Same Church Lady, Different Religion
by Doug TenNapelIf you thought Dana Carvey’s Church Lady died with the 90s she’s back – complete with a shrill intolerance past the point of being funny. Sean Penn contorts his muzzle to the side of his face and asks, “What made you support the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman? Was it…mmm, HATRED?!”
Great, now the blue-haired old lady has been replaced by a finger-wagging liberal industry star using the spotlight to shove religion down the next generation’s throat. There’s no self reflection, only the kind of self-righteous condemnation that comes from a rock solid adherence to a dogma.
It’s the same secular humanist dogma the Church Lady swallowed in her youth. She even remembers the sacred text from her book of John Dewey 22:6: “Train up a lefty in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
Keep looking down your nose at my pro-life stand, hold your crazy “End Is Near” picket signs warning of apocalyptic environmental disaster, and always-always-always read my mind and know my motives boil down to hateful, bigoted, superstitious, incurious, uncreative, unenlightened or any other bigoted stereotype you shove down my throat from your Sunday School throne.
Same Church Lady, different religion. Only this time I don’t believe in your hell, your Jesus or your doomsday scenarios designed to manipulate a fuller offering plate from your sucker congregation.
Please reserve the schtick for the choir because all you’re getting from me is laughter.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
208 Comments
BAM! as Emeril would say.
Perhaps we can give Penn Celebutard of the Year or something.
Penn isn't actually interested in changing people's minds about Gay Marriage. He's probably convinced himself that he is, but in reality it's all about strutting in front of his peers and getting praised because he said the right thing. It's about a step above a dog show.
Finger wagging means so much coming from one that dines with totalitarian dictators that jail, torture and kill people for expressing a different opinion.
What a clown!
I'm just thankful Mr. Penn addressed 'The Academy' as "you commie, homo-loving sons of guns." That finally explains Al Gore's award a couple years back. . . .
In addition, chiding protestors for their "hatred" means so much more when the majority of (violent and disruptive) protesting has been carried out by those who lost a democratic vote over Prop. 8.
Whould someone please tell Mr. Penn that we do not appreciate being preached to by a Celebutard whose IQ is smaller that his shoe size. Every time he opens his mouth he shows his desire to be something that he will never be…important!
No fair! You're using common sense and logic. How's that fair in a fight with a liberal?
Since most people aren't spending their time and money on his movies, Sean Penn has no choice but to behave like his obnoxious, self-righteous self. If he's the left's best mouthpiece on these issues, I'm hardly worried.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
So according to Penn, gay rights advocates naturally gravitate to communism advocates… What?
To the left, every viewpoint on every subject revolves around hatred. They spend so much time hating anyone who doesn’t think the exact same way as the left wing that hatred is now their favorite emotion.
They are exactly what they profess to hate: bigoted, small minded, and intolerant, thriving on a culture of fear and intimidation.
I think Sean Penn damaged his brain during the filming of fast-times at Ridgemont High. He has never been the same since…Yahhh dude.
One of my favorite Penn-Idiot moments was when he had his Glock stolen out of his favorite Buick Grand-National, (One of the all time greatest Mega-Carbon-Footprint-mobiles).
He has long championed gun control and taking away firearms from the huddled masses which makes sense when one looks at who he calls friends; Hugo Chavez Raul & Fidel Castro…
I can hardly wait for his next single-word great film project that nobody will watch: “Burr – The story of America’s greatest mis-understood hero.”
I am pretty sure People magazine and the New York Times would run their review along the lines of: “Hollywood powerhouse Sean Penn stars in an epic saga about the life and untimely death of Aaron Burr, America’s greatest revolutionary war hero!
A man who paid the ultimate price trying to prevent the horrific bloodbath caused by that baby-killing warhawk, George Washington and his unruly band of white euro-centric thugs”.
Harvey Milk was a great American and patriot, and Penn's performance was spot on.
Ed McMahon: It's time for a visit with the great Carnac the magnificent
Johnny Carson: Thank you Ed, now lets get on with the answer.
The answer is……….. Sean Penn's A**.
Ed: and what's the question Johnny?
Johnny: Well Ed the question is………"What Sean Penn's head needs to come out of?"
"Above?"
I'm not sure whether I care whether you hate someone when you vote to have the state deny equal legal rights to a group of people. It's still wrong and offensive. Hate is a convenient shorthand, I suppose.
Personally, I would like to resolve the whole mess by separating marriage and state. Civil unions for all! Let churches define marriage as they like.
"Finger wagging means so much coming from one that dines with totalitarian dictators that jail, torture and kill people for expressing a different opinion."
Expressing a different opinion, being a homosexual, whatever floats Chavez's boat.
Oh no, Sean Penn promoting tolerance and acceptance of others! He was right, though. Our grandchildren will view our mistreatment of homosexuals the way I look at my grandparents's generation's mistreatment of African Americans. I cannot imagine how people could sit aside and allow segregation to occur, and my children and grandchildren will wonder why homosexuals were not granted equal rights. It's all about equality, people. Oh, and none of this "protect marriage" bull. If protecting marriage is that important, why is divorce legal? Divorce goes directly against the sacred institute of marriage and breaks apart the traditional family. But it's alright if we deny a minority's right to marriage, but we certainly can't deny the majority's right to divorce. Hyprocracy, much?
Oh, and Penn gave the best performance of the year.
This is a stretch – even for you.
Who is Sean Penn?
Not as big of a stretch as comparing the treatment of blacks with the treatment of gays. Millions of blacks were kidnapped from Africa and enslaved in the U.S. and in other countries. How many gay people have ever been enslaved in the U.S.?
And we care about what this left-wing nut thinks because….????????
Hey Sean,
When Galveston went under water we waited for you to come down for a photo op. But we then realized that you wouldn't come down to help people in Bush's home state. You're nothing but a Commie loving Quisling!
Would anyone in Hollywood do a good deed and help the Shriners Burn hospital in Galveston. This facility is in danger of closing because of hurricane IKE, how about a little charity for these fine people.
Fictitious, tedious moral scold resembles tedious scold with fictitious morals. I like it.
Hey that's a grave insult. How could you ever compare nuts to Sean Penn. Nuts are very tasty and are a great source of nutrition. What have they ever done to you.
(I better stop. The sarcasm is getting way too thick here.)
BEST. BLOG. EVER.
Let the church say…"Amen".
Sean Penn doesn't add up in my head. I think he's talented, but he's also like the class bully ne'er-do-well who got a whole lotta lucky breaks and is still trying to prove his legitamacy. A real restless soul.
You're right…upon further reflection it is a step below
What was it about Harvey Milk's life that made him a Patriot, other than being gay and a politician?
You're absolutey right! How can we deny a minority's right to marriage?! Those of us who want two, three… ten wives? Those of us who want to marry 10-year-old boys? Those of us who want to marry our chimpanzees? How dare they deprive us this right!
I think a better question to ask of future generations is how we ever allowed women the convenience of slaughtering viable third trimester babies in the womb by sucking their brains out, crushing their skulls, pulling them out and tossing them in the trash.
Hey, Cheese –
Sean Penn may be "tasty and a great source of nutrition" as well. Protein, anyway. I guess we could ask the members of the Academy…
Cheesy Potatoes….point well taken! My apologies to all the nuts out there!
I'm not compairing the plight of African Americans to homosexuals. Obviously African Americans have suffered far greater. My point is that future generations will view us as intolerant because of our mistreatment of gay rights the way my generation looks to my grandparents' mistreatments of African Americans with issues like segregation. There is no justification for it, and history will frown upon it like it does with segregation. But they're two very different examples that I just believe history will treat the same.
I understand what you're saying about honoring the people's voice with Prop 8, and can't help but agree. But that doesn't mean that people can't speak out against it. It's still a violation of human rights, and let's not forget that just 50 years ago, a huge majority opposed recognizing interracial marriage. Eventually gay marriage will be legalized
Yeah, it's not polite to fight someone who's unarmed.
Hear Hear!
I think the main issue here is semantics. Call it "domestic partnership", and open it to all people who live together (i.e, roommates who've shared an apartment for the last 10 years, your spinster aunts who live together, etc) and I think it would pass. People object to calling it "marriage", as marriage is a union created by God.
"In the Declaration of Independence it is written: ‘All men are created equal and they are endowed with certain inalienable rights.’
“For…all the bigots out there: That’s what America is. No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase those words from the Declaration of Independence.
“That’s what America is. Love it or leave it.”
Harvey Milk
If you can't see the patriotism in those words, then you're not bright enough to be a member of a liberal democracy.
That's actually an interesting idea. The government tends to dilute anything it gets involved in, the idea of marriage appears to have suffered the same fate in the hands of government. Giving it back to churches might be good for marriage. I wonder if anyone (other country) has tried this or studied this?
Anybody is welcome to "speak out" against Prop. 8…that's what you're doing now, in essence. But the protests in California have crossed a line. As I see it, all you're arguing for here is societal evolution. I agree with you that will happen. Where we disagree, I think, is regarding the desirability of it. As to the comparison between racial equality and preferential treatment based upon sexual orientation, here's the difference:
Homosexuals have equal rights now. A homosexual man can marry any woman he wants, as long as she'll have him. They regard that as a trivial argument, but that's exactly the same civil right that I have. What they want is something different. They want to force their own sexuality down my throat, in a manner of speaking (sorry for the unappealingly graphic word play, but it emphasizes the point), and make me accept moral equivalency where I don't believe it exists.
It's amazing how far some people will go to reinvent virtually anything to be accepted by those unlike themselves. I pride myself on being me and not forcing others to accept me or include me in their world.
Calling it a violation of human rights assumes that it's a right. That's just one opinion and not everyone accepts it. In fact, judging on the voters reaction, most people disagree.
Also, keep in mind, that equating it with interracial marriage is merely the analogy preferred by one side. The other side rejects that analogy and argues that the logic of that analogy is flawed.
This is too good to be true. According to Variety, Penn is in talks to star in the Valerie Plame movie, and quite possibly will play Joseph Wilson.
Please let this be true. If only to watch the heads explode in here.
Also, I know intellectual consistency isn't your forte, but can you both deride Penn's 'looking down his nose' at your political opinions while looking down your own nose at his? Or is it bold and principled when you do it, and comical and vain when he does?
YES!! What does marriage have to do with the State anyways!
The problem is that most places would be all right recognizing civil unions for gays. I certainly don't have a problem with it, but I do have a problem with it when someone tells me that's a marriage. The government does not a marriage make. Marriages are sacred and viewed as such by the world's religions, and when government redefines marriage arbitrarily it makes a law that interferes with freedom of religion for lots of folks.
Let gays have civil unions as contracted by the government and the other legal rights the government gives to married couples, but if gays wish to be married, let them find a religion that will carry out that sacrament as it pertains to that faith. That is the best compromise I can come up with.
But if gays are seekng acceptance of their behavior through this then they need to understand that tolerance != acceptance.
I'll produce it, if anyone here is willing to direct.
And a good thing you did, too. One of my mom's Lhasa Apso's won best in breed at Westminster this month, and that little dust mop of a dog is WAY cooler than Penn.
It's comical when we both do it. But nobody is laughing when he does it.
Thank you for resorting to personal degredation over a basic question.
I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack, but as I have chosen not to pay money to view the film, not because of the subject matter but because of Mr. Penn, I was interested enough to ask why you considered Mr. Milk a patriot. BTW It does take more than one statement to make a patriot. I would think that his activism for Human Rights, would have been a better choice as an answer.
So, if I am not bright enough to be a member of a liberal democracy because I ask why, so be it.
Good post.
The intolerance of the Left for any other point of view really is beginning to become apparent.
Liberal Democracy??? Gee, all this time I thought we were a Constitutional REPUBLIC–you know rule of law and all of that. Those inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (If I remember correctly. ) It doesn't necessarily mean the redefinition of marriage. Leave marriage alone. Just change the tax codes. There are thousands of pages in the tax codes. It's got to be in there somewhere. And since we're down to loving it and/or leaving America, my ancestors were here FIRST! Take your liberal democracy fascism garbage and go elsewhere. I understand Sweden is nice this time of year. What about France?
Bryan,
Let's be real: you are trying to push the "civil rights = gay rights" myth.
That's ironic since 70 percent of Black voters voted FOR Prop. 8. Clearly, the argument isn't flying among my community. Columnist Tara Wall explains:
"Black civil and religious leaders – rightfully – have expressed outrage at the gay community's co-opting "civil rights" to include gay sex. Blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged for their constitutional right to "sit at the table." Whites – gay or not – already had a seat at that table. There is no comparison. Activists argue that, like skin color, gays don't choose their lifestyle. Even if, for the sake of argument, that were so, homosexuals are still "choosing" to get married. To compare voters denying what is not a right to blacks dying for what is – is beyond the pale."
Read the rest of the Wall's column here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a...
Bottom line, widespread Black support of gay marriage is the stuff of fantasy not reality.
Old Tom,
You've touched on another reason why gay marriage is unpopular among Black voters. To get their way, gay marriage activists try to use the courts to steal the voting rights of their opponents, including Black people.
Is it me or are the gay activists' tactics similar to the KKK's during the Jim Crow days?
Go to the Gay Pride parades in San Francisco. You will definitely see alot of whips and chains. Perhaps that what has confused them into thinking they are the same as slaves?
There are even gay celebrities like Elton John who don't think "gay marriage" is a worthy goal:
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said [Elton] John. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/elton-john...
Are you serious? Ya, can't understand why gay people don't just marry someone of the opposite sex. Maybe marriage to you is all about tax breaks or benefits, but I view marriage as an official representation of the bond of love between two people. Call me crazy.
I don't know your situation, but if you're a white/heterosexual/male (or any combination) you haven't suffered much because of "who you are." So it's pretty easy for you to not care if you're accepted. For other people it's a big deal.
But like I said, I don't know who you are, so I could be wrong. I don't know you, and I don't pretend to.
I already said that nothing that homosexuals have suffered can compare to the plight of African Americans. My point is that I look back at my grandparents generation and wonder how they could allow segregation and blatant racism to occur. My children and grandchildren will look back and wonder why homosexuals were denied certain rights. It's not "the" civil rights movement, but it's "a" civil rights movement. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (Martin Luther King, fyi).
Ewww. A nice, mature response, Drie. If you don't think marriage is part of the "pursuit of happiness," I feel sorry for your spouse.
It's just you, Fred.
Yes, I'm serious. They have the same civil right that you and I have. What they are demanding is something else. Looked at from the flip side, you can't legally marry a man and neither can I. Therefore, we have equal rights under the law. It only becomes unequal when I'm allowed to do something that you are not permitted to do. Your preference for doing it is irrelevant as a point of law. Why can't you understand that as a simple legal argument?
You and I have the right to marry someone we love. They don't. Seems pretty simple to me. And it would still be equal law. We could both suddenly marry individuals of the same gender.
It just seems to me what's the big deal. Marry who you want, let homosexuals marry who they want. What's so bad about that. It's about love and acceptance of all lifestyles, as long as they don't negatively affect others.
Wow indeed. Comparing civil rights activism to a terrorist group just crosses the line of human decency.
How many people have been lynched for their opposition of gay marriage? None.
How many anti-gay cults have been firebombed? None.
How many anti-gay activists have been murdered like those three men in Mississippi in 1964? None.
My pure bred Chinese Crested could beat up Sean Penn. And Chinese Cresteds are the sissies of the dog world.
I love church ladies. They are some of the best people around and they get so crapped on in our culture. Calling Sean Penn a church lady is an insult to church ladies. (but I get your point and it's a good one)
Yeah, and mentioning that this is the third time that the citizens of california voted to keep marriage between men and women should be mentioned either. Or that the only reason that prop 8 happened was because the unelected courts tried overturn the will of the people
So which of King Solomon's nearly 700 wives was the most "sacred"?
I'm actually not opposed to gay marriage per se, I'm just opposed to the specious legal argument surrounding it. They need to overturn Proposition 8 by changing public opinion about it, not by arrogantly demanding a "right" to which they are not currently entitled by law.
During the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, the "will of the people" was to keep blacks and whites separate. That didn't stop Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and other heroic figures from standing up to injustice when it was the unpopular thing to do. On an incredibly smaller scale, that's what is occuring now. The courts must recognize Prop 8, but that shouldn't stop people from speaking out against the inequality because, as MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." It's just a step towards acceptance and a celebration of diversity.
I can't just marry who I want! I can't marry someone while I'm married already. I can't marry my children, my cousin or any other close relative. I can't marry someone under the age of consent. Would you do away with those restrictions as well?
I notice Mr. Milk couldn't be bother to quote the document without editing it. Mayhaps Mr Milk should have read it as it was written.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
It seems to me like Mr Milk tried to erase some of those words, mainly "BY THEIR CREATOR" from the Declaration of Independence. Seems to me like he was projecting.
okay, this made me lol.
Sean was doing fine until he used the platfform at the Oscars to spew his rhetoric. He should have just thanked "The Academy" and shut the eff up and got out of there. I am decidedly no fan of Sean Penn. I have always thought Jeff Spicoli had more sense than he does.
Well let's say I'm one of two things:
1. A white heterosexual male who is tired of everyone bitching
or
2. A 4'2" blonde haired, black Philappino, Leprechaun with one brown eye and one blue eye – with a learning disability and one leg shorter than the other.
It shouldn't matter except to people who try to make excuses for their own shortcomings.
I mean my god – maybe people have issues with equality because people resist opening themselves up to someone who MORE THAN LIKELY will come up with some reason to claim they were harrassed or not appreciated enough (due to their hardships) by a "white/heterosexual/male (or any combination)"
It's getting tiring folks – seriously.
I'm not opposed to anything other than consent, simply because minors aren't mature enough to make decisions like that for themselves (mentally speaking, with brain development). But I honestly have never seen anything wrong with polygamy.
They are similar Fred2, but if you mention that then they'll call you a homophobe and talk about how you're evil, hateful, bigotted or some such.
**I'll concede one point to you, Bryan. It is hard to defend the "sanctity of marriage" as the divorce rate soars above 50%. **
Really? Does that mean that the "sanctity of life" comes into question if the murder rate rises above X percentage? Do our lives have a lesser value because some choose to abuse lives–their own or others–or is the value of our lives the same regardless of those who abuse it?
Even if "the sanctity of marriage" has been damaged by those who abuse it, why then should we allow further damage be done to it? Saying that we should allow gay marriage because we allow divorce is the equivalent to saying, "Well, Jimmy broke all the windows, so we might as well let Billy burn the house down." Using that logic, we **all** end up homeless.
My point is it's easy to criticize people for whining about inequality if you personally haven't suffered from it. I'm not trying to say you're an oppressor of rights, but just try to understand what other people have to go through.
Love isn't the issue. The law is. The law allows anyone to marry anyone of the opposite sex. the law makes no mention of love. The law has no care for love.
Under your argument, then if a man loves a sheep then he is being discriminated against because he can't marry that sheep. Or if a pedophile loves a child he should be able to marry that child. If it should be about love, then why not let them marry? Because marriage isn't about love. The institution of Marriage is a religious institution that binds together a man and woman. The modern Idea of marriage for love is just that, modern. Throughout history marriages were made for political or economic reasons, not for love. I'm not saying love isn't important, but I am saying that Love is not a prerequisite for marriage. In fact, arranged marriages, which aren't based on love, have a much lower divorce rate.
Ok I'm tired of posting the same thing to multiple people, so I'm just going to sum it all up:
Gay marriage doesn't negative affect heterosexual marriage, so I don't see the problem in just letting them marry. I mean, who cares? Let them marry and be happy. I don't know why we are denying their recognition of love. You can get married, they can get married, everyone is happy. Proposition 8 should be recognized. But that does't mean that people still shouldn't speak out against it. It's injustice. We will have a difficult time explaining to our grandchildren why this was such a big deal. There's really no justification for oppressing rights when they don't impede on anyone else's rights. Again I pose the question: for all those against gay marriage, will you be in favor of banning divorce? It goes against the sancitity of marriage and destroyes the traditional family. Why should divorce be legal and gay marriage not, if they both supposedly have the same negative consequences?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Sheep can't sign marriage licenses. Young boys don't have the legal authority to enter into marriage until they're 18. That's consistent with legal rights across the board (the whole you have to be 18 to independently make government-related decisions thing). And who cares what marriage was about in the past. For some it's arranged, and I have no problem with arranged marriages. But many people marry for love, so why should only heterosexual couples be afforded this right?
Your first thought is exactly the problem – A White Heterosexual Male could not POSSIBLY understand inequality or oppression. And if your point is to be considered then no one in this country should complain about a thing considering what's going on aorund the world. Right now people are the victims of genocide – and we need to be concerned about P Diddy and the scars of slavery he lives with? Or Ellen Degeneres not being able to "Officially Marry" Portia?
And yet based on my sexual orientation and skin pigment – my thoughts are disregarded as unknowing…..sad man. Sad. It's just simply gotten out of hand – ALL AROUND.
The thought processes are backwards.
This is known as "Jamming", one of the three main tactics of Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen's "After the Ball- How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s." – Penguin Books, 1989. The idea is to make an emotional equivalence in one's mind between racism and opposition to homosexuality, and in so doing, generating a negative reaction to the opposition to homosexuality similar to that which we associate with racism.
You can read about "Desensitization", "Jamming", and "Conversion" here:
http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after...
Don't even start the abortion debate. That's for another time. And what's wrong with polygamy, I'm all for its legalization. You need to be 18 to independently sign off on any governmental paper that's across the board, not just marriage (voting, military, etc). And chimps can't sign legal contracts. I have no problem with non-sexual relationships with animals (they can't consent to sex, hence why I believe the relationships should be non-sexual). Hey, it's not for me, but the only people I'm not accepting of are those who aren't accepting of others.
Ok I'm tired of posting the same thing to multiple people, so I'm just going to sum it all up:
It's all about acceptance and recognizing love. Gay marriage doesn't negative affect heterosexual marriage, so I don't see the problem in just letting them marry. I mean, who cares? Let them marry and be happy. I don't know why we are denying their recognition of love. You can get married, they can get married, everyone is happy. Proposition 8 should be recognized. But that does't mean that people still shouldn't speak out against it. It's injustice. We will have a difficult time explaining to our grandchildren why this was such a big deal. There's really no justification for oppressing rights when they don't impede on anyone else's rights. Again I pose the question: for all those against gay marriage, will you be in favor of banning divorce? It goes against the sancitity of marriage and destroyes the traditional family. Why should divorce be legal and gay marriage not, if they both supposedly have the same negative consequences?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King Jr.
The fact that you have to go back 2,500 years to try to make your non sequitur shows just how weak your argument is.
Regardless of whether or not **any** of King Solomon's wives were sacred doesn't change the fact that homosexuality never will be sacred.
Another issue regarding Love is that of Love itself. How many marriages fail because people think they 'love' some one but in reality its just lust? How many gay relationships are like that?
I think the Bible best describes love.
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Are those who violently fought Prop 8 have shown neither Patience no kindness. I see nothing but pride in the preaching of Senn Penn or Tom Hanks. The movement is nothing but self-seeking, and the protests show that they are all to easily angered. As for keeping a record of wrongs, thats a big part of the movement. I do not see much of love in the movement, but see much more of those who wish to force us to accept their lifestyle.
The abortion debate is for another topic. I see nothing wrong with polygamy, and would have no objections to its legalization. You need to be 18 to sign any government-related paper independently (voting, military draft, etc). That rule is consistent across the board. Chimps can't sign legal contracts, and there's no way to determine if it's consentual.
Aww Doug — don't hold back, tell us how you REALLY feel!!
ha hah…damn, guy, I thought i was 'incendiary'. ha! but i'm with ya, brother. It's only Prop 8 that keeps me from marrying my HD Big Screen.
More "jamming".
And last but not least. Sexual preference is not the same as skin color. One cannot choose the color of their skin, but they can chose how to live their life. They decide what urges to act upon. Just like the man who is attracted to sheep, the man that is attracted to another man must decide if they are going to act upon that urge. Thus it is a choice.
More "jamming", and more "you let Billy do **X**, so you have to let me do **Y**" argumentation.
Once you see the tactics for what they are, they're pretty easy to diffuse. All you have to remember is this: I am under no obligation to let someone else dictate how I feel about anything. I decide for myself.
I cannot argue with that.
That's funny. My mother actually lived through segregation and doesn't feel any kinship to gay activists at all.
After observing "No to 8" protesters, My mother wondered why gay activists waste so much money promoting their deviant lifestyle. She thought the activists would be better off using those funds to feed starving African children.
That's another thing that annoys many Black people about White gay activists. These activists have an arrogant, even racist belief that they know more about being Black than actual Black people. So, the activists are shocked when the average Black person doesn't buy their "civil rights = gay rights" myths.
I want to marry my dog. That's my pursuit of happiness.
Martin Luther King also declared that the breakdown of the traditional family would be as great a threat to Black people as segregation. Read more in King's sermon "Some Things We Must Do":
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/p...
King was proven correct as liberal concepts like "free love," welfare, and unchecked abortion have wreaked havoc on the Black family.
So, King would view legalizing gay marriage as a foolish, even dangerous idea that would add to Black America's woes. This would be especially tragic since efforts by Black people to rebuild the family are beginning to pay off:
http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/ar...
Isn't that legal in Vermont?
I love my horse.
i am confused. isn't hollywood full of homosexuals that should have, could have played the milk role???
by casting penn, isn't hollywood being GAYCIST ??
just wondering…
Gay activists definitely sound like Klansmen, who yelled "We're the victims" as they terrorized and lynched Black people during the Jim Crow days.
You must be logged in to post a comment.