Gay Marriage: Intolerance Only On The Left
Posted by Dirty Harry on Monday, November 10th, 2008
As a low-level mover and shaker in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy I can tell you that no one I know opposes gay marriage out of any kind of hatred for gays or a desire to marginalize anyone. Essentially, opposition to Proposition 8 came down to two reasons.
1. The belief that gay marriage by court fiat is unjust. Such a social shift must come from voters via ballot initiatives or elected legislators responsible to the voters.
2. A religious value.
And no one I know opposes civil unions, or the granting of the same rights to gay couples that married couples enjoy.
In other words, we are compassionate and decent people opposing Prop. 8 for morally defensible and principled reasons and while doing so expressing a perfect and sympathetic tolerance for gay and lesbian couples.
The intolerance on this issue solely resides on the other side. While we are sympathetic and understanding up to the point of legalized civil unions, they are hateful and intolerant labelling us prejudiced and homophobic because we won’t budge that extra 1%.
They refuse to do what we have done and take a moment to see things from our side through compassionate eyes. They have refused to show even a hint of respect for where we’re coming from with respect to judicial overreach or with respect to, yes!, the cultural differences they have with people of faith.
Gee, and I thought liberals were famous for respecting different cultures.
It wasn’t easy for me to vote against Prop. 8. Like many good people I was conflicted in many ways over the issue.
But thanks to the hateful reaction to the passage of Prop 8, if there’s a next time, I’ll be a little less conflicted.
And I don’t think I’m alone.
Hey, if you can’t take a breath and a moment to appreciate where we’re coming from, why would we continue to for a bunch of, well, religophobes?
Filed in General |
Lord Jiggyon 10 Nov 2008 at 4:54 pm 1Right on, DH.
I personally have no problem with gay people getting married. Worried about gay immorality? Let them get married. I don’t see it weakening marriage any more than no-fault divorce has done.
On the other hand…what tipped me to vote yes for Prop 8 was the knowledge that 62% of California voters with an opinion had previously voted to make marriage just between a man and woman, yet some court decided to override that.
I was voting against judicial fiat, and to support the rights of the voters who’d made their will known.
Kenn Christensonon 10 Nov 2008 at 4:57 pm 2So, where do we vote to eliminate the 9th circus?
Fiftyfooton 10 Nov 2008 at 5:05 pm 3The teaching (legitimizing) of gay sex to 8th graders is coming next. Pushed on a reluctant population by people who can’t even have kids of their own. That is a third reason to oppose gay marraige.
royon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:08 pm 4The people of CA have spoken more than once on this issue. The opposition such respect that a lawful vote has been taken and respect it. Who is more intolerant? Respect the vote.
Fiftyfooton 10 Nov 2008 at 5:20 pm 5What’s paranoid or bigoted about it? We’ve all watched the evolution of this issue in the courts in the very short time since sodomy laws were struck down by the supreme court. And not wanting your son purposely led into an unhealthy alternative if little Susie doesn’t find it in her interest to put out at age thirteen is not bigoted. It’s common sense.
USS Benon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:23 pm 6Personally, I’m sick n’ tired of crybaby’s like you, Rusty, who call folks bigoted, paranoid, and oh, another one the Left likes to use is racist, to get what you want.
Not only is it not true, but it shows just how immature and spoiled people like you are.
You’re like a kid throwing a tantrum and trying to get us to defend ourselves rather than address the issue civilly.
Well, we don’t need to defend ourselves because we have done nothin’ wrong.
You OTOH have once again shown your true colors.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:28 pm 7And abe will be here to call us bigots in 3…2…1…
thudon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:28 pm 8rusty..if it helps I’m a bigot….most others here seem pretty decent on this subject….you need to try elsewhere to get some traction on this.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:33 pm 9Rusty:
Do you really think that we who oppose gay marriage do so because we are bigots? Do you believe that we are unaware of gay people in our lives, that we don’t work next to or socialize with gays?
Do you really think we don’t have gays in our families? Do you think that someone as close as a godchild or nephew can be gay and we just hate them so much as to deny them human rights?
Do you really think we are just haters?
If so, I think it is you that has to look at your prejudices before accusing others that you do not know of being bigots.
Stephanieon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:35 pm 10I just think it devalues Marriage. Now call me a bigot Rusty whatever assuages your guilt for being alive.
Fiftyfooton 10 Nov 2008 at 5:40 pm 11This is ugly. Okay Rusty, I’m a bigot too. And next time I post, you need to remember I’m a racist as well. Gotta run, my snakes need hand’lin.
G-MANon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:42 pm 12rusty-
I’m a bigot too. I don’t like stupid people. They annoy me. A lot. That’s why I limit my time on blogs. This is one of the few blogs I visit daily, because there are way less stupid people on here.
Gay people are ok. Stupid people are not.
One more thing. There are 62 million stupid people in the U.S.A.
David123456on 10 Nov 2008 at 5:48 pm 13I’m worried about being called a “bigot” by these people???
N-Word Hurled at Blacks During Westwood Prop 8 Protest
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/11/n-word-and-raci.html
I think not.
whiskeyon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:49 pm 14First, Gay Marriage is a “Stuff White People Like” status affair. No one really CARES one way or another about Gay Marriage among the Yuppie, Apple Laptop and Ipod set. Merely having the “correct” opinions to gain status. Like a novel of manners out of Jane Austen’s day.
Second, the only “bigotry” is the N-bomb that Gays have been dropping on Blacks as referenced by Instapundit.
Third, increased Multiculturalism and “diversity” means no gay marriage. Hispanics like gays even less than Blacks, who detest them. [See any Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Richard Pryor, or that “Rick James” parody-guy.] Let alone Muslims, who’s debate is whether gays should be killed by toppling walls on top of them or being thrown off tall buildings.
Fourth, there are sound objections having nothing to do with religion to oppose gay marriage.
They are, the inevitability of polygamy following Gay Marriage (which has been the case in the Netherlands, Britain, Scandi nations, and Canada.) Followed by, in no particular order, concerns that the more “gay” marriage is, the more men will flee it like a Broadway show. Given the illegitimacy rate of 41% among Whites, 56% among Hispanics, and 70% among Blacks, this is not an idle concern. There is also the concern that Gay Marriage will, as it has in Australia and Canada, result in the jailing of ministers and preachers who preach sermons against it, and revocation of tax exempt status of Churches who’s teachings oppose it or refuse gay weddings. It HAS been the case in other states that Gay Marriage, and teaching children “King and King” in the lower elementary schools IS a matter of the Education Code which leaves parents NO OPTION to opt-out.
That has been the case of CT, VT, and other states allowing Gay Marriage.
The benefit is a few thousand gays marry. While settled constitutional law holds it is permissible to discriminate for public policy (such as discriminating against White kids or Asian kids in favor of Black and Hispanic ones for college admission), there seems to be no reason to benefit a tiny minority (the small number of people who are both gay and want to marry).
Gays, as a matter of record according to every General Social Survey, have very many partners and do not exhibit monogamy to any significant degree.
If there was a benefit, I would support Gay Marriage for public policy reasons. However, I see a lot of harm and very little benefit. There are IIRC about 14,000 estimated gays to be married. I would wager that the actual number is more like 2,000 or so. The city of Toronto, according to Mark Steyn, has had gay marriage for a decade and had only 200 takers, as opposed to about 4,000 polygamous marriages.
I have no desire to be on the hook for welfare for polygamous marriages among Muslims and FLDS types. Which is the biggest cost of Gay Marriage.
Religion and attitudes towards Gays has no influence on my reasoning. It is based on my assessment of the benefits (not much) and costs (huge) of Gay Marriage, and unconcern about how “cool” I look in the status mongering market.
David123456on 10 Nov 2008 at 5:50 pm 15It’s just disingenuous to pretend that these comments represent “less than one-hundredth of one-percent” of the commenters here.
It’s disingenuous to pretend DH knows somebody just because they left a comment on his blog once.
whiskeyon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:52 pm 16I’ll add that the fuss over Gay Marriage is all about “Power.” The Power of Gays, unchecked by media concerns, political concerns (in a 100% Democratic state), or much of anything else flexing their muscles against people they hate: Mormons, Catholics, Blacks.
Hispanics voted against Gay Marriage also, in greater proportions than Blacks according to Exit Polls. But Gay activists have been notoriously silent on that aspect. Since Hispanics are the largest demographic group. And Blacks and Religious people are on demographic decline.
whiskeyon 10 Nov 2008 at 5:59 pm 17One more add — for “tolerance” for minorities of either race, sexual orientation, or religion, “Multiculturalism” does not work — whatever group is the most intimidating gets it’s way. The rules of Multiculturalism is shouting loudest and being the most feared through physical brutality and control of institutions.
What “works” is a large majority, in demographic ascendance, it’s position unchallenged, which allows space and freedom, carefully limited and said limits being easily understood, for minorities who never become too large and threatening.
The Netherlands in the 1600’s and 1700’s, England in the 1700’s and 1800’s, and America for much of her run prior to say, 1968 or 1972, which ever you prefer, exemplifies this approach.
[Blacks are the “exception” to this in America, both because American culture is Anglo-Celtic-African, and inextricably bound up in Black culture, music, food, tastes, mores, etc. and the legacy of Slavery and Segregation. Nevertheless it broadly applies.]
Multiculturalism does not work for gays any more than any other minority. It never has in human history. It should be junked as a bad idea like Maoism, Maxism, Fascism, Theocracy, and all other proven bad ideas.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:02 pm 18rusty:
For centuries man-man or woman-woman marriage has not been recognized by any government, society or culture.
Society, through its government, has to make distinctions and limits on a whole host of issues. Why did polygamy, a practice with a much longer history of practice, become illegal? Are you advocating for it’s reinstatement?
Society decides what age people are legally allowed to marry. Are you advocating for those restrictions to be eliminated?
Is it in society’s interest to promote marriage as a calming influence. Would evidence of lower marriage rates in societies that allow gay marriage be a reason, non-bigoted of course, to oppose gay marriage?
I can look at a lot of your evidence of bigoted comments as reasonable reasons to oppose gay marriage. But to accuse John and the commentators of bigotry is a reflection of your attitudes.
whiskeyon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:06 pm 19Rusty I fail to see how my comments are “bigoted.” Truth-telling yes, in that PC and Multiculturalism do not work.
I have no religious objection to gays getting married, merely public policy ones. You might disagree with those reasons, but I’ve explained them clearly.
Mark Steyn, and in particular, Stanley Kurtz (see his series in NRO) have written about this many times, and in fact changed my mind on the subject. I USED to support Gay Marriage and changed my mind over public policy issues Kurtz in particular raised.
Typical liberal when HIS religion (PC and Multiculturalism) are challenged.
Dirty Harryon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:07 pm 20So I find 9 comments from Rusty in my Spam filter — which automatically flags the obssessive.
Yeah, he’s out of here.
Now we need only ask ourselves this:
1. Will he MoveOn.org?
2. Will his obssession contine as he changes his username and IP address?
Me? I’m guessing numero dos.
Oooohh…. The power of disappearing someone, it gives me a chill.
The_Rickon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:11 pm 21Sorry to derail from Rusty’s non sequitur on who deserves which labels in life…but I’d like to discuss the issue at hand.
It’s been my experience from talking with politically involved gays that for the larger gay community, the marriage issue is:
30% about the actual right to be legally married
40% about pissing off religious people and “sticking it to them” for past grievances. i.e. taking away the last social foothold the religious have against gays.
30% about moving “the cause” forward and increasing “awareness” — i.e. another opportunity to get out in the streets, chant, carry signs, and look faaabulous!!!
(and these #’s are estimates)
Chris E.on 10 Nov 2008 at 6:13 pm 22“If gay marriage is okay, why can’t I marry my dog?”
Why couldn’t I? I mean from a legal standpoint. If we’re changing the legal and historic meaning of marriage, then where does the slope end?
This isn’t bigotry. This is the kind of question people ask in debate. Something the left knows very little about.
Floyd R. Turboon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:14 pm 23I’m just glad the Civil Rights movement leaders of the 1960s were able to keep their topless Black lesbians from making out in public and the dominance crowd dragging their leather bound slaves with assless chaps out of the March on Washington. Except for that — being black and gay is exactly the same — you know — legally.
People don’t want to normalize that. Blacks were and are human beings… marginalizing them based on their color always was and always is wrong. Being treated based on who you do and how you do them is in no way equivalent to skin color discrimination.
Prop 8 denies no rights — it reaffirms the definition of a concept that is thousands of years old. Civil unions will suffice. Gays want the normalization and public affirmation that comes with the label “marriage”. There’s no legal or moral compulsion to normalize deviant behavior. And by “deviant” I mean — “deviant” — different than the norm.
Chris E.on 10 Nov 2008 at 6:16 pm 24Rick, from the one’s I know that first 30% is quite generous.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:16 pm 25DH:
It would be nice to have a real debate on this or other subjects with people that make statements accusing someone of being a bigot.
But name calling is not a good way to get an honest dialogue going. I am more than willing to defend my statements that people think are evidence of bigotry but when abe or rusty make that charge it will be argued by me and others.
The_Rickon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:16 pm 26I have to admit, however, how the left took all that anti-Bush anger and shifted it to this issue after Obama won.
When exactly did the left get so angry and bullying? Anymore, it’s the conservatives that are easy-going peacemakers, trying to use humor to deal with polarizing issues.
The left? They want to bury us, literally, in dirt.
USS Benon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:17 pm 27DH-
Well, when his first comment is to flame (no pun intended) with the bigot word like a rabid…bigot, and to continue doing so without reservation or respect to you,
I believe you had no choice.
Fiftyfooton 10 Nov 2008 at 6:17 pm 28So many good comments to read. (I’m mainly a reader here. Seem to step in it when I post.) Completely worth suffering Rusty, in my opinion, to provoke debate.
But then again, he didn’t do a lot of debating himself come to think of it.
G-MANon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:22 pm 29whiskey-
Your point about multiculturalism and PC not working is totally correct.
I lived in Alaska for 35 years. The federal government built a huge Alaska Native Hospital (to replace the older one). ONLY Alaska Natives can go there and it is free of charge. The government also gave a lot of money which ended up in their corporations as a settlement for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which started sometime around 1969 or 1970 I believe. I always had a deep respect for the Alaska Natives, but the irony of it all was that the more you draw a distinction between cultural groups, the more you keep the distinction alive.
I see the same now that I work at a college in Nevada. There are multicultural events that support Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc……….. Again, the more you draw and highlight the distinctions, the longer they will remain, and the longer bigotry and discrimination will be alive.
Chris E.on 10 Nov 2008 at 6:22 pm 30Fifty, I would love to have a leftist, or even (if they still exist) an actual liberal to debate in an intellectually honest manner. Of course, I’d like Adriana Lima to offer give me a back massage. Pipe dreams are fun.
Raoul Ortegaon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:23 pm 31In my lifetime “the love that dare not speak its name” has become “the love that won’t shut the hell up.”
Most of us don’t care about homosexuals, and only want them to leave us alone, hence the ambivalence we have toward their goals. And also why they have become so loud and obnoxious. People like Rusty no longer care to persuade, they want to harass and intimidate. Give in and they’ll go away? Nope, they’ll just demand more.
Dirty Harryon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:28 pm 32I don’t mind abe or bob. I disagree with them but they don’t spam. it’s the spamming that puts me over.
I also hate it when liberals are just out to infuriate instead of debate, which is what Rusty was up to. Intentionally taking things out of context, spamming…
It’s called twisting the opposition around the an axel. I know it exactly when I see it and have zero tolerance for it.
Chris E.on 10 Nov 2008 at 6:29 pm 33Has anyone seen Richard Pryor’s ‘Live on the Sunset Strip’? It’s brilliant in general, but his bit about the word ‘nigger’ is, to me, relevant. He talks about him and another guy bad mouthing each other, gearing up for a fight… then the guy calls him nigger. Pryor slumps over and says (not an exact quote) “Ah man… that’s great. Now I’m not even a man anymore”. That’s how I feel every time I’m called bigot or racist or hater. How can you fight with someone who denies your basic humanity?
JohnJon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:30 pm 34Just for fun, let me argue that gays should not be required to subsidize other people’s marriages. Providing tax breaks to married couples forces unmarried people to pay higher taxes. Why should I be penalized for someone else’s personal decision?
Under Islamic law, non-Muslims have to pay heavier taxes than Muslims (i.e. Muslims get a tax break). This is supposed to discourage (or punish) unacceptable behavior. Didn’t Americans used to believe that government should only be used in response to force or threat of force?
I could also argue that tax breaks, like subsidies, eventually reduce the quality of whatever is being subsidized. Someone smarter than I might argue that that would help to explain why more marriages fail now. But that would also mean that the government should not be used to engage in any kind of social engineering.
Buck Turgidsonon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:36 pm 35Okay, I’ll go on the record. I don’t care what gays do with each other privately and discretely but I am against official public acknowledgment of gay relationships in the form of civil unions, which just sounds like gay marriage by another name. So now you know one person, DH, who is against civil unions.
Gay people need compassion. Acting as their enablers in a destructive lifestyle is not compassionate. Confusing kids about sexual morality just to spare the feelings of others whose sexuality is misdirected is not compassionate.
P.S. I am also against no-fault divorce. Go back to fault based divorce and see how many gays clamor for matrimonial bliss.
Floyd R. Turboon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:38 pm 36John J you can argue all that, but my kids will subsidize all the single childless folks who have no one to care for them when they get old and sick so it all comes out in the wash.
Also the gov’t has an interest in promoting families (and the intact family is the best way to raise children — the research backs up thousands of years of experience) and privilegng that. We all benefit from healthy happy kids — they’re called citizens, soldiers, and taxpayers.
Floyd R. Turboon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:40 pm 37All that being said… the Church should get out of the state marriage business. As a matter of social policy though — the best policy is to encourage single healthy hetero adults to marry each other, stay together for life, and have and raise happy and healthy kids.
USS Benon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:45 pm 38JohnJ.-
First of all, tax breaks aren’t subsidies. Subsidies is someone else money, period.
Tax breaks for married folks is there own money, not someone elses.
The purpose of marriage tax breaks is to encourage marriage, having children (something that is hurting European countries, not having enough children).
The less children we have the less future adults to pay taxes to support you when you’re older.
Gay people can’t have children, although they can adopt, and I believe they can get tax breaks and govt. money for adopting (anyone who adopts).
But they can’t produce more children between them, unless they fnd someone willing to carry in vitro, but that would be a very few people.
Splashon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:49 pm 39I hate to razz Harry every time this subject comes up, but I just don’t get his logic. He’s a proud “friend of the gay man” while railing against sexual deviancy in his review of “Zack & Miri.”
Guess what? Homosexuality is sexual deviancy. (When two dudes with sperm-producing hardware burn to hook up, it’s deviant.) The practice has merely made social inroads to the point that a guy like Harry has warmed to it…despite the fact he’s a Christian and conservative cultural commentator…and the Bible counts it both a sin and the mark of a decaying society.
Twisting ourselves into all sorts of impossible shapes to avoid calling a spade a spade only leaves us open to legitimate attack.
My faith holds it as wrong, both in practice and theory. Without that higher, moral basis for our position, the other side would be right, and we would be mere “bigots” for opposing it.
JohnJon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:50 pm 40Well, Floyd, the government also has an interest in taking away someone’s house and giving it to someone who will use it to increase government revenue.
I suppose the question is whether we do benefit when the government forces me to subsidize someone else’s behavior.
Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who said “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical”?
JohnJon 10 Nov 2008 at 6:52 pm 41Tax breaks are a form of subsidy. There is no significant difference between giving someone tax money and taking less tax money from them and not everyone else.
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:05 pm 42If Chris E wants to marry his dog, I’m all for it. Except, of course, as much as Chris like likes licking his dogs balls, how do we know how the dog feels about this?
If two people express a mutual desire to live together and share all things legal and romantic, well butt out America. Pursuit of happiness and all that. I hate guns. Won’t deny you have the right to snuggle one at night if that’s all you got. Sorry for you, though.
If you REALLY want to protect marriage, deny divorce. All those extra wives become concubines or outright whores. Men should be jailed for affairs and tracked down if they become dead beat dads. Every sperm needs to be accounted for. Yep. Think about it.
I’m happily married, over eighteen years. We wish we could look foward to a hundred years more. Our marriage is our own and no other marriage can or could effect it. Get lives people. Move on.
Jack Marinoon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:20 pm 43Prop 8 has been defeated and it is done. The lawsuits won’t change the amendment. They gay militants will push and push and the other 49 states will put a marriage amendment in the constitution that will end this nonsense.
We have more pressing issues with Obama getting rid of oil drilling, and embryonic stem cells, these are the first thing he is doing and this is just the beginning. He supports killing newborns that survive and abortion, he wants the baby killed. Now they want to harvest body parts from these stem cells under the guise of curing people. This is a billion dollar industry this factory of death and the Democrats have the stink of the death camps on them. This new president wants to go against everything this country stands for and George W Bush is the last Christian President and now we have nothing but a souless bunch of people that are determined to destroy this country
trzupron 10 Nov 2008 at 7:25 pm 44And aren’t the people who go on and on about gay marriage being a “right”, the same people who don’t give a damn if women in Muslim nations are abused, forced to wear hefty sacks and - in worst of them - murdered by their spouses, without consequence? I may be mistaken, but that seems kind of like… what’s the word?… irony.
Really, why is THIS the big deal? In the vast spectrum of the world’s problems and injustices, this one would seem to rank somewhere just above finding a way to prevent pocket lint from forming. It’s a dignity issue, if it’s anything, and if you need society to pretend to affirm a relationship that the majority of society does not find sacred, then you’ve got bigger dignity problems that society can solve.
Chris E.on 10 Nov 2008 at 7:33 pm 45Thanks for proving my overarching point for me, Dalia. The left can’t debate except by insults and illogic.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:34 pm 46trzupr
Those feminists and defenders of equal rights are not only silent about the treatment of women and children in muslim countries, but they were the same ones screaming bloody murder demanding the head of Larry Summers at Harvard for an innocent remark.
Priorities are really screwed up in those circles. I must have missed something by not going to an elite college in the east.
Major Grahamon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:46 pm 47I think Rush’s definition of a bigot applies here. It is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. That is why guys like Rusty use it. It is a meaningless trigger word that is used to stop any sort of rational discussion. Fine, I can play that game too:
Rusty, you are a bigot. You obviously hate Christians and conservatives. It all stems from a deep seated fear that they are actually right and from a bad relationship with your parents. And you have never had a successful relationship with the opposite sex. And you have bad breath and acne. See? Wasn’t that easy? I don’t know if any of that is true or not, but it makes me feel self-righteous.
Besides - Gays already have the exact same rights as everyone else. They are free to marry or not marry someone of the opposite sex. What they are asking for is a special “right”. One which cannot be established by historical precedent, an appeal to human nature, or logic.
I agree with most of the above comments. If gays want domestic partnerships then that if fine. But redefining marriage just to make a 1-3% minority happy seems stupid - especially given the fact that only a few percent of that few percent actually want marriage. Once the camel’s nose is in the tent the rest follows. Marriage will become a meaningless word. You do open the door to polygamy and other combinations of relationships.
The Ugly Americanon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:47 pm 481. The belief that gay marriage by court fiat is unjust. Such a social shift must come from voters via ballot initiatives or elected legislators responsible to the voters.
2. A religious value.
Funny, that’s exactly why I voted YES.
Queerly Yours,
–TUA
The Ugly Americanon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:49 pm 49…well, and also perhaps as just a little “f*ck you” to the liberal gay establishment.
The Ugly Americanon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:53 pm 50And may I just point out once again that for a group who’ve just won a long, hard-fought election, these folks look anything less than gay.
To quote Jim Treacher, “Get over it. You won”
Emilyon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:54 pm 51Hey Dalia,
Should I respond to you or just call myself a racist? Or am I a homophobe now just because I disagree with you?
wanketteon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:56 pm 52That was very wince-worthy…another moment when women made women look stupid. He’ll probably be out of a cabinet position because of this. I’m not that concerned about his career, but I’m bugged that he’s being blackballed because of AN OPINION!
As Jonah Goldberg calls it, liberal fascism.
The Ugly Americanon 10 Nov 2008 at 7:57 pm 53“Trans Equality?”
Meh.
I like Mustangs better.
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:02 pm 54Of course not Emily. I love discourse. And, for the record, I never called you a racist.
Chris, I’m happy to discuss with you. But, in truth, I’ve been taught that this is not a site that likes actual dispute. Wanna give a whirl, I’m utter game. Tag you’re it.
P.S. Just for sport, I take back the licking of your dogs balls, just making a point. But bringing up dogs was silly.
wanketteon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:03 pm 55p.s., Sarah’s on Greta’s show now. I’d like to see Obambi discuss policy while preparing dinner.
I love her (SP) even more. And I’m grooving on Greta recently, all because she seems to be one of the only journalists around who’s fond of the Palins. (as opposed to the Obambis) No wonder Sarah granted HER the first interview. Plus I think she (Greta) crushes a bit on Todd, which — don’t we all.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:05 pm 56wankette:
I heard someone on MSNBC this morning say that Summers “said women are not as smart as men at math”.
I hate defending anyone that worked in a Clinton administration, but he did not say that and the fact that no one at MSNBC corrected that statement shows how clueless people are.
He only did what teachers at every school do every day - ask a question. He never stated it as fact.
People only hear what they want to hear.
JohnJon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:09 pm 57“I take back the licking of your dogs balls…”
Not in public!
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:10 pm 58What do you hear?
Emilyon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:10 pm 59Dalia,
To me: “Emily you sound like someone who is uncomfortable with black folk.”
To everyone: “I don’t think you people like black people.”
Care to try again?
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:18 pm 60No. I was responding to comments made at that time. If you are uncomfortable with what you said, I’m sorry. Perhaps you didn’t write what you meant to say. I don’t feel that most on this site are rascist. Honestly. I think the divied is much deeper than that. I don’t agree with you, I will not hate you. I will not tolerate hate. Not from liberals either.
wanketteon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:21 pm 61JEB,
I’m posting your words again because they are worth repeating, and proof that libs eat their own.
I didn’t know about that MessNBC thing, but having read it, I just rolled my eyeballs so hard that they’ve popped out of my head. (& now rolling down the block, etc.)
Emilyon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:23 pm 62Dalia,
So…you respond to certain comments by saying someone is racist (”uncomfortable with black folks”)? But then you say they’re not really racist, they were for just that comment?
Suuuure. And by the way, I don’t take back anything I said.
Now would apparently be a good time for you to though.
Anyway, we’ll have to continue this later because my brother needs the computer now.
Chris E.on 10 Nov 2008 at 8:27 pm 63Dalia,
The dogs thing is a simple opening gambit. You failed it, obviously. Had you been reasonable, you’d have marked marriage as an institution between humans. I would have made light of you considering it being an institution an institution of anything, considering how much and dramatically you want to change that institution. Then I would have gone on and accepted your premise, for now, and asked what’s to stop marriage between close relatives or even plural marriage. You’d have either been intellectually honest about it and said ‘nothing’, at which point we could simply agree that we see the importance of a semi-unified culture to be two different things, or you’d have made some kind of argument of marriage being between two people (again, arguing based on an institution you believe should be instituted based entirely on preference), and that marriage between siblings or parent-child has genetic factors. I’d have asked what if these relatives promise to get sterilized first. Eventually, you call me a bigot or something, or step into my “culture is important” trap, and have nowhere to go but home to do some reading on the subject. I’m guessing the former.
But I don’t argue with people who suggest I lick dog balls. It’s kind’ve a thing of mine.
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:29 pm 64Divide. Obviously.
And, well yes. I do care to try again. I do feel that I was responding to what was offered. If I misunderstood, well okay. Let’s give it another whirl.
PerfectTommyon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:39 pm 65Dalia, you may not wish to tolerate hate, but you’ve come across as quite hostile in this thread, and previous threads. Also that dog remark sure added that extra touch of class so needed here.
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:39 pm 66Emily, I don’t take anything back either. It was an honest discussion. I’m used to them. I’m sure you meant to use too and not to. Whatever believe, love grammar. Love your language, We do NOT may our teachers enough.It’s very nice of you to share the computer with your brother. I will look forward to further conversations.
G-MANon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:44 pm 67Howard Dean will be leaving:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081111/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_dean
I’m not sure he did anything but stay out of the way. This article states over and over again there are 50 states. Maybe the dems will get it right….
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:46 pm 68PerfectTommy, are you kidding me? Me hostile? I think I’m the nicest gal around. I really try. I may not agree, but I am always open minded, I listen and respond. I mostly don’t repond. I learned early, if you can’t say something nice….
Really, I come from a diverse background and I love people I don’t agree with. We love to disagree, it’s a good time.
I’m not finding that here. Too Bad.
PerfectTommyon 10 Nov 2008 at 8:46 pm 69“Whatever believe, love grammar.” Classic.
Supramom2000on 10 Nov 2008 at 8:53 pm 70Dalia,
whatever you believe regarding the definition of marriage was not even really the point of this thread. The point was that the left did not get their way and they became intolerant - as usual.
Now ask yourself why they did not go after the black churches and the hispanic churches? Because that would be racist. So instead, let’s hate the Mormons and the whites because, after all, they are racist, homophobic bigots. Let’s picket Rick Warren’s church because it is all his fault. Let’s picket the Mormons and call them names because it is all their fault.
The churches took a stand based on their theology, as is their duty. Why did the majority of blacks and hispanics vote for Obama and a total democrat ticket but vote against re-defining marriage? I don’t see you asking yourself those questions.
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 9:01 pm 71Sorry. It’s late here. I hate bad grammar and I’m guilty.
You didn’t respond to my reponse to you. Okay. That’s fine.
Hardly classic, though.
Chris, you derserve and will get a real response tomrrow. I will not flake out, but I’m on my lips. I got three kids with colds and my heterosexual husband of eighteen years, lover of twenty two years, has passed out and my baby is waking up. You deserve more than lip. I’ll give it to you. But here’s a warning, I’m wicked smart.
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 9:11 pm 72Supramom2000,
Likewise, Let me get back to you. Overall, I think Mormans have to answer a bunch of questions. But, then again, many churches do. Let me gather my wits about me, and if you are a mother, you know what I mean about a house full of sniffles.
David123456on 10 Nov 2008 at 9:11 pm 73But here’s a warning, I’m wicked smart.
Without having read what you’ve written, I’m guessing you’re a Liberal. Liberals like to tell people how absolutely brilliant they are. For smart people, you say the darndest things though.
Supramom2000on 10 Nov 2008 at 9:23 pm 74Look forward to it Dahlia.
We use Zycam gel swabs and probiotics and we get sick abou 1 time per year. Seriously!! Try them.
And my husband works in the ER and brings home everything. We just never get sick with those two precautions.
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 9:31 pm 75Didn’t say brillant. Said smart. And I am. I’m tall too. And I am a liberal. Mostly. Said opened mined as well. Like to disagree. Enjoy discussion, silly me.
Daliaon 10 Nov 2008 at 9:33 pm 76Thanks. I’ll get right some tomorrow. We are in serious need.
USS Benon 10 Nov 2008 at 9:57 pm 77Hope y’all feel better soon Dalia.
I know how miserable colds can be.
SupraMom2000,
Thanks for the recommendation.
Our kids are grown up, but sometimes I take home somethin’ from the VA, so it’s good to know what works. :^)
Supramom2000on 10 Nov 2008 at 10:06 pm 78Glad to help any and all with those nasty colds!!
Our favorite probiotic is Primal Defense. Pretty costly, but cheaper on-line. We don’t take the full dosage unless we feel something coming on.
Sorry for hijacking the thread.
Emilyon 10 Nov 2008 at 10:11 pm 79Dalia,
I’m sorry, in your last comment directed at me I have NO clue what you’re talking about.
“Emily, I don’t take anything back either. It was an honest discussion. I’m used to them. I’m sure you meant to use too and not to.”
Nani…?
“Whatever believe, love grammar.Love your language, We do NOT may our teachers enough.”
Uh, I get that you meant pay not may, but other than that…I’m lost.
“It’s very nice of you to share the computer with your brother. I will look forward to further conversations.”
Yeah….
MovieBobon 10 Nov 2008 at 10:59 pm 80“In other words, we are compassionate and decent people opposing Prop. 8 for morally defensible and principled reasons and while doing so expressing a perfect and sympathetic tolerance for gay and lesbian couples.”
I don’t doubt the sincerity here… but do you really think that this makes your “side” all THAT different from segregationists or even outright racists in eras past?
Do you think that EVERYONE who, for example, opposed the integration of schools or the extension of voting rights to blacks was a snarling, one-dimensional racist evildoer? You don’t think that maybe they, too, had “morally defensible and principled” reasons for their positions?
There were people blocking the doors of newly-integrated schools who “didn’t have anything against” blacks… they were concerned about “society.” They were worried about the “culture.” Maybe that helped them sleep, maybe it was a lie they told themselves, who knows. The fact is, they were consciously on the side of marginalizing a persecuted minority - and so, at this juncture, are you.
johnmark7on 11 Nov 2008 at 12:10 am 81People here, especially liberals and lefties, keep talking about homosexuality as if it were some benign and natural condition that deserves approval and sanction.
What the hell’s the matter with you? Homosexuality is a psychological sickness, an affliction, and a terrible thing to both practice and experience.
The homosexual lifestyle is a sick. depraved, and degrading existence that is extremely unhealthy and causes those who practice it to suffer an average 24 year loss of life span. That includes lesbians, not just males.
Face facts, damnit!
Nor do any of you seem to any idea of how widespread molestation of boys and girls is which leads them into identity confusion and homosexual activity.
GID (Gender Identity Disorder) which occurs in young children is not untreatable, and can result in children gradually assuming their natural roles and biological identities.
C’mon people, stop ignoring facts, science, and health. Same sex attraction is not determined! It’s not genetic nor hormonal. And it’s not normal except for the fact, like many abnormal conditions which afflict us, it happens. Nor is it an act of God. He didn’t make some people gay, and others not. He allows Nature to happen.
http://www.mercatornet.com/backgrounders/view/same_sex_attraction_in_adolescents/
johnmark7on 11 Nov 2008 at 12:22 am 82One problem, as Andrew Sullivan, the notorious homosexual writer and advocate has pointed out is that “we’re all sodomites now.”
That is, the great many of you heteros or homos indulge yourselves in your sexual relationships (and through porn viewing) with other than vaginal sex. In fact, you celebrate auto-eroticism and Lewinskis in mainstream movies and TV.
That’s why MovieBob et al think homosexual acts are no big deal. It’s what he practices or wishes he did. He’s all broad minded about Brokeback Mountain, and hey! cute lezzies getting it on, Mulholland Drive, is actually really hip.
And as a Catholic, DH, you ought to know better. You ought to understand John Paul II’s, Theology of the Body, and St. Paul’s epistle where he writes about the body as a temple.
DH, you’re a baptized Catholic now. Why not get a little more serious about the mystical Body of Christ, and the holiness Christ wants you to pursue?
USS Benon 11 Nov 2008 at 1:32 am 83JohnMark7-
You have made some good points, many of which I agree with, and some I’m not entirely convinced of, although I do agree that nearly every homosexual I have known which isn’t many, did indeed either have no father growing up, were molested/raped, or both.
I have yet to see any proof that people are born homosexual.
However, be that as it may, what has DH done that’s against his religion, precisely?
And personally, aren’t you bein’ spiritually priggish by makin’ that call?
How do you know DH ain’t serious about his faith and why is that your call?
DH runs a movie/political blog, not a theological one. Be that as it may, where did Pope Benedict or St. Paul say we can’t treat homosexuals as human beings or that we can’t befriend them?
I never read that. Pope Benedict, as I recall, agrees with Paul that Homosexuality is a sin, but he still asks us to love them and treat them with dignity.
Besides, if you choose not to have friends because they sin, you’ll never have any.
We all fall short, John. I say that respectfully, because I think you mean well, but we must be careful as Christians if, when and where we make charges like that. Even how we say it.
And if I felt that strongly about it, I would pray earnestly about it, contemplate it for a long while and be real sure before I would contact someone…privately.
Regardless, not that it’s any of my business, nor did DH invite my input or yours, I don’t see where Harry isn’t bein’ serious enough about his faith.
Feel free to delete my post, Harry, if it goes to far. It wouldn’t bother me.
pandaxon 11 Nov 2008 at 1:51 am 84MovieBob
I don’t doubt the sincerity here… but do you really think that this makes your “side” all THAT different from segregationists or even outright racists in eras past?
I’ve tried giving you the benefit of the doubt but really your b.s. is getting real old. Once again you set the measurement of your arguement and you win. So are we demanding that gays ride the back of the bus? Show me any gay person that can’t live where they choose and be gay. This isn’t about a an ethnic group so your throwing around the term racist doesn’t apply. Tell me what does a gay person look like? What this is about is gay people demanding access to marriage as the final approval of their lifestyle. Because these days it’s not enough to be able to do what you want you have to get the rest of us to cheer you on and tell you how great you are.
And while I’m at it I really doubt the sincerity of your arguement other then you once again trying to be the cool kid who thinks he’s so cool because you don’t go along with everyone else.
USS Benon 11 Nov 2008 at 2:13 am 85Pandax-
Good point. Comparing homosexuals who demand to co-opt the meaning of marriage as well as demanding approval (even in school indoctrination) to civil right’s struggles is a false dichotomy.
johnmark7on 11 Nov 2008 at 2:29 am 86USS Ben,
You ask fair questions. My quarrel with DH is that he describes his anguish about a gay friend and then later in this post talks about giving homosexuals every right that married people have except for calling it marriage.
He fails to recognize as a Catholic the disordered conscience and minds of homosexuals who justify their condition and practice, and fails to distinguish the depth of depravity such people sink into; the despair inherent in such choices.
Agreed that this is not a theology blog, but DH has a duty as a Catholic to assent to all the faith and morals doctrines of the Church. I don’t expect him to preach it here, but I don’t expect him to dismiss it either with odd opinions in conflict with Church teaching.
The Church may be a hospital for sinners, but its souls are also arrows shot at sainthood. Tolerance of sinners does not mean acceptance and approval.
Nowhere does DH say he seriously disapproves of homosexual conduct or that faith can either heal SSA or ameliorate the affliction.
The idea that Christians are not to make judgments about other people’s conduct is absurd. Who is more judgmental than Christ and every prophet before him?
We are called to judge right from wrong in everything we do, and everything we observe.
Someday I’d love DH to reveal in passing just how much time he spends reading the Bible, developing his prayer life, and studying theology. How’s telling them rosary beads coming along, DH?
Or are you still about typing one handed when uploading the cheesecake?
johnmark7on 11 Nov 2008 at 2:41 am 87As far as befriending homosexuals, I used to be friends with a few and I’m friendly to all my neighbors, homosexuals included, but I doubt very much that I could be close to a homosexual today as I was when I was 17 and a dear friend revealed his SSA to me, the only person he trusted not to recoil in horror.
“But you’re not interested in me, right?”
“Oh, no, no.”
“Okay. That’s good.”
There is a deep lie in the soul, heart and mind of a man or woman who believes that they are as they are and nothing can help it. I couldn’t be friends with that person anymore than I could easily be with someone who thinks the universe and being is a joke, that there is no objective truth, and that God is a sad fiction sorry and dumb people invent to make themselves feel good.
I’m too old to be friends with fools and those who cannot recognize their wounds and psychological follies.
USS Benon 11 Nov 2008 at 2:56 am 88Well John, I never said we shouldn’t discern and judge.
I’m just sayin’ I don’t see where DH approves of homosexuality.
But c’mon, are you seriously sayin’
this?
“Someday I’d love DH to reveal in passing just how much time he spends reading the Bible, developing his prayer life, and studying theology.”
Do you think DH owes anyone here the answers you seek?
And why stop there, should everyone answer those questions here?
I disagree. This isn’t a religious blog, although many of us may bring up religious beliefs.
And I don’t believe DF or anyone here owes anyone here those answers.
That’s somethin’ we might tell friends, Priests and Pastors, spiritual advisors, but not folks we don’t know on a blog, although I have seen it on religious blogs, but that’s part of the purpose of religious blogs (Bible study, metaphysics, prayer, theology, discussion).
Seems to me you’re practically demanding it here and I think that’s wrong or at least not a helpful tactic.
I reckon we can agree to disagree,
John, but you aren’t helping with that attitude, no matter how right you believe you are.
How you say stuff matters immensely. Just my 2 cents.
USS Benon 11 Nov 2008 at 3:19 am 89As for friends, there are levels of friendship.
I served with some great guys in the Navy, and on shore duty one of my best friends told me he was homosexual.
I was shocked, to say the least, because I didn’t have a clue.
I also believe that gays shouldn’t be in the military, but I didn’t report my friend because he wasn’t the flaming type, and he wouldn’t cause chaos in a ship’s berthing area.
But after a lot of soul searching and talking to my friend, I decided I wasn’t goin’ to quit being his friend.
He knew what I thought about homosexuality, and there were times I made unnecesarily disparaging comments and insults about gays, and I was ashamed about that, but my friend never said a word about it.
I trusted him implicitely with my life, as I did all my shipmates, gay or not, and he wasn’t any less my friend despite our different views concerning gays.
In fact, he disliked the militant gays who made lewd gestures in public and demanded special rights and approval.
My point is this: Jesus hung around with sinners not the Pharisees and Scribes, who were also sinners but they thought they were better than everyone else.
The pharisees weren’t humble or wise. They were always lookin’ for something wrong with Jesus so they could discredit Him, or later to jail and crucify Him.
That’s why Jesus befriended the humble sinners instead, because they didn’t consider themselves better than other sinners.
Many of the heroes in the Bible sinned. David committed murder and adultery. And yet God still loved him.
No sir, you can’t convince me not to be friends with my gay friend, because his gayness has nothing to do with our friendship, and he’s far from a fool.
johnmark7on 11 Nov 2008 at 3:24 am 90USS Ben,
No, DH doesn’t have to justify himself to me. I’m just saying how refreshing it might be to read in passing one day, “It occurred to me the other day while I was perusing Thomas Merton regarding Contemplation . . . ” or “While I was looking into JPII’s Gospel of Life, I had this thought about how it might be applied to movies and criticism…”
Secular habits, secular thinking, and secular attitudes are a challenge. I mean, wouldn’t you respect DH more if he was truly a hard ass like JC?
USS Benon 11 Nov 2008 at 3:45 am 91DH is IMO.
He displays timeless truth’s in his writing. He’s principled, decent, has good morals and recognizes the value of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
He clearly understands “We hold these Truth’s to be self evident.”
Like Andrew Klaven he expresses these truth’s in his blog.
He has mentioned Jesus occasionally, and the golden rule in various ways.
He champion the Good, Beautiful and True.
Along with Liberty isn’t that what God wants for us? To transcend the world and grow, aligned with absolute Truth and Justice? Mercy and Grace? Everything God is?
DH isn’t overt, like a Preacher or Priest or Rabbi, but he says the same things nonetheless.
Sure, there’s times I disagree with DH, and some commenters here, probably everyone at one time or another, but I know Harry always strives to be honest and truthful, and to show the value of his principles, which most of us share.
Harry also is humorous without malice or bitterness, which I appreciate, because I believe God has a great sense of humor and wants us to be thankful and joyful.
Harry shows the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and for many folks that is more effective than Preaching sometimes.
In fact, it is a form of preaching and teaching.
All of this is why I come here, as well as many of the great comments by many of my fellow readers.
Plus, it’s fun n’ interestin’. :^)
johnmark7on 11 Nov 2008 at 4:12 am 92USS Ben,
You’re not actually friends with this homosexual fellow you refer to. That you can rely on him and trust him in the same capacity as you would trust another sailor in doing his duty is unremarkable. If I hire a tailor and find out he’s gay, I still expect him to do the same job as anyone else.
Male friendship is a great and sacred thing. You aren’t actually friends with this fellow because you neither understand his sexual proclivity any more than he understands yours. This is a gulf no friendship can bridge.
Affection, some admiration, a few things in common make for a fine acquaintance, but they aren’t enough to make for real friendship, a brother to brother bond. Because he can never really be a brother; he’s simply not man enough. Even if he took a bullet through the head for you, it still wouldn’t make him enough of a man.
People die everyday doing something heroic (perhaps), and that doesn’t make them automatically eligible for heaven or turn them into saints.
I love my brothers, but if one of them declared himself a homosexual, he’d still be my brother, someone I had a strong bond with and a good deal of affection for, but I wouldn’t ever consider him really a man anymore. And I can only be friends with a man and a wife (and my grown children).
Jesus told you not to be deceived by appearances. Think. Ask. What is a man? Well, one thing is for sure, he’s not a homosexual. Nor is he a thief, a murderer, a rapist, or a fool.
I always wondered why I never thought much of Rock Hudson as a boy, nor believed him as a romantic lead in Doris Day comedies. Or of Tab Hunter. Years later, of course, I learned they were homosexuals pretending to like the other sex. Same with Jody Foster. Never can believe in any movie she’s in that she loves men.
Somehow, it shows. They aren’t really men or women. They are some sort of misshapen human who leaks a serious flaw, a diseased soul.
That’s why we love John Wayne. He may have had his flaws, but he’s not a diseased soul.
St. Paul had a diseased soul. It made him hunt down and kill harmless Christians. It took an act of God to save him from himself. So long as your so called friend rejects salvation, he is not really your friend. He’s just somebody you pleasantly get along with.
johnmark7on 11 Nov 2008 at 4:15 am 93USS Ben,
Well said about DH. Can’t quarrel with that.
USS Benon 11 Nov 2008 at 4:24 am 94Jesus said: “No greater love than this, that a man lays down his life for another.”
I reckon if that isn’t friendship I don’t know what is. It is the greatest love that humans can express.
USS Benon 11 Nov 2008 at 4:38 am 95JohnMark7-
Thanks. I think I understand what you’re sayin’, but I don’t think gayness is any worse than say adultery or hedonism, to name a few.
I can say my friend believes in God and he really struggles with this.
A familiar scenario, he grew up without a father, fell in with a gay man as a young teenager (he didn’t know at the time) and I won’t mention the rest.
I couldn’t be friends with the fanatical gays that go to those San Francisco “parades” and do the lewdess and most vile things imaginable in public with religious symbols, rosaries etc., to show there hate of religion.
Zombie has pics if you can stomach them.
But many gays aren’t like that, and just wanna be left alone.
My friend even believes gay marriage is an idiotic stunt designed to increase hatred.
Then again, I couldn’t be friends with people like John Murtha who calls iour Marines cold blooded killers, and was wrong on each count.
But my friend who is gay, now retired like me…I can be friends with. It doesn’t bother me, just as it doesn’t bother me to have friends who are Jews, Hindu, Buddhist, or Orthodox.
Character counts, as does the same timeless truths. :^)
Stephanieon 11 Nov 2008 at 5:28 am 96Sorry but to me Saint Paul said it best. I really believe strongly that “homosexuality” is an emotional issue more than anything else. I know too many who have MOM issues, and Daddy issues. I have four brothers and none of them turned out that way. Why? Dad was home, gave them all a decent good role model for a man should be like and they ran with it. To me its obvious. I don’t like giving guys get out of jail free cards out of political correctness. Yes they can help it. THey just don’t want to do the work TO help it.
Buck Turgidsonon 11 Nov 2008 at 5:42 am 97“wicked smart”
Behold more impeccable grammar from our new moral and intellectual auditor.
Blancon 11 Nov 2008 at 8:05 am 98I’m not interested in commenting on the political element of this issue. There are only two additions to this conversation that I can make:
First, someone called those who object to the practice of homosexuality haters of homosexuals. While that may be true of some, it shows a lack of understanding of how a person can hold and trust a moral principle even at cost to themselves. Every discussion like this is peppered with ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’, which is totally overlooked or even sneered at by people holding the a different view of homosexuality.
The source of many people’s belief is well-established over centuries and continents, not some recent cult of anti-homosexual intolerance. I’m not asking anyone to accept that as their belief, but how can it suddenly become an illegitimate choice for another?
Secondly, Movie Bob made the all-too-often comparison to racism. From a political or secular viewpoint he may very well have an argument. From the position of the source of belief described above, he doesn’t. Let me be clear, I am not talking about the teachings of individual adherents or their followers. I’m talking about the source that records a man claiming to be under divine inspiration saying that ‘For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial. But that in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him’.
I’m not asking anyone to believe anything. I’m only making the point that a person can have a principled objection to homosexuality based upon the Bible and not be a hater (look up the meaning of the word ‘Agape’), but that same person cannot hold any other person as less than equal based upon race or national origin and still remain true to that source of belief.
Ronsonicon 11 Nov 2008 at 8:20 am 99Liberals are simply unequipped to understand conservatives and our moral processes. A liberal professor of Moral Psychology, Jonathan Haidt, has done some ongoing studies that find that when asked to answer moral questions as a member of the other side would and provide the reasoning behind them, conservatives are far more adept than liberals.
It is a bit amusing that as fair as he tries to be, Haidt still has his liberal blind spots in explaining this. But he acknowledges that the moral reasoning of a conservative balances more factors than that of a liberal and that conservatives are well aware of the differences.
rightwingprofon 11 Nov 2008 at 10:01 am 100See this:
http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/gay-activist-opposes-church-protests/
Stephanieon 11 Nov 2008 at 11:11 am 101Dalia you are trying to have conversations with women who don’t want to talk to you………..Emily come over, have a drink….just ignore her.