Holy war: Richard Land knocks James Dobson for knocking Fred
posted at 10:19 pm on September 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
A follow-up to Dobson’s very private, very hush-hush excoriation of Fred that somehow found its way into the AP’s hands and ended up being confirmed by his official spokesman.
It’s going to be a fun primary.
“I’ve received phone calls and emails from Southern Baptists about Senator Thompson. They are all furious at Doctor Dobson. They just feel that first of all there was a mischaracterizing of his positions. Do I wish that he supported the marriage protection amendment? Of course I do. To say that he is for 50 different views of marriage in 50 different states is a gross mischaracterization of his position. Secondly, do I wish that he attended church every Sunday? As a Baptist pastor, of course I do. But does that make him a person of unbelief? That’s harsh and unwarranted.”…
“It’s (Thompson’s marriage amendment position) a problem. I think Southern Baptists have an ethical issue in which they need to deal. They may face a situation where they have a choice of three candidates. One they agree with 95% of the time, one they agree with 80 percent of the time and one they agree with 10% of the time. It may come to pass that they’re faced with a choice.”
Land’s right about Dobson misrepresenting Fred’s position on marriage. Fred supports a federal constitutional amendment to ban full faith and credit for gay marriage, not gay marriage itself. In other words, whereas a straight couple can run off to Vegas, get a Nevada marriage license, and have it honored as legal when they return to their home state, a limitation on full faith and credit would allow states to ignore out-of-state licenses for gay marriage. To equate that with Fred wanting 50 different definitions of the institution is absurd. He wants one definition, I’m sure; he’s simply unwilling to compromise on federalism by pushing for a constitutional amendment that would supersede state authority to regulate marriage by imposing a uniform national definition.
Which isn’t to say Land’s spinning pure gold here. Follow the link and check out his shmaltzy fetishization of small-town life America at the end. Smart populist politics but anathema to a New Yorker, needless to say.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
That’s how I grew up and I did so in New York.
Connie on September 24, 2007 at 10:32 PM
You cynical bastahds.
Slublog on September 24, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Many in the Northeast are cynical. Particularly (it seems) in Rhode Island from my experience. No candidate will ever fit every view (W came the closest) to fully please the religious right, and in what election did they not face an “ethical issue” when choosing between candidates?
thedecider on September 24, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Part of me wonders whether this is really about Thompson, or if it’s a power struggle among evangelical leaders.
Slublog on September 24, 2007 at 10:46 PM
um, how would that be different than it is now. And we need a ‘federal law’ to say that the states can decide?
Seems like a whole lot of double speak to me. Just like Miss South Carolina, I want to know what he personally believes about ‘gay marriage’.
ThackerAgency on September 24, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Yeah, good point. Dobson’s going to lose face if Fred gets elected without him. Maybe this is Land angling to play kingmaker
The only surefire way to earn a Slu comment anymore: the Dobson thread.
Allahpundit on September 24, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Maybe they’re seeing a trend toward decentralization on the horizon and are worried that their big churches are gonna fall apart if they don’t turn into effective political machines and score some wins, and are in panic mode? Dunno, just a thought.
Bad Candy on September 24, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Haha.
I can’t help myself!
Slublog on September 24, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Somewhat OT (which could mean on- or off-topic, I just realized).
A San Diego radio station said this morning that Northeasterners have the lowest job satisfaction. Why?
I’m sure it’s not Fred or Dobson related – just came to mind with a few of you joshing about the regions.
Entelechy on September 24, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Were all these “proclamations” made from the pulpit? If so, don’t they lose their tax exemtion? :)
For what it’s worth I agree with Land over Dobson.
Who is Dobson again? Then again, Who is Land? :)
I know it’s about votes! Which would King Solomon choose?
HMMMMMMMM?????
Nelsa on September 24, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Let’s cut them in half and see!
thedecider on September 24, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Allah,
Fred’s “unwilling to compromise on federalism”? Give me a break. The “federalist” position is just an artful straddle for candidates who don’t want to make too many constituents, or potential constituents, angry. Issues of individual rights and equality are largely addressed by federal law, most notably in the Constitution.
Big S on September 24, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Accusations and insults and judgments, oh my!
infidel4life on September 24, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Interesting point. How might that work out?
nailinmyeye on September 24, 2007 at 11:51 PM
But then again, we could simply decide to “crash” your comment party tonight.
Fred fatigue and Ah-ah-ma-ma-mah-muh-dinner-jacket fatigue is setting in for me.
Mcguyver on September 24, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Could be, but isn’t Dobson on the top? If that were the case, it would seem he would keep his powder dry and then just bandwagon when the winner become clear. It’s the insurgent that needs to get out and pick early and opposite.
Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 12:16 AM
I’m one of those who agrees with Fred 95% of the time.
Go Fred.
Mojave Mark on September 25, 2007 at 12:26 AM
I think Solomon chooses Land vs. Dobson and Fred grows up to be POTUS. ;)
Nelsa on September 25, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Haha. From the way Fred is “served” by his campaign advisors, I’d said he’s getting his advice from Solomon’s son.
Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Some of you are so stinking judgmental. I’ve listened to Dobson on the radio hundreds of times every year for 15 years, & I am confident he has absolutely no desire to be “kingmaker,” & he is not worried about “losing face.” Maybe, maybe he just cares about this country! I’m sure Land does, too. Don’t decent people disagree sometimes?
jgapinoy on September 25, 2007 at 12:49 AM
I think Newt is to old to be Solomon’s son! Haha
Nelsa on September 25, 2007 at 12:59 AM
I love Dobson and hate to side with his opponent, whom I’d never even heard of until today, but I must say that his mischaracterization bothered me. It was an exaggeration that might hurt us, as a whole, in the general election. For all their invocation of Reagan and posturing as stuanch followers of him, a lot of Conservatives seem to have forgotten the ” Eleventh Commandment “.
I enjoyed reading this. If you loved Reagan, you might too.
We can’t afford to forget what he taught us and let, yet another, unethical, immoral, terrorist-appeasing creep or creepette into the White House. If Fred, Rudy, and the rest of those already running aren’t good enough and Newt and those not running DON’T run, what do people expect the party to do…? Call it an election and cut their cash, energy and time losses, all for the sake of avoiding a bad turnout…? I say argue issues, in good faith until the primary season is over and once we have a candidate, shut up and VOTE for him, Dammit…!
Rugged Individual on September 25, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Fred and Newt in 2008…!
