Article

2006-12-07 Home Front: Culture Wars

Mixed reaction to Cheney's daughter's pregnancy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2006-12-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Will HILLARY > "Gubmint gave her her Pregnancy before later taking it away in the name of the common good"; or will Murtha-Kerry > Vote for the Pregnancy before voting agz it"???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-12-07 01:08|| 2006-12-07 01:08|| Front Page Top

#2 What a load of agenda-peddling bollocks. Gay marriage is all about money. Society extends certain financial priveledges to hetero couples for the very simple reason they can have and raise children which society values highly. As a general rule homosexual couples can't and don't have children.

Therefore, lesbian couples who have children should be given the same financial priveledges as hetero couples. Whether you call it marriage is neither here nor there to me.

Posted by phil_b 2006-12-07 02:04|| 2006-12-07 02:04|| Front Page Top

#3 There is a libertarian wing of the Republican Party, that wants the state out of public morals. They are a small minority, but they exist and could share some agendas with the Dems.

Posted by Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-12-07 03:44|| 2006-12-07 03:44|| Front Page Top

#4 [cue Night Gallery theme]

Offered to you now for your consideration:

(I know some of you will flip out at this, but please try and bear with me.)

If the conservatives could somehow overcome their indentured servitude to America's religious right and find a way to legalize gay marriage they might do a lot to regain their voter base and simultaneously discredit the democrats.

I came up with this concept after reading yesterday's article about how the democrats are engaging in back channel talks with Hamas and other Middle East terrorist organizations.

The democrats need to be slapped down hard and in a big way. Their cozying up to Muslim voters is some of the most blatantly transparent horseshit in all of American political history. Everything else the democrats stand for is total anathema to Islamic beliefs. In a perfect display of taqqiya, Muslims are prepared to vote democratic for the sole reason of dislodging a more conservative administration that willingly prosecutes the Global War on Terrorism.

True conservatism dictates minimal intrusion by government upon the private lives of law-abiding citizens. If the republicans could somehow embrace this ancient root of conservative doctrine and cede gays their right to marriage, they might be able to call the democrats on their gigantic fraud.

By facilitating any sort of Muslim agenda, the democrats are literally placing all homosexuals in grave danger. Islam loves nothing more than executing gay people and that simple fact should have given pause to all democrats who court the Muslim vote. Instead, exactly the opposite has happened and this is a prime opportunity for republicans to highlight this bit of betrayal, not just of gays but Americans in general.

If the republicans could somehow make room in the tent for gays, they might be able to permanently cripple a substantial democratic voter base.

I know damn well this is blue sky thinking of the highest water, but I felt obliged to run it up the flag pole as an example of how 2008 can still be salvaged from the current wreckage.

Just a thought.

Posted by Jerry">Jerry 2006-12-07 06:15|| 2006-12-07 06:15|| Front Page Top

#5 Jerry, mebbe we should let the muzzies into the tent; they procreate new voters faster than the gays.....

Posted by Bobby 2006-12-07 06:22|| 2006-12-07 06:22|| Front Page Top

#6 Sorry folks, didn't reset a funny cookie. The above post was mine.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-07 06:28|| 2006-12-07 06:28|| Front Page Top

#7 Bobby, that notion has already been explored by the Republicans. During the post 9-11 period, they found themselves courting Islamic votes at the UN assembly in order to ensure that all abortion language was removed from women's health legislation which was being passed at that time.

If you seriously think that the republicans should try and recruit Muslim-American voters, go right ahead and try to fly that one here. I'd have to say it has less of a chance than my own idea about co-opting the gays from their usual democratic position.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-07 06:35|| 2006-12-07 06:35|| Front Page Top

#8 lesbian couples who have children should be given the same financial priveledges as hetero couples.

What about male homosexual couples who adopt children and thereby remove a burden from the public's child welfare system? Should those couples also be extended similar financial benefits and any other privileges?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-07 06:38|| 2006-12-07 06:38|| Front Page Top

#9 How about gay folks stop being gay and/or trying to undo the rules so their egos can be assuaged and find a nice partner of the opposite sex?

Helluvan idea!

Posted by badanov 2006-12-07 07:50|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2006-12-07 07:50|| Front Page Top

#10 Zenster, male couples adopting children is a line call. In principle Yes, but we have to remain aware of the potential for abuse.I'd say on balance no, they should not get marital benefits.

Posted by phil_b 2006-12-07 07:51|| 2006-12-07 07:51|| Front Page Top

#11 ...Ya know what? I say live and be well to Mary and Heather. And as far as sleepless nights go, Vice President Cheney will probably sleep quite soundly knowing that he's going to see one more grandchild.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-12-07 10:11|| 2006-12-07 10:11|| Front Page Top

#12 Zen, you're idea really won't float. What's striking to me is the assumption that the Repubs are so "beholden" to the "Religious Right". It's utter bull-hockey. Otherwise, the Prez wouldn't be spouting the "Civil Unions" line and the Veep would be denouncing his own daughter to further the Party. Add to that, the President's compromises on Stem Cell research (Christians feel ANY funding of this research is "playing God"), and (financial) decisions on Medicare "Prescription drugs" plans, etc. and you can see they're totally playing the "middle of the road" on these issues.

Then, LOOK at the States. Of 30+ or so States who have banned Gay Marriage (including many secular states where the "religious right" is about as rare as the Do-Do bird, like Oregon and Washington State), and you can see that "marriage" of gays is a big issue to a LOT more people than those religious right nutcases.

Other than that, you're falling for the (fake) supposedly "huge" numbers of gays out there fighting for their "rights." When the real # is something like only 1-2% of the total popluation who is gay, you're not talking about that big of a "swing" in accepting gays into our Repub "big tent." In fact, many of us (even us "Religious Right" fundamentalists) take the more Libertarian route. I could care less what you do in your own privacy, and, in fact, I don't really believe it's a big issue at all because I don't believe there's ANYTHING barring gays from willing their assets (or even children) from their "mates" when they die. All the whining about "being barred from their deathbed-side when they're dying", not being able to receive their assets when they die, etc. is ALL a smoke and mirrors game for the agenda-pushers. Many Americans (who are NOT the Religious Right) just see it as a "moral" call that they don't want to make. In fact, I'd argue the TRUE Libertarian view would be to get Gov't (at all levels) out of the marriage process ALL together and leave it to the Churches/Mosques/Temples. There are ALREADY Churches who are "performing" these marriage ceremonies. If you buy the theory of the gov't seeking to maintain a stable and thriving populace who is law-abiding, then gay marriage is also not for gov't. Just my $.02.

Posted by BA 2006-12-07 10:37|| 2006-12-07 10:37|| Front Page Top

#13 Gay marriage is all about money.

I dunno; I think it is in part, but it is also (and foremost?) yet an another level to subvert society. I mean, from what I've read, in Australia, and in France too, and most probably in the USA also, a large majority of homosexuals (not "gays", God, I hate that word) don't care for same-sex marriages; furthermore, male homosexuality is most frequently patterned around very short-term relationships and mutliple partners (quite the opposite of female homosexuality, who could claim to have an interest in marriage with much more credibility).

Homosexual marriage is not a grassroot issue, it is a tool used to further an agenda, the "gay rights" agenda.

Civil union of some sort doesn't bother me, but clamoring for actual marriage is a direct attack on what marriage stands for (IE society-recognized and formalized union, defining the family as the basic unit of reproduction and socialization).

"Gay rights", I mean beyond fighting against actual prejudice and actual gay-bashing and all, is a very subversive movement, because it is empowered by the global mass-media, and is the fellow traveller of the feminization of the Western White Male desired by the Forces of Progress.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-12-07 11:23|| 2006-12-07 11:23|| Front Page Top

#14
I would rather my child a bastard than a liberal.

Posted by Master of Obvious 2006-12-07 12:14|| 2006-12-07 12:14|| Front Page Top

#15 Peoplepeoplecmon now. Whats really important here is we finally have an answer to the burning question; Who takes lead when they slow dance Mary or Heather?

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-12-07 13:42|| 2006-12-07 13:42|| Front Page Top

#16 The bossier one, Depot Guy, just like everyone else. Mr. Wife has a terrible time getting me to let him push me around when the music starts, even though only one of us is female.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-07 14:58|| 2006-12-07 14:58|| Front Page Top

#17 Hmmm . . . Zenster once called for my imminent demise when I attempted to discuss the clear deconstructionist agenda of the radial homosexul/lesbian left, and now not a word to anyone here who is saying the same thing. But that's neither here nor there . . .

Strangely, the conservatives have an attitude against mistreatment of those practicing homosexuality, whereas the Dems will sell them out to the lowest bidder if it furthers their political agenda. Zen's right in his observation regarding the Islamics' hatred of those with sexual maladjustments--which is really weird considering all the Moslem boys who are sodomized by men in authority roles who are committing homosexual acts themselves without any hesitation, or sense of moral accountability. Certainly, if homosexuals and lesbians want to "stay safe" they should recognize, as Zen does, the particular threat to their lifestyle that Islamic fundamentalist facism proposes. However, the homosexual/lesbian left is mostly like the political left in general, and are mostly self-deluded about politics in general ,and especially as as it concerns them.

About homosexual/lesbian "families" with children--it can create quite a problem with the healthy psychosexual development for young children to be raised by "parents" living under the domain of identity confusion, even if the adults who are attempting the raising of children are kind, caring, excellent caregivers otherwise, which many are. The long-term problems with the social and emotional development of the children under their care, is not something often taken into consideration--which I feel is evidence of selfishness and denial on the part of homosexual and lesbian pairs.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-12-07 16:55|| 2006-12-07 16:55|| Front Page Top

#18 Zenster once called for my imminent demise when I attempted to discuss the clear deconstructionist agenda of the radial homosexul/lesbian left, and now not a word to anyone here who is saying the same thing. But that's neither here nor there . . .

Save for the fact that you accused homosexuals of attempting to destroy Western civilization and civilization in general as we know it. Your rant was met by speculation by other members as to dosage and other amusing comments. Your torrent of condemnation seemed well-attuned to imprisonment or far worse for practicing homosexuals and I merely called you on it. The comments in this thread go nowhere near the alien terrain you traversed.

Feel free to search up and repost the rant of yours that you're referring to so that others might enjoy the awesome spectacle.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-07 18:09|| 2006-12-07 18:09|| Front Page Top

#19 Zen, I actually believe they are trying to deconstruct our society piece-meal too. But, by they, I mean the gay agenda-pushers (not all gays). In fact, I truly believe that your "average" gay is probably not an agenda-pusher, but is used by the National orgs (HRW, NAMBLA, et al) to further their agenda by #s, litigation, etc. In fact, I believe that a lot of "activist" gays are heading into careers that'll help them push the agenda (e.g. lawyers, judges, newspaper writers, etc.). Heck, I work for a Fed. Gov't agency who has 1 entire floor of attorneys. I'd estimate that almost 1/2 of them are gay/lesbian and they PUSH their agenda through our Agency (Tolerance training, GLBT Month "Celebrations"/Activities, etc.). Heck, we have 1 attorney (female) who is our rep on the GLOBE group for Federal agencies (Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual Employees = GLOBE). She gets our Agency to pay for her week long trip to the national GLOBE meeting every year (usually in San Francisco), even though it has absolutely nothing to do with our mission or activities AT ALL! Your tax dollars at work!

Posted by BA 2006-12-07 21:59|| 2006-12-07 21:59|| Front Page Top

#20 I agree w/a lot of your comments. I'm prolly in that libertarian wing of the GOP. What two consenting adults do in their own home is none of my business, I could care less and have enough other things to do in my life than worry if Adam is playing butt darts w/Rodney or if two bull dikes are swapping spit. On the same token, where in the constitution does it say homos have a right to marry? Equal protection clause doesn't work in that instance, even though they try to play that card. IMO - I'd be cool w/if they wanted to allow them to have civil unions *but* don't call it marriage. Blue is not green, blue is blue. Man and Women get married, that's the def of marriage and words have exact meanings.

BA said the state needs to stay out of the marriage business and I agree w/that - maybe a marriage/civil union/or whatever can be dictated by a church. The state can only really define appropriate ages for marriage in order to protect children. For the record, some of you may know I have an uncle who is gay. Unless you knew he went that way you'd think he was just some average dude. He finds it funny that other gays feel the need to have their relationships "recognized." Says it's stupid, and finds it disconcerting when homos try to compare their "struggle" to black civil rights. I agree.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-12-07 22:22|| 2006-12-07 22:22|| Front Page Top

#21 Oops, I meant - Men and Women, not Man and Women. Though the latter sounds good in theory.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-12-07 22:25|| 2006-12-07 22:25|| Front Page Top

#22 I save those sort of things for birthdays and other special occasions... so it doesn't get "old" and "routine", lol.

Posted by .com 2006-12-07 22:34|| 2006-12-07 22:34|| Front Page Top

#23 I got to thinking about A Boy and His Dog while munching on this discussion and all that ran thruough my mind was: "living on tulsa time.. living on tulsa time"...

Oh the dog's a bit hungry...

Posted by 3dc 2006-12-07 22:45|| 2006-12-07 22:45|| Front Page Top

#24 Best thing Don did - except for the hot scenes with Virginia Madsen and Jennifer Connolly.

Posted by .com 2006-12-07 22:51|| 2006-12-07 22:51|| Front Page Top

23:57 Swamp Blondie
23:56 Zenster
23:55 Swamp Blondie
23:53 Zenster
23:52 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:26 3dc
23:26 Barbara Skolaut
23:19 3dc
23:13 3dc
23:11 3dc
23:04 CrazyFool
22:51 .com
22:46 .com
22:45 3dc
22:38 3dc
22:38 Old Patriot
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:34 Broadhead6
22:34 .com
22:31 .com
22:30 .com
22:28 Broadhead6
22:25 Broadhead6
22:24 3dc