Foster son taken from Christian couple because they object to homosexuality

posted at 9:15 pm on October 23, 2007 by Allahpundit

The boy’s been placed now with a kindly atheist family that’s promising to teach him well “the ways of teh ghey.” No no, kidding. He’s languishing in a youth hostel — after having lived with the couple for two years.

It seems they didn’t love thy neighbor quite enough to suit British law.

The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council’s social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour’s new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings…

Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: “I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.

“We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God.”…

Religious campaigners say the couple are the latest victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.

Muslim groups are complaining too, so maybe Christians can ride the coattails of “Islamophobia” to eventual victory here. Exit question: With Britain needing an extra 8,000 foster parents to meet demand, is it time for Britain to do something daring and consider religious families?

Update: You can’t truly appreciate the absurdity of this story until you’ve read this, too.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Good lord, people. The level of ignorance and hatred of homosexuals in this thread is really appalling. Have none of you a-holes ever known a gay person? I can’t imagine anyone who actually knew gay people would be talking about them like they’re deviants and perverts. Honestly, you people are sick. Stop embarassing real conservatives with your disgusting, religion-based bigotry.

Enrique on October 24, 2007 at 10:56 AM

It seems as illogical and inequitable to oppose gay couples as it is to define exactly how a heterosexual couple structures their relationship.

Not opposing them. Just saying what the “attraction” is based upon, at least initially, and that it is a psychological problem. That makes it UNEQUAL to normal, heterosexual relationships, and potentially treatable.

JiangxiDad on October 24, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Good lord, people. The level of ignorance and hatred of homosexuals in this thread is really appalling. Have none of you a-holes ever known a gay person? I can’t imagine anyone who actually knew gay people would be talking about them like they’re deviants and perverts. Honestly, you people are sick. Stop embarassing real conservatives with your disgusting, religion-based bigotry.

Enrique on October 24, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Well, not that I’m going to give you the title of “real conservative” around here, you should be embarrassed… by your own idiocy. What you call “hatred”, we call a discussion of logic. And you prove points I always raise in these threads with your “don’t you know gay people!” I know people with piercings all over the place too. I know people with green hair. Those are just “expressions of who they are” right? So they were born with those desires… clearly. Ugh, you’re such a waste, I’m already done with you… instead of responding to anyone’s points it’s the same old “I have a gay friend!” argument… STFU, seriously.

RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Enrique on October 24, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Seriously, you’re the one to talk about bigotry? You’ve got to be at least one of the top anti-Christian bigots on Hot Air.

You can’t let a single thread about Christians go without insulting them for their beliefs.

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Another child sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.

Lawrence on October 24, 2007 at 11:10 AM

“Face it. It doesn’t add up. There is no gay gene. It’s simply an addiction to physical pleasure, regardless of the origin.”

i agree…

It’s also a great way to get attention, rebel against your parents and other authority figures in your life, join an exclusive “club” where you can get easy sex anytime you want, and oh yeah, never have to worry about child rearing (unless of course that’s your bag…)

max1 on October 24, 2007 at 11:12 AM

This is very unfortunate for children, but it is something that must happen. It is more than obviously clear at this point that the true seperation of the wheat from the chaff in the ends times that must take place IS already taking place in small measure as we watch it unfold before our eyes…and it is happening over the homosexual agenda issue. Who would have possibly guessed that HOMOSEXUALITY is what the final division would be over. Especially considering that it has risen up as the predominate entity that seperates the God fearing from the God hating, in a mere 4 decades or so, going from rightly being something abhorant to even the most liberal thinking general public, to something being actually promoted not only by Godless liberals but by even many of our public school systems today.

Those with eyes to see the God’s honest truth, because they have hearts for God, are going to increasingly see themselves being seperated from the rest of the world, little by little. Because those of the world hearts stand against the God of the Bible so their eyes are ever increasingly blinded to the truth. Our Nation is merely following what has already taken place in other civilized, yet less God fearing, parts of the world. And as the wave rolls through, parents in this Nation are going to first see the “public” school system bent on indoctrinating their children into unGodly pursuits, starting with homosexuality and sexual indoctrination. Many believers will eventually respond by opting to pull their childen out of public schools for this reason. And then homeschooling will become the main focus of liberal attack, with private schools more and more forced by a liberal government to “teach” the indoctrination that the world wants.

Not to far in the future, the mere mention of someone being a christian is going to be met with hatred and disdain by the general public, because they will have allowed their dead to God spirits to be conformed to this world, rather than to the truth of God’s word. It’s coming, quick.

NRA4Freedom on October 24, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Enrique on October 24, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Before we continue with the insane ranting, maby we need to explore the definition of deviance and perversion. But I think we will find that my definitions and your definitions are not quite the same.

Lawrence on October 24, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Bradky on October 24, 2007 at 5:39 AM

LOL! Classic. The same people who claim that gays are “born that way” and have a “gay gene” never hesitate to defend their gayness by attacking heterosexuals as “having secret desires that cause their homophobia.”

Sort of like Truthers who can’t make up their minds whether Bush is a friggin genius or a complete idiot. Whatever happens to support your perverted sex addiction at the time.

Make up your mind. Are gays born with a specific gene, or is EVERYONE actually gay but only some of you are brave and heroic enough to admit it.

Funny stuff Bradky.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Not opposing them. Just saying what the “attraction” is based upon, at least initially, and that it is a psychological problem. That makes it UNEQUAL to normal, heterosexual relationships, and potentially treatable.

It isn’t a psychological disorder according to the American Psychiatric Association. If we were to allow your contention that gay relationships are unequal to straight relationships, it would seem that there is criteria for discerning which straight relationships were better than other straight relationships and who’s marriage is better.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Good lord, people. The level of ignorance and hatred of homosexuals in this thread is really appalling. Have none of you a-holes ever known a gay person? I can’t imagine anyone who actually knew gay people would be talking about them like they’re deviants and perverts. Honestly, you people are sick. Stop embarassing real conservatives with your disgusting, religion-based bigotry.

Enrique on October 24, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Enrique, don’t you know by now that 99.9% of HotAir readers think you’re an absolute moron. Why do you insist on showing up in a place where people laugh at you?

Have none of you a-holes ever known a gay person? I can’t imagine anyone who actually knew gay people would be talking about them like they’re deviants and perverts.

Lots of them. I live in California. So what’s your point Enrique? That if you know someone who’s gay, it suddenly makes it okay? I know a murderer and he seemed like a really good guy. Should I now believe that murdering people is perfectly normal and acceptable? I know murderers and they are people too! I know people who do their goats and they’re people too!

Dufus.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Are gays born with a specific gene, or is EVERYONE actually gay but only some of you are brave and heroic enough to admit it.

There is a lot of uncertainty about that and it is likely different for different people.

can’t make up their minds whether Bush is a friggin genius or a complete idiot

I’m going to go with “not genius” on that one.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 11:28 AM

Lawrence on October 24, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Well, using the guidance of moderate Democrat Chris Matthews from MSNBC, Larry Craig is a “sexual deviant”. So, I guess unacknowledged homosexuals who look relationships in public places are deviants.

Did that help?

Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Enrique, just for the record I have known dozens of homosexuals and have close friends and relatives whom I dearly love who are gay. I have no problem with any of them — none.

Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Mindcrime on October 24, 2007 at 9:50 AM

And the sexual deviancy of that community is absolutely fair game, just as any other segment of our society. The gay people I know don’t claim an exemption for perversion or for irresponsible behavior that leads to AIDS.

Play it straight and it will make more sense to responsible people from both communities. The Fulsom Freaks are a fringe, deviant group. Right, Enrique?

Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Lots of them. I live in California. So what’s your point Enrique? That if you know someone who’s gay, it suddenly makes it okay? I know a murderer and he seemed like a really good guy. Should I now believe that murdering people is perfectly normal and acceptable? I know murderers and they are people too! I know people who do their goats and they’re people too!

Dufus.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Lol, serious ownage.

BTW Gregor, it’s funny that the most vocally opposed here (you and I) are from where we’re from… You’re showing California, eh? Well I raise you Vermont!

RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 12:08 PM

The Labour Party are fascists. Nothing they do shocks me anymore.

aengus on October 24, 2007 at 12:17 PM

That if you know someone who’s gay, it suddenly makes it okay? I know a murderer and he seemed like a really good guy. Should I now believe that murdering people is perfectly normal and acceptable? I know murderers and they are people too!

Murder (usually) doesn’t occur between consenting adults.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Murder (usually) doesn’t occur between consenting adults.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:17 PM

So … suicide is perfectly normal? Should we teach kids in school that suicide should be experimented with and that’s it’s a perfectly acceptable choice?

You know? Because it’s between consenting adults? And I happen to have friends who have killed themselves and they were great people. There’s NOTHING WRONG WITH SUICIDE!

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:20 PM

RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 12:08 PM

No doubt, lol. Yeah, I spent some time in Vermont with a friend of mine while in the military way back. It was the only place I’ve ever been that seemed to have a higher percentage of pot-heads than California.

We’ve both got it tough, but we both live in beautiful country.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Heads up people!

If you want to know the truth about why homosexuality was actually removed from the DSM list of mental illnesses in 1973, perhaps you should Google: The “Trojan Couch”:
How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science

*Note: Part I, which discusses this in-depth.

Part I of the paper reviews the history of the diagnostic change that in 1973 removed homosexuality as a formal disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a change that many now accept as simply indisputable in spite of the fact that it was based wholly on fiction.

As you read, keep in mind, the same organization (the APA), which removed homosexuality for the DSM published a pro-pedophilia article in its journal, which forced Congress to take the APA to task – Big Time.

sinsing on October 24, 2007 at 12:26 PM

I know people with piercings all over the place too. I know people with green hair. Those are just “expressions of who they are” right? So they were born with those desires… clearly.

That’s totally different, people who die they’re hair green wouldn’t face the kind of hatred you see in this thread, and they wouldn’t be deprived of certain rights because they have green hair. Anyway it’s well documented it’s not a choice, check out the study i mentioned, and theres several others. If it’s a choice why does it occur in the animalkingdom? Do they choose to be gay because it’s cool? Or just,you know, ask a gay person. They probably would know better then you…

crr6 on October 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM

It isn’t a psychological disorder according to the American Psychiatric Association. If we were to allow your contention that gay relationships are unequal to straight relationships, it would seem that there is criteria for discerning which straight relationships were better than other straight relationships and who’s marriage is better.

The APA is no more immune to politicization as global warming science is. It was once a mental disorder; it will likely be again. Also, depends upon the society how it’s viewed.

As for evaluating which hetero relationships are better than others, that’s not a problem. Pick one you like and say it’s better. That’s called making a value judgement. Once we used to make those unconsciously. If you’re an adult with some education and life experience, I’ll take your value judgements with some weight.

Btw, re. “deviant”. Homosexuality by definition is deviant, in that it deviates from the norm. It’s a loaded word now, and perhaps not best used, but it is correct.

JiangxiDad on October 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM

So … suicide is perfectly normal?

If someone intends to kill himself he shouldn’t have to get a permission slip from the U.S. government.

Also, I don’t think it is the job of schools to teach about suicide, heterosexuality or homosexuality.

If two adults pay their taxes, live by the laws, and contribute to society I think they are entitled to the liberty that is fundamental to this country’s proposition.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:32 PM

The APA is no more immune to politicization as global warming science is. It was once a mental disorder; it will likely be again. Also, depends upon the society how it’s viewed.

Certainly agree with you on the APA. Don’t agree, though, that every perception that once was will return—women’s roles, for example, have changed significantly and are unlikely to return to what they were. It seems undeniable that the change in the way that society views what is “normal” for a woman has had a much more significant impact on what a “normal” marriage is than whether the couple down the block is gay.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:41 PM

crr6 on October 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Animals also eat their own feces as well as their own kind. For some reason though, if a person eats sh*t or human flesh, we still consider it a choice.

But again, I ask, if the hatred one receives is proof of a lack of choice, then are you suggesting that pedophiles were born that way as well?

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 12:42 PM

If someone intends to kill himself he shouldn’t have to get a permission slip from the U.S. government.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:32 PM

I don’t think that was the question being asked though. The question (I think) is: Should suicide be considered morally and socially acceptable?

Whether or not it should be legal is a separate issue.

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Great Britain has truly become ungodly. It has become the socialist parent of all children current not protected by real parents.

They will remold these children to accept Sodom and Gomorrah. The head of John the Baptist upon a platter is soon to come for that is what Salome demands to feel free from condemnation

The children in custody of their real parents are on borrowed time.

This requirement

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

is on the same page as the movement of the government in Canada where regulations on ‘hate speech’ are threatening the rights of Christian ministers to preach that homosexuality is a sin. If the law is applied fully the minister can be jailed. At the same time, Canada is applying separate and not equal standards to muslims, including a suicidal act that almost allowed sharia to be used by muslims in family law matters in place of state law.

This dichotomy moves to end Christianity and build up islam in so-called secular nations.

How hypocritical these nations to preach secularism but to worship at the altar of homosexualism which they accept on faith

Emphasizing homosexuality and muslim expansion at the same time while attempting to kill Christianity is a recipe for death

entagor on October 24, 2007 at 12:51 PM

If it’s a choice why does it occur in the animalkingdom?

crr6 on October 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM

It happens in animal Kingdom because it feels good and they are animals. They don’t know any better and do whatever feels good.

Are you saying you’re an animal and have no control over your urges? If it feels good, it must be okay.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:53 PM

I don’t think that was the question being asked though. The question (I think) is: Should suicide be considered morally and socially acceptable?

Very good catch, Esthier, as always. My point, though, is that it should be legal for gay people to marry. It doesn’t make it socially acceptable, nor should it. That is for each community to decide. Having the state recognize and record a heterosexual marriage doesn’t make it socially acceptable either, certainly people have been marrying outside of their religion or race legally but experiencing scorn or dislocation from their community. Having a valid marriage certificate doesn’t console parents who wanted their daughter to marry a good Catholic or nice Jewish boy, and having a marriage certificate probably wouldn’t have eased the differences between the Montaques and Capulets.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:57 PM

entagor on October 24, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Yes, but the examples you offer are of a stronger force pushing against a weaker.

Weak Christianity is the villain in the piece. Even if you aren’t a believer, the vacuum created by the absence of a robust Christianity leaves space for robust something else.

Hopefully, like the Jews in Israel faced with a mortal threat, the self-preservation instinct will not have been permanently extinguished.

JiangxiDad on October 24, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Very good catch, Esthier, as always. My point, though, is that it should be legal for gay people to marry. It doesn’t make it socially acceptable, nor should it. That is for each community to decide. Having the state recognize and record a heterosexual marriage doesn’t make it socially acceptable either, certainly people have been marrying outside of their religion or race legally but experiencing scorn or dislocation from their community. Having a valid marriage certificate doesn’t console parents who wanted their daughter to marry a good Catholic or nice Jewish boy, and having a marriage certificate probably wouldn’t have eased the differences between the Montaques and Capulets.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Thank you, and I see where you are going. I agree that law shouldn’t dictate acceptability. It should be outside of acceptability, neither in favor or against it.

I don’t completely disagree with people who believe making something legal makes it more socially acceptable. Just look at alcohol and Prohibition. When it was legal, it was very widespread. When it was made illegal, it became a mob enterprise.

And while homosexual couples are in hiding merely because their union isn’t recognized by the state, polygamists are to an extent. Now, this is also because polygamy is more socially taboo than homosexuality, but it’s also something punishable by law.

Were it not so, polygamists would be able to be open about their lifestyles, and the rest of us would be confronted with their living situation the same way we are with homosexuals. Familiarity breeds content, and that’s exactly how societal taboos are broken. The arguments get changed from, “it’s wrong” to, “I have friends who do _____, and they’re OK, so we shouldn’t consider them immoral or wrong.”

So while I don’t believe there is an exact correlation between law and acceptability, I do see how the connection is made and understand that line of thinking.

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 2:34 PM

“it’s pretty much a given that 10% of a given human population is homosexual”

I think that has pretty much been shown to be urban legend. While 10% might have had a homosexual experience at one time or another, I believe the latest reliable figures were closer to 5.5% of the population being homosexual in that they only engage in sexual relationships with members of the same sex and do not show arousal by members of the opposite sex.

But the bottom line is, I don’t want an 11 year old thinking a whole lot about sex of any sort, hetero or homo. And I certainly don’t want them growing up to be someone whose entire self-identity revolves around what gets their tender bits engorged.

crosspatch on October 24, 2007 at 3:08 PM

As a gay parent, I find the story in the update absolutely horrifying. Naturally there are straight foster parents who abuse children, as well as straight and gay adoptive parents who abuse children, as well as straight and gay wetware* parents who abuse children. (Who produces most child porn? Parents do!) But everyone knows that there are plenty in this crowd (Gregor?) who will see this story and think, “See, this just proves that all gay parents are out to molest children.” It makes me look bad no matter how good of a parent I am, and I find that horrifying.

(* I use “wetware” because, as an adoptive parent, I despise any other term that demeans the parental rights of adoptive parents.)

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Familiarity breeds content, and that’s exactly how societal taboos are broken. The arguments get changed from, “it’s wrong” to, “I have friends who do _____, and they’re OK, so we shouldn’t consider them immoral or wrong.”

If we accept that there is a de facto correlation between law and acceptability, one would still need to believe that gay marriage would somehow make more people want to become gay so that they could have the chance to marry someone of the same sex. That seems unlikely to me.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 3:16 PM

I know a murderer and he seemed like a really good guy. Should I now believe that murdering people is perfectly normal and acceptable?

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Murder deprives another individual of life, and that’s why it is wrong. Consensual sex does not deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property, so it’s not wrong. We form a morality around protecting the life, liberty, and property of individuals — unless you’re a “progressive”, a Muslim, or a Christian, in which case you have a superstitious and thus crappy basis for your morality.

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 3:21 PM

If two adults pay their taxes, live by the laws, and contribute to society I think they are entitled to the liberty that is fundamental to this country’s proposition.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:32 PM

I totally agree with that. I also agree with this:

Also, I don’t think it is the job of schools to teach about suicide, heterosexuality or homosexuality.

The last quote is what this conversation is about. Homosexuals should not be trying to force their lifestyles on others. If it’s indeed true that there’s a “homosexual gene” and there’s no ability to control it; then homosexuals should be fine allowing us to make that choice all on our own.

Get away from our children’s heads!

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 3:23 PM

My point, though, is that it should be legal for gay people to marry.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Gay people DO have the ability and the RIGHT to marry.

Marriage is defined as a bond between two people of the opposite sex. You have that right, just like anyone else. You can either choose to participate in marriage, or not.

What homosexuals are trying to do is force an entire country to CHANGE a definition to benefit their sexual desires. This makes no sense.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 3:27 PM

(Gregor?) who will see this story and think, “See, this just proves that all gay parents are out to molest children.”

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Bogus. I’ve never stated that. I don’t believe that. And you just slandered me. Nice job.

I guess it helps your cause to make those who don’t agree with homosexuality into bigots and evil monsters. It’s a common practice many have used before you.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Murder deprives another individual of life, and that’s why it is wrong. Consensual sex does not deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property, so it’s not wrong.

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 3:21 PM

First off, you’re using the word “wrong” in place of the word “legal” OR you’re simply throwing your own opinion in there as to what YOU consider to be wrong.

The majority of the population feels that homosexuality is “wrong.” EVERY SINGLE poll shows this, and EVERY time same sex marriage goes to a ballot … it’s defeated.

However you want to look at the definition of wrong … homosexuality fits in there pretty well. From a physical standpoint, the puzzle pieces fit together “wrong.”

Besides all of this, none of it has anything to do with my point, which is that “knowing someone who does something wrong does not make it okay simply because that person was a friend of yours, or a family member. People develop this philosophy as a defense mechanism, to avoid having to give up relationships they enjoy. You don’t want to believe your son is strange, so you completely abandon all previous beliefs and suddenly convince yourself that homosexuality can’t be bad, because your son is gay and you love him.

Sorry. Doesn’t work that way. If it’s wrong before your friend did it, it’s wrong AFTER your friend did it. Get over it already. None of this means you need to abandon your friends, or abandon your son. But you can’t suddenly erase the fact that it’s not the way the human body was built to function.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 3:41 PM

The last quote is what this conversation is about. Homosexuals should not be trying to force their lifestyles on others. If it’s indeed true that there’s a “homosexual gene” and there’s no ability to control it; then homosexuals should be fine allowing us to make that choice all on our own.

Yes, I didn’t comment on this thread early on since social services isn’t an area of interest to me. I usually regret when the state gets involved providing services that a family or community would better handle.

Staying away from children’s heads is a good idea. However, many gay people weren’t taught it in school and usually were encouraged in the opposite direction by their peers. Some of them fought against their attraction and their parents were usually not approving. My point is that if one of my children or young cousins were to be gay I’d want them to not face some of the difficulties my peers faced while they were growing up.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 3:42 PM

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 3:13 PM

See, now I would have thought that the horrifying part about it is that people let the abuse continue out of fear of being unPC. What would have set off alarms from other couples suddenly seemed alarmist when it involved a homosexual couple.

I get that even heterosexual couples can and do abuse their children; however, it’s appalling to me that the child’s welfare was given a backseat to political correctness.

That seems unlikely to me.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 3:16 PM

I agree, and that’s not quite what I meant. What I do mean is that marriage can have the affect of legitimizing something that was otherwise taboo. It isn’t so much that people will want a same-sex spouse but that same-sex relationships will have been made legitimate, thus possibly making them more socially acceptable.

I do see a correlation between what is socially acceptable and its occurance in society. As I mentioned previously, societies have had homosexual populations before but generally during socially acceptable periods of time, like the Greeks, Romans or when their soldiers were away at war.

And yes, this goes under the assumption that people can choose to be gay, which, even if there is a gay gene, isn’t impossible.

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 3:54 PM

What homosexuals are trying to do is force an entire country to CHANGE a definition to benefit their sexual desires. This makes no sense.

Up until 40 years ago the anti-miscegenation laws limited marriage, or even sexual relations, to people of the same race in some states. The definition of marriage was changed, ultimately by a Supreme Court decision in 1967.

Not everyone accepted interracial marriages and certainly it wasn’t mandatory or even promoted, but when two people loved each other and committed for life the state recognized that bond.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 3:58 PM

You infer that all homosexuals are the same. Not the case at all. Aside the fact that any gay person will confirm: You’re either born gay, or you’re born straight. There’s no “gay in the making” so to speak.

JetBoy on October 23, 2007 at 11:02 PM

I guess pedophiles are just born that way too? So, why not let them have their way with children? I mean, they just cannot help it. Get a grip jet boy — no scientific evidence behind what you say. There is nothing natural about homosexuality. It’s a perversion plain and simple. Don’t get me wrong, one does not have to be gay to be a perv. If we condone homosexual behavior as okay, there is no reason not to condone polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.

If homosexuality were natural, you all could reproduce and you wouldn’t have to spend so much time recruiting children because without recruitment, you all die out.

wytammic on October 24, 2007 at 4:03 PM

If we condone homosexual behavior as okay, there is no reason not to condone polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.

Actually, pedophilia and bestiality are forms of rape and would still be taboo under those grounds even if people were born that way.

With polygamy though, I agree, I do not see how we can allow consent adults to marry the person of their choice while still denying a different group of consenting adults the ability to marry the person of their choice.

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 4:10 PM

The definition of marriage was changed, ultimately by a Supreme Court decision in 1967.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 3:58 PM

That’s not exactly the same. The definition of marriage is (and has always been) the union of one man and one woman. Laws were put in place to keep that union between people of the same race, but that was never a part of the definition of marriage. It was the norm and thus the unspoken understanding of the definition, but it was never expressly stated that way.

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 4:12 PM

If we condone homosexual behavior as okay, there is no reason not to condone polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.

How, exactly, does it follow? Could someone make the same case for oral sex? Are you also against birth control?

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 4:13 PM

As a gay man, I strongly support what the British government is doing. I may be a Republican, but if the Democrat work this magic here, I’ll be grateful. Gay children have been victimized by barbaric superstition for far too long.

thuja on October 23, 2007 at 10:09 PM

Seriously?

A kid losing his family – the government having the power to take the kid! – in a country without anywhere near enough foster care – all because the parents values weren’t in perfect conformity with liberal group-think?

Cuz they wouldn’t teach the kid some showtunes and buy him the first season of Will and Grace on DVD?

Seriously?

Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Bogus. I’ve never stated that. I don’t believe that. And you just slandered me.

Not really. I never said you stated it, nor did I ever say you believed it. That’s why I wrote “(Gregor?)” instead of “(for example, the evil bigot Gregor)”.

In any case, there was room for doubt because of an earlier comment you had left:

Posting anything close to what’s going through my mind right now would lead to an instant lifetime ban and possibly jail time. I’ll leave it to your imagination.

Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 9:33 PM

So I imagined that malicious generalizations about gay people were going through your mind, and my imagining such was a permission which you had granted to me. Still, I gave you the benefit of the doubt — not that doing such prevented you from jumping to the “stop slandering me!” whining. Good job! You’re just like the persecuted Christians of Sudan!

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Remember that point in your childhood where you thought to yourself “Hm… should I like boys or girls?”

Yeah, neither do homosexuals.

Mark Jaquith on October 24, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Best comment in the thread. Hard to summarize that whole argument in two sentences, but you managed.

Whenever I hear the “its a choice” silliness, I think exactly as you do – I try to remember making that choice. Or imagining being able to make that choice now.

Looking at Jessica Alba and Brad Pitt and thinking … “hmmmm, Brad does have great abs!” or something.

No. People may have a vested interest in believing its a choice, but its a logical impossibility.

The only way gays have a choice is if all those “its a choice folks” were actually tempted by Burt Reynold’s mustache at some point or another.

Maybe they were? :) Buncha fairies if you ask me.

Me, I was stealing my Dad’s Playboy’s before kindergarten. I was born liking hooters. No choice in the matter.

Maybe I get to make that whole choice thing next week. I always thought Tom Selleck was kinda hunky …

Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:50 PM

You’re just like the persecuted Christians of Sudan!

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Oh cool. You’re a Christiphobe. Figures.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM

It’s simply an addiction to physical pleasure, regardless of the origin.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 2:00 AM

An addiction to hairy asses? Seriously?

You got some feelings you wanna confess or something?

I’m just sayin’. Doesn’t sound too pleasurable to me. Maybe you have a different view on that? So when you made that choice … were those asses particularly tempting?

;)

Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:55 PM

First off, you’re using the word “wrong” in place of the word “legal”

I don’t see a great big difference between the two. That which is legal should be nothing more than an outgrowth of that which is ethical. Specifically, legal matters should be ethical matters as they are applied to the force of the state.

OR you’re simply throwing your own opinion in there as to what YOU consider to be wrong.

God forbid I have my own opinion on what is right and what is wrong! Don’t we all know that the Bible has the answer?

The majority of the population feels that homosexuality is “wrong.” EVERY SINGLE poll shows this, and EVERY time same sex marriage goes to a ballot … it’s defeated.

So if the majority wants something then it’s right? That’s your basis for morality? The majority of the world’s population is not Christian. Therefore, Jesus is a myth and your religion is garbage.

However you want to look at the definition of wrong … homosexuality fits in there pretty well. From a physical standpoint, the puzzle pieces fit together “wrong.”

By my standard of wrong, homosexuality is amoral, since it does not deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property.

Penises fit into anuses of both men and women. Penises fit into the mouths of both men and women, too. Your “doesn’t fit” argument is incorrect.

Besides all of this, none of it has anything to do with my point, which is that “knowing someone who does something wrong does not make it okay simply because that person was a friend of yours, or a family member.

Of course it doesn’t. It’s wrong only if it deprives another individual of life, liberty, or property.

The reason people bring up the “knowing” argument is because there are still people who live in conservative communities, in little naive bubbles, where they naively think that “no one is gay” and thus have all these nasty prejudices about gay people. Once they get to know gay some gay people, then their opinions change. This has nothing to do with right or wrong, but rather dispelling negative opinions of people that people have because they don’t know anyone “like that”.

Sorry. Doesn’t work that way. If it’s wrong before your friend did it, it’s wrong AFTER your friend did it. Get over it already.

No, you get over it. Your basis for calling it wrong is retarded. And guess what? Society is changing! The Crunchy Christian Codgers (CCC) continue to die off! And that’s why gays have made so many strides in recent years. Hooray! Your side is losing!

None of this means you need to abandon your friends, or abandon your son. But you can’t suddenly erase the fact that it’s not the way the human body was built to function.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 3:41 PM

And yet straights have anal sex. In droves. I suppose that anal sex doesn’t “function” if the anus is not connected to the same body to which a vagina is also connected?

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Wrong. First of all, there are no “gay” people.

JiangxiDad on October 24, 2007 at 8:01 AM

Well, except Tom Cruise.

And I’m pretty sure Hillary Clinton.

But yeah, the rest of them are probably faking it.

Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Oh cool. You’re a Christiphobe. Figures.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Christophobe, like Islamophobe, is a bogus term created to stifle legitimate criticisms of Christianity.

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 4:58 PM

What I do mean is that marriage can have the affect of legitimizing something that was otherwise taboo. It isn’t so much that people will want a same-sex spouse but that same-sex relationships will have been made legitimate, thus possibly making them more socially acceptable.

We agree that a government sanction can make something more acceptable (e.g., alcohol or tobacco). We seem to agree that it could make homosexual experimentation more acceptable, though it almost certainly wouldn’t cause otherwise straight people to try gay marriage.

My three points in response are:
1.) Even if the correlation were true I don’t think it is sufficient grounds to deny marriage to two individuals. They aren’t inflicting their marriage on others.
2.) I probably disagree with the degree to which gay marriage would cause straight people to “go gay”. Most guys don’t go out and say “that girl is a little cute but I think I’ll go home with that guy over there who is really hot”.
3.) We are talking about “marriage” here, not gay partnering (which is already legal and very visible). In this post-Will and Grace world the gay lifestyle is all over the media. If someone wants to experiment they are more likely to be stimulated by an erotic gay image in the media than by a couple of boring old gay dudes who have a house (the nicely decorated one) down the block.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 5:06 PM

I guess pedophiles are just born that way too? So, why not let them have their way with children?

Because children cannot consent to sex, particularly in light of the power that an adult usually has over an impressionable child. Hence, it deprives a child of life and/or liberty and thus is immoral.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Do Christians turn off their brains once they get outside of their cozy bubble of Biblical mandates (they they so frequently ignore)?

There is nothing natural about homosexuality.

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Therefore it is natural.

What things do NOT appear in nature? Gods, angels, demons, souls, heaven, and hell. That’s why they are called supernatural. As in, outside of nature. In other words, unnatural.

It’s a perversion plain and simple.

Argument by assertion. I think vaginal sex is perverted.

If we condone homosexual behavior as okay, there is no reason not to condone polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.

Life, liberty, property. Apply. Think. Hard for a Christian, I know, since it doesn’t come from some weird ancient text that has a obsession with describing ritual animal sacrifices in luscious detail.

If homosexuality were natural, you all could reproduce and you wouldn’t have to spend so much time recruiting children because without recruitment, you all die out.

wytammic on October 24, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Therefore, a marriage in which the wife is post-menopausal is unnatural, since they can’t reproduce.

Anti-gay arguments are so retarded!

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 5:07 PM

The definition of marriage is (and has always been) the union of one man and one woman. Laws were put in place to keep that union between people of the same race, but that was never a part of the definition of marriage. It was the norm and thus the unspoken understanding of the definition, but it was never expressly stated that way.

Maybe I’m missing what you mean by “definition”. I was thinking a state enacting a law governing who can and can’t get married were doing that. The Constitution doesn’t address the matter, and leaves it up to the states. If you are referring to something cultural, beyond the law, then I’d say that marriage very definitely hasn’t been one-man-one-woman throughout history.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 5:31 PM

You’re going to tell us that homosexuals don’t ask that question? So why are they always telling us how “confused” the poor children are? Why do some people date the opposite sex, have normal lives, get married, have children, and suddenly turn around and start doing the same gender? Are we to believe that these people were able to con their opposite sex lovers and even manage to perform to the point of having children, all while not even being attracted to their spouse? Right.

Absolutely they can, and they have done so for decades.

1. The reason that men who are attracted to men say that they are “confused” or “bi-curious” is because they usually like men (and not women) but don’t want to face the ramifcations of accepting that they are gay.

2. The reason that a man can “fake it” with a woman is that he may be attracted to women, even a little bit, enough so that he can get an erection and perform. I fall into this category, despite how gross the female organ is.

3. Even if a man has NO attraction to a woman, he can still “fake it” by fantasizing about a man while he has sex with a woman.

4. Why would a man choose to do this? Because the societal pressures to both A) be “normal” by having a wife and kids and B) not be gay and thus face the abuse that you like to dish out are both very, very strong.

Face it. It doesn’t add up. There is no gay gene. It’s simply an addiction to physical pleasure, regardless of the origin.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 2:00 AM

In other words, the love that my partner and I have shared for the past ten years, where we plan for the future, deal with money problems, arrange child care for our son, enjoy making memories togehter, all of that is just “an addiction to physical pleasure”. Yes, I get *severe* physical pleasure when we balance the checkbook together.

You know what, Gregor? You’ve convinced me to accept Jesus Christ into my heart! I’m going to do that right now, because I can tell that you really, truly love me!

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 6:12 PM

I was born liking hooters. No choice in the matter.
Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Link?

But yeah, the rest of them are probably faking it.

Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:57 PM

“Gay” is an invention used to preclude not only the possibility of a psychological problem, but even the mention of any other possibility. Same-sex relations are timeless, of course.

If HA commenters were rated, I would give you the highest. But on this one topic I think you have drank the Kool-Aid.

JiangxiDad on October 24, 2007 at 6:24 PM

If foster kids were taken away from a Muslim family because acknowledgment of crimes against humanity goes against their “central beliefs”, the firmament would be shaken.

This is pushing an agenda. Plain and simple.

Ryan Gandy on October 24, 2007 at 6:36 PM

You know what, Gregor? You’ve convinced me to accept Jesus Christ into my heart! I’m going to do that right now, because I can tell that you really, truly love me!

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 6:12 PM

I knew you’d come around one day. Welcome to the club.

Why do you have to be so mean to Christians in your arguments? If I recall correctly, don’t you read the Bible so you can do a better job of bashing Christians? You’re obviously a bright person, so I don’t get why you have to use such nasty tactics. Bashing all Christians based off of Gregor’s views is like Gregor bashing all homosexuals off of one homosexual’s views.

Most Christians don’t care if you’re gay or not. As long as you’re providing a stable and loving home for your child I say more power to you.

BadgerHawk on October 24, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Again though, what does that say about bisexuals? If a person is attracted to both sexes, then they do get to choose which one they get into relationships with.

The blatant truth is that it is a choice for some people.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 5:06 PM

I can’t really disagree with much of anything you’ve written there, though I hesitate to discuss whether or not we should legalize homosexual marriage.

My personal belief is that if we’re going to change something about marriage so fundamental, then we should just change it completely, making it no different than a business partnership, legal for all who can legally sign contracts and legal for as many consenting partners who wish to be involved.

Basically, why just change it to allow for same sex marriage when there are other groups who want the same distinction who are involved in consenting relationships with other adults?

Maybe I’m missing what you mean by “definition”. I was thinking a state enacting a law governing who can and can’t get married were doing that. The Constitution doesn’t address the matter, and leaves it up to the states. If you are referring to something cultural, beyond the law, then I’d say that marriage very definitely hasn’t been one-man-one-woman throughout history.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 5:31 PM

I literally just meant definition, like what you’d find in Webster.

Yes, I get *severe* physical pleasure when we balance the checkbook together.

Masochist

I fall into this category, despite how gross the female organ is.

I don’t suppose you’ve ever read Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 7:49 PM

Wow, the same s*** regurgitated over and over while the “I know a gay guy, and he told me he was born that way!”, while all legitimate points raised go ignored. Oh, and ya gotta love the “stop hating gays!” victim crap. STFU, Mary… if you can’t handle the discussion, go somewhere else.

If it’s a choice why does it occur in the animalkingdom?

crr6 on October 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Lol, these are the times it’s fun to argue with liberals. There liberalism renders their brain incapacitated, they begin to make the most ridiculous arguments imaginable… it’s almost unbelievable that you’re serious.

I’ll give you my take in a minute, but Gregor did take it to you here as well:

It happens in animal Kingdom because it feels good and they are animals. They don’t know any better and do whatever feels good.

Are you saying you’re an animal and have no control over your urges? If it feels good, it must be okay.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Seriously crr6, by your logic, I should soon be marrying every unfixed male dog I’ve ever encountered… because they humped me, and that obviously means they were “born that way” attracted to human legs, right? Lol.

I even once new a FEMALE chihuahua who would violently rape a stuffed animal penguin… and only the penguin. The family that owned it had to hide the penguin, but would bring it out as a joke to show people who hadn’t seen what happens before. Was that female chihuahua “born that way”? Seriously dude, you’ve really gotta stop commenting here, you get sillier by the day.

RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 8:24 PM

Bill Clinton: I guess it all depends on your definition of abomination.

These guys don’t know their constitution so I guess asking them to actually read the Bible is out of the question.

Mojave Mark on October 24, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Dennis Jernigan is a Christian musical artist who thought he was gay. He struggled for years, but by God’s power he is now married with NINE children!

Here is a site that disputes the “born that way” feelings of some.

God’s Word is true. There is no gay gene, except maybe Dockers :-) However, it’s because gays don’t want to hear what God has to say on the issue (just like I may not like what God says about my desire to sleep around with women) that the Bible is being labeled hate speech. Many Democrats are trying different ways to outlaw it. (Hate speech amendment attached to Defense Spending Bill by the Senate, Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA currently being considered by the House) This craziness is headed to this side of the pond if we don’t wake up and stand up.

Ordinary1 on October 24, 2007 at 11:45 PM

The State should keep out of kids’ pants and heads.

Let children learn the basics of reading, writing, critical thinking, and the rest of objective scholastics, and they can then aim toward whatever interests them -intimately and privately- as their desires unfold, naturally.

When the State decrees what sexual orientation is “good” or “bad”, to kids, it becomes a damaging tool of whatever the reigning flavor of the month psychobabble proclaims.

It’s boorish, crude and presumptuous.

Leave kids out of adult sexual problems.

They get they on their own soon enough.

Big Brother needs to zip up.

Innocence spoiling seems to be the latest kick of the Nanny Staters.

A sublimated form of anal-sadistic crypto-pedophilia, in itself.

profitsbeard on October 25, 2007 at 3:33 AM

How is it that every time there is a reference to anything even remotely critical of the homosexual lifestyle on this or any other blogsite that the pro gay privilege crowd come out of the woodwork like Ron Paul lunatics and spam the heck out of the post with unfounded nonsense reported as fact, and baseless accusations of bigotry? 165 comments already?! Get a life.

BigAnge on October 25, 2007 at 9:19 AM

I knew you’d come around one day. Welcome to the club.

How could I resist? Christians are always so kind and loving to me that I am convinced that their religion must be true! Will you pray with me right now to accept Jesus Christ into my heart?

Why do you have to be so mean to Christians in your arguments?

It’s called “an eye for an eye”. Didn’t you see where Gregor said that my love was nothing more than a “physical addiction”? I suppose that’s a step up from “abomination” for which I should be executed (a sentiment held my many Christians), but would you like your love for your wife to be denigrated to nothing more than the appreciation that a meth-mouth junkie has for his fix?

If I recall correctly, don’t you read the Bible so you can do a better job of bashing Christians?

You don’t recall correctly.

You’re obviously a bright person, so I don’t get why you have to use such nasty tactics. Bashing all Christians based off of Gregor’s views is like Gregor bashing all homosexuals off of one homosexual’s views.

Where did I bash “all Christians”? That sounds suspiciously like “You have offended 1.5 billion Muslims!”

Most Christians don’t care if you’re gay or not. As long as you’re providing a stable and loving home for your child I say more power to you.

BadgerHawk on October 24, 2007 at 7:09 PM

I appreciate that. I wish you would reserve your criticism for your brethren in the “Body of Christ” who abuse me instead of me for choosing to defend myself from said abuse.

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 9:42 AM

I don’t suppose you’ve ever read Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 7:49 PM

I don’t know what that is. Is that girl fiction? I despise girl stuff. Have you noticed how all movies nowadays have to have have romantic subplots to captivate the vagina-possessing members of the audience? Disgusting! The movie “Next” was 80% “romantic comedy” (read: chick movie) sprinkled with some Michael Bay special effects.

And I can get away with writing that because my significant other isn’t a woman and agrees with me completely. The other guys here probably think it but they can’t say it out loud for fear of womanly reprisal. Now if only I can get my partner to start liking football*…

(* SEC football. Football is neither faggy nor retarded. That’s why we call the other sport “soccer”.)

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Can’t say I’m a fan of football. Then again, I’m not a fan of any game with low scores, which basically leaves me with basketball.

Is that girl fiction?

And no, I certainly wouldn’t call that book a girl book. You just really remind me of one of the characters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even_Cowgirls_Get_the_Blues

There’s a character called the Countess, a homosexual male who has made a living selling feminine hygiene products. He sells them because he finds women completely disgusting, specifically their sexual organs.

I can’t do the character justice, but you just reminded me so much of him.

Have you noticed how all movies nowadays have to have have romantic subplots to captivate the vagina-possessing members of the audience?

I’d call this book literal porn before I’d call it a romance book. There’s a massive amount of sex in the book, but the only love I saw was love I’d describe more as the strong bond of a friendship that had sexual benefits.

The other guys here probably think it but they can’t say it out loud for fear of womanly reprisal.

I can’t speak for the guys here, but my husband would disagree. That’s not wishful thinking either. I couldn’t care less if he was turned on by my physical anatomy. I personally don’t find it arousing. Then again, I’m not turned on by his either. I find a fit body and a beautiful face far more attractive.

People are different. While some men here might agree with you, there are some who love it more than a lesbian.

Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Therefore it is natural.

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Rape occurs in nature. Natural law is the survival of the fittest if one believes Darwin.

Where did I bash “all Christians”? That sounds suspiciously like “You have offended 1.5 billion Muslims!” Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Life, liberty, property. Apply. Think. Hard for a Christian, I know, since it doesn’t come from some weird ancient text that has a obsession with describing ritual animal sacrifices in luscious detail….

Anti-gay arguments are so retarded!

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Well said.

Great Britian has declared that the religion of foster children will be determined by the State, not by the religion of the foster parents, or foster childrens’ natural parents.

The State has declared as a article of faith that gay partnerships are just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages. The State believes this so strongly is is requiring this article of faith to be included in catechisms.

Currently this State controls only the catechisms of foster children. This is a form of discrimination. Eventually lawyers will prove the discrimination must end and catechisms must be standardized for all groups.

The State must normalize beliefs or some children will be raised with false beliefs.

Much thought is dangerous and leads to hate speech. Hate speech is speech that disputes the catechism.

Only the State has the impartiality to avoid the hate speech of lesser catechisms.

The State, being impartial, is the ultimate protector so decisions of morality must originate from the State, not the religions.

entagor on October 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM

though I hesitate to discuss whether or not we should legalize homosexual marriage.

I see your point and think it is better to let legislatures rather than courts figure it out. Acceptance of gay marriage is more prevalent among the young. A lot has changed in the past 20 years and likely will during the next 20 years. I appreciate your comments on the subject. I always find your points interesting.

Also, I never read “Cowgirls” but did read “Still Life with Woodpecker” about 25 years ago. I really liked reading Robbins and McGuane back then.

dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 12:36 PM

I see your point and think it is better to let legislatures rather than courts figure it out.

As a general rule, I’m instinctively opposed to allowing the courts to change any laws.

I appreciate your comments on the subject. I always find your points interesting.

Thank you. I have very much enjoyed this and our previous conversations. You’ve helped remind me that disagreements don’t have to be uncomfortable or disrespectful.

Also, I never read “Cowgirls” but did read “Still Life with Woodpecker” about 25 years ago. I really liked reading Robbins and McGuane back then.

dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Cowgirls is the first of his I’ve ever read all the way through. I’ve read pieces of others, but I can’t remember exactly which ones.

I can’t say he’s my favorite author, but he’s definitely got a clear voice that is impossible to ignore. My husband loves his work, which really says something since he’s more mathematically than literally inclined.

Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Rape occurs in nature.

Therefore, rape is natural. You’re catching on!

Now, tell me, where did I argue, “That which is natural is moral”?

My point in showing that homosexuality is natural was to dispute the idiotic notion of “Homosexuality is unnatural” because obviously it isn’t. It occurs in nature, unlike souls and angels.

Great Britian has declared that the religion of foster children will be determined by the State, not by the religion of the foster parents, or foster childrens’ natural parents.

The State has declared as a article of faith…

entagor on October 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM

I agree with everything you’re written about Statism in the UK. The UK is NOT an atheistic country. Their religion is Statism and their God is the State. Lots of countries follow this religion. North Korea is presently the best example of this weird and evil religion.

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Can’t say I’m a fan of football. Then again, I’m not a fan of any game with low scores, which basically leaves me with basketball.

Basketball is repetitive and boring, not to mention replete with thugs. Will you and I ever agree on anything?

There’s a character called the Countess, a homosexual male who has made a living selling feminine hygiene products. He sells them because he finds women completely disgusting, specifically their sexual organs.

I can’t do the character justice, but you just reminded me so much of him.

Gotcha. I’m not *that* extreme. After all, I’ve … ahem … been there! Not a pleasant memory, but I was turned on by the person, not by the anatomy.

I can’t speak for the guys here, but my husband would disagree. That’s not wishful thinking either. I couldn’t care less if he was turned on by my physical anatomy. I personally don’t find it arousing. Then again, I’m not turned on by his either. I find a fit body and a beautiful face far more attractive.

People are different. While some men here might agree with you, there are some who love it more than a lesbian.

Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 10:29 AM

I was referring to my dislike of romantic subplots in movies, not to my dislike of the female sexual organs.

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I mean, Transformers had a ***ing romantic subplot, for penis’s sake!

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 1:56 PM

Will you and I ever agree on anything?

I’m doubting that, but we’re both here. Surely someday it’ll happen.

Gotcha. I’m not *that* extreme.

I doubt anyone could be. The character was almost cartoonish, and for a book about a woman with surealistically large thumbs who is a professional hitchhiker, that’s really saying something.

I was referring to my dislike of romantic subplots in movies, not to my dislike of the female sexual organs.

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I see now. Looking back, I’m almost confused as to how I thought you meant otherwise. I was probably just thinking too much about the book.

In that case, I’ve yet to meet a man who even pretended to like chick flicks.

I mean, Transformers had a ***ing romantic subplot, for penis’s sake!

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 1:56 PM

I wouldn’t really call that one romantic. He basically thought she was hot, and she decided the arrogant jock-type wasn’t working for her anymore.

But I love how you turned the word penis into a God-like curse word.

Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 3:19 PM

My point in showing that homosexuality is natural was to dispute the idiotic notion of “Homosexuality is unnatural” because obviously it isn’t. It occurs in nature, unlike souls and angels.

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 1:49 PM

I already addressed that ridiculous and predictable argument. earlier, when crr6 pulled it out:

Seriously crr6, by your logic, I should soon be marrying every unfixed male dog I’ve ever encountered… because they humped me, and that obviously means they were “born that way” attracted to human legs, right? Lol.

I even once new a FEMALE chihuahua who would violently rape a stuffed animal penguin… and only the penguin. The family that owned it had to hide the penguin, but would bring it out as a joke to show people who hadn’t seen what happens before. Was that female chihuahua “born that way”? Seriously dude, you’ve really gotta stop commenting here, you get sillier by the day.

RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 8:24 PM

A dog who humps plants and human legs isn’t just expressing his “natural” different type of “sexuality”. It’s an animal that is without self control… but it’s not attracted to those things. Though if you want to compare your own actions to those of animals, I’m not in a hurry to argue with you.

RightWinged on October 25, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Aside the fact that any gay person will confirm: You’re either born gay, or you’re born straight. There’s no “gay in the making” so to speak.

Sombody quick tell that to Anne Heche.

Fatal on October 25, 2007 at 7:30 PM

I can’t imagine anyone who actually knew gay people would be talking about them like they’re deviants and perverts. Honestly, you people are sick.

That’s a pretty durn good definition of “irony” right thar!

Fatal on October 25, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2