ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, April 27, 2015

They said it would never happen

But, as we know, SJWs always lie. Persecution is the consequence of tolerance:
Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.

The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller reported. A federal judge recently ruled that the state’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, while the city of Coeur d‘Alene has an ordinance that prevents discrimination based on sexual preference....

“Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here — and it’s happened this quickly,” Mr. Tedersco said, The Daily Caller reported.
At this point, it is fairly obvious that revolution time is coming. All the moderates who said we just had to go along to get along were wrong all along, of course. Never listen to moderates. They're just cowardly idiots who will do or say anything rather than stand up for what they say they believe in.

The latest on the ongoing case:
Both sides are standing their ground as a lawsuit filed against the city of Coeur d'Alene by the Hitching Post continues through U.S. District Court.

Lawyers with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian rights legal advocacy organization, filed the suit in October on behalf of Hitching Post owners Don and Evelyn Knapp. The civil rights lawsuit claims the Knapps are being forced to violate their religious beliefs and perform same-sex marriages because of the city's anti-discrimination ordinance.

"The whole problem is that prior to the case being filed, the city was saying the distinction between covered and not-covered was whether or not a business was a nonprofit or for-profit. But after we filed, they changed that statement," Jeremy Tedesco, ADF senior legal counsel, said. "This ordinance has criminal penalties and jail time if you violate it and because of that, the city needs to have clear guidelines for people like the Knapps who are trying to figure out if they're exempt."

Labels: ,

347 Comments:

1 – 200 of 347 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 1:02 PM  

How shortsighted they are, that they only look at the short-term 'good' and never the consequences of hasty laws.

Blogger Guitar Man April 27, 2015 1:07 PM  

I had a discussion with my wife the other day about these types of scenarios (bake shops, etc.). The thought is, that our side is patient to a fault. That the revolution will come, and things like the SJW movement, homosexuality, etc., will be destroyed rather quickly when society is corrected.

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 1:09 PM  

Notice the date (2014), then do some Google research. The town determined its ordinance didn't apply to the Hitching Post since it was a religious corporation. There was some initial confusion because it was a for-profit corporation, which the town attorney originally thought meant it would be covered. That confusion has since been cleared up.

I support same-sex marriage. I oppose forcing any church or pastor who believes marriage is a sacrament only between a man and a woman to participate.

http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/coeur-dalene-says-hitching-post-exempt-gay-rights-law

Blogger CarpeOro April 27, 2015 1:10 PM  

You can't "get along" with the forces of entropy and chaos. Just a spoonful of sewage turns the entire barrel of wine(or beer if you prefer) into sewage.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 1:14 PM  

I support same-sex marriage. I oppose forcing any church or pastor who believes marriage is a sacrament only between a man and a woman to participate.

Do you support polygamy?

Anonymous dh April 27, 2015 1:16 PM  

Do you support polygamy?

I support contract law.

Blogger Retrenched April 27, 2015 1:17 PM  

What's been made clear is that either gays will have rights, or Christians will. Or perhaps neither will have rights. But never, ever will both gays and Christians have rights.

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 1:18 PM  

No, I don't. There is a fundamental difference between a monogamous, long-term relationship between two consenting adults and a relationship involving multiple partners. There is no equivalence between the two types of relationships.

Blogger jay c April 27, 2015 1:18 PM  

Coeur d‘Alene is the Austin/Boulder of Idaho, but it's surrounded by people with guns who have openly talked about the inevitability of armed revolution in America. If I were a top fed trying to start something in order to make an example of someone whom I could paint as an undesirable extremist, a la Randy Weaver or Vernon Howell, northern Idaho would be a prime place to target.

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 1:19 PM  

Retrenched - that is only true if Christians insist that their rights include the right to deny fundamental liberty to gays.

OpenID kbswift April 27, 2015 1:20 PM  

A more recent update on the situaiton:
http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_cd76cb47-0a3a-5d79-bf5e-44e7be00c707.html

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 1:20 PM  

No, I don't. There is a fundamental difference between a monogamous, long-term relationship between two consenting adults and a relationship involving multiple partners.

Which is what?

There is no equivalence between the two types of relationships.

Why not, when just ten years ago there was no equivalence between marriage and a long term gay relationship.

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 1:21 PM  

Has anyone commenting actually read up on this case? Vox got this one wrong. The pastors at the Hitching Post were not forced to perform a gay marriage, nor was any other religious institution. This ordinance applies only to secular institutions — like the commercial wedding chapels common in Vegas.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 1:21 PM  

Retrenched - that is only true if Christians insist that their rights include the right to deny fundamental liberty to gays.

What fundamental liberty are gays being denied?

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 1:23 PM  

Tell your wife you want to bring another woman into your marriage, Josh, and you'll find out the difference damn quick.

I'm not wasting any more time on a silly argument.

Blogger Giraffe April 27, 2015 1:23 PM  

Women minister. No protection from the libs.

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 1:24 PM  

Josh - the fundamental liberty to marry the person of their choice. Read Loving v. Virginia to educate yourself. The same arguments used to overturn state bans against interracial marriages apply to the current debate.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 1:24 PM  

Tell your wife you want to bring another woman into your marriage, Josh, and you'll find out the difference damn quick.

I'm not wasting any more time on a silly argument.


It's not a silly argument.

If we can redefine marriage from mf to mm or ff, why can't redefine it to include 3 or more people?

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 1:26 PM  

Josh - the fundamental liberty to marry the person of their choice. Read Loving v. Virginia to educate yourself. The same arguments used to overturn state bans against interracial marriages apply to the current debate.

"The person of their choice" do you support legalizing incest, pedophilia, or bestiality?

What if the person of their choice is a family member or a child?

Blogger Poor Guy April 27, 2015 1:28 PM  

Remember what happened in Houston, the city ordering pastors to turn over copies of their sermons? Lesbian mayor, shocking right?

Now we have Hillary who says religions must be forced to change their beliefs on abortion (and other things, of course).

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 1:28 PM  

Furthermore, what if two women want to marry the same man? Should they be denied the right to marry the person of their choice?

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 1:28 PM  

Josh - there are compelling societal reasons to prevent incest and children and animals are incapable of consent.

The fact that you can't recognize an argument as silly does not render it un-silly.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 1:31 PM  

Josh - there are compelling societal reasons to prevent incest and children and animals are incapable of consent.

What societal reasons? What if they're both sterile?

Anonymous Alexander April 27, 2015 1:31 PM  

For all you know Josh is Mormon, or a Muslim.. or an uberAlpha.

Or is it your position that no woman would tolerate her husband having two or more wives?

Again, why can't marriage be mff, if it can be redefined from mf to mm?

Blogger Giraffe April 27, 2015 1:31 PM  

There are already such things as "thruples" Dan. And polygamists Why do you want to deny them the basic right to marry who they want to?

Blogger Nikis-Knight April 27, 2015 1:32 PM  

"Tell your wife you want to bring another woman into your marriage, Josh, and you'll find out the difference damn quick.

I'm not wasting any more time on a silly argument."


Good Lord, what sophistry.
"Tell [random straight man] that you want to sodomize them, and then tell me gay marriage is equivalent."

You are seriously saying that because Josh's wife doesn't like to share, you can draw a coherent, fundamental difference between polygamy and homosexuality?

I do think arguing in good faith is utterly incomprehensible to these people.

Anonymous Stilicho April 27, 2015 1:32 PM  

This ordinance applies only to secular institutions — like the commercial wedding chapels common in Vegas.

Ah, so religious liberty and freedom of conscience only apply to churches. Glad you cleared that up for us.

Anonymous Alexander April 27, 2015 1:32 PM  

What if two gay brothers want to marry? No danger of incest there?

And for the societal good: do you promote sterilizing people with genetic defects or diseases that can be transferred to a fetus?

Blogger Poor Guy April 27, 2015 1:33 PM  

DAN: I oppose forcing any church or pastor who believes marriage is a sacrament only between a man and a woman to participate.

You do realize that Hillary (speaking of abortion, but the same thing applies) has decided that the time is right to use the power of government to force religions to end opposition to abortion (homo agenda). In 2008 she said dissent is patriotic, now she is telling us that the government will tell us what to think and believe.

How is war not inevitable?

Anonymous cheddarman April 27, 2015 1:33 PM  

I am surprised the Later Day Saints are not up in arms about this. The ones I have known over the years were very conservative and would not tolerate this.

Anonymous Stilicho April 27, 2015 1:35 PM  

Tell your wife you want to bring another woman into your marriage, Josh, and you'll find out the difference damn quick.

And if she's ok with it?

Should polyamorous groups be allowed to cohabit?

Blogger Poor Guy April 27, 2015 1:37 PM  

Dan - "Josh - there are compelling societal reasons to prevent incest and children and animals are incapable of consent."

The far left disagrees. There are states where bestiality is not illegal, heck, you can now rent a sheep on Amazon by the hour in Washington state.

Nearly every public school in America is now encouraging kids to have sex and handing out condoms. The leftists obviously think children can consent.

Blogger Poor Guy April 27, 2015 1:38 PM  

cheddarman - The LDS was on board with gay scout leaders camping overnight with the children.

Blogger Zaklog the Great April 27, 2015 1:39 PM  

Hey Dan, if the person of my choice is already married, why is the law allowed to say I cannot marry them? If the person of my choice is my sister, why can the law forbid us to marry? If the person of my choice is 14, why can the law forbid us to marry?

You see, my understanding of marriage provides a single, clear reason for all of these, but I don't think yours does.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell April 27, 2015 1:46 PM  

See, Idaho didn't even pass a law!

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 1:46 PM  

@Dan
Has anyone commenting actually read up on this case? Vox got this one wrong. The pastors at the Hitching Post were not forced to perform a gay marriage, nor was any other religious institution.

Did you actually read the post? Nowhere did Vox say that 'they were forced to perform a gay marriage'. You're putting that in his mouth.

Plus, He said the Knapps have been contacted by the police about a complaint filed on Thursday by a same-sex couple who were turned away at the Old West themed chapel. Per the source you listed. They were already getting investigated by the police, spurred by people who were hoping that they would get forced.

This ordinance applies only to secular institutions — like the commercial wedding chapels common in Vegas.

Yeaaaah, that clarification only came about after the lawsuit came about.

Per the source that you linked: Initially, the city said its anti-discrimination law did apply to the Hitching Post, since it is a commercial business. Earlier this week, Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom saying the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be exempt.

From here, "The whole problem is that prior to the case being filed, the city was saying the distinction between covered and not-covered was whether or not a business was a nonprofit or for-profit. But after we filed, they changed that statement," Jeremy Tedesco, ADF senior legal counsel, said.

Sometime in May, this ordinance came about. Sometime in Early October, Hitching Post reorganizes itself as a "religious corp" (no mention of what they were beforehand, maybe secular, who knows). October 20, article comes out and city says Knapps are in violation, October 23, police investigation, October 24, city changes their tune.

I restate myself: How shortsighted they are, that they only look at the short-term 'good' and never the consequences of hasty laws. I don't know how blameless the Knapps are, but if it allowed this big of a hole... what a hasty law it is.

Blogger S1AL April 27, 2015 1:48 PM  

Dan - Are you saying that there are no compelling reasons to prevent gay marriage? Because I have studies and quotes from homosexuals that say there are such reasons.

Anonymous Steve April 27, 2015 1:48 PM  

I'm sure the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International will be all over this.

Blogger Guitar Man April 27, 2015 1:48 PM  

I see that Dan was listening to NPR on his morning commute...

Anonymous Aeoli Pera April 27, 2015 1:49 PM  

This may seem like a rhetorical question, but please believe me that it's in the spirit of genuine curiosity.

Animals have sex without formal consent all the time, and quite often without even tacit consent from body language. Insofar as humans are animals, consensual sex would be an aberration, so we'd probably have to attribute consent to "higher" things, whether those be metaphysical in nature or mere abstractions of survival and reproductive urges.

That groundwork now laid, what does consent have to do with sex?

Blogger Derrick Bonsell April 27, 2015 1:51 PM  

In most of these cases the state governments are coming down on their citizens after gay marriage was legalized via judicial fiat. This isn't even a case of Idaho passing a law that says "Marriage is now open between consenting adults no matter the sex of either participant and no one can refuse to provide for their marriage." Instead what happened was the Federal government said "You can't restrict marriage to between a man and a woman," and now the state of Idaho has assumed new powers to interfere in their citizen's actions.

The time for open democratic debate is quickly coming to an end.

Blogger haus frau April 27, 2015 1:52 PM  

Unlike homosexual marriage, polygamy has a very long historical presence in many societies. By what measure is polygamous marriage fundementally different from monogamous marriage yet homosexual marriage is A ok?

Blogger Derrick Bonsell April 27, 2015 1:53 PM  

Finally it's clear than in 90% of these cases the homosexual couple in question only went to those places BECAUSE they decided that everyone needs to be forced to accept them.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 27, 2015 1:56 PM  

Tell your wife you want to bring another woman into your marriage, Josh, and you'll find out the difference damn quick

My wife got a little angry, but then I explained that they'll split the chores.

Problem solved. The new girl's moving in next week.

I'll take that poly-marriage certificate now.

Anonymous Popehat (not really) April 27, 2015 1:57 PM  

Why don't homosexuals have a right to free speech to ask pastors to marry them or lose their church?

Anonymous RedJack April 27, 2015 2:01 PM  

What about robots?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-future-of-sex-it-gets-better-1430104231

Anonymous Harsh April 27, 2015 2:02 PM  

Josh - there are compelling societal reasons to prevent incest and children and animals are incapable of consent.

There are compelling societal reasons to prevent homosexuality.

Blogger praetorian April 27, 2015 2:02 PM  

They're just cowardly idiots who will do or say anything rather than stand up for what they say they believe in.

As a former go-along-to-get-alonger... yep.

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 2:04 PM  

"Tell your wife you want to bring another woman into your marriage, Josh, and you'll find out the difference damn quick."

What if it's your wife's idea?

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 2:05 PM  

This provides us with nothing more than yet another opportunity to take a stand for righteousness and shine like stars in a crooked and perverse generation. I, for one, hope we get more and more of these opportunities. High time to break up the fallow ground.

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 2:06 PM  

"Tell your wife you want to bring another woman into your marriage, Josh, and you'll find out the difference damn quick."

Or this . . .

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/05/worlds-first-three-way-gay-marriage-takes-place-in-thailand/

Blogger Feather Blade April 27, 2015 2:07 PM  

This isn't even a case of Idaho passing a law

No, Idaho passed an amendment to the state constitutions saying that marriage is only between heterosexuals. Which amendment the feds, overstepping the bounds of their constitutional duties, overruled, apparently.

Anonymous p-dawg April 27, 2015 2:07 PM  

It's almost as though one cannot serve the state and the Creator at the same time, because they are at cross-purposes. If only He'd told us that we should choose who to serve and that we can't serve two masters. Why didn't He tell us?!?

Blogger Henry Smith April 27, 2015 2:09 PM  

Everyone's piling on Dan for arguing from an inconsistent foundation. That's good. I want to add that labeling an opponent's position a "silly argument" and proclaiming that you won't "waste time a silly argument" is classic SJW delegitimizing tactic. They *love* to announce they have the high moral ground, and then immediately quit the battle.. In fact, in their world morality *requires* them to quit, which in turn reinforces their perceived superior moral position.

Dan? Are you an SJW?

Anonymous Harsh April 27, 2015 2:11 PM  

There is a fundamental difference between a monogamous, long-term relationship between two consenting adults and a relationship involving multiple partners.

There are actually more rational arguments to support polygamy than homosexual "marriage".

Anonymous Soga April 27, 2015 2:11 PM  

Dan, I'm interested in seeing your answers to Josh and Alexander. Surely, you know what you're talking about, so you'll have an answer. Surely.

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 2:14 PM  

Everyone's piling on Dan for arguing from an inconsistent foundation. That's good.

To be fair, above and beyond the inconsistency issue, Dan's talking out of his ass here (no homosexual implication intended).

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 2:14 PM  

By what measure is polygamous marriage fundementally different from monogamous marriage yet homosexual marriage is A ok?

Feelings

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 2:14 PM  

"In fact, in their world morality *requires* them to quit, which in turn reinforces their perceived superior moral position."

The TRUTH requires them to quit which reinforces their delusions.

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 2:16 PM  

" (no homosexual implication intended)."

Uh-huh . . . we believe you.

Anonymous Harsh April 27, 2015 2:18 PM  

the fundamental liberty to marry the person of their choice

You're mistaking a rite for a right.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 27, 2015 2:19 PM  

there are compelling societal reasons to prevent incest and children and animals are incapable of consent.

By that same line of thinking, we can argue that there is a compelling societal reason to outlaw divorce and to make gay marriage illegal.

Because reasons.

Hell, I'd argue that there is more compelling societal reasons to outlaw divorce than to outlaw incest and child molestation.

Anonymous Roundtine April 27, 2015 2:20 PM  

Heh, I did this debate about 10 years ago. You hateful bigot! You define marriage as 1M:1F! It should be 1:1, no restriction on sex! OK, but why not 1M:2F?

There's no defense against polygamy from someone who is pro-gay marriage. They're simply a different form of "bigot." Furthermore, there's a lot of historical evidence for 1M 1F, and plenty of evidence for polygamy in the Bible and "modern" Islamic societies. Gay marriage is an invention. Arguments people make against polygamy such as harm to children, also applies to gay marriage.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 27, 2015 2:22 PM  

Here's the thing: even though the Lavender Mafia failed to compel these pastors to perform gay weddings on threat of death, the point is that they tried.

Gay marriage is about making people marry other people against their will and conscience because it is about forcing acceptance of perverse lifestyles on Christendom.

Anonymous Beau April 27, 2015 2:23 PM  

Why didn't He tell us?!?

He did:

But He detected their trickery and said to them, "Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?" They said, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Luke 20:23-25

And, thank you to the praying Ilk who have lifted myself and my family up in our time of crisis. My son is out of the hospital, at home. We are adjusting to a new routine to support him.

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 2:29 PM  

" . . . the point is that they tried."

Just testing the limits in order to measure the push-back and resistance, make requisite adjustments, and then test again at a later time.

Anonymous Donn April 27, 2015 2:31 PM  

Dan, do you support the current law that allows pastors, wedding facilitators, or bakers to be shot if they disobey the law? Because it is a criminal law force can and probably will be used to enforce that law. Do you support taking it to the end of your side's line of reasoning and shooting those who don't comply?

Blogger Mike Farnsworth April 27, 2015 2:31 PM  

I've seen quite a few references in these comments to Mormons, Latter-Day Saints, etc, and nobody has been right about any of it. For the record:

For all you know Josh is Mormon, or a Muslim.. or an uberAlpha.

The banning of polygamist marriage among LDS people occurred prior to 1890. See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

LDS people don't "believe in polygamy" in that if you practice it you get excommunicated (I know people who have), and the vast majority of us don't believe it's ever going to be allowed here in mortality again. And that's just fine by us.

I am surprised the Later Day Saints are not up in arms about this. The ones I have known over the years were very conservative and would not tolerate this.

We are. The vast majority of us are pretty upset about what's going on. I was in the camp that the State of Utah needed to completely snub it's nose at the federal courts and never sign marriage licenses for gays in SLC, and fire anybody who did. And that they should tell those ridiculous federal judges they can come to Utah with guns and enforce their own edicts, because they clearly violate the 9th and 10th amendments. See how well that turns out.

My wife and I participated monetarily and directly in supporting Proposition 8, which support was tacitly requested by LDS leaders. While we believe in following the law, NO faithful LDS person I know supports gay marriage (I know a few less-active and naive ones who do, though). I know of LDS leaders who would yank temple recommends for supporting gay marriage as it directly goes against clear LDS doctrine and policy.

I can tell you exactly what would happen should it become required that LDS bishops perform same-sex marriages: they'd stop performing marriages at all. We would still have what we call sealings done in the temple to make the marriage last into eternity, but people would be instructed to go get their civil marriage license at city hall or whatever and then head to the temple for the sealing. That is exactly how it is done in Europe for various reasons, e.g. a couple examples: UK (apparently the Queen has to be able to attend any marriage, and she doesn't have an LDS temple recommend =P) and Spain (LDS bishops have not been granted authority by the state to perform marriages). The precedent is set, so if someone thought they could force the hand of the LDS Church...well, they wouldn't gain anything in the process.

cheddarman - The LDS was on board with gay scout leaders camping overnight with the children.

False. Back it up or be quiet. I was just recently a scout leader in my local congregation, called to do so by my LDS bishop, and so I'm quite familiar with the rules and policies. If I were a non-celibate gay they would NOT give me the calling (or any other calling), and would yank me from it immediately if it were discovered. The BSA still does not allow openly gay leaders, only gay scouts as long as they don't violate the BSA rules which already forbid sexual fraternization of any kind.

The LDS Church is very clear: if you experience same-sex attraction, but don't act on it, you can be in goods standing (same as a person who experiences a temptation to murder but never actually does -- you're not guilty if you haven't actually committed a crime). *Any* member in any position who acts on same-sex attraction is immediately not in good standing, and if unrepentant, will probably be excommunicated. Scout leader or not has nothing to do with it.

For those who read this far, some good background on LDS theology regarding these issues, see the LDS Proclamation on the Family:

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&cid=PA0414-02

OpenID pancakeloach April 27, 2015 2:34 PM  

Compelling? TO WHOM? And why should people who aren't convinced by those "compelling reasons" care what others find compelling?

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 2:36 PM  

Wow. Step away to do some actual work, and look what happens?

On the polygamy argument, let me try to explain it this way: You could take the vows spoken at my heterosexual wedding and, changing nothing but the names, use them in a same-gender wedding. The purpose of the ceremony — affirming our decision to promise ourselves to one another, commit to one another and forsake all others until death parts us — remains identical. The words are identical. The spirit of the occasion is identical. The only difference is that the two people making this promise to each other are of the same gender.

To me, that is a far greater difference than if you throw a third (or fourth or fifth) person in there. Then what promise is each person making? To love each of the other two and forsake all others (except for the other they are marrying, of course). And if two women are marrying one man, are the two women also marrying one another? Isn't polygamy then in essence also same-sex marriage?

So, yeah, equating same-sex marriage and polygamy (or bestiality or pedophilia) is a silly argument. It's also degrading and dehumanizing.

Of course, the reason many of you find it so hard to understand this is exactly because you have dehumanized homosexuals, and can't understand that, fundamentally, they want the same things out of life that you do.

Anonymous Stilicho April 27, 2015 2:38 PM  

@Mike Farnsworth: what is the position of the LDS church with respect to celibate gay scout leaders? Are they allowed to camp overnight with the children?

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 2:38 PM  

Hey BigGaySteve, didja hear that? We dehumanized you, accidentally I guess.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 2:38 PM  

So, yeah, equating same-sex marriage and polygamy (or bestiality or pedophilia) is a silly argument. It's also degrading and dehumanizing.


Only if you consider the polygamous to be subhuman.

Blogger Thordaddy April 27, 2015 2:39 PM  

The fundamental problem is the refusal of Christians to truthfully define "gay marriage" for the masses so that they can "see" that the universe does not ACTUALLY accommodate a "union of self-annihilators." The fate of radical liberalism is the anti-collective.

Anonymous Stilicho April 27, 2015 2:39 PM  

Dan, there are a number of specific questions directed at you. Please answer them directly and specifically.

Blogger Mike Farnsworth April 27, 2015 2:40 PM  

@Mike Farnsworth: what is the position of the LDS church with respect to celibate gay scout leaders? Are they allowed to camp overnight with the children?

Yes. In my book as well, "celibate gay" means not gay. You don't call someone a murderer just because of a temptation to murder, so if a man doesn't go around committing sodomy or other such things then he ain't gay. So no problems there.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 2:40 PM  

could take the vows spoken at my heterosexual wedding and, changing nothing but the names, use them in a same-gender wedding. The purpose of the ceremony — affirming our decision to promise ourselves to one another, commit to one another and forsake all others until death parts us — remains identical. The words are identical. The spirit of the occasion is identical. The only difference is that the two people making this promise to each other are of the same gender.


could take the vows spoken at my monogamous wedding and, changing nothing but the names, use them in a polygamous wedding. The purpose of the ceremony — affirming our decision to promise ourselves to one another, commit to one another and forsake all others until death parts us — remains identical. The words are identical. The spirit of the occasion is identical. The only difference is that the number of people making this promise to each other is three instead of two.

Blogger Marissa April 27, 2015 2:41 PM  

Of course, the reason many of you find it so hard to understand this is exactly because you have dehumanized homosexuals, and can't understand that, fundamentally, they want the same things out of life that you do.

Yeah, buttfucking and anal fisting each other until you spread intestinal parasites from livestock and create anti-biotic resistant superbugs...and we're the ones who dehumanized the queers.

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 2:42 PM  

To be fair, above and beyond the inconsistency issue, Dan's talking out of his ass here (no homosexual implication intended).

Comments like this do little to bolster Vox's claim that his readers aren't assholes.

Anonymous Alexander April 27, 2015 2:43 PM  

They don't fundamentally want the same things out of life as we do. Their lack of desire to reproduce and their inability to do so with their sexual partners pretty much proves that.

Also 'to me'? What's that got to do with anything? What authority do you speak with to deny a system of marriage that is legitimized in many more countries, for many more centuries, than gay marriage?

And how, exactly, is comparing same-sex marriage with polygamy 'degrading' or 'dehumanizing'?

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 2:43 PM  

Stilicho, I'm not your monkey. I'll respond to the questions and comments I want to respond to and as I have time.

Anonymous WinstonWebb April 27, 2015 2:44 PM  

On the polygamy argument, let me try to explain it this way: You could take the vows spoken at my heterosexual wedding and, changing nothing but the names, use them in a same-gender wedding. The purpose of the ceremony — affirming our decision to promise ourselves to one another, commit to one another and forsake all others until death parts us — remains identical. The words are identical. The spirit of the occasion is identical. The only difference is that the two people making this promise to each other are of the same gender.

*golf clap*

Nice try, but your metric could be applied to incestual marriages (straight or gay) and not miss one damned beat.

Anonymous Alexander April 27, 2015 2:44 PM  

Comments like this do little to bolster Vox's claim that his readers aren't assholes.

DISQUALIFY

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 2:45 PM  

"Dan, there are a number of specific questions directed at you. Please answer them directly and specifically."

One of the dangers inherent in stepping away to do some real work.

Blogger natschuster April 27, 2015 2:45 PM  

Can a Christian cleric be forced to participate in a Moslim wedding, or vice versa? If not, doesn't that constitute discrimination. Can a black pastor be forced to officiate over a Klan themed wedding? Where does it end? Or is it only gays who get special priveliges?

Blogger Corvinus April 27, 2015 2:45 PM  

I've said it before and will say it again: this sodomogamy fad is the point where active persecution of Christians starts. When half the population actually believes it's just to force people to service fag weddings, you know society is royally screwed up and that serious trouble is coming.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 27, 2015 2:45 PM  

Last year I was talking with a Protestant minister in his 30's who said that he expected his children, who are 5, 7 years old, to have deal with persecution for their faith because of milittant homosexuals. I suggested he'd be seeing it himself in 10 years or even sooner, and he just stared at me.

Perhaps I should go look him up, with this news story in hand. Churches that stand on the Bible better start preparing for life without that 501c(3) tax status, I believe. That includes the Roman Catholics, too.

Anonymous Alexander April 27, 2015 2:45 PM  

When you have time, fair enough.

That you want to... nope, that's not how this place works. Answer the direct, on topic questions, or quit commenting, per the rules of the blog.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 2:45 PM  

Stilicho, I'm not your monkey. I'll respond to the questions and comments I want to respond to and as I have time.

Dude, that's not how it works here. If it's an on topic question, you need to provide an answer.

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 2:48 PM  

"Stilicho, I'm not your monkey. I'll respond to the questions and comments I want to respond to and as I have time."

You could have answered one question there instead of bitching and moaning.

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 2:48 PM  

"Churches that stand on the Bible better start preparing for life without that 501c(3) tax status, I believe."

They also should start getting used to the idea of smaller congregations.

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 2:49 PM  

Plus, "nuh uh I dun wanna answer" is just a gigantic sign saying "I HAVE NO IDEA".

Except, actually saying "I have no idea." infers a sense of humility. Avoiding the question is just ego-saving.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 2:49 PM  


Comments like this do little to bolster Vox's claim that his readers aren't assholes.

(no homosexual implication intended), right?

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 27, 2015 2:49 PM  

Stilicho, I'm not your monkey. I'll respond to the questions and comments I want to respond to and as I have time.

Well, actually... you are. You come here and make stupid claims using spurious logic and then claim you can refuse to answer direct questions?

Well, sure. You can. But by the rules of the blog, that makes you a troll and your posting privilege is not guaranteed (paraphrasing.)

Personally, I think you're better off quitting while you're ahead. Either walk away, or come back and admit that your logic applies equally to any of the situations to which it's been compared, but you don't like it because you're gay, not a bestiality or incest or necrophilia or polygamy fan, and you're OK asserting that you're morally superior to those who are.

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 2:49 PM  

Of course, the reason many of you find it so hard to understand this is exactly because you have dehumanized homosexuals, and can't understand that, fundamentally, they want the same things out of life that you do.

You're arguments are getting worse, not better.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 2:51 PM  

Dan,

Does "the fundamental liberty to marry the person of their choice" apply to everyone?

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 2:52 PM  

"Avoiding the question is just ego-saving."

And yet, ironically, the ego is not saved, but exposed and ridiculed.

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 2:52 PM  

Comments like this do little to bolster Vox's claim that his readers aren't assholes.

My comment was accurate. Your follow up arguments have verified that. You have no real position other than what you're pulling out of your ass, and you're the one making the claim that people here are dehumanizing homosexuals without having any idea of what the hell you're talking about, so if anyone is being an asshole, it's you.

Blogger Corvinus April 27, 2015 2:53 PM  

They also should start getting used to the idea of smaller congregations.

@Rabbi B
That's okay, if a bunch of sodomogamophiliacs (like Dan here) leave in a huff, that just improves the congregation's quality.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 2:54 PM  

Hey BigGaySteve, didja hear that? We dehumanized you, accidentally I guess.

Only because he owns a glock...

Blogger Corvinus April 27, 2015 2:54 PM  

You're arguments are getting worse, not better.

@Scintan
He needs extra time to think up some sophistry that may (but probably won't) successfully pull the wool over our eyes. Sophistry is hard, after all.

Anonymous Joel P. April 27, 2015 2:58 PM  

Dan: "The purpose of the ceremony — affirming our decision to promise ourselves to one another, commit to one another and forsake all others until death parts us — remains identical. "

Does it?

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 2:59 PM  

"Only because he owns a glock..."

Glocks: you can't have too many

Anonymous Dead Kulak April 27, 2015 2:59 PM  

Does your church file under 501c(3) tax status? Then sorry, homophobes. Your church already signed up for gay marriage.

Just like when a business gets a license. Or when you get a social security number.

You agreed to serve the Public, and the Public says you must do gay marriages.

Anonymous That was easy April 27, 2015 3:00 PM  

If "one man and one woman" is hate and denial of rights, then "two and only two" is exactly the same.

Dan is just a polyphobic bigoted hater. There is NO PLACE in society for people like him who deny polys their right to love in their own way. Dan should lose his job, just like Brandon Eich, and be scorned by all the progressive, compassionate people around him.

Bigot. Dan, by your own standards you are a hate-filled bigot. How does it feel, dude?

Anonymous Porky April 27, 2015 3:00 PM  

Marissa, is that a scientific study you are referring to?

Blogger tridekka April 27, 2015 3:05 PM  

South Park: The Death Camp of Tolerance

Just as good for this as for the bakeries and everything else.

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 3:05 PM  

Dude, that's not how it works here. If it's an on topic question, you need to provide an answer.

I don't need to do anything, Josh. I don't have either the time or the desire to go through every single response looking for on-topic questions that I MUST respond to. If that's the blog's rule, it's a stupid one — and one I imagine designed to stifle commenters who don't share the views of the majority here.

If someone wants to show me that rule, I will follow it — by ceasing to comment here.

Blogger Guitar Man April 27, 2015 3:05 PM  

Dead Kulak, how's that sovereign citizen thing working out for you?

Anonymous Stilicho April 27, 2015 3:05 PM  

Stilicho, I'm not your monkey. I'll respond to the questions and comments I want to respond to and as I have time.

Yet here you are, dancing around, flinging poo. I suppose "please" was insufficient. Would "pretty please with extra gay rainbow sprinkles on top" suffice? It's rather obvious that you cannot provide direct answers to the direct questions that were posed to you or you are unwilling to do so because an honest answer would reveal the false premises upon which your entire position is built.

One of the more amusing revelations is that you feel that, while Christians should be forced to perform gay weddings, you should be exempt from even answering questions about your rationalizations.

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 3:06 PM  

"
I don't need to do anything, Josh. I don't have either the time or the desire to go through every single response looking for on-topic questions that I MUST respond to. If that's the blog's rule, it's a stupid one — and one I imagine designed to stifle commenters who don't share the views of the majority here.

If someone wants to show me that rule, I will follow it — by ceasing to comment here."

That's two questions you could have answered instead of bitching.

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 3:07 PM  

"If someone wants to show me that rule, I will follow it — by ceasing to comment here."

We're going to miss you.

Anonymous WinstonWebb April 27, 2015 3:09 PM  

Dan,
Under what circumstance would it be valid to deny 2 consenting adults the opportunity to be married?
Thank you,

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 3:09 PM  

On the polygamy argument, let me try to explain it this way: You could take the vows spoken at my heterosexual wedding and, changing nothing but the names, use them in a same-gender wedding.

Most standard Christian wedding vows include "do you take this man" and "do you take this woman", and they also differentiate between a husband and a wife. When vows are used in jewish ceremonies, reformed and conservative, husband and wife is used. Muslims use wife and husband. This sort of thing is the norm. In other words, you're wrong, yet again.

Anonymous Curtis April 27, 2015 3:09 PM  

Solution for the Church. Stop issuing State Certificates of Marriage. Solution for Christians. Stop bringing the State into your marriage. Stop giving unto Caesar what does not belong to Caesar. You want a State Certificate of Marriage? Get married by the State.

Stop letting the thief into your house.

Anonymous Stilicho April 27, 2015 3:09 PM  

If someone wants to show me that rule, I will follow it — by ceasing to comment here.

Don't go. You're doing more to undermine gay marriage than the fools demanding gay wedding cakes.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 3:10 PM  

From the RULES OF THE BLOG post that's linked in the left column:

2. You are expected to back up your assertions, so don't be surprised if you happen to get called on them. If you fail to back up an assertion when called on it, but refuse to retract the statement, understand that I reserve the right to delete the relevant comment and all subsequent comments you attempt to make. If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner; providing links in lieu of answers is not acceptable. (Links providing additional information in support of your answer are great, of course.) The dishonest and evasive tactics that are so common in Internet argumentation are not permitted here. If you refuse to either answer a question or admit that you cannot answer it, then you will not be permitted to comment here and all of your subsequent comments will be deleted.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 3:11 PM  

Does your church file under 501c(3) tax status? Then sorry, homophobes. Your church already signed up for gay marriage.

Just like when a business gets a license. Or when you get a social security number.

You agreed to serve the Public, and the Public says you must do gay marriages.


Do you have a social security number?

Have you ever paid any taxes?

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 3:11 PM  

@Curtis

Right on.

Blogger Marissa April 27, 2015 3:12 PM  

I don't understand your question, Porky.

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 3:12 PM  

To me, that is a far greater difference than if you throw a third (or fourth or fifth) person in there. Then what promise is each person making? To love each of the other two and forsake all others (except for the other they are marrying, of course). And if two women are marrying one man, are the two women also marrying one another? Isn't polygamy then in essence also same-sex marriage?

So, yeah, equating same-sex marriage and polygamy (or bestiality or pedophilia) is a silly argument. It's also degrading and dehumanizing.


Note that this argument of yours is not at all factual. It's nothing more than your claimed personal feeling worded in such a way as to try to pretend there's a factual basis to it.

That's why the second paragraph is, to use your own words, a silly argument.

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 3:15 PM  

". . . . I imagine designed to stifle commenters who don't share the views of the majority here."

It never ceases to amaze me how much the English language can be subject to so much abuse. Please keep commenting, it's not only quite the education, but highly entertaining as well.

Stifle commentators??!! Now, that is truly the funniest thing I have read here to date. Just when you think you have seen it all . . .

Anonymous Joel P. April 27, 2015 3:15 PM  

Either walk away, or come back and admit that your logic applies equally to any of the situations to which it's been compared, but you don't like it because you're gay, not a bestiality or incest or necrophilia or polygamy fan, and you're OK asserting that you're morally superior to those who are.

Which makes Dan just as much of a bigot as he accuses the traditional marriage proponents of being. Even more so actually, since our logical premises are not consistent with marriage between anyone other than one man, one woman, whereas Dan, in his bid to redefine the entire institution for his own ends, must draw inconsistent and arbitrary lines in the sand in order to prevent a slippery slope.

Why do you hate incestuous people, Dan? If two consenting, adult siblings love each other and want to commit their lives together in marital bliss, who are you to deny them? And don't trot out "societal concerns," because that argument can be used against homosexuality just as easily, if not more so.

Blogger Salt April 27, 2015 3:16 PM  

Of course these people are being targeted. The law is being used for social engineering. It'll be the same arguments as used before. What's the gays complaint with these people when they can get what they want down the street? It ain't about them wanting to get married.

Anonymous PSacramento April 27, 2015 3:17 PM  

From an evolutionary stand point, at least polygamy makes sense.
Homosexuality is not only wrong and undesirable from a religious POV, but also from a biological and evolutionary one as well.

Anonymous Porky April 27, 2015 3:19 PM  

@Marissa

The whole thing about fists, intestinal parasites, superbugs....

Is that from a scientific study or anecdotal?

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 3:19 PM  

One of the more amusing revelations is that you feel that, while Christians should be forced to perform gay weddings, you should be exempt from even answering questions about your rationalizations.

If someone would like to compile a list of direct, on-topic questions directed at me, I'll be happy to take them on — again, as I have time.

But Stilicho, why should I bother, when people obviously don't read when I do respond? I specifically said I was opposed to forcing Christian churches and pastors (or officiants of other religions) from performing same-sex weddings if they believe marriage is only a sacrament between one man and one woman.

And let's remember the reason I waded into this to begin with: This is an old story that doesn't say what Vox said it did. No pastor is being told they must marry gays or face jail time. The ordinance in question does not apply to the people who have brought the city to court (making it the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit), or any other religious organization.

You all can cry persecution all you want, but what you are up in arms about is not happening, and if it ever does, I'll be standing beside you fighting against it.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 3:22 PM  

You all can cry persecution all you want, but what you are up in arms about is not happening, and if it ever does, I'll be standing beside you fighting against it.

Brandon Eich.

Chick Fil A.

Duck Dynasty.

Memories Pizza.

Sweet Cakes.

Anonymous Dead Kulak April 27, 2015 3:23 PM  

"Dead Kulak, how's that sovereign citizen thing working out for you?"

Given all of the Kulaks are dead, how do you think it worked out?

Submit or starve.

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 27, 2015 3:23 PM  

So it turns out that gays have shotgun weddings also, its just in our case the shotgun is pointed at the priest. Gaypatriot covered this story last year. 41 comments from gays that don't want more taken out of their wallets just because LaTrina squatted out a couple more crack babies. http://www.gaypatriot.net/2014/10/18/gay-marriage-and-the-subjugation-of-church-to-state/

I support same-sex marriage. I guess one of my exes that supports gay alimony has found this place.

"the fundamental liberty to marry the person of their choice." 14yo great great grandson of George Soros I chose you & your trust fund.

The LDS was on board with gay scout leaders camping overnight with the children- I have always said that gay scout leaders would be like Charlie Sheen and Woody Allen being girl scout leaders.

"Comments like this do little to bolster Vox's claim that his readers aren't assholes." I have had guys call me a bigot for not wanting to have sex with guys I know are HIV+. Those 6'+ a-holes that drive nice cars and don't want to pay gay alimony ruin it for everyone..

"fundamentally, they want the same things out of life that you do." Not All Gays Are Like That. I am pretty sure none of the str8 guys on the blog wants to have an eightsome, or could outdo the Managulf girl who blew 24 guys on video in a bar contest and claimed rape afterwards. None of the guys on the blog know of people who have stalked their exes for 6+ years after a break up.

OpenID genericviews April 27, 2015 3:23 PM  

Josh - the fundamental liberty to marry the person of their choice. Read Loving v. Virginia to educate yourself. The same arguments used to overturn state bans against interracial marriages apply to the current debate.

Both Jennifer Anniston and my wife disagree with you.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 3:23 PM  

Also look at what's going on with Gordon College.

Anonymous Dan April 27, 2015 3:24 PM  

None of those are churches or pastors. Want to try again, Josh?

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 27, 2015 3:26 PM  

14yo great great grandson of George Soros I chose you & your trust fund. Just so we are clear I was being sarcastic.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 3:27 PM  

None of those are churches or pastors. Want to try again, Josh?

Gordon College is a religious institution.

Anonymous Joel P. April 27, 2015 3:28 PM  

None of those are churches or pastors. Want to try again, Josh?

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 3:28 PM  

"Submit or starve."

No thanks.

Blogger Crowhill April 27, 2015 3:28 PM  

Snopes has a useful entry on this.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp

Blogger Guitar Man April 27, 2015 3:30 PM  

Dan, why are you occupying your free time on this blog? You're never going to convince anyone over here. You've already made up your mind, and proved that ducking questions is probably your main talent. Why waste your time over here?

Anonymous Curtis April 27, 2015 3:33 PM  

None of those are churches or pastors. Want to try again, Josh?

No. But they are Christian. And Christians are what make up the Church. So you are for not forcing the institution, the Church, to marry gays, but for the individuals, who makes up the Church, to cater to gays, wherever those Christians may be.

Blogger Guitar Man April 27, 2015 3:33 PM  

Dead Kulak, are you submitting?

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 3:33 PM  

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/hillary-unleashed/

Note the similarity in language on both issues:

Abortion:

"Religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

Homosexuality:

"Church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list.'"

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 3:36 PM  

""Church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list.'""

Well, of course, because we put it on there now didn't we?

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 27, 2015 3:38 PM  

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for the Blacks, and I did not speak out - because I was not a black;
Then they realized all of the problems had pretty much been solved so they stopped coming for people- Karol Traven

If its any consolation Vox gave me a wedding cake for the captcha

Blogger ChicagoRefugee April 27, 2015 3:40 PM  

Where on earth did Dan get the idea that gay marriage is - or is intended to be - monogamous?

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 3:41 PM  

Where on earth did Dan get the idea that gay marriage is - or is intended to be - monogamous?

BECAUSE GAYS ARE JUST LIKE STRAIGHTS YOU FILTHY DISGUSTING STUPID FUNDIE BIGOT!

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 3:41 PM  

" . . . the point where active persecution of Christians starts . . . serious trouble is coming"

Just ask Lot.

Blogger Poor Guy April 27, 2015 3:43 PM  

How many internment camps do you think Hillary is planning?

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 3:43 PM  

"Where on earth did Dan get the idea that gay marriage is - or is intended to be - monogamous?"

No, the real question is where did anyone get the idea that gay marriage is marriage.

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 27, 2015 3:43 PM  

Where on earth did Dan get the idea that gay marriage is - or is intended to be - monogamous?

He either doesn't know many gays or he is ugly with a small PP.

Anonymous Steve April 27, 2015 3:45 PM  

Comments like this do little to bolster Vox's claim that his readers aren't assholes.

Don't misgenitalia me, shitlord! I'm a dick, not an asshole. Get it right.

Anonymous TroperA April 27, 2015 3:45 PM  

You could take the vows spoken at my heterosexual wedding and, changing nothing but the names, use them in a same-gender wedding. The purpose of the ceremony — affirming our decision to promise ourselves to one another, commit to one another and forsake all others until death parts us — remains identical. The words are identical. The spirit of the occasion is identical. The only difference is that the two people making this promise to each other are of the same gender."

Except that gay marriages are NOT like heterosexual unions (even if children are adopted into it:)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

"In writing about the subject, gay people emphasize the aspects of their relationships that sound most wholesome and straight-like, Steven Thrasher writes. They neglect to mention that, say, in Thrasher’s case, he met his partner for sex only once, and they ended up falling in love. The larger point being that gay couples are very different when it comes to sex, even if this is not the convenient moment to discuss that. And in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships."

Naawww. Legalizing gay marriage won't change the institution of marriage at all...


@Marissa

The whole thing about fists, intestinal parasites, superbugs....

Is that from a scientific study or anecdotal?


It's common knowledge amongst clinicians who served the gay community during the AIDS crisis that those who engaged in rougher, more extreme forms of sex were the most likely to be infected. This thread (on the history of Patient Zero) has a lot of info on the early days of AIDS and the doctors who were called in to treat it:

http://salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/patient-zero-and-the-early-days-of-hiv-aids.3167/

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 3:46 PM  

"How many internment camps do you think Hillary is planning?"

I thought Bill was the one who liked interns.

Anonymous TroperA April 27, 2015 3:46 PM  

Sorry for the lack of formatting - the text box wasn't accepting my code....

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 27, 2015 3:46 PM  

You know its funny. For all this opposition to polygamy from Dan and other people, the Bible never explicitly condemns polygamy at any point. Yes, Paul tells Timothy (and Titus I believe) that church clergy shouldn't have more than one wife (which nullifies women in the priesthood, by the way), but he never condemns the practice.

Neither did Jesus as far as I can tell. He did say that a man clings to his wife, but in context this was more an allegory about the seasons of life. He didn't say that the man can't go on and get another wife to cling to.

God even told King David that if he had wanted more wives, then he would provided them.

But it always explicitly condemned homosexuality.

Anonymous Roundtine April 27, 2015 3:47 PM  

You could take the vows spoken at my heterosexual wedding and, changing nothing but the names, use them in a same-gender wedding. The purpose of the ceremony — affirming our decision to promise ourselves to one another, commit to one another and forsake all others until death parts us — remains identical. The words are identical. The spirit of the occasion is identical. The only difference is that the two people making this promise to each other are of the same gender.

To me, that is a far greater difference than if you throw a third (or fourth or fifth) person in there. Then what promise is each person making?


The same exact one. You're defining marriage down to words and feelings, how can you deny anyone whatever marriage they want when you have defined it as words and feelings. Just because you can not understand how others feel about it, you want to deny them happiness.

Blogger August April 27, 2015 3:48 PM  

There's an Orthodox priest in Illinois who decided not to sign or require marriage licenses anymore:
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2015/04/influential-orthodox-priest-no-longer.html

I'm hoping it's part of a trend. Maybe this Idaho thing will help speed things up.

Anonymous Harsh April 27, 2015 3:49 PM  

So, yeah, equating same-sex marriage and polygamy (or bestiality or pedophilia) is a silly argument. It's also degrading and dehumanizing.

You have yet to demonstrate why. Simply repeating the same thing over and over is not an argument.

On the polygamy argument, let me try to explain it this way: You could take the vows spoken at my heterosexual wedding and, changing nothing but the names, use them in a same-gender wedding.

Missing the point entirely that wedding vows have meaning because they invoke a sacrament between man and woman. When you take that part out you've rendered the vow meaningless.

But Stilicho, why should I bother, when people obviously don't read when I do respond?

The problem is we are reading your responses.

If someone wants to show me that rule, I will follow it — by ceasing to comment here.

Don't make any promises you can't keep.

Anonymous Harsh April 27, 2015 3:50 PM  

You agreed to serve the Public, and the Public says you must do gay marriages.

Are you going to use that logic when the public says to lock up homosexuals?

Anonymous Roundtine April 27, 2015 3:51 PM  

I have had guys call me a bigot for not wanting to have sex with guys I know are HIV+.

Was it to your face? I've seen that discussed online before, but I can't imagine someone saying something so stupid to someone's face.

Blogger Marissa April 27, 2015 3:52 PM  

@Marissa

The whole thing about fists, intestinal parasites, superbugs....

Is that from a scientific study or anecdotal?


It's from accounts by homosexuals, see documentaries like "Gay Sex in the 70s" or books like "Faggots" by Larry Kramer and Richard Berkowitz's "Stayin' Alive: the Invention of Safe Sex".

Blogger CM April 27, 2015 3:53 PM  

Blah.

Polygamy: MULTIPLE marriages between one man and one woman.

This is NOT polyamory where the wives are marrying eachother, too. The triple marriage in New Zealand is not actually polygamy as traditionally practiced. They are each married to the other two.

501(c)3 - this is about ALREADY TAXED MONEY being pooled together by like minded individuals to support a "mission" or goal... whether it be a church or charity. That money has already been taxed under the people giving that money WITH NO EXCHANGE OF GOODS. My pastor gets a salary from this money, and THAT is taxed.

Retrenched - that is only true if Christians insist that their rights include the right to deny fundamental liberty to gays.

No one is denying gays the fundamental right of freedom of association. It is not a fundamental right for us to tacitly agree or cater to their association or to legitimize their use of the term "marriage." That's policing thoughts.

In fact, the ones being denied a fundamental right are the ones not allowed to freely associate.

In respect to this case, they were listed as a corporation not for their chapel (which i think they marry free of charge, i could be wrong), but they offer other services with a price tag.

They have a gift shop for wedding supplies and resources as well as offering pre-marital counseling. They are both ordained ministers and considered their chapel a "mission". Rather than running a church and earning a salary through a congregation, they support themselves on the gift shop and counseling services.

They are not a LV Elvis chapel.

Blogger James Dixon April 27, 2015 3:55 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 27, 2015 3:57 PM  

@Dan

I am not joining but the pile-on. I am pointing out the obvious.

Those Democrats who fifteen years ago, laughed at the notion that Gay Marriage would ever be recognized in any of these United States, are today the first ones that light the torches if anyone refuses to celebrate it.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is being undermined, is in fact under siege at every American university. And it is a battle that the SJWs are winning. They are hands down winning. America's universities are grinding out like cheap sausage, graduates who now believe that hate speech should be outlawed.

A constitutional amendment is only as strong at the court system that backs it. Today's undergraduate students are tomorrow's judges.

If they are chipping away at the one secular aspect of first amendment they all but worship. What do you think will do to the religious aspect that they hold in utter contempt?

This is not a time to be reasonable with our opponents.

Blogger CM April 27, 2015 4:00 PM  

Oh... with the argument for gay marriage being about marrying "who you love", i've long contended incest is the next step.

I've brought it up here before, but the circumstances don't seem to be common enough yet.

I should think that with a continued rise in social technology, reproductive technology, and the continued breakdown of the reproductive family unit raising biological children, its only a matter of time before enough unaware, biologically related lovers want to marry and can't.

Though we also have the issue of how would they know? Blood tests aren't required for licenses any more.

Blogger James Dixon April 27, 2015 4:02 PM  

> "The whole problem is that prior to the case being filed, the city was saying the distinction between covered and not-covered was whether or not a business was a nonprofit or for-profit. But after we filed, they changed that statement," Jeremy Tedesco, ADF senior legal counsel, said. "This ordinance has criminal penalties and jail time if you violate it and because of that, the city needs to have clear guidelines for people like the Knapps who are trying to figure out if they're exempt."

You know, I don't recall the first amendment having an "except for for-profit's" clause. Does anyone else?

> If that's the blog's rule, it's a stupid one

It is, and Vox doesn't care what you think.
.
> If someone wants to show me that rule, I will follow it — by ceasing to comment here.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Anonymous Ollie April 27, 2015 4:03 PM  

It's time for some civil disobedience now. This is, from a 4GW point of view, if the absolute best option. If the state backs down, there is a small victory for Christendom.

On the other hand, if the state instead does as it is designed to do and the whole thing is caught on tape, we have the makings of a major victory in the form of an unprecedented propaganda coup.

Picture the boyz in blue cracking some kindly old God-fearing skulls for refusing to bow to sodom.

The MSM will first try to bury it, and when they realize they've been end run by alt media, it will be too late for a counter narrative to have any appreciable effect.
At that point, anyone who takes their relationship with the Lord even somewhat seriously should have figured out that it really IS open season on them, and will accordingly begin to pull their churchian heads out of the sand.

Blogger ajw308 April 27, 2015 4:07 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rabbi B April 27, 2015 4:07 PM  

"Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

Sorry . . . I just couldn't resist fixing that for you.

Blogger ajw308 April 27, 2015 4:08 PM  

The rumor is the wives don't mind sharing the husband, but they do mind sharing the kitchen.

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 4:11 PM  

"I am not joining but the pile-on."

Please. It's not a pile on, it's a feeding frenzy.

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 4:12 PM  

Oh... with the argument for gay marriage being about marrying "who you love", i've long contended incest is the next step.

Mother-Son, Father-Daughter, Brother-Sister:

They wouldn't have to change a single word of the normal vows, so that makes it all good with Dan's logic.

Blogger ajw308 April 27, 2015 4:12 PM  

@ Harsh, Logic is like facts. They're totally ignored if they don't serve the agenda.

Anonymous Harsh April 27, 2015 4:14 PM  

If that's the blog's rule, it's a stupid one

(Dan stomps his feet and crosses his arms) I will not! I will not support my assertions and you can't make me!

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 4:15 PM  

"I am not joining but the pile-on."

Please. It's not a pile on, it's a feeding frenzy.


"If we can get everyone to turn queer, then there won't be no children to have no children, and the people from the future won't exist to take our jobs!"

Anonymous p-dawg April 27, 2015 4:22 PM  

@ Dead Kulak: I've been saying that here for years. It's good to hear another voice crying out in the wilderness. Adhesion contracts are still contracts, and you are expected to abide by the terms and conditions of contracts you sign. If you don't want to abide by those terms and conditions, don't sign the contracts. If you signed the contracts, why are you complaining about terms and conditions you agreed to?

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 4:29 PM  

@p-dawg

It's a longstanding principle of law that unconscionable contracts are null and void. That certainly applies here.

Anonymous LES April 27, 2015 4:30 PM  

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Incest laws for marriage should be overturned. Just think of all the financial and insurance benefits for all the combinations imaginable:
parent-children, siblings, etc.

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW April 27, 2015 4:35 PM  

Just think of all the financial and insurance benefits for all the combinations imaginable:
parent-children, siblings, etc.


Governments that derive a reasonable percentage of their theft from death duties should think carefully about the slippery slope. It would seem that if parents marry their offspring death duties might present a problem.

Blogger Marissa April 27, 2015 4:36 PM  

Here's a great brochure by Planned Parenthood about having a great sex life while living with HIV.

“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else...These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”

Blogger Matt April 27, 2015 4:37 PM  

Well thats it I guess. There will be no secession that could be xonsidered relatively peaceful.

Blogger automatthew April 27, 2015 4:41 PM  

"There will be no secession that could be xonsidered relatively peaceful."

But if our enemies are the likes of Dan, yama, Tad, Trayvon, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Scalzi, it should be a cake walk.

Anonymous Texican April 27, 2015 4:48 PM  

I'm surprised Vox decided to publish this. He got it completely wrong. The knapps were not chRged with any thing.

The local ordinance thT prohibits discrimination on the Nadia of sexual orientation doesn't apply to religious institution (or "religious Corporations", as they are formally called.

One day prior to the courts overturning a separate state ban on same sex marriage tha Kmaps, who had been a for profit corporation and who had advertised they would perform both civil partnership ceremonies and ceremonies for any faith, changed their status to Religious Corporation and changed their marketing to say they only performed christian ceremonies.

In other words, the Knapps and their lawyer were planning to file a suit to advance their political agenda, not in reaction to anything the town or police or same sex couples may have done.

Vox is wrong. This has nothing to do with lying SJWs.

Anonymous Stilicho April 27, 2015 4:56 PM  

Vox is wrong. This has nothing to do with lying SJWs.

So, religious liberty and freedom of conscience only apply to "religious corporations"? Good to know. Just in case we want to pass a law, you understand.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 27, 2015 5:00 PM  

Jeez, Dan. Pick up a sword and fight. This is embarrassing.

HEY EVERYONE,

1. Unlike gay marriage, where in the US alone, some 6 million people or more may be interested, few women are interested in polygamy. Let's call it 1000, and the difference enough to label one deviant and the other natural.

2. The argument from vows wasn't nor does it need to be an argument against any other form of marriage such as bestiality. It was in response to polygamy specifically.

3. Furthermore, on the argument from vows, we could argue that the contractual obligation of marriage can only be between 2 people because the language suggests 2 people giving each other to the other complete, 100%. You can't give 100% to more than one person.

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 5:02 PM  

I'm surprised Vox decided to publish this. He got it completely wrong. The knapps were not chRged with any thing.


Perhaps, just perhaps, the issue lies with you. You might wish to try re-reading the post, and then checking out the articles.

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW April 27, 2015 5:04 PM  

These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.

Do they also publish on how to have a good working life while carrying communicable diseases? Typhoid, say, or Ebola?

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 5:04 PM  

Jeez, Dan. Pick up a sword and fight. This is embarrassing.

You didn't do any better than Dan.

Anonymous Texican April 27, 2015 5:05 PM  

Stilcho,

In this case, the answer is "yes".

However, claims of "religious Liberty" aren't enough to exempt a religious claimant from any law they say would force them to violate their conscience.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 27, 2015 5:07 PM  

Scintan,

Then put my words to the test. Where do they fall short?

Anonymous Texican April 27, 2015 5:09 PM  

Scintan,

I read Vox's headline and his brief comments. And o read 4 articles, including the one Vox linked to.

He got it wrong. Not a case of pushing gay marriage on churches or of the SJWs doing anything to push gay marriage on churches.

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 5:14 PM  

Meanwhile in Baltimore...

Blogger automatthew April 27, 2015 5:15 PM  

Noah, did you notice the chair in mid-flight?

Blogger automatthew April 27, 2015 5:15 PM  

It's not a party until the chairs are flyin'.

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 5:16 PM  

Then put my words to the test. Where do they fall short?

Essentially everywhere. I'm sure you're smart enough to know that already.

The 6 million versus 1000 was particularly amusing, though, given that experts estimate that 30k to 50k (or more) people in the U.S. live in polygamous marriages today, even though they are illegal.

Blogger Noah B April 27, 2015 5:17 PM  

"Noah, did you notice the chair in mid-flight?"

Ha, I didn't.

Anonymous Scintan April 27, 2015 5:20 PM  

I read Vox's headline and his brief comments. And o read 4 articles, including the one Vox linked to.

He got it wrong.


Read it all again, this time for understanding.

Anonymous Stilicho April 27, 2015 5:23 PM  

However, claims of "religious Liberty" aren't enough to exempt a religious claimant from any law they say would force them to violate their conscience.

What is determinative of whether a citizen may be forced by the state to violate their conscience or their religious beliefs?

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 27, 2015 5:32 PM  

"But if our enemies are the likes of Dan, yama, Tad, Trayvon, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Scalzi, it should be a cake walk."

Cut off the food stamps & power at the beginning on the month and the die verse city will revert to cannibalism in a week. Perhaps add some hemlock to those cakes being demanded.

I have had guys call me a bigot for not wanting to have sex with guys I know are HIV+. Was it to your face?

It was an ex boyfriend ,who got HIV after we broke up, outside of a club. Punching him in the face would have gone over with the gay community as badly as narcing out a drug pusher. Just the rumor that you have done so will permeate a city.

Blogger jay c April 27, 2015 5:37 PM  

@NorthernHamlet 1. Unlike gay marriage, where in the US alone, some 6 million people or more may be interested, few women are interested in polygamy. Let's call it 1000, and the difference enough to label one deviant and the other natural.

1) How many American men have net assets in excess of say...$5 mil?
2) And how many women are contemplating divorcing their sub-living-wage-earning husbands over the next couple of years or are currently over 30 years old and still unmarried?

Subtract the first answer from the second answer and you'll have a rough estimate of the number of American women willing to consider polygamy. I'll bet it's quite a few more than 1000.

1 – 200 of 347 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts