Quotes of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on April 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
“For that reason, to pick up on my previous column, creating same-sex marriage – even if the dirty deed is done legislatively as in Vermont – will erode democracy. And not just because of the near-inevitability that the policies of a few liberal states will eventually be foisted on the nation via the courts and the coming demise of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Sexual license is already joining with other moral lapses – like lying to mortgage brokers – to produce social breakdown and economic disaster. Which in turn have opened the door wide for government to step in with misguided, heavy-handed and counterproductive strategies that rob freedom and reward the morally bankrupt at the expense of the principled and productive.”
***
“It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.”
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Homosexuality is not the cause. It is the effect. Read Romans 1:21.
Let them marry. It would be a fitting expression of our reverence for the institution and the God that makes that institution more than a social convention.
spmat on April 10, 2009 at 2:07 AM
I didn’t see that before, you are obviously right, and it is “definitely a signifier of his homosexuality”, as in case closed. Nothing could be more obvious; at least nothing that could be more obvious comes to mind. Any other conclusion would be to deny reality.
MB4 on April 10, 2009 at 2:08 AM
The Romans helped prove that greatness can last a couple hundred years but debauchery and corruption can go on for a long time.
Speakup on April 10, 2009 at 2:09 AM
It isn’t government that threatens our freedom the most. It is the lack of morals. We have allowed sexual freedom to become the end all and be all of our civilization.
And now our civiliaztion will die. It is rotting from the inside out.
Unless there is a moral basis for freedom you will have anarchy. We are very very nearly there. It is no longer a question “if” but rather “how long do we have before” our civilization completely colapses.
Already at least 40% of children are born outside of marriage. Does society colapse when these children with no memory of family life are adults? Or will it last one more generation after that. More children will be raised in abject poverty, foster care and by institutions than in what used to be known as a normal family.
Without family there is no civilization.
I realize that you have convinced yourself that family is not important. But institutions do not suceed in raising children. I’m an adoptive mother I’ve seen the damage that institutions do to children. Humans need families.
Without marriage there is nothing binding fathers to their children–children are only a burden. It takes unselfishness to voluntarily give up your freedom for the sake of a child’s well being.
Unselfishness is not learned by the unending pursuit of sexual gratification.
Already so many mothers are emotionally damaged by promiscuity, abortion, and abandonment they cannot form the bonds needed for selfless mothering.
The sexual revolution has caused this. The sexual revolution has turned us into selfish lumps always seeking, never finding satisfaction.
Because what we crave cannot be found where we are looking.
petunia on April 10, 2009 at 2:10 AM
I can add another lesbian anecdote – my volleyball coach in eighth grade gently propositioned me after months of “special” attention (that I did not fully understand at the time) but finally backed off when I told her I had a boyfriend. I rarely tell that story to anyone so you could surmise that these types of incidents go widely unreported and lead to the impression that lesbians don’t approach children.
inmypajamas on April 10, 2009 at 2:11 AM
I don’t know how you could comprehend that from what Dr. Zero posted. Certainly not any of us here agree with your assessment.
The courts have been the ones, not the state, making policy. The state has been out of the picture all together on this. Except for Cali Prop 8, and the courts are about to null that all together.
So, I’m not getting your beef?
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 2:11 AM
+Eternity
Maquis on April 10, 2009 at 2:12 AM
It is obviously both. To argue to the contrary is completely illogical.
MB4 on April 10, 2009 at 2:13 AM
You’re saying that because you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. You have a childish, simplistic thought process that leads you to jump to the easy conclusion, without actually caring or bothering to actually understand what pedophilia is. A man who molests boys is no more a “homosexual” than a man who molests girls is a “heterosexual”. They are both “pedophiles” and their preferences have deep psychological roots that transcend your simplistic ideas of sexual orientation.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 2:14 AM
I have a question. I was having a discussion with a relatively conservative person, so I thought, more fiscal than social, I guess. Anyway, she explained that she read about a study done where a certain part of the brain thought to control these sorts of things are different between men and women. Evidently, females have a smaller portion of this brain compared to their their male counterparts. Then, they exumed bodies of ‘homosexual’ sailors that were known to be ‘homosexual’ and that these male sailors portion of the brain was smaller, like a female’s size, versus a male’s size. She pointed out that this may finally confirm the question of whether homosexuality is something you are born with.
Has anyone else heard this?
HornetSting on April 10, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Self-appointed devil’s advocate.
Margarita?
HornetSting on April 10, 2009 at 2:19 AM
Let me guess… you’re for same sex marriage.
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 2:19 AM
FWIW, there is a specific term for a male homosexual pedophilia, albeit with older children – pederasty.
DaveS – Calling someone who disagrees with you insane is really not much of an argument.
inmypajamas on April 10, 2009 at 2:19 AM
You are being so illogical my head is almost starting to hurt. The only way what you say would make any sense is if “homosexual” and ““pedophile’ were mutually exclusive and “heterosexual” and “pedophile” were mutually exclusive where clearly neither is the case. One might as well say that having blue eyes and being under 5 feet tall as an adult are mutually exclusive.
MB4 on April 10, 2009 at 2:20 AM
I’ve heard of studies that have found structural differences in homo and hetero brains, but the jury is still out on which preceded, the behavior or the changes in structure. Certain behaviors are already proven to change the brain structure, so those that cheered the observation were premature to claim that it proved they were born that way.
Maquis on April 10, 2009 at 2:22 AM
These people aren’t complaining about the courts… I mean they do, but their biggest complaint is with the idea that we should live in any legal environment at all other than one in which the government gives its blessing to marriages, legitizes it, and tells people that they should believe it has a special status. To people like Dr. Zero, marriage will have no special status if the government doesn’t tell him this is so (it’s right there in his comment). And, most importantly, they want the government to only tell them to give special status to marriages between one man and one woman. The quotes of the day are whining that a legislature legalized marriage. The courts have nothing to do with it.
What I said was correct. By making the argument that legalizing gay marriage (or “getting out of the marriage business”) will cause marriage to lose its special status, you are ceding control of your own intellect to the people who make the laws.
If *I* want told hold some thing in high regard, I do it, and I don’t need to goverment to tell me its ok. That’s what I mean when I say people should learn a bit of self-respect.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 2:22 AM
This rule is perfect; in all maters of opinion my opponents are insane.
- Mark Twain (with tongue in cheek, of course)
MB4 on April 10, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Merlot, and a little chocolate to nibble on :)
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 2:23 AM
It’s not simplistic, you simply disagree. There’s no need to be so insulting.
There is no one reason that people become pedophiles.
Perhaps a publicly straight man molests boys because he has repressed his homosexuality, or maybe he was abused as a child, or maybe it’s a chemical imbalance that prevents impulse control, or maybe he’s just evil. I personally don’t believe there is only one reason or explanation, and I believe that research in this area only helps us partially understand why pedophiles exist. If we completely understood then we could eliminate the problem, and obviously that hasn’t yet happened.
haikusrock on April 10, 2009 at 2:24 AM
Chicken before the egg…dammit. Again with the chicken.
BTW, what does a chicken say?
Ba-rack!
HornetSting on April 10, 2009 at 2:24 AM
MB4 on April 10, 2009 at 2:20 AM
You’re getting closer. You’re confusing the idea of “mutual exclusivity” with the concept of “not necessarily related”. I was taking issue with the assertion that a man who molests boys is necessarily a homosexual… that is not true.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 2:24 AM
On the way….
Devil’s advocate makes my head hurt.
HornetSting on April 10, 2009 at 2:25 AM
haikusrock on April 10, 2009 at 2:24 AM
Yes, any of those things. Hence my disagreement with the profoundly stupid assertion that such a person is necessarily homosexual.
There are a lot of people here who are no less than borderline insane who think teh gheys are out to get them, and to those people any man who molests boys is “homosexual”, because then they can make silly, illogical assertions that play well to people who like easily digested talking points.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 2:27 AM
I’m for the government not telling grown adults what they can or can’t do.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 2:30 AM
Closer to reaching you? We can probably rule that out.
I do not believe I am confused at all. I rarely get confused and I am pretty sure this is not one of those rare times. If I am going to go to the bother of getting confused I will pick a much more complicated subject to get confused on that this one.
Well I really don’t know what the hell he would be then. A heterosexual? An asexual? A banana? Someone with a gun pointed at the back of his head?
MB4 on April 10, 2009 at 2:31 AM
Except when they want to molest little boys, of course.
spmat on April 10, 2009 at 2:31 AM
Wow, you fell into my trap easier than expected — all of the reasons I gave are just that, reasons for the pedophilia, but speak nothing of why the man chose boys in the first place, and that has everything to do with attraction — otherwise, he would’ve picked girls, hence he is homosexual. His homosexuality isn’t necessary the reason why he’s a pedophile, but it is the reason why he picks boys to victimize.
haikusrock on April 10, 2009 at 2:33 AM
Trying to separate the status of marriage from the raising of children is impossible because the legal status of children is dependent on that of their parents. The two have to be connected even if some couples choose not to have children because the majority still do and the ordering of society requires legal recognition of that reality. Marriage has a special status because of its role in relation to the upbringing of children. Pretending marriage exists as an isolated social “civil right” independent of the children produced just ignores common sense.
I’m off to bed…. Argue on, DaveS, and convince no one.
inmypajamas on April 10, 2009 at 2:35 AM
/shrug
Governments exist for the express purpose of “telling grown adults what they can or can’t do.” You just don’t want the government to express a moral viewpoint that you don’t share.
Essentially, you are in the business of enforcing your moral viewpoint over all others.
spmat on April 10, 2009 at 2:35 AM
The MRI study is recent and pretty close to what you are asking. The comments are good too.
Feedie on April 10, 2009 at 2:37 AM
BS. That is a politically correct link. There are studies that show the exact opposite.
Basically, what you are doing is misusing statistics. Homosexuals don’t molest at a higher rate, because it is hard to beat out a 98% advantage.
The issue is if you look at the per a capita molestation rates, then you have homosexuals molesting and an EXTREMELY HIGHER RATE.
Here is an article and go down and look at how many pro-Man-Boy love articles were written by homosexual advocates.
Tim Burton on April 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM
So, the rules of a society adopted as laws of the land and imposed on all don’t influence people’s behavior? It doesn’t influence what children believe or their perceptions of what their society values? That is simply not true.
No one here is lacking self-respect, a strange perception, or rather a lame accusation, to offer in this forum.
No one here proposed that they themselves require government to regard something. They simply recognize that some things are worthy of being held in such high regard that it very well should be incorporated into our moral code and reflected in our laws and that our society and our children will suffer by the degradation of those worthy things and by minimizing their importance.
There are too many people willing to experiment radically with the foundations of human society forged over millenia. Too many people convinced that their selfish blinkered bile offered on a blog site or other public forum can shame all the “normals” to cower in the corner and acquiesce to the complete remodeling of the world which we will bequeath our children.
Societies and civilizations have risen and fallen, have become stronger or weaker, more corrupt or more decent, as a result of how those peoples chose to conduct and order their lives and organize their families. Those of you willing to destroy all the wisdom of human history based on your personal whimsy and unserious commitment to the future of the human race will not shame into silence those of us who wish to bless our children with the gifts of tradition and the promise of a future unclouded by fanatics succeeding in destroying all the good that shames them by it’s mere existence.
Maquis on April 10, 2009 at 2:42 AM
The article that allah’s quotes are from makes the point that gay fidelity is a myth. It uses screening requirements against AIDS as proof that when it counts (life or death) a gay person is assumed to be lying if they say they are monogamous.
I say, gay marriage is being pursued only to weaken religion so gays don’t have to feel judged. Whether or not anyone actually judges them or not… the fact that God teachs that sexual promiscuity including homosexual behavior is sinful threatens their sense of self.
God does not say anything about gay feelings only gay behavior.
It is a vain pursuit because no matter what U.S. law says. God still says what He says.
You have to decide if you will live by what God says or if you will not. Everyone makes those choices whether you are straight or gay.
Gays want it be more socially unacceptable to live by God’s law than to live against God’s law.
I really don’t know what they think they will gain by that.
petunia on April 10, 2009 at 2:47 AM
I am not sure it is attraction necessarily. Generally pedophiles were victims of abuse themselves so there is more there than natural attraction. They also are emotionally immature which comes from trauma etc. It is possible they choose their victims because of attraction they also may recreate their own abuse.
msmveritas on April 10, 2009 at 2:48 AM
Because every knows that getting the government out of the business of forcing views on people will automatically turn everyone in homosexuals and end the human race as we know it.
See what I mean? You’re insane. I’m not just saying that to be inflammatory. I really think you have psychological problems, and a deap-seated need to have the government tell you what to think.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 2:49 AM
Shhh… the people here are only here to satisfy some psychological need they have. They aren’t interested in reality.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 2:50 AM
Well said.
We are at the edge of changing our social traditions through political correctness and perceived fairness.
Why are we changing what has worked for generations.
This reasoning is likened to the overpopulation question.
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 2:59 AM
They may be recreating their own abuse but it doesn’t change that they are homosexual. I don’t understand why it’s so hard to concede that point. Well, actually, I do, because some people are anxious and overly sensitive about homosexuals being labeled perverted. I think homosexuality and pedophilia can be causally linked in some cases but not all; however, I maintain that a pedophile’s victim’s gender is related to the pedophile’s sexual orientation. Pedophilia isn’t all about sexual gratification, but it is partially about sexual gratification, hence the victim’s gender matters.
haikusrock on April 10, 2009 at 3:01 AM
I don’t really think they are, I think there are a lot of misconceptions in the public generally. That said, the issue of gay marriage is complex and the left generally uses the argument that because gays marry there should be no effect on marriage. I don’t think you can ever say something that has been held in esteem for so many years then suddenly is redefined there is no effect. Kini said earlier there should be an environmental impact study, which may happen eventually. IMO, there is still not enough public support right now.
msmveritas on April 10, 2009 at 3:04 AM
You must be someone’s restraining-ordered Ex to be spouting that “your insane” line again and again. Are you serious? We’ve seen trolls self-destruct here before, but you are taking it to the next level.
So, I, and most of my fellows here on HA, who post about culture and society and politics and religion, who oppose many government actions and promote others, don’t believe something is valid until government confirms it for us? You are on a strange line of reasoning here that will get you nowhere but you do seem to be having a good time amusing yourself. Your argument could be made an example in a dictionary under the term “ludicrous.”
We are conservatives. We support LIMITED government, and feel there are areas of life the government should stay completely out of. We also recognize the power and duty of a government to support a sound society with a healthy culture so we support laws to that end, and condemn laws that threaten such. In no way does that make any single person here a government zombie that must receive his thoughts and personal values from the local kommissar.
Trolls come here and attack our desire for a limited and just government claiming that we want to destroy government, and you come here and essentially insist that we are intellectual zombies dependent on our government for our perception of reality. You’ve taken trolldom to a whole new level, without a doubt.
Sleep tight with your smug smirk, you’ve changed neither hearts nor minds here today, but you’ve made an ass out of yourself and as that appears to be your goal, smirk on.
Maquis on April 10, 2009 at 3:11 AM
The US government or the government of the state of Vermont has not defined marriage for many years. There is no reason, whatsoever, why the government should be defining what you are supposed to think marriage is.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 3:12 AM
Some are and some aren’t homosexual but pedophilia is a deeply embedded scarring that is notoriously difficult to treat. Homosexuality can be a behavior but in my honest opinion I believe people are born that way. I think there is a lot of evidence to support that. Now could it be that a young boy aware his feelings are different etc could be more vulnerable to abuse from a pedophile? Yes, I think that is probably true, there are a lot of factors here. I think it is not right to put the two on the same level though.
msmveritas on April 10, 2009 at 3:13 AM
Sure they do they issue marriage certificates and they have blood tests and they issued the certificates to a man and woman wanting to be married.
msmveritas on April 10, 2009 at 3:15 AM
I’ve been here much longer than you have. Sorry. Don’t pretend to tell me what I am.
The only reason anyone should feel a need to legislate marriage is that they are insecure in their belief of its importance, or they have an irrational fear of gay people (who will exist no more or less because of some law).
Furthermore, if you state a belief that it is the government’s job to enforce any sort of morality, than you forfeit your right to complain when someone says that the moral thing to do is raise taxes and fund this and that program for “humanitarian” reasons.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 3:16 AM
You don’t need research to know this. It was obvious in elementary school or middle school who was going to be gay.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 3:17 AM
So, marriage only became important when Vermont passed a law?
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 3:18 AM
I am extremely well-read and well-researched in this area, and based on my research I have developed certain conclusions. I honestly went into the research not knowing what to expect or find, but I noticed trends, and I noticed that in a lot of secular research there was the assertion that men who abuse boys aren’t necessarily classified as homosexual which skews the statistics in a way that makes it seem like heterosexual pedophiles exist at a much higher rate than do homosexual pedophiles or, conversely, it assures that there will be no causal relationship found between homosexuality and pedophilia. I think it’s a mistake to classify or not classify anything or anyone to fit an agenda. In doing so real answers and solutions are lost, and more children are victimized while people sit around arguing about labels.
I say this only because I believe that a lot of resistance to my argument stems from people not wanting homosexuals to be labeled perverts, but if there is no causal relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia then I am more than willing to accept that, but if there is a causal relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, then we need to determine why that is.
If you want my absolute personal belief, I believe that all sexual immorality, homosexual and heterosexual, impacts negatively.
haikusrock on April 10, 2009 at 3:23 AM
It was the foundation of society and important so they passed a law
msmveritas on April 10, 2009 at 3:25 AM
And I believe there is little public support. I think it’s more like the squeaky wheel syndrome where enough whining gets you something. Democrats pick up on this and see…. CONSTITUENTS!!!!
This is the motivation by democrats to help fringe groups: illegals, gheys, what’s next? Traditional America kept Democrats out of power for years because of these socialist values: you are responsible for your neighbors actions and you have to support them with your money.
Obama yammers on about personal responsibility, but in just a little over 2 short months he’s enslaved the yet unborn with massive debt. This is another group of potentials that the democrats see as future Constituents.
The unclear thing about that logic is, (1) ghey’s don not reproduce and (2) abortion cuts into the numbers also.
Their platform of everything for everybody doesn’t have enough immunity from the disease of obscurity.
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 3:26 AM
I think people can be born homosexual, but I also believe that circumstances can lead to homosexuality as well. I don’t believe there is only one explanation for why some people are homosexual.
haikusrock on April 10, 2009 at 3:29 AM
Dude, it doesn’t matter how long you’ve been here.
You are sounding like a loon.
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 3:29 AM
By this logic gay people fighting for gay marriage are insecure and hate themselves.
haikusrock on April 10, 2009 at 3:31 AM
I am not arguing whether you are well read and I believe your opinions were not formed lightly. I only go by what I learned in grad school and the declassification of homosexuality from the DSM whereas pedophilia was not and will not be. I believe there is a great deal of pressure to not label homosexuality as perverts. I don’t agree, however, any causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia has been shown. There is always deep levels of dysfunction in pedophilia whereas that is not the case with homosexuals. There might be higher levels of depression etc but that can be found in other segments of the population too.
I personally am against government changing legal definitions of marriage. For all intents and purposes there is nothing to stop homosexuals from contracting under the law to assure their civil rights to choose beneficiaries etc are all there.
msmveritas on April 10, 2009 at 3:34 AM
So, even in the absence of a law, marriage and the traditional family managed to remain important and the “foundation of society”. Doesn’t that undercut the idea that the government must enforce marriage as a legal concept?
No, because so long as it is defined by government, they are denied the benefits of the legal status that it gives.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 3:48 AM
And someone else noted that if you dumped a bunch of people on an island, they would pair up as man-woman couples. That’s because it is biology that drives the man-woman concept, not morality. The law is superfluous and unnecessarily discriminatory.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM
Some well meaning, but extremely ignorant people on this blog believe that if only homosexuals were allowed to “marry,” they would become more like heterosexuals. However, in the final chapter of his book Virtually Normal, gay advocate Andrew Sullivan, the most well-known proponent of this view, exposes his real agenda: It turns out that what he envisions from homosexual “marriage” is not a change in homosexual behavior, but a change in the meaning of marriage itself. Recognition of homosexual liaisons would be good for the broader society, he says, because there is “more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.” In another book, Love Undetectable, he reveals even more of the “gay” agenda, defending “the beauty and mystery and spirituality of sex, even anonymous sex.”
The long and short of it is this: Homosexuality isn’t “gay” at all. It’s lonely, unfulfilled and a ticket to early death. To suggest it is just another lifestyle, and that it is harmless to the greater society is just another typical liberal dodge designed to detract from the reality of homosexual sin and destruction.
Homosexual “marriage” absolutely NOT! Every conservative on this board should be adamantly opposed to this.
Joe Pyne on April 10, 2009 at 3:51 AM
There’s no fear of ghey people.
There’s fear they will dictate their values and morals to us. If I divorce my toaster, I don’t want to give up half my savings in court.
They, the ghey, are so vocal in their want to have their version of our traditional marriage when it’s totally opposite and contrary to our traditions. That’s our right.
I just don’t want it, their values, pushed in my face. What eveh happened to just staying in the closet?
Live your life as you want it, just don’t make me have to except your lifestyle by making me except your lifestyle as normal to mine.
My toaster is quite arousing, don’tcha know.
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 3:53 AM
Talk about someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about – something I would expect on a leftist blog, but not hear – you need to get informed:
Quoted from an article on Obama and homosexual marriage by Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. Oct. 23, 2008
If you’re going to come on this site, then come prepared to know what it is you are talking about.
Joe Pyne on April 10, 2009 at 3:59 AM
Ah, we get to the point of your argument. You believe gheys deserve equal rights to traditional marriage arrangements.
Because, marriage, as it’s defined legally, by the govmint, requires some rules or laws to define it as a union between two people. License, blood test, wills, crap like that…
So that when, a marriage goes bad, and separates, the children (if any), property, or anything else of value gets fairly divided. Ewew!
If you’ve ever been in divorce court, it ain’t happening that way.
But it might be entertaining to watch.
Jerry Springer as judge would be a hoot. Oh, wait… there already is a show about that.
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 4:07 AM
Don’t care.
Haven’t tried, I identified my status and that of the majority of the good folks here.
The only reason that you yourself can imagine for others. I am not insecure in my relationship or in my perception of it’s importance. This is the most absurd and frankly childish assertion I’ve ever heard. Didn’t you just try to lecture me about not telling you what you are? Where’s the reciprocity?
Now we’re getting down to the meat of the matter, so to speak. Yeah, wasn’t that “homophobe” word invention just the greatest thing ever? No one wants to be a phobe! Yep, another opportunity to distort and define. Alinsky, anyone?
No doubt. Do you “phobe” efforts to limit the celebration and elevation of this behavior to the level of marriage?
Oh Noes! Legislating morality! Please. Shall we as a people choose to seek to legislate immorality? Who does that? I mean who does that that actually has a stake in the future of their civilization and society via their posterity? You know, those hetero folks?
Our polity is a boisterous and noisy one and not one law was founded on the insistence of a single person that it was the moral thing to do, so no, I do not consider myself captive to your false choice. I forfeit nothing.
We are a blessed people. Too few recognize that, and, thinking themselves wiser than others and our fore bearers, most often being liberated from such archaic concepts as “morality,” press on with the remodeling of our society by hook or by crook. Our future will suffer for their efforts.
New or not, troll or faithful community member, your level of intellectual dishonesty and aggression are quite, unseemly.
Maquis on April 10, 2009 at 4:07 AM
You married your toaster? Does it look like Grace Park? ;)
Maquis on April 10, 2009 at 4:13 AM
It has a mirror like chrome finish.
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 4:16 AM
I always like a bear skin rug
I’ve always believed, probably because of my upbringing, that Mom and Dad brought me into the world because they loved me.
They didn’t abort me, they didn’t adopt me. They instilled their value upon me. As did their parents, and their parents, before them. Some people call that family…, but what the hey.
I intend to carry on those values.
Does that make me bad DaveS
Kini on April 10, 2009 at 4:37 AM
Well then, it’s certain to be brighter than some of the commentary we’ve seen here today!
G’nite!
Maquis on April 10, 2009 at 4:45 AM
FTRR. Fixed to Reflect Reality.
It doesn’t really matter whether a person’s latent homosexuality leads them to devalue the integrity of men 18 or older or boys 17 or younger. It’s all about sexual gratification either way. The only difference is the amorphous concept of “consent,” a bar to molesting younger and younger conquests that NAMBLA has set out to destroy.
Only in a world where sexual gratification is the highest moral good does homosexuality even deserve credence. It is no different from any other sexual fetish, and the idea its practitioners deserve special recognition under the law is ridiculous. “Consent” is meaningless. Should we subsidize leather, rope, and whips so as not to discriminate against bondage fetishists? Why can’t we bring back consented servitude? We’re discriminating against the bondies!
BKennedy on April 10, 2009 at 4:59 AM
I smoke 12 cigarettes a day but I’m not a smoker?
Dollayo on April 10, 2009 at 5:00 AM
Yeah, there are not legal ramifications to marriage beyond hospital visists. No differences in taxation, etc. I should have done my research.
Wow, the early morning hours bring out the theocrats. There are some real morons here.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 5:38 AM
The first step to healing is admitting you have a problem.
You’re doing a good job. Keep it up DaveS!
BKennedy on April 10, 2009 at 5:40 AM
I think the only people who have a problem are the people who think it is rationale, intelligent, or otherwise a good idea to tell grown adults that they can’t do something which affects absolutely noone but themselves.
I think it takes a special kind of idiot to support that sort of thing.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 5:59 AM
To be clear, BKennedy, I think that YOU are that sort of special idiot–apparently, based on your very few comments.
DaveS on April 10, 2009 at 5:59 AM
We can agree that according to the Bible, homosexuality is sinful. But lots of everyday things are sinful and no one argues that their existence ruins the whole world. Gambling? Is that ruining the whole world. I’d like to see a political campaign to come out to stop adultery thats right there along with homosexuality in Romans, is adultery destroying the world? The outrage isn’t comensurate with the attention the issue receives in the Word itself, it’s hardly even talked about.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 6:23 AM
You don’t seem very gay to me, sir. Not gay at all.
Get something for that, will you?
Oh I know sexual attraction is a very nuanced thing in your world. It is a mechanism of such dastardly complexity as to be inexplicable by those who do not “get” that government recognition, acceptance, and promotion of your favored form of fornication is a civil right.
Heterosexuality only exists as an identifier because so many people are obsessed with identifying themselves with their preferred sexual partner. “Gay” and “straight” are idiotic, unprovable descriptors. In a world where fornication was not held as the most glorious of human endeavors they would be irrelevant. Adam would sleep with Eve and Tom would sleep with Steve and they’d both go unhindered to labor at the smithy tomorrow.
Fornicate with whomever you want, just don’t pretend its a civil right or is somehow worthy of ennoblement. There is nothing nuanced about sexual preference.
BKennedy on April 10, 2009 at 6:30 AM
It’s all about removing God (or should I say, the belief in the power of God) from our society. Abortion, gay marriage, human cloning: these types of issues each bring us a hundred steps closer to damnation, and losing ourselves.
ErinF on April 10, 2009 at 6:32 AM
tit for tat
maverick muse on April 10, 2009 at 6:36 AM
That’s true. But gambling is simply a personal choice.
Things like homosexuality, abortion, and even global warming aren’t just personal choices anymore. They have become movements. They’ve even become industries, if you will. Each requires the removal of God in order to exist. And each is swinging America into destruction.
ErinF on April 10, 2009 at 6:38 AM
rino
eh on April 10, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Dude. THATS the point. Sexual desire is not nuanced, it’s not complicated and neither is sexual orientation. You like, what you like, period. It’s the people who think you can “choose” your sexual desires who think that sexual orientation is nuanced and complex and malleable. Those of us who went through puberty however know that pretty much from the moment the hormones start flowing you not only know which gender your attracted to, you know which kinds of folks within that gender you’re attracted to. This is particularly easy for guys. It’s called the boner test. If it gives you a boner…you like it.
Now are you honestly going to say with a straight face that every gay guy who at 14 realized they were getting a bone thinking about guys rather than girls “chose” that?
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 6:42 AM
allison rosen passes.
eh on April 10, 2009 at 6:49 AM
Of the two sources quoted for the thread,
Libertine hits the mark, whereas secular misses.
“Secular” is being abused.
Turkey is a secular country that was specifically founded to separate Islam from ruling the nation.
Of itself, secular does not imply immorality. It does specify the world outside of a theocracy or organized religions. Religious orders to not hold the monopoly on righteousness. Sadly, corruption exists where ever there is man; and the worst hypocrisy exists where the highest morals are taught. The secular world holds its own standards of sterilization, hence hypocrisy, over which extremist zealots debate.
Flogging “secular” as the whipping boy misdirects righteous energies from specific target, hence sabotaging the efforts of moral leadership.
Whereas, “decadent” applies.
maverick muse on April 10, 2009 at 6:50 AM
Isn’t this exactly what proponents of homosexual “marriage” are trying to do? Acquire sanction from the state?
The fact is that marriage has a long history that does not include homosexuals, ipso facto, its definition has excluded homosexuals. Why do people think the burden is on conservatives to make the case not to change a thousands-year-old tradition?
DrMagnolias on April 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM
Wow. You’re really the expert on all things related to homosexuality, pedophilia, marriage, morality, and human nature. Are you a psychologist, psychiatrist, or a narcissist? I’d pick the latter.
Oh … and based and your gift of discerning the intellectual capacity of posters through one or two sentences, in reviewing my my few words here, I’d be interested to know if I’m an “idiot” or just your garden variety “theocratic moron”.
Thanks in advance.
Rod on April 10, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Because a case has been made TO change it and the only response from conservatives has been “tradition.” I think it’s ironic whenever Americans say something should not change “because that’s how it’s always been.” How would our country have even begun if colonists had felt that way about mercantilism/monarchy?
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 7:02 AM
Because a case has been made TO change it and the only response from conservatives has been “tradition.” I think it’s ironic whenever Americans say something should not change “because that’s how it’s always been.” How would our country have even begun if colonists had felt that way about mercantilism/monarchy?
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 7:03 AM
The Left is comprised of Libertines, not Liberals.
The fact that the Left pirated “Liberal” to hide their shame is a point to ridicule as they enforce the high road to hell. As well as Adam after the Fall, Libertines know good from evil and choose the latter. When caught in the spotlight, they shout, “Don’t shoot; I’m Liberal!” Their convoluted minds had to make Liberal a bad name, along with ruining the word “gay” and renaming all things evil as good, and good as evil, assuming the revised incarnation of Cain-as-Adam to exude the pathetic rot of antipathy.
maverick muse on April 10, 2009 at 7:08 AM
I’m probably closer to remembering puberty than nearly any other commenter here. Somehow the random embarrassing boners I got in math class during a test when I was 14 did not make me want to fornicate with math tests.
Are you honesty going to say with a straight face that 14 year-olds have enough cognizance to be permanently and forever attached to whatever their hormones dictate to them at that time? Gay activists have no business being in schools. They’re there for recruitment, not “education.” “It’s OK to express your feelings billy. With me. In the back room…”
You can’t be naive enough to think that’s never happened. Hell, stories about teachers sleeping with their students seem to be legion recently. Anyone who is only in a schoolyard on the basis of “helping” confused teenagers “understand” their sexuality is suspect. At 14 you have no clue who you are or what you’re going to do, you don’t need to be corrupted by people who define themselves by what gives them boners/heats them up.
BKennedy on April 10, 2009 at 7:16 AM
There is a burden for changing the status quo–the Declaration of Independence acknowledged that burden, then listed the violations by the king that compelled the colonists to sever the ties. Homosexuals wanting to change a long-standing institution have the burden to make the case, which they have not met by simply saying they want marriage or criticizing the way a sizable proportion of heterosexuals have botched it.
Tradition is not meaningless. Through the centuries, laws were set set up based upon the circumstances that would occur in male-female unions. Those laws, based on the experiences between a man and a woman, do not transfer neatly to relationships involving the same sex, because the experience is not the same.
Marriage is a set of legal obligations that government recognizes and sanctions because it has a vested interest in the results. When homosexuals said they wanted government out of their bedrooms, they were in a significantly stronger position than when they now say that they want government to sanction their relationships.
DrMagnolias on April 10, 2009 at 7:24 AM
Wait a minute, which is it. Is sexual desire nuanced or not. You’re the one who claims that it’s not nuanced and here you are saying “well, maybe things can change…nuancee etc.”
But to answer your questions, clearly you were thinking about something other than math tests when you pulled a bone in math class, don’t insult our intelligence.
And yes I am saying that 14 year olds can recognize when their turned on. Being turned on isn’t something you sit and ponder and decide upon with maturity. It’s a rush of feelings directed in large part by your hormones. At what point did you “choose” heterosexuality? Are you suggesting that at 14 we’re all attracted to everyone and then we “choose” our sexual desires over time? Absolutely ridiculous. The guys I find hot now, I found hot at 14. Now, with maturity has come an expansion in my initial tastes and a recognition that certain personalities are bad for dating etc. THATS where cognition comes in. Who you choose to sleep with, who you choose to date and eventually who you choose to make a long term investment in out of the many iindividuals whom you could fall in love with. But none of that has to do with sexual orientation.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 7:33 AM
As strange as it may be for you to realize, those colonists who settled the Americas DID believe in their monarchies and came here specifically to participate within the established mercantile establishment of their day, the very financiers of colonies. Think of New Spain and the conquest for gold. Think of Roanoke meant to establish plantations to export/import agricultural commodities. Think of New Amsterdam discovered by the Dutch East India Company to extend the Dutch Republic in New Netherlands (NY). Think of Montreal and the French fur trade.
As per the tradition of marriage between a man and wife, it abides the laws of nature so pronounced by “secularists” who premise their superiority by scientific knowledge. As you fail to have YET studied the rise and fall of past “great” civilizations, go do your homework.
YOU, dtmh, exist within the group of idiots who don’t learn from your own experience, and therefore decry “experience” as meaningless. Hence, the accumulated experience that has evolved into knowledge is beyond you. You reject knowledge. You repudiate maturity. YOU are stuck on stupid, without the vaguest idea what “tradition” is and means. As such, you are the most expensive commodity that society yet tolerates; though not for long. CHANGE is coming, even if it isn’t the sort you want. Dtmh, unless you generate yourself to adapt with KNOWLEDGE instead of rot, no one wants to be your host, leaving you to exist within your own incompetent dumbass.
maverick muse on April 10, 2009 at 7:34 AM
Yeah in case you forgot, the Crown didn’t think the colonists had met that burden either, they had to start a war over it. The arguments for same sex marriage are myriad and if you’re claiming to be familiar with the subject and convinced that the only argument is that “heterosexuals have screwed it up” then I call B.S. on you knowing anything about the gay rights movement other than what you hear in conservative media.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 7:35 AM
Do you believe that a man should be allowed to marry his adult son or adult daughter? How about marriage between two siblings?
Buddahpundit on April 10, 2009 at 7:39 AM
Are you a complete idiot? I’m not talking about the Dutch, Spanish or French American territories. I’m talking about the American Revolution which was a watershed moment in world history, overthrowing traditions of monarchical rule that had existed for centuries. Are you going to claim that the story of the founding of the United States of America is one based in “keeping things the way they are because tradition matters?” LOL Whatever man, get it together.
Homosexuality caused the fall of the Roman empire? Really? I thuoght it was over extension and a series of insane emporers. You’re also forgetting that homosexuality has been a part of every human society on earth, so of course homosexuality has been in every great and fallen civilizations, so has like…blinking. They have an equal amount of effect on that society falling. If you’re going to make a claim that the “great” civilizations fell because of homosexuality you shuold actually demonstrate some evidence of that. Oh and King James was gay.
As for your insult tirade there’s nothing there I can really work with.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 7:40 AM
It may gross you out, but if its consensual and they are adults…..I mean Woody Allen has already done this.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 7:41 AM
Oh, well then, let’s woodyallenize the country for you. Are you saying that Woody Allen should be allowed to marry a biological daughter? Do you believe that biological siblings should be allowed to marry?
Buddahpundit on April 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM
I am quite familiar with the arguments, and will thank you to not presume to know what media I use (and, by the way, “calling BS” does not place you in the intellectual position you seem to believe). The “myriad” arguments to which you refer generally rephrase the same propositions: That the institution of marriage heterosexuals have botched will be strengthened by showing how valuable marriage really is, that homosexual marriage will have no effect on heterosexual marriage, and that government has no right to exclude a group of people (sometimes dragging interracial marriage in as a completely dishonest analogy). However, I am always interested in evidence, so if you wish to make some of the arguments you believe are compelling and unrelated to these I’ve stated, please do so.
DrMagnolias on April 10, 2009 at 7:59 AM
Libertines do “educate” their prey and all children along the way to feel affection for homosexuality.
You legitimately make the point that homosexuals today have become activists, and as such DO NOT belong in schools. I agree that the institution of education has failed society, granting open license to indoctrinate immorality without counterbalance granted to lessons of morality.
Who rules the schools rules the population and the nation.
People can not merely wring their hands but not participate in the recapture of our nation’s tax dollars and the redirection of tax dollar funding.
MONEY IS TIGHT. NOW, MORE THAN EVER, IS THE TIME TO RESCIND funds that dissolve stability and are spent against the will of the majority.
Beyond choosing homeschooling, influence locally with your ISD and by reading your school districts’ textbooks and publicizing findings of inaccuracies or misinformation. Definitely participate at the state and federal levels by writing your legislators. This entire ACLU binge enforcing homosexuality up in your face and molding your child must be met with solid resistance.
If it is a matter of tolerance, Gay activists do not tolerate heterosexuality. The point is that sexuality is a private matter and as such has no place in required curriculum. But Gays won’t let it be a private matter as they require everyone to look what the cat dragged in and to love it, packaged as “sex education” that got its start in the effort to prevent VD/STD and prevent out of wedlock pregnancy. Look how well required curriculum “sex education” has performed, noting the proportion of babies born to unwed mothers vs. married women, and the spread of AIDS despite sex ed taught prior to the disease’s onset, and where it was liberally accounted in the 1960s that 1:10 men were homosexual, today’s poll doubles that proportion amongst publicly educated teenagers.
In PC vocabulary, homosexuals EDUCATE society, though the appropriate term as it proves itself more accurately is PROPAGANDIZE.
maverick muse on April 10, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Let’s start with these. Why are these illegit? And why isn’t the burden now on you to point out the problems with these arguments? Merely saying “but we haven’t done it that way before” isn’t an argument, it’s merely repeating the status quo.
As for additional reasons there are many. Gay people should not have a greater tax burden because they are gay (filing jointly) they should not have to haggle over pension/healthcare benefits when a company awards them to married couples. They shouldn’t have to be concerned if they can’t visit a loved one at the hospital outside of “visiting hours.” Etc. Etc.
You say that race is a bad analogy, but unless you have some arguments that say homosexuality is not biological it’s the same thing.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 8:07 AM
What’s the difference between biological siblings marrying and adoptive siblings/parents marrying. It’s just as gross emotionally. And no one has to get married to have sex with their sister/daughter/cousin so I’m not sure what that would do. If you’re willing to marry your close relative you’ve probably already had sex.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 10, 2009 at 8:10 AM
As stated, you lack the intelligence to think through your own train of thought prior to pronouncing what you feign to be dictums for others to obey.
No one here will wipe for you.
maverick muse on April 10, 2009 at 8:12 AM
A biologist (a GAY biologist) discovered this and in researching it found that the act itself is what damaged the gland. It starts out normal and in the course of the deviant behavior (choice) it begins to shrink.
This is just another indicator that a chosen behavior has direct physical consequenses as with all the new and improved STDs that have become an epidemic in this anti-culture. Medical science cannot keep up with the daily “new” STDs that are coming into existance in direct response to this immorality.
vapig on April 10, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Again, you failed to study the moment that you presume to define. Our Founding Fathers PLED with King George prior to declaring Independence. Upon winning our independence as a nation, our Founding Fathers again pled with King George in order to be able to participate within the traditions of his monarchy’s mercantile industry. They also begged the French and the Dutch for credit in order to participate in the very mercantile traditions you yet fail to recognize.
As you insist on inserting your own thoughts as coming from others, you fall into your own conundrum.
You deserve nothing but yourself.
maverick muse on April 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »