Alinsky methods. Whether he knows it or not.

I don’t trust President-elect Obama. I think he’s a Chicago thug who promised everyone the moon if they’d vote for him (it’s that descending light he referenced), but at least his party isn’t pushing for the dispossession of basic human rights to an entire category of people.

Perhaps Thomas missed the part of the campaign where Obama said he was against gay marriage.

Barack Obama on Gay Marriage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

Also notice the loaded rhetoric Thomas uses to describe people that do not agree with him.

frothing at the mouth at gays

and

shouted “abomination” at the gays there.

As I pointed out in my original post, civil unions were created in California.

I was making a rebuttal of your argument concerning Republican or conservative trends on focusing on gays as the enemy. That is the same argument the Left has used before, and it is just as erroneous either way.

You don’t need to have said anything of the sort, just like the Jews didn’t need to have said anything about gays nor Neo-Nazis compared directly with their counter-parts in your argument.

It will also be hard to try to usurp European Enlightenment history to back up gay activism due to the pogroms and violent street thuggery that have been used to target Mormons.

Gays are human too and thus applies under Enlightenment philosophy, but that doesn’t give them the right to foment unrest in order to use intimidation as a political tool.

The US Constitution provides for a basic principle of allowing the maximum freedom, except where your freedom impacts other people’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Suek’s views on gays, including the views of all main religious organizations (including Mormons), do not impact on the rights of gays.

This is the fundamental divide in our two positions, suek. By the implication of your very statement, you don’t think gays have the right to exist. One does not have the right to exist if one’s existence can be legislated or ruled away by judicial decision. The right to exist is inalienable, unassailable.

By your reasoning, you are saying that one group has the sovereign right to campaign to deny another group parts of their humanity just so long as the other group can campaign to stop it.

suek, I’ve read and reread your statements and cannot see anywhere where you don’t think homosexuals have the right to exist. Perhaps Thomas is conflating the right to exist with the right to redefine marriage to become something nonsensical. But I certainly don’t see how resisting a pressure group’s desire to legitimize an aberrant form of sexuality is equivalent to denying its right to exist.

Maybe I missed out on the logic class that Thomas took.

Also, he seems to believe that a court can pull a new right out of its collective arse. Since Thomas also claims that God is the originator of rights, two thoughts occur:

1. The California Supremes created this “right” out of whole cloth without once referring to God.

2. Where has God ever referred to the “right” of homosexuals to marry one another? I can’t find any sacred text anywhere that has God/The Force/My Innermost Me saying so.

Is this a new revelation? Perhaps Thomas is hearing voices?

(Sigh.) No, suek, I’m afraid you don’t. But that’s okay…

I never called you a facist, and I’m pretty upset that you did… and now I remember why I don’t come around here anymore.

And, suek, if I am what you call a facist, and if you meant what you said, that words and their definitions matter, then I wish you well when the real facist come. God bless you, suek, and adios.

It also has nothing to do with marriage.