A Friday New York Times front-page story on "gay marriage" by Jeremy W. Peters was a piece of perfection – if you believe conservatives should be banned from the pages of the Times. Gov. David Paterson introduced a bill to establish same-sex marriage as the same thing as heterosexual marriage, and Peters utterly failed to locate a conservative source or a conservative argument. Instead, readers were "treated" to a press release for the gay left. No one objected in the story to Paterson’s bizarre analogies to slavery, as if gay Americans are picking cotton on the plantation:
At a news conference in Manhattan on Thursday, Mr. Paterson, a Democrat, invoked the abolitionist movement of the 1800s, the writings of Harriet Beecher Stowe and the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision to argue that New York had neglected civil rights for gays and lesbians for too long. "I’m putting a stop to it," he said. "We have a duty to make sure equality exists for everyone."
Peters downplayed the obvious point that Paterson’s poll ratings are dismal. He ended up sounding like a reporter arguing that President Bush could push a bill through Congress with an approval rating in the 20s:
Gay-rights advocates expressed confidence on Thursday that Governor Paterson’s personal involvement could make a difference, despite his dismal approval ratings and struggle to advance other aspects of his agenda. They said lawmakers sometimes feel less confined by partisan loyalty on civil rights issues like same-sex marriage.
"This isn’t something that hinges on his popularity — it’s too personal of an issue," said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, the gay-rights group pushing same-sex marriage. "It defies ordinary Albany political logic."
Peters not only made the gay-left lobby sound powerful, he left the impression there was no social-conservative lobby or constituency in the state of New York. Not even new Cardinal Timothy Dolan?
Gay advocacy groups are a powerful force in Albany. The Human Rights Campaign, Gill Action Fund and Empire State Pride Agenda funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into a handful of competitive campaigns last year, helping Democrats pick up two seats to capture a majority in the Senate for the first time in more than four decades.
Peters ended his "perfect" piece with more glowing (and insulting) historical analogies:
His emotional investment in the issue was on display Thursday in a 15-minute speech that placed gay marriage in the historical context of slavery, disenfranchisement of women and shunning the disabled.
"We have all known the wrath of discrimination," said Mr. Paterson, New York’s first black governor. "We have all felt the pain and the insult of hatred. This is why we are all standing here today."
Surrounded by some three dozen members of the state’s political establishment, including members of Congress, senior state legislators and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, he added: "We wish to fulfill the dreams of those Americans, both the living and the dead, who struggled unremittingly and courageously over the past two centuries to expand those freedoms to more Americans. Often we have fallen short, but the marvel and the miracle of America is that we keep marching forward for justice."
The leftist editors at the New York Times seem like they're reenacting a scene from Animal House. It didn't matter if the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. Paterson's on a roll for the side that they favor, so it doesn't matter if he's technically correct.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Liberal Logic an Oxymoron
April 19, 2009 - 06:50 ET by Retired GeekLiberal Logic = Dysfunctional Brain
Liberals believe that differences between males and females are the result of social conditioning - yet they believe homosexuality is biological.
That's an awfully reductive
April 20, 2009 - 12:28 ET by JasonCThat's an awfully reductive summary; and also ignores the differences between 'gender' (social construction) and sex (biological distinction), the fact that different interpretations and definitions of social construction exist, and that the most realistic view of homosexuality is that it's a combination of genetic predisposition and social/familial conditioning.
Personally though, I wouldn't care if it was 100% personal choice, if people could just flip a straight/gay switch in their libido (oh right, lots of people on NB actually think that's the case...); I would still be 100% in favor of gay rights and gay marriage.
That's an awfully reductive
April 20, 2009 - 12:30 ET by JasonCThat's an awfully reductive summary; and also ignores the differences between 'gender' (social construction) and sex (biological distinction), the fact that different interpretations and definitions of social construction exist, and that the most realistic view of homosexuality is that it's a combination of genetic predisposition and social/familial conditioning.
Personally though, I wouldn't care if it was 100% personal choice, if people could just flip a straight/gay switch in their libido (oh right, lots of people on NB actually think that's the case...); I would still be 100% in favor of gay rights and gay marriage.
I'm so jealous of the
April 19, 2009 - 06:52 ET by snaggletoothieI'm so jealous of the gays. They are never the butts of tea bagging jokes from the lefty media.
Liberals Excuse Aberrant Behavior
April 19, 2009 - 06:53 ET by Retired GeekAre we to assume that criminals for the most part, do NOT choose to be criminals?
Criminal behavior is caused by their genetic makeup and internal body chemistry?
Are we to assume that racists for the most part, do NOT choose to be racists?
Are we to assume that Homosexuals for the most part, do NOT choose to be Homosexuals?
Homosexual behavior is caused by their genetic makeup and internal body chemistry?
Are we to assume that certain groups which practice aberrant behavior do NOT have freedom of choice or self-determinism, but are bound to choose and behave, based on their ancestry and genetics.
This type of thinking is the lowest form of 'Collectivism and denies that man is different from animals in two distinct areas - reason and free will choice - his mind and morality.
I don't think anyone would
April 20, 2009 - 12:20 ET by JasonCI don't think anyone would deny that homosexuals have a choice as whether they act on their desires. But what evidence is there that they can choose what those desires are, any more than you or I can? Can you choose to be sexually attracted to your own gender? Me neither. So why should gay people be able to choose to be attracted to the opposite.
As I've stated in other posts...
April 19, 2009 - 07:06 ET by Massage_Master07IF we do NOT draw a line as to what constitutes a marriage, then where WILL that line be drawn? If the fags and lezbos are allowed to "marry" their "life partner" (I refuse to call them "gay", cuz the actual definition means happy.) then the line will next be moved to people who want to marry their sister/brother. Then after that it will be moved for the people who want to marry their dog, horse, cat, goat, sheep, etc...
So this HAS to be nipped in the bud and the line drawn AND enforced at marriage is; between a man and a woman NOT immediately related to said man or woman. i.e. first or possibly even second cousins.
We The People of the United States of America, HAVE to take a stand against the morals and values destroying attempts of the leftist liberals in THIS country. Without morals, all you have left is rot, decay and aharchy. Plain and simple. It is VERY easy to see that ever since they took God and prayer out of the public schools, the gradual erosion of morals and values in the U.S.A.
Liberals think that what's right is wrong and wrong is right. Michael Savage had it correct that "Liberalism is a mental disorder." They are HELL BENT on destroying this country from within, since the socialists and communists and their ilk could NOT do it from without, like the USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cuba, etc...
When did Newsbusters begin
May 1, 2009 - 11:54 ET by TheGingermanWhen did Newsbusters begin allowing such hateful speech?
These days the site is riddled with open hatred of gays. It's rather disconcerting.
People here used to have reasons for being anti-gay marriage. Now it's just bitter, open, hatred.
Frankly, it's getting disturbing and I'm shocked the masthead hasn't reeled it in yet.
TheGingerman,
May 1, 2009 - 12:06 ET by AgnosticThere is support for your opinion on the threads if you look and I join with you in believing this is too muh hate and not enough intelligent display of opinion.
I would even say that the slippery-slope argument is cowardly since it advocates that possibly doing the wrong thing now is okay because it will make things easier down the road.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
→ I agree
May 1, 2009 - 12:09 ET by Cool ArrowEndow the pairings with equal rights as heterosexual marriages.
Covenants are not a new idea.
Call these identically entitled covenants by any other name than marriage, and you'll still have a fight on your hands.
I wonder why?
It's hard to talk when you're teabagging - Anderson Cooper
Ag, It's just strange to
May 1, 2009 - 12:10 ET by TheGingermanAg,
It's just strange to me that folks like Noel Sheppard allow this to go on. There was a time when NB stuck to the strictest of etiquette, but it appears that they are consciously encouraging gay hate by not preventing it.
I'm fine if you are against gay marriage for religious or social or psychological reasons - basically so long as you have a logical argument to support your opinion than I am cool with it.
But all the FAG and LEZBO and HOMO and other offensive terms being tossed around here are disturbing. They don't fit the normal NB mode of behavior so I can't figure out why it's allowed.
Very strange. Hating gays is officially OK on Newsbusters. Sadly, it takes away from all of the other great posts and insights one can find here.
As for your argument, I totally agree. The slippery slope argument is bizarre and useless.
TheGingerman,
May 1, 2009 - 12:14 ET by AgnosticPerhaps you should ask and if you don't I will tomorrow since I'm hitting the road right now. There is no guarentee that he is aware of the offensive post yet.
That being said if there is only one or two offensive post I usually don't mind if it is either ignored or leads to a legitimate debate. But an offensive post that leads to more offensive posts should not be welcome (the post - not the poster, necessarily)
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
I am entitled to the same rights....
April 19, 2009 - 08:03 ET by philipcfromnycI am an openly gay man, and I am disgusted by some of the comments that have been posted by other subscribers, one of whom appears to believe that "liberals" are hell-bent on destroying American society. Let me try to explain something to those who fail to understand why gay persons should be permitted to marry:
I clearly remember, as a very young boy, knowing that there was something about me -- at my core -- that was profoundly and unalterably different from other children of my age. I did not understand how I was different from other boys of my age, until puberty hit me, at which point the nature of the difference became shockingly and embarrassingly clear. Whereas my male friends lusted after girls and pornography, I found myself attracted to my male friends. No "choice" was involved in this. I did not make any conscious decision to be gay. To this day, I remain utterly convinced that there is something about gay persons that is different, at a fundamental, constitutional level, from heterosexual persons. How anybody could seriously believe that being gay is a choice, when gay persons continue to be subjected to torrents of foul-mouthed verbal and physical abuse (according to the Department of Justice, the only groups that suffer more hate crimes than gay men and lesbians are racial and religious minorities) is beyond me. Up until 2003, I could be prosecuted for having sex with another adult, consenting male partner in the privacy of my own bedroom in about 14 states (this ended only when the US Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), thereby overturning an obscene earlier decision (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) that permitted the states to continue to criminalize gay sex).
Just three years ago, I lost a job at which I excelled when my "Christian" manager learned that I am gay.
As a young boy, I suffered ostracism and ridicule from a large number of my peers (although other, decent friends made up for this to a large degree). No "choice" was ever involved, and it takes an act of wilful blindness to reach conclusions to the contrary.
I am absolutely entitled to the principle of equal justice under law, inscribed in stone in the pediment above the columns of the US Supreme Court building. This principle is more than a mere aspiration -- it is a cornerstone of American democracy, and I have no intention of sitting back and allowing mean-spirited and bigoted people to wield their religion as a mace with which to further abuse and ostracise me. Four state supreme courts have concluded that the ban on gay marriage violates the respective state constitutions (unfortunately, the voters of one of these states amended their constitution in November 2008, inscribing discrimination into the highest law of the state), and one state (Vermont) has legalized gay marriage without prompting from a state high court.
As I write this, legislators in New Hampshire and Maine are considering the legalization of gay marriage in those states. This is not an attempt to destroy the institution of marriage or to debase US society -- it is an attempt to realize the promise of equal justice under law, and to ensure that this nation's gay and lesbian citizens are granted the same opportunities to pursue happiness as are currently enjoyed by heterosexual Americans.
I am deeply grateful to Governor Patterson, who understands something that some contributors to this debate appear to have missed. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination -- and it stinks, regardless of the "justifications" people trot out in their frenzied efforts to maintain the status quo and to prevent gay persons from full and equal participation in US society.
We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a constitutional democracy, in which the rights of minorities are protected by irrepealable constitutional law.
I was born and raised in South Africa. I left that country in 1986, convinced that the abomination known to the world as apartheid would never end. I was wrong. History will judge those who enforced this policy, just as history will judge those who continue to oppose efforts to ensure marriage equality in the USA.
Philip Chandler
Clevedon, UK (formerly of Manhattan, 10011 (Chelsea))
~More than one
April 19, 2009 - 08:07 ET by choselife3xone of whom appears to believe that "liberals" are hell-bent on destroying American society.
Every part of the liberal agenda, whether it's gay "marriage" or the "war on poverty" is an attack on the traditional institution of life-long marriage marriage between a man and a woman. This institution is the building block of a healthy and functioning family, and by extension, society.
On another note, if people were 'born' gay biologically it would have resulted rather quickly in the utter extinction of such a biological dead-end.
All behavior is a choice.
Ignorance on display....
April 19, 2009 - 08:12 ET by philipcfromnyc"On another note, if people were 'born' gay biologically it would have resulted rather quickly in the utter extinction of such a biological dead-end."
**********
Response:
**********
This statement reflects such gross ignorance of basic genetics as to be almost comical in its stupidity. I suggest that "chooselife3x" read a primer on genetics and familiarize himself or herself with the behavior of recessive genes, which cannot be "bred out" of a population. I also suggest that he or she read something about the possible influence of hormones in utero, and the role that these may play in shaping sexual orientation (which is believed by the vast majority of psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and other mental health professionals to be fixed in early infancy).
Philip Chandler
Clevedon, UK
Well Philip, I agree that
April 19, 2009 - 08:25 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWell Philip, I agree that being gay is something you are born with. Just like racial prejudice (it's a tribal thing) is something you are born with. Should we 'celebrate' and promote all these things we are born with? You tell me. Also, why does 'mother nature' make it so that two gays cannot procreate? Is that some sort of prejudice on it's part? Can we pass a law to force a change in that? Civil unions, fine, gay marriage, no. No to the push from the same people (progressive liberals) who are pushing to lower the age of consent to 8 years old also.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
~Ignorance on display
April 19, 2009 - 08:47 ET by choselife3xThe whole point of life (from a biological standpoint) is procreation. Therefore it is biologically self-defeating to have a 'genetic' predisposition to a behavior that produces no offspiring.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
CL3X
April 19, 2009 - 12:07 ET by rexdraconimThat is exactly my own people's take on the matter. It is difficult for contra-survival traits to survive. Only in times of relative prosperity can the contra-survival traits flourish.
Be what you will, but be it in private (as it is a private matter.) The Laws of Nature will select against you, in the end. Whatever you are, biologically, will not continue. I do not make these laws, life itself does. Man cannot change the basic Laws of Nature.
I think it is also important to remember that husband/wife relationships also serve in a basic biological fashion in regards to raising and caring for said procreation. And providing purposeful value to each other.
What some want to disparage as "religious" (becoming bigots by their own statement) is actually the natural stabilization and expansion of biological life. Whether there is a Divinity to this biology is another discussion. While I believe there is, others disagree. The biological necessities are still there.
Procreation provides the next generation, the basic family unit with regards to that procreation increases and maximizes the performance of the procreation, improving the breed. With a good family example, the procreation becomes the procreator and, by the good example set by a natural family, can then promote the species farther. Life continues and the race improves, not only biologically, but creates the greater luxuries than can provide them with the time to contemplate beyond the biological.
I am not going to discuss "Creationism vs. Evolution" beyond this statement, posed as a question: Why can't evolution be the tool by which a Divine Creator or Intelligent Designer worked their masterpiece?
I have no particular interest or issue with homosexuality beyond the biological and privacy realms.
And I think that the government doesn't need to be involved in the marriage business anyway. Marriage is a matter for folks to decide between themselves and include their spiritual community in. Why must everything turn into a "perks package" for Leftists, because when you get down to it, part of this debate is bout "spreading the wealth."
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
Good afternoon to you, rex
April 19, 2009 - 12:24 ET by choselife3xFor me it is a matter of simple logic to say that homosexuality is an aberrant behavior that would die out naturally if it were indeed biological. This never fails to result in my being called a "stupid, ignorant homophobe" or some variation thereof. Amusing. Especially considering that I would protect those very same people from Islamic terrorists if need be.
And I love your post, as always. I'm glad you're here.
Afternoon to You, Dear Mother of Three
April 19, 2009 - 12:30 ET by rexdraconimYou are gracious, as always
I understand. All they have is name calling in their endless pursuit of Money and Power. Poor Leftists....
And, hey, I'm glad you are here, too. Good thing our folks weren't pro-abortion, huh? Or Gay?
Biology and logic.....the one-two punch..
Take it easy out there, kiddo! ;)
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
~:-)
April 19, 2009 - 12:42 ET by choselife3xGood thing our folks weren't pro-abortion, huh? Or Gay?
Yes, funny how all the gay people who ever told me homosexuality is genetic happened to be conceived by a man and a woman. Just coincidence, I'm sure. *laughing*
Let us know how your study turns out, I look forward to it.
The Study
April 19, 2009 - 12:53 ET by rexdraconimSo far it has generated over 24,000 pages....
Used 10 toner cartridges...
Has cost a couple grand in payroll...
And gotten me a stern letter from my wife....
It is also a big job and many pages long and still not finished. I think the follow-up analysis will be worse. I think the study of good manners and its relations to ideology and message of effectiveness is still important.
But it is ugh, capital UGH to have read all that so many darn times. I think it has made me the "foremost expert" in the realm of "Pi style and content." ;)
That could be a retread troll training manual project. Or I could study everyone's reactions and tone change since I posted the stupid thing. ;)
And thereby incur the writing of another stern letter from my wife, payroll expenses, empty toner cartridges and massive deforestation.
Heaven help me if I ever get another idea like the Study.
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
~A stern letter, huh?
April 19, 2009 - 13:00 ET by choselife3xNow there's something I hadn't thought of.......*wanders off in search of pen and stationery* :-)
choselife3x...
April 19, 2009 - 12:37 ET by dborschjr68Indeed, I have said this as well, that if the whole world was queer, what the heck would happen to us as a species?
I suppose we could all be artificially grown in petri dishes. Kinda like The Matrix, but a heck of a lot scarier.
You can destroy the Constitution when I'm dead and gone, and unable to defend it.
Until then, back off, you liberal jackasses.
~Yes
April 19, 2009 - 12:48 ET by choselife3xAs JasonC has said, "Procreation is not the be-all, end-all of marriage". If life does not procreate it ceases, so I beg to differ with him.
Kinda like The Matrix, but a heck of a lot scarier.
The only thing scarier would be the manimal Barbara Walters was infatuated with last year. *shiver*
Kinda of an evil thought I know
April 19, 2009 - 13:15 ET by general companyBut what if we were to give the Gays their own Country, how many generation till they commit voluntary genocide? Just a thought, NOT a recomendation, so please save your flames.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Must Have Missed This Post
April 19, 2009 - 21:05 ET by BlueCat57Rex - I must have missed this post. I've only read it once, but I can see why you assumed I didn't read carefully. It is because I didn't read it at all before making my other comments. Sometimes I just miss posts because they are posted inbetween my refreshes. Sometimes I skim them. Sometimes they are addressed to someone specific like this one appears to be. Will read this one again when I have time.
phil
April 19, 2009 - 09:55 ET by botglets be open, there is no gene that will ever be found.
now you're on to something there with the in-utero hormones playing a role. Does that mean we'll be able correct this condition? Would you support such a correction?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Wrong Premise
April 19, 2009 - 14:23 ET by BlueCat57Philip and the rest of you are basing your arguments on an invalid premise: Evolution is how species got here.
Molecules to man evolution is false, so there is no basis for the argument over whether or not homosexuality can be bred into or out-of animals.
If evolution were true then there would be no reason to not simply exterminate homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter, that those dominate in society didn't like.
There would be no reason to nuture and protect the weak or sick in society.
Man does not act like an evolved creature should.
Don't even bother to get into the evolution debate here. It will go nowhere. I'm simply pointing out that you are basing your argument on an invalid premise.
"Rest of You"
April 19, 2009 - 15:02 ET by rexdraconimBefore you go lumping "the rest of us," I suggest a literacy review on your part. Your post is intellectually dishonest and patronizing.
As to my own remarks, I never included "man from molecules." Nor did I place biology as the highest factor of humanity. Neither did other posters of good reputation and fine character. Thank your government education for your failure to read comprehensively.
I actually spend a lot of time on this site pointing out how much more than biology a person is. But biology is part of humanity and reproduction. If I speak of evolution, I speak of species improvement, not origin. Part of the evolution of man has led to the ability of man to pursue those higher purposes and beliefs. The continuing evolution of man gives us the ability to gain value from helping the unfortunate among us.
As far as extermination goes, my own people faced that attempt and lived through it. We were targeted for a variety of reasons, color and religion included. No one, me least of all, wants to exterminate anyone, nor do I think that it is necessary.
I will continue to point out that homosexuality is a biological dead end. Because of this, I also think that the parts of us, beyond flesh, also face a dead end in homosexuals.
So I won't debate whatever it is you think evolution is or whatever condescending opinion you may offer. I will call you out for being disingenuous and patronizing.
You are basing your post on an "invalid premise" as well; you think you can read.
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
Still The Wrong Premise
April 19, 2009 - 18:48 ET by BlueCat57You are still arguing from a baseless premise.
Man has not evolved in any way, shape or form. And our species could hardly be considered to have "improved." Man was created and if anything humans have "devolved" (for lack of a better word). Adam, Noah, Moses and Solomon were are much smarter than we are. They lived lives many times the length of our own. We can barely hold a candle to the intelligence of the Founding Fathers. Sure we have technology and science they may not have even dreamed of (or maybe they did), but we are certainly no better than our ancestors. There was never any human like the "cavemen" portrayed by evolutionists.
Pursuit of higher values and beliefs? Poppycock! You don't think man from Adam to today pursued those? You don't think they gained value from "helping those unfortunate among us"?
My reading and comprehension might not be perfect, but I read the posts and gave my opinion. Maybe I should have studied them long enough to earn a Master's Degree, but I didn't. I read them once, thought a bit and wrote.
How exactly was I "intellectually dishonest and patronizing?"
And what were two of the sources of the philosophy that led to the attempted extermination? Evolution (as the source of species and the improvement thereof) and atheism.
I can read, it is my writing that my be questioned.
BlueCat57
April 19, 2009 - 19:37 ET by rexdraconimI do think man has pursued those spiritual improvements from the beginning to now. I also think that man continues to grow smarter and stronger, including in areas of biology and spirituality. We are more able to take care of the helpless than ever in history. We are able to give more of our time and effort to service of our Divine Creator.
What's that? I believe in the Divine Creator. Yup. The fact that you could not read that simple declaration before and may not be able to see it now is why I continue to question your ability to read. I said we have the potential to serve the Divine in a greater capacity, I don't say it is being done.
You were patronizing by talking down to someone without cause and your were intellectually dishonest by lumping all posters in the area of the thread without clarification or inspection. Maybe lazy and self-righteous would be more accurate.Perhaps it was simply an all too human tendency to rush into things and take action without first checking the lay of the land.
I don't believe in cavemen either, for what that's worth. I will grant you, and lament with you, that most people are and have
wasted the blessing bestowed upon them, in this our Great Nation.
I do not disparage the greatness of certain Ancestors (including the ones named both Biblical and Founders) and their accomplishments. Nor do I or will I ever disparage your Faith. Do not attempt to insult me by assuming that you have the slightest idea what someone believes without being able to read what they wrote comprehensively.
Your response, questioning your writing here, continues to make assumptions and demonstrates your fundamental incapability to read the written word. Will you better next time?
I admire beyond words the Founders of our Nation. I am no d@mn Leftist! Again, quit assuming and start reading. The only person who put forth the genetic homosexuality argument was Chandler. The rest of the posters were showing, in their own way, as far as I can tell, how that argument fails to hold water, in essence, agreeing with you, as far as there being no genetic justification.
Are you the sort of person who can stop for a moment and admit you lumped and generalized the wrong group of people, as far as promoting that stupid genetic gay position? We shall see.
As far as the extermination directed at my own people, it came from feeling of European Color Superiority and Religious zealotry. The current and recent history genocides against other people and probably against many of us here will most likely be attempted from a Eugenics and Secular viewpoint, I will agree. But my people's history, which I spoke of, came from the sources noted, like it or not.
I have no issue and no real dog in that fight. I have been and am a proud American, conservative to the core. Do a little research and you will see that you lumped the wrong person today.
Have the honesty to admit it and stop driving the agenda Tank long enough torealize you are running over someone that agrees with you more than he disagrees
We undermine our message when we plunge in and DO NOT READ what people wrote. You know what they say about assuming, I trust.
For the record, I have copies of the King James Bible, the Septugint Bible and Origin of the Species....you know what?
I open the Septuagint Bible far, far more often than I do the Darwin and take greater stock from the former as well. The Septuagint Bible translation I have....done for the Continental Congress by a Founding Father. I have an extensive library and I am glad the Divine has blessed me with the ability to read and study so that I may know of things, both the Light of Divine goodness and the forces that would subjugate mankind.
So there you go. If you read this post, carefully and all the way through, and you are an honest person, you will see where you made your mistake.
I'll even throw this out there, as I post it here often: Christians make excellent neighbors. I feel great about living in a Christian Nation. That there has been attempts and some success in undermining the basic values of our country I find to be tragic. But it does not mean that there is not evolved growth of mankind happening.
Do the trials not make us stronger? Does testing faith strengthen or weaken it?
I have answered you post completely and fully, to the best of my ability I hope you read all of it and back the Agenda Tank off of a potential ally.
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
Careful Reading
April 19, 2009 - 20:47 ET by BlueCat57I did read your post carefully and noted several grammatical errors. I didn't count but read carefully enough to find them in case you planted them there to test me.
The accusation of "intellectual dishonesty" is a bit strong. I did use the phrase the "rest of you" and probably shouldn't have. I did see that many of the other posters were debunking the "gay gene" concept and probably shouldn't have opened my comment the way I did. I'm sorry that you felt the way you did after you read it. };-)
The label of patronizer I feel is unfounded.
Not sure where you got the impression that I thought you were a Leftist. My assumption is that we, for the most part, are preaching to choir here.
I do think you are making some major assumptions when you say that "We are more able to take care of the helpless than ever in history. We are able to give more of our time and effort to service of our Divine Creator." We simply don't have enough information about the past to make those value judgements.
I do see that we agree on many things, I still get the impression after reading your posts that you are using "evolution" in a similar way to a Darwinist. I'll take time to read your posts again, but I've read them several times and still have the same impression.
When you say "species improvement" do you mean biologically?
