Get PJ Media on your Apple

Klavan On The Culture

My Response to the Comments on My ‘Gay’ Post

February 7th, 2014 - 4:12 pm

While I generally like to give commenters the last word (seems only fair, since I had the first word), it seems downright churlish not to say something in answer to the outpouring that followed my recent post, “How the Right Talks About Gays.” So…  a few thoughts.

First of all, thank you for the contribution. A blog is in some sense a collaboration between writer and readers. While the ease of responding in the computer age sometimes skews the tone of comments toward the over-excitable, there are plenty of thoughtful people who really add to the conversation and I’m always glad to read what they have to say.

Many readers of the blog reacted to — and objected to — the sentence: “Either sex is an expression of love that involves the whole person (not just his body parts) or it is a purely mechanical operation.” “This has got to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen you write,” wrote one reader — and he was a fan! I feel those who objected to this sentence mistook its meaning; I also feel this was my fault; I was unclear. I did not mean the sentence as the expression of a factual duality: either sex is this or that in actuality. I meant it as a response to Phil Robertson’s comments on homosexuality — a sort of mental argument with Phil, if you will. Robertson talks about homosexuality as a sin, while describing it in purely physical terms. What I should have said is something more like: “If Robertson thinks homosexuality is a sin, then he should address its spiritual aspects. If he just doesn’t like the physical nature of it, he’s welcome to express his displeasure but he shouldn’t pretend he’s making a larger spiritual point.” I used blogger shorthand and the meaning got blurred. My bad.

As to all the comments regarding gay marriage, religion, sin and so forth, I have nothing to say. I wasn’t making an argument about any of that. I merely mentioned my libertarian sympathies by way of being honest about where I was coming from. All the same, you’re always welcome to drop by and say what you have to say — although, unless you’re the Father, Son or Holy Ghost, your opinions about whether or not I’m a good Christian will be regarded as less than authoritative.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
NEWS FLASH from Katholisches.info, Feb. 7, 2014: Cardinal Sebastián Aguilar, 84 years old, a good friend of Pope Francis, has been charged by the authorities of Mallorca, Spain of the crime of homophobia, for which a conviction could carry prision time. The "slandering" Cardinal, fully in accord with Catholic teaching that views practicing homosexuality as a mortal sin, expressed in a tv interview a negative opinion of homosexuaity and suggested that it could be cured with proper treatment (which I doubt). This is serious business and, alas, also personal for me. Why? I am considering moving to Spain and, well, my opinion of homosexuality considered as a normative value, is that it, both physically and normatively, constitutes the ultimate fulness of a culture of death, due to its utter lethal barrenness. Should I be interviewed or publish my thesis about the cultural lethality of homosexuality, I, despite 3 doctoral titles, too would find myself possibly facing imprisonment. Note, Mr. Klavan, that homosexual marriage, if accepted, places homosexuality on the same normative level as heterosexual marriage. Let this happen and the fate of the good Cardinal will one day be the fate of anyone in the US whose views of homosexuality can be twisted to fit the parameters of "homophobia". What, pray tell, would happen to any Christian church or even Moslem community that, theologically speaking, teaches and promotes the view that homosexuality is not a valid form of sex? Is not the ultimate implication that religious communities should no more teach their devaluating views on homosexuality than they should be allowed to have a theology of enslavemnt of Blacks? All this is a possible future event, not a certainty. But, Mr. Klavan, ideas have consequences.

I repeat my criticism of you and others of PJM: You have failed fully to see that the homosexual (or, better, the pansexual) movement is one directed at changing basic societal values or repressing, even legally, those who support counter values. Certainly, conservatives should, particularly in public, adopt a respectful tone when speaking of homosexual marriage << homosexuality as a supposed norm. But, when it comes to "truth" assertions, then the judgment can, may or must be harsh, as mine above. Finally, if a pansexual activist wishes to condemn my views in harsh terms, I have no objections.Why? Ideals have consequences! The GOP must be careful. If that party should support or reprress opposition to homosexual marriage, it will lose my vote. Be careful!
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dