When Dustin Lance Black won the Original Screenplay Oscar for Milk on Sunday night, he honored what he called the "life-saving" story of Harvey Milk and pledged like a politician that gay marriage was just around the corner:
When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and father move me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California, and I heard the story of Harvey Milk, and it gave me hope. It gave me hope to live my life. It gave he hope that one day I could live openly as who I am, and maybe even that I would fall in love and one day get married. (Applause)
I wanna thank my mom, who has always loved me for who I am, even when there was pressure not to. But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he’s want me to say to all the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have have told they are "less than" by their churches, by the government, or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value, and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you, and that I promise you, very soon you will have equal rights federally across this great nation of ours. (Applause)
Thank you, and thank you, God, for Harvey Milk.






















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Here they come!
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:12 ET by Sergeant ROCKAnd it's only the begining. You better embrace it or else!
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Actor In A Starring Role
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:29 ET by Gordon SchumwayJeff Spicoli won an Oscar. Oh, joy. We'll never hear the end of it.
Mr. Hand
Right Sarge...
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 21:09 ET by jdlybrandI can already see the headlines in the San Fransisco Chronicle...
"Woman weds Chimp".
'Penn Supports Simian rights'
The overwhelming applause
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:17 ET by Radical1979The overwhelming applause made me sick. I guess no one in lala land is allowed to disagree, or does disagree. Glen Beck talked about breaking off parts of California, including Southern California. Couldn't we give them to Mexico? A good part of Mexico is there anyway.
You need not worry
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:20 ET by BobAnthonyThe BIG ONE will take care of the rest!
I WISH IT WOULD STRIKE DURING THE OBAMA LOVEFEST WITH DRUGGED UP RED DIAPER DOPER BABIES!
Want the PLAIN truth and no spin? Listen to The Plains Radio Network online. It's like nothing you've ever heard.
www.plainsradio.com
"Couldn't we give them to
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:48 ET by Kevroy"Couldn't we give them to Mexico? A good part of Mexico is there anyway."
Then they would just be climbing the border fence into Nevada and Oregon to get our free health care and in-state college tuition.
Unlike here
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:28 ET by nwahs"I guess no one in lala land is allowed to disagree, or does disagree. "
Unlike this thread where there are so many different points of view ...
oh wait...
Pot, meet kettle
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
You are right on that
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 10:27 ET by kdizzydazeOf course, if you want the other side of the story, you can always go to DailyKos or HuffPo. I am sure the people on those sites carrya wide array of views on the subject matter - not.
God made man, but he used a monkey to do it -- DEVO
I just don't understand why
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 10:33 ET by JasonCI just don't understand why so many people express fresh outrage EVERY SINGLE TIME a Hollywood denizen expresses a viewpoint with which they disagree. As if they're entitled to see their values embraced in a private gala affair. It's a liberal industry; no one denies that. It can't really be that shocking every time one of them says something politically left-of-center...
Oh take my breath
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:28 ET by bigtimerOh take my breath away!
Standing Ovation!
Just precious...we will see this clip ad nauseam most likely.
Nothing like an on-going agenda that will never end. until this too will pass.
As if the gays don't have equal rights.
If I hear equal rights one more time in my life...well, heck...I'm going to have to hurt some happy fishes...
..and smoke 'em.
YES
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:56 ET by diegobass13As you point out, here in California, by law, gays already have exactly the same rights as everyone else. Any eligible man, gay or straight, is allowed to marry any eligible woman, gay or straight. They just choose not to, which is fine. Since they choose not to exercise the same right, which they do have, as everyone else, people like me, who wanted to make sure they received fair consideration, fought to get them civil unions to ensure that they STILL have exactly the same rights as everyone else.
Unfortuantely, that's not their agenda. Equal rights has NOTHING to do with it. They want the right to indoctrinate our children and the right to destroy our institutions in court. This is why I no longer support them.
As for the promise this lunatic made... don't bet on it. The only reason the measure in CA wasn't a blowout this time like last time was a very effective propaganda campaign - but propaganda campaigns only work on the willing and, thank GOD (to borrow a phrase) a majority of the people aren't fooled by it. Note that while they claim a big victory in defeat (reminds me of Hamas and Hezbollah, but I digress), in 2008, how many other states passed laws similar to that enacted in CA? Several...
Well they are into patting
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:20 ET by Dave DWell they are into patting themselves on the back, that's pretty much obvious. Hell, remember that Clooney did that by mentioning how they gave Hattie McDaniel the Oscar, supposedly proving how forward looking they are? Of course he didn't mention that she actually got it for basically playing Aunt Jamaima which under any other circumstances they'd consider obscenely racist.
SUICIDE
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:31 ET by TexndocI'm promising you, critics are going to savage this Oscar show. I wonder if they will recover. Drudge said their audience last year was the lowest in history, and this show (and we're only 1/2 way done) is absolutely a fail. The host is horrendous and Bill Maher blasting God was the rotten stinking icing on the cake.
MAHER NEEDS TO CRAWL INTO A DEEP HOLE
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:39 ET by attorneygirlMaher can suck it.
I'm just sick of his attitude.
Big time.
attorneygirl....
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:02 ET by dborschjr68Why would he feel the need to even comment about Someone he has no idea about? I suppose it was the "heat of the moment", being there, the eyes and ears of the ignorant masses breathlessly awaiting his scorching words against the One they so vehemently despise. What a golden opportunity, amongst the unbelievers, to bad-mouth God, and be applauded for it. Ah well....the fool says in his heart there is no God. I honestly feel a great swell of pity for Mr. Maher, that he would undergo such a foolish endeavor as to ridicule God.
In the words of The Crucified:
When you wake up in Hell, ask yourself-
was your image worth it, are you proud of yourself-
you reject being saved, to be a believer-
you turn your back on God, to be a crowd-pleaser.
"Liberate tutume ex inferis, liberal puppets." Me.
Amen
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:38 ET by diegobass13Funny how the "unbelievers" still invoke "God" when convenient...
Quoting yourself, nice touch.
Yup. I'm vomiting.
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:37 ET by attorneygirlYes. I'm vomiting.
Here is Hollywood in all its hypocritcal, morally relevant, gay-loving, deviant-behavior worshipping stupidity.
Drugs? Okay.
Alcohol? Okay.
Homosexuality? Okay.
Wife (or girlfriend) beating? Okay.
Tax-cheating? Okay.
Lying? Okay.
I've had it.
Also in this gay moron's speech was a dig at Mormons. God help us! Mormons are wonderful, wonderful people who are decent, hard working, honest, upstanding people who raise wonderful families, encourage education and hard work and who are good to their elders. God all mighty.
Do I have to accept people's deviant immoral behavior?
Hell no.
I am SICK AND TIRED OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT BEING VILLIFIED BY HOLLYWOOD AND ITS DRUG-ADDICTED MORONS.
Me too!
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:50 ET by jdlybrandI'm puking too! There must be some kind of vile Hollywood virus going around.
" Yes. I'm
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:55 ET by Hack Cafferty"
Yes. I'm vomiting.
Here is Hollywood in all its hypocritcal, morally relevant, gay-loving, deviant-behavior worshipping stupidity.
Drugs? Okay.
Alcohol? Okay.
Homosexuality? Okay.
Wife (or girlfriend) beating? Okay.
Tax-cheating? Okay.
Lying? Okay.
I've had it."
God help all the hate filled biggots in my party. How can you put homosexuality in categories with beating your wife?
Everyone has a gay familly member. And everyone knows that that familly member was BORN gay. If not, wouldn't gay people look and act like straight people?
Why does Mr. Graham always make posts when a gay person says something positive about gays? First Anderson Cooper and now this guy?
Me thinks Mr. Graham doth protest too much...
LIBERAL LIES (RE: Hack Cafferty Feb 22 @ 22:55 ET)
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:47 ET by diegobass13Just what party are you claiming is your party? I mean, there are a lot of BIGOTS (one "G"), but most of them these days are DEMOCRATS I notice. Many who don't even know how to spell short, simple words...
The poster did not put wife beating in the same category as homosexuality. The poster was listing the things that Hollywood slips into many of their movies and the things Democrats are willing to overlook when considering the suitability of candidates for office too, it seems.
But let me address your further claims:
"Everyone has a gay family member." Wrong. In fact you can be relatively certain that when you make a statement that is obvious hyperbole like that it's going to be wrong every time.
"And everyone knows that that familly member was BORN gay." Wrong. Sexual preference is a choice, a behavior. While it's true that we may be born with certain predispositions, studies make it clear that sexual preference is NOT set at birth - it is influenced during the formative years and it is a choice one makes. Further, gays have changed their minds and decided to be straight, just as straights have changed their minds and chosen to become gay. Behaviors are not innate, they are a series of ongoing choices which, at any time, are subject to reconsideration.
Really. Even for internet
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 07:24 ET by Tim GrahamReally. Even for internet commentary, this is the oldest stereotype game in the book. It's a grade-school playground taunt.
Let me walk you through it. First of all, this is a political speech, pledging "equal rights" for gays in our political system. That, in political terms, is a liberal position. We may have many conservatives who do not have the heart to oppose this liberal position, but that's what it is. It is not "conservative," as in preserving traditional values.
Second, this is a religious speech, claiming that God loves homosexuals -- which I believe he certainly does. But if we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, he does not approve of homosexual behavior. I do not believe that homosexuals are "less than" humans, but I do believe that their loving relationships are "less than" traditional marriages because they are against the very clearly stated will of the God of the Bible. You can disagree all you like, but Dustin Lance Black is publicly putting the Bible through a shredder. Go ahead and applaud if you like, or say he was genetically coded to put the Bible through a shredder. But that's what it is.
A Simple Answer
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 07:46 ET by diegobass13I want to underline a point you made in your post - God doesn't hate LGBT persons (and neither do those of us who are routinely labeled "bigots" by the so-called liberals), although God, and the rest of us, do have issues with some of their choices, their behaviors. On the other hand, the left DOES hate us for having the courage to stand by and speak out on our convictions. The best they can respond, when faced with the truth, the facts, is to say that we'll all grow old and die and then they will win. Of course, they're growing old, and dying, at the same rate as us... and even faster if you consider they're aborting many of their kids.
Which explains why they're in such a hurry to indoctrinate ours, by the way.
~Hack is back!
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 08:47 ET by choselife3xSo sorry I missed him and his lame@ss attempt at a Shakespeare paraphrase.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
attgirl... It never made
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:31 ET by Clear thinkerattgirl...
It never made any sense to me. Those on the right that live by moral standards and principles get thrashed as the evil ones. And the evil, anything goes crowd, is applauded.
What's wrong with that picture???
Valuable Commodity?
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Mormons
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:40 ET by diegobass13Never met a Mormon I didn't like... but you know, I have to admit that though they're wonderful people normally, I think South Park got it just about right.
Well ain't that just special
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:44 ET by BKeyserSo the gay guy gets a big applause for what, being gay? Is that why Heath Ledger won? Sympathy for accidentally mixing mutliple drugs in excessive amounts to help handle the stress of being extraordinarily wealthy admidst filming a movie sure to increase his wealth? Or maybe he didn't get the memo that gay marriage is just around the corner...
I still don't get why they stay... Can't homosexuals get married in the Netherlands? And isn't pot leagal there? And isn't most of Europe either fully socialized or at least a (now) small step ahead of the US? Just go! You'll be adored there! You can get skunked and marry another guy all in the same afternoon! We'll all be happier!
At least the SAG has refused the latest contract offer- maybe they'll strike for a couple of years. Would it surprise you if they didn't make any movies (or the tons of money that go with them) for the next couple of years as the Obamination raises taxes on the wealthy to levels not seen since Jimbo the peanut farmer?
I know- I sound angry. I'm not really; I'm just tired of glorified nerds patting themselves on the back for "pretending" for a living and expecting the adoration of the peons (me) they so readily dismiss.
Liberal America seems to be on your side as well...
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 03:21 ET by ImAllRightMy significant other, her brother, her mother, oh hell! her whole family are liberals representing every geneation of them and even they are sick of Hollywood's love affair with itself.
All of my S.O's girlfriends share the same thoughts as well, and all are liberal (and she has ALOT of friends).
Hollywood at this point is seemingly going to unite the average folks from both sides of the political spectrum against it as everyone whose pocket book is hurting just has no room to tolerate seeing thousand upon thoudans dollar dresses and shoes doled out for free to egotistical fools trot them out for one night and then return them.
The fact that they still give out swag bags isnt a liberal or conservative thing, it something that everyone IS sick of.
Oh, and if the gay guy wants to say a gay pride sentence then I don't care, good for him that he's made it far enough in his profession that he even got the opportunity to do it.
That, to me, is what the American Dream should be, regardless of whether I believe in that certain individual's message.
"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." - Ronald Reagan
Dustin Lance Black was out
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:45 ET by SterlingDustin Lance Black was out of place when he started his preaching on national television. No one wants to hear this. With this being said though I believe this whole gay marriage thing will be a victory to conservatism. It is inevitable that the gay activists will get the state of California to overrule the will of the people- but this will bring back a debate on the law of nullification. Whereas states can nullify federal law- mark my words on this.
Probably right, but see it through
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:50 ET by diegobass13Yes, it's relatively certain that the most overturned court in the world will likely usurp the clearly expressed will of the people again. But if they do the USSC will hopefully set things right.
Hollywood suffers from an
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:49 ET by KevroyHollywood suffers from an epidemic of unwarranted self regard.
There's been quite the rash
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:53 ET by balboaThere's been quite the rash of award shows over the past 20 years or so. Heck, country music has like 5 different shows.
Perhaps we'll see the tide turn back the other way. Afterall, ratings are not very good for any of these shows. I'm a big believer in the cyclical nature of society. So since the economy stinks, maybe the "instant celebrity" as well as paparazzi nature of news will go away.
boa... I'm with you here...I
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:03 ET by bigtimerboa...
I'm with you here...I hope your cynical nature proves correct in this regard.
(to borrow from MLK) I have
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:08 ET by balboa(to borrow from MLK)
I have a dream, that one day, we'll look back at the days of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, and say..."What _was_ that?"
Poor children.
Sun, 02/22/2009 - 23:58 ET by Mike BrattonAnd I feel sorry for the young people Black was addressing, as well.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Because you don't think
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:01 ET by balboaBecause you don't think young gay people should be hopeful?
Hopeful?
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:05 ET by Sergeant ROCKHopeful for what?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
I don't know maybe they
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 04:41 ET by amiesI don't know maybe they hope for not living in fear? Not having to
worry about the reaction of their parents when they come out? Not
having to wonder if someone is going to smash their face off the ground
just because they don't like the fact they are gay? Not running the
risk of being ostracised by everyone they know because few who they
fall in love with?
But since you all believe its a choice and a sin this would all be self inflicted?
What you talkin' about?
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 07:51 ET by diegobass13Living in fear... of what?
Sorry, their parents are going to have that reaction no matter what happens, and you know it. What a nutty argument!
Actually, the LGBT community is the one that I worry about - they're the ones who are, in my eyes, most likely to turn up the volume until someone gets hurt. Look, there are idiots who will "smash their face off the ground" for a million reasons, the least among them "because they are gay". That's the way some people are.
I don't ostracize a person just because I find out they're gay. Do you? Where do you get these silly ideas? See, this is what I see all the time from your ilk - your ideas, they're YOUR IDEAS, not mine, not "ours". Yours.
Think about that.
Imaginary Fear
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 08:59 ET by Sergeant ROCKExactly. Their in your face tactics invites conflict. Fear? Their biggest fear is that gnawing feeling that something is not right. Which explains any number of behavioral problems related to this one. Have you ever heard the term 'bug chasers'? Yeah, it's a normal behavior all right.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Pardon me for asking a question with a question...
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 16:59 ET by Mike Bratton...but why should people with a sexual deviancy, regardless of their ages, base their hope on their sexual deviancy?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Bill Maher is a worm -- a
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:03 ET by Richard RomanoBill Maher is a worm -- a slimy, goofy, moronic troglodyte who thinks his self-importance gives him the right to tell the rest of us how to believe and live.
Maher, please please please - STFU!
Maher
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:07 ET by Sergeant ROCKmay be a worm, but he's the left's worm. And he represents a large portion of them.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Yippeee, Obama won, and so
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:12 ET by Clear thinkerYippeee, Obama won, and so did immorality! Barf Bag please.
What’s The Problem?
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
I'm really vomiting
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:51 ET by attorneygirl"You commie homo loving sons of guns."
Sean Penn knows what we think of him and Hollywood. He is a commie homo lover. Yup.
I've had it.
I'm vomiting on Hollywood and their commie homo loving fags.
Why does Hollywood love commies and gays? I don't understand it?
What's wrong with being a red-blooded American who owns a gun, salutes an officer, respects the flag, honors the fallen, worships at church, and respects our Constitution.
Here it is: Gay marriage.
I've had it.
Screw the gays.
I've had it.
Sean needs to move to Cuba.
I've had it.
Why are we giving this commie gay lover time?
Now it's an "elegant man" president? I'm really vomiting.
Obama is another socialist--yes, I would argue a communist.
Now DON'T vomit....
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:28 ET by TexndocIn case you didn't know - I've noted a pattern after watching the Academy Awards for years. Big mouths tend to get up there and think they say profound things and the world stops spinning. But guess what, after tomorrows talk about how bad the show was, it will be forgotten by Tuesday. I have to agree with Penn that The Messiah is indeed their dream President and like the ratings for this and previous year's Oscar shows I think Mr. Messiah's are going to be going down....down....down.
I'm really vomiting
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:51 ET by attorneygirl"You commie homo loving sons of guns."
Sean Penn knows what we think of him and Hollywood. He is a commie homo lover. Yup.
I've had it.
I'm vomiting on Hollywood and their commie homo loving fags.
Why does Hollywood love commies and gays? I don't understand it?
What's wrong with being a red-blooded American who owns a gun, salutes an officer, respects the flag, honors the fallen, worships at church, and respects our Constitution.
Here it is: Gay marriage.
I've had it.
Screw the gays.
I've had it.
Sean needs to move to Cuba.
I've had it.
Why are we giving this commie gay lover time?
Now it's an "elegant man" president? I'm really vomiting.
Obama is another socialist--yes, I would argue a communist.
Nothing wrong with the
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:54 ET by balboaNothing wrong with the American you described. But there shouldn't be anything wrong with being a gay American and wanting to get married, either.
Hollywood thinks we're morons
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:29 ET by attorneygirlI agree with you.
We work our butts off building businesses, raising kids, paying taxes, voting, and we have to listen to this bull crap? I've had it.
Not one idiot on that Oscar broadcast represents who I am.
Who made you listen to
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 09:45 ET by JasonCWho made you listen to it? Get off the cross already. A guy wins an award for something he wrote and is being honored by his peers. He makes a mildly political statement (Oh no! Equal rights! So controversial!), and this is somehow infringing on your right to construct some sort of uber-patriotic illusion that only your preferred lifestyle is the morally correct one? Complete and utter bullshit. No one held a gun to your head to watch or read about the Oscars. And if Hollywood is really so out of touch with "Real America," as every other poster on this site claims whenever an actor deigns to comment on anything, then you haven't got a thing to worry about, right? As far as I can tell, you're just annoyed that someone who happens to have a different opinion than you could possibly be successful enough to be given a forum in which he has a chance to make a statement at all.
Well at least your rant of a post let you dredge up the courage to call gay people fags, right? I bet you're feeling great to have displayed your righteous Christian tolerance for all of NB to see.
Jason, Since you ans bal
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 10:50 ET by cocodrieSince you and Bal think homosexual marriage is so great why don't you two elope and tie the knot? Jesus Loves You
Baker's Dozen
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 10:54 ET by Sergeant ROCKThere's a dispute over who will be the brownie queen.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Wow, classy. I can't
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:13 ET by JasonCWow, classy.
I can't speak for Bal, but I'm not gay; yet I still support gay rights and gay marriage, and will call people out when they toss around epithets like 'fag'. Puzzling, eh?
Clarification
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:18 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo then, you are what they call a homophile. Noted.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Definition #2 anyway. Is
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:24 ET by JasonCDefinition #2 anyway. Is that something I should be ashamed of?
~I'd just like to put this out there to end all doubt
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 12:46 ET by choselife3xI happen to know that JasonC is married to a wonderful lady.
On the other hand, I don't know nuthin' about bal. ;)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Let me put this as politely as I can.
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 17:22 ET by Mike Bratton"I happen to know that JasonC is married to a wonderful lady."
Let's compare that information wtih Jason's "I still support gay rights and gay marriage" nonsense. We can discuss later the idiocy of imparting special, over-and-above rights to people who orient their lives around a sexual deviancy, but let me ask this: How much can the institution of marriage mean to someone who has no problem with diluting it to the point of insignificance?
I don't mean to discuss particular individuals, but when you make yourself and your opinions a talking point, as Jason has, you invite examination. The two statements--your infomation and his position--are mutually exclusive.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
In your world.
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 17:33 ET by balboaIn your world.
Is that the best retort you have at your disposal?
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 18:02 ET by Mike BrattonSeriously?
Is there anything that's objectively right or objectively wrong in your world, or is everything malleable, and beholden to your viewpoint?
If so-called "gay marriage" is a good idea, then traditional marriage is a discriminatory joke. If the traditional, heterosexual foundation of marriage is valid, then so-called "gay marriage" is an obscene attempt to legitimize sexual deviancy.
There is no middle ground, balboa.
In anyone's world.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
I didn't put myself into
Sun, 03/01/2009 - 20:43 ET by JasonCI didn't put myself into the dialogue. Someone else did; I simply denied the childish accusation that because I am pro-gay marriage I must be gay myself.
Other than that, it's pretty simple. I don't see how the relationships and/or legal status of other couples bears on my own in any way. That is the position of insecure people who let others' happiness and lifestyle pose a threat to their own.
Is there anything that's objectively right or objectively wrong in
your world, or is everything malleable, and beholden to your viewpoint?
You contradict yourself. Anything that is right or wrong in someone's world is necessarily beholden to their viewpoint. How else is one to ascertain what they believe is right or wrong? How can this possibly be objective?
Who made you the arbiter of what is or is not deviant? Who are you to tell me what my relationship is like, or what I ought to believe, based on a simple statement that those who are of a different sexual persuasion are entitled to the same legally-sanctioned monogamous arrangement that I enjoy as a straight person?
jase
Sun, 03/01/2009 - 20:58 ET by botgone step at a time:
That is the position of insecure people who let others' happiness and lifestyle pose a threat to their own.
do you care to defend this bit of assertion by yourself? Do you know these people in order to make this judgement? Seems you are doing the very thing you're complaining about
Allow me to quote Bratton
Sun, 03/01/2009 - 23:32 ET by JasonCAllow me to quote Bratton verbatim:
How much can the institution of marriage mean to someone who has no problem with diluting it to the point of insignificance?
What is this if not an assertion that I ought to regard gay marriage as a threat to my own straight marriage? What am I missing here?
Then let me quote you, Jason.
Mon, 03/02/2009 - 18:10 ET by Mike BrattonQuoting thusly, and like so: "I can't speak for Bal, but I'm not gay; yet I still support gay rights and gay marriage, and will call people out when they toss around epithets like 'fag'. Puzzling, eh?"
Rather than a simple response that the insinuation was off-base, we got to hear how awfully cool you are in supporting the so-called "rights" of people with sexual deviancies to pretend that the institution of marriage can legitimize their deviancies.
Yes, Jason, you insinuated yourself into the discussion.
To answer your question, you're missing a lot, actually. I wasn't referring to so-called "gay marriage" as a threat to your marriage--it is a threat to the institution of marriage in general, threatening to dilute it into meaninglessness. Again, you personalize discussions of general ideas and insist on making yourself part of the discussion at hand, then complain when your observations are found to be faulty.
As for attempting to toss disparagements in my direction, Jason, your disparagements about my being one of those "insecure people who let others' happiness and lifestyle pose a threat to their own" couldn't be more wrong had you actually put thought into your response. As has been observed elsewhere, your response was hypocritical.
You also said this: "You contradict yourself. Anything that is right or wrong in someone's world is necessarily beholden to their viewpoint. How else is one to ascertain what they believe is right or wrong? How can this possibly be objective?"
I don't know if you were intentionally playing semantics here or just didn't grasp the phraseology, but people can have a worldview in which their personal opinions and compulsions don't have final sway--where they acknowledge the existence of external, objective truth outside of their own personal predilections.
For a subjectivist, I can change their personal perception of what he believes to be right or wrong with a single blow of a ball peen hammer. On the other hand, no one can alter objective truth by doing the same thing to someone who defers to objective standards of right and wrong.
And though you chose not to answer the question, I'll ask it again. Is there anything that's objectively right or objectively wrong in your world, or is everything malleable, and beholden to your viewpoint?
You asked another question, "Who made you the arbiter of what is or is not deviant?"
No one did, Jason, and I have not set myself up as one, in case you hadn't noticed.
And you asked this follow-up herring... er, I mean question: "Who are you to tell me what my relationship is like, or what I ought to believe, based on a simple statement that those who are of a different sexual persuasion are entitled to the same legally-sanctioned monogamous arrangement that I enjoy as a straight person?"
I observed that there was a cognitive dissonance between insisting that so-called "gay rights and gay marriage" were good things and that you personally preferred traditional marriage. You used neutral terminology in an effort to equate people who desire their sexual deviancies to be legitimized by the institution of marriage with people who adhere to the traditional parameters of marriage.
Equivocations don't change facts, Jason. At the end of the day, marriage is far more than a "legally-sanctioned monogamous relationship," and I'm betting you understand that. If you don't, go tell your wife how you define marriage; her response should clear things up for you. And that will tell you what your relationship is like.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
You talk a good game, I'll
Mon, 03/02/2009 - 21:44 ET by JasonCYou talk a good game, I'll give you that.
Rather than a simple response that the insinuation was off-base, we got
to hear how awfully cool you are in supporting the so-called "rights"
of people with sexual deviancies to pretend that the institution of
marriage can legitimize their deviancies.
First of all, your accusations about inserting myself into the discussion are bullshit. I'll ask again; how does one express one's position on a topic without necessarily betraying what he does or does not support. On that note, I don't regard homosexuality as deviancy; and I don't recall saying that gay marriage legitimizes anything. I don't believe gay people have any shortcomings that need legitimizing.
I wasn't referring to so-called "gay marriage" as a threat to your
marriage--it is a threat to the institution of marriage in general,
threatening to dilute it into meaninglessness.
What's the difference? Besides which, my point may have been phrased in the first person but its assertion is universal. The only quantifiable meaningfulness of a marriage is the legal status it confers. Everything else is what the two people make of it.
As for attempting to toss disparagements in my direction, Jason, your
disparagements about my being one of those "insecure people who let
others' happiness and lifestyle pose a threat to their own" couldn't be
more wrong had you actually put thought into your response. As has
been observed elsewhere, your response was hypocritical.
Demonstrate why it was incorrect, much less hypocritical. I've been accused of hypocrisy by conservative blowhards who don't know how to compose an argument more times than I can remember. Most of the them at least make a hamfisted attempt to show how it's the case. But anyway, enlighten me; you believe that homosexual marriage poses a threat to marriage in general - and this somehow doesn not encompass your own? You're just the watchdog for every other heterosexual marriage in the world that is threatened by gay marriage. Brilliant.
Is there anything that's objectively right or objectively wrong in
your world, or is everything malleable, and beholden to your viewpoint?
I did answer the question. Your question contains an obvious fallacy. Regarding something as objectively right or wrong quite necessarily involves your viewpoint or perpsective. Any "objective truth" outside of observable science and mathematics requires a cognitive perspective to bestow it with the label of "objective truth." Observe, for instance, that certain Islamic extremists believe it is an "objective truth" that the U.S. is evil. You or I might find that idea repugnant. So how do you justify labeling homosexuality as inherently, objectively deviant? [Pre-emptive rebuttal: "Cause the Bible tells me so" doesn't cut it. I'll respect your belief that the Bible is inherently right and good, but you cannot demonstrate that it's anything more than a man-made anthology of writings and allegories, something that we should all take as objective truth any more than I can say the same about Hobbes' Leviathan or Smith's Wealth of Nations.]
I observed that there was a cognitive dissonance between insisting that
so-called "gay rights and gay marriage" were good things and that you
personally preferred traditional marriage.
First of all, I never said they were "good things," which would imply that they somehow benefit humanity as a whole. But it is an issue of individual rights - like gun ownership, drug prohibition, and so forth - and therefore I support it. Your "observation" regarding cognitive dissonance makes no logical sense. If I order the filet at a restaurant, and am quite happy with my dinner, shall I declare that the guy across the restaurant shouldn't be allowed to order the duck confit? Nope. I guess I'm just not enough of an arrogant ass to believe that my personal preference is necessarily better than anyone else's.
At the end of the day, marriage is far more than a "legally-sanctioned monogamous relationship,"
Perhaps. And this is why "Civil Unions" are a good first step. But since marriage is one step further, and apparently better, gay couples should have access to it as well. Thank you for helping me to rebut all those who say things like "but they have civil unions, why can't they be happy with that?"
A few things, Jason.
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 00:12 ET by Mike Bratton1) When you start cursing, it's a glow-in-the-dark clue that you don't have anything substantive to say.
2) When you attack Christianity, and those of us who are Christians, it's a well-nigh radioactive clue that you, seriously, don't have anything substantive to say. Never mind that I haven't referenced Christianity once in my remarks--you had to bring it up, and operate under the self-deception that you'd slapped it back down, all in the space of one set of brackets.
3) You said, and I quote, that you "support gay rights and gay marriage," and followed that up by insisting that you haven't identified those issues as "good things." Since it can be considered axiomatic that people support those things they consider to be good and/or right, this brings up the question: How many things that you consider to be negative, deleterious, nasty, and/or downright evil do you support, then, Jason?
4) You operate, evidently, under the notion that "I don't regard" and "I don't believe" are totemistic chants that save you the effort of actually having to engage in discussion of issues. They aren't, just as dispensing vulgarities and personal disparagements don't reinforce your notion of being oh-so-tolerant. If you can't follow a debate through without defaulting to such behaviors, don't start in the first place.
--Mike
P.S.: What did your wife have to say when you told her about how you define marriage?
www.thebrattonreport.com
Well, you haven't argued a
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 00:51 ET by JasonCWell, you haven't argued a thing.
I use the word 'ass' in a long post so I've discredited myself? Well done. That's about as solid as NBers who think a typo or misspelled word torpedoes the validity of an entire post.
I insulted Christians? Actually, not. Your assertions were obviously hinting at Christianity or some other system of faith. My point is simply that you can't prove that Christian principles are in line with objective truth. If you can, have at it.
I believe I explained in perfectly clear terms what I meant by "good." Is marriage ever, gay or straight, inherently a "good thing"? Of course not. Likewise, I don't believe gun ownership is inherently good, in that it doesn't benefit society at large. But I support it as an individual right. Did I stutter the first time?
You ignored all of my arguments in favor of claiming that:
-I swore and thus betrayed lack of argument (which makes no sense)
-I insulted Christianity (which I did not)
-I argued in the first person, phrasing things in terms of my own perspective - after your post specifically requested that I do so!
I mean really, according to which classical philosopher or rhetorical theorist are those considered argumentative fallacies? Weak.
So, either address my actual arguments or stop posting. Perhaps you could begin by giving me an actual, material reason for why gay people should be denied marriage rights, and then maybe explain why you feel you are in a position to decry some people's sexual preferences as deviant.
As to your p.s., I'm not going to discuss my wife here, and I wish cl3x hadn't brought it up. But did you actually read what I say about my definition of marriage in my previous post? That, to me, is a pretty reasonable understanding of it.
Actually, Jason
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 01:10 ET by RESTLESS 1I think it was the "bullshit" bombs you threw out.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
§ Sorry Jason...Ummm...U Lose!!!
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 03:01 ET by TheSterMike, RT...
Nice.
Ster.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Ah, I missed the BS word.
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 08:43 ET by JasonCAh, I missed the BS word. My bad. So how does that change my actual arguments? And do you, Ster, have a thing to add here, or just pats on the back for MB?
Okay Jason
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 00:38 ET by RESTLESS 1I have stayed out of this because I think the arguments on both sides are much ado about nothing.
That said, I don't see the great discrimination in gay unions being called "civil unions". IMHO, heterosexual "marriages" by the state are nothing more than "civil unions" either, and I was married at the court house, so I would be included in that. At the basest level, state sanctioned marriages are little more than a contract. Rights of estate, power of attorney, ect... are conferred on the spouse, for a fee. I don't see why it would be any different for homosexual couples.
You see, the big differnece is that when a man and a woman marry, changing the definition of marriage is not necessary. There is no discrimination, as with a civil union, all rights conferred on married couples are conferred on the partners, again, for a fee.
So, in the end, I don't see the big deal.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I take all of your
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 09:00 ET by JasonCI take all of your points. Nonetheless, I was replying to MB's stance that marriage is "so much more" than a legal arrangement. Personally, I thought my idea that what it is beyond that is nothing more or less than what the wedded couple makes of it was pretty accurate. Some people seem to find this concept offputting and prefer to ascribe meaning in the very fact of a "marriage" as opposed to a "civil union." And my point is simply that if there is a material difference, then denying the former and allowing the latter (in some states) as a consolation prize reeks of discrimination.
I live in the one state that currently allows unencumbered gay marriage, and I can assure you that the commonwealth is not falling apart as a result; I'm not saying it isn't falling apart, but it certainly isn't attributable to gay marriage...
Yes, but
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 13:53 ET by RESTLESS 1The "so much more" is ascribed by the religious and cultural aspects of marriage. Marriage, in the "so much more" sense is a religious ceremony. Religions are free to discriminate to their hearts' content. If a homosexual follows the Bible, then he/she knows that they can never be truly married in the religious sense. I have no problem with keeping "marriage" a religious term. As long as civil unions confer the privileges on gay partners that marriage confers on spouses, then there is nothing discriminatory about the difference in terms.
If it makes you feel better, I am all for all unions outside of religious ceremonies for one man and one woman, being termed "civil unions". Withouth the religious aspect, that's all it is.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I'm not here to argue.
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 02:52 ET by Mike BrattonYou are, and thanks for sharing that.
And did I mention the word "ass?" No, I referenced your penchant for labeling things with which you disagree "BS" in lieu of actual discussion. People tend to do that because they don't have any other response.
You didn't insult Christians? Hmmm.
"Get off the cross already."
"...this is somehow infringing on your right to construct some sort of uber-patriotic illusion that only your preferred lifestyle is the morally correct one?"
"Cause the Bible tells me so" doesn't cut it. I'll respect your belief that the Bible is inherently right and good, but you cannot demonstrate that it's anything more than a man-made anthology of writings and allegories..."
"I guess I'm just not enough of an arrogant ass to believe that my personal preference is necessarilybetter than anyone else's."
"This idea that it poses some sort of threat - the very idea of believing you are threatened by something that obviously does not threaten you - is clearly borne of insecurity. Or paranoia or neuroses or histrionics; call it what you wish."
The rhetorical weakness, Jason, is in your lying and obfuscating about what you do and don't say. (Or is lying not on your list of fallacies?) As well as in not being able to say in real life what you say here. I'm still waiting to hear how your wife responds to your definition of marriage.
If you want to discuss, great. It would be a refreshing change of pace.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
I am discussing. You
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 08:49 ET by JasonCI am discussing. You believe that gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, are deviant. I strongly disagree. Thus, we are having an argument.
I'm not insulting Christians. Not intentionally anyhow. I support their right to believe and practice what they wish. But if they are going to use faith-based beliefs to comment on culture and social policy, they should be able to back it up. And simply stating that their beliefs are inherently best and ought to be abided by everyone else is arrogant, dare I say 'un-American' nonsense. If you disagree, say so. But you can't just say 'You insulted Christians, so I win.'
You say I'm lying and obfuscating, but all I'm doing is rebutting an argument that comes from a Christian perspective; and I highly disagree that that means I'm just blithely insulting Christianity. "Get off the cross already" is the only snide thing among the excerpts
you listed and is a pretty common metonym to suggest someone is acting
like a martyr.
Interesting.
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 14:26 ET by Mike BrattonWhen you have facts presented to you, you deny most of them outright. And you continue to validate the observations by "daring" to suggest that those of us who are Christians are arrogant and un-American.
Jason, this isn't about winning and losing, so it's disingenuous of you to make the suggestion. Your worldview is inconsistent, and does not withstand even the slightest scrutiny; you can't even share your opinion on the subject at hand with your own family. That should trouble you.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
What facts are you
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 14:39 ET by JasonCWhat facts are you referring to?
You claim homosexuality is deviant. According to what criteria?
You haven't touched my commentary on the illusory nature of objective truths. Here are some objective truths:
2+2=4.
When water drops to a temperature which corresponds to what we define as 32 degrees F or 0 degrees C, it freezes.
Increased amplitude of a soundwave results in higher volume.
"Homosexuality is bad" does not fit this standard. Nor does the idea that homosexuality threatens the institution of marriage. These are subjective notions, and you have not adequately argued for their validity.
I did not say Christians are arrogant. Please reread. I said it is exceedingly arrogant to believe that one's system of belief - divine or secular - is inherently 'correct' and ought to be inflicted upon others in matters of no personal consequence. And I'll stand by that.
As for my family, my beliefs on the matter are known and generally agreed upon. Happy? I thought I'd made it clear that I didn't wish to discuss that here one way or another as it is completely beside the point. It only ever came up because of someone else's infantile assertion that only a gay person could support gay rights.
Oh, look. Jason brought fish. In a barrel.
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 15:29 ET by Mike Bratton"According to what criteria?"
According to psychological criteria (before the APA got lobbied into changing its stance based on precisely no persuasive data), and according to physiological criteria. If I have to get more specific on that second part, that will be unfortunate.
"You haven't touched my commentary on the illusory nature of objective truths."
If I may be blunt, try making some worth discussing. Two plus two equals four, but only in the realm of integers. Water doesn't always freeze at precisely 32 degress Fahrenheit. The environment in which a sound wave is produced has as much to do with the resulting volume as mere amplitude. So far, you're 0-for-3 in your "objective truths." Plus, you haven't admitted that your malleable, subjective view of the world is one hammer-blow to the temple away from a radical change.
"Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy" does, on the other hand and despite your protestations, fit the standard of objective truth.
And since I've never specifically defined homosexuality or lesbianism as "bad," your response is invalid. Since they are both sexual deviancies, legitimizing them via the institution of marriage is a misguided notion. It is harmful to those engaged in the deviancy, and renders the institution meaningless. There is no benefit and multiple avenues of damage for those who engage in such deviant behavior--not to mention the damage to any children who might foolishly be allowed to be adopted into such an unhealthy environment.
Yes, you called those of us who are Christians not only arrogant, but un-American. Backpedaling and retrofitting now only makes your case even weaker, so please don't deny the evidently obvious.
I do agree that it is unsophisticated to suggest that only homosexuals advocate "equal rights" for homosexuals. Others who do so, while not sharing the sexual deviancy, do share the insulting notion that sexual predilection is on comparable footing with race and gender as a legitimate equal-rights issue.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Even if I were to concede
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 16:15 ET by JasonCEven if I were to concede that homosexuality is a deviancy - based on what the APA contended almost 40 years ago - that does little to change the fact that it is not my business or anyone else's to tell people that they shouldn't engage in it and that they shouldn't be entitled to equal legal status. And besides which, you are clearly ascribing an inherent negativity to homosexuality-as-deviancy despite the fact that deviancy is merely a behavior that is considered to be outside of cultural norms. Indeed, homosexuality is not the 'norm', gay people are in the minority; all the more reason they should have the same rights as the rest of us.
2 and 2 are integers. Water that is at or below 32 degrees will eventually freeze if that temperature is maintained (I didn't say instantly). And amplitude is the determining force of volume; the environment simply causes an reverberation effect which causes the ear to receive it as being louder...besides which, I didn't even say it was the only cause. Fine, in a vacuum, amplitude determines volume.
I don't know why you would want to pick on these things since you're the one arguing that far less observable phenomena also fit into the easy rubric of "objectivity". If you're going to get picky about integers vs. real numbers in simple arithmetic, I'd think you'd be far too thoughtful to think that something as complex as homosexuality is "objectively wrong".
What physiological criteria? Because they can't reproduce? Better start railing against sterile couples, oral sex, condoms (all birth control in fact) masturbation, and couples who simply choose not to have children. Are they as physiologically deviant as homosexuals.
It is harmful to those engaged in the deviancy, and renders the institution meaningless.
For hopefully the last time, explain why this is the case.
It is harmful to those engaged in the deviancy
Inherently so? How do you support this? Is there no potential emotional or physical danger in heterosexual relationships?
not to mention the damage to any children who might foolishly be allowed to be adopted into such an unhealthy environment.
Why is exposure to homosexuals inherently damaging? More so than being in an abusive "traditional" family?
I do agree that it is unsophisticated to suggest that only homosexuals advocate "equal rights" for homosexuals.
Sweet, we agree. Let's go out on this positive note, as I am tired of repeating myself and we are posting at irreconcilable cross-purposes.
Your attempts at nuance are... interesting.
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 19:42 ET by Mike BrattonYou avoid the notion that there are time when adding two of something to two of something might yield two of something new; you actually had to be reminded that "2 + 2 = 4" is only objectively true in mathematics.
You went from what freezing at 32 degrees Fahrenheit to "at or below," with qualifications. Again, your suggestion of an "objective truth" wasn't as objective as you originally made it out to be.
Hey, you didn't even get sound waves right. But I digress.
There are objective absolutes in this world--yet you ignore those examples which are low-hanging fruit. One of those is that sexual deviance (regardless of the brand) is always wrong, never right, and something that people should be helped to address and overcome, not helped to indulge and inflict upon the society at large.
If you don't understand the physical hazards involved in sexual deviancy, I suggest you speak to a parent or mentor, since that's something that you should have learned about a long time ago.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Your arguments are
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 21:18 ET by JasonCYour arguments are absolutely pathetic. You're the one who wrote out "two plus two" as words. I wrote out the arabic numerals. Which are integers. It's pretty sad how you fixate upon criticizing the inexactness of my phrasing concerning observable phenomena, and then turn around and claim that something as clearly subjective as the inherent right or wrongness of so-called sexual deviancy is in fact cut and dry. You're making my point for me, and in a perverse way I appreciate it.
sexual deviance (regardless of the brand) is always wrong, never right
For at least the 6th time: prove it. Oh wait, you can't, because it's merely your unsubstantiated subjective opinion.
If you don't understand the physical hazards involved in sexual
deviancy, I suggest you speak to a parent or mentor, since that's
something that you should have learned about a long time ago.
You're a riot. You accuse me of poor argumentation and then can't even rebut my simple point that heterosexuality has the same potential to be damaging as homosexuality does. All you do is pass the buck and tell me to go talk to some hypothetical parents and mentors. Newsflash: There is not a single physical danger associated with homosexual intercourse that isn't also associated with heterosexuality...
...except, of course, for being assaulted and/or killed by violent homophobic troglodytes just for being gay.
"Newsflash: There is not a
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 12:18 ET by Mike Bratton"Newsflash: There is not a single physical danger associated with homosexual intercourse that isn't also associated with heterosexuality..."
Interesting that the CDC disagrees with your propaganda, as do other health organizations.
Individuals engaging in homosexual behavior are hundreds of times more likely to contract any of a variety of sexually-transmitted diseases, including AIDS/HIV. They are also at heightened risk of developing various types of cancers.
"...except, of course, for being assaulted and/or killed by violent homophobic troglodytes just for being gay."
Yes, I was just watching on the news a story about how homosexuals and lesbians have been ordered to stay indoors after dark, due to the staggering increase in roaming gangs of VHTs (Violent Homophobic Troglodytes) crawling from their caves as the sun sets each evening. Why, just last evening I was talking with a friend about a home-improvement show I was watching on television, when roughly twenty or so members of a VHT gang surrounded us. Thankfully, I was able to explain to them that the show I had been watching was "Man Caves," and they moved on.
I still shudder.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
There are objective
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 21:27 ET by balboaThere are objective absolutes in this world--yet you ignore those examples which are low-hanging fruit. One of those is that sexual deviance (regardless of the brand) is always wrong, never right, and something that people should be helped to address and overcome, not helped to indulge and inflict upon the society at large.
According to what, again? Where are you getting this?
Even if I were to concede
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 19:48 ET by Clear thinkerEven if I were to concede that homosexuality is a deviancy
Just so you don't have to think about it, I will help you out with this one... 'homosexuality is a deviancy'! Glad we cleared that up.
Yes We Can
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Hey, Clear!
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 20:33 ET by Mike BrattonYou are nothing if not thoughtful.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
According to Webster,
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 21:15 ET by JasonCAccording to Webster, yes. Homosexuality is not "the norm". Congrats.
As to any significance beyond that: as Mike helpfully pointed out, it hasn't been considered a deviancy by the major professional organization of psychologists for decades. So, in fact, I guess that's just like, your opinion, man.
What I "helpfully pointed out," Jason...
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 10:34 ET by Mike Bratton...was that homsexuality was, indeed, considered a sexual deviancy until that definition was changed through political lobbying, not through any substantive analysis. Consequently, that "change" was not something "we can believe in."
At best, Jason, you didn't comprehend what I shared; at worst, you lied about what I shared. Please--in the future, bring your best to the conversation.
www.thebrattonreport.com
And let me address one bit of Jason's propaganda.
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 11:52 ET by Mike BrattonOr, to be more precise, "the propaganda that so-called 'gay rights' groups have pumped out over the years into the minds and hearts of those more willing to receive it than to analyze it."
Quoting thusly, and like so, Jason brought forth this bit of boilerplate: "What physiological criteria? Because they can't reproduce? Better start railing against sterile couples, oral sex, condoms (all birth control in fact) masturbation, and couples who simply choose not to have children. Are they as physiologically deviant as homosexuals."
Since you're either ignoring, avoiding, or unaware of some facts, let's go over them, shall we?
Sterile heterosexual couples can, on occasion, reproduce, since "sterile" is often a relative term, which specifically refers to reproductive capability rather than orientation. On the other hand, it is a physical impossibility for homosexual activity to lead to reproduction. (Again, if you need specifics as to why that's so, you'll have to take that up with a parent or mentor.)
Your references to oral sex and masturbation are herrings, since they are, obviously, accoutrements to sexual identity rather than the cornerstone--and in both cases, sexual orientation is involved in the activity.
Condoms break, Jason.
And referencing birth control of any stripe is yet another herring, since it is exclusive to heterosexual activity. Even "choosing" not to have children is a decision related to heterosexuality--taking steps to avoid a natural result of sexual activity.
The only "railing" taking place around is from people such as yourself and balboa, who studiously avoid real discussion in favor of advancing aspects of a liberal agenda.
Even in the face of simple truth.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
you have not given any
Mon, 03/02/2009 - 22:57 ET by botgyou have not given any justification whatsoever for calling anyone insecure
perhaps you missed that?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I believe I have. The
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 00:48 ET by JasonCI believe I have. The argument being made is that other people being married threatens someone else's preferred, normative definition of marriage. In reality, of course, what other people do with regard to marriage or sexuality doesn't effect you or me or anyone else one bit. This idea that it poses some sort of threat - the very idea of believing you are threatened by something that obviously does not threaten you - is clearly borne of insecurity. Or paranoia or neuroses or histrionics; call it what you wish. I don't see what's so difficult about this.
you are a pundamaniac in a field of strawmen
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 01:02 ET by botgthe idea of a threat to the institution of marriage and the idea of my marriage being personally threatened are two separate issues entirely. the whole of the argument that Mike is making here seems to be from a position of security. Please point out his (or my) "paranoia or neuroses or histrionics" or i will be forced to conclude that there is indeed some "paranoia or neuroses or histrionics" going on here but it comes from you.
(well you were the one who equivicated a reasoned argument on the institution of marriage to an individual personal marriage)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
What comprises the
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 14:46 ET by JasonCWhat comprises the "institution of marriage" if not the people who get married? We're talking about individual people here and their entrance into a legal arrangement. As I said elsewhere, everything beyond the legality and the ceremonial accoutrements is up to the wedded couple to define and create. Marriage is not some sort of abstraction that just fell out of the sky. Its meaning is derived from individuals, and so I contend that a perceived threat to the institution is necessarily taken personally.
Just as, if Pfc. John Smith is watching TV and a liberal pundit insults the irony (the entire institution), Smith is likely going to take that to some extent as a personal jab, yes? Even though the liberal pundit did not single out Pfc. Smith?
So if somebody says, for whatever reason, that the institution of marriage is threatened by gay marriage (a claim which still has yet to be coherently explained here) why should I not take that to mean that the person making the claim sees his own position within that institution as also necessarily threatened?
Compromise.
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 14:47 ET by Mike BrattonI understand that the criminal justice system is about to be overhauled.
Starting next week, all crimes will be treated equally. New sentencing guidelines will be established, treating each and every crime the same--as a major felony. Driving ten miles over the speed limit will be treated the same as kidnapping. Spitting on the sidewalk will be treated the same as rape. Cheating on your taxes will be treated the same as drug dealing.
A government official, commenting on the changes, said that "it was time that we stopped cutting some criminals slack based on outdated, subjective, preconceived notions of crime. A crime is a crime is a crime, and we are tired of giving one class of criminal preference over another. Today's double-parker is tomorrow's gang-banger; today's graffiti artist is tomorrow's mass murderer."
In a related story, the word "justice" has lost all meaning.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Very clever. Now explain
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 15:02 ET by JasonCVery clever. Now explain to me how it pertains to the issue at hand.
Seriously?
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 19:28 ET by Mike BrattonYou're going to go with that response?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Not sure how treating a gay
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 20:58 ET by balboaNot sure how treating a gay marriage the same as you would treat a traditional marriage is the same as treating spitters and murderers the same.
Most anti-gay marriage
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 21:12 ET by JasonCMost anti-gay marriage posters fails to discern the difference between actions that have direct consequences for others (be it physical violence or tortious property damage) and actions that affect no one else. It would appear that Bratton is trying, in his way, to make some sort of point about my stating the obvious that what he is calling objective truth is, in fact, merely his preferred worldview. His inability, post after post, to argue anything more than "homosexuality is wrong and deviant" - with no "objective evidence" of any kind - betrays this beautifully.
yeah jason whatever
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 21:44 ET by botgi'm still waiting for you to defend your calling people you don't know insecure
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I already have.
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 22:35 ET by JasonCI already have.
Bal and Jason.
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 14:06 ET by Mike BrattonBefore I forget, balboa, I asked you a question awhile back that actually (if memory serves) pertains to the original article. Why should people with a sexual deviancy, regardless of their ages, base their hope on their sexual deviancy?
And Jason, while you may have "defended" what you said, you certainly didn't justify it, or even defend it to the point of it being considered a legitimate statement. There's a difference.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Is there anything
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 00:55 ET by balboaIs there anything objectively right or objectively wrong in my world?
Yes. Gay marriage ain't one of them.
Is everything malleable and beholden to my viewpoint?
No, despite the favorite slippery slope of the right to go from gay marriage to legalizing sex with farm animals.
"If so-called "gay marriage" is a good idea, then traditional marriage is a discriminatory joke."
That's ridiculous. Gay marriage does no such thing to traditional marriage unless YOU want it to. A man and a woman CAN still get married if gay people are allowed to.
Wrong, bal.
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 02:53 ET by Mike BrattonIf you have any objectivity, it would be refreshing to see what you consider objectively right (or wrong, for that matter).
And I don't have to follow some slope from homosexual or lesbian "marriage" to legalized bestiality. The next set of so-called "equal rights" being targeted with respect to marriage is age restrictions. Want to tell us how that slope wasn't slippery?
And you are wrong to suggest that deviant marriage doesn't damage traditional marriage. When you broaden the definition of a term so that it loses its meaning, it is no longer valuable.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Mike, so two women get
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 16:04 ET by balboaMike, so two women get married. Suddenly that makes all hetero marriages meaningless? REALLY? So all hetero weddings, in the face of gay marriage, should just throw their hands up and say, "Well, we had a good run" and go their separate ways?
What's objectively right? That's broad. Holding the door open for your elders? Common courtesy. Sportsmanship. Cooperation. Pursuit of excellence.
Bal, when do you offer cogent arguments?
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 18:29 ET by Mike BrattonI mean, I understand you're at a disadvantage when emotion's all you have to work with, but wow--you just didn't bring anything except some straw with which to build your straw-man.
The move to legitimize sexual deviancy via marriage isn't about "two women," and if you don't know that, you should. It's about millions of people insisting that their particular sexual deviancies need the normalization that only the institution of marriage can impart, and the effects that would have on the future of our society.
And, of course, you thought that referencing manners and good sportsmanship dismantle the notion of objective right and wrong?
Yeah. Not really.
Let's try this: Is murder objectively wrong? Or are you of the "he needed killin'" school?
How about abusing children? Do you know of any circumstances where you might think it virtuous to abuse a child, bal?
Mull those two over for awhile.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
I had no idea what you meant
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 19:01 ET by balboaI had no idea what you meant by objectively right, Mike. That's why I threw some things at the wall to see if they stuck. But I appreciate the standard "oh libs are all emotions" chestnut.
Murder and child abuse are wrong. Duh. But that seems to be the logic here: If I think gay marriage is OK, then I must be fuzzy on murder. Nice.
That's correct, bal--you had no idea.
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 10:23 ET by Mike BrattonYou were unable to come up with examples of things that are objectively wrong. I helped. You weren't particularly gracious after receiving my help.
And "the logic here" is that you, evidently, will agree that there are some things in this world that are objectively wrong, but won't agree that some deviancies fall into that category. Keep in mind, however, that you've already agreed one type of deviancy is objectively wrong.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
→ Objectively wrong.
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 10:31 ET by Cool ArrowI think men should be allowed to participate in women's sports. Think of all the better players out there who could break into the WNBA were it not for anatomical differences.
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
§ Hello BAL!! What's New??
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 03:05 ET by TheSterRemember me??
Long time!!
Ster.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
~Mike
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 18:22 ET by choselife3xCheck your PM's.
Expecting the government to 'fix' the economy is like trying to live off the leech stuck to your tush.
Wow, cocodrie. Hows' the 5th
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:33 ET by balboaWow, cocodrie. Hows' the 5th grade?
Good morning Bal
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:40 ET by cocodrieMuch better than the PRE-K You exhibit in your posts. I'm enjoying it very much, thank you.
Jesus Loves You
Are you kidding me?
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 12:36 ET by balboaAre you kidding me?
Bal, you can't be all that
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 12:44 ET by JasonCBal, you can't be all that surprised. The idea that two people who support gay marriage simply must be gay themselves - and be attracted to each other, at that - is of roughly the same intelligence caliber as the old "If you're so against the war why don't you move to Baghdad" admonishment.
True, Jason. I just expect
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 12:50 ET by balboaTrue, Jason. I just expect more from the "rational thinking and logic" crowd.
~So if we're the 'rational thinking and logic' crowd,
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 12:54 ET by choselife3xWhat does that make the left? ;-)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Well that's what you
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 13:02 ET by balboaWell that's what you _claim_. I'm just not sure this is proof of it.
Good evening Bal
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 15:52 ET by cocodrieI'm back for a short while. No harm meant.
It's just that both of you seem to have this obsession to defend homosexuality and all related acticities. You post a lot together and support one another in tandem.
What else do you expect from a fifth grader. In fifth grade we jump to conclusions quickly.
Jesus Loves You
ag... I just heard all of
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:55 ET by bigtimerag...
I just heard all of that too.
May he rot where the sun doesn't shine.
I'm sick too...there will most likely be blog posts here tomorrow...I caught the end of this because my husband just went to bed and this topic was being discussed....I wished I hadn't.
Another "I'm not gay" thread from NB
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 00:55 ET by nwahsThis is becomming a pattern.
Doth are protesting.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
A mind that alters, alters all
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:05 ET by garyganuToday's popular culture can no longer distinguish normal from abnormal, right from wrong, good from bad, heroic from cowardly, righteous from evil, positive from negative, that which promotes peace from that which promotes violence, love from dispassion, hate from restraint, etc.
They are confused by the media, universities, public schools, the arts and the government.
Most all forms of moral restraint are deemed to be oppressive and wrong.
Universal spiritual principles, that have stood the test of time,are mocked, disrespected, disregarded and hated.
My Views On Homosexuality
gg.... I'm just shaking
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:20 ET by bigtimergg....
I'm just shaking my head...thanks for the words in your post.
You speak for me.
What the heck do we do anymore....I cannot believe what I have seen take place in my lifetime in this country....and I'm no spring chicken.
Just the word respect is obsolete.
I am past lost at times with what I am witnessing...for me it is like, Oh my God...this can't be, just when you thought you had seen, heard it all....no matter the subject from congress to a talking head show, feel good type to political.
I about give up.
These Are The Same Group Of People
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:13 ET by Asian Conthat think Roman Polanski didn't do anything wrong. So he drugged a 14 year old girl and raped her. So what? His wife was killed by the Manson family so we should absolve him of all bad behavior. Right?
One sane judge in CA refused to dismiss his case until he comes back to answer his charges. Maybe we should send Dog The Bounty Hunter over there to get him.
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." - Thomas Jefferson
Dog the Bounty Hunter...now
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 09:36 ET by JasonCDog the Bounty Hunter...now there's a real American.
Translation
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 09:41 ET by Sergeant ROCKPolanski is the real American. Nice diversion.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Uhh...no? Actually he's
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 09:49 ET by JasonCUhh...no? Actually he's French and Polish.
Another Diversion..
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 09:55 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, he was here illegally once upon a time? Neverending visa perhaps?
Point is, you avoided the gist of his statement with your smarky comment about Dog. Typical liberal tactic - dodge and parry.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
So was bringing up Roman
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 10:10 ET by JasonCSo was bringing up Roman Polanski in the first place. But since you're apparently a moderator here now and have to call people out for the slightest off-topic infraction: My point was simply that if the point of many posters here is that Hollywood doesn't represent their personal American ideal, mulleted bear-mace-wielding professional vigilantes don't represent mine.
Consider the matter closed; I'd hate to keep offending you with further diversions from the matter at hand...that apparently no one can speak in public in favor of homosexual rights without being some sort of agenda-driving freak.
Nope.
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 10:22 ET by Sergeant ROCKJust pointing to your tired liberal tactic of dodge and parry. You liberals are always saying stuff like that.. lol. And yet, cannot explain the prominence of these people that don't represent you or liberalism. Yeah, right. Whereas, you cannot point to any evidence of similar prominence of the boogeyman 'vigilante' you describe. Moral equivalency argument, another tired liberal tactic.
So, how does bringing up Dog the Bounty Hunter promote your pro-homosexual argument again?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Wow. This post makes no
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 10:30 ET by JasonCWow. This post makes no sense at all, but I'll try.
I can't explain Dog's prominence? He apparently gives people something they enjoy watching. So what? Did I say he's unsuccessful? If that's the litmus test, then this argument is absurd, since most of the celebrities you guys like to decry at things like the Oscars are far more wealthy and successful than him. I just said the same thing about Dog that everyone else here is saying about various Oscar-winners.
Whereas, you cannot point to any evidence of similar prominence of the boogeyman 'vigilante' you describe
What?
So, how does bringing up Dog the Bounty Hunter promote your pro-homosexual argument again?
I didn't bring him up. I responded to a blithe reference to him with a joking post that was about 9 words long. I'm not the one diverting here; at this point, your sad attempts to call me out on...well, something, apparently, your sentence construction skills make it difficult to discern what...are derailing this thread.
Of course it doesn't - you're a liberal
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 10:51 ET by Sergeant ROCKLet me dumb it down for you jackass. Rather than address his point about who represents liberals, you make a smarky comment about his reference to Dog instead. A typical liberal tactic. Then, you try the moral equivalency argument. Basically, for every Polanski on the left, there's one on the right. Not true. Finally, some of you liberals make the claim that these Polanski-types don't represent you or liberalism and yet cannot explain their prominence in liberal circles.
You may now place your head back into your rectum.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
First of all I wasn't going
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:12 ET by JasonCFirst of all I wasn't going for moral equivalence. It was an offhand reply to an offhand post which seemed to imply that DtBH is representative of all-American virtue. I don't even know if that's what the original poster meant. Whatever.
I wasn't aware that being liberal requires one to take a stance on Roman Polanski. Frankly, I think you might be somewhat overstating the degree to which leftist politics are influenced by him. Maybe he's a driving force in some Hollywood and film buff circles, but I can quite honestly say he's never come into play one way or another in my own political beliefs.
Anyway, I always thought Chinatown was overrated.
If you deviate at all from the sheeple response
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:27 ET by nwahsIf you deviate at all from the sheeple response of "Great article" followed by shooting beer out of your nose, Srgt. ROCK will cold nose you in the crotch.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
nwah's homosexual fantasies
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:31 ET by Sergeant ROCKQuit posting your homoerotic fantasies.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
I'm not the one nosing people crotches
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:39 ET by nwahsYou are the one nosing people's crotches- habitually.
Whatever floats your boat. I better understand your exaggerated reactions now.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
Why get worked up over it?
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:22 ET by SlyrrWhy is anyone getting worked up over what this B-list hollywood loser said on this D-list program? No one watches the Oscars anymore anyway. Like all the rest of the liberal media, Hollywood's self-praising grandstander award show is circling the drain of the toilet.
The only thing people watch for is to see what lame stunt they'll try to pull (like a 'wardrobe malfunction') to get attention. Just do what I did ages ago - walk away and never look back. These parasites are just howling at the moon now, listening only to themselves. Let them babble and rave so people can see they're insane. Just don't patronize or support their shows anymore.
It's time for decent good people to vote with their wallets. Once enough of these hollywood studios are put out of business, the rest of them will get the message loud and clear.
Slyrr... You may be
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:35 ET by bigtimerSlyrr...
You may be right...but then again, remember La-La-Land had their paws in the bail-out bill too, may have been slapped away once...but they will put that claw out there again, and it will be slipped in somewhere as time goes on...Rahm Emanuel's bro has big $$$ connections in Holywood with all ties to Soros/Chicago Machine, it all ties in, the circle won't be broken.
Good question
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 01:38 ET by Hack CaffertyI don't know why "Conservatives" who should care more about personal freedoms than pushing THEIR morals on others. Are we not consrvatives because we wan't the Gov't to saty OUT of our lives?
Then lets keep our oppinions to ourselves.
And if homosexuality is a choice, why can we notice a gay person in passing? Wouldn't we also be able to spot a person who likes country music when we see them in like at Starbucks too?
Surprised
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 02:12 ET by LoosMooseI am surprised that you even watch this crap... I quit watching the Oscars in the 1970's when George C. Scott did his thing. Then Marlon Brando topped him... never saw it.. but read about it. I no longer go to movies... just not worth it in the first place, the price is RIDICULOUS, the cost of the popcorn and soda is INSULTING... and then I am going to put money into the pockets of the trash that are ruining this country??? Not a chance.
I love the poster on the SIMPSONS Give a hoot, read a book.
It really is a very simple formula, quit giving hollywood money, and they will have to clean up their act. Half the people in America don't support their politics, but flock to mindless entertainment that funds their activities. If more people knew what was going on around them, things would change.
I was walking in the mall the other day with a friend that said something about wanting to run into MACY's for something and I said Nope, I won't shop in Macy's and a couple of people turned around and looked and when I was asked why the answer was simple, "Because they are a PROUD SPONSOR of "THE VIEW" on ABC, and I won't buy anything from them. 2 of the 3 groups of people turned around and went somewhere else as well.
It's really that easy, just put out the word.
I don't care that MSNBC and CNN are liberal biased, what gets me is that they DENY IT. If they are so proud of the Liberal Left.. why don't THEY COME OUT OF THE CLOSET and admit it?
I had a nightmare that Keith Olberman was run over by a bus,....... and lived.
That's stupid. Not all
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 02:27 ET by AmaliaThat's stupid. Not all country music fans would walk around looking like a stereotypical country music fan (cowboy hat, cowboy boots, etc). A person can choose to do things that might not be obvious in their normal, day-to-day manner.
Yeah but... Amalia,
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 02:35 ET by Motherwhat's wrong with donning a couple of sexy shit kickers and a cowboy hat? Don't hate on the country folk. They be sexay too! Picture a hunk of man with muscles that have muscles and a pouty, sexy mouth with only some straw danglin' out his lower lip and a pair of sexy boots on coupled with some leather chaps with a cowboy hat tipped on his golden head just a bit sideways to be flirty...and NOTHING ELSE ON. hehehe. Don't deny the sexy! Ya hear? ;)
Oh my. I think I just made myself moist.
lol
Twisted Backwards!
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 07:59 ET by diegobass13This isn't about conservatives trying to push their morals on others. This is about the LGBT community trying to create a special class of persons, and a new kind of hate speech, and all to get a legal right to go after any organization or person that doesn't kowtow to them. Don't say, "That's not the objective, it won't happen", because IT ALREADY HAS!
Moving on, funny you should talk about keeing the Government out of our lives - no doubt you just voted for the bums who are about to make our medical records all computer based so they can pick & choose who gets care and who doesn't. Oh, maybe you haven't read the book by the man who was about the be HHS Secretary - until it was revealed that yet another RICH LIMOUSINE LIBERAL who is all for taxing the rich until they are poor "forgot" to pay his own taxes!
On to your ridiculous question: "if homosexuality is a choice, why can we notice a gay person in passing?" Well, first of all, in many cases, lots of people can. Not always, but what exactly is your logic here? How does the fact behaviors stem from choices have anything to do with being able to tell if someone is gay or not when they pass you by? You're not making sense.
But I can tell you that it's easy to tell, from what some people post, that they apparently don't have a clue. Your last question cinches it: "Wouldn't we also be able to spot a person who likes country music when we see them in like at Starbucks too?" I don't know... often the boots, belt buckles and hats are a clue, but then again, they have nothing to do with liking country music, do they, rather with liking country fashion... while the two sets do have a large intersection, they are not necessarily equivalent.
"
~So you're equating
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 09:12 ET by choselife3xSexual perversion with listening to country music?
Does someone help you dress yourself?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Change you can believe in
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 09:17 ET by Sergeant ROCKOr at least the ocassional diaper change.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
And there you go again
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:22 ET by nwahsFrom a post above..
"You may now place your head back into your rectum. "
and this..
"Or at least the ocassional diaper change."
You linger in the same area, frequently - why?
Perhaps you don't even realize it, I dunno
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
Oscar Meyer Weiner
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 02:05 ET by MotherHah!
I refuse to get worked up over fluff. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket and Lions and Tigers and Fags OH MY are the least of my frickin' worries.
You're welcome.
Love & Teddy Ruxpin Telepromter Snoogles,
Reality Cheque
The Fruit Of Liberalism
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 02:41 ET by Blue Collar Todd1. Propagating homosexuality
2. Slaughter of the unborn and newly born
3. Killing off the sick and elderly in the name of compassion
4. Abolition of truth
5. Intolerance of any view other than it's own
6. Totalitarian impulse
7. Appeasing Islamic terrorists: Sharia Law is just fine, but better ban those evil 10 Commandments
8. Satisfy you desire no matter how perverse
9. Bent on marginalizing Christians
10. Seeks to make man the sole arbitrator of right and wrong
These are just some of reasons that I think Liberalism ought to be opposed and why I am not a Democrat. It is good in a way that Hollywood gets together and reveals to us who they really are and what they want to do to America. It may be too late to stop them now especially since they have The One in the White House.
Black is talking to
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 03:22 ET by snaggletoothieBlack is talking to minors. And he starts the conversation off talking about their sexuality. Is that legal?
So what? If a few kids who
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 04:42 ET by amiesSo what? If a few kids who are struggling with accepting their sexuality see this and realise its okay then it's not a bad thing
I guess I don't get it
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 07:36 ET by diegobass13You know, I've never expected any LGBT person to live any way other than the way they wanted to - with the exception, of course, of those who choose to prey on children, naturally we're talking about the whole "consenting adults" realm only here - and I've always supported their quest for equal rights, as is now embodied in California law at this very moment. I've never hated any LGBT person, although I may find certain of their practices, their behaviors, their choices, distasteful.
All I ask is that I be allowed to express my choice, my tastes, my feelings, without being called a hater and a bigot for it. And that's the thing. I don't see any straight people organizing boycotts against LGBT persons and their business interests. I don't see any straights wantonly destrying the lives of the many people I'm sure are employed by LGBT persons in hateful attempts to lash out at those they disagree with. They talk about bigotry and intolerance, BUT THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE INTOLERANT. So no, I guess I don't get it. Would someone please explain it to me again?
And another thing. When gay men were hiding behind priestly robes and abusing the fortiveness doctrine of the Catholic Church so they could go on molesting young boys, why wasn't there an outrage against the gay pedophiles involved? Why was the outrage directed, and why is it still being directed, against the Church, instead of the source of the problem? The Church didn't do these horrible acts - GAY MEN DID. So why give the ones who actually did the deeds a pass and focus on those who, yes, in a few cases, foolishly let them keep doing the same thing over and over? Why not admit that the root of the problem was GAY MEN PREYING ON MINORS.
Now, watch me get flamed for having the courage to speak up about this.
Bring it.
We are all dealt a different hand in life
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 08:22 ET by garyganuWe are all dealt a different hand in the card game of life and we all have our challenges and strengths. Homosexuality is a challenge and should not be confused with a strength. To ask our children to celebrate, embrace and experiment with homosexuality is wrong. We should accept and tolerate homosexuality, but not celebrate and embrace it.
There are also many other far more abnormal, negative, harmful and destructive sexual attractions and behaviors. These behaviors include, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, desire to rape, and sexual addiction to prostitutes or child pornography. The unfortunate people afflicted with these abnormal sexual desires must not give in to their strong desires or they and their victims will suffer severe consequences. I am not equating these criminal behaviors to homosexuality. But these people are also powerless over their abnormal attractions through no fault of their own. They have my sympathy but not my approval. They cause horrible suffering and must be prevented from acting on their desires. The difference is that garden variety homosexuality is between consenting adults and is not criminal.
Gay activists claim that gay teenagers have a suicide rate four times higher than normal kids. They blame this on intolerance and bullying. The media, schools, and universities think that by normalizing homosexuality they will reduce bullying and thus reduce gay suicide rates. The truth is that all people with psychological disorders have high suicide rates. Homosexual activists have successfully lobbied mental health authorities to remove homosexuality form the list of mental disorders. However, I feel that homosexuality is a disorder, and health officials were bullied into changing its classification, just as the activists are now bullying the public to accept gay marriage.
The psychiatric profession is quite subjective. There are no blood tests, cultures, CT scans, ultrasounds or other diagnostic tests used to determine a disorder or to prescribe the proper treatment. Most diagnoses are opinions only and have no medical data to back them up. Psychiatric medications are often prescribed in a trial and error fashion. They rely on feedback from the patient to adjust dosages or change medications. The psychiatric community has changed the classification of homosexuality based on nothing more than opinion and pressure from activist groups.
The whole idea of gay marriage is put forth so that gays can prove that they are normal, just like everyone else. Unfortunately they are not in a very important and obvious way. A marriage between two men or two women will not produce any children. The whole point of marriage is to provide the best possible environment to raise children. This is why marriage is given tax benefits and children are tax deductions. Our tax codes are used to encourage behavior that is beneficial to our society, such as tax breaks for business development in enterprise zones(depressed communities), tax credits for solar and wind power, and tax benefits for families to raise our next generation of children.
In my opinion, the only time homosexuality is harmful, is when it is presented to children and the public, as a normal, acceptable lifestyle to be proud of, it is not. That is a deception put forth by today's homosexual activists, schools, universities, the arts and the mainstream media. They do this under the banner of diversity. All forms of diversity are not necessarily positive, normal and healthy. Today's popular culture is celebrating many forms of diversity that are negative, abnormal and unhealthy. Some examples are the gangster culture, teenage promiscuity, casual sex, rap music and satanism which mocks Christianity. In today's popular culture anything that is abnormal, weird, negative or wrong is considered cool. Homosexuality is actually being portrayed as cool by today's media and the arts. At the same time, the intact monogamous family is considered square. They are sending out the exact wrong message. By condemning the Boy Scouts, the military and the Catholic Church, and supporting gay marriage, gay activists seek to blur the line between what is healthy for our society, and what is destructive. Today's children are being so confused that they no longer can tell the difference between right and wrong, good from bad, strengths from weaknesses and normal from abnormal. It is no wonder that we are seeing our families, values, cultural strengths and society decay before our very eyes.
My Views On Homosexuality
You are correct
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 08:46 ET by Sergeant ROCKIn a nutshell, liberals want to embrace everything immoral and to elevate those behaviors to the same plane as moral or normal behavior.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
If we should "accept and tolerate" sexual deviancies...
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 17:09 ET by Mike Bratton...then we should do the same for individuals who abuse drugs and/or alcohol.
And for people who can't help but knock over convenience stores.
And for people who engage in exhibiting race hatred.
And anything else that's "negative, abnormal and unhealthy."
Should we "accept and tolerate" the behaviors of such folks? Or should we, rather, help them to leave such destructive behaviors behind?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Bill Maher?
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 08:27 ET by blueskyWhat did he say about God? I was putting my kids to bed and missed it.
Also, did anyone else notice that during the "In Memorium" segment there was zero applause for Chuck Heston?
I have not and will not see this film
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 09:01 ET by theduck6but one can not help but be inundated with clips on TV from it and...Is it just me or does Penn play him like his retarded character in "I Am Sam"? Seems he has two characters, Sean Penn and retarded Sean Penn. All that and an experienced arms inspector to boot! What a talent?
He didn't say which corner
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 10:58 ET by PamHe didn't say which corner it was just around.