Bikers roll to military funerals to oppose anti-gay protests [Archive]

colleyvillesooner

2/21/2006, 11:21 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/21/funeral.motorcyclists.ap/index.html

FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (AP) -- Wearing vests covered in military patches, a band of motorcyclists rolls around the country from one soldier's funeral to another, cheering respectfully to overshadow jeers from church protesters.

They call themselves the Patriot Guard Riders, and they are more than 5,000 strong, forming to counter anti-gay protests held by the Rev. Fred Phelps at military funerals.

Phelps believes American deaths in Iraq are divine punishment for a country that he says harbors homosexuals. His protesters carry signs thanking God for so-called IEDs -- explosives that are a major killer of soldiers in Iraq.

The bikers shield the families of dead soldiers from the protesters, and overshadow the jeers with patriotic chants and a sea of red, white and blue flags.

"The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares," said Don Woodrick, the group's Kentucky captain. "When a total stranger gets on a motorcycle in the middle of winter and drives 300 miles to hold a flag, that makes a powerful statement."

At least 14 states are considering laws aimed at the funeral protesters, who at a recent memorial service at Fort Campbell wrapped themselves in upside-down American flags. They danced and sang impromptu songs peppered with vulgarities that condemned homosexuals and soldiers.

The Patriot Guard was also there, waving up a ruckus of support for the families across the street. Community members came in the freezing rain to chant "U-S-A, U-S-A" alongside them.

"This is just the right thing to do. This is something America didn't do in the '70s," said Kurt Mayer, the group's national spokesman. "Whether we agree with why we're over there, these soldiers are dying to protect our freedoms."

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a daughter of Fred Phelps and an attorney for the Topeka, Kansas-based church, said neither state laws nor the Patriot Guard can silence their message that God killed the soldiers because they fought for a country that embraces homosexuals.

"The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper said. "Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier's funeral."

The church, Westboro Baptist Church, is not affiliated with a larger denomination and is made up mostly of Fred Phelps' extended family members.

During the 1990s, church members were known mostly for picketing the funerals of AIDS victims, and they have long been tracked as a hate group by the Montgomery, Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project.

The project's deputy director, Heidi Beirich, said other groups have tried to counter Phelps' message, but none has been as organized as the Patriot Guard.

"I'm not sure anybody has gone to this length to stand in solidarity," she said. "It's nice that these veterans and their supporters are trying to do something. I can't imagine anything worse, your loved one is killed in Iraq and you've got to deal with Fred Phelps."

Kentucky, home to sprawling Fort Campbell along the Tennessee line, was among the first states to attempt to deal with Phelps legislatively. Its House and Senate have each passed bills that would limit people from protesting within 300 feet of a funeral or memorial service. The Senate version would also keep protesters from being within earshot of grieving friends and family members.

Richard Wilbur, a retired police detective, said his Indiana Patriot Guard group only comes to funerals if invited by family. He said he has no problem with protests against the war but sees no place for objectors at a family's final goodbye to a soldier.

"No one deserves this," he said.

jk the sooner fan

2/21/2006, 11:23 AM

its sad that a soldiers funeral has become a 3 ring circus

Pieces Hit

2/21/2006, 11:25 AM

"Come to Westboro Baptist Church - The Happy Place!"

picasso

2/21/2006, 11:25 AM

in the old days this Phelps character would have just gotten his *** kicked.

BoomerJack

2/21/2006, 11:26 AM

its sad that a soldiers funeral has become a 3 ring circus

I agree wholeheartedly and I put the blame for this squarely on the original protesters from the church in Kansas.

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 11:31 AM

I'm sure this is what Jesus would've done:

At the funeral of gay murder victim Matthew Shepard, they held up signs reading "No Fags in Heaven" and "God Hates Fags."

Okla-homey

2/21/2006, 11:50 AM

My old first sergeant retired a couple years before I did. He took a state civil service job managing one of the two state of Kentucky veteran's cemeteries in Hopkinsville -- just outside the gate from Ft Campbell. Those Phelps-ites would do well to stay well clear of Rich's cemetery. He's a big kaintuck goomer who can shoot a fly off a mules ear at 100 yards without disturbing the mule.

Just saying.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 12:07 PM

I'm sure this is what Jesus would've done:

Those people are a disgrace. They are not Christians, rather a cult brainwashed by their leader.

If any of them have ever read the Bible, or the teachings of Jesus, I would be mighty surprised.

Good for Bikers though, I support them 1000000%.

JohnnyMack

2/21/2006, 12:10 PM

But I thought a lot of you guys looked down your pious Christian noses at homosexuality. No? Why do you care if they protest against homosexuality since it's an abomination? I'm confused.

jk the sooner fan

2/21/2006, 12:11 PM

your pious Christian noses

yeah definitely i'm wanting to get into a discussion with you.....:rolleyes:

Sooner in Tampa

2/21/2006, 12:12 PM

But I thought a lot of you guys looked down your pious Christian noses at homosexuality. No? Why do you care if they protest against homosexuality since it's an abomination? I'm confused.:rolleyes: Yawn....more **** stirring by JM :rolleyes: I am shocked

JohnnyMack

2/21/2006, 12:14 PM

You guys are no fun. :(

achiro

2/21/2006, 12:27 PM

I'm confused.
apparently

Okla-homey

2/21/2006, 12:44 PM

But I thought a lot of you guys looked down your pious Christian noses at homosexuality. No? Why do you care if they protest against homosexuality since it's an abomination? I'm confused.

Easy. Our homo-phobia is only exceeded by our culto-phobia.:D

JohnnyMack

2/21/2006, 12:48 PM

Easy. Our homo-phobia is only exceeded by our culto-phobia.:D

See! That's how you play the game! Homey's got it. ;)

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 01:50 PM

JM, just curious, atheist or agnostic?

OUAndy1807

2/21/2006, 02:00 PM

Ron and Fez had this lady on their radio show a couple of weeks ago and they pretty much let her talk while just enough snide comments to **** her off, but not enough to make her hang up. She's is bat**** crazy for sure. That church has a bunch of websites like godhatesfags.com , etc... Her main point of contention seems to be that everyone is a fag or a fag enabler (Fez is gay, so it was pretty funny)

http://www.ronfez.net/displaymedia.cfm/id/2959
here's the link if anyone wants to hear her.

JohnnyMack

2/21/2006, 02:17 PM

JM, just curious, atheist or agnostic?

Jedi.

Octavian

2/21/2006, 02:18 PM

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 02:23 PM

The Phelps people are morons...

But their message is the same as the suits pushing constitutional amendments in hopes of restricting Americans' ability to choose who they want to marry.

At least w/ the Phelpses, they stand out and you know they're freaks...the other people look and talk like good guys.

What BS. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that 70% of this state wants gays dead then??? Cause in essence that is what Phelps is for. What a moronic statement.

There is MASSIVE difference in wanting to protect marriage, and wanting gays to be destroyed.

Fortunately, most people with a brain and some common sense can see that. Obviously that is not the case with you. That must be why Al Gore liked to hang with ol' Phelpses, huh?

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 02:29 PM

There is MASSIVE difference in wanting to protect marriage, and wanting gays to be destroyed.
Depends on how you couch it, doesn't it. For example, my description of this comparison would've been that there's not a great deal of difference in changing the constitution so that you can legally discriminate against a segment of the population vs. ugly protests against that same segment.

I guarantee you all the Phelps people are for the constitutional amendment.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 02:34 PM

Depends on how you couch it, doesn't it. For example, my description of this comparison would've been that there's not a great deal of difference in changing the constitution so that you can legally discriminate against a segment of the population vs. ugly protests against that same segment.

I guarantee you all the Phelps people are for the constitutional amendment.

No, it doesn't matter how you couch it at all. The point was to keep marriage defined as one male+one female. Thats what the law stated when it was put up for a vote. Did it outlaw being gay? No, it didn't.

I don't know what two men or two women is, except a sin, but its not a married union. A civil union? Perhaps. But a Marriage it is not.

Gee, thats a lot different than killing gays and protesting people showing up at their funerals, huh?

:rolleyes:

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 02:38 PM

Both are examples of homophobia. One's just an extreme example.

Octavian

2/21/2006, 02:39 PM

there's not a great deal of difference in changing the constitution so that you can legally discriminate against a segment of the population vs. ugly protests against that same segment.

http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/5509/nail9iq.th.png (http://img460.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nail9iq.png)

Octavian

2/21/2006, 02:40 PM

we're all either drinking out of the same waterfountain or we're not

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 02:41 PM

The government has no business enodorsing or preventing marriage in the first place. That is a private matter.

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 02:42 PM

we're all either drinking out of the same waterfountain or we're not
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Octavian again.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 02:42 PM

Both are examples of homophobia. One's just an extreme example.

Hardly.

Nevertheless, the people have spoken, even in the blue states. Marriage is worth defending.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 02:43 PM

we're all either drinking out of the same waterfountain or we're not

Except for Christians though. They have to go drink from a non-public fountain. :rolleyes:

OUAndy1807

2/21/2006, 02:43 PM

She's not speaking out against gays, she's speaking out against everyone. Hers a quote from her: "There are two types of people in this world, fags and fag enablers" If you would listen to her, she says that a biblical disaster is coming on par with "the great flood". According to her, 8 people for every 16 billion are going to be saved by god.

I generally side opposite the religious right when it comes to political issues, but to compare this woman to most Christians is assinine.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 02:44 PM

The government has no business enodorsing or preventing marriage in the first place. That is a private matter.
I agree.

Marriage is a religious issue IMO.

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 02:46 PM

I agree.

Marriage is a religious issue IMO.

But you would/did vote for a ban against gay marriage? I don't get it. :confused:

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 02:47 PM

The government has no business enodorsing or preventing marriage in the first place. That is a private matter.

Regardless of who's involved? If marriage is not one man + one woman, then, anything goes. Are you cool with legalizing (extending all marriage benefits) one man, two women? Dont' think that will have long term affects on society? What about two men, a woman and a donkey? What about a man and a 17 year old? 14 year old? Who are you to say who is capable of love? Either there is an absolute truth or there is not.

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 02:48 PM

I agree.

Marriage is a religious issue IMO.
Then why the need for a constitutional amendment?

And yes, the people have spoken on this issue. Doesn't make it right. Slavery used to be legal as well.

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 02:50 PM

Regardless of who's involved?
No, this argument has been rehashed one million times. Two consenting adults should be able to marry if they want to. Two consenting adults does not include polygamy, beastiality or statutory rape.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 02:51 PM

No, this argument has been rehashed one million times. Two consenting adults should be able to marry if they want to. Two consenting adults does not include polygamy, beastiality or statutory rape.

Why? Who are you to say who I can and can't marry? Don't tell me who I can and can't love.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 02:53 PM

But you would/did vote for a ban against gay marriage? I don't get it. :confused:

Because at this point, the government has taken a role in Marriage, and I believe it should be defended.

Is that clear enough for you?

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 02:55 PM

Why? Who are you to say who I can and can't marry? Don't tell me who I can and can't love.
I see your point now. Because two gay men or two gay women make a responsible commitment to one another and choose to live their lives together, enjoying the legal benefits of marriage and creating a stable homelife and society, we should throw out every law on the books.

Tell me how two gay men marrying somewhere in California would have one iota of effect on your life. Tell me how that harms anyone else in any way.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 02:58 PM

Tell me how two gay men marrying somewhere in California would have one iota of effect on your life. Tell me how that harms anyone else in any way.Doesn't harm me in the least, except it guts the meaning of marriage and devalues it IMO. As a Christian first and foremost, I have to answer based on my faith. Marriage must be defended.

Octavian

2/21/2006, 03:00 PM

Doesn't harm me in the least, except it guts the meaning of marriage and devalues it IMO. As a Christian first and foremost, I have to answer based on my faith. Marriage must be defended.

then you support outlawing divorce?

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:01 PM

I see your point now. Because two gay men or two gay women make a responsible commitment to one another and choose to live their lives together, enjoying the legal benefits of marriage and creating a stable homelife and society, we should throw out every law on the books.

Tell me how two gay men marrying somewhere in California would have one iota of effect on your life. Tell me how that harms anyone else in any way.

For the record, I am totally in support of relegating all gay marriages to California. I would say texas, but it's just way too close.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 03:01 PM

then you support outlawing divorce?
No, I don't.

But then again, divorce isn't a sin, is it?

Octavian

2/21/2006, 03:02 PM

it devalues marriage...you must protect marriage...based on faith

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:02 PM

then you support outlawing divorce?

Yes. I think it should be a heckuva lot tougher to get married and a heck of a lot tougher to get a divorce.

In the United States of Hamhock, you would have to apply for a permit to have children.

Octavian

2/21/2006, 03:04 PM

Yes. I think it should be a heckuva lot tougher to get married and a heck of a lot tougher to get a divorce.

In the United States of Hamhock, you would have to apply for a permit to have children.

theres a good movie called V for Vendetta coming out soon....you should see it

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:05 PM

Regardless of who's involved? If marriage is not one man + one woman, then, anything goes. Are you cool with legalizing (extending all marriage benefits) one man, two women?

All of the legal benefits of marriage are already covered outside of marriage, so those issues have already been addressed. Custody of children is not restricted to hetrosexual married couples. You can desginate anybody as your insurance beneficiary. You can give anyone power of attorney. Employers can set their own limits on who qualifies for spousal benefits; gender is irrelevant.

Dont' think that will have long term affects on society?

Heterosexual marriage is already a joke. I see no need for the government to encourage or endorse a practice that involves Las Vegas wedding chapels and a 50% failure rate. Do you really think people only get married to make the government happy? Anybody getting married for a tax break probably shouldn't be getting married. People will get married with or without interference from the government.

What about two men, a woman and a donkey? What about a man and a 17 year old? 14 year old?

17 year olds are allowed to get married in just about every state, aren't they? I'm sure 14-year-olds can get married in some "family values" states.

If somebody wants to say they're married to a donkey what's it to you? Will that make you love your wife any less?

Either there is an absolute truth or there is not.

The absolute truth: If there's not a victim it shouldn't be illegal, and the government has no business regulating our personal lives.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 03:05 PM

it devalues marriage...you must protect marriage...based on faith
In a way, yes it does. However Divorce is another issue. Its not attempting to change the entire definition of marriage to suit gays and lesbians who want to play husband and wife or whatever they want to call each other.

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 03:06 PM

For the record, I am totally in support of relegating all gay marriages to California. I would say texas, but it's just way too close.
This doesn't sound a little 'Phelpish' to you?

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 03:07 PM

Yes. I think it should be a heckuva lot tougher to get married and a heck of a lot tougher to get a divorce.
I agree.

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:08 PM

Because at this point, the government has taken a role in Marriage, and I believe it should be defended.

Is that clear enough for you?

Yes.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:09 PM

This doesn't sound a little 'Phelpish' to you?

It was a "jokeish". For the record, I do not want all homosexuals dead. Phelps is a perversion in himself. It's called cleaning the cup on the outside only.

JohnnyMack

2/21/2006, 03:09 PM

Regardless of who's involved? If marriage is not one man + one woman, then, anything goes. Are you cool with legalizing (extending all marriage benefits) one man, two women? Dont' think that will have long term affects on society? What about two men, a woman and a donkey? What about a man and a 17 year old? 14 year old? Who are you to say who is capable of love? Either there is an absolute truth or there is not.

