I knew Chuck Norris was enjoying plenty of attention as the star of ChuckNorrisFacts.com (“Fact #1: If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you.”), but what I didn’t know is that he’s also a raging hypocrite.
On conservative blogging site TownHall.com, he recently wrote a column about how the 18,000 gay couples in California who had their marriages dissolved overnight are just being whiny crybabies. The erstwhile Texas Ranger spews:
The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren’t intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.
Of course, you can’t expect Chuck Norris to play by anyone’s rules, including the church’s regarding the sanctity of marriage. As Defamer summed up nicely:
Yes, and Norris respects those boundaries of marriage, which is why he has already been married, divorced, and remarried, and why he has a daughter he didn’t meet until she turned 26 because she was the result of an extramarital affair. Chuck, Chuck, Chuck: gay people want to have that too! How can you be so unfair to deprive two people who love each other the privilege of ruining marriage from the inside?
Related posts:
- Chuck Norris Finally Gets the Joke. Sort Of. Chuck Norris has announced he will be releasing a book...
- Gay Rights Groups Cheer President Obama’s Public Support for Same-Sex Marriage Whoops, did I say President Obama? I meant former Vice...
- Mel Gibson Annuls 29-Year Marriage Through Secret Tribunal I would love to know how Mel Gibson justifies this...
- Forget Those Nudie Photos: Carrie Prejean Has a Sex Tape Former Miss California and “opposite marriage” morality advocate Carrie Prejean...
- Carrie Prejean: WWII Was Fought To Protect My Opinions Grandmaster Trump has decided that Carrie Prejean will keep her...
Defamer thinks gay people can have children with each other?
Of course they can Simon, it is called a Turkey Baster.
Okay, I get why the guy would enjoy the turkey baster, but…
I apologize for being vague: Defamer thinks gay people can conceive children with each other’s genetic material?
Without trying to take a side, let me see if I understand this goofy logic:
I’m married to my wife of 25 years. This is our first and only marriage. I would argue that it is a “sacred union”.
If I were to say what Chuck Norris said, would that make it okay in everyone’s minds?
“The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren’t intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.” There, I said it. Must be true since I belong to a sacred union.
This is just stupid logic. Just because someone sets a poor example, doesn’t mean that he or she might not speak the truth.
Arguing against gay marriage by saying those opposed to it are hypocrites because they cheat, or have cheated in the past, is a poor argument.
This issue was hotly debated in Central Cal. What I would like to know is, who died and made all the proponets of Prop 8 God. Who are we to dictate to others whom to marry? I’m not overly religious, but I do remember that ALL the Good Books teach tolerance and acceptance of others as they are, NOT what the individual thinks of their life choices. Chuck is just another idiot has-been “actor” (see Walker, Texas Ranger) spouting off his personal beliefs and expecting people to say “Yea, he’s right”
I’m with Hurricane. Sorry, Holly, but I don’t see the hypocrisy. The only way Chuck Norris could be a hypocrite regarding gay marriage is if he said, “Hey! No gay marriage!” and then it turned out that he has a boyfriend. And maybe his turning out to be gay wouldn’t really be hypocritical, either, because there are probably/possibly gay people in existence who don’t care if they can get married or not. (I mean, it stands to reason, since there are straight people who don’t care.) I guess what I mean is that his statements about gay marriage would only really be hypocritical if he had proposed to a boyfriend recently.
So the will of the California Supreme Court should supercede the will of the voters.
I agree.
But lets also look at the financial aspect of this as well. Every new “married couple” out there is now eligible for covered medical expenses in a lot of the companies that offer it. Who is going to cover the bills? Not the companies that is for sure, the cost will be passed on to the other employees.
But why is that hypocritical, precisely?
What he said is true. Whether or not he has lived-up to the ideals of marriage is beside the point. Unless, of course, your point is to sharpen a stick and make an ad hom attack on the individual rather than address the content of what he actually said.
I think there are arguments against gay marriage that are not totally full of s**t (I don’t agree with any of them, but I recognize they do exist).
However, the point is if Chuck Norris is going to argue that marriage is a sacred institution whose boundaries must not be violated, how can he not also be against divorce or infidelity? Would he vote yes on a ballot initiative to ban divorce? No, because that would nullify his current marriage. Just like how those 18,000 married gay couples in California had their unions nullified.
So the will of the California Supreme Court should supercede the will of the voters.
