anything for us. I guess we might as well give up trying to fight for our rights.
all those local jurisdictions that have passed laws guaranteeing rights for gays? Passed by Martians.
To all gays—your voice has no value. You try to deceive America with your meaningless ideas. \\\\\\”Claiming to be wise, they became fools.\\\\\\” You use words like \\\\\\”homophobia\\\\\\” to turn the truth about yourselves.
Before 1971, the National Psychological Association defined \\\\\\”homosexuality\\\\\\” as a sexual disorder. That is what is in the minds in people when you think they don\\\\\\’t care. The gay movement put political pressure to remove \\\\\\”homosexuality\\\\\\” from being classified as a sexual disorder. Gays never used scientific studies to proof that they are normal people.
As of today, the gay community still need to get help. This nation does not need gays to be cancerous to this society. A wise person once stated, \\\\\\”Let the gays have their glory on earth but the day will come when they will have to answer to their stupidity.\\\\\\”
Gays—How does this sound. America was founded on Christian values. It got it\\\\\\’s strenght from Christian morals. America tries to spread Christianity to the rest of the world. Meanwhile, other nations with their own religions are watching America to see if it holds morals and values as it preaches. Next thing they hear is that America is debating whether MEN SHOULD MARRY MEN. How sick do you think that sounds to the rest of the world? No wonder nationa hate America. They will go to war before America spreads their corrupted ways to the world. The gays are on the move. They have advance greatly. \\\\\\”Evil will triumph when good men do nothing.\\\\\\”
Instead of debating on the political views on gays, concentrate on the mental illness the gays are suffering from with their weakness of denial.
Its the sound of the dueling banjo’s.
To kittynboi—you can be as funny as you want to be because that is what I excepted from you. It proves that you do not take your sexual perferance seriously.
As someone who lived through the AIDS pandemic from the beginning as an adult, I suspect that gays are actually more receptive to liberal and social democratic solutions. During the early years of the plague, we all saw the total failure of private health insurance to live up to its stated contractual obligations. Like, leaving sick gay men who had purchased and paid for insurance to their own devices. Like refusing to pay hospital bills, inventing reasons to deny care, deny medications, all the things that one would ordinarily expect insurance to do.
This experience truly soured me on Friedmanite solutions. They simply can not be made to work. A private company can very easily evade its contractual duties until a very ill man is dead. Then it has no duties. Saw this over and over. Held too many hands of guys who could not believe this was happening to free market, hard working, bill paying selves. In the reality of the epidemic, free market health care solutions were exposed as frauds. (Lost my own health insurance then; all single men in my zip code were canceled by all insurers.) What did emerge were health care cooperative, based in the gay community, working in cooperation with publically funded health care. This did work for gay men; the private option was a disaster.
Has any libertarian, like NE, addressed this history?
I have changed from being a passionate free market libertarian to being a social democrat. Which I do not see as all that unusual among gay men. We have seen the free market Friedmanite system; it simply has been a flat out failure.
I suspect that gays are actually more receptive to liberal and social democratic solutions. During the early years of the plague, we all saw the total failure of private health insurance to live up to its stated contractual obligations. Like, leaving sick gay men who had purchased and paid for insurance to their own devices.
So the solution to the present quasi-socialist “private” overregulated system which doesn’t provide quality care is the implementation of a fully-socialist “public” overregulated system which doesn’t provide quality care?
If you think people who require treatment, especially with the rapidity that HIV requires, are going to benefit under a socialist medical system, just take a quick trip to Canada or the UK sometime and look at the waiting lists in OHIP or the NHS. And also have a look at the tax bills that result from this third-world level of care, along with the letters you get from the health authority saying “the estimated wait time for your care is 34 months as of July. If the recipient of this letter has since died, please accept our sincere apologies.”
But the fact we’re having this debate underscores my earlier point — we’re going to be debating these issues and not “gay” ones, once marriage equality is a reality. That’s one reason why the ‘Crats aren’t going to go for it — it eliminates their hold over the gay community by setting people free to discuss other issues.
To Randy R.: Local gay rights laws have passed because local gay groups have put pressure on local politicians to pass them. (I know this first-hand–I was vice chair of the group that got the gay rights law passed here in Pittsburgh.) Nothing similar is happening at the national level. And as long as we rely on do-nothing groups like HRC to promote gay equality, nothing will. Far too many gays seem to have the mindset that we have to keep supporting the Democrats because they’re not quite as terrible as the GOP, which makes no sense. If a substantial portion of the gay community were to support the Greens or the Libertarians, say (just for the sake of argument, mind you), the Democrats would suddenly see the need to actually DO SOMETHING FOR US if they want our votes. But as long as the national gay groups keep blindly supporting the Democrats, and as long as the gay population keeps following their lead in this, there’s no reason to expect any progress at the national level. And we have ourselves to blame. I can’t think of another minority community so fully complicit in their own marginalization.
And as long as gay people still refuse to vote, then we will have no politician on our side.
If every single gay person voted, we would have our rights in an new york minute. If we represent 10% of the population, and all voted, then we would represent at least one-third of the electorate. That sort of voting block would be invincible. But too many of us thinking voting is a waste of time, or would rather party.
If anyone here is not a voter, please let me know so that I can ignore your carping.
Actually, Save America, you have it wrong. When the Board of the APA voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1971, some conservatives forced a maneuver that required the vote be taken to the entire membership of the APA. They in fact ratified the vote. There was no ‘political’ pressure to do so, and in fact, they based in on the groundbreaking work of researchers.
And actually, gay marriage looks pretty good to the rest of the world. Canada, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, after examing the issue, decided that they were all in favor of it. How great is that!
To Randy R.—-I am sure that Canada, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands also have their share of child molesters, rapist, etc. but is that any reason America has to follow another country’s immorals ways?
In California the democrats in the state legislature actually passed a gay marriage bill, with no republican support. It passed both houses, with a majority in each. Contrary to what is being claimed here, the dems made a concerted effort and passed it.
Again contrary to what we hear here, the republican governor Arnold Schwartzenegger vetoed the bill. He prefered that the matter be settled by the courts AIR.
Save America: When you refer to child molesters and rapists, are you referring specifically to all those catholic priests? If so, then it’s hardly any reason for America to follow the morals of the Vatican’s immoral ways.
Oh, and I forgot — Britian doesn’t allow marriage, but they offer all the rights and benefits of marriage under the rubric of civil unions for gays. AND they not only allow gays to serve openly in the military, they actually recruit gay people for the Navy and RAF.. Just think: our boys in Iraq are serving with these British coalition forces together to fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq. Ain’t that great too!
Randy R.—- You know very well that all those logical statements you have made does not prove anything. Gays still need help. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools.” Please respond.
dalea—–Did it ever occured to you that the dems tried to pass a gay-marriage bill in which they knew and hopefully that Gov. Arnold was going to veto it. Gays make up 1/10 of the population but the dems are still concern of losing favor with the other 9/10 of the population. All the dems did was to try to win the gay’s votes with no intentions of following with their promises.
Also, after reading all the other statements, politics seems to be the main theme concerning gays. Does the word “morals” exist in the gay world? Is it important to have morals in our country or do we not care if this country become uncivilized? IF gays are allowed to marry gays, what in the world would be next?
I agree that younger americans are definatly more supportive of gay marriage than older americans, I also agree that there are many other issues that people feel are more important than gay rights. I however do not belive this is a good thing. Everyone’s rights need to be protected and when a groups rights are not the american people should be outraged. Discrimintation, as it is talked about, is unacceptable and that is why the civil rights movement was so important. That no one should be discriminated on regardless of race, ethnicity or religon. Today that needs to include sexual orientation. There are those that come across as the morality police and say how we need to protect the moral fiber of the US. These are the people that everyone should be wary of. I support the gay rights movement and believe that everyone should let their political representatives know that this is an important issue, and until it is dealt with no one should stop fighting for it.
Well, actually, Save, politics is the main theme of THIS website. That’s what we can here to discuss.
As for gays needing help, well, I certainly don’t! Anyone else here? Seems we lead our lives pretty well. At least I’m content. In fact, I probably function better than most other people. You know, I read an article recently that stated that they average American has only two or three close friends that they can confide in, down from three or four just a decade ago. I think that’s sad. Myself, I probably have at least a dozen!
As for mental illness, well, let’s see. I’m an attorney who worked for 18 years in the federal gov’t. I left that to start up my own technology company. I used to be an office in the American Bar Association. Now I’m the Chairman of a major technology association. I am a Director for four non-profit associations, and have steered them on to successful projects. I’ve published many writings, and I teach classical piano to a handful of talented students, and in general, I’m a well respected memberr of the community. I don’t think too many mentally ill people could accomplish as much as I have!
So there you have it, Save. You have evidence that there is clear research that homosexuality is not a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Pschologocial Association, and the AMA, all respected instutitions. You also have personal anecdotes from me. Furthermore, you have presented no evidence that homosexuality is an illnes other than your own declaration. Moreveor, there are not credible reports which conclude that either. Therefore, this argument is – like your mind — closed, and I certainly have interest in pursuing it with you any further.
Thanks and have a nice day! Now I have to go and bake a cake for a dinner party I’m invited to tonight!
Why are folks talking to an obvious troll?
Please, no troll chow!
NE: You’re right. It just encourages them. But I think it’s fun that someone, anyone, has so such a purient interest in other people’s sex lives, don’t you? It’s a form of mental illness, actually…..
Randy R.—-Many people have accomplished goals as you have. For example, the Vatican. There was Nero and Caligula of the Roman Empire. There was Hitler. But as you know, they were all mentally ill. There are many people in high positions but also have a mental illness that no one is aware of. Since you told me a little about yourself, I will tell a little about myself. I graduated from a University with a B.A. degree; a minor in politics; and many classes in history. I also accomplished a great deal in my job and community. But I had an illness called alcoholism. Like you, I was content and doing great. I also, like you, encouraged people to join me in my world. The bottom line is that I was in denial like you. I was able to get help. I did not get into politics to pass laws to OK my actions. Other gays classify me as a “hatefull group” or as “homopholic”. But if I didn’t care for gays, why am I trying to get them to get help?
I am not supprised that want to end this debate.
What debate? All I see is someone making wild accusations, and a few kind souls who offer rebutal.
The mental illness that really needs to be addressed in this country is the one of belief in Biblical ‘innerrancy’ or ‘inspiration’ or ‘infallibility’. This pernicious delusion ensnares many in its tangled web. This is the one to work on, not gay people.
dalea—-Thank you. You have proven my point. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools.” Thank you again.
P.S.—Can you answer my previous question–does the idea of “morals” exist in the gay world?
“”"”Why are folks talking to an obvious troll?
Please, no troll chow!
”"”"
The people in charge of this site should show the trolls just as much mercy as they show the spambots.
And Save, you aren’t saying anything people here haven’t heard before, so don’t be surprised that no one here falls down in awe before you.
kittynboi—-I am not looking for attention.—I only care very much in the direction this country is heading for. If you had to write an article on “as in the days of Noah….” what would write about?
‘Save America’ appears to be the same creature who posts at NARTH as ‘student’. Could the moderators please publish his ISP address so we can find out more about him. He claims at NARTH to be a pre-med student. His posts there are bizarre and extreme even by the standards used by NARTH, if NARTH can be said to have standards. For those of clean mind, I should explain that this organization is the National Association for Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality: the same group that brought us forced incarceration and aversion therapy.
Of course Gay people have the concept of ‘morals’. Check out Z Budapest’s ‘The Feminist Book of Holy Mysteries’. Or Connor’s ‘Blossom of Bone’. Or anything by Christopher Penczak. And there is the ongoing ‘White Crane’ magazine as well as RFD. Lots of Gay moralizing going on. You need to check it out guy.
I agree with Save America. The best way to help people is to insult them, call them names, and ignore them. And it’s a good idea to offer this help unsolicited. It always works!
“”"”-I only care very much in the direction this country is heading for.”"”"
I think you need to care more about your own grammatical issue before you tackle anything more monumental.
“”"”If you had to write an article on “as in the days of Noah….” what would write about?”"”"
That the bible is an unreliable historical account and that the noah story never happened.
dalea—Sorry but I am not “student”. I have no idea who “student” is. I have, in the past, checked into the books you mentiion on morals. The problem is they don not have the correct definition on what morals are. There are morals created by man, which are forever changing with time, and there are morals created by a Supreme Being.
Randy R.—-I have not insulted or called anyone names. It has only been created in your own mind. This is not an insult, but gays are good at twisting things around.
kittynboi—Sorry for my grammer. But I have seen alot of errors in this column. But to my opinion, it is not as harmful as the gay movement. {Not an insult, Randy} Also kittynboi, your grammer error was typing “bible” instead of “Bible”. The fact that you do not credit the Bible for anything explains why you are lost. (No insult intented,…just concerned)
Today is Sunday….a day to pray for guidance.
kittynboi—–Sorry. I forgot to tell you that “Noah” is spelled with a capital N. It is a proper noun.
“”"”The fact that you do not credit the Bible for anything explains why you are lost. (No insult intented,…just concerned)”"”"”
You aren’t concerned, you’re just a rude, condescending liar who weaves nonsense in an effort to make himmself feel better.
Religion is false. Belief in the supernatural is false.
And since I was compared to Hitler and his accomplishments, I will happily return the favor. We need hardly recall that when religious people, such as SA, decide to ‘help’ those who are lost, it often decends into torture and killing. Examples: The Inquisition in Spain, the burnings at the stake during the Tudor period in England, the slaughter of the Hugonots on St. Bart’s Day in France, the decimation of indigenous peoples by missionaries in the 19th and 20th centuries. Yes it is true — these religious people all thought they were wise to burn thee heretics, when in fact they were fools.
And today, we see Christians are supporting George Bush on torturing our enemies. As the saying goes, Lord, please save me from your followers!
I think it’s fun that someone, anyone, has so such a purient interest in other people’s sex lives, don’t you?
Yes! I have little doubt that, late at night, when he’s lying in a cold and empty bed — in a thankless life devoid of meaning or true connections — his thoughts likely trend towards the pulsing, thrusting passion which throbs deep inside of him, sending spurts of white-hot lust shooting into his heart.
kittynboi—–”Belief in the supernatural is false.” Have you ever study the topic, “The Theory of Design”? It is common sense and does not require deep thinking. My question is, are all gays atheist?
Randy R.—Many ignorant people (not you Randy) have taken historial religious events as representing a Supreme Being. You as an attorney should know that. It is another belief that gays will use to twist and mislead the truth. (No insult intended) I do not want to get into a religious debate because in my opinion, you and kittynboi do not have enough knowledge to do so. Religion is man action and belief in a Supreme Being. The Supreme Being is a relationship between man and God. There is no misunderstanding nor confusion. I wish gays would give God a chance, not historial events.
Northeast Libertarian—-Honestly, I have no idea what you are saying. Me as a man, lies with a WOMAN warmly in bed with the blessing that I have two beautiful children who were born from my own flesh and blood. You and many gays may never know what that feeling is like. Adopting is not the same. But as I have stated, gays are great at twisting the truth.
There are plenty of gays who are Christian, Jewish, Prysbeterian, Atheist, Mormon, Buddhist, Agnostic, Hindu and so on. If you do a minimum of research you will find that out.
All people who killed and tortured in the name of God and their religious belief because they truly believed that they had a relationship with God. There are people who do so today.
Any person who claims all gay people are sick and twisted might do so as well.
“”"”"Belief in the supernatural is false.” Have you ever study the topic, “The Theory of Design”? It is common sense and does not require deep thinking. My question is, are all gays atheist?”"”"
I think its clear that you’re way way out of your depth on here.
also, you fail to acknowlege that both Z Budapest and Christopher Penczack are religious persons. Your postings are overwhelmingly ignorant, enough so that you must qualify as a ‘conservative christian intellectual’. Please not the deliberate use of the lower case; christianity is clearly an inferior system of thought. It can not reach the moral and ethical levels of voodoo.
Me as a man, lies with a WOMAN warmly in bed
Oh, sure you do. *chuckles*
Generally, people who are happy with their own lives don’t have a need to condemn or micromanage others’ lives. The fact you’re here, and so passionately attacking people you don’t know, tells me that you’re profoundly lonely and yearn for the romantic attention of a man.
There is a way out of unfulfillment. Reject your silly self-defeating superstitions and embrace the queer man that, deep down, you know you are!
Comments on this entry are closed.