Monday, April 06, 2009

GREAT VIDEO: Sen. Paul McKinley pins Leader Gronstal on homosexual marriage rights.

The video is amazing. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Gronstal certainly displays unambiguous and enthusiastic full support for homosexual marriage.



Sen. McKinley’s intellectual clarity, consistency and reason in support of the right of the people of Iowa to define the basic institution of their society with Sen. Gronstal’s emotive, childlike and counter-intuitive response.

28 comments:

RF said...

Gronstal's response was clear, consistent and reasoned. I suspect a few decades down the road he and his kids will still be able to be proud of his response. I doubt McKinley's sentiments will stand the test of time the same way. You know just as well as I do that Gronstal's daughter is right.

Chris Roberts said...

I agree with RF. It is nice to see a representative of this nation recognize where we are going as a people, recognize that there is no reason to wait for my generation. I am disappointed about your response to this issue, as someone who claims to hold "the pursuit of happiness" dear. Instead, you seem to have filled your heart with hate and fear, fear of nothing more than two peoples love for each other.

Here in California, having to watch people I care about be told that they were less than equal with the passing of proposition 8, filled me with sadness. Today I can feel pride in this great nation again, knowing that we are moving towards a better era, one of acceptance, of equality.

I hope only that you can ultimately see the error of your ways and learn to love all Americans. Please think, for just a moment, about those words you hold so dear: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Ken R said...

Gronstal is the de facto governor of the state and has risen to amazing heights given his modest education and grasp of events. He is not generally known as a "happy" fellow and is liberal to the core.

His "grasp" of any issue is limited to the FAR LEFT party line in conjuction with his mantra that he has the power and to heck with all opposing opinions. He is simply a dictator lacking the full powers of dictatorship. He will give Unions, arch-feminists, and gays everything they want regardless of the effect on the rest of society because they pay his bills and he knows it.

vlad the impaler said...

Gronstal is going to set up a booth at gay weddings offering moustache rides for $5.

He love you long time.

Ken R said...

Now that was funny....

Anonymous said...

I'm noticing a pattern with the democrats. First, Jack "I'm a 'n' slave on the democrat plantation" Hatch sites his daughter as his teacher in all moral values and she's the reason he's apologizing for displaying his racisim.

Then, Gronstal sites his daughter as his moral values teacher also. But for his daughter, Gronstal would continue to be the homophobe that he admitted to being - but for his daughter teaching him what is right and wrong.

I notice that D's frequently site the teachings of children, who really don't know any better, as their guide to how to vote.

Interesting. The R's are grownups who use the wisdom of their years and the philosophical teachings of wise men and women to inform them to know what is truth and what is fantasy.

D's use children as their mentors.

Interesting and tragic that Gronstal is allowing his 10 year old to be the final decision maker on such a HUGE HUGE HUGE life or death decision.

Sounds like we need a new vote for Leader for the d's. Gronstal has committee leadership malpractice.

I hope Mauro primary's up Culver. Sounds like Mauro (I can't believe I'm about to say this) has the only stones and only moral values in the d party. If we can't win on the R side, I hope Mauro gets the nod.

The Real Sporer said...

Very good point, Anon. I have always taken the position that parents should teach their children the values that make families strong and nations great and not be taught by them.

Liberal thought is childlike. For example, if I concede the liberal premise that the only criterion for marriage is the affection of those who wish to be married, have you liberals thought of the legal implications?

How does your argument not also justify first cousins or parents and children marry. Both are more historically common than homosexual marriage. If they love each other, what the hell, why not.

Why the artifical limit of two persons? That number is just arbitrary. The keeping of multiple wives is much much more historically common than homosexual marriage?

In this brave new world of animal rights (also a "progressive cause") why the artificial requirement that only humans can marry each other. Scienceis about to clone a Neatherthal so I assume, once that scientific miracle is acheived you all will support the right of Homo Sapiens to marry Neanderthal, hell they're the same species as are we.

I am not conceding the premise that homosexuality is an affront to nature itself, just arguing the logical implications of your position, that is based on the childlike premise that love is all you need. Johnn was way wrong about that one.

The Real Sporer said...

As for the pursuit of happiness Mr. Roberts, where do you draw the line?

Mike Ford said...

Anonymous: Gay marriage is a "HUGE HUGE HUGE life or death decision"? Really? See, the actual facts are that in the states that currently allow gay marriage, the sky hasn't fallen. The economy hasn't imploded. Children aren't spontaneously combusting. In fact, nothing that those of you afraid of gay marriage have predicted has come true.

And since we're on the subject of children, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as you are. See, the "grownup" Republicans you mention are more like dinosaurs--stuck in the past and unable to see into the future. The children, meanwhile, are the ones who CAN see into the future because they're the ones who will be living in it. They can see your outdated ways of thinking for what the are--the fears of people who don't want their insular little world changed. And the children don't want to live in a world like that.

You should listen to them. They're a lot smarter than you are.

Anonymous said...

Gay men die about 20 years earlier than straight men. Sounds life changing to me.

The Real Sporer said...

Mike, amidst all of the ad homs I did discern an argument.

Are you saying the sky has not yet fallen in the states that recognize homosexual marriage? How long has homosexual marriage been legal, two years? Do you think that is a sufficient time to allow for a historical review?

On a larger scheme, don't you think that the general decline in cultural norms has been very bad for our culture? School shootings, serial killers, sex crimes and every other form of deviancy have exploded in the US. Your answer is to accelerate the downward definition of deviation.

RF said...

Anon 8:32 – Don’t we all know what we hear from the mouths of the babes?

Sporer – I see you and all other anti gay rights folks are repeating the same tired old arguments. I will actually give you the polygamy argument. I can see it as a logical follow-up to gay rights. Personally, between consenting adults I have no problem with polygamy. It doesn’t affect me in any way. But when it comes to incest, bestiality or underage marriage, your argument holds no water whatsoever. Bestiality and underage marriage does not involve consenting adults, and there are strong genetic reasons to discourage incest. (On this note, I’m hoping those cute puppies you had while back were not pure-bred. Incest is not good for any animals.)

RF said...

“School shootings, serial killers, sex crimes and every other form of deviancy have exploded in the US. Your answer is to accelerate the downward definition of deviation.”

So giving gay couples legal recognition for their loving relationship is making these real problems you mention worse? Let’s take sex crimes as an example. What if we as a society did not stigmatize people for their sexual orientation? Wouldn’t a logical conclusion be that as people could be more true to their own nature, we would have less deranged people out there? And what if all these conservatives spent more time talking to their kids about sex (and dare I say, kids actually thought nudity was a normal part of life) rather than shielding their kids from it, wouldn’t we have less sex-crazed weirdos out there?

Anonymous said...

Seeking to make natural what has been unnatural for the entire course of human history save for 1 to 3 percent of the population.

The Real Sporer said...

I also don't care about the private conduct of consenting adults but marriage isn't private.

Marriage is a contractual relationship that the state uses to promote stable, normal families that can raise healthy children into healthy adults. Not every marriage is perfect but should we as a society not promote the ideal while tolerating imperfection.
Recognizing homosexual marriage isn't promoting the ideal, it’s simply the government forcing the overwhelming majority of its citizens (if actual balloting history and contemporary polling data indicates) to approve of a practice and lifestyle that they find offensive and morally failed simply because it will make homosexuals feel better about themselves.

Oh, and Mr. Roberts there really is a difference between moral disapproval and hatred. I don’t think we as a society should pretend that homosexuality is normal and healthy but hatred is the torture and murder of homosexuals, like someplace like Iran.

Anonymous said...

bravo!

RF said...

Sporer,

You and your fundamentalist Christian friend Ken (see one of the previous threads) are really getting into some murky waters here. Where do we draw the line with personal relationships and the public interest in them? Following all the biblical statements about infidelity and divorce? What is your definition of a “stable, normal” relationship? Once we go down that line, where do we stop?

You fail to pinpoint a single actual negative impact on society that will result from gay marriage. Where is the damage to our children or anyone else? Where is the threat from gay marriage to our heterosexual marriages? We all have issues in our marriages, but what sort of a relationship contract my gay neighbors have between them is certainly not one of those problems.

Also, legalizing gay marriage does not mean you or anyone else have to approve of gay relationships or “lifestyle.” In one of her recent posts Desmoinesdem on Bleeding Heartland listed a whole host of heterosexual marriage types that different people don’t approve of. Shall we outlaw all those, or just the ones you don't like? Your side also seems to imply that if we outlaw gay marriage, somehow gays will see the error of their ways, they will get into hetero marriages, have kids and live happily ever after.

RF said...

I would like to thank the Iowa Supreme Court for giving us something fun to debate!

Ken R said...

RF,

The reverse of you question also applies...."where do not draw the line?" Is everything on the table as long as even 1% of the population approves? That seems to be the new standard based on the court's ruling.

Ken R said...

Let me restate my question since it got clipped.

"Where do we NOT draw the line?"

RF said...

Ken,
See my 11:17 post for my thoughts on the line.

vlad the impaler said...

I hear that Gronstal is at least courteous enough to give you a reacharound. Is that right, Chris?

Anonymous said...

rf, do you know that Sporer isn't religous, much less a fundamentalist.

Anonymous said...

Isn't there a special ring in hell (Dante's Inferno) reserved for lawyers???

Anonymous said...

Anyone who will not learn from a child will miss a good deal of truth. My daughter teaches me new things with every passing day. Apparently people here have forgotten that the innocence of youth allows them to see the truth. After we teach them basic moral values, usually in simplistic terms, they often point out that we usually fail to follow those values. Preachers sometimes steal from the church, politicians sometimes commit adultery, and every adult spreads falsehoods. While we adults have wrapped ourselves in "principles" , children see us for who we are, and therefore have much to teach us.

Anonymous said...

awe...that's so touching. My daughter taught me that butterflies are beautiful and serene. She taught me to smell the roses along the way. She told me that ice cream is delightful. She caused me to have a legit excuse to go see kid movies at the theater without knowing how much I enjoyed disney as a kid and therefore love all kids movies because of the wonderment involved.

on issues of the survival of america and the values that let her experience childlike joyous wonderment we learn so much from, she is not instructive. My daughter at 10 was not sophisticated enough to understand daddy daddy, anal sex, cross dressing and the like. She was more interested in butterflies. I like it that way.

A little childlike innocence would be refreshing in this political environment. My 10 year old daughter would not be instructing me to vote for anal marriage.

Wood said...

This is great my gay cousin who him and his lover boyfriend who both died of aids could be married. I personally dont care what they do in their own bedrooms but dont keep pushing and pushing to make it ok to do those sick perverted things out in public how long before that happnes ? Oh wait i forgot about san fran sicko it already does. Last i checked bible said adam and eve not adam and steve. I guess most these people pushing this issue must be athiests as well cause the bible sure doesnt condone unions of same sex.I sure dont have to worry about that when my time comes to meet the good lord on this subject.

Anonymous said...

Just a note of interest. As he mentions his daughter talking about this in the workplace with older male coworkers, where exactly did the presumption that she's 10 years old come from?

Labels

Amazon Bookstore