——
HAH. You mean the will of a little over half the voters. You can’t amend the US constitution by anything less than a 2/3s vote and the same should be said for California’s Constitution. 52% cannot mandate the will of all. And when you’re taking rights away from an insular minority, I’d say 2/3s isn’t enough. When you’re blatantly taking rights away from a group of people, strict scrutiny NEEDS to apply. Is their a compelling governmental interest? No. We as a nation have always advocated separation of church and state (whether we actually go by that…is another story). So what interest does the government have within the sanctity of a couple’s home and hearts?
I’m with Holly, I do not think that this is a poor argument at all. If upholding the sanctity of marriage is so important, why is our divorce rate so high? Why is infidelity rampant? You want to preserve marriage by NOT honoring your vows? Well gee, that makes sense.
And are you saying that the only purpose of marriage is to produce progeny? Because then we better tell infertile couples they can’t get married. Or the elderly.
Yes, let’s do that.
The same percentage that elected Obama, yes. Oh, and keep in mind that it was Obama voters who pushed it over.
Not the only, no.
But electing Obama didn’t amend the constitution. At most he will be in office for eight years; Prop 8 will be on the books until a referendum is called to say otherwise. I agree with Annie that there should be higher standards than there are for changing the state constitution.
Simon, it shouldn’t, but most likely will. As for the cost aspect Aleric, we already have to pay for the gazillion illegal aliens that are in the state. The company that I work for offers a 20/80 split on health insurance, 20% the employee covers. From what I understand, the monthly cost to the employee is around $240 a month. The total cost of the policy is dictated by the provider and gets reviewed by the company every year which looks for the best value for the money. According to our HR people, the more people enrolled, the more the costs go down. So the arguement about the cost going up, is total BS, at least with my company. “Newly married” couples without health insurance run the same risk as all the others that don’t have insurance. So, who pays? We all do. Whether it’s for a bunch of illegals or a bunch of pole smokers and rug munchers.
I noticed Chuck said 5000 years of human history. Is he a “The world is 6000 years old” guy? I hope not. I’m a big fan. I’d hate to have to make fun of him. Beside the fact that he could squeeze my head like a grapefruit with just two fingers.
On second thought, I could totally take him. And then I’d marry him.
And I love the 52% for Obama is a sweeping mandate, But the same amount for prop 8 is a “just barely”.
My theory is that Chuck thinks that the possibility of gay marriage so diluted the holy binding contract of marriage that it FORCED him to infidelity. Gosh darned gays marrying has weakened the super secret power of matrimony! Better kick them out of the wedding club to protect ourselves!
This is so hypocritical. He’s saying other people can’t get married based on a CHURCH standard (wtf has that to do with government, btw?), a standard he doesn’t meet himself. Well, why can’t gay folks not meet the church standards *just like chuck himself*. He can just complain to his pastor about the sinners or something. Equal opportunity to piss off mother rome, that’s what I say.
By chuck standards he shouldn’t have been allowed to remarry after divorce. But whaddya think the odds are he’d agree with that?
It’s funny Holly that you and Annie want higher standard for a states constitution now but the constitution was fine 2 months ago? And remember gay people do not loose any rights here because of Prop 8 at the state level. California already recognizes their unions.
The rights they really seek is at the federal level.
As to Chuck Norris…well, Chuck Norris eats gays for…..ugh, can’t do it, can’t finish it…maybe Pasta can
52% is 52%.
Swede wrote: “I’m not overly religious, but I do remember that ALL the Good Books teach tolerance and acceptance of others as they are.”
They’re all pretty unanimous about buggery. Strictly off limits. Kinda in the “Thou shalt pelt them with stones in the market square” sort of way.
Girl on girl is iffy… can’t really blame them for that though.
Oh, I’ve had my complaints about the CA constitution, I don’t believe it’s stated anywhere that Holly and I ran around saying “WE LOVE THE CA CONSTITUTION.” I also don’t believe we’ve said anything about Obama. I haven’t mentioned him once. You have no idea whether I supported him or not.
And they DO lose rights.
There IS a difference between a civil union and a marriage. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
As for the: Whether it’s for a bunch of illegals or a bunch of pole smokers and rug munchers.
You’re ignorant.
A person is not illegal, an act is illegal. I hate that people are so utterly void of any kind of intelligence to see that. Besides, EVERYONE’S family at some point was “illegal”, but I won’t get into the bloody history that is America. As for paying for the “gazillion illegal aliens” Actually, your money pays more for people like Joe the Plumber and his welfare checks. And it pays for infrastructure and schools and etc.
The mad rampant hypocrisy and lack of historical background knowledge appalls me.
