Hello all :)

In the Mark Foley thread recently, mention was made of Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, who was censured in 1983 for admitting a relationship with a seventeen your old page ten years earlier. As I believe has been mentioned, while the behavior was reprehensible (particularly because of the power imbalance between the two parties), he at least had the courage to accept the censure, came out as gay, and held a joint press conference with the man whom he had been involved with stating that the relationship had been wholly consensual. He was re-elected until his retirement from Congress in 1997, and spent the latter years of his life (1991-2006) in a relationship with Dean Hara; they were legally married in Massachussets in 2004.

Rep. Studds died last Saturday of blood clots; and in the first high profile case of its kind, the Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as between a man and a woman) is being used to deny Mr. Hara his share of his dead husband's pension.

This sets up an interesting legal situation, obviously: in this case, a Federal law is negating rights granted to this couple by a state law. But what was interesting to me, as I read the article, was just how narrow the limitations were on under what circumstances former Congressmen, and their spouses, can be denied pensions, according to Peter Graves of the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal pension plan:

Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers' same-sex partners and people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said.

Think about that. Felony convictions? Bribery scandals? Not a problem, you'll still get your cozy, 100+k/year retirement benefits from the government. But god forbid your legal spouse happen to have the same plumbing as you...

It is my hope that this case will provoke Congress, and the public, into considering whether they *really* rank gay marriage up there with treason, and truly intended to systematically deny the rights of and punish those whose loving life-partnerships are with the same gender, now that it affects one of their own (and to subvert the rights of states to make their own determinations as to whether they wish to recognize these marriages). And I wonder how Barney Frank must be feeling right now, and how those fellow members of Congress feel when they look at him.

Article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_on_go_co/studds_benefits

Regards,
Nydia

Following the Foley affair the Republicans need to recoup cred with their gay-hating base. The Studds matter allows them to do just that. Giving Dean Hara benefits destroys marriage, remember?

It also allows them to invoke parity between the two cases; sadly, I agree with you, but now they at least have to contend with flesh and blood, rather than some abstract demon-possessed villains out to destroy marriage, motherhood, and apple pie.

Mid-term grading deadline in 24 hours; I'll either be verbose or comatose (or both ;) )...

Regards,
Nydia

So, same-sex partners are right up there with traitors and spies. Spiffy.

While I don't condone discriminating against homosexuals based soley upon their sexual preference, they should not have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples.

This doesn't mean I think they shouldn't have the same legal rights. I've always thought that Civil Unions were a great idea for homosexual couples. It allows the same rights as a married couple as far as legality is concerned.
The problem is, there seems to be a section of the Gay Rights Movement that believes this isn't good enough. They want marriage, without any thoughts as to what marriage truly is.

Marriage is for the propagation of the species. It is supposed to allow 2 healthy heterosexual adults who love each other, the chance to propagate, and gives them legal protections to start a family, i.e. tax breaks, ect.

Homosexual couples cannot marry. As a couple, they cannot procreate. They can adopt, and in the context of lesbian couples, become artificially inseminated, but as a commited couple, they cannot produce children.

Does this mean they should not be allowed to start a(n) (adopted) family? Certainly not. Children grow up best when they have adults that love and care for them, regardless of the gender of the adults raising for them.
While most studies show that children that have good role models of each sex to model themselves, and future relationships after, it's better to be raised by a loving, caring adult, rather than none at all.

Marriage for homosexuals is an impossibility, based on biology. This doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed to form a Civil Union, and adopt children. By all means Children should be given the chance to grow up in a stable, healthy environment.

Marriage is for the propagation of the species.
So in your view infertile couples should not be allowed to wed? Both my parents remarried following divorce, and neither have had additional children (nor planned to). Are their marriages invalid?

Your objection is for the shallowest and most thoughtless reasons.

Marriage for homosexuals is an impossibility, based on biology.

Decorating by heterosexuals is an impossibility...based on little knowledge of the color mauve.

What's mauve?

Infertile hetrosexual couples can wed. They just won't be fulfilling the main reason why most people get married: To have children.
This doesn't mean they don't have the same legal rights as other married couples, nor the homosexual couples that are in Civil Unions.
They should be equal in the eyes of society and the law.


I love how you cut and paste to take what I wrote out of context:

Marriage is for the propagation of the species. It is supposed to allow 2 healthy heterosexual adults who love each other, the chance to propagate, and gives them legal protections to start a family, i.e. tax breaks, ect.

"Supposed" and "the chance to propagate" are the parts you left out of your quote.
Choices not to have children and matters of biology that are beyond the control of the individuals do not invalidate a marriage.

Choices to have children and matters of biology that are within the control of the individuals, do.

What's mauve?

What's mauve?

We will need to find a homosexual to get an accurate answer. I have heard from some people that "mauve" is something that is a key to the eventual takeover by homosexuals.

What's mauve?

I think its a food.
But I'm not too sure....

Sixee, your entire context is falty, as it's based on your own shallow conception of what marriage "is for." Others have a very different conception of marriage, such as, "a legal arrangement provided for two persons in love who intend to spend the rest of their lives together."
Marriage is for the propagation of the species. It is supposed to allow 2 healthy heterosexual adults who love each other, the chance to propagate, and gives them legal protections to start a family, i.e. tax breaks, ect.
You don't need marriage for propagation of species. Marriage is just a common cultural setting for that to take place. Propagation is entirely irrelevent. Legal protection isn't necessary to start a family; marriage just makes it more convenient in some respects (e.g., health insurance options). But this convenience is independent of marriage itself; some states, for example, take "Common Law" definitions into consideration for legal matters.
Choices not to have children and matters of biology that are beyond the control of the individuals do not invalidate a marriage.
Homosexuality is a matter of biology and is beyond the control of individuals. Therefore, by your own attempts at reasoning, homosexual marriage is not invalidated.

Homosexuality is a choice.

I've spoken to many gay people over the years, and have always heard that they made a choice to be homosexual.
Whether they were "giving in to their true feelings" or "found members of the same sex more attractive" they made a choice.

If homosexuality were a biological function, why can lesbians procreate, when ensemenated? How can a gay man's sperm, impregnate a woman's egg? If it were a function of sheer biology, wouldn't these scenarios be impossible?

Homosexuality has a biological factor, to be true. But there is a choice in the matter.
Whether to make a choice to "be true to one's feelings" or not, should not change the concept of marriage.
Why is it an issue to call a process that allows the same protections or health insurance options by a different name?

Homosexuality is a choice.

I've spoken to many gay people over the years, and have always heard that they made a choice to be homosexual.
Whether they were "giving in to their true feelings" or "found members of the same sex more attractive" they made a choice.

If homosexuality were a biological function, why can lesbians procreate, when ensemenated? How can a gay man's sperm, impregnate a woman's egg? If it were a function of sheer biology, wouldn't these scenarios be impossible?

Homosexuality has a biological factor, to be true. But there is a choice in the matter.
Whether to make a choice to "be true to one's feelings" or not, should not change the concept of marriage.
Why is it an issue to call a process that allows the same protections or health insurance options by a different name?



:eek: thats my best response...

I've spoken to many gay people over the years, and have always heard that they made a choice to be homosexual.
I find this highly unlikely unless you're equivocating. I've never met a homosexual or read the writings of one who stated that they chose their method of attraction. Invariably, they have known from ~puberty that they are sexually attracted to members of like gender. You have a choice whether to have sex with men or women or strippers, but you don't decide where your attractions lie.
If homosexuality were a biological function, why can lesbians procreate, when ensemenated? How can a gay man's sperm, impregnate a woman's egg? If it were a function of sheer biology, wouldn't these scenarios be impossible?
And here I thought that "Marriage for homosexuals is an impossibility, based on biology" would be the stupidest thing I'd read all day. Never count Sixee out!

Gender preference is obviously divorced from anatomical capability. May as well ask why a color-blind person can still pee yellow.

I give you credit for your reply Thormir...I was left mentally drained from reading the posts of Sixee and could not piece together anything of meaning.

Gender preference is obviously divorced from anatomical capability.

Preference = Choice....
Nuff Said...

That insipid semantic sidestep of all reasoning has to qualify for some award, though I suspect the prize would involve blunt trauma.

Is there a homosexual gene? I'm unconvinced...

Homosexuality is a choice. But I seriously doubt Mark Foley chose to have a priest sexually molest him... and I do think nurture, environment, and experiences greatly (if not entirely) make you who you are.

Careful AK, that insipid semantic sidestep of all reasoning might earn you a tongue-lashing.....
Not that I think you swing that way or anything.....

I think its a food.
But I'm not too sure....

There ya go...perhaps an experienced answer.

Is there a homosexual gene? I'm unconvinced...
As Nydia has pointed out before, genetics is one of several possible options. There are several developmental possibilities to consider.

Nydia has a 101' fever, has not measurably slept in three days, and has grades due in six hours :/. However, to address Sixee's unsupported contention, there is a fairly hefty body of evidence suggesting that genetics (especially X-linked genes passed from mother to son), hormone perturbations particularly around the 12th-13th week of pregnancy, and even birth order (the percent chance of a male offspring being homosexual increases for each older brother he has, and maternal antibodies look to be involved - the placenta becomes better vascularized and 'leaky' with each pregnancy despite it being a transient structure) all play very direct roles in affecting sexual orientation, and these differences can be measured via a variety of empirical measurements. I've linked numerous original research papers in the past and will so again if you're really interested.

While there's no single smoking gun for homosexual orientation (to give you an idea how complicated some basic hormone cascades are, there are at least 12 identified points in the testosterone synthesis, distribution, and receptor/cascade system that can become perturbed or express uncommon genetic variants, producing a wide variety of phenotypes including total androgen insensitivity syndrome, where the person grows up phenotypically female despite having ye olde XY), it's clear that most of the determination of a person's sexual orientation happens before birth, and involves events that neither the individual or their mother has any control over.

Admittedly, sexual trauma early in childhood can also play a role in adult sexual orientation - one of the things that one sees particularly in women-seeking-women personal ads is a recognition that most of us are 'born gay', but that some of us, sadly, are in the community primarily due to the fact that childhood sexual abuse (almost always by men) has closed the other path. Part of the 'daddy' phenomenon in gay male culture acknowledges this reality also.

However to illustrate a bit more concretely to Sixee, and others, why homosexuality is not a 'choice', perhaps the following, less 'hot-button' analogy will be useful:

Approximately 8 - 10% of human beings are left-handed (about the same proportion that are homosexual), and have motor cortexes that favor development of fine skills on that side, as opposed to the right hand. As late as sixty years ago, when my mother was in elementary school, children who were left-handed were forced to write with their right hands, use right handed tools and desks, etc. They could be *forced*, or trained, to practice using their right hand and most would eventually develop a reasonable level of proficiency doing so, but it most certainly was not 'natural' for them. Now, of course, we recognize that this is a normal biological variant of neurological etiology, and provide left-handed scissors, desks, etc.

Based on the available biological evidence, it's pretty obvious that most homosexuality in humans (and lots of other animals btw :) ) is *also* a normal biological variant of neurological etiology (translation: it's 'hard-wired'), and while we can 'force' individuals not to 'be gay' (deprogramming camps, punitive laws, etc), we can no more make gay individuals truly straight than we can make lefties truly right-handed. So why bother trying? Why not just make left-handed scissors, as it were, or stop trying to force them to write with the wrong hand?

By the way, there's also some evidence (that I've linked before) correlating female fecundity with an increased prevalence of homosexuality in the male offspring, suggesting that the genes may be linked and thus there is a selective advantage to maintaining these genes in the population; there may be other selective advantages (such as having additional nonchildbearing adults contributing to the welfare of their siblings' offspring) to maintaining this variant as well.

As I've disclosed numerous times on this board, I happen to be, to use the above analogy, ambidextrous. Actually, a more accurate statement would be that gender simply doesn't rank very high on the nebulous list of what sets my lovemap off. I've fallen for men, women, and to be honest, I've given a few trannies second looks :). To me, monosexuality, that is to say excluding someone as a love interest based on their external plumbing, seems odd and almost pathological; it simply seems 'unnatural' to me. For people who are at the ends of the scale, whether homo or hetero, the prospect of involvement with the 'wrong' gender seems just as unnatural - these are very basic, impulses, and I think that this is where a lot of the gut-level reaction to homosexuality comes from in the context of our still fairly homophobic society. And it's interesting to note that the most violent homophobes are usually repressed homosexuals themselves, projecting their internalized shame and oppression. In societies where homosexuality had an accepted, often ritualized place, you see much less of this anxiety about it - it was more a case of 'pass the left-handed scissors'.

In any case, this has gone on far longer as I intended (as usual), and my delirium is clearly showing. My point is, since the medical, psychological, and scientific communities all recognize that a significant minority of the population is 'naturally' either homosexual or bisexual, shouldn't we, as a society, promote policies that support them forming healthy families, too? Forcing people to hide their orientation out of fear of retribution, engage in sham marriages, and engage in other counterproductive activity because of shame over a basic biological reality just raises the incidence of depression, alcoholism, suicide, and other decidedly negative things. And what is the cost to 'straight' society? Nothing, save the loss of a few delusions about how things never were.

Homosexual marriage does not threaten straight marriage; indeed, it can certainly be said in this case that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. All gay and lesbian couples want is the same security for their loved ones that straight couples are acceeded in this country. It'd be damned nice if this country could pull its head out of its fundamentalist ass long enough to recognize that people forming loving, lifelong partnerships, regardless of gender, benefits society, and if we're going to 'hand out scissors' (in the form of protections and inheritance) to the straight kids for their productive use, because we've decided scissors are a 'good thing', that it's beneficial, and only fair, to hand them out to the gay kids as well.

Regards,
Nydia

And btw, mauve is a dusky light purplish color; chartreuse is an olivey yellowish green ;). It also now happens to be (mauve, that is) the name of a popular genetic analysis program (for performing sequence alignments) :)...

And btw, mauve is a dusky light purplish color; chartreuse is an olivey yellowish green ;). It also now happens to be (mauve, that is) the name of a popular genetic analysis program (for performing sequence alignments) :)...


;) there ya go!

You have a choice whether to have sex with men or women or strippers,

You mean i have to choose between women and strippers?, Damn you Thormir!!

Is there a homosexual gene? I'm unconvinced...


As well you should be, because human mating behavior is far too complex of an emergent property of our genes to be linked to any single gene, particularly when anyone who knows anything about behavioral science OR genetics will readily tell you that everything from in utero hormonal exposure to diet to climate have a huge effect on genetic expression; the more we learn about it, the more complicated it gets.

In twisted Sixee land, I presume that bisexuals are merely indecisive and heterosexuals also need their daily affirmations in the morning mirror that they are good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it play for the home team.

Sixee land?
I have a land named after me?
Woo Hoo!!!
And thanks for your reasoned response Nydia. Indeed, you have answered in a fashion I expected. Biology makes the the case for the predisposition.
The decision to follow the urges, however, is a choice, nonetheless.
Why, is it a problem, however, if homosexual marriage is called a Civil Union?
What is the push to call it a marriage?

Dear Sixee:

As long as a civil union *is* legally identical to 'marriage' with regard to what rights the couple has, it's not a problem. Indeed, I think the term 'marriage' should be abolished altogether to describe such *legal* arrangements; marriage is a religious/cultural institution. Also, as long as we have separate designations for the 'marriages' same sex vs opposite sex partners have, there's that whole 'separate but equal question' - will some entities recognize one but not the other?

Hence the reason I started the thread in the first place, because that is exactly what is happening in this case - our Federal government is invalidating the rights that this couple are legally acceeded in Mass due to their being legally married, due to this Act defining marriage as 'between a man and a woman'.

Personally, I can't wait until the first case involving a transgender partner ends up tangling with the DOMA, myself ;). Does one's marriage suddenly become null and void if one person undergoes sexual reassignment surgery? A significant number of those happen 20 or more years into a marriage, when the gender dysphoric person finally has the courage to come out to the spouse and make the change. Often, they have a lot holding them together at that point and don't desire a divorce - a marriage is, after all (one hopes) a lot more than what is happening with the penis-vagina equation.

It strikes me, frankly, as peculiar that some of the most passionate 'defenders of marriage' have such a narrow, reductionist view of it.

Regards,
Nydia

Check out Article VI of your Constitution sometime. That will clear up your federal law vs. Mass. law confusion.

The limitations with respect to denying Congressional pension rights is actually quite broad. Non-spouses are simply not entitled to pensions. Studds did not have a spouse under federal law. Think Monica Lewinsky is pulling in any of Clinton's pension? No because she wasn't his spouse under federal law either.

As for your final question -- "Does one's marriage suddenly become null and void if one person undergoes sexual reassignment surgery?", that would depend on the state. For the most part, I expect the answer would be yes, the marriage does become null and void. Same thing happens if a spouse dies (with respect to the status of the marriage). In most states (haven't checked Mass. lately) you cannot be legally married to a dead person.

You can always count on arguments on gay marriage to bring out the stupid.

Dear Furtivus:

Thanks, Captain Obvious, but I 'get' how that whole State vs Federal thing with regards to law works (hard to believe, but I passed 8th grade Government ;) ); that's why the thread is entitled "Will this give Congress *pause* about the DOMA?". Prior to its passage, you may recall, we did *not* have anything in Federal Law defining whom marriage could be between (genderwise that is), and so Rep. Studds' Massachussets marriage would have been legal in the eyes of the Federal government.

My question, and the purpose of the thread, was to discuss whether the DOMA is a 'good' or even 'reasonable' law in the context of this event and considering how few restrictions are placed on who can receive a Federal pension other than same sex spouses, and whether Congress might view it in a different light now that a 'real world' case involving one of their own has come up.

Expect this to become more of a sticky wicket soon; New Jersey's Supreme Court today upheld that if the state is going to grant marriage rights to opposite sex couples, that they are legally bound to provide them to same-sex couples as well (they are leaving open how the State wishes to address issue as to whether they want to designate a 'separate but equal' Civil Union status for same sex couples, or to simply open up marriage to homosexual couples).

Decision here: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf

It is my hope that the DOMA will, in the not too distant future, be viewed as one of the 'Jim Crow' laws of its era; a shameful, anachronistic, discriminatory piece of legislation that will be put to rest with great fanfare and no small amount of embarassment.

Regards,
Nydia

If you in fact, "got it", then why state, "[t]his sets up an interesting legal situation, obviously: in this case, a Federal law is negating rights granted to this couple by a state law."? There is nothing legally interesting about a federal law superseding a state law. It's a completely normal occurrence. The counter might be legally interesting (e.g. some state attempts to legalize drugs or ban abortion in contravention to federal law), but not what has happended here.

If homosexuality were a biological function, why can lesbians procreate, when ensemenated?

If herterosexuality is so great, how do you explain parthenogenesis. Accordingly, if you're a dogmatic Christian, the most celebrated birth ever wasn't a heterosexual union, was it? :p

You know of an instance where a human female has spontaneously given birth to a child, with no male contributor?
Incidentally, I'm not a dogmatic Christian. Mary got over on Joseph. It was the most famous case of, "Now who can I blame for getting me pregnant, while keeping my husband from leaving me?" there ever has been.
What was Joseph gonna do? Go beat up God?

;)

The counter might be legally interesting (e.g. some state attempts to legalize drugs or ban abortion in contravention to federal law), but not what has happended here.

You don't at least see the *potential* for such an occurrence here, especially given what happened in New Jersey yesterday? I think that we can expect most of the east and west coast states to follow suit within the next few years. What happens when 15-20 states all legally recognize either gay marriage or civil unions? What happens to the legally recognized (at least at the state level) spouses of Federal employees living in those states when those employees start retiring/pushing up the daisies? Sooner or later this is going to end up going to the courts...

The next few years promise to be very interesting ones indeed for DOMA.

Regards,
Nydia

What happens when 15-20 states all legally recognize either gay marriage or civil unions? What happens to the legally recognized (at least at the state level) spouses of Federal employees living in those states when those employees start retiring/pushing up the daisies? Sooner or later this is going to end up going to the courts...



Keep in mind that the Civil Rights act signed by President Johnson was basically saying "Here is all that stuff you were supposed to get from President Lincoln, when you were freed and proclaimed equal, but didn't get".

Someday, this will all surely be decided in the courts and there will be Presidential proclamations. I just have no illusions that it is going to be too fast in happening, as the acceptance factor is just as much a problem for too many in having a gay couple next door as having a mixed race couple.

I still can't understand why people care so much about this issue other than the homosexual couples wanting to be treated equally.

Those gay couples exist regardless of their legal status.

You know of an instance where a human female has spontaneously given birth to a child, with no male contributor?

Not yet, but with the advances to cloning, I'm sure it isn't that far off. I was just poking the anthill to see what came out, anyway.

What was Joseph gonna do? Go beat up God?
No, that was the Roman's job, and they kicked his ass.
Of course, that popped into my head right after I hit submit on the last post.

Well, there are those that believe they kicked his ass, because he allowed them to.
Regardless, even with the advances in cloning, you really think people will deal well with the standard processes of creating a child being circumvented?
Not to mention the cost. I mean if a lesbian wanted to create a clone of herself, it would probably cost substantially more than going to a sperm bank and making a withdrawl.
Or even getting some guy friend if her's liquored up, and ravaging him in the sack.
I guess in that case, there's a lot to be said for heterosexuality, albiet only temporary. ;)

No, that was the Roman's job, and they kicked his ass.

Jesus was a prophet, AKA The Son of God. He isn't the God. Creationists don't claim that the world was made by Jesus, since Jesus was born on Earth. That would make a rather interesting paradox, eh?

As long as we are playing the religion card, most narrowminded idiots (AKA most modern political figures of which the Republicans claim majority rule) in decision making positions value the "One Nation Under God Approuch" as a framework for lawmaking just as much as one might look at the Constitution. Not because these individuals might actually be that religious but because it plays right into the conservative doctrine that will get them votes and allow them to stay in power and continue to fuck things up royally while bilking the masses out of countless fortunes. Anyway, I digress. Homosexuality violates God's law, which falls under the One Nation Under God bit. God's Law transcends Humanity's Law and God's Law has already covered such items as murder and treason, thus, perhaps homosexuality ranks up there with those two as well. God's Law has never specified much about corruption or bribery or anything else politicians do so well. So, it must be OK.

Don't take that post too seriously btw. Its just one cynics view. I don't care who is fucking who in the ass, just as long as its not me being fucked. The End.

He isn't the God.

Depends which version of Christianity you follow. To a Catholic, he IS God and the earthly manifestation of God

Jesus was a prophet, AKA The Son of God. He isn't the God. Creationists don't claim that the world was made by Jesus, since Jesus was born on Earth. That would make a rather interesting paradox, eh?No paradox. Jesus is, in standard theology, one with the Son of God aspect of the Trinity. Jesus is, per the Gospel of John, the Logos, the Word that breathed existence into the universe. Jesus the man was equally 100% human and 100% divine (don't try to make sense of the Incarnation, it's a Mystery as much as the Trinity), so the two are equal.

The rest is a mixed bag. Yes, the Repubs use religious extremism to attract votes. By and large, most Repub congressmen aren't gay-haters, nor is Bush, but they'll talk the talk on that and related matters to get elected.

God's Law has never specified much about corruption or bribery or anything else politicians do so well. So, it must be OK.

Just an idea, but I think you could apply "Thou shall not bear false witness" and "Thou shall not covet" and "Thou shall not steal" in pressing most corruption charges, or any other misbehaving by a politician.

I don't care who is fucking who in the ass, just as long as its not me being fucked. The End.

Some people would take offense to that statement. Because it indicates you have latent homophoibia.

See how an innocent statement can be used to beat you over the head and shoulders?

Some people would take offense to that statement. Because it indicates you have latent homophoibia.

See how an innocent statement can be used to beat you over the head and shoulders?

LOl...are you serious? That is the ultimate spin. I will go out on a limb and say that he has no desire to get banged in the ass by another guy...this would show that he is not gay and has no tendency to be gay...not being gay and not desiring gay sex is not homophobia.

LOl...are you serious? That is the ultimate spin. I will go out on a limb and say that he has no desire to get banged in the ass by another guy...this would show that he is not gay and has no tendency to be gay...not being gay and not desiring gay sex is not homophobia.

Wow.....
Just......
Wow.....
:D

Wow.....
Just......
Wow.....
:D

Actually Sixee, I thought the same thing as Rover. I just sort of /boggled at your response because it is just so

Wow. . .
Just. . .
Wow. . .

It's just amazing to me that there was even a response....
If you can't figure out the humor in that 1st statement, maybe you should turn off your computer, and go outside for a bit.
There's this place called the Real World. I think you'd find it enjoyable....

It's just amazing to me that there was even a response....
If you can't figure out the humor in that 1st statement, maybe you should turn off your computer, and go outside for a bit.
There's this place called the Real World. I think you'd find it enjoyable....

Once again another act of almost brilliance from sixee...did you ever think you just are not funny and thats why no one can see the humor?

If you can't figure out the humor in that 1st statement, maybe you should turn off your computer, and go outside for a bit.
There's this place called the Real World. I think you'd find it enjoyable....
You could cut the irony with a knife.

Once again another act of almost brilliance from sixee...did you ever think you just are not funny and thats why no one can see the humor?

Oh, yeah, that must be it.


You could cut the irony with a knife.

Must be a sharp knife.
:rolleyes:

Seriously.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227159,00.html

you cant make this stuff up. Wow.. Its raining conservative hypocrites.

As far as importance, this guy is a step below Dobson in the god squad rankings.


Haggard is a firm supporter of President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), and is often credited with rallying evangelicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism) behind Bush during the 2004 election.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard#_note-3) Jeff Sharlet reports that Haggard "talks to… Bush or his advisers every Monday" and opines that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism…"[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard#_note-4)

According to a Wall Street Journal Article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006847):

Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy.

I guess we can add something else to that list now.

[QUOTE=Lleauric]Its raining conservative hypocrites[QUOTE]

hasn't it always?

A bit more (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5112770,00.html) on the story, including:
Some community leaders in the Colorado Springs had scheduled a rally this afternoon in support of Haggard but canceled the gathering at the request of the church.

It's worth mentioning that Haggard was one of the few evangelicals with strong ties to BushCo that spoke against torture and called for action on global warming.

jeeze, if he was only more tolerant of gay people, I would believe he was a decent guy.

jeeze, if he was only more tolerant of gay people, I would believe he was a decent guy.

Well, since he isn't, you have to demonize him.

And there are those that seem to think he was extremely tolerant of gays. I mean you'd have to be to pay 1 to have sex with you, wouldn't you?
:eek:

How did I demonize him? If anything he has tried to saint himself and I'm merely pointing out his humanity.

Haggard is one of the stars of the movie "Jesus Camp", give that film a look to see how someone demonizes another person or group of people.

Maybe I shoulda put "demonize" in quotes....

Why should you think he isn't a decent guy, just because he's hypocrtitical about his stance on homosexuals?

I love it when Sixee answers his own questions.

LOL, what I love is when someone doesn't pass the PC litmus test, he is ostracized, even if he agrees with 75% of what you do....

hahaha..

God I love the Free Republic.. it is the greatest source of non intended humor I have ever seen.

This is a non-story. There is an election in four days, and HAGGARD IS NOT ONE OF THE CANDIDATES! The real shame of this, is that the liberal media is using this as an excuse to stop talking about John Kerry and his contempt for the troops!

22 posted on 11/03/2006 6:32:46 AM PST by Justice4Reds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

lol.. too funny