That’s one seriously ducked-up picture. Could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw that. What a downer.
Darn it! Why are they all Mallards!?
Why couldn’t he have included a Widgeon, Pintail, Cinnamon Teal, Bufflehead, or Canvasback? (To name five of my favorite duck species.)
Uh, yeah former Judge Moore is whacked and I hope he runs for prez and siphons off votes from The Big W-Shaped Liar, too.
Lord, please save me from your followers.
Sorry Otto but just stating:
while not stating the context of the only direct quite “an inherent evil”, from an obviosuly biased source ©365Gay.com® 2004 does not really prove anything except you know how to use the interent.
Did you not see the quotes around, “immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature”? Unless that was preceded with, “My ruling is…” I don’t see how context can make that anything other than rabidly homophobic.
Oh for fuck’s sake. Are you really so invested in demeaning gay people that you felt the burning need to post this? Really, what the hell is wrong with you?
I see the charge of ‘rabidly homophobic’ a very serious one, I think if this is so that a ‘pro gay’ publication could come up with more then a single quote which is obviously not even a complete sentence.
I admit that quoted sentance fragment would appear to be ‘rabidly homophobic’, but it is in no way conclusive. The lack of other quotes, though doesn’t prove anything either way, opens the door to doubt.
History has seen homosexuality as “…”, but …
I missed this one the 1st time. How is defending someone that has inconclusive evidence presented against him demeaning gay people???
From Moore’s concurring opinion in the case Otto mentions:
If he wasn’t rabidly anti-gay why would he even have bothered to write a concurring opinion?
BTW, the quote above is from a website that supports him.
The government has NO place dictating whom can marry whom. If two consenting adults want to get married, in the government’s eyes, gender should not matter.
If two people of the same sex want a civil union so that they receive government benefits, there should be no law against it. However, religious institutions should have no part in the government’s recognition of such unions. Separation of church and state anyone? A church can refuse to marry a same sex couple, that is their right. But if our government amends the Constitution against SSM, I will seriously be frightened for this country’s future.
The government has no right to condemn what goes on in the privacy of two consenting adult’s bedrooms.
Do you think there is a market for making little chairs for Ducks? He looks so uncomfortable sitting on that log.
Slate is speculating that the Roy for Prez movement is gaining some momentum. Oh please, pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease, let him run!
Homebrew thank you. the quote, actually the fragment of the quote:
Proves to me that this guy IS in fact anti-homosexual. He is not just condeming the act but the person, and counters my argument that he might see the act as a sin, but we are all sinners and it is the person that God loves.
As for homophobic - which IIRC means afraid of homosexuals, I don’t think he is afraid of them, or at least that has not been proven, actually it seems he is willing to stand up to them.
As for rabbid, I have not seen any medical records to prove it either way.
Good enough Otto?
Laden or unladen?
Seriously, on another board I belong to, a fair number of right-wing Christian members are seriously pushing Moore’s Constitution Party – because, in their view, GWB is not standing up for Christian values! :rolleyes: (I agree, but for diametically opposed reasons.)
Not really. It is wel established that homophobia doesn’t simply mean “fear of homosexuals,” and common usage of the word rabid is zealous or enthusiastic. So while your partial concession is appreciated, your actual post is more ridiculousness.
Since Cincinnati is spoken for, I would like to marry the duck. By the way, Alabama still has anti-miscegenation laws on the books. That’s not relevant to me and the duck–I’m just saying.
Using your definition Otto I will also agree to homophobic.
I don’t think the term rabbid really applies, well not with the cites provided. The thing that is worth noting is he has the power to directly influnce the lives of people and not afraid to apply his view of reality on others, you might be taking that as rabid.
Which is really an interpretation of the Constitution and not stated in it. IIRC it is an interpretation of an interpretation, but not entirely sure about that.