It makes me feel like we’re going back to pre-1967. For the idiots who don’t get the reference, I’m talking about pre-Loving v. Virginia. Remember? When before this Court ruling, different race marriages were considered immoral and illegal? Yea.
“When you’re blatantly taking rights away from a group of people, strict scrutiny NEEDS to apply. ”
Alright – no emotion, no religion, no B.S., lets just use the Constitution.
Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that same sex couples can marry? Are we going to toss this in under the imaginary heading of ‘privacy rights’? Since our entire legal system operates on Common Law principles of precedent, where exactly is the precedent for state-sponsored gay marriage? In ALL of human history, has any nation ever recognized a marriage between two people of the same sex? I’ve never heard of one.
What guaranteed rights did gays ‘lose’ exactly? No one lost any rights at all. I as a heterosexual can’t marry another man either. They were given a right by a court, a right that doesn’t have any basis in Constitutional law.
It just shows how little people in this country know about how our government is supposed to work that people are bitching about the system working EXACTLY how it should. Annie – since you love the Constitution so much, you do remember the 10th Amendment right? The one that says that any jurisdiction not specifically given to the Federal Government becomes the jurisdiction of the individual States? Does the Constitution specifically mention marriage? Nope. So the Constitution says that California gets to decide what constitutes a legal marriage for themselves. Don’t like it? Take it up with the Founding Fathers – because that’s how they wanted the nation to work.
Besides, when you’re robbing a certain group of people of their rights, yes, I want more stringent standards.
When you are segregating a group of people from you because something they have no choice in.
And yes, they do not have a choice in homosexuality, just like someone doesn’t have a choice in being African, Latino, or Asian etc.
Do you really, I mean REALLY think that logically a person’s going to wake up one day and go “You know, I like harassment, I like having less rights, I like being treated as a subclass citizen, I like being beat up in public and spat on…I think I’ll be homosexual.”
NO. They DO NOT choose this and for the government to go in and mandate that what they’re doing is immoral is just plain wrong and unfair.
If the churches disagree, fine. If you disagree, fine. But the government should not be allowed to intervene.
Annie wrote: “Besides, EVERYONE’S family at some point was “illegal”, but I won’t get into the bloody history that is America.”
That assumes that native americans had some sort of unified system for denying hemispherical entrance to undesireables.
Nice thought, but revisionist history.
Actually the vast majority of our American ancestors waited in line at port authority sites to be checked for communicable diseases or signs of mental impairment. Those that passed the test were granted status, those that didn’t took the slow boat home.
Only a few of us are descendant from the bloody Puritans.
Mad rampant hypocrisy and lack of historical backgroud knowledge appalls me too.
Where in the Constitution does it discuss marriage altogether? Where does it say that?
You do remember that the U.S. Constitution is to serve as a basis of rights that NO state can infringe upon right? I believe several major supreme court cases have said as such. Remember the whole line about “created equal”? You’re purposefully singling out one group of people, how can that not be bigotry? How can that not be discrimination? Take your attempts at belittling me elsewhere.
The arguments everyone’s using now is very sadly reminiscent of the justification used for Anti-miscegenation laws.
And the founding fathers also wanted to set up a system in which people are not persecuted for things beyond their control. The irony here being that they escaped England to have the freedom to practice their Protestant faith without persecution, but they and their descendants, have continually persecuted those who are different from them.
Don’t behave as if you know who I am and what I do and do not understand in regards to the U.S. Constitution and our entire legal system.
Scott F. “It just shows how little people in this country know about how our government is supposed to work”
I guess this applies to everyone else except you, correct? The Bill of Rights does not say anything about straight marriage either. Does that make it completely illegitimate too? To use your exact words: “Does the Constitution specifically mention marriage? Nope. So the Constitution says that California gets to decide what constitutes a legal marriage for themselves. Don’t like it? Take it up with the Founding Fathers – because that’s how they wanted the nation to work.” Well, if the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage or GAY marriage, then THAT’s how they wanted the nation to work, correct? Maybe marriage in general is illegal according to your logic.
Oh, and by the way, maybe you should learn about the legal system. The California Supreme Court’s job is to review & decided if laws are CONSTITUTIONAL or fairly applied. So they are the final say, not the voters. The voters could also say that slavery is now legal, but it is the Supreme Court’s job to decide whether it is a LEGAL law. I suspect Prop. 8 will be overturned in the courts.
And that statement assumes that our notion of a system is more valid than theirs. That essentially, in having bigger guns and a warlike nature somehow places our system above theirs. It’s interesting how you’re essentially okaying the fact that a group of people went in, took over a place and then set up some rules that suited them. However, if a country were to come and invade us right now and take over our form of government and regulate who can and cannot be here, you’d be livid. But it’s okay if America does it right? We’re better than everyone after all.
Also, I am quite aware of that, as well as our quota system, which I also believe to be rather unfair. But that is neither here nor there, the notion of illegality itself is ridiculous. Why is one person more capable than another of judging who is suitable? What gives that person that kind of right? That’s what I’m talking about.
“You do remember that the U.S. Constitution is to serve as a basis of rights that NO state can infringe upon right? I believe several major supreme court cases have said as such.”
So is it the Constitution or the Courts? It’s alright – I understand how easy is is for liberals to get the two confused. Oh, and that ‘We hold these truths to be self evident – all men are created equal’ line is from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. Should I still not behave as if I know you and what you do and don’t understand about the Constitution? You know, since you’re now combining it with other documents?
“You do remember that the U.S. Constitution is to serve as a basis of rights that NO state can infringe upon right?”
You’re right – now show me where in the Constitution the right to marry a person of the same sex exists. It doesn’t. NO mention of marriage does at all. So, under the Constitution, that would mean the States get to decide individually doesn’t it?
Just because you believe the Federal government should have an overreaching authority to dictate it’s will to individual states, does NOT mean that the Founders would have agreed with that. In fact, the ability of the States to decide these things for themselves is a direct check on the power of the Federal government. Read the Federalist Papers for the love of God. Their greatest fear was providing an all-reaching authority to the Federal Government or it’s courts.
I tried D. I got nothing. I was gonna make a crack about that picture but it seems pretty hot around here so I’ll pass.
Pasta, I’m glad someone noticed that totally awesome photo I found from Walker, Texas Ranger.
“the notion of illegality itself is ridiculous. Why is one person more capable than another of judging who is suitable? What gives that person that kind of right? That’s what I’m talking about.”
That folks – is the kind of mentality that scares the living hell out of me. That is textbook moral relativism at it’s worst. The ‘notion of illegality’ is the only thing that is keeping you alive, sheltered, and rape-free right now honey. “Gee – just because I think murder is wrong, who am I to impose my morals on another?”
“That essentially, in having bigger guns and a warlike nature somehow places our system above theirs.”
Yes, that is exactly how the world works. It’s how the world has ALWAYS worked. You act like before we arrived all the Indians were sitting around a campfire singing Koombaiya. White Europeans did not invent war, oppression, ect. Before we got here the rival tribes were conquering and killing each other pretty effectively all by themselves. Before we showed up in Africa, they were already enslaving each other. Europeans didn’t conquer most of the world because we were more war-like than anyone else, we were just lucky enough to be better at it and slightly more immune to diseases that wiped out native communities instead of us.
Besides, taking that kind of stance about morality completely invalidates your argument about gay marriage. Who are YOU to tell people that outlawing it is wrong if that’s what their society dictates? Or a system of organized oppression like they have in Saudi Arabia for that matter? I quote directly from your writing: “And that statement assumes that our notion of a system is more valid than theirs.” So our system isn’t more valid? Good to know, I’ll break out your burqa.
Scott F.-
“the ‘notion of illegality’ is the only thing that is keeping you alive, sheltered, and rape-free right now honey.”
Yes. Because dictating who someone can MARRY is exactly the same as saying you cannot rape and pillage.
That’s why all behavior and rights are subject to legislation and are all infringements are equally punishable by death. Right?
Perfect summary of the anti gay marriage stance: if we let them do THAT, it will be chaos. Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. If gays can marry, then we have to throw out all the laws!
Annie: “You do remember that the U.S. Constitution is to serve as a basis of rights that NO state can infringe upon right?”
Wow. Ever try to shoot a rabbit that won’t stand still? Geesh.
Since I can tell that you’re a constitutional scholar Annie, let me gently remind you about two flaws in this logic.
#1 The 10th Ammendment (you know, the one about delegated power)
#2 The Enumerated Powers clause, Article 1 Section 8
Basically, the jist of both is a constitutional statement that specific (hint: enumerated) powers are reserved for the Federal government. Any right, ability, or function not defined in the constitution or its ammendments is RESERVED FOR STATE JURISDICTION.
So how’s about your right to wear tighty whitey underwear? Nope, not in the constitution, so that’s left up to your state to determine on which days you can wear them.
How about your right to cook meth? Nope, not defined constitutionally, must be state jurisdiction.
Your right to free Old Spice Aftershave? Darn, not in the constitution. Gotta get that one through your state legislator too.