Is man growing smarter and stronger biologically? If yes, how does that compare to pre-flood man who apparently lived many hundreds of years? And the men who build the pyramids, cathedrals and the SR-71?
How can a man grow "smarter and stronger spiritually" than Adam, who walked with God, or Abraham who wrestled with God? What I see around me today is man growing more feeble and dumber in regard to things spiritual. Maybe you see things differently.
I believe that instead of "evolution" you may want to use "adaptation" or some other word for the biological aspects and maybe some other words like "improving" and "growing" for the spiritual aspects (which you do use after you use "evolution").
"Evolution" means something to the masses that I don't believe you are trying to communicate. My goal was to point out that while you (and most likely many of the other posters) know how you are defining "evolution", the masses are hearing "molecules to man". I guess I should have started with that point.
I'm not sure how the contents of your library are relevant here. And I am intrigued that you use the term "Divine" instead of God. And to me saying that "Christians make good neighbors" implies something. I guess it's time to pop out to your bio.
Take heed that you to are assuming much. What is written in a comment is never complete. You can't assume that I did not see or understand something. You should know that there are limitations to this form of communication.
Trials make us stronger, and testing faith doesn't weaken it. I enjoy the interaction.
BlueCat57
April 19, 2009 - 21:03 ET by rexdraconimI have been less polite than I need to be. You have my sincerest apologies. Communication and assumptions are my responsibility, too.
I accept my evolution to mean adaptation, in your meaning. You make a point about the Darwinists.
The original Ancestor and many since have been far superior to me. I am nothing before them. I try to live well in their shadow and transfer to my descendants the knowledge of them.
I as a common man, am bigger and live longer than many common ment of the past. I take the time that using the potential the Divine has given me to do more in service to the Divine. I try everyday to be everything I can be and be of credit to those who have come before me.
My grammar lapses, despite education, as my syntax of speech is corrupted by a lot of my childhood speaking a couple languages, other than English, despite being the 11th generation born American in my family. Traditional stuff.
I think that Christians ARE good neighbors. i live in peace in their Nation, in prosperity and Freedom. It is a fine Nation that can allow a person who is not of their faith to dwell as such. For the Religion haters, my happy existence speaks volumes towards Christianity.
Why am I not a Christian if I hold them so highly and believe as they do, including Christ being, in fact not only the Son of God, but God in Truth? It is a good question and one that cannot be answered here in any meaningful way.
Man can be as great as is his potential. It is unfortunate that so few push themselves toward that greatness. I will fail, but I will try.
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
Explain to me why a civil
April 19, 2009 - 08:24 ET by kgExplain to me why a civil union does not work but marriage (something held very dearly by families, religion, etc) does? I can see no other reason than to invade on the rights of most of the population that they have marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Why also is it necessary to shove everything homosexual down most of the people's throats? Apparently homosexuals are not really happy with their lifestyle and feel they can find happiness in trying to make the population come around to their way of thinking.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
hello phillip
April 19, 2009 - 08:38 ET by candanceI'm not interested in debating the science of how someone is born or becomes gay or whatever.
As for getting married, I really don't care if gay folks want to have a legal marriage - and that's what civil unions are supposed to be for. Live together, pay taxes together, share medical information, I don't care.
What I do object to is the effort to move from legal marriage to the religious concept of marriage, and pressuring churches to change their policies. And don't tell me that isn't happening. Churches have already been bullied through lawsuits. Christian websites like eHarmony have been bullied in court to provide gay services. The ultimate goal, just like what we see in Britain, is to literally make it illegal for churches to criticize gay people.
And that, my dear, is the rights of a minority being threatened.
Philip.
April 19, 2009 - 09:18 ET by Massage_Master07"(according to the Department of Justice, the only groups that suffer
more hate crimes than gay men and lesbians are racial and religious
minorities)"
Philip... So are YOU one of the ones that are attacking "religious minorities" cuz of THEIR view that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman? Are you a christian or an agnostic/atheist?
As far as your assertion that I should get a bottle of mouthwash to wash my mouth out. LOL I am NOT like liberorats that want to change the ORIGINAL meaning of words that don't suit them or their agendas.
Also, as far as being "born homosexual", that may or MAY NOT be true. However, according to you, Phil, since I was born heterosexual, I guess that you would expect ME to act like primitive man, act ON basic instinct and pass on my genes to as many women as possible, you know, survival of the fittest? OR do you expect me to control my base emotions and instincts?
What "rights" are you denied by way of being homosexual? Are you NOT allowed to shop anywhere you want? Are YOU designated to drink from fountains with a sign saying "Homosexuals Only"? Are you denied working anywhere, doing anything that you are qualified for? As for you saying that you were fired for being a "peter puffer" by your former boss, did you sue him or the company for it? If so, how much money did you get in "compensation"?
As far as marriage is concerned, marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution and concept. NOT a civil institution as you liberals would have us believe. Again, changing the meaning, definition and concept to fit the LIBERAL agendas.
If it weren't for double standards, liberals would have NO standards at all.
Sorry Phil, But your argument can be used in other areas,
April 19, 2009 - 09:43 ET by Poovey'I clearly remember, as a very young boy, knowing that there was
something about me -- at my core -- that was profoundly and unalterably
different from other children of my age. I did not understand how
I was different from other boys of my age, until puberty hit me, at
which point the nature of the difference became shockingly and
embarrassingly clear. Whereas my male friends lusted after girls and
pornography, I found myself attracted to my male friends younger brothers. No "choice"
was involved in this. I did not make any conscious decision to be a pedophile. To this day, I remain utterly convinced that there is something
about pedophiles that is different, at a fundamental, constitutional
level, from heterosexual persons. How anybody could seriously believe
that being a pedophile is a choice, when pedophiles continue to be subjected
to torrents of foul-mouthed verbal and physical abuse is
beyond me. Pedophiles could be prosecuted for having sex with thier public school sexually educated partner in the privacy of my own bedroom
in all 57 (ok 50) states (this never ended) that permitted the states to continue to criminalize adult-child sex).'
Now again, why do you need special rights for your activity?
Phil, please do not take this as me equating you to a pedophile, I understand that you have adult consenting partners, but a perversion is a perversion no matter what kind of moral equivallence you wish to attach to it.
All due respect Phil
April 19, 2009 - 10:12 ET by Delsaas I gather, you had a job for (how long?) and your "christian" boss let you go when he/she discoverd you sexual preference?
In todays world there are laws dealing with "work place discrimination". Your story isn't well defined. Did you go to court over it? If not is it because there is more to the story?
Your life style is NOT the norm and to take normal out of society may make YOU feel better but the rest of society will suffer greatly!
You just keep doing what you do and leave the rest of us and our children out of your sexual exploits. Keep it in the bedroom where it belongs. Take it out of public places.
I don't discuss my sexual habits in public and YOU should not either!
Man and woman is the norm unless you are a Seahorse!
I would take this even further
April 19, 2009 - 11:44 ET by general companyIt can be far more difficult to fire or layoff and Gay person. I know this from expereance. Now 99.9% of the Gay folks I have come in contact with do NOT fall into this category, but if they flaunt their sexuality and are lazy to boot, you had better make sure you have your i's dotted and the t's crossed before trying to eradicate them from your work place. I could relate personal experience, but it is not needed. There are fools and great folks in all walks of life. That is why is does nobody any good to hold anyone to different standards, let alone making laws to protect them.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
It May Be a Democracy to Philip Chandler
April 19, 2009 - 12:25 ET by rexdraconimBut it was founded as a Constitutional Republic. Too bad about that government education system.
If Chandler actually wanted it to be a Democracy, he would reject any ruling in his favor by a court circumventing the voters and.or State Constitutions.
Chandler prefers mob rule, when it suits him. How about if the "people, bless their hearts" decide that homosexuality is a crime? Would he like his Democracy then? I think not.
I am not in favor of this, just once again showing the hypocrisy of Leftists.
Here's a chit to see the chaplain. You think you are the only one to ever be ridiculed or harassed? Lose a job? You think the Leftist and people on your side have not done the same to my people?
Do I have any illusions that you would ever give a d@mn about MY equal treatment under the law?
If you can find a church to bless your "marriage" then fine. My own Faith wouldn't but there are some that would. But you want the government "marriage" to be involved. Why i$ thi$?
This call for equal "marriage" is so much false umbrage. It is about the "perk package" and "spreading the wealth." its about pandering votes. The Democrat Party Chandler supports is the same one that supports countries around the world who find Chandler's kind to be criminals and usually puhish such by death or toture. Ironic? Just a little....
My own people cannot and do not petition the government to be involved in our marriages. We marry, not for the"perks" or money, but for the obvious biological and cultural purposes.
I don't care if you are gay, purple, Martian or whatever. A good worker is a good worker. Most Leftists are, in my long experience as an employer and businessman, terrible workers. They are too busy with their "issues" to do their job and produce something.
As with all Leftist issues, this come down to two things: Money and Power.
More for them. Less for us.
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
Sorry, but marriage is sacred and homosexuality is a perversion
April 19, 2009 - 13:10 ET by pahuberof how God created us.
Just because we are not a theocracy does not mean that we may not act to choose with our beliefs. We find other things to be unacceptable, as well. Many of us each has been born with our own predisposition to sin whether it is being gay or alcholism or whatever.
Unfortunately, for you, there are many on your side who have created an agenda which seems to cause many of us to be very suspicious when we receive a post like yours. Your letter has many of the same characteristics of a seminar poster.
I doubt any of us could change your mind, but there is hope with Christ.
pahuber
Democracy vs Republic
April 19, 2009 - 13:30 ET by sjanus11"We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a constitutional democracy, in which the rights of minorities are protected by irrepealable constitutional law."
Ummmm, That would be a "Constitutional Republic", Hate to be petty, but people really need to be un-brain washed on this Democracy thing....
"If your 20 and not a Liberal you don't have a heart. If you are 40 and not a Conservative you don't have a brain"
Sir Winston Churchhill
blah blah
April 19, 2009 - 18:23 ET by GeronLThe word marriage means something. You and your boyfriend can do whatever you want, nobody is stopping you. But if you want the support and approval of society thats too bad.
You are free to hold your ceremony and be married in the eyes of Gaia or whatever. Thats your business. You do NOT have the right to force your deviant and abnormal lifestyle on others.
Stop trying to force your beliefs on the rest of us, stop trying to force it down our throats or up our....
flamboyant and fabulous
April 20, 2009 - 03:56 ET by Nearly NobodyWhat is it with gays wanting to be as they say flamboyant and fabulous? If you want to be treated normal start acting it. It is hard to take the gay community serious when they are dressed in drag shouting “glamour baby”. And while I am asking why does a lesbian who supposed to be attracted to things feminine (chicks) end up with some large butch woman that could play linebacker for the packers? Why not just get a dude? Same with gay dudes the guys you go after are as close to being chicks as a dude can get. Save yourself some trouble and just get a girl. And Damn!!
"Nearly Nobody's News"
Massage_Master07's language....
April 19, 2009 - 08:08 ET by philipcfromnycMassage_Master07 -- thank you for proving my point about the ongoing abuse heaped on gay persons (with your comments about "fags" and "lesbos"). Please do us all a favor, and buy yourself a bottle of mouthwash.
Philip Chandler
I don't pretend to know why
April 19, 2009 - 08:37 ET by rimskyI don't pretend to know why some people possess the genetic makeup that they do, which drives them to prefer their own gender.
(Phillip, you're not going to like this much so here's your chance to just move on to the next comment)
And I think those who have that blueprint are pretty much cursed. Why? I don't know. I feel sorry for them, because they need help. Not the constitutional kind, but the Spiritual kind.
Do they suffer? No doubt. Are we, as a society, supposed to persecute them? No. Should we accept homosexuality as normal. No.
Know this for certain. If we continue down this road of mainstreaming homosexuality, we will ALL suffer. There will be Judgement.
Gay Gene?
April 21, 2009 - 19:35 ET by BlueCat57Did someone discover the gay gene when I wasn't looking?
Logic, if nothing else, says that homosexuality is a choice. When or how that choice is made is open to question.
Man parts are made to fit into female parts for one purpose = reproduction.
Pleasure is a by-product.
I am so fed up with the comparison
April 19, 2009 - 09:40 ET by HeavyChevybetween gays and slavery. We are talking a massive difference of unimaginable scale! Until gays are shipped out on boats, seperated from loved ones, murdered in droves, forced to work on plantations I suggest Mr Peters and any other who share's his view find another analogy.
HeavyChevy
April 19, 2009 - 10:55 ET by DelsaI am so glad you mentioned the gays and slavery thing.
Sexual deviency has NOTHING to do with enslavement and ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with color of skin.
Homosexuality can only be compaird to slavery IF it is the homosexual keeping other homosexuals tied up or in chains! Not so far fetched as I think about it!
Anyway, Skin color is something we can't help and to treat people differently because of skin color is wrong and our law states as much.
Phil needs to get a grip!
Sexual deviency has NOTHING
April 19, 2009 - 18:26 ET by GeronLSexual deviency has NOTHING to do with enslavement
Unless you want it to **wink**
And Phil
April 19, 2009 - 10:27 ET by DelsaI have worked for years with people, male and female, who are not heterosexual. And for your information, we did not discuss their bedroom activity!
The folks I worked with were NOT pushing an agenda, they were not shoving their lifestyle at me or anyone else.
Many of them have lived for decades together unmolested by heterosexuals.
Maybe your outward actions are causing you problems? I have know idea but what I do know is if you keep sex out of the work place all will be well.
In addition, if you could get yourself to understand how small your population really is as it relates to the rest of the worlds population, it may help you?
Who knows?
And as to the tired and worn out argument
April 19, 2009 - 10:43 ET by Delsathat goes like this:
"Gay people can't go to, or be at, the bedside of their partner who lays dying in the hospital because they are not married, or blood relatives etcetera."
NONSENSE!
If your relationship is long established, there are legal papers you can have drawn up, if needed, spelling out the if this, then that relationship.
I don't know anyone banned form a hospital room. These sob stories are myth and urban legend.
Legal Papers
April 19, 2009 - 14:00 ET by BlueCat57And many hospitals require that even married couples have health care power of attorneys on file.
Wills, HC POAs, etc. are legal documents which EVERYONE should have, and keep up-to-date. They are not costly compared to the grief that can arise without them in this litigous society of ours.
BlueCat57
April 19, 2009 - 20:44 ET by AFCloneNot only hospitals need documents.
27 years ago my dad died at the age of 42. Did not have a will or anything (who would, ya know?). The government took control of Mom's farm (her name was also on the mortgage, property etc) split it up into 5 parts - the largest for her and then four smaller parts for us kids. I was 11. Why in the hell did I need property? I was still a minor. (The oldest was 18 and starting college). We had to sign legal documents turning it back to Mom (I don't know if I was paid a dollar for it or not, but that was the joke). All because he didn't have a will. But they were legally married.
true AF
April 19, 2009 - 20:52 ET by candanceMy husband works in healthcare dealing with data classification. HIPAA is pretty much blind to whom you are married to or who you trust in your life. When I worked in a pharmacy some years ago, I remember having to turn away people asking questions about their spouses' accounts.
It really isn't that hard for a gay person to put in their living will that certain people are allowed to be informed of their healthcare.
Had I only known....
April 19, 2009 - 11:05 ET by philipcfromnycHad I only known the levels of vitriol and nastiness that permeates this message thread, I would never have bothered to post anything here. As Mark Twain once said, never try to teach a pig to sing -- it wastes your time and annoys the pig!
To the person who believes that there "is more to the story" of my being fired from a high-paying job in 2006 by a "Christian" manager who learned (by performing an Internet search against my name) that I am gay -- the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and in about half of the states, there are no state statutes that protect persons from such discrimination. It is therefore perfectly legal for an employer, in about half of the states, to fire a gay person on the spot, summarily, without regard to that person's job performance -- and there is nothing that the victim of such discrimination can do about it. So no -- I did not go to court, because I would not have had a cause of action under the law. Please don't embarrass yourself by coming to this thread without accurate and full knowledge of what it is that you wish to discuss with me.
Satisfied now?
As for the person who compared me to a pedophile, and then claimed that he was not comparing me to a pedophile -- don't talk out of both sides of your mouth. If you believe that a "perversion is a perversion", you plainly compare me to a pedophile, notwithstanding your efforts to pretend that you do not do so. I take strong and angry exception to this comparison. Pedophiles wreak incalculable harm to children. Gay persons do not harm anybody. This comparison is insulting, demeaning, and abusive. Get your facts straight, and make sure that you compare apples to apples.
Plainly, I waste my time on this thread. If a person can use this thread and call gay persons "fags" without consequences, then this is no place for me.
Philip Chandler
Just curious - what is wrong
April 19, 2009 - 11:30 ET by SickofLibsJust curious - what is wrong with the word homosexual? Is it embarrassing in some way, or do you consider it a slur?
It implies that the choice
April 19, 2009 - 12:57 ET by CortillaenIt implies that the choice is a matter of sexuality rather than one of "lifestyle". Therefore, I use it exclusively. Besides, I refuse to turn over a word to be redefined to assuage some group's cognitive dissonance over their own, poor choices.
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Homo bashing?
May 1, 2009 - 11:16 ET by Cool ArrowIf Barney Brank called Justice Scalia a "homophobe", it should be obvious the preferred term is "homo".
It's hard to talk when you're teabagging - Anderson Cooper
Cool One: I could argue
May 1, 2009 - 11:24 ET by QueenMumCool One: I could argue your point, but don't want to get things stirred up. Briefly, it's a matter of form.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
→ I know QM
May 1, 2009 - 11:28 ET by Cool ArrowBut there's got to be a reason those who oppose homosexuality are called "homophobes". And it's not just Barney Frank who uses that term.
It's hard to talk when you're teabagging - Anderson Cooper
Phil, Phil, Phil.
April 19, 2009 - 11:41 ET by Massage_Master07Unless you are new to Newsbusters, either reading and or posting on here, then you also knew that the people on here, for the most part, are conservatives. Therefore you should have known better than to waste your time and ours even posting on here. In other words... You showed up and posted simply to get a rise out of most of the people that read and post here. So we do not want to hear, "boo hoo, pity poor me for being 'gay'". It is quite obvious that you are NOT gay. In fact, you seem like the typical liberal in that you are angry and pissed off that most normal people in general and conservatives in particular do NOT advocate, accept nor condone your "lifestyle".
To show you how moronic the word "lifestyle" is, I'll give you an example. In technical terms, Atilla the Hun had an active outdoor"lifestyle".
Also Phil, I noticed that you didn't answer my question as to whether you are a christian or agnostic/atheist. I also noticed that you didn't challenge my assertion that marriage is a religious and not a secular or civil institution. Therefore, why should religions, that mostly are against homosexuality in any way, shape or form to begin with, condone something that they are against by permitting and/or recognizing homosexual marriages?
Massage: You misrepresent
May 1, 2009 - 12:12 ET by QueenMumMassage: You misrepresent the membership of this site. I'm inclined to view you as a troll in N.B. clothing. JMO
It is the view of many conservatives that marriage is a traditional/cultural institution, not strictly a religious one.
And
as far as gays are concerned, you exemplify the sort of hatred toward
gays that libs use to point out the "intolerance" of the right. Your language and tone exemplify blind intolerance. You are the angry one.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Massage-Master,
May 1, 2009 - 11:49 ET by AgnosticI am agnostic/atheist, so what is your point?
If marriage is a strictly religious institution it does not belong in the state constitutions and therefore should be thrownout by the various state supreme courts. You might want to rethink that argument.
I have been a member for a while and for my part welcome any opinion that is pertinent, well represented, thought provoking or amusing. Don't count me in your representation of NB.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
→ Marriage
May 1, 2009 - 11:54 ET by Cool ArrowMarriage is not a religious institution any more than having dinner.
People have been known to pray over both events, but that just means the participants are asking God to bless the activity.
It's hard to talk when you're teabagging - Anderson Cooper
In fact, it is the belief
May 1, 2009 - 12:15 ET by QueenMumIn fact, it is the belief in many mainstream religious institutions that it is not necessary for a clergyperson to officiate at a marriage. That the vows spoken between the parties constitute the marriage contract.
And in some religions, it is allowed for a man to have more than one wife. I'm inclined to agree with Agnostic. It's probably not the business of the government to define marriage.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
CA, one last post
May 1, 2009 - 12:21 ET by Agnostic"Marriage is not a religious institution"
That was my point to the original poster who seemed to me to be impying that it was strictly a religious institution. Perhaps I was reading it wrong.
My position on this issue is related to how any law would be written. For me to accept homosexual marriage then the laws written to allow homosexual marriage needs to be written in such a way that it includes all citizenry and does not specifically label one person separate from another.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Philip: Pedophiles wreak
April 19, 2009 - 12:08 ET by Massage_Master07Philip: Pedophiles wreak incalculable harm to children. Gay persons do not
harm anybody. This comparison is insulting, demeaning, and abusive.
Get your facts straight, and make sure that you compare apples to
apples.
"Gay persons do not harm anybody." Really? Let me ask you this... Do you REALLY want to go there? "GAY" people WEREN'T responsible for the MILLIONS of AIDS cases out there during the 1980's? The homosexual community KNEW what was happening and did NOTHING to stop their perverted sexual practices, even though they KNEW it was killing them.
Why do you think that when AIDS first came out it was called GRIDS, (Gay Related ImmunoDeficency Syndrome)? I'll tell you why. It is because it was only showing up in the HOMOSEXUAL communities in this country and around the world.
I know what you're going to say before you even say it... "That it's not only the homosexual community that suffering from AIDS." Well, it was only a matter of time before it spread to the rest of society, via blood donations to the Red Cross by homosexuals, intravenous drug use, (sharing needles with infected homosexuals) and/or having sex with a "bi-sexual" male, who then goes home to his wife or girlfriend and gives it to her. So do NOT tell me or anyone else that DISAGREES with your "lifestyle" that "gay people do not hurt or harm anyone."
Maybe instead of bitching about us "homophobes", maybe you ought to take a look at history, particularly the past 30 years when GRIDS (AIDS) came onto the scene and actually LEARN something. Use a little something that us conservatives like to call LOGIC. THAT is something that is in EXTREMELY short supply and apparently there is no demand for, to liberals and to their way of "feeling", since it's OBVIOUS to us conservatives that liberals do not THINK to begin with.
If it weren't for double standards, liberals would have NO standards at all.
Wonderful posts! Thank you :)
April 19, 2009 - 13:15 ET by pahuberpahuber
So, according to your cute
April 20, 2009 - 15:10 ET by JasonCSo, according to your cute little attempt at logic, since the majority of rapists are straight men, heterosexuality should be condemned for its association to rape. Blame everyone and their preferences/lifestyle for the irresponsibility and evil of a few. It's only fair.
JasonC,
May 1, 2009 - 10:03 ET by AgnosticThe feminist did tie all men (straight or not) and heterosexuality to rapist. That is what they used as their main push for special protectionist rights.
While I don't believe in the temperment and the conclusions of the screed above the historic points are acurate enough that they could use honest debate.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
The feminist did tie all
May 1, 2009 - 11:21 ET by JasonCThe feminist did tie all men (straight or not) and heterosexuality to
rapist. That is what they used as their main push for special
protectionist rights
And obviously, that is a wrong perspective to take. But first, it doesn't make it any more okay to apply the same broad-stroke condemnation to homosexuality, and second, I think the predilection for claiming that femininsts believe all men/heterosexuals are rapists is generally overblown. This was not a mainstream view among feminists at any phase in any movement that I'm aware of, but is generally attributed to feminism as a whole by those who are ideologically opposed to it.
historic points are acurate enough that they could use honest debate.
I disagree that his points are accurate or that they merit much of anything other than eye-rolling at his mouth-frothing hysteria. When gay communities became aware of what AIDS was, there was actually a huge movement of directed toward safety awareness and condom usage. If you were to learn today that your sexual orientation happens to be more prone to some dire problem than any other, you'd probably be frightened and want to do something about it - but it simply doesn't follow that this could change that orientation. It is just cold hard logic that linking AIDS exclusively with homosexuality and condemning all gay individuals for it makes about as much sense - that is to say, hardly any at all - as doing what anti-feminists accuse feminists of doing, as you mention above. Besides, it's also just sooo 1985. Remember Eddie Murphy's bit on Delirious about gay men and AIDS? It sounds positively moronic now.
JasonC,
May 1, 2009 - 12:01 ET by Agnostic"This was not a mainstream view among feminists at any phase in any movement that I'm aware of, but is generally attributed to feminism as a whole by those who are ideologically opposed to it." - While this is true over the past several decades it has not been the mainstream view that has overturned legislation but the squeaky wheel. This bit of hyperbole was used if not believed by the majority of the femenist to get protected status in state and federal laws.
On the second point you are starting at the wrong point in time to follow the point I was making. When the AIDS epidemic was first linked to Gay communities the activist in those communities reacted as though it was a government or church induced attack on homosexuality and refused to cooperate with attempts by the CDC or any government agencies. This was even depicted in the movie, 'And the Band Played On' which was not exactly anti-homosexuality. Of course once the fear of persecution wore off then there was an increase in understanding. As an aside - If there would have been a liberal president, do you think there wouldn't have been a knee-jerk reaction?
I don't know that particular routine by Eddie Murphy. While I found much of what he did funny his stand up was a full of a great deal of displaced anger that made me uncomfortable. Oddly enough I still liked Kinison though - go figure.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Massage_Master07 writes the following tripe...
May 1, 2009 - 09:54 ET by philipcfromnycMassage_Master07 writes the following rubbish: ""Gay persons do not harm anybody." Really? Let me ask you this... Do you REALLY want to go there? "GAY" people WEREN'T responsible for the MILLIONS of AIDS cases out there during the 1980's? The homosexual community KNEW what was happening and did NOTHING to stop their perverted sexual practices, even though they KNEW it was killing them."
********Response:********
So here we go again with the usual rubbish about sickness being a form of "punishment" from God. This type of thinking was prevalent a few hundred years ago, when illness was seen as the consequence of God's wrath. Sadly, we see that this type of thinking never really left us -- it simply became adept at hiding its true colors, and emerges whenever convenient.Two gay men who are uninfected with HIV can have sex all day and all night, and will not pass on HIV. This is not just my opinion -- this is a hard medical fact, and your inability to deal with this image (of two men having sex) in no way detracts from the reality of what I write. I repeat -- uninfected gay men can have sex over and over again, and will not contract or spread AIDS.I should also point out that in the country of my birth and upbringing (South Africa), a MINIMUM of 10% to 20% of the population is now infected with HIV -- and in the part of the country named KwaZulu Natal, infection rates amongst heterosexual black men run as high as one in three. The overwhelming majority of cases of HIV transmission worldwide are heterosexual in nature -- it is only in developed nations such as the US and the UK that HIV infection is more prevalent in the gay male community than in the heterosexual male community.By the way, the South African Minister of Health was booed off the stage in Toronto at the 2007 International AIDS Conference after announcing, to the crowd of scientists, that antiretroviral drugs were “useless” and that a diet of African potatoes, beetroot, garlic, and lime could keep the disease under control Over 80 scientists wrote to Thabo Mbeki insisting that she be fired, due to her gross ignorance. It is ignorance of this nature that is killing people across the world, not gay sex. Once again – GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT if you are going to argue on this thread, or risk making an utter fool of yourself – YET AGAIN!Lesbians, by the way, have the lowest incidence of HIV infection of any group identified along the axes of sex and sexual orientation. Does this mean that you approve of gay relationships between women, but not between men? After all, you imply that gay men harm society by having sex that leads to AIDS (despite the fact that HIV infection rates have plummeted in the gay male community in recent years) – but lesbian sex does not transmit HIV, and lesbian sex is the least risky sex of all. You mentioned something about double standards in your message. Would you care to elaborate? Or do words fail you?Knowing the kind of person that you are -- based on the content of what you have written in other messages -- I strongly suspect that you actually like the idea of two women having sex. Your type always does.As for learning something from AIDS -- the gay community pressed and pressured government bodies for the release of powerful new drugs, and an effective combination of such drugs became available in 1995, when the first of the protease inhibitors was combined with the reverse transcriptase inhibitors to form the so-called HIV antiretroviral HAART cocktails that now suppress viral load to undetectable levels. The gay male population rose to the challenge of this horrifying new disease, and met is head on.I have been sexually active for more than 20 years, and have never had unsafe sex. Consequently, I have remained free from HIV infection (and I get checked regularly). This is proof, in and of itself, that it is not gay sex between men that is responsible for the spread of HIV infection – it is UNPROTECTED gay sex between men that is responsible for the spread of HIV infection. Not that I expect you to understand such fine differentiations, given your crude language, insults, and abuse on this thread.Somebody else remarked that I have a “thin skin”. Dead wrong – as a seasoned activist, I am all too used to dealing with idiots, and have learned never to divest too much emotional energy into attacking them. Invariably, they make fools of themselves without help from me – as did Massage_Master07 in his message above…The bottom line is simple. Don’t come to a thread like this if you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. You have made a fool out of yourself, in a very public forum.
Philip Chandler
Philip,
May 1, 2009 - 10:15 ET by AgnosticGood response but the original poster did not mention god/God. The truth is that while it may be ridiculous to blame the 'gay community' there is historical fact backing up the argument that when the bath houses were asked to be closed and that homosexual men should wear protection or limit their sexual activity the gay activist fought back accusing the government and churches of persecution. This led to a faster spread of AIDS prior to any real understanding of the disease occurred.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Agnostic
May 1, 2009 - 11:00 ET by MrShyI don't know about you, but a run-on, single paragraph with no breaks is never a good response in my book. :p
I could not read it all. Just the top and the closing sentence.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Shy,
May 1, 2009 - 11:11 ET by AgnosticIf it were not for spell check and what passes for the grammar check I would hate to think of what my few paltry posts would look like; I, therefore, refuse to be a grammar Nazi.
On the other hand when someone responds to something you are very emotional about it is rational to assume that content may take precedence over technique.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Chandler
April 19, 2009 - 13:34 ET by rexdraconimQuite a few of us HAVE responded to you with our views, with vitriol. Have you responded to those? Can you find legitimacy in any point of view than your own? Or is it that we disagree with you that makes it so unbearable to be hear?
Could it be you were fired for being a PITA about a subject and are just scapegoating, something common among Leftists?
For me, here, at this site, I require intellectual honesty and its composition in regards to politeness. Most Leftists have been faound wanting in this.
People use words. Maybe they even use words that a person diasapproves of. Such is free speech. The polite thing for a person such as yourself to do is respectfully explain what words are unacceptable to you and a brief "why" if you want. Do not say that a certain word is always offensive to everyone, because it may not be, even on your side. Explain that you do not like it and offer an alternative.
Manners are a two way street. You need to drop your victim entitlement mentality and do your part towards a civil discourse, regardless of what you encounter. Ignore the rudeness and you will find many who are not.
You want to discuss? You have to put up or shut up and look for ways to increase communication instead pushing an agenda. You can discuss with me and I will not name call. I will respond to your posts as completely as I can. But I cannot say that I will agree with you or that you will some how "make me see the light."
And that is what is comes down to. I am a "bad" person because I don't agree with you.....
You don't want discussion or diversity....you want Tyranny of Ideas. How typically Leftist. You can prove me wrong by doing a little self-actualization and seeing if I have a point about any of this. Are you honest enough?
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
It Wasn't Your Job To Begin With
April 19, 2009 - 13:52 ET by BlueCat57This comment has nothing to do with any personal characteristic. It is a simple fact that everyone needs to remember and that government shouldn't interfere with.
IT IS THE EMPLOYER'S JOB, NOT YOUR'S.
The job wouldn't exist without the employer. They should have the right to higher and fire whoever they want to, whenever they want to. They should be allowed to freely decide who they wish to do business with, and who they don't. That would be a truely freemarket.
And before you jump all over my case about discrimination remember this: You have the right to choose with whom you do business. If you and others don't like how someone runs their business then how does the business owner make money? They don't. What motivates the business owner is profit, not politics. You can't buy food for your family with politics. Just ask a Korean store owner in South Central Los Angeles.
Thank me now for today's lesson in economics.
"As Mark Twain once said, never try to teach a pig to sing -- i
April 19, 2009 - 18:09 ET by Poovey"As Mark Twain once said, never try to teach a pig to sing -- it wastes your time and annoys the pig"
Mark Twain was right. Now look in the mirror, you obviously didn't get my point.
"We have all known the
April 19, 2009 - 12:46 ET by Cortillaen"We have all known the wrath of discrimination," said Mr. Paterson, New
York’s first black governor. "We have all felt the pain and the insult
of hatred. This is why we are all standing here today."
Who wants to bet that we'll still be hearing crap like this a hundred years from now (assuming the country still exists by then)?
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Let Them Eat....
April 19, 2009 - 12:54 ET by flyingmonkeyPhillip, I'm a heterosexual male who believes in granting homosexuals the right to marry. I'm also a Christian with no denominational affiliation who believes God created everyone for a purpose, and since our liberties were endowed by our creator, everyone should equally enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
For those of you who feel that homosexual marriage somehow defiles the sanctity of marriage, I suggest that you take a good look at your congregations next time you attend services. I see no sanctity in a divorce rate that's over 50% or in the many Christian couples who choose to shack up. Nor do I see any sanctity in the amount of infidelity that goes on amongst church goers.
As for those who believe that marriage is for the purpose of pro-creation. I know many Christians who are pro-creating without the sake of a marriage certificate. I also know Christian couples who can't, or choose not to, have children. Should we give them a timetable to pro-create and then annul the marriage?
I'll keep an open mind on the issue, but please come up with a reason with merit.
I don't believe that homosexuality is normal. I believe that it's a biological dysfuntion as is being born; deaf, blind, autistic, or with down syndrome, etc...
Phillips biological dysfunction is no more disabling than somebody born with an extra toe. He can function normally in society because his only biological dysfuntion was being born with the wrong parts. Would you deny a person with an extra toe the right to get married?
As for you Phil, try not to be so thin-skinned. I don't know how many times I've been called a homo-phobe by homosexuals whom I didn't agree with. And while it may be true that a pedophile may be gay but all gays are not pedophiles, it would do the gay community a world of good if they stood up and spoke out against NAMBLA. As for your job loss in 2006. "2006 Phil!!! C'mon." You're either hiding something or you're incredibly stupid. You should be a very rich man(??) right now.
~For those who argue
April 19, 2009 - 13:13 ET by choselife3xThat the leftist agenda does not harm the traditional family I point to this....
I see no sanctity in a divorce rate that's over 50% or in the many
Christian couples who choose to shack up. Nor do I see any sanctity in
the amount of infidelity that goes on amongst church goers.
As for those who believe that marriage is for the purpose of
pro-creation. I know many Christians who are pro-creating without the
sake of a marriage certificate. I also know Christian couples who
can't, or choose not to, have children.
The general lowering of the standards of behavior and the glorification of casual sex has caused serious harm to the past 2 generations and it isn't getting better. And infidelity, divorce, 'shacking-up' and illegitmate children are not produced by "Christian" behavior. They are produced by selfish behavior.
hey chose
April 19, 2009 - 13:39 ET by MrShy"And infidelity, divorce, 'shacking-up' and illegitmate children are not produced by "Christian" behavior. They are produced by selfish behavior."
This is why I've avoided marriage and family-making altogether, to avoid the "selfish" tag.
Hold on, that hasn't worked either... I'm called selfish by everyone for being isolated and narcissistic.
Aaah life. You just can't win, I guess. :p
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
~You're a musician
April 19, 2009 - 13:43 ET by choselife3xNo one expects you to be "normal", how weird would that be? ;-)
Mr. Shy
April 19, 2009 - 13:44 ET by rexdraconimMy Brother from Another Mother!
<bump, five, pound>
Bro...
Where is that shameless self-promotion we all know and love?
Just the one link? C'mon...tell us where we can get more of that fantastic Mr. Shy merchandise....
Hey, buddy, just razzing you! The family says hi and the girls still think you're cute. :)
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
Good Thread
April 19, 2009 - 13:42 ET by BlueCat57I like where this thread is going. It should be interesting. We are all sinners, Christian or not, and sin is sin. The label of Christian, or Muslim, is just that a label. We don't know what is in the heart of someone unless we know them personally. Going to church doesn't make one a Christian any more than being born to Catholic parents make someone a Catholic. And being born in Africa and moving to America doesn't make you an African-American. Just ask a white South African immigrant.
And quite frankly I am SICK AND TIRED OF THIS 50% DIVORCE BULLSHI#!!!! It is a false statistic and just as invalid as the 90% of guns one that is being thrown around. There are 50+ million married couples in America. Each year 2 million marriages take place and 1 million divorces occur. Each year about 2% of marriages are dissolved. A far cry from 50%!! Yes the rate is about the same or a little higher for those that attend church but couples that are not married are less likely to attend church together. How long do relationships of those living together last? How long to gay couples last?
There are many studies that shouw that the traditional family is the best model for society, as is being conservative and religious. But this is a free country and people can make their own decisions.
However, why do gays have more rights to get their way than I do to get mine? Why do minorities deserve to get their way more than the majority?
Obama doesn't think that minorities have more rights than the majority. Just ask him. He'll tell you "I won, deal with it."
So I'm a white, heterosexual, married man. I'm in charge. Deal with it.
So I'm a white,
April 20, 2009 - 15:14 ET by JasonCSo I'm a white, heterosexual, married man.
Hey, me too. I'm just not hysterically insecure about it to the point of thinking everyone who's not should be marginalized and smeared as abnormal.
I do enjoy these threads though. As gay marriage becomes more accepted by the day, those who try to cobble together arguments against it just look more and more extreme and silly. Since Vermont's landmark decree last week, you can't even cling to the whole "the will of the people was undermined by the courts" BS.
4 down, 46 to go.
Not Insecure nor Cobbling
April 21, 2009 - 19:33 ET by BlueCat57We're neither insecure nor cobbling together arguments against.
Bottom Line: It is our tax dollars that pay to clean up the mess that is created by the destruction of families based on the traditional definition (man, woman, married) and traditional values. And that is reason enough to support the traditional definitions.
Right. Because
May 1, 2009 - 11:24 ET by JasonCRight. Because "traditional" families haven't been responsible for all kinds of neglect, abuse, divorce, and general dysfunction. If not for those insidious "non-traditional" families we'd all be living like Leave it to Beaver. Are you really this deluded?
well flying monkey
April 19, 2009 - 14:05 ET by candancePerhaps the church is dealing with premarital sex and 50% divorce precisely because Christians are trying too hard to be secular. The world says we need to relax and be more like them, oops look at that we are corrupting our churches with sin. Instead of the world being more like us, we are becoming more like them.
And your solution to dysfunctional marriage is to embrace more dysfunctional marriage.
Trust me bro, if you think marriage is broken in America now, wait to see just how much worse it can get.
I think that is the goal CD
April 19, 2009 - 14:37 ET by general companyThey want all institutions undermined, all control centralized. It is far easer to control the public when nothing is held as principled or revered. Unless of course it contradicts the controlling power, then it will be dealt with harshly, as witnessed in any socialized country. Marrige is just one of the cogs that the "Status" need to file down to make this "work".
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Church Shouldn't Allow Secularism.
April 20, 2009 - 00:34 ET by flyingmonkeyIt's my belief that the church is at fault for allowing cultural liberalism to seep into their conservative teachings. Like any business, and I view most churches as businesses, they are willing to accept indiscretion in order to maintain or increase the bottom line.
When you start accepting divorce and/or shacking up, you lose the moral high ground and can no longer draw the distinction between right or wrong.
Churches used to excommunicate or withdraw from those who broke the rules as is stated in the Bible, but now they look the other way. The Bible isn't Wikipedia and the definition of the Law doesn't change to accomodate liberalism.
I don't embrace dysfunctional marriages. My point is that if you are going to allow them for some, allow them for everyone. A sin, is a sin, is a sin.
flyingmonkey writes....
May 1, 2009 - 10:09 ET by philipcfromnycFlyingmonkey writes: "As for you Phil, try not to be so thin-skinned. I don't know how many times I've been called a homo-phobe by homosexuals whom I didn't agree with. And while it may be true that a pedophile may be gay but all gays are not pedophiles, it would do the gay community a world of good if they stood up and spoke out against NAMBLA. As for your job loss in 2006. "2006 Phil!!! C'mon." You're either hiding something or you're incredibly stupid. You should be a very rich man(??) right now."
*********
I am an openly gay man, and I have spoken out, countless times, against organizations such as NAMBLA. This is an organization of sick perverts who wish to rape children. Gay men do not rape children -- by definition, gay men are sexually attracted to other men, not to children. The DSM-IV makes it absolutely clear that pedophilia is a sexual disorder (paraphilia), whereas homosexuality is NOT a sexual disorder, and has not been recognized as a sexual disorder since the American Psychiatric Association delisted it from the DSM (then in its second edition) in 1973.By the way, gay pride parades kicked NAMBLA out of their parades back in the late 1970s – almost 40 years ago. Back then, gay people were regarded with the same contempt as we continue to hold for members of NAMBLA. I repeat – pedophiles rape and harm children. Gay men and lesbians harm absolutely nobody.
As for my job -- you are clearly ignorant with respect to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This piece of federal legislation does NOT (NOT) include sexual orientation in its protective ambit, as a characteristic that may not be taken into consideration when making hiring, firing, or promotion decisions in the private sector. Many people mistakenly believe that federal law protects gay persons from job discrimination -- IT DOES NOT! It is for this reason that President Obama has pledged to sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) when it is presented to him shortly by Congress. Both houses are sympathetic to this legislation, and it is likely to get through Congress very soon.
The bottom line is that I have no federal cause of action against the "Christian" who fired me for being gay.Had you done some research, you would have learned this before accusing me of hiding something, or of telling lies (which is effectively what you have done). And no -- I don't think that I am incredibly stupid, although I admit that it is not for me to make that judgment.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Wealthy Tax Payers
April 19, 2009 - 13:26 ET by BlueCat57Is it possible the governor is trying to attract wealthy tax payers to NY state by legalizing gay marriage? If gays have the same rights as heterosexuals, then they can be taxed at the same rate and their inheritences can be confiscated as well. If gays have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals then they will neglect to use wills and trusts to pass on their property without excessive taxation and the state will earn more tax revenue from them. What a clever plan!!
The New York Times has
April 19, 2009 - 18:18 ET by GeronLThe New York Times has finally become PRAVDA. Might as well as give them government funding.
The only reason for
April 19, 2009 - 21:27 ET by nadadhimmiThe only reason for disagreeing with Obama or Paterson, according to the idiot leftists is, you guessed it: RACISM!!!!!!!! Hey, has anybody else ever noticed that Paterson looks EXACTLY like Gov Le Petomaine in Mel Brooks great movie "Blazing Saddles"?
Thanks nadad
April 20, 2009 - 00:40 ET by flyingmonkeyI noticed it but I couldn't put my finger on it. Every time I saw his picture I said to myself, "Damn, who does he remind me of?" Thanks! I no longer need to rack my brain trying to figure it out.
Separated At Birth
April 21, 2009 - 19:27 ET by BlueCat57I think Laura Ingraham does a separated at birth thing on her Web site.