Rugged Individual on September 25, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Fred, the human snooze button.
Bwahahahaha!! This guys stole my shtick!
OUCH! This one might leave a mark!
Even Trump isn’t fooled by Fred’s facade!
Fred is like watching sausage being made. The more you see what’s in it, the more you dislike it.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Except he also maintained that stance in previous elections and while Senator- he didn’t suddenly discover federalism at the moment they started running for the nomination as a couple other notable frontrunners have in order to distract from their history as a RINO governor and RINO mayor.
And following the Constitution is exactly what federalism is about; unfortunately most of what the federal government does is forbidden by the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Hollowpoint on September 25, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Fred needs to steal another page from Mitts play book.
Mitt goes for aloonyboonyjobs throat with a new ad. Here is the text. Indict aloonyboonyjob! RIGHT ON MITT!!!
How many terrorists did Fred turn away? OH heck, that’s right! He didn’t turn them away because he was too busy giving advice to Syrian terrorists!!!
Here is the audio.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Mitt’s apparently still doing favors for csdeven.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 2:19 AM
What’s wrong with New Yorkers? I am from Chicago which is a big city which is many times nicer than the smelly, rat infested city you call home. Yet, I have no desire to talk down to people who don’t live in the “city”. New Yorkers are the biggest narcissists. It isn’t all about you. /rant
Sorry, I overreacted. I am still a little tender after the Bears game last night.
Bill C on September 25, 2007 at 2:29 AM
Speaking as a person who finds gay marriage a ridiculous proposition to begin with, this make Fred look even stupider to me than his fraudulent folksisms did.
This is fodder for ANY homosexual advocacy group to actually have grounds for their absurd “equal protection under the law” argument.
This isn’t federalism, its Frederalism: Do, Say anything at all to avoid actually taking a position.
Question: “Do you support a federal amendment to ban gay marriage”
Fred: “Well, that dog don’t hunt I tells ya. What I wad do is make it so if them thar homersexuals got married in another state, it wouldn’t be valid in their home state. Whereas, if some right minded feller and lady got a Vegas hookup, that’d be awlright everywhere ta me.”
Cannon. Fodder.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 2:46 AM
Your post makes no sense. It’s crystal clear that Thompson does not support homosexual marriage. The fact that he’s against CHANGING the Constitution to attain that end does not change that fact.
What I find most amazing is that there are three people on HotAir that spend most of their time attacking Thompson on various issues. What’s ironic is that on almost every issue they attack him on … the candidates they’re supporting are no better, and in almost every case … they are actually worse.
Anyone attacking Thompson for not being conservative enough, and then supporting Giuliani is defining hypocrisy. Anyone attacking Thompson on this Constitutional amendment and then supporting Romney, is defining ignorance.
The only people with any legitimate room to attack Thompson on ANYTHING would be Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo supporters. But it’s even MORE bizarre that these same people attacking Thompson for not being conservative enough are also attacking Hunter and Tancredo.
You’ve got to wonder what their real agenda is.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 3:08 AM
Romney can’t veto supreme court rulings, and was hopelessly outnumbered by Democrats in the legislature. The very fact he managed to keep fly-by-nighters out of Mass. is in and of itself a feat.
Unlike Fred Thompson, who doesn’t have an excuse for his lack of action on ANY conservative topic. The fact is, the Fredheads cannot point to anything Fred has done for the conservative movement. His biggest known legislation is the hated McCain-Feingold(-Thompson).
Fred may call himself a conservative, but he’s worthless to anything important to conservatives and always has been. His love of federalism doesn’t pass the smell test, and he’s nothing but cannon fodder for liberal groups. He’s radioactive. It is electoral suicide to support him.
My previous criticism had nothing to do with whether Fred was conservative, but was pointing out the fact his position is low-hanging fruit for liberal groups. If you’re smart, you don’t give the wacko militant homosexual left a breeding ground for their insanity. Fred wants to come in late to conservatism and win.
My only real agenda is not lapping up what Fred or any other candidate has to say without a critical eye. Only the Fredheads whine about the supposed partisanship of other posters while patently ignoring the fact they view Fred through Fred-colored Fredses.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 3:23 AM
Hey! No bashing the sausage factories! K?
RD on September 25, 2007 at 3:39 AM
Those homosexual advocacy groups already have grounds for equal protection arguments. Pretty good ones, too. And sooner or later they’re going to prevail on those arguments, not only because they’re right, but because people are actually starting to see that gay marriage in early-adopter states such as Massachusetts hasn’t presaged the demise of Western civilization.
You are, in other words, fighting a hopeless rearguard action. Gay marriage is going to be the law of the land, probably within a generation or two. The only questions of any consequence are how it happens, and how much self-inflicted political injury conservatives are willing to absorb before they grow up and accept the reality of the situation.
Lobbying for an FMA-alike, which will never pass, is as good as doing nothing, and attempting to ban gay marriage through state constitutional amendments still leaves you vulnerable to the Full Faith and Credit arguments. By taking those Full Faith and Credit arguments off the table, as Fred’s solution would do, then each state can adopt gay marriage or at its own pace, and you folks who exist in sphincter-clenched fear of teh ghey can console yourselves knowing that while gay marriage is coming, it’s not going to be imposed on an unwilling nation by the federal courts.
Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 5:56 AM
Except of course for the minor detail that countries which have accepted gay marriage have a) declining populations and b) declining marriage rates. Moreover, aside from the large onset of initial gay marriages, the gay marriage rate in Mass. is now startlingly low. The onset of gay marriage is the precursor to the death of all marriage.
Well, considering gay advocacy groups have to hoax hate crimes in order to drum up any sympathy for their perversion, and the fact that anywhere gay marriage tries to get approved throuh the vote of the people instead of the courts it gets struck down, I’d say you are the one who denies reality. Homosexual groups are fakes, frauds, and phonies trying to get public acceptance of their perversity. People already tolerate them, and noone appreciates their wrapping themselves up as the new civil rights movement when their only claim to discrimination is that the government isn’t giving them tax breaks for their fruitless and useless sexual proclivities.
You’re the first person to bring up anything “sphincter-centered.” Guilty conscience? Look, maybe you and the other water carriers for the homosexual movement constantly have your heads up your (or your partner’s) ass, but most right thinking americans don’t support you and when they see that the proud marys never act above board, they aren’t going to support you. Fred’s “solution” works for you precisely because it is the only one which easily allows the equal protection clause to come into effect. The fact is, homosexuals already have the rights to shack up with and put into their wills and get private ceremonies for whoever or whatever they want to be with. The only thing they don’t get is government benefits and de facto public acceptance. A Federal Marriage Amendment is consistent in its definition of marriage. Fred’s idiotic response isn’t consistent, and because it is inconsistent it is cannon fodder. If Fred were really a conservative with conviction and not just an ignorant actor auditioning for president as the conservative Republican, he would know that.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. That’s the way nature works, that’s what basically every religious system that didn’t collapse teaches, and that is what the state has a compelling interest in protecting.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 7:58 AM
Could somebody please define what “populist” is?
I think I know but I’m not sure I have the right definition. I have recently heard and seen this term but want to know what others think it means.
Thanks.
stenwin77 on September 25, 2007 at 8:20 AM
Thompson is a true-blue conservative. Conservatives believe in states rights. State representatives are closer to their constituents than national representatives in Congress or the Executive branches, where one size fits all.
One compliant about President Bush is that while No Child Left Behind may have satisfied Kennedy and others in Congress interested in dictating standards to the states, it is far from conservative fundamentals.
Captain America on September 25, 2007 at 8:35 AM
Yup
frreal on September 25, 2007 at 9:06 AM
I know he is espousing conservatism. That has never been the issue. The issue has always been……is he an honest conservative and have his actions over the years support what he is saying now.
The answer to that is a resounding “NO”. He knows it, we know it, and it requires the willings suspension of disbelief to believe he thinks he can actually succeed.
It is very likely, considering Fred’s history of funneling cash to his family, that Fred is simply collecting campaign donations and at the last possible moment he will scuttle his campaign and drop out. He will then do what he did the last time he ran for an office. He will convert all that money to a PAC, hire his family at exorbitant salaries and funnel that $3.4 million right into his pocket through them.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Despite your long and well written post, you’ve got a couple of fallacies and outrageous accusations you should clear up.
You really need some evidence to back up that assertion.
While I don’t necessarily doubt this statistic, I would like some elaboration as to how this is directly related to allowing homosexuals to be legally recognized partners (or “married”).
What no one ever addresses is that these couples are unable to make this so airtight in a way in which it’s not contestable in courts (by families who don’t approve for instance) in the same context as a married couple. I really don’t have a problem with having a different definition for the types of partnerships they ultimately want, but would you be willing to allow civil unions as well, so that they can be as responsible for each other as hetero marriages?
My wife of 9 years and I most assuredly do not. It’s a matter of liberty for some of us.
SouthernDem on September 25, 2007 at 10:04 AM
The only surefire way to earn a Slu comment anymore: the Dobson thread.
Allahpundit on September 24, 2007 at 10:49 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA… oh man. True.
Moth to the flame, baby. Moth to the flame.
daveintexas on September 25, 2007 at 10:43 AM
The very idea of “evangelical leaders” is probably going to be an anachronism in about 10 years. The children of these evangelicals are leaving the church in droves. Most are not returning later.
Here’s a good video to set your mind at ease, AP.
PRCalDude on September 25, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Yep.
PRCalDude on September 25, 2007 at 11:57 AM
I don’t get it. What does that have to do with THIS?
Are you even reading my comments? Or just pasting your pre-typed propaganda? Follow the links. You’re sounding awfully hypocritical and/or just plain ignorant.
Again, follow the links.
And yet another link proving you’re either ignorant of hypocritical.
Of course, you’ll most likely come back simply posting more accusations about Fred and completely ignoring any of the information I’ve posted. Such is the standard operating procedure of a hack.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 1:12 PM
The hypocrisy from Romney supporters just keeps on coming.
Check out number EIGHT on the Human Event’s TOP 10 RINOS list.
The Mitt Romney Deception
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 1:21 PM
MITT ROMNEY TELLS GAYS TO HAVE FUN AT THEIR EVENT WEEKEND! HE THEREFORE SUPPORTS HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE!
Great Job Gregor, Really.
Why bother you with the fact he used every power at his disposal to contain Gay Marriage is Massachusetts? After all, HE PRINTED AN EVENT FLIER TELLING GAYS TO HAVE A GREAT PRIDE WEEKEND! HES FINISHED!
As to Massresistance.org, they are run by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. What’s next Gregor, are you going to show me fliers from Planned Parenthood that “prove” Crisis Pregnancy Centers hate women? And I suppose that site about all of Fred’s myriad wanderings that got taken down was just nonsense as well.
Because of course, Fred Thompson is sainted. Fred Thompson can do no wrong. Fear the Fred! Get a new shtick Gregor, your current one is old.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 1:34 PM
This is a common example of “Christian love”: deny the abuse that anti-gay Christian dogma is, in part, responsible for. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if some gay people made up a hate crime, just as some women make up rapes, and other people make up other crimes. I think your Christian sensibilities would excuse those other people (which include Bible-believing Christians, too) for being “flawed” and “human”. None dare call it perversion when Christians do it! Still, that’s a far cry from your implication that *ALL* gay-bashing is fake, though I understand why it’s in your interest to lie about something like that.
Also, consider that some anti-gay Christian groups like to make up hate crimes as well:
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/09/evidence-still-scarce-in-alleged-pfox-assault/
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Actually, Centerfire’s comment was “sphincter-clenched”, and that makes *you* the first person to bring up anything “sphincter-centered”.
Guilty conscience?
Have any of you others noticed that once a hard-core gay-basher gets started on an anti-gay tirade, they simply can’t resist going into luscious, florid detail in describing gay sex acts? I’ve seen it so many times. Curious, that.
It’s intrepid of you to admit that gays get gypped in some tiny, insignificant way!
That’s got to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read in a comment on Hotair. “Nature” “works” in terms of one man and one woman? Where? Certainly not in humanity! You don’t need marriage to produce a child. All you have to do is ___ like rats do and *bam* pregnancy! Humans, even Christians, are serial monogamists and cheaters. What part of “nature” supports your artifical construction?
Except for Islam. And the Bible. How about we have a challenge. You come up with the Bible verses that say either “bigamy is a sin” or “marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman”, and I’ll come up with the Bible verses that support or condone polygamy. Are you up for it?
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Hey Loundry, I have the world’s smallest violin. I’m playing it for you right now. Spare me your hatred of Christians diatribe, you aren’t worth my time.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v50/ai_21129275
Interesting how the hoax threatening group was “The Fist of God.” Yeah, its the Christians who hate gays.
