J.D. Hayworth: Could gay marriage lead to people marrying horses?
posted at 10:19 pm on March 15, 2010 by Allahpundit
The media’s outrageously outraged, but he’s getting a bad rap here — sort of. He’s not saying that gay marriage is the moral equivalent of bestiality; in fact, he repeatedly emphasizes that the horse example is “absurd.” He’s arguing that courts have done such a piss-poor job of defining marriage that it could lead to unintended ridiculous results, which is why the public needs to step in and enact a Federal Marriage Amendment. I’m not sure where he’s getting the idea that the Massachusetts Supreme Court defined marriage as the “establishment of intimacy,” though. Laying aside the fact that animals are incapable of “intimacy” as we understand it, that phrase doesn’t appear in the court’s gay-marriage opinion. The word “intimacy” does appear, but in a broader context. Here’s the key passage:
Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.
That’s the original decision from 2004; if he has another one in mind, I’m not sure which it is.
But never mind that. If a court really did go bonkers and find a constitutional right to marry an animal based on “intimacy,” does anyone doubt that voters in any state in America could and would overrule it with a constitutional amendment? California’s electorate, as liberal as it is, wouldn’t even abide same-sex marriage between people; Massachusetts, I hasten to remind you, is still sufficiently center-left to elect a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. Why do we need a Federal Marriage Amendment to deal with this?
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 … 4 5 6
I don’t think he knows what he said.
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 5:36 PM
You don’t need to actually have sex to have a learned sexual behavior (though that’s probably the way it is for a lot of people). You can learn it from porn, literature, or just your imagination — its all about the habits of your arousal.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:37 PM
You forgot your /f
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 5:39 PM
Wait, what? I think we crossed wires somewhere.
What I was saying was that I was including “women who are repelled by sex outside of marriage/long term relationships” in the category of “repelled by sex”.
And I was also talking about what women are taught, not what they find out on their own.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM
I gather you enjoy lesbian sex and have significant difficulty with the English language.
You may be a stupid homosexual.
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM
I know full well what I was saying. Its the jist of a joke from Jeff Foxworthy.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM
No, it just means that you have learned to be repelled by gay male sex.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM
He might just be referring to girls who have grown up with the twisted notion that all sex is sinful. These are girls that have rape fantasies specifically because as non consensual sex, it doesn’t make them sinful.
In high school, I had a youth pastor whose wife wasn’t necessarily that negative towards sex but had a hard time transitioning from “don’t have sex” to “it’s OK to have sex now – you’re married” and was genuinely affraid of sex on her wedding night.
From what I understand, she actually locked herself in the bathroom that night while they talked about it.
It’s a travesty that people speak of sex in those terms and traumatize some women, but those women are far from the norm and are often products of serious abuse at a young age.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 5:43 PM
I can’t deny the fact that my sexual orientation is homosexual. And, that fact has deeply affected my life. Just think about it. I grew up in a small southern town. The worst slur that you say to someone is that you were qu@@r. That fact made a deep, deep impact upon me. When I told my father and mother that I was gay at the age of 18 there was no anger in their voices. One thing that I do remember that he said that “he” failed in some way.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Your logic is as twisted as Howard Dean’s.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 5:47 PM
I feel for you, Charlie.
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Um, no, I have never seen gay male sex. I watched a movie once and when the two men kissed (for the first time, and nothing was shown, it was an R-rated movie), I turned it off, disgusted. There was NOTHING learned about that.
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Are you sure you don’t mean Ron White?
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Who’s Howard Dean?
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Yep, I get them mixed up from time to time.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 5:51 PM
I’m confident that’s true.
But still, repelled carried a completely different connotation than what you seem to be trying to say here. Women are taught not to have sex outside of marriage (as are men – if we’re talking about parents and religious figures) but they’re not taught to find sex outside of marriage repulsive.
I mean, look at almost any popular romantic comedy. If what you were saying were true, sex would only occur in either long term relationships or marriage, as their target audience would only find those circumstances acceptable.
Wait, how can you learn from your own imagination? It comes from you.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 5:51 PM
You know Howard Dean! Holger’s estranged gay lover
AsianGirlInTights on March 16, 2010 at 5:54 PM
That mindset is part of your problem. You probably felt that you had to be one or the other. Any arousal brought on by members of your own sex made you perceive yourself as “unacceptable” to straight society, and the only other option was to grab what little protection the label “gay” gave you.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM
We all remember the McCain/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation, and know that Lindsey Graham has resurrected that agenda for Obama now.
We are also aware of John McCain’s desire to inhibit citizens from purchasing nutritional supplements independent of federal intervention to raise prices and even require a prescription. Reference McCain’s bill S.3002.
Sen. McCain has become a sinister and bitter old man who needs to be removed from office, and retire.
Arizona and Americans need candidates who will not presume to play the authoritarian in Washington DC.
At least Hayworth knows that he can be voted out of office if he does not protect his constituents from socialism. McCain does not know that.
maverick muse on March 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Howard Dean, former Democrat Presidential candidate, Governor of VT. He spun Scott Brown’s win (a candidate who said he’d vote against Obamacare) as proof that people of MA wanted Obamacare.
I only like women, I rate a 0 on the Kinsey scale.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Of course you can. Just getting an idea doesn’t mean you have learned it — you need repetition to do that. Just like knowing that you have to toss the ball into the basket doesn’t make you a good freethrower.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM
………..Thanks, Esthier.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Sometimes the learned desire overcomes the learned repulsion — and a lot of people want that to be more publicly acceptable. They want their transgressions against their own set of repulsions to be forgiven by society, and their own behavior reinforced.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM
So you’re a lesbian then?
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Maybe so, but if you don’t already know something, your repetition in your imagination won’t add to what you don’t already know either.
I’m just not sure I agree with imagination, by itself, as a learning tool. In conjunction with something else… I can see that.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM
DC, does whiskey kill a laptop keyboard? Because if it does, you owe me a new freakin’ computer!!!!
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM
You don’t have to see an act to learn to be repulsed by it. You don’t even have to imagine that particular act. All you have to do is be able to associate the act you see with a concept you have learned to be repelled by.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Huh?
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Nope, 0 is exclusive Heterosexual.
It was a Ron White joke about a Homophobe liking guys in his pron.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM
There have actually been tests of this — where kids who only imagined shooting freethrows daily improved their shot almost as much as the ones that spent the same amount of time practicing them on the court.
The same thing happens when you practice reciting something from memory. You get better with time, even after you have given up reading the written material.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Thanks, I didn’t know that. Were you tested for homosexual tendencies?
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM
I’m actually having a hard time putting my confusion on the subject to words.
So your argument is that we learn repulsion while at the same time learning desire?
I’m sincerely sorry, but this isn’t making any sense to me.
And I find the idea that we’re all nothing but blank slates equally as unlikely that we’re all completely preprogrammed.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM
In this case, all you have to do is learn to be repulsed by the idea of intimacy between two men, and then associate kissing with intimacy.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:13 PM
*snicker
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Let me give you here the benefit of my vast store of knowledge about women.
tom on March 16, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Well, we’re obviously not completely blank slates, but I think people overestimate how much is hardwired. The positive rewards for sexual stimulation are certainly hardwired — but the state of arousal that makes that stimulation possible seems to be accessible only through a complicated routine of learned behaviors. In the human mind, it seems to run right through our imagination.
You don’t really learn desire “at the same time” as you learn repulsion — its more that you learn them concurrently, building both up slowly over time in different circumstances.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:19 PM
The problem with that is that you’re already talking about people who know how to throw the right freethrow. Hence, your mention of improving their freethrows.
If I have no idea what proper freethrow form is and try to use only my imagination to shoot the best one, it’s highly unlikely that I’ll be better than those who practice them all the time.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 6:20 PM
I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 6:20 PM
That only works on guys secretly afraid of being gay or guys over compensating for failures of masculinity.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 6:21 PM
Even so, you would get a little better.
Still, with things like attraction and repulsion, the trial and error response mechanisms are with you at all times. You can practice being aroused by mental images you yourself conger up of things you want to like, and being repelled by images of things want to hate.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:24 PM
Count to 10, the idea that we all come into this world as a blank slate is, I believe, ridiculous.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM
Since I am more than certain DC can defend himself, I will only say, “It is to laugh….”
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Count to 10, I guess that we should go back in time to aversion therapy for homosexuals along with conversion therapy. We already have much of society that still openly and vehemently expresses that homosexuality is unacceptable. Why am I homosexual and yet can not act upon it?
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 6:31 PM
I think you underestimate your own ability to learn just about any sort of attraction or behavior.
After all, isn’t every sort of fetish under the sun learned at some point or another? Otherwise, wouldn’t we all have them?
Is it really hard to see that a man who wants a dominatrix probably learned that behavior at some point? Sexual attraction is very basic to human nature, and it’s not at all hard to believe that you can learn to seek it in very strange places.
tom on March 16, 2010 at 6:32 PM
That depends on what you mean by “blank slate” — there is a lot of structure to a chalk board before you ever lay chalk to it, and the chalk never renders it anything other than a slate, even if it isn’t blank anymore.
I would never contend that nothing is inborn. I just don’t think sexuality is one of the ones that is.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:35 PM
And you responded!
AsianGirlInTights on March 16, 2010 at 6:37 PM
But again, if we were truly repulsed, we would, like ladyingray mentioned, change the channel. And if peer pressure were able to change that, it would change it so that we’re no longer repulsed.
Point being, if women are able to watch movies which depict sex outside of marriage in a positive light, then they are not repulsed by sex outside of marriage. You can argue that too is learned, but that would also mean the repulsion is unlearned.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 6:38 PM
Neigh!
profitsbeard on March 16, 2010 at 6:39 PM
If you are in your 40′s that makes you something of an old dog for learning new tricks. I’m not sure, really, if anyone can unlearn homosexual urges — but I know it is possible to learn heterosexual ones. So, you could probably be bisexual if you worked at it. But I understand that bisexuality is shunned in homosexual circles (am I wrong?).
Look, I don’t really advocate the drastic measures people could take to “stop being gay” — I just get irritated when people try to assert that it isn’t possible for them to change their behavior, and I don’t think people should lock themselves out of forming a standard nuclear family with a member of the opposite sex just because they have learned to enjoy gay sex.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:41 PM
Or, we could just let Charlie be who he is.
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 6:44 PM
hmmm.
You seem to be thinking binary, here — either on or off.
The reality seems to be more relative, and sensitive to circumstance.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Sure. But it sounded like he wasn’t happy with that. I’m just providing the information I have collected, and argue its validity. What he chooses to do with it is up to him.
(and I’m not Christian, so I don’t mean that in that ‘you know what God wants you to do’ kind of way.)
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:47 PM
And your point is what exactly?
If someone called me a cracker I’d correct them that the correct slur is honky or peckerwood. I hate being incorrectly insulted more than being properly insulted, I feel it a public service to correct lame attempts at insult.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 6:48 PM
Not if you’re imaging doing it the wrong way. If you have nothing but your imagination, you may also be completely imaging the game itself incorrectly.
I’ve been told that golf is especially a poor sport to teach yourself because of all the wrong behaviors you can learn.
You can condition yourself, sure, but that doesn’t mean that conditioning is the best way to change reflexive behavior.
I’m not saying it can’t be learned. After all, when access to the opposite sex is limited homosexuality greatly increases.
I’m only saying that I’m not convinced it’s always learned or that all sexual repulsion or desires are necessarily learned.
It’s the absolutes here that I disagree with.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 6:50 PM
And how do I “learn” this…
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 6:52 PM
Keep thinking to yourself how disgusting intimacy between two men is. Practice getting angry when you picture it in your head. There might be some other parts, too, but I don’t claim to know everything.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 6:59 PM
So, you could probably be bisexual if you worked at it. But I understand that bisexuality is shunned in homosexual circles (am I wrong?). – Count to 10
I don’t run in any “circles”.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 6:59 PM
Well, you would get better at doing it wrong, then. Still valid here.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 7:00 PM
Well, then, no problems.
Maybe.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 7:02 PM
We’ll just have the death panels take care of the people marrying their horses, so it all works out.
RightOFLeft on March 16, 2010 at 7:06 PM
You’re a cowardly worm. YOU started by implying DC was homosexual. Then he showed how you’re probably the gay one. Don’t play the victim gay worm!
AsianGirlInTights on March 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM
No, I took a joke from Blue Collar Comedy and used it. Then he feebly tried to turn it around and you are stuck on stupid.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 7:27 PM
The same would once have been said about gay marriage and it would have been true. Do you suffer from a lack of imagination AP? We have traveled this far in a few decades, in a few more decades how far will we have traveled from our present position.
DFCtomm on March 16, 2010 at 7:35 PM
You’re stuck on worm. Nobody seems to have gotten your lame borrowed joke. Is that really the best you can do?
AsianGirlInTights on March 16, 2010 at 7:38 PM
How can you get better at doing something wrong? I mean, how do you measure improvement at something that is incorrect?
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 7:39 PM
Hi Esthier
AsianGirlInTights on March 16, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Like all “nature or nurture” disputes, the line is always blurred. It’s impossible to say of a certainty what was inherent and what was learned.
But the real reason we keep hearing the argument that “I was born that way,” is because it deflects all blame. After all, if you were born that way, then it must be natural, it must not be morally wrong, it must be something you can’t help, it must be something that no one could reasonably ask you to change or to take responsibility for changing, and you must have the right to demand equal rights for yourself and all like you. Anything else would just not be fair.
Unfortunately, all this stems from the unprovable claim that the homosexual is born that way.
And if it’s possible to learn homosexual behavior, then that claim loses all power, because someone who becomes homosexual can never claim that he had no choice, and that it was inborn, etc.
This is no small matter. The greater acceptance of homosexuality in the last generation is due almost entirely to the oft-repeated claim that homosexuality is inherent and inborn, and therefore cannot be immoral, unhealthy, or unnatural.
The very best you could say for such a claim is that there is some evidence that suggests it could be the case, but nothing that actually proves it.
tom on March 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM
In-born or a choice does not determine whether homosexuality is immoral, unhealthy or unnatural. Whether or not it is immoral is a societal judgment. Unhealthy? Any sexual behavior has a risk of being unhealthy, especially if you engage in promiscuous behavior. As for being unnatural, it would be unnatural if a homosexual would be forced to behave as a heterosexual.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 9:00 PM
Allow me to be civil.
I made a joke, it didn’t work. I pointed out Blue Collar comedy where I first heard the joke, anyone can go on Youtube and search Ron White and Homophobes, it is a funny comedy bit and well known. I apologize for the failure of the joke, I should’ve added a tag but I assumed I didn’t need to because every hillybilly I know knows Blue Collar Comedy.
The Subject in question seemed to have died a natural death until you ran with it. This is a Nontroversy, a gigantic Nothing Burger of Misunderstanding but you are attempting to turn it into Olympus Mons.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 9:54 PM
Why would you assume ANYone would get your quote of a joke?
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM
, it is a funny comedy bit and well known. I apologize for the failure of the joke, I should’ve added a tag but I assumed I didn’t need to because every hillybilly I know knows Blue Collar Comedy.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 9:54 PM
And why in the heck would you think ANYone would know the joke? That is an assumption…
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Hi, Asian. Long time no see. Sorry I’ve been away.
Sure, but the same is also true for the opposite. And considering few people are keen on legislating morality, it doesn’t really matter as long as the actions are legally consensual (meaning, between those who can legally consent).
For those who believe it’s a sin, you can still do so and believe people might be born that way. Christians already believe that all men are born into sin anyway.
And of course not all Christians even consider it a sin.
No one should ever be forced to behave in a way they feel is inappropriate.
As far as the moral question is concerned, my personal opinion is that like every other moral question, it’s between you (the general you, I’m not specifically speaking to you) and God and no one else. My understanding of sin is that it’s disobedience of God and nothing else.
If a person has a relationship with God, then all sins become evident. That isn’t to say that outside forces can’t help people learn what is and is not sin, but ultimately the person in a relationship with God will know the truth.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 11:20 PM
Rachel Maddow made a complete fool of him last night.
fastestslug on March 16, 2010 at 11:57 PM
Since the subject is gay marriage, not simply gay behavior, surely the burden of proof would lie on those wanting to change the very definition of marriage.
In which case, the lack of proof should be dispositive of the entire debate.
I guess it depends on whether your cultural view is driven by your Christian faith, or whether your Christian faith is driven by your cultural views.
Or, as Jesus put it, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”
tom on March 17, 2010 at 12:14 AM
True. And yet it is often heard as an argument. People are just naturally reluctant to condemn something if they think you were born that way.
A societal judgement, an individual judgement, a religious judgement….
Promiscuous behavior is certainly riskier. What a coincidence that promiscuous behavior is also considered immoral. But you’re almost criminally understating the relative risk of homosexual behavior and normal sexuality, due to the sodomy necessarily involved.
Be that as it may, when I say “unhealthy” I’m primarily referring to the fact that men and women are made for each other, and to try to find that relationship with one of the same sex is not a healthy thing emotionally or spiritually.
You may of course call this just a matter of opinion, but I’ll stand by it just the same.
That would only be true if homosexuality is natural, which is the very point in dispute.
But I don’t say any of this to attack or discourage you. I’m going to quote the Bible, but this time primarily as a history book to make a relevant point. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth: (1 Cor 6:9-11)
The point being, some in the church at Corinth had been all these things, including homosexuals, but were no longer homosexuals. So it is not impossible to turn from it.
tom on March 17, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Santorum said the same thing…morons, the both of them.
funky chicken on March 17, 2010 at 9:20 AM
Jeff Jacoby made a similar argument a long time ago, arguing — persuasively, I thought — that gay marriage leads down a slippery slope:
Paul_in_NJ on March 17, 2010 at 11:16 AM
That wasn’t the subject I was working with at the time. I was just talking about whether or not it can still be a sin if innate, and it can. I’m not convinced either way on whether or not it’s innate, as I’ve said multiple times.
However, I’m also not convinced the government should be in the marriage business anyway.
But if you think not being born that way is a good enough reason to keep gays from being able to marry those of the same sex, does this mean that if they’re ever able to prove that gays are born that way that you’ll change their mind? You can’t have it both ways.
I can only speak for myself, not my surrounding culture. And if we were to force the words Jesus has said on this culture, it would be unconstitutional, immoral and fake, as this kind of change Jesus affects is in the heart which is only represented by outside deeds instead of being fully encompassed by them.
Esthier on March 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Not all homosexuals engage in sodomy (not even all homosexual males), and not all heterosexuals refrain from it. In fact, sex between two women is the safest sex.
No, it’s true because it’s unnatural to force anyone to behave in any way that is counter to his beliefs. Jesus didn’t come so that we could all outwardly follow the rules. He completely rejected those who did so but were inwardly sinful.
Jesus came to change our hearts. And when that is done, it’s not necessary to force anyone to do anything. That’s why Christians are no longer under the law. We don’t need it to learn right from wrong.
What matters first and foremost is that people come to God. It’s pointless to focus on any sin before that, because we cannot keep ourselves from sinning without God. And God deals with his children. He doesn’t let us stay in sin.
Esthier on March 17, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Not only would an entire swath of the American West would benefit from the elimination on the ban on plural marriage but many religions in America would benefit too.
Polygamy isn’t just practiced by Muslims and offshoots of the LDS religion.
I see that some Jews also practice polygamy.
There are also a few Christians and claim that there is a biblical basis for such practice.
Conservative Samizdat on March 17, 2010 at 11:53 AM
All lines are drawn on a slippery slope. The argument that any individual change might logically cause all possible change leads to paralysis.
Marriage changed during the past 100 years in part because of the increased voice that women have in the economy and government. We can lament the fact that the world changes or try to use reason and evidence to make the next set of decisions.
dedalus on March 17, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Allahpundit,
Yes, the “new gays” will want to marry birds, horses and Chimps. The type of Chimps that are in Old NAvy commercials and then kill people.
That lady in Connecticut was likely banging her Chimp. She was having beast sex.
father on March 17, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Also, don’t forget some guy in Washington died when a Quarter horse banging him in his small anus.
His rectum was ripped up. He had major internal bleeding and his friend encouraged him to go to the hospital but he refused.
He died the next day.
father on March 17, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Yes, those are true stories.
father on March 17, 2010 at 1:12 PM
A lot of acceptance of decadence in this thread. This is not a new story but an old story.
A good part of the Old Testament is the history of the clashes between the pagans who drew few lines concerning sexual excess, and the religious Jews who had a higher moral code.
Were John the Baptist alive today, he would preach against immorality, and the modern day pagans would mock and revile him. He would labeled a crank and a threat to gay liberation. He might even get bumped off, at least the fantasy would be there, photoshops of John the Baptist in the crosshairs of a gun. Imagine him as guests on Larry king, or MSNBC. They would have to apologize for insulting the audience with his presence
John the Baptist would not be invited to the White House. He would likely be outside picketing the religious hypocrisy of the professed Christian President
The Roman pagans considered themselves the more civilized and open minded nation, orgies and vomitoriums being personal preference. The same lines are drawn in today’s battles.
The biggest problem is these new impositions on a generally Judaeo-Christian nation are not live and let live solutions. They are installed by the heavy hammer of mandates and propagandizing, and the children of citizens who do not accept the new levels of immorality will be propagandized by the State and adults will be forced to pretend favor of the new coercions or lose their jobs, be forced to rent to immoral situations, be prevented from speaking in condemnation under hate speech laws.
This is the end game of this eternal struggle, and that is why ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is the fair solution. This is also why the other side will not rest until they have crushed the old solution, and crushed dissent on the issue
The Romans seemed to be more laissez faire about religious nuts, and let them have their free speech as long as it was not rebellion, but ultimately, the Romans fed the moralists to the lions to shut them up
entagor on March 17, 2010 at 1:36 PM
And? Just because some people do it doesn’t mean we’ll ever allow it to be legal. That’s not a valid argument but an anecdote, the same kind Obama uses as an attempt to sell ObamaCare.
Esthier on March 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6