And gay marriage? Shit. It’s not there. Fudgedy fudgie fudgeroos. Foiled again! Guess it’s up to California to define marriage.
WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY’RE TRYING TO DO.
So gay marriage should be legal because some people want it to be. As for the people who don’t want it to be legal, they have no right to follow the rules of their state of residence. See, once you put aside emotion and just look at it rationally, it all makes sense.
Rational is up for debate. I think passing Prop 8 is a tyranny of the majority scenario here.
Annie, good spin on my words to fit your point. I belive that I said illegal aliens which the US government, news media (print and other), bloggers, etc use on a daily basis to describe people that come into the country without proper documentation (entry visa, workers visa, student visa etc).
If you look at the overall history of mankind, it has always been whoever wins the war, writes the history. Man has always fought for his own personal gain. Whether it be for food, shelter, land, riches, mates, etc. This is they way it has been since the first microbe ate the second microbe.
As for the derogitory terms of persons with an alternative lifestyle, I appologize to you because it seems that I struck a nerve. I personally do not have a problem with that lifestyle, it’s just not for me. Good luck with yours though.
Well, it shouldn’t be. Because that’s not fair. Who are we to decide who’s rational and who’s not?
Wow.
I just watched you compare the right to marriage to meth labs and rape. I’m surprised you’re not making the typical argument of “If we allow them to marry, then men can marry dogs” yet.
I just, I can’t even reply to that kind of ridiculousness because overall, it just saddens me.
Hopefully one day, we can exist in a world without bigotry and discrimination.
Since neither one of you seem mature enough to realize that your opinions will get no where, I’ll do it for you.
Clearly we don’t agree. Clearly we each think our side is right, but I’m going to do what you seem unable to, and say that while my position and stance has not changed, I will say that I hope one day, my children and your children do not ever have to face the level of discrimination presented by both of you today that the homosexual community and those of a non-European background have faced for centuries and are still clearly facing.
Phoenix – I didn’t make that comparison, you did. I am not one of those ’slippery slope’ people. That is a simplistic, completely unnecessary argument. I say unnecessary because I believe it is up to each state to decide the issue either way.
All I meant (and I’ve read your posts, so I know you’re savvy enough to get this) was that the ‘rule of law’ is all that keeps society from degrading. When you start getting into the realm of moral relativism, the idea that no moral code is better than another, people seem to forget that the only reason we can’t kill each other at will is in fact a codified moral code.
A moral code that was formed how? By general consensus of the population – JUST LIKE PROP 8.
“I personally do not have a problem with that lifestyle, it’s just not for me. Good luck with yours though.”
Mine?
Oh…….ok, I understand, just because I’m a proponent of equality, I must be on that side of the spectrum correct?
Wrong.
For whatever reason, I am utterly attracted and in love with my boyfriend, despite the fact that we are well aware that our children are going to be extremely clumsy.
That’s my choice though. And I think that everyone should be given the right to live how they please. I would hate if someone came up to me and said we couldn’t be together just because they decided they didn’t like the way it looked.
And thank you for justifying and essentially “okaying” war, genocide, colonialism, the Holocaust etc. in one convenient comment.
Annie,
At some point, someone has to make the decision on what’s right or wrong. Not everyone will agree with it and it’s not always fair. But until the gay community can convince more people to their point of view so they can change the law legislatively, they have to abide by the decision of the majority for now, just like every other discriminated group out there. The whole civil rights movement for the African Americans, they were actually fighting for rights that had already been granted them in the Amendments. So even with that in place, they still had a long and arduous fight.
But while we’re on the subject where DO you draw the line? I’m not trying to change you mind, but just know that the definition of marriage will continue to be pushed to its limits. I don’t believe chaos will break out when gay marriage is legalized, but what about the following “discriminations?”
1. Adult wants to marry a 10 year old child (they’re in love)
2. First cousins want to get married (illegal in most states due to potential birth defects)
3. Brothers/Sisters want to get married (again, they’re in love in more than a brotherly/sisterly way, oh yeah, and there’s the whole incest thing)
4. Polygamy
I could go on and on. But I just want to know, where YOU personally draw the line and why do you draw it there?
Kind of taking it back a little, but I just wanted to say that the biggest proof that each state (and its citizens) have the right to decide their marriage laws already exists. For instance, where I live in Ohio there’s no waiting period for a marriage license, but there’s a three day waiting period in Missouri — a minor difference, but a difference nonetheless. Technically, marriage never being mentioned in the US Constitution leaves any state open to banning *all* marriage. Maybe we should just do that, since society seems pretty intent on doing it on their own anyway.
Annie said: “Do you really, I mean REALLY think that logically a person’s going to wake up one day and go “You know, I like harassment, I like having less rights, I like being treated as a subclass citizen, I like being beat up in public and spat on…I think I’ll be homosexual.””
Sounds pretty much like what it’s like to be a Christian in this country anymore… but picking on the religious is cool and acceptable, so I’m sure this is somehow not a valid arguement *rolls eyes*.
But, back to the point, Chuck Norris wasn’t writing a blog post about divorce so the hypocrisy seems pretty weak to begin with.
1. There’s a difference between two consenting adults and an adult and a 10 year old who barely has the capacity to think beyond simple multiplication and read a book with more than 100 pages. Two homosexual ADULTS cannot compare to an adult and a child.
And please do not put “discriminations” in quotes like that, as if to somehow invalidate the unjust treatment minorities have received and compare that to the decision of a lecherous old man to corrupt a child who can’t even survive without his/her parents.
2. You just explained it clearly: Birth Defects. And to be fair, this is only relatively illegal, because for centuries many many people married and bedded their cousins. Ie: Hapsbergs (But we see where THAT got them.)
So in regards to 2 and 3, the reason behind reasonably drawing a line is the negative effects on their progeny. Now, if they decide then, that they understand that risk and therefore choose not to bear children of their own, then it is not the government’s place to stop them from being together. Let the churches say no. (They’re quite good at “No”.)
4. Polygamy, why am I not surprised? How can a union between a dozen people compare to two people’s quest for legal recognition? I suppose it’s legal “cheating”?
All I hear is people ranting on and on about the sanctity of marriage and the drawing of a moral line, (and the lovely comparison to all this with say, rape and murder). But again, no one’s really responded to this part of my comment, which is, if we’re all so concerned with the sanctity of marriage, why is our divorce rate the highest it’s ever been? Why are there marriages all over this great nation that last for no more than 52 hours sometimes? Why is there rampant infidelity?
Let the churches deal with the morality of gay marriage. Not government. It’s interesting that people advocate separation of church and state when it’s not their church that’s getting incorporated into state. But all those protests fade away when it’s your faith that’s being put on the moral high ground. Interesting.
My question to everyone here is whether they’ve heard of Thomas Beattie, and if so, what then is your stance on that? Is that what gay couples need to do in order to be obtain the rights granted by a truly legal marriage?
Oh good grief Annie.
Can’t you understand that someone pointing out the flaws in your logic isn’t the equivalent of beating up on you…
Or comparing gay marriage to rape…
or incest…
or murder…
or meth labs…
(I note you didn’t quote my Old Spice analogy, I thought it was rather clever. Humph!)
It’s pointing out the SNAG in your REASONING.
You’re zig zagging across the subject like a wounded partridge. There, by your logic, I just claimed that I wanted to shoot you.
No one can argue with you when keep jumping from inaccurate historical reference to obtuse reference, making lump assumptions, ignoring pertinent counter-points, and going off on tangential emotional high wires. It’s like trying to rationalize with my 3 year old, except you seem to own a Word of the Day calendar.
How’s that for a bunch of mixed metaphors?
What you fail to address is that the states have been left the power to define gay marriage because it’s not detailed on the federal level. There is one of 2 ways this can happen in any state: by a vote of the people (mandate) or by the legislative process (either statutary or constitutionally).
This is a case of California trying to work out the legal position of the majority. They’re playing by the rules here, it needs to get bounced around a bit before it settles into permanence. It can’t happen overnight and it will never get settled properly by judicial mandate.
Give it time, go and vote, have your say, play by the rules and it will work itself out in the end according to the wishes of the majority. That’s the rulebook we have set up here. Just because you don’t like the outcome does not mean that the system isn’t working.
And BTW, as a further raspberry in your general direction: I voted to recognize gay marriage rights in my state. It’s the kind of thing conservative libertarians like me tend to do. Feel like making any more blanket statements about people you’ve never met?
Hey, I agree with you on that, Annie. There is a huge divorce problem in this country (as I poked fun at in my first response). However, the messenger doesn’t kill the message.
As for churches deciding on morality, that would be a two-way street. If society doesn’t want the church telling them what to do, then society should quit trying to tell the church what to do, which was *not* the case in California. Churches refusing to perform same-sex ceremonies faced descrimination law suits under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. But, I once again reference my last comment, and the fact that as long as it’s society imposing itself on religion that’s okay, just not the other way around.
like i’d listen to anything chuck norris says.. he backed mike huckabee for GOD’S sake!
I’m really sick of this gay marriage thing, particularly the whole “civil rights” and “second-class citizens” argument.
There are no signs on restaurants or businesses saying “No Gays Allowed.” There are not drinking fountains labeled “Straights Only.” People living a homosexual, bisexual, transgender or any other lifestyle VOTE in the exact same places that heterosexuals do. They have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as straight people, and actually have a slight edge in affirmative action. I can’t sue my employer for discrimination because I’m straight, but if they fired the lesbian here, you bet she could make a case (valid or not) that she faced discrimination based on her sexual identity.
In any language, we have different words for different things. Marriage means something very specific, something between one man, and one woman. A man with one wife is monogamous. A man with two wives is polygamous. One of the defining things about marriage is in fact that it is between one man and one woman. Even if the man takes a second wife, the second wife marries the man, not the man AND the woman. Then the women bicker constantly.
Gay “rights” activists are trying to circumvent what the word marriage means. If they seriously felt like second class citizens, they would move to Amsterdam, where everything is legal. They don’t. They’re doing exactly what they accuse those with opposing views of doing; attempting oppression. The Gay rights activists would steamroll over any sort of moral fiber they could find given the chance, and they use any resource possible… namely, judges who legislate from the bench who share the same views.
If you think gays are oppressed and maligned, getting spat on, beat up, screamed at, and mercilessly harassed, try being a Christian in the gay district. Acceptance and tolerance? ZERO. You can share your faith in the most calm, rational, unobtrusive manner possible, and you’d think you’d murdered their family. Yes, I know there are churches and “Christians” out there that say God hates gays, and other unbiblical nonsense, but don’t be blind to the fact that Christians suffer discrimination for their beliefs, even when professed in a calm way.
Anyway, when did Chuck Norris get his divorce, and when did he become conservative? We frequently overlook the possibility of people changing their worldview between their past and present. I think it’s reasonable that he may have thought divorce was okay, then years later, revised his beliefs so now he may believe that divorce is only acceptable under certain circumstances, such as adultery.
One of the best arguments against gay marriage is how ridiculous it looks. I saw a photo of two women in wedding gowns who had just “gotten married” and it was absurd and the brides didn’t look happy. They looked angry. But the minority must have its way. First it was only in the bedroom between consenting adults, then it moved to bath houses and public restrooms. Now its in the wedding chapel. And before you know it everyone will be genuflecting before it.
Thank you so much for this post! I am SO tired of hypocritical heteros who are flippin’ marrying for the dress and party and attention and divorcing before they even have a chance to get the 7 yr itch. With divorce rates what they are – as well as the number of 1-parent households – how DARE straights tell gays the indtitution is too sacred? Homosexuals should have the right to be miserable and make regrettable promises to both church and state, too.
I can’t believe people are actually fightiing over this crap. The sixties were not that long ago. People are clearly still alive that went through the trauma of trying to get equal rights for non-white Americans. Hell,it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person. There was nothing in the Constitution that said they could, so therefore they couldn’t. Because after all, black people aren’t really people are they? Pfft, that’s crazy talk.
The blatant disregard for the parrallels between the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s and the raging phobia going on today is mind boggling. It’s like America is stuck in the constant loop of retardation…like we can’t function if we aren’t making sure we’re better than a select group of people.
*Any and all grammatical and/or spelling errors are my own and I take any future flaming graciously.*
Sorry, I forgot to add. To anyone that claims marriage is a “sacred union” or a “long standing tradition between a man and wife”, kindly take a history class. Or at least wiki the word marriage. Marriage had not always been a religious right and for the most part it isn’t today. I am happily married but I almost beat the pastor with my bouquet after I specifically told him to keep the religion crap out of it because I wanted to get to the booze. We got married for tax breaks and free stuff. Also to make everyday living easier, such as merging bank accounts,blah blah blah.
Marriage used to be a contract and was looked at as such. Here, I’ll give you my daughter and you give me your land. Sex her up until she pops out that ever-important male heir and then ditch her for a girl you actually like. Marriage was a way to make sure you could tell who the damn father was. Nothing particularily “sacred” there.
Marriage can be between a man and a woman, one man and multiple women, the reverse of that…people marry cousins, siblings, the spouse of a dead family memeber. Each society has it’s own definition of what it constitutes. Words can change there meaning depending on the situation and do so all the time. Today marriage is supposed to be (I think)a public and legally binding expression of love. Expanding that to include people that happen to love someone of the same sex is not that much of a stretch.
*Any and all grammatical and/or spelling errors are my own and I take future flaming graciously.*
Anne wrote:
That’s my choice though. And I think that everyone should be given the right to live how they please. I would hate if someone came up to me and said we couldn’t be together just because they decided they didn’t like the way it looked.
Annie, on this point, I agree with you 100% Nobody should have the right to dictate lifestyle choices. It is a personal choice and the state should not have any say in it. To me, it is more of a moral issue.
And thank you for justifying and essentially “okaying” war, genocide, colonialism, the Holocaust etc. in one convenient comment.
Annie, please do not presume that I am justifying and “okaying” war, genocide, colonialism and the holocaust. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All of the above items are inexcusable but it is human nature. And has been since man first came out of the trees. If you believe in Darwinism that is. Having seen war up-close (I’m retired US Navy after 21 years) it is not a pretty sight. The death and destruction of life, property, and livelyhood is beyond description.
Only people who have never served in the military glamorize war. Most professional solders would trade away their jobs to end all conflicts forever. Unfortunately, this will most likely never happen with human nature being what it is.
Sorry Kaliska you’re wrong. The 60’s were a long time ago. A long, long time ago. Almost a half a century. There are baby boomers that are now great-grandparents.
Thank you for your service Swede.
I know it’s off topic and not a clever or funny comment in Deceiver style.
But it doesn’t get said enough.
Thank you.
Islero47 made an excellent point. Anymore, if something gets repeated enough, people seem to just accept it, even if it has no basis. That’s exactly what has happened with the “second class citizens” line. All of the reasons laid out in that lovely post list why it’s such an insult to non-whites in this country to even compare the two.
But really, all of this boils down to the fact that individual states have the right to make whatever laws regarding marriage they want. If Utah wanted to come out and approve polygamy, they could (which would be amusing given that polygamy is actually forbidden in the Book of Mormon, but that’s a whole other ball of wax). Like I said before, a state could technically come out and outlaw any marriage if it wanted… what that would do to federal tax perks for marriage, I don’t claim to know, but that’s what the Constitution says. “Right” and “privilege” are not synonyms in the legal system even though people use them that way.
One of my biggest regrets from the last eight years is the spirit the 2000 election fostered that everyone is allowed to get their way, and if they don’t they can just riot and destroy things and whine about it endlessly, using personal, hate-filled attacks. This country needs a serious dose of maturity…
And California just voted to keep the definition they’ve been using for quite a while, yes.
Who is he?
Hey Minnow…
If it were legal in my state and I went that way, I’d be tempted to ask you to marry me. But bigamy isn’t legal in Mass. or Michigan, or indeed anywhere. So can we just be best girlfriends and get together to drink cosmos and talk shoes? (Or – my preference – drink red wine and talk religion, politics and what geniuses our kids are.)
And Swede, I add my thanks for your comments and your service to our country. My church and I regularly pray for “the men and women of our armed forces” as they carry out their duties around the world.
Smootchity smootches for you Ms.MC!
There, a little girl to girl lip action brings the conversation right back to the original point now, doesn’t it?
AND I get to claim second class citizenship now. Yeah!
Quick, find Melissa Etheridge, find me a rainbow wig, find a flag to burn too. I’ve just gotta go protest now.
I’m right there with you, Minnow, but first I’ve gotta go watch “The L Word.”
By the way, Holly, total (but slightly tardy) mad propz on the awesome Chuck Norris photo. So apropos to the discussion at hand.
Thanks, MC Mom. It’s easier than you would expect to find photos of Chuck Norris looking like he’s overflowing with homosexual lust. A cheap shot but hey.
AND you forgot that Chuck stole the leading lady from WTR, away from her HUSBAND and three young kids. So much for respecting the sanctity of marriage. (if I remember correctly, they shot WTR in Texas, and her fam remained in Ca, she was not separated and prior to the advances of the undeniable hotness that is Chuck Norris, was thought to be happily married, according to her hubby — why my brain stores this sh*t is beyond me)
Arguing against gay marriage by saying those opposed to it are hypocrites because they cheat, or have cheated in the past, is a poor argument.
———————————————————————————
No it’s not because they are not protecting marriage like they claim while trying to take away gays rights. That is being hypocrticial. However if it is, it’s then also a poor argument to use the marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman garbarge to justfy trying to take gays rights away especially when the person saying it committed adultery.
The biggest hypocritces against gay marriage though are the ones who hide behind God and the bible. Unless a person follows all of God’s “rules”, they are no position to be judging the people who commit the “sins” they are against.
Well I dont know about the GAY people…But chuck norris can still kick all of you a$$es!