Sure, it was all a farce from someone that endangered lives, but “THE HATE COULD HAPPEN HERE!”
http://www.washblade.com/2005/10-21/news/national/dorm-arson.cfm
Sure it was a fake arson, BUT THE HATE IS REAL! IT COULD HAPPEN HERE! A little bonus in that one, it actually points out conservatives are using these hoaxed crimes. Well of course we are, when most of the supposed hate inflicted on homosexuals is in hoaxed stunts to point out the hate inflicted on homosexuals, it is difficult to believe the widespread hate exists.
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/05/050905calHate.htm
Homophobe, hate thyself!
http://www.exacom.net/firstlibrary/News/Moral%20Issues/Homosexuality/Imposition/Staged%20hate%20crimes.htm
Pretty much a summarizaration of the previous plus a few more that are too old to show up in an Ask.com search.
But let me guess, all of these are just “isolated incidents.” Knock me over with a straw.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 1:59 PM
LOL! Yeah, that’s right hypocrite. That’s all the flier said. “MITT AND KERRY WISH YOU A GREAT PRIDE WEEKEND. All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.”
And just go ahead and ignore the “letter he had sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts claiming he would be a stronger advocate for homosexual rights than would his then-opponent, Sen. Edward Kennedy.”
THAT’S what we need as our nominee for the CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
And just completely ignore the other links covering his stances on all other conservative issues BEFORE deciding to run for President.
I’m not defending Fred. I’m calling you out on your hypocrisy. You’re bashing Fred while defending another candidate who is ten times worse on the very issues you’re pointing to. You’re calling Fred pro-homosexual marriage because he doesn’t believe we need a Constitutional amendment to enforce his belief that marriage is between a man and woman. Meanwhile, you defend Romney who blatantly panders to homosexuals and even pledges his support to them.
HYPOCRISY!!!
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 2:09 PM
“Certainly not in humanity?”
Huh? Where is the “humanity” world you’re referring to? Is this on planet Earth? Are there seperate laws of nature on this planet, or universe? Or is this some make-believe place where everything is the way you wish it was?
Unfortunately for your argument … a woman is unable to “___ like rats do” with another woman to create a child. This is the “nature” that was referred to. Nature intended man to be with woman. Look down. It’s hopefully quite obvious how the puzzle works.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 2:20 PM
No, I’m saying Fred’s position is cannon fodder for homosexual groups because it is. He literally just said he would treat a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage derived by the same means differently!
Do you not see how different that is from saying Heterosexual marriage is the only valid marriage anywhere?
Moreover, the race against Senator Edward Kennedy amounts to nothing more than campaign rhetoric made 13 years ago. If you want to dig back into the archives for soundbites of policy positions that never materialized, fine by me.
If Romney did beat the Swimmer on that platform, you would STILL call him a RINO, so ultimately it is irrelevant.
Just face the facts: Fred is a sleazeball who likes the sound of “the Federalist candidate” but never lived the life of a federalist. Mitt has grown and evolved and changed and whenever he made a promise, he kept it. You can dislike what Mitt has said and promised over the years, but the fact is he’s honest to the core. Fred can’t even tell his history without including lies of both commission and omission.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Please show me a link or direct me to where Fred Thompson “literally” just said “treat a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage derived by the same means differently.
This is an absurd comment. So what you’re saying is … that Mitt “evolves” (your word) based on what he thinks the voters want at any given time in order to get elected, and that is somehow “honest to the core?”
And you claim that Mitt was only telling the gays what they wanted to hear when he promised his support, but that he never actually gave them that support, but then at the same time, you’re claiming that “whenever he made a promise, he kept it?”
“Honest to the core.”
You and I have different definitions of the word “honest.”
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 2:40 PM
You equivocate campaign stump speeches from 13 years ago with his actual actions as governor. I do not.
Mitt made promises to the people of Massachusetts going in as Governor and he kept all of them, to the delight or shagrin of people everywhere.
Fred won’t even own up to his involvement in McCain-Feingold(-Thompson).
That’s the difference Gregor.
Vis-a-vis marriage:
That is literally saying that gay marriage is allowed, it just doesn’t count. That is by definition a violation of the equal protection clause. Of course, if Fred weren’t just a federalist on TV and actually studied the constitution, he would know that.
Fred already spit on the first amendment, never pushed to help any of the others, and now allows an express violation of the equal protection clause to leave his lips unfettered. Fred knows the constitution about as well as he knows conservative activism: both concepts are foreign to him.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Even Stan Kurtz, who goes to bed each night having just rubbed one out thinking of those numbers, won’t claim that there’s a causal link between gay marriage and declining population/marriage rates in Europe. It’s beyond ludicrous for you to try to do so here. You can prophesy doom until you’re blue in the face, but even if only a small number of gays ever get married, once the public sees those who do, people start to wonder what the big deal was. The existence of happily married gay couples living well-adjusted lives next door, or down the street, or on the evening news is considerably more persuasive than bigots shrieking about a possible link between gay marriage and declining marriage rates.
I’m pretty sure I couldn’t have gotten a better example of an unapologetic bigot if I’d called Central Casting. Look, some gays fake hate crimes. This does not mean that all hate crimes against gays or fake, or that gays need to fake hate crimes in order to engender sympathy. Some of us are sympathetic towards gays because they’re our friends, and because we despise bigots like you.
Riiight. Look, the country currently opposes gay marriage by about ten to fifteen percentage points. That margin is largely generational: the people who are going to be voting and setting national policy in twenty years are considerably more accepting of gay marriage than the people who are going to be dead in twenty years. The very reason that you and the rest of the bigots are attempting to freeze the status quo is because the political tides are gradually turning against you, and you know it. So, again: the only relevant questions are the precise process by which gay marriage is going to be realized, and how much self-inflicted political damage conservatives are willing to absorb before they concede the inevitable.
Not if your post here is any example.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, gay couples are asking for the same rights to hospital visitation, adoption, child custody, power of attorney, and probate that married straight couples enjoy, without having to spend a boatload of extra time and money arranging for them.
Hold that thought for fifteen or twenty years, sparky.
Uh, no. As I pointed out above, the Equal Protection arguments are already in effect. Gays won on these arguments in Massachusetts and New Jersey. They’re going to win in more places, because they’re right. And the first time a federal court agrees with them, then you’re going to have to deal with gay marriage going national, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
The problem is that you appear to be laboring under the delusion that it’s possible to pass something like the Federal Marriage Amendment. It’s not. Will. Never. Happen. Doesn’t matter who you put in the White House; you’re simply not going to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to write bigotry into the federal Constitution. And the harder conservatives try, the more political damage they’re going to inflict on themselves.
So you can waste a lot of time and energy lobbying for something that’s never going to happen, and kill yourself politically along the way. Or you can grow up and accept half a loaf, preventing de facto national gay marriage while letting individual states decide for themselves whether and how to deal with gay marriage.
Sorry, but this is what we call a conclusory statement. You fail law school.
Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Fred the Magic Actor
Lives in DC
He calls himself a Fed’ralist
But he’s as fake as can be
He loves the Constitution
He’s supportive of state’s rights
but don’t ask him ’bout fourteenth or first
cause he’s turned out the lights.
O
Fred the Magic Actor
Lives in DC
He bundles funds, PAC conversions
for dictators he’ll lobby!
If you ask him ’bout Shiavo
“No comment nosiree
I might claim I’m a fed’ralist
but that don’t concern me!”
O
Fred the Magic Actor
Lives in DC
A vote for him’s a vote for fraud
you know you’ll be sorry.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 3:11 PM
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. The fact that different states regulate marriage differently doesn’t implicate the Equal Protection Clause at all.
Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Just guessing, but maybe he meant the Full Faith and Credit clause?
Slublog on September 25, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Maybe, but I doubt it. He’s been rather insistent that Fred’s solution opens the door to Equal Protection Clause arguments. Which is true only in the sense that it doesn’t preclude those arguments, since the status quo opens the door to them as well. He’s living in a fantasy world where the FMA or something like it is a possibility.
Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Renegade courts “won” those arguments through something called “judicial fiat.”
And btw sparky, the “generation gap” is laughable. Senior citizens vote far more often than young folks, and with the stupefying of Americans going on in our public school systems and universities, I sincerely doubt the next generation is going to know how to register to vote, much less do it. They run from duty and obligation.
Fact is centerfire, anywhere gay marriage tries to pass without judicial fiat fails, now and forever. Liberals are aborting more future liberals while conservatives continue to lead normal, taxpaying lives. Your gay fantasy worls will never materialize centerfire.
I don’t give a damn what gays do in their own homes, but I do care that they are trying to devolve a sacred institution mostly responsible for America’s greatness into a meaningless joke.
Fact is, any problems with child custody or adoption a homosexual couple has are primarily brought upon themselves. Two Men or Two Women is an inferior arrangement for children to grow up in that One Man and One Woman. I’m sorry that you don’t agree, I guess you failed history and social science. They must have failed to teach it to you.
We should not be damaging the lives of children just so 5% max of the population can say “YAY! WE CHANGED A SOCIAL INSTITUTION FOR OUR OWN SELFISH DESIRES!” Homosexuality is a sexual perversion, it is a mutually destructive sickness much like alcholism. The promotion of sexual experimentation that goes hand in hand with the promotion of homosexuality has done nothing but spread disease to the next generation. It is a sickness and a curse. Statistics don’t lie. It’s not bigotry to point out when a man shooting a gun is killing somebody. Fact is, as approval of homosexuality in a society increases, that society declines. See: The Roman Empire, Europe, and what is soon to be America.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Seems heterosexuals, with the 50% divorce rates, have done quite a bit to devolve marriage ourselves.
Slublog on September 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Well Sublog, I guess we should just give up then. After all, marriage is too far gone, why not just let the whole thing go to pot.
I heard this exact same thing from a liberal on campus sublog. I asked her point blank if she thought marriage meant anything and she said no.
Whenever a country gets too rich for its own good, hedonism starts popping up. Homosexuals only exist as a viable interest group in hedonistic societies where one does not have to worry about passing on their wealth to heirs in order to provide a decent life.
What we need to do Sublog is quit feminizing men, start railing against no-fault divorce, and reinforce marriage as an institution. You may have given up Sublog, but I haven’t.
Only a Moral society can sustain itself. Morality starts at home. Marriage is the foundation of the home. If you alter marriage to mean “a legal agreement bestowing legal and tax benefits between interested party A and interested party B,” you’ve already lost your society. Marriage is more than just a bundle of legal nicities. Homosexuals only want to get married for the bene’s; screw the spirit of the institution, they want their tax breaks NOW!
Sublog, that kind of thinking is what is destroying America. I know you aren’t a tool of the left, who only find happiness by deconstructing anything moral or sacred. The 50% divorce rate should only deepen your resolve to restore marriage to a meaningingful, purposeful institution, not cause you to give up.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Homosexuality brought down the Roman Empire? Seriously? And here we all thought it was Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
SouthernDem on September 25, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Never said I wanted to give up. Not sure where you got that from me. I just wish the church (whose marriage rate nearly equals that of the secular community) spent as much fixing heterosexual marriage as it does decrying the idea of gay marriage.
Slublog on September 25, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Were you to actually read rather than cherrypick, I said the onset of public approval of homosexuality happens before that society declines. Nowhere did I imply causation. Rampant homosexuality is a symptom of (advanced) rampant hedonism. Rampant hedonism comes before internal collapse. First a nation loses its soul, then it loses its nation.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Mocking, dismissive, and spiteful. Hallmarks of true, pure “Christian love”.
Do you love the gays? Yes or no?
Do you want to protect and defend the gays? Yes or no?
Naturally. People fake crimes all the time. But it really stands out to you when gays do it, right? That’s when it’s really important, right?
I’m convinced! It’s awesome to be a gay! In fact, people who decide to be gay have much better lives than straights, and you can measure that in any way possible. They get more benefits, more love, more appreciation from the public, more recognition from the government, more protection from laws, more praise from religious groups, and more adoration from the media. How silly of me to disagree with you!
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Christians love gays! They really, really, really love gays!
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I did read, and it pretty much seems your position is homosexuals are perverts. Except you did it much talkier.
But you never answered this question:
SouthernDem on September 25, 2007 at 3:58 PM
The church does plenty of work on both fronts. The problem is often that people abdicate responsibility as totally belonging to the church. The fact is that despite the majority of the country calling themselves Christian, most aren’t willing to do the hard work of fighting against no-fault divorce and frivoulous 55-hour Vegas hook-ups. Even less likely to stem the tide are those with no religious foundation or those who do not see the purpose of marriage.
Marriage is central to the conservative movement and to a strong America. That is why feminists and homosexual groups have done everything in their power to weaken, deride, and otherwise devalue it. The problem is that most conservatives really don’t see it happening or know why it’s important.
Marriage isn’t just a “leave it to the church” thing. It needs the support and strengthening of every conservative. Even if you don’t believe in God or sacredness, you should recognize that a strong, healthy marriage institution is vital to the success of the nation. Just look at how things turn out when marriage isn’t there? Out-of-wedlock births rarely produce model or even functioning citizens, single mothers have become so common as to find the two-parent household a freak occurrence. The fact is that the country is sick and it won’t get better unless everyone, religiously inclined or otherwise gets the message:
No more frivolous flings. No more no-fault agreements. No more 55-hour drunken Vegas hookups. No more making excuses for people who leave their spouses. No more villifying men as the evil oppressor and patronizing women as helpless victims. Every last one of these ideas that have flown into the tapestry of American society has destabilized and weaknened the central institution to American success.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Do I need to spell it out for you again?
Humans, even Christians, are serial monogamists that cheat. The “one man, one woman union” is a farce and you know it. And it is entirely, 100% natural.
No it wasn’t! The “nature” was referring to the one-man, one-woman marriage which is hardly “natural”. In fact, it’s exceedingly rare, even among Christians nowadays!
Screwing, on the other hand, is entirely natural. One man and one woman can obviously screw and make a baby, but that it no way implies marriage. He could be raping her, after all.
Sure, men and women have to screw (vaginally) for him to impregnate her. You are really smart to have figured *that* puzzle out! Now tell me: how, specifically, does that imply a one man, one woman marriage? Better yet, tell me how it DISqualifies a one-man, many-women marriage?
(Watch and learn, kids. He won’t be able to do it!)
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM
If they want some sort of non-overridable arrangement for the disbursement of assets or whatever other legal arrangements they need in order to take care of their hospitalized partner or children, I really don’t see a problem with it. I refuse however, to let it share the name marriage. People shouldn’t have their wills overridden just because a petty family member didn’t like who they chose. Noone should die alone in the hospital because their partner wasn’t allowed admittance.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Since marriage is often referred to as a ‘sacred’ institution by social conservatives, they are tying it to the church.
Many churches do have both marriage preparation programs, as well as programs for already-married couples. However, most of the “protect marriage” rhetoric coming from the church and from social conservatives is completely homo-centric. It’s all about the dangers of gay marriage, not about the other important issues you mention.
Slublog on September 25, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Because a one-man, many-woman “marriage” is an unstable and confusing familial arrangement for any children that get involved. Inevitably there is squabling and infighting that breeds dyfunction and violence.
BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Why? It seems pretty understandable and unconfusing to me, especially if the man is the head of the household. (He *is* the head of the household, right?) More sex is good for a man precisely because he desires it more frequently. Hence, he should have more wives in an approved, polygamous marriage because then he’ll be less tempted to have sex outside of marriage.
And the Bible approves of polygamous marriage, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. (Yes, I can debate this and back it up with scripture.)
Thousands of divorces happen every year, even in Christian families, due to squabbling and infighting. How is that any less “inevitable” than squabbling and infighting that breeds dysfunction and violence in families in which there is more than one wife?
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:16 PM
But you’re not a despicable bigot, nosiree.
Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 4:26 PM
He’s not. He loves and admires gays. He hasn’t said so, but he denied hating them, so that means he really, really, really, really loves him some gay.
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:32 PM
No, you simply ignore them when you determine that said speech would not support your agenda.
You just finished defending Romney as being “honest to the core” while at the same time suggesting that his speeches don’t mean anything because he’s only saying what is needed to get elected. So who the hell knows who Mitt Romney is? Do you? How is anyone to know which Mitt Romney is the real Mitt Romney?
“Honest to the core”
If that’s true, than it is NOT a good thing and it doesn’t go a long way to support Romney’s supporters when they claim he is a “true conservative who stands on his convictions.” Romney’s “promises” to Massachusetts were LIBERAL promises and you can’t honestly stand here and say that Romney fulfilled all those promises of liberal agendas and at the same time claim he’s a true conservative who stands on his convictions.
A true conservative standing on his convictions does not support immoral acts or laws which violate his faith, regardless of how an election might turn out, and even if he did … once he wins he certainly wouldn’t then IMPLIMENT THEM.
Really? Are you sure? Or did you just make that up? What’s your definition of “owning up to” because I’d swear he’s been pretty clear in acknowledging his stance on the issue (emphasis added):
I guess you just missed that, right? I’d hate to think you just made up your claim off the top of your head.
It is? I guess only in your world.
Uh. No, it’s not. The Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause were written to give equal protection relating to race relations and there’s no historical interpretation thus far that would propel it into the realm of sexual preference. Of course, since you’re busy interpreting the Constitution and giving it your own little special meaning, I guess you can say it means whatever you want it to mean.
So let me ask you this? If you’re willing to push the equal protection clause into such an area, than isn’t Rudy Giuliani violating the equal protection clause by criminalizing handguns in NY City?
If I take my handgun from California where it’s legal and I drive into NY City and rent an apartment, does NY City have to honor my California hand gun permit?
Oh yeah. Only that which fits your agenda shall count.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Interesting how that works. You don’t have much of an understanding of Jesus if you believe that suggesting that something is immoral and wrong means we do not have Godly love for them. The fact that we hate their actions does not mean that we hate THEM.
But you know that, don’t you?
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 4:47 PM
You’re babbling. There’s absolutely no connection to what you just wrote to homosexuality. The fact that humans “cheat” relates to homosexuality HOW exactly?
Because humans cheat, then homosexuality is perfectly natural? LOL!
You’re really stretching it, but whatever makes you feel better while you’re fulfilling your sick perverted desires.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Yes, it’s fascinating and novel how you turn all gays into pedophiles. Christians have never done that before, and it proves your intense love.
Precisely! Likewise, BDS-infected-Liberals can simultaneously support the troops and yet hate the war! It works in precisely the same way.
That reminds me of when I was listening to NPR (ew) and there was a long segment, the subject of which was: “How exactly do you go about supporting the troops if you don’t support the war?” Lots of consternation and gnashing of teeth followed. Something tells me that Christians don’t have any analogous discussions about how, precisely, Christians go about loving gays when they hate what gays do. (Sodomy laws, perhaps?)
Say it to me: “I love and support the precious gays!”
Or how about this one: “God bless America and her gays!”
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Which means that you’re really STUPID to have NOT figured it out.
I didn’t say it did. I said that it’s clear that nature intended man and women to be together based on basic physical characteristics and the nature of reproduction. It simply works that way and it doesn’t your way. Of course, you choose to ignore the obvious functional make-up of your body and instead prefer to follow whatever path that most easily brings you physical pleasure. You know? Sort of like Elmer’s Glue is designed to be used to bond two objects together, but certain mentally disturbed deviants will sometimes use it for physical pleasure by squeezing the fumes up their noses.
Whatever makes you feel good is okay by you, right? What gives us the right to “disqualify” glue sniffing from the legitimate uses of Elmer’s Glue?
Did you know that humans have raped, pillaged, and murdered since the beginning of time? Guess it’s okay then, right?
And now comes a certain commenter sure to chime in with the sarcastic response …
“Christians really really really love rapists, pillagers, and murderers!”
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:12 PM
It doesn’t. It’s related to the fact that the one man, one woman union is a farce, an imposition on human behavior in spite of what is obviously going on underneath your nose. And that natural reality is that humans go from person to person in serial marriages and they cheat along the way. *That*, my naive Christian friend, is natural, even among Christians.
Homosexuality is natural because, unlike gods or angels, it occurs in nature. I never made the argument you’re laughing at.
Wow, you love me! You really do! I feel Christ’s love when you talk to me. It drips off of every syllable!
But when you’re not dishing out the “Christian love”, what you’re failing to do is show me how “one man, one woman” is implied by vaginal sex. I did ask you to do that, remember? And I did predict that you’d fail to explain it, right?
Let me make it crystal clear for you:
1. A man can impregnate a woman by means of vaginal sex.
2. ???
3. Therefore, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Your job: fill in #2. It should be *easy* since it is obviously so obvious to you.
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 5:17 PM
And here we have evidence that you are nothing more than a liar. I said nothing of the sort. I stated that a hatred for an action or lifestyle that we feel to be immoral or wrong does not translate into a hatred for those people. In your world, there is no right to suggest ANYONE is EVER wrong, unless of course, they are Christians or simply don’t agree with you and then you can call them names all day long.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Say it to me: “I love and support the precious gays!”Or how about this one: “God bless America and her gays!”
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Say it to me: “I love and support the precious murderers!”
Or how about this one: “God bless America and her rapists!”
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Personally, I don’t have a problem with this per se. But as a practical matter — and I’m not accusing you of anything Gregor, just making an observation — I think this “I hate the sin but love the sinner” line is all too frequently trotted out by people who manifestly don’t love the sinner in any real sense, and are just bigots attempting to use religion to excuse their bigotry.
See, for instance, BKennedy, above.
Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM
What would I do without beautiful, pure “Christian love”?
The foundations of the “monogamous marriage is implied by nature” trope begin to crumble. How many more damaging admissions will you be forced to concede? I love arguing this with you: you’re so easy.
1. How do you get from “be together” to “marriage is the union of one man and one woman”? Explain.
2. Why does nature not intend men to father children through rape based on the exact same justification for “being together” that you gave? Vaginal intercourse during rape works in exactly the same way that vaginal intercourse works in between a man and his wife (consensual or non-consensual).
Not always! Once women go through menopause, then their usefulness expires, correct? Women don’t “work” any more after that, right?
Unlike you, for whom sex is a joyless and mundane chore, correct?
Before, all gays were pedophiles. Now they’ve been upgraded to glue-huffers. Catch the Spirit of Christ’s love in action!
I agree! Let’s throw them all in jail. Or execute them. Or exile them to an island. Or wish a humiliating and degenerative disease on them. All of those would be shining examples of “Christian love”.
Why not? It’s “natural”! That’s exactly how deep the rabbit hole goes if your appeal against homosexuality is based in that which is “natural”. Rape is natural, just like vaginal intercourse in general, just like homosexuality, just like murder. But not like gods or angels, which are unnatural.
I know, maybe you could try justifying your gay-bashing by using the Bible!
Oh great, now gays have been downgraded to rapists, pillagers, and murderers all at the same time. God works in mysterious ways!
God bless America and her Gays!
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I disagree with you, and I do so because I think you’re playing a word game. Let’s find out if I’m right by asking you a few more questions.
Is homosexuality just as bad as pedophilia? (Yes/No)
Is there no moral difference between an unrepentant homosexual and an unrepentant pedophile? (Yes/No)
And that’s why you stand up for gays and defend them. Clearly you love them as much as you love Jesus. I feel soooooo loved by you! I’m going to accept Jesus right here and now because I’m so convinced of your truthfulness!
Where did you get that idea? Please quote something I wrote which led you to believe that I espouse such a retarded thing.
What’s wrong with calling someone names? You did it to me. Lovingly, of course. You called me “STUPID” out of pure love for me.
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 5:45 PM
It’s not difficult to understand.
1. A man can impregnate a woman by means of vaginal sex.
2. A man is unable to be impregnated by another man.
3. A woman is unable to be impregnated by another woman.
4. Nature/God (whichever you believe) designed all creatures for reproduction which requires the a specific sexual pairing.
5. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that there’s even a single benefit or purpose for relations between same sex partners.
6. Therefore, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Of course, I could go on all day, but nothing will be good enough for you. You simply don’t care. Your entire argument is based on the fact that there’s been homosexual acts around forever, so it must be perfectly okay and normal. But it’s obvious that you’re not about to allow that same argument to effect your life in other areas that would effect you in negative ways.
People have been stealing cars since they were invented, so it’s perfectly okay to steal cars.
People have been raping women since the beginning of time, so it’s perfectly okay.
People have been murdering gays since the beginning of time, so it’s perfectly okay.
People have been worshiping God since the beginning of time, so it must be perfectly okay.
Oh wait. I don’t believe you’re in agreement on that last one.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I think this “bigot” accusation is all too frequently trotted out by people who manifestly don’t want to stop doing whatever immoral act they’re doing and are just deviants attempting to use the race card to excuse their behavior.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:56 PM
We’re finally getting into the meat of the matter. I love this!
Agree, agree, agree.
Don’t bring god into this yet. You were making the natural argument, and let’s handle that one first. (I can dispense with your god later.)
What do you mean that all creatures were “designed” for reproduction? Does that imply that those creatures which cannot or don’t reproduce are not working according to design?
1. What if two men being together makes two men happy and gives their lives meaning? Are neither of those things (happiness and a sense of meaning) a benefit or a purpose? (I think male-male love is awesome. How is that appreciation contrary to “nature”?)
2. If a male-female pairing fails to spawn, then does their partnership lack benefit or purpose? That seems to be what you’re saying: a partnership depends solely on the ability to produce a child.
Why not many women?
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Christian love! Catch the spirit! I’m on the cusp of becoming a Christian, I’m just so moved by your loving attitude.
Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Gregor and BKennedy, you’re forgetting the second rule of internet forums (which of course I’m about to momentarily break): Don’t feed the trolls.
Loundry: love of a person != acceptance and condonation of actions. Your repeated attempts to conflate the two are little more than straw men for your crap-flinging. Go away.
Harpazo on September 25, 2007 at 6:14 PM
No problem, but it won’t make a difference. It wouldn’t matter if I had an official rule book produced by God or whatever form of nature’s official you would believe in. If it didn’t fit your desired outcome you would simply toss it aside.
No. Of course it’s not “just as bad.” But it’s immoral, deviant, and perverted just the same. The only thing that separates it is it’s legality, and the fact that one is assumed to be a willing participant. But this doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a sexual perverted deviancy, just as if you were with a willing goat.
Of course there’s a difference. Is there a difference between a person who smokes a couple of joints a month and a person who does meth twice a day for five years? They are both drug users.
You’re unable to comprehend the difference between romantic or physical love and Godly love. You’re not being sincere in your phony confusion. I’m quite confident that you wouldn’t feel love (as you’re defining it) toward a man who murders your child, or for that matter … even your most despised political candidate (whoever that might be). Much the same as when a peace activist claims there’s never a reason for violence, and then in the same breath shouts out HANG BUSH … you’re arguing a lie and you’re well aware of it.
While Christians dig deep to pray for enlightenment for their enemies and yes … even gays, people such as yourself are more likely to lay in bed at night snarling about how you HATE THOSE DAMN BIGOTS!
You most assuredly do. You insinuate that Christians have absolutely no right to complain about anyone’s actions or suggest that ANY actions are wrong and any attempt to do so immediately labels them a bigot. We are bigots in your opinion for suggesting that homosexuality is wrong. Never mind that there’s overwhelming evidence suggesting that it’s not natures intended design, while there’s absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that it’s normal, except of course … that people have DONE it since the beginning of time. To you, this somehow indicates that it’s normal.
As I’ve pointed out before, that this sort of thinking pretty much means EVERYTHING is normal and therefore nobody has a right to suggest that anything be stopped. Unless it’s Christianity of course. Then you’re all perfectly okay with bashing it.
My point exactly. Hypocrisy. Why do you have a seizure and implode from within if someone calls you a disgusting perverted homo-deviant, yet you have no problem at all calling all Christians bigots and other various names?
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 6:29 PM
There you go being dishonest again. I specifically wrote:
My answer stands with or without God.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Heh. What if brutally murdering a child makes a man happy and gives his life meaning?
Your answer does not qualify as “evidence” that homosexuality is “normal” or “right.”
The fact that something makes a person happy does not make it okay, or normal. Again, I’m sure you understand this, but it interferes with where you want to go with your sex organ, so you choose to ignore it.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 6:36 PM
No, that’s not what I’m saying and you know it. I stated that the human body was designed specifically to pair a man with a woman, based on reproductive systems. The fact that one person’s body might fail to function properly does not change it’s intended design.
Man was intended to drink water, correct? The fact that a pool of water should become poisonous due to contamination does not change the fact that man was intended to consume water.
That’s an entirely different argument that has nothing to do with the physical design of the human body OR homosexuality.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 6:42 PM
I withdraw my earlier benefit-of-the-doubt, Gregor. You and BKennedy are two sides of the same contemptible coin.
Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 7:09 PM
I withdraw my earlier benefit-of-the-doubt, Centerfire. You and Loundry are two sides of the same deviant perversion.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM
It sounds like you’re arguing, “It’s obviously different, but of course it’s the same”. Which is it?
“Of course there’s a difference, but they’re the same”. You’re talking out of the both sides of your mouth.
I am sincere, I’ve just treated your fake and cheap “godly love” with all the respect that it deserves, and that is to be immensely sarcastic toward it. It’s crap, and that’s that.
You’re right: I’d hate that bastard. The difference between you and me is that I’m not the one who claims to “love everybody” and have “god’s love” and then betray it. I love whom I love and hate whom I hate and I don’t play games about it like you do, such as saying “I love the sinner but hate the sin (and will support sodomy laws as a consequence, lovingly)”.
I agree: leftists are worse than Christians in every measurable category. They commit all of the same sins and do so more egregiously.
Christians also support sodomy laws. Do you? Be honest. If the sodomy laws were reinstated and you saw a gay man who was being punished for the crime of sodomy, would you defend him?
You’re putting an awful lot of words in my mouth! I know that’s what you *want* to think about me because I oppose your abuse of gay people, but one does not follow the other. For instance, I think that murderers should be executed in the way that their victims died. Do you agree with that?
I understand our difference. I think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (it’s amoral) because it does not harm anyone. You think homosexuality is wrong because it’s impure. Am I correct?
You’re assuming a point in dispute, but that’s a separate post.
That’s called evidence, and that blows a hole right through the heart of your “ZERO” claim. More evidence is that homosexuality has existed in every culture and exists in many manifestations in the animal kingdom. Do you remember when your team used to say, “You don’t see animals doing it”? How did that work out for you?
But even if it was normal, would that make it pure?
Incorrect. I think that any action which deprives any other individual of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud is immoral and should be illegal. Can we agree on that point?
But why is that bad if you do it? You can’t call me to task for “calling you names” after you have called me names. Please remove the plank from your own eye and I will be happy to remove the splinter from mine.
Loundry on September 26, 2007 at 9:21 AM
It’s invalid because murdering a child deprives the child of life, whereas a loving partnership between two men deprives no one of life, liberty, or property.
That wasn’t what I was arguing against. Your claim was that homosexual relationships provide no benefit or purpose, not if it was “normal” or “right”. Would you agree that a loving partnership between two men can provide those two men with happiness and meaning, and that those two things qualify as either benefit or purpose?
I agree! But happiness is a benefit, right?
Loundry on September 26, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »