I admire Maureen. So much.
Maureen Mullarkey Responds

Hmmm . . . I have a hard time believing that a boycott organized by AFA can be compared, with a straight face (no pun intended), to the backlash of threats, intimidation, demonization, and general vitriol, profanity, and slander that has been hurled at Mullarkey.
Buuuuuut, I’m willing to listen. So please, prove to me that the grannies and SAHM’s of the AFA have been sending death threats to McDonald’s execs, stalking them at their homes, and emailing them standard boycott language such as “Die B—- and go to H—!”
Yeah. Lousy comparison. That one gets a big, fat F.

Harold, what, then, was the unstated point of your first comment?
And which part of Maureen’s story would you have cause to deny?
Thanks.

There’s been boycotting and threats on both sides of this issue (I avoid Mickey D’s as much as the American Family Association, but over an entirely different issue).
Personally, I don’t believe in boycotts as a tactic, because I’m more likely to patronize a business that is being boycotted by the opposing side of an issue I feel strongly about. I’m sure people on the opposite side from me on this issue feel the same way, too.

Harold, so you’d declare that the anti-8 political zealots get a pass because of the list of items unrelated to Proposition 8 that you just wrote in your latest comment?
Because … those with whom you disagree on the marriage amendment deserve to be targets of reprisals and vengeance-seeking?
That is the unstated point of your first comment?

That’s quite an equivalence between broad attacks by nutjobs and a targeted campaign against specific individuals facilitated by an actual blacklist. Even if we accept the comparison, though, my concern increases that the implementation of same-sex marriage will embolden this element.

Restoring a centuries-old, time-tested definition is not “emboldening”, Rhody, it is a relief. The term embolden, would suggest continuing agenda. Correct me if I am wrong, but when has affirming the definition of marriage between one man and one woman EVER in history resulted in later attempts to strip other groups of Constitutionally protected freedoms (i.e. Mormons being disallowed to vote)? It hasn’t. And it won’t, because to those in America who have a good understanding of our Constitution, it is painfully obvious that homosexual marriage, indeed marriage in general, is not a right. It is a privilege regulated by government for the protection of children and society, then afforded to all men and women equally. Anyone willing to abide by the standards, the regulations outlined by the people, any heterosexual or homosexual, may marry. If one chooses not to abide by the standards, such as choosing instead to unite with someone of the same sex, they exclude themselves from this great privilege. They are not “being excluded.” What I feel if you must know, is a strong desire to preserve society from malignant, unhealthy redefinition. There is no doubt in my mind that a couple of homosexuals can provide for children just as well as a couple of heterosexuals. PROVIDE. But while their temporal needs are met (food, clothing, roof-over-head), children will not THRIVE in such an environment because they lack an opposite sex parent upon which to model appropriate behavior as they grow and encounter various social situations. What it ultimately creates is a confused, genderless society, one in which gender differences are not even acknowledged let alone praised and nurtured. This is not an emotional issue. That is what homosexuals want it to be. That is what buys them sympathy and votes. When approached with reason and… Read more »

Rhody, you did not read my comment carefully. I did not say Mormons had been denied their right to vote. In fact, I said the exact opposite. You see, homosexual activists erroneously claim that by stripping gays’ so-called “right” to marriage, we would essentially be setting a precedent to strip other minorities’ “rights” by a majority vote. Slippery slope argument. However, marriage has espoused regulatory limitations for thousands of years (i.e. no brothers/sisters, no children married to adults, etc.), and still our defense of natural marriage has never, ever yielded an assault on a minority groups’ rights. Jews, Mormons, Goths, etc. have never been denied their Constitutionally protected right to vote based on the thousand-year precedent of defending natural marriage. So why would defending marriage now suddenly make that change? Each individual’s answer to that question depends on whether they believe marriage is a “right.” Due to an increasing sense of entitlement in our society, the definition of a right – a God-given, Constitutionally protected right – has been skewed. Freedom of speech is a right. Freedom of religion is a right. Freedom to bear arms is a right. Marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Instead, four activist judges somehow saw fit to “interpret” the Constitution’s “pursuit of happiness” phrase and Equal Protection Clause to mean that homosexuals had a right to marry. Obviously, the people did not agree that those judges interpreted the Constitution correctly. And so we amended the Constitution to clarify. Constitution of the United States, Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” We’ve reset the… Read more »

I never said they chose to be gay, now did I? But they certainly chose to act on those attractions and desires. Just as any and every one of us ofttimes chooses the wrong course when we come to a fork in the road. In the end, Rhody, it doesn’t mean my bad decisions deserve special recognition or exception. And neither do theirs. Not when it affects children.

The poor, picked-on heroes. You’re right, Rhody, those “Queer Eye For the Straight Guy” dudes receive so much static for their homosexuality. *rolling eyes*
And what of all the homosexuals dominating fashion television? In fact, I do believe one even “mentioned” that in a comment to Maureen:
“Homosexuals rule the World of Creativity, and that is whom you just f–ed with! . . . . May God bless you with financial ruin for your treacherous deed.”
I find it especially ironic that the “treacherous deed” alluded to is, in fact, a democratic act. Black is white and white is black. Our world is all topsy turvey.