The Iowa Family Policy Council’s Chuck Hurley has been leading the fight to preserve Iowa’s place among the civilized cultures of the world in recognizing the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Although Democrats surely understand that 10,000 generations of human history and every major religion on every continent have evolved the foregoing definition as a badge of civilization and that around 75% of Iowans favor that definition of marriage they cannot retreat from the radical demand for changing the definition of marriage. Expansive victimization is, after all, one of the two or three major premises of the modern liberal Democrat ideology and amidst the prosperity and freedom of 21st Century America real victims are becoming much harder to locate.
In doing so, Chuck has exposed the extent, $170,000 of extent, to which out of state homosexual groups have attempted to impose the liberals’ attempt to reverse those 10,000 generations of civilization. Rather than debate on the merit, the Democrat Machine did what the intellectually bankrupt liberal does, call Chuck names and accuse him of “hate mongering“.
No substantive debate, of course. The true mongers of hate will not allow even the modest one hour of debate that our Minority Leader Christopher Rants has requested. It wouldn’t even take an hour to expose the bizarre syllogism that purports the moral value of homosexual marriage and the Democrats don’t want to risk public exposure of the logical vacuum in which their position resides.
We here at TRS are thinking that Hurley isn’t going to be intimidated by the catcall that union thugs substitute for argument.
Although Democrats surely understand that 10,000 generations of human history and every major religion on every continent have evolved the foregoing definition as a badge of civilization and that around 75% of Iowans favor that definition of marriage they cannot retreat from the radical demand for changing the definition of marriage. Expansive victimization is, after all, one of the two or three major premises of the modern liberal Democrat ideology and amidst the prosperity and freedom of 21st Century America real victims are becoming much harder to locate.
In doing so, Chuck has exposed the extent, $170,000 of extent, to which out of state homosexual groups have attempted to impose the liberals’ attempt to reverse those 10,000 generations of civilization. Rather than debate on the merit, the Democrat Machine did what the intellectually bankrupt liberal does, call Chuck names and accuse him of “hate mongering“.
No substantive debate, of course. The true mongers of hate will not allow even the modest one hour of debate that our Minority Leader Christopher Rants has requested. It wouldn’t even take an hour to expose the bizarre syllogism that purports the moral value of homosexual marriage and the Democrats don’t want to risk public exposure of the logical vacuum in which their position resides.
We here at TRS are thinking that Hurley isn’t going to be intimidated by the catcall that union thugs substitute for argument.
36 comments:
Thank God for Chuck Hurley!
No surprise Gronstal is the one calling Chuck names here nor is it a surprise Gronstal is ramming this through without debate.
Chuck pointed out the money (I am sure it went to Gronstal and his cohorts) came from out of state sources which is a version of hate speech if we're to believe Gronstal. I guess Gronstal's meltdown over campaign finance
http://political-fallout.blogspot.com/2007/04/sen-gronstal-drops-f-bomb-on-iowans.html
makes more sense as he needs the money of outside groups to stay in power.
It is a huge failure on the part of the Republican Party to let this man run unopposed in 2008 but at least Chuck is fighting the good fight. We need a few more people like Chuck.
Ken - perhaps you haven't heard. There is no republican party in Iowa anymore.
The public filings show the Democrats have 5X the $ the Republicans have in Iowa.
Sporer-we are kicking your ass in November and you better get used to it.
We beat you guys with a kid right out of high school in 06. In 08 we'll beat you with an actual high shcool student.
Iowa Republicans, get used to it!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HAH!
sporie:
Democrats don’t want to risk public exposure of the logical vacuum in which their position resides.
Interesting that you impose the word "logical" into a post based on a fallacious argument.
To assert that homosexual marriage is unacceptable because historically it has never been accepted is fallacy. For centuries slavery was acceptable in "civilized society"; today it is not. In the "civilized society" of the times, crucifixion was acceptable as punishment; today it is not.
I do not believe that any "logical" arguments can be made to support the premise that homosexual marriages are a bad thing. The primary resistance comes from those invoking a religion based morality on the issue and that by nature is illogical.
Besides, more marriages will likely lead to more divorces which will make divorce attorneys richer.
sporie:
We here at TRS is thinking...
Could it be, given the syntax, the statement is an oxymoron?
Hey ted
Old Chuck the christian should allow us a peek at his contributor list for his little money making enterprise.
Chuck's and rev radcliffes justification against gay marriage is the same biblical argument that Chuck's family used against interracial marriage 40 years ago, and for slavery 140 years ago.
Yes Ted we know the true mongers of hate! they reside in the GOP wing of Rants, Iverson, Hurley, Craig, Haggert, Dobson,Sporer and Vitters.
Ghost of Gerald Ford
Art, your argument rests on the premise that conventional wisdom/cultural norm was wrong in the past about something, usually in America you Democrats bring up the very Democrat institutions of slavery and segregation, it must always wrong in the present about everything and even more inapplicable to a "just" future.
Wrong. You fail to address the universal rejection of homosexuality by virtually all cultures through virtually all of recorded history. Has everyone always been wrong? Now that, my friend, is a gigantic leap of faith in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary of one's position.
Following your reasoning, the fact that American culture was wrong about slavery it must also have been wrong about, say, statutory rape? After all, men (18 and up) have been having sex with girls aged 11-14, quite literally, forever. Happens all the time, through all of time in all cultures and is, therefore “normal”.
Why not attack that law. Let those little 12 year olds get married, sure-happens all the time in other countries so why not here? We all loved Jerry Lee Lewis music and Jerry Lee loved his 13 year old cousin so why shouldn’t they get married? After all, 16 is just an artificial line that isn’t observed by millions of people.
Why draw the line at marriage as two people? Millions more are swinging with threesomes, foursomes and moresomes. Millions of people worldwide presently practice polygamy as part of their religion, so why not allow three and four person marriages?
There is actually an answer to the question so, instead of typing paragraphs of infantile ad homs why don't you give the old college try to answering that question, even if only as a devil's advocate. Trust me, I've seen other liberals try to think beyond the insult and while it causes psychological strain it really won't cause you any physical harm.
Until this homosexual marriage issue arose, the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been used a badge of civilization. Tribalism and communalism have been almost universally rejected by almost every culture.
Your slavery analogy is wrong for another reason. The existence of slavery was not a badge of civilization but rather a departure from it by a great, free and just but none the less imperfect culture. Our country, and my party not yours, corrected that deviation in a most costly fashion I might add.
I wonder if you ever took a look at where your moral ambivalence leads. History provides many examples. Caligula being one of my favorites. You might expose yourself to Hobbes and then, and I know this is scary for you, challenge some of the premises of your moral ambivalence to the analytic process of logical progression.
This seems a rather biological issue, does it not? Perhaps all societies, again throughout virtually all recorded history, rejection of homosexual couplings as the preferred social unit for the rearing of children is something the species has gotten right, since we certainly have thrived as a species for the last several millenia, have we not?
Ted
I love your facts without substantiation. Look, why don't we just let Chuck Hurley get married then so he can spawn a new breed of super bigoted GOPs who this time will have the genes of the master race. You know the gene pool of Himmler, Goebbels, and Roy Cohn. You can't do any worse than you have now.
I love the exagerration of if you allow Gays then poligamy, 12 year olds, cousins and animal marriages will soon follow. This is not a rational argument but just another GOP sexual fantasy, Right Rev haggert, Right senator Craig Right senator Vitter, Right senator Mc Connell.
Look if Karl Rove can have a sexual relation with jeff gannon and Dick Cheneys daughter can have a civil union, then ted you can come out of the closet and proclaim your crush on Chrissy rants!
Ghost of gerald Ford
Jerry lee lewis is a republican evangelical southerner. Whats good for the Killer is good for the Sporer!
Real Ted Sphincter GOP
sporie:
You must have really been enamored with that response since you posted it twice. Irrational exuberance?
You seem to lack an ability to discern argument. Though I do not oppose same sex marriage, my argument was that you cannot argue it logically. You can posit moral or cultural objections but relying on history as a logical construct is invalid; a fallacy.
Your Scalia argument is also without merit. Current mores will disallow much of the concerns you posit. Beyond that, the legal argument of "consent" obviates much of those predilections. Consider the abhorrent premise, however, that legalizing beastiality might decrease child molestation. If that premise were proven would you oppose it?
If two "consenting" adults desire to take an action, not impacting the rights of any other person, is there harm? If so where is the harm? If two men want to get married it does nothing to disgrace or undermine the desire of you and your wife to get married.
As for polygamy; this certainly is a viable legal question. Why do we outlaw it? Personally, I have enough trouble with one wife, I do not desire to compound my problems. As you state it is practiced in many parts of the world, including here, so why is it illegal?
Let us also remember that your vaunted rationale for marriage was not, and is not, always the case. Historically, marriage was often a legal consequence of ownership. Not an agreement entered into by two consenting, loving adults, but rather a convenience, appealing to riches or prominence or just plain removing a woman from the market. Clearly not the highly valued perspective you're inclined to align with it.
Your slavery analogy is wrong for another reason. The existence of slavery was not a badge of civilization but rather a departure from it by a great, free and just but none the less imperfect culture.
Why doesn't this explanation fit same sex marriage? You can't profess the imperfection of civilization in one instance and then proclaim its inerrancy in another. One more example of illogical argument.
Current studies have resulted in conclusions that raising a child in a same sex parental environment exhibits no detrimental effects when compared to a heterosexual parental environment.
Use your lawerly mind and get out of your religious, moral confliction and think logically.
Notice there was a correction in the syntax on your original blog. Mais non! Mais non! Unfair.
Ghost and Sphincter-you fucking nut bags are frightening.
You accuse us of hating homosexuals and all we are saying is they shouldn't get married. That's called disapproval, not hatred.
On the other hand, you compare us to the real Nazis who killed millions while embracing the Iranian regime that openly longs to repeat the Holocaust.
On the subject of your embrace of Iranian genocide, you know what happens to homosexuals in Iran don't you?
But then isn't hypocricy truly your reason for life?
sporie:
You don't listen. Ahmedinejhad assured us they don't have homosexuals in Iran.
sporie:
One other thing since you constantly refer to it.
Our country, and my party not yours, corrected that deviation in a most costly fashion I might add.
You always fail to mention that at that time the Southern Democrats were a large part of my party and they were the group that vociferously opposed civil rights. They now make up the largest, most powerful segment of your party.
When positing it is customary to relate all the facts. Unless your goal is to obfuscate.
ted
Nowhere did I accuse you of hating homosexuals nor can you find a statement where i support the Iran( Show me the proof of Millions massacred by Iran. Hint, Fox news problably miscaptioned our invasion of Iraq) It must be your repressed feelings of self loathing that have you ranting (Chrissy) instead of discussing. I understand that you are stressed out as you have come to the stark reality that your dogma, political schtick and your heroes/leaders have proven to be wrong, wrong, wrong!
you are now experiencing the fear that Bush, Hurley Sporer et al have used to fool the American public that you guys somehow had the guts, honor and smarts to save our nation.
it became apparent, that the GOP lacked the guts as they promoted war but made damn sure that they & their children didn't serve (spare me the Fighting Larsons story as they were safe in the Green zone issuing military contracts to war profiteers)
next the GOP proved that honor in the party ended when IKE died. You allowed predatory lenders bring our economy down, Incompetent businessmen ran good corporations into the ground, took a golden parachute and wrecked the middle class with their greed and corruption. As far as the GOP Senators, Reps, preachers and orators just think how many GOP congressmen would be in jail if Alberto gonzalez would have been a typical AG instead of a little lapdog. hell you could do better Ted, which isn't saying much.
As far as smarts, all we have to say is The GOP took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. No one with any sense would believe that tax cuts to the wealthy and corporation would bolster the economy, except for the GOP sheeple. you convinced the public that Iraq would love us and that their oil would pay for reconstruction! true or not!
The State GOP is on the path to destruction as evidenced by the new party head.The Living in the past glory is not going to be accepted this time.
Be Afraid because folks remember that in 2000 gas $1.29 a gal
2008 $3.00.
Is America better off than 8 years ago? How is that for a campaign slogan
So rant and rave Ted and be scared because if The PEOPLE decide to hold accountable the party and party hacks who have committed so much harm to our country. Then all the little GOP eichmanns will hopefully experience whether waterboarding is really torture!
The GOP have like lemmings followed their own Charismatic Jim Jones, and David Koresh ( Bush/Cheney). Now you have to follow their command and drink the Kool- Aid and hope that Hell is just a quaint concept.
Ghost of gerald Ford& real ted Sphincter GOP.
Sporer,
Once and for all, could someone tell me what the threat from homosexual marriage is? If homosexual marriage is legalized, how exactly will it affect your union with your lovely wife? How exactly would the legalization affect our country?
On a related topic, are you for civil unions with all civil rights that go with "marriage"? Would you be ok if we left the term "marriage" for the churches to worry about and our government treated everyone equally? (We would all be "unionized". Wouldn't you just love that??)
ghost and sphincter
the reason you are frightening is your inability to even acknowledge the hate filled nature of your very personal diatribes.
as for rf,
no, i favor none of those things. as long as government is going to be in the business of managing social units (which is, in and of itself, a great discussion for another day) it should encourage the ideal and discourage everything else.
Says the divorce lawyer who has assisted in the dissolution of how many marriages? I wonder how many of the marriages that Ratliff has officiated have ended in divorce?
sporie:
Have you been checked for sanity?
No one is advocating for the government to "manage" social units. What is being sought is in fact quite the contrary.
I notice that you do much better when attacking ad hominem, of course, attacking it in kind. You seem to have a bigger problem when dealing with reasoned argument.
Sphincter Boy and "Art who lays men" both seem quite animated by this discussion. Maybe they should meet and see what else they have in common.
I can hear the lyrics to "I Got You Babe" as Sphincter and Art hold hands with "put your little hand in mine..."
Seriously though, Art's arguments ring almost as shallow as Obama's promises of change without giving details. Art's details come in the form of false logic and retold history which has nothing to do with actual history. His storyteller versions of history come replete with unrealistic examples claiming morals are irrelevant therefore Republicans are wrong for trying.
Sphincter spews nonsense every time he opens his mouth and his sentence connecting Jerry Lee Lewis to Christianity and to TRS makes no sense at all. TRS mentioned Jerry with regard to his marriage to a 13 year old girl but Sphincter missed that one entirely. Sphincter and Gronstal should also get together as they seem things the same way.
ted
Lets see your hate filled diatribes are inspirational intellectual thoughr while anyone who disagrees in the same tone is frightening. Yes Ted, you are frightened as you know that your dogma and leaders have failed the country and you!
Ken
Oh no someone is questioning my manhood! What should I do Sen Craig?, Should I pray rev Haggard?
I did get the 13 year old cousin remark on Jerry Lee Lewis( Not to be confused with rep Lewis(R) who is in prison) Do you know that Jerry lee has been along time REPUB, a dunb ass uneducated southerner( GOP Base)and a evangelical Christian. I noticed that ted didn't care that a couple of his 7-8 wives may have been killed by " the Killer".
See Ted groupie, ted never tells the rest of the story just the parts that support his warped views. remeber gays aren't a threat to marriage, Republican Christians are.
Ghost of gerald ford
kennie:
Once again, a voice of reason perks up, NOT.
Would seem that you lack a knowledge of logic and of history and God knows what else. It would probably be easier to list the things you do know; maybe one or two items, if we include your name.
You are ever the intellectual; just look you used a metaphor.
Morals are not generally irrelevant but clearly some are relative. You guys don't get carte blanche to define our morals, relative or irrelevant.
I get the sense that when sporie runs out of gas or merely can't muster a decent argument, he calls in the dogs: Hey kennie!
Ghost: Go easy on kennie, he doesn't know any better. He hears his master's voice.
Ghost,
Perhaps you can back up your claim that Jerry Lee Lewis is an evangelical Christian Republican? Good luck my friend and while you're at it remember TRS used Jerry as an example. Since the lefties don't want to debate the issue they find a way to negatively associate Republicans and avoid the issue altogether. How typical of their nonsense and one wonders how they get along amongst themselves given their complete inability to stay on topic.
Art, spare me your false intellect as there are little kids riding the short bus all over America with more common sense, wit, and intelligence than you'll ever possess.
kennie:
You go girl!!
Damn, that was dibilitating! I'm reeling!
Oh, wait! Consider the source. Oh, ok. I feel much better now.
You wouldn't recognize intelligence if it was served to you on a platter.
Art is so powerful if only everyone could be as tough.
Well said!
And Art, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the black helicopter don't exist.
One last piece of advice, apply for that greeter position at Wal-Mart so you can spread your cheer in a more positive manner. Someone of your superior intellect should be qualified for such a position after a lifetime of saying "Do you want fries with your shake?"
keenie:
Oh my, ever the cutting expert.
Now I know how you knew about those little kids on the short buses. Tell em I said hi.
anonymous 5:34:
Your rant sounds mysteriously like the fatuous posings of kenrichards.
If you are not one and the same you should get together and wallow in your combined absurdity.
I assure you the poster was not me but I loved the list and defy you to respond to it.
On the other hand, I noticed your word choice is a little suspect since “wallow” sounds suspicious coming from you given your likely proclivities. Maybe a slight variation of that word is common in your daily “Ace and Gary” style vernacular. At least you don’t have to wait long to make it official here in Iowa if you want to make the trip thanks to the Democrats.
kennie:
I should be surprised that you loved the list? Other than the number of words I thought it fit right into your level of comprehension.
It would be a complete misuse of energy to reply to such inane caterwauling. At my age energy is a premium.
I am a little concerned with your knowledge of the vernacular you speak of. Is the closet door closed?
I don't travel and if I did, Iowa, though a lovely state, would not be near the top of my list. But thanks for the invite.
Don't worry, we don't want you here anyway.
Post a Comment