Ahh the old let's relate homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia routine. Typical scare tactics. You should really brush up on your smack.

OklahomaTuba

2/21/2006, 03:11 PM

Yes.
Good.

Now I agree with you as well that the gov should stay out. Marriage has way more meaning than a tax benefit. And like you said, most benefits can be gained regardless, as they should IMO.

There are more than enough reasons to promote healthy marriages, and I think the government should be able to do that somehow. (birthrates, stability, etc)

For me, the essence and meaning of marriage is what I do not want to see change. I believe that is what most people believe as well, hence the overwhelming support of it.

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:12 PM

But then again, divorce isn't a sin, is it?

What about adultery? That's certainly a sin, and it can be detrimental to marriage. Hell, it's even a Commandment, which is more than you can say about being gay.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:13 PM

You don't think that 30 years ago, the idea of same-sex marriage was considered as deviant as bestiality/pedophilia is today?

All I am saying is that the bar will continue to be moved, inch by inch.

Octavian

2/21/2006, 03:14 PM

....who want to play husband and wife or whatever they want to call each other.

paging Mr. Phelps....

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:14 PM

What about adultery? That's certainly a sin, and it can be detrimental to marriage. Hell, it's even a Commandment, which is more than you can say about being gay.

What's your point?

JohnnyMack

2/21/2006, 03:14 PM

Good.

Now I agree with you as well that the gov should stay out. Marriage has way more meaning than a tax benefit. And like you said, most benefits can be gained regardless, as they should IMO.

For me, the essence and meaning of marriage is what I do not want to see change. I believe that is what most people believe as well, hence the overwhelming support of it.

Now see I would much rather you argue the sanctity of marriage than to hear someone prattle on about how allowing homosexual marriage will lead to cataclysmic events like men marrying farm animals and Saxet winning the MNC.

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:18 PM

For me, the essence and meaning of marriage is what I do not want to see change. I believe that is what most people believe as well, hence the overwhelming support of it.

Then you shouldn't need the government to tell you what marriage is or isn't. To you, marriage can be one man, one woman. If two men say they're married you can think whatever you want about that, because the government is not involved in defining marriage at all.

Would you care if a gay couple had all of the legal benefits (power of attorney, insurance benficiary, employer benefits, etc) currently defined by marriage if the word "marriage" wasn't involved?

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:19 PM

Saxet winning the MNC

Let's not go down that road. :(

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:20 PM

Now see I would much rather you argue the sanctity of marriage than to hear someone prattle on about how allowing homosexual marriage will lead to cataclysmic events like men marrying farm animals and Saxet winning the MNC.

SEE!!!! Hell in a hand basket I tell ya...

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 03:25 PM

What's your point?
Perhaps that commiting adultery is a sin in the Bible, yet you don't see anyone running around trying to get a constitutional amendment to ban it. In fact, I doubt many of the people against gay marriage were virginal on their wedding night. The 'Defense of Marriage Act' doesn't include that one, huh?

Octavian

2/21/2006, 03:28 PM

I am saying is that the bar will continue to be moved, inch by inch.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4840/button8wp.th.jpg (http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=button8wp.jpg)

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:29 PM

Perhaps that commiting adultery is a sin in the Bible, yet you don't see anyone running around trying to get a constitutional amendment to ban it. In fact, I doubt many of the people against gay marriage were virginal on their wedding night. The 'Defense of Marriage Act' doesn't include that one, huh?

This is the crux of issue. Nobody has a problem voting to ban something they would never do in the first place, but you'd better not touch all the desirable sins like gambling, excessive drinking, sex outside of marriage, etc.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:31 PM

I also don't see people running around trying to get school books entitled "Daddy and the Mistress" or "Why Does the Milk Man Stay So Long at Our House?". I don't have to explain to my children about the Philanderer's Pride Parade.

While I certainly agree that you can't legislate morality, I am equally opposed to legislating immorality.

JohnnyMack

2/21/2006, 03:33 PM

This is the crux of issue. Nobody has a problem voting to ban something they would never do in the first place, but you'd better not touch all the desirable sins like gambling, excessive drinking, sex outside of marriage, etc.

You take away blackjack and I will carve out your heart with a spoon.

:)

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:36 PM

You take away blackjack and I will carve out your heart with a spoon.

:)

For the record, gambling is not a sin. I'd support gambling, only if it required the player to prove they are receiving no government assistance.

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:40 PM

For the record, gambling is not a sin.
Some Christian denominations think it is. Some think drinking and dancing are sins. Some think divorce is a sin.

I'd support gambling, only if it required the player to prove they are receiving no government assistance.

Not a bad idea, although I wonder how you'd prove that? Most recent paycheck stub, I guess?

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:42 PM

Some Christian denominations think it is. Some think drinking and dancing are sins. Some think divorce is a sin.

Not a bad idea, although I wonder how you'd prove that? Most recent paycheck stub, I guess?

Ask one of these fellas to show you in scripture where gambling and drinking are a sin. The Bible does outline reasons for divorce.

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:44 PM

I also don't see people running around trying to get school books entitled "Daddy and the Mistress" or "Why Does the Milk Man Stay So Long at Our House?". I don't have to explain to my children about the Philanderer's Pride Parade.

Sex outside of marriage is firmly entrenched in our culture. How do you avoid that discussion with your kids?

Daddy, how come Monica and Chandler are in the same bed if they're not married?

Octavian

2/21/2006, 03:47 PM

For the record, gambling is not a sin.

God, is that you?

Harry Beanbag

2/21/2006, 03:48 PM

Sex outside of marriage is firmly entrenched in our culture. How do you avoid that discussion with your kids?

Daddy, how come Monica and Chandler are in the same bed if they're not married?

That's preferable to the Joey and Chandler scenario.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:49 PM

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:49 PM

Ask one of these fellas to show you in scripture where gambling and drinking are a sin. The Bible does outline reasons for divorce.

What does it matter if it's in the Bible or not? If it's part of their beliefs, and they have a majority, they will try to outlaw it if we say it's okay to base our laws on religion.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:49 PM

God, is that you?

No, it's the Bible.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 03:51 PM

[QUOTE=mdklatt]What does it matter if it's in the Bible or not? QUOTE]

Hence, the reason we will never agree and why I should stick to topics about toilet paper and chiropractors. ;)

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 03:58 PM

I'm not talking about "avoiding discussions". I'm talking about forcing me to accept a deviant behavior as a norm. I'm talking about legislating said deviant behavior into acceptable behavior, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to it.

So, you are against which of the following?

A man designating another man as his benificiary.
A man giving another man power of attorney.
A man providing employer benefits to another man
The disposition of a gay couple's property if they break up

These are the legal ramifications of marriage. Why should they be restricted to heterosexual couples? What about married couples who are only married for money--is that kosher, so to speak? Or married couples who no longer love each and are having affairs--they get preferential treatment over gay couples?

As an aside, is lesbianism really a sin? I've never seen where it says in the Bible that women should not lie down with women as they do with men.

And..my children don't watch Friends.

But they watch gay pride parades?

Octavian

2/21/2006, 04:00 PM

Hence, the reason we will never agree and why I should stick to topics about toilet paper and chiropractors. ;)

I respect that you have strong beliefs...but why do you think they should be law? They're religious beliefs...not facts.

Anytime I hear someone say they dont want an immoral culture "forced" on them by activist judges I cant help but cringe...the only one getting anything forced on them is the group being denied the same rights as others based on a prejudice....I know Im heretical but am I crazy too?

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 04:01 PM

So, you are against which of the following?

People trying to make me accept that one man peter pumping another man is within societal norms.

Is there a hyphen in peter pumping?

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 04:03 PM

There are many inadequacies and inconsistencies concerning gay couples and federal and state laws. Can't get married (and the federal protections that come with that - civil union in Vermont not recognized), more often than not can't get health care benefits for partners, very difficult to adopt children (3 states ban it outright), second parent adoption isn't recognized (if the legal guardian dies, there's no guarantee the government won't snatch the remaining parent's child away - TAKE THEIR CHILD), 38 states don't have employment discrimination laws - no civil rights, 23 states lack hate crime legislation, 13 states still have sodomy laws that outlaw private same-sex relations between consenting adults (IT'S AGAINST THE LAW), partners don't get social security survivor benefits, partners don't get the benefits of federal tax law, gay partners cannot take advantage of the family and medical leave act if their partner is seriously ill, etc...

Same sex couples live in 99.3 % of counties in this country. We need to get over the idea that one particular group has a monopoly over family values and quit treating gay people like second class citizens. That's all I have to say about that. People like Phelps make me ill.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 04:03 PM

I respect that you have strong beliefs...but why do you think they should be law? They're religious beliefs...not facts.

Anytime I hear someone say they dont want an immoral culture "forced" on them by activist judges I cant help but cringe...the only one getting anything forced on them is the group being denied the same rights as others based on a prejudice....I know Im heretical but am I crazy too?

I don't think you're crazy. It boils down to relative versus absolute truth. You believe that as long as two parties are ok with an activity, it shouldn't be wrong. I believe that we answer not only to each other, but also to our Creator.

Octavian

2/21/2006, 04:04 PM

see...thats just it. no one is trying to "make you" do anything...you're not even in the equation b/c if you're not gay, it doesnt concern you....when you support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, it is you who are trying make someone else accept your way of life.

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 04:06 PM

[QUOTE=mdklatt]What does it matter if it's in the Bible or not? QUOTE]

Hence, the reason we will never agree and why I should stick to topics about toilet paper and chiropractors. ;)

Don't ignore the rest of that post....

Think of all the powers that you are willing to give up to the Republicans--choosing who can and can't get married in this case--and imagine those same powers in the hands of left-wing Democrats. People are willing to give more and more power to the guys they voted for because the never consider that their guys will not always be in office. This is why too much government power is bad regardless of which side you are on.

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 04:07 PM

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 04:08 PM

I believe that we answer not only to each other, but also to our Creator.

Then why not leave the final judgment to God in the first place? Doesn't the Bible even mention something like that?

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 04:12 PM

People trying to make me accept that one man peter pumping another man is within societal norms.

Why do you keep ignoring what I'm asking you?

A man should be allowed to give power of attorney to another man (e.g. deciding when to pull the plug should the need arise).

TRUE or FALSE?

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 04:12 PM

Then why not leave the final judgment to God in the first place? Doesn't the Bible even mention something like that?

My apologies if i came across as trying to pass final judgement. I'm not judging anyone. I think that God has already determined that homosexuality is a sin. Christ made it clear that a sin is a sin. The wages of sin is death. Whether it is peter-pumping or the entire bag of oreos. I also believe that it is harmful to society in the long run.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 04:14 PM

Why do you keep ignoring what I'm asking you?

A man should be allowed to give power of attorney to another man (e.g. deciding when to pull the plug should the need arise).

TRUE or FALSE?

True...I currently have power of attorney for my dying grandmother...that doesn't mean I'm married to her. I thought that anyone could give power of attorney to anyone???

JohnnyMack

2/21/2006, 04:21 PM

True...I currently have power of attorney for my dying grandmother...that doesn't mean I'm married to her.

:deliverancesmiley: nttawwt /:deliverancesmiley:

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 04:23 PM

Do you have to be a sponsor to see the deliverance smiley?

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 04:24 PM

...second parent adoption isn't recognized (if the legal guardian dies, there's no guarantee the government won't snatch the remaining parent's child away - TAKE THEIR CHILD)...
Do you think this is good, Hamhock? Tell me your position on gay couples adopting kids in general. If gay couples adopt and love unwanted children, tell me how that's bad for society.

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 04:32 PM

I thought that anyone could give power of attorney to anyone???

Exactly!

Almost everything that comes under the legal definition of marriage already exists outside of marriage. So, there really isn't much to a marriage certificate other than being able to file a joint tax return and not be compelled to testify in court against your spouse. So why deny those rights to everybody?

The government should get out the marriage business altogether and instead grant civil partnerships, similar to business partnerships. The requirements to enter a civil parternship will be a lot more difficult than the current requirements to get married. Any two (maybe more?) legal adults will be able to enter into a civil partnership. You will not have to be married to enter a civil partnership nor be required to enter a civil partnership once you get married; the government will have no concept of marriage. You are free to get married in the church of your choice, or to print out the marriage certificate you got from marry-a-donkey.com. Your marriage only means something to you and like-minded individuals; you are free to discount marriages you do not believe are valid. Once again, it doesn't matter because marriage will have no legal meaning.

Hamhock

2/21/2006, 04:33 PM

Do you think this is good, Hamhock? Tell me your position on gay couples adopting kids in general. If gay couples adopt and love unwanted children, tell me how that's bad for society.

Yes. Fags should never be allowed within 100 feet of kids.

Is that what you want to hear so you can futher your view of me as bigotted and intolerant? You're asking me which is better for a child, to live with a single parent homosexual or ???? Given the choice between a single parent (gay or straight) and two parents, I would choose a two parent household. I believe that there are plenty of two parent, heterosexual families who want to adopt kids. I believe that the promulgation of the homosexual lifestyle is bad for our society.

It seems you are entitled to your opinion, but I am not.

mdklatt

2/21/2006, 04:41 PM

I believe that there are plenty of two parent, heterosexual families who want to adopt kids.

Apparently there are not. Is there a shortage of children to adopt in this country? There's a shortage of cute little babies that people want to adopt, but not a shortage of kids in general. The rise of the fertility industry and the ability to adopt cute little foreign babies is putting the squeeze on American orphans even more.

All things being equal, a child should live with his biological mother and father who are in a committed relationship (regardless of marital status). Then you've got to start making judgment calls. Which is worse: middle class gay couple or poor white trash foster family? One gay parent or an orphanage? These have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Vaevictis

2/21/2006, 04:42 PM

If you would listen to her, she says that a biblical disaster is coming on par with "the great flood".

Isn't it God's covenant with Noah to never do that again? Woman doesn't even read her Bible before spouting off about it.

No, I don't.

But then again, divorce isn't a sin, is it?

Actually, except in cases of divoce arising from infidelity, any sex outside of the first marriage (including subsequent marriages) is adultery. That means any marriage after a divoce (not resulting from infidelity) is adultery. According to my understanding of the Bible, that is.

Herr Scholz

2/21/2006, 04:44 PM

Yes. Fags should never be allowed within 100 feet of kids.

Is that what you want to hear so you can futher your view of me as bigotted and intolerant? You're asking me which is better for a child, to live with a single parent homosexual or ???? Given the choice between a single parent (gay or straight) and two parents, I would choose a two parent household. I believe that there are plenty of two parent, heterosexual families who want to adopt kids. I believe that the promulgation of the homosexual lifestyle is bad for our society.

It seems you are entitled to your opinion, but I am not.
Woah, I just asked a question. Don't fly off the handle if your position makes you uncomfortable. Gay couples have great difficulty adopting and sharing custody of children. I think that's stupid as there are many unwanted children in foster homes as well as fraudulent white trash heterosexual homes (most heterosexual couples want the brand new babies, not the 10 year old or teenage kids - your convenient guess as to there being 'plenty of two parent, heterosexual families who want to adopt kids' couldn't be further from the truth). I also think taking a child away from a surviving gay spouse due to legalese is unspeakable.