I really, really hate it when people get these mixed up. The first amendment promises the government won’t censor anybody. It never says in the constituion “Hey! Your ISP has to let you spam people with hate speech!”

The one upside on this article, though: I no longer think AOL is so bad. Didn’t think I’d see that happening any time soon.

Plus, it wouldn’t be very hard for him to get ANOTHER FUCKING E-MAIL ACCOUNT. I can’t wait to see what his letters to Congress look like.

I’m sure he’ll be appearing on O’Reilly within a few weeks…

As righties always like to point out, the First Amendment applies to the government, not businesses. If the government starts blocking his e-mail I’ll write letters until my arm arm literally* falls off. As long as it’s just AOL blocking him for spamming, I’ll just recognize him as the luser he is. I mean seriously, AOL?

* Letters? Literally? It’s a joke, son. A joke, that is.

Ack! Late, and where did that extra arm come from? Well, at least I have one to spare now.

If he only knew how fucking outrageously stupid he sounded.

Normally I don’t traffic in the “homophobes are just repressed homosexuals” theory. But that mustache and the knowing half-smile give me pause.

It is well known that AOL/Time Warner actively and openly endorses the homosexual lifestyle, and they reportedly contribute large amounts of money to gay and lesbian groups and causes. In fact, many activists insist that AOL is openly hostile to traditional American values, yet they call themselves “America” Online. Not any more.

what does that last sentence even mean?

I’m surprised he didn’t come out and mention that we’re all going to “AOHell”.

Holy crap, did you see the P.S. on his post? He’s bitching about Durbin claiming there’s a Constitutional right to privacy as an addendum to a post in which he moans about AOL reading his e-mail? WTF?

Admiral Santa beat me to it.

I’ll send you an invite to Gmail if you really want me to.

I’d like to see the sponsored ads he’d get.

I don’t think he’s saying that he’s using AOL for his personal email, just that when he sends out his spam AOL is blocking it from reaching their members

God I just love people who have absolutely no common sense whatsoever, especially when it comes to technology. “They know what was in my e-mail? They must either be psychic or intruding on my free speech! There is no other explanation.” Then he calls for getting legislators involved. Why do conservatives not realize how stupid they sound calling for Congressional involvement in business while simultaneously arguing that the government should have no power of regulation over business?!?!? I guess I haven’t had my class in Orwellian doublethink yet.

He signs up to a spam mail list and wonders how AOL managed to get a hold of his e-mails.

And free speech took another vital blow when a private business refused to spend money supporting the propagation of the loony ravings of a single individual.

-Schmitt.

I scrolled (quickly) to the bottom of the column and he does provide his aol address to contact him (GRA4255@aol.com).

I also appreciate that he is a freelance law enforcement officer.

I’d like to hear AOL’s interpretation of events. This may very well represent discrimination against him for his conservative point of view. However, he should present his viewpoint via a hypothesis as it is humanly impossible to know what the motives of a person, a group, or an organization are, unless such a hypothesis has been proven tests or thorough and objective analysis, or that person, group or organization openly acknowledges such motives. Without his hypothesis being put to the test, he cannot know that AOL’s motives were political any more than we can know that his motives for adopting a conservative point of view on homosexuality and gay marraige are based upon homophobia.

This one’s dedicated to all the oppressed wingnuts out there…..we love you.

I saw the best minds of my generation
Destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical
I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think

I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If by random whim, one occurs to me
If necessary, leave paper stains on the grey utility pole

I saw the worst bands of my generation
Applied by magic marker to dry wall
I should be allowed to shoot my mouth off
I should have a call-in show

I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If by random whim, one occurs to me
If necessary, leave paper stains on the grey utility pole

I am not allowed
To ever come up with a single original thought
I am not allowed
To meet the criminal government agent who oppresses me

I was the worst hope of my generation
Destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical
I should be allowed to share my feelings
I should be allowed to feel

I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If by random whim one occurs to me
But sadly, this can never be

I am not allowed to think
I am not allowed to think

Is there ever an occasion not covered by a random selection of TMBG lyrics?

I also appreciate that he is a freelance law enforcement officer.

Okay, WTF does that even mean??? Does he run around making citizen’s arrests when people spit on the sidwalk or something?

The only problem I see with his presentation is that he presents his “working hypothesis” as truth, when it is, in fact, simply a “working hypothesis.” It is likely that AOL is engaged in some sort of discrimination against him, but since they have not made such an admission, and since his hypothesis has not been subjected to rigorous tests or thorough objective analysis, he cannot claim that his analysis is the gospel truth.

He cannot possibly know the motives of AOL any more than we can know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that his beliefs concerning gay marraige and homosexuality are motivated by “homophobia.”

Love it, Jillian.

I also appreciate that he is a freelance law enforcement officer.

Yeah, what the hell? Does he file 1099 for that or what?

Herr Doktor, I understand you were a psychologist.

So tell me, is a moustache sometimes just a moustache?

“he is a freelance law enforcement officer”

Minuteman?

Hey, that might be it. Where does he live? I’m afraid to look.

Oh, please. This guy should know that Bill O’Reilly claims that he’s an independent, not a conservative. 😉

Freelance law enforcement officer: he wears jackboots and a uniform on special occasions, and will administer a beat-down on anyone he thinks is gay.

He spams others, using AOL (a joke in itself- he no doubt uses their p-o-s browser also), and AOL is the problem? Isn’t this one of those “laissez-faire, business rights” items I always hear his ilk vomiting? Usually when a business really is violating someone’s rights? Sounds like the culture of personal responsibility doesn’t include Guy.

D’you think he sez his name “Ghee” like my French neighbor Guy?

What a maroon.

See, it doesn’t matter what side of the spectrum he comes down on- O’Reilly’s just done. Even when he rails against the oil companies, he comes up with a “plan” that is totally and completely ineffective at lowering gas prices. Hell, even Kaye Grogan understood why such an action would be pointless.

Should be “dumb” not “done.”

Isn’t the purpose of the white list to allow you to send bulk mail to folks who’ve subscribed to your mailing list? If he got complaints then he was, in fact, spamming. He should perhaps ask himself how people got on his mailing list who didn’t want to be there, but I guess it’s more fun to feel persecuted.

So he writes all that, but you just know that on the inside he’s screaming “FFFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGSSSSSSSSS!!!!!” the whole time.

Holy crap, did you see the P.S. on his post? He’s bitching about Durbin claiming there’s a Constitutional right to privacy as an addendum to a post in which he moans about AOL reading his e-mail? WTF?

Which part of this don’t you understand? The Constitution protects us from having our rights infringed by privately owned ISPs, not the government. Duh!

Dr. PB&J sez:
he cannot know that AOL’s motives were political any more than we can know that his motives for adopting a conservative point of view on homosexuality and gay marraige are based upon homophobia.

I know that technically “phobia” means “fear of”, but in common parlance “homophobia” means “doesn’t like homosexuals/homosexuality.” Saying that his “conservative point of view on homosexuality” may not be based on homophobia is every bit as stupid as saying that a 60s-era segregationist’s “conservative view” on integration is not based on racism.

I’m not saying that the combination of segregationist + non-racist is impossible; I’m just saying that if you claim it’s a realistic possibility then you’re being stupid.

“I’ve never watched Q Television, but I’m pretty sure that it’s not primarily a porn network. Believe it or not, gay people are interested in other things besides having sex.”

[mock outrage]
That, sir, is slander!

“The squeaky wheel always gets the grease.”

But…
The quacking duck ususally gets shot first.

The Constitution protects us from having our rights infringed by privately owned ISPs, not the government. Duh!

Yes, and at the same time, it’s un-American to be against big business!

*head explodes*

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he looks exactly like the survivalist gun nut in Tremors.

When did Stacy Keach start writing for Renew America?

Which part of this don’t you understand?

When deconstructing the rhetoric of Libertarioids, it’s looking more and more like my answer would have to be “all of it.”

That, sir, is slander!

I believe you’ll actually find it was libel. Not that I’m one to quibble, oh heavens no.

Here’s a link to a pic of said survivalist nutter. We report, you decide: http://www.survivalarts.com/images/burtgummer.jpg

I love you guys, really, but you need to learn how to close your friggin’ italics tags.

Thank you. Oh, and Guy Adams sucks doggie dick.

This is one of the funniest posts of the last two weeks.

Karl, phobia not only refers to “fear of,” but it refers to a certain hysterical, irrational fear that makes it impossible for a person to function. The term “homophobic” has been applied in such sloppy ways that it no longer a meaningful term. I believe the term has been overly relied upon and abused by those on the left who wish to marginalize and pathologize anyone who happens to disagree with their position on homosexuality and gay marraige. There are plenty of folks who hold to a traditional idea of marraige that harbor no hatred for gays and have absolutely no fear of gays, or even any dislike for them. Those folks are carelessly cast as homophobics and haters. If you can produce statements indicating a hysterical or irrational fear in Guy Adams as it concerns gays, or a deep-seated hatred towards them based upon such a fear, I will be more inclined to accept the homophobic characterization. All I know at this point is that he doesn’t believe the same things about homosexuality that liberals believe.

As for your question, lanuna Ditis, yes, there are times when a moustache is just a moustache, but when sometimes when somebody threatened to cut off the moustache of the moustache-sporting party, such a threat can produce a strong reaction akin to castration anxiety 🙂

PS: The last sentence should not read “when sometimes when somebody threatened,” but rather, “sometimes when somebody threatens…” Even though I cut my moustache off myself when moustaches and mullocks went out of style in the late 80s, I think just the thought of somebody’s moustache being removed involuntarity may have produced some castration anxiety in me, causing me to lose my ability to carefully construct that last sentence. Don’t worry, I won’t blame it on the man formally known as the “grammar/spelling/typo nazi.”

Dr. BLT —

“The term “homophobic” has been applied in such sloppy ways that it no longer a meaningful term.”

See, I anticipated that you’d make that argument, indicating that I’m getting to know you, which is kind of scary. 🙂

The meanings of words (and in this case, suffixes) changes. That’s life. Deal with it. “Homophobic” means bigoted against gays, period. Fussing that that’s a misuse of the suffix “phobic” is just an attempt to distract with pedantry.

“There are plenty of folks who hold to a traditional idea of marraige that harbor no hatred for gays and have absolutely no fear of gays, or even any dislike for them.”

And there were plenty of southerners who would have sworn up and down, some of them with genuine sincerity, that they didn’t hate or even dislike black people, they just didn’t want to have to eat in the same restaurant as one, or drink out of the same water fountain, etc. It really doesn’t matter how sincere they were, or how they managed to say such a thing with sincerity. Those people were/are racists.

There are plenty of folks who hold to a traditional idea of marriage that harbor no hatred for gays and have absolutely no fear of gays

Good for them. They are perfectly free to continue happily with their traditional marriages, and to refrain from sticking their noses into that which is none of their business, such as whether other people’s non-traditional relationships receive legal recognition. The reasons why they happen to dislike these non-traditional relationships is ultimately beside the point. Simple, really.

The term “homophobic” has been applied in such sloppy ways that it no longer a meaningful term.

Here’s a term for you to look up and learn, you undereducated,overpontificating, ignorant poltroon: “institutional homophobia”. I’m not going to give you the defintion, because I’m quite sure the other S,N! readers are intelligent enough to realize all on their own why someone opposed to gay marriage is by definition a homophobe, and I don’t like you.

But yes, for the record, if a person opposes SSM, they are endorsing institutionalized homophobia. While it is entirely possible that they loooooooooove gay people all up to death, it’s also totally beside the point. Nobody cares.

The head of my university’s German department in 1935 was a Nazi. He fired another instructor because of his (putative) Semitic origin. I’ve got a copy of the newspaper article discussing the incident where the department head insists that just because he’s a Nazi, he’s got nothing against Jews, because he frequents Jewish merchants and “hired a Jewess to tutor his son in math”.

Interestingly enough, after America got called into the war, the department head left America and joined the Reich.

Does it bother you that your position so closely resembles a Nazi rationalization? Because it should.

Isn’t Mary Cheney working for AOL? They can’t be too against conservatives if they hired her. Oh wait, she’s gay. Silly me.

People who are against gay marriage are welcome to not get one. I’m a huge supporter of traditional marriage, in that as a heterosexual woman, I’d love to find a nice heterosexual man to settle down, but that doesn’t mean I have to go opposing my best friend’s right to do the same with his boyfriend. The only reason, the only reason to think that marriage is ducky for straight people and not for gays is an irrational fear and/or hatred of homosexuals. You can call that homophobia or homo-reluctance or Gettin’ the Gay Willies or whatever you want, but the effect is the same.

Dammit! Now I gotta grab my coffee and a dictionary before I sit down to enjoy S,N!

Now, I think I’ll grab a coke and some popcorn, sit back and watch.

{ding, ding, ding} ROUND 2!

Go, Jillian….Go, Jillian!

…and I quote as best as I can remember…

WTF? Then wouldn’t he be paraphrasing or summarizing? Just askin’.

Yeah, I noticed that too, FTLOG. It’s just another piece in the puzzle he has intricately put together in his head. “I think an AOL rep said something like this, so the entire company must be Eeeeeeeeeevil!”

And damn you, Guy, for beating me to the Stacy Keach question. I was very confused when I saw the pic.

Finally, Doc Sammich. I think your professional background has you insisting on a narrow, clinical definition of “homophobia” that is just different from the colloquial meaning. If we were trying to diagnose Guy Adams’s mental problems, then you are correct: without more to go on, we could not make a Dx of an actual phobia (though there are signs — e.g., his harping on AOL’s gay-friendly policies, which has nothing to do with his “censorship” problem).

But we’re not trying to diagnose him. We’re just pointing out what a maroon he is, and how his fear/hatred/bigotry/whatever about homosexuality is part of his maroonism.

“freelance law enforcement” = “rent-a-cop”

Well,m if AOL did remove him because of just one complaint, then i think they were over-reacting. But I’d like to hear AOL’s takefirst before judging.

I never did get the tie to Homosexuality though. He sent out a mass email on boycotting gas stations and it got banned because AOL was pro-gay??? WTF? Were they gay-owned gas stations or something???

“The People’s Republic of East Homostan Online”

I believe the correct geographical area is “Homorabia” per D. Cross/Mr. Show.

Also, what ACG said.

So now you’re saying that given enough time and circumstance that the meaning of a word will evolve with a new and totally different meaning.
Typical liberal spew.
You guys are so predictable.
You’d better get some new material if you plan on surviving.

This should frighten all of you who use AOL.
Take notice Marie Jon!
It should cause all of you who use the Internet to take notice ? you could be next. This is not a drill.
No, but much like a drill, it is painful.
yet they call themselves “America” Online. Not any more.
This is awesome, he’s almost a parody of himself. He’s like John Walsh on acid, but without the whole catching criminals thing to keep him busy.
They did not even attempt to hide their contempt for Bill O’Reilly and our conservative viewpoints.
Funny how reg’lar folks do that all the time.
Here’s what’s really frightening: why is AOL reading my emails? Do they have a right to? … how did I jeopardize the security of any AOL subscribers? It’s Liberal gibberish. It’s evil.
Ok so first he assumes that someone at AOL just opens up his account daily and reads up on the latest crackpot bullshit, instead of assuming, as anyone familiar with the internets would, that whoever was tired of his stupid spam just forwarded it to their abuse department. Also, “liberal gibberish”, just try to say that 3 times fast.
I also enjoy how he writes about O’reilly “Bill n’ me” like they meet for lunch every tuesday and he’s not just some deluded asshole riding on O’rielly’s coattails.

First, I want to remind all of you that I have never personally disrespected any of you in my comments. I expect the same respect in return, and many of you have become more respectful towards me. Some of you have never disrespected me even though you may passionately disagree with my views. I greatly appreciate that.

In terms of this discussion, I hold to my original argument that when words become so rapidly deluded and so disparate in comparison to their original meaning, communication problems are lurking right around the corner. People are free to disagree about whether or not gay marraige should be formallly recognized or instituted, but polls show that the majority of Americans don’t support instituting gay marraige. Many are democrats.

Moreover, though there are certainly those who harbor hatred towards gays, just like those who harbor hatred towards African Americans, there are fundamental differences between race and sexual orientation. Yet most of you treat them as if they were the same. Some folks, who believe we are all sinners, who do not see themselves as morally superior to gays, and who believe we should love all people, also believe that homosexuality is not part of God’s plan. These folks do not believe that people are born gay, and there really is no research that proves definitively proves them wrong. A person may be genetically predisposed in some way, and in some cases, sexually abused in a way that accentuates this initial genetic predisposition, but that does not necessarily mean that choice plays absolutely no role, (as difficult as that choice may be). Cultural relativism, or secular humanism if you will, shares the same structural features as a religion, so when others are forced to recognize the new definition of marraige (whose supporters belong to that “religion,)” the beliefs of a minority of U.S. citizens are basically being shoved down the throats of the majority. Is that democracy?

Oh and BLT, if you say you can’t see why denying the same rights that heterosexual couples get to gay couples is discriminatory then you’re either lying or stupid.

Oh and BLT, if you say you can’t see why denying the same rights that heterosexual couples get to gay couples is discriminatory then you’re either lying or stupid.

Gah! There you go posting as i’m replying.
Well BLT, I happen to be of the opinion that it’s not part of god’s plan for little trolls to lurk around and make up convoluted defenses for what is obviously thinly veneered hatred for a certain group of people.That is not to say I believe I am morally superior to you, for instance, you may have been abused in such a way, or are genetically predisposed to take the side of crackpots. But this does not mean choice plays no role BLT, You can choose to turn away from the immoral insanity known as modern conservatism, you weren’t born that way.

Cultural relativism, or secular humanism if you will, shares the same structural features as a religion

What “structural features” do they share? I can tell you one structural feature they absolutely do not share: belief in supernatural beings as explanations for the world around us. The Constitution prohibits the state from mandating a belief in an invisible magic man in the sky, which has nothing to do with secular humanism.

By the way “cultural relativism” is not the same as “secular humanism.”

What Dan Someone said.

I hate to pull out this old saw, but Dr. BLT, your cultural relativist/secular humanist/religious whateverist argument against gay marriage is exactly the same argument that was once made for anti-miscegenation laws up through the 1960s. Just because some people think something is icky or sinful doesn’t make it law.

BLT —

What argument do you think people who favored segregation and yet denied that they were racists used? Think hard. I’ll wait.

Yep: “Not a part of God’s plan”! God never intended for blacks and whites to live together (they said). If he had, he wouldn’t have put blacks way off in Africa, or he would have made us all the same color, or something. Q.E.D.

And when the federal government passed laws forcing integration, (or for that matter, abolishing slavery), then, locally at least, the beliefs of a few were being forced down the throats of the many.

(And incidentally, integration and abolition impacted the “many” far more directly than allowing same-sex marriage would impact those who oppose it.)

Were integration and the abolition of slavery undemocratic? In a sense they were. Were they wrong (he asked rhetorically)?

If you’re looking for proof that Guy Adams is a homophobic crackpot, just go the website he alluded to, Q Television Network:
http://qtelevision.com/site/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx
There’s nothing even remotely pornographic about its content. Either Adams knows this, and is misleading his readers to appeal to their bigoted stereotyping, or he’s ignorant of the content but saw “gay’ and assumed it would be porno. Or he looked at the site, and actually thought the tame images he saw WERE pornographic.

These folks do not believe that people are born gay, and there really is no research that proves definitively proves them wrong.

The minute you show the slightest ability to grasp basic molecular biology, I’ll be glad to send a few PubMed citations along your way to show you just how far out of your ass you’re talking right now.

Mind if I just point at you and laugh until then?

Jillian, in a previous comments thread, I explained, as clearly as I could, that I didn’t choose to be gay. I won’t repeat the entire thing, but I will point out that BLT just dismissed it as irrelevent. It’s pretty easy to convince yourself that you’re right about something if you just ignore anything that conflicts with it. I’d like to see him come up with an argument against same-sex marriage that DOESN’T denigrate, villify, trivialize or otherwise insult homosexuals-he’d be the first person to actually do so. Letting gay couples marry won’t inhibit heterosexuals from getting married, or nullify existing hetero marriages, so really the only reason to object to them is out of spite.

Thanks to those of you who have presented points worth considering, instead of simply trying to discredit me or insult me. I don’t have much time right now, but I’ll try to address some of your comments. I’m not going to spend much time engaged in Jillian’s adolescent academic peeing contest, but I will say this:
Ignorance is bliss & arrogance is this:
Just plain repulsive.

The argument that others may have used the same argument I’m using to justify racial discrimination is really not an argument at all. One argument may be applicable in certain situation, but not in another. As far as the commonality between religion and secular humanism/cultural relativism (true, not exactly the same, but certainly strongly related), consider Edgar S. Brightman’s definition of religion: “Religion is concerned about experiences which are regarded as of supreme value; devotion towards a power or powers believed to originate, increase, and conserve these values; and some suitable expression of this concern and devotion, whether through symbolic rites or through other individual and social conduct.” Of course this is only one man’s definition, but it seems to apply to both religion and secular humanism. I would challenge any of you to note one aspect of this definition that does not apply to both religion and secular humanism.

Bill, as far as you’re concerned, I’m afraid that any argument I present to you will be taken as a personal condemnation of you, and I don’t see you as any more worthy of condemnation as any of the rest of us.

Gee, I think I’ve even linked you to the relevent PubMed searches before, Bruce. I can always do it again, if you like.

I know it’s painful to try to rationalize when the facts aren’t on your side. The easiest way to deal with this is to stop making incorrect claims, of course. Why, if you did that, we could even be best friends forever!

As I’ve already mentioned following a previous thread, if you really believe I’m the idiot you claim I am, then merely sending me a link will be insufficient. You’ll need to break things down in ways even an idiot can understand.

BLT – when wrong, become disingenuous.

Timmah420, it sounds like you’re speaking from personal experience.

So you’re smart/educated enough to triumph in an academic pissing contest — or at least to have a chance in the competition — but not smart enough to follow a link and read what’s at the other end?

Hey, Doc, did you choose to become heterosexual? Did you wake up one day and say, “Hmm… where would I like to put my penis? In a girl or a boy? I choose… GIRLS!”

OK, that’s a bit crude. Did you wake up one day and say “Hmm… who do I want to fall in love with? A girl or a boy? I choose… GIRLS!”

I bet not. I bet over the course of time, you just found that you felt a certain way about girls that you didn’t feel about boys. No decision-making, nobody pushing you, coercing you, convincing you, or even just influencing you to stand up and say “I am a heterosexual!”

So why is it so hard for you to accept that for some people, the same realization happens the same way, but the outcome is the opposite of yours?

Were they gay-owned gas stations or something???

Mmmm–gay gas stations! Full service! Y’know, judging by gay porn, it’s simply amazing how often a standard car repair leads to hot sex! Somebody’s got to tell me where these gay service stations are!

I also enjoy how he writes about O’reilly “Bill n’ me” like they meet for lunch every tuesday and he’s not just some deluded asshole riding on O’rielly’s coattails.

No, no–they do dine together every Tuesday, only, not in a faggotty queerboy manor! Nope, nothing to see here, purely platonic! Move along, move along….

Letting gay couples marry won’t inhibit heterosexuals from getting married, or nullify existing hetero marriages, so really the only reason to object to them is out of spite.

No, Bill–there is a legitimate reason that the Government can’t allow gays to marry. If gay people could marry, then they’d be eligible for the tax-breaks that hetero married couples get. Frankly, they’d have to think twice about handing the wealthy yet another huge, $70 billion tax-break. And we can’t have that, can we?

Oh, and Christ-on-a-stick, BLT, not that gay=sexually abused thing again. I suppose that it hasn’t occurred to you that a person in therapy might be there for a reason? Let us say, and why not?, sexual abuse. Do you, perhaps, believe that you’re providing services to a significant percentage of the gay population in your area? Unless you’re spending more time hanging out in gay bars and clubs than I am, I doubt you’re interacting with any significant portion of the local gay population–at least, not when they’re in full “gay” mode. It’s not unlikly that you interact with gay people every day and just don’t know it, because they don’t feel it’s your, or anybody else’s business what their orientation is. And who could blame them?
Some of the evangelicals claim that gays make up around 1-2% of the population. It’s sort of a hard thing to quantify or study, because if there’s one thing people will lie about, it’s sex, particularly “taboo” sex. And, obviously, population densities are vary from place to place–there will be a higher percentage of gays in a large, urban area like NYC than there would be in a smaller city, like Fargo, ND. But there are some gay people practically everywhere, even in countries where imprisonment or even execution can result from being “outed.” My own rough estimate is in the mid-teens, percent-wise. It could be up into the 20 percentile range, possibly, if you counted the most tangental bisexuals. So, if 40-60 million Americans are not part of God’s plan, well, gee, He isn’t much of a planner then, is He?

Just to bring back Guy Adams, he actually wrote this at the end of his column:

We’re in it to win ? remember, GOP = God’s Own Party

I’m going to throw up now.

“…I’m afraid that any argument I present to you will be taken as a personal condemnation of you…”
Oh, I see. So in other words, if you’re unable to come up with argument that doesn’t insult my intelligence, it isn’t because of any inherent flaw in the argument itself, it’s just because I’m too darned hypersensitive. Got it.
How very convenient for you.

Y’know, judging by gay porn, it’s simply amazing how often a standard car repair leads to hot sex!

Marq, that is fascinating. In straight porn, it’s more likely to be pizza delivery. Hot tip for young men choosing a career: If you’re gay, study up on car repair; if you’re straight, the food service industry is for you!

(Raises the interesting question of what kind of porn results when the pizza delivery guy’s car breaks down….)

Tow truck lesbians!

Pizza threesome!

“Pizza, Pizza, Pizza!”
(Oh, and the pizza delivery boy did figure in at least one gay porn flick that I know of.)

Marq, Jesus loves people of all races, ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientations. Not every gay person is gay for the same reasons, and I don’t mean to perpetuate such a myth. I never try to push my views or any particular evangelical agenda on gay individuals when they come to me for treatment. I don’t judge them or try to condemn them. I don’t assume that they are seeking treatment to become heterosexuals and I don’t try to force them to adopt my heterosexual orientation. We talk about what they feel is important to talk about, and we address issues they regard as problematic.

I know I’m late to the party, but man.

Hey, Guy. Did you read AOL’s terms of service?
Yes-they-have-a-right-to-read-your-email.
You gave them that right when you signed up for your account.
It’s called a contract. It says right there in the info you clearly didn’t bother to read that they can, and may, do so for any reason. It also says that they will read any email that is forwarded to them as a complaint, regardless of whether it was yours or Al Franken’s.
Okay?

How much bitching do you suppose Guy’d do if he started getting spam urging a protest of some Bush appearance? But, then, that would clearly only be allowed by AOL because they’re, you know, pro-homo. (And if that account was removed from the spam-okay list, it would only be because Real Americans like Guy rose up in righteous outrage and made them ban it. It must be fab when even directly contrary facts all support your argument.)

Hint to Guy: Switch to freaking netzero. Believe me, you’ll be happier there, since you’re not likely to read their terms-of-service, either, where it undoubtedly says the exact same thing.

(Raises the interesting question of what kind of porn results when the pizza delivery guy’s car breaks down….)

Bisexual, of course!! And, seconding Bill, I’ve seen plenty of the pizza delivery guy plot device in a number of gay porno films–there was, I believe, an old William Higgins-directed title, “The Pizza Boy, He Delivers,” completely centered around that scenario.
Oh, and in one of my posts higher up this thread, I used “manor” where I should have used “manner.” D’oh!

Thanks, Marq, I was trying to remember the title.

There are some great points in this thread, especially this gem by Dan Someone:

“Hmm… where would I like to put my penis? In a girl or a boy? I choose… GIRLS!”

Had me laughing for a minute straight.

Cultural relativism, or secular humanism if you will, shares the same structural features as a religion, so when others are forced to recognize the new definition of marraige (whose supporters belong to that “religion,)” the beliefs of a minority of U.S. citizens are basically being shoved down the throats of the majority.

I see.

So when it was said that “blacks have the same right to freedom as whites”, this was shoving a belief down the throats of the majority? When it was said that Jews, pagans and Muslims had the same right to religion as Christians, this was shoving a belief down the throats of the majority?

Gays have the same right to marriage as straights. Civil rights are not up for majority vote. If you don;t like gay marriage, don’t marry a gay. It isn’t “shoving a belief down your throat” to mandate equal rights – it’s preventing you from shoving your belief down people’s throats.

BLT, it’s really easy to dismiss an argument on the basis that “one argument may be applicable in certain situation, but not in another,” but you’ve given no explanation as to why the racism/anti-miscegenation argument doesn’t apply to gay marriage. So to save you the trouble of scrolling all the way back up the thread, I’m going to give it to you again. Your options are to answer it or to give a good, solid reason why you won’t answer it:

Why are current arguments against gay marriage any different/more valid than arguments against interracial marriage forty years ago?

ACG: I appreciate your diligence in making your point. It is an intelligent question, but the point is moot. We live in an age in which our standards are constantly changing, in the direction of being more liberal. Even conservatives, myself included, accept some things conservatives in the past would never have accepted. Some day our standards will shift as it concerns what sorts of pairs will be allowed to marry, to the point in which even you would say, “Wait a minute, I’m not willing to go that far!” Will you consider the argument valid then? Some people use an argument when it is applicable, and some use the same argument when it is not applicable. Also, please keep in mind that when I say that homosexuality is not part of God’s plan, I am not saying that out of a self-righteous attitude. My very nature, as a fallen human being, was never part of God’s plan. The Bible says that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags. I am not a better person simply because I am not gay. I fall under the same category that gays fall under as it concerns God, “Sinner, in need of a Savior.”

“Religion is concerned about experiences which are regarded as of supreme value; devotion towards a power or powers believed to originate, increase, and conserve these values; and some suitable expression of this concern and devotion, whether through symbolic rites or through other individual and social conduct.” Of course this is only one man’s definition, but it seems to apply to both religion and secular humanism. I would challenge any of you to note one aspect of this definition that does not apply to both religion and secular humanism.

Sure.

The definition you quote a priori assumes the existence “power or powers” to which I should proffer “devotion”; as a Secular Humanist ™, I don’t believe in these “powers.” As a Secular Humanist, when I observe something about the world that I don’t understand, I don’t go to the Big Book of Secular Humanist Answers for an explanation; I make up my own explanation, based on all the inputs that are available to me (my past history, education, culture, parenting, and, yes, S,N! archives). Secular Humanism is not organized; we don’t have a 503(c) exemption; we don’t meet on the Sabbath in buildings dedicated to the worship of “powers”; we don’t read common tracts. We may subscribe to common ideals, but this is distinct from explanations. There is no such thing as a Secular Humanist mythology.

(btw, BLT, that’s the source of all this mischief: People of faith forgot that it’s all made up — it’s not The Truth.)

(ps — To loyal Sadly, No! boggers: I apologize that my cherry-poppin’ post is a response to the nicest troll this side of the Pecos. But he’s a nice troll, part of the family… )

Thanks for your kind words and for including me in the family, madjoey, dysfunctional though it may be. Based upon your comments, it doesn’t appear that you’re any more a hard-core humanist than I am a hard-core right-winger. While those of us who believe in God have taken the liberty of distinguishing between “secular” humanism and a type of Christianity that celebrates humanity in terms of our being created in the image of God, hard-core humanists possess, and diligently follow the rules of their manifesto, or, as you have described it, the “Big Book of Secular Humanism,” they are extremely well organized, and they do meet at least as often as those who are hard-core in their devotion to their faith. As far as power, or, what’s referred to in my field as “locus of control,” secular humanists have a power that they trust in, and turn to in order to attempt to solve life’s problems–the power of the human spirit. It’s an internal locus of control as opposed to either an external locus of control, or something I refer to as an “eternal” locus of control.

Though her words are simple and few
Listen, listen, she’s calling to you
“Feed the birds, tuppence a bag
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag”

Everybody just has to put their two cents in.

“Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger said,

November 10, 2005 at 16:11

Everybody just has to put their two cents in.
”

Yes… and yours are obviously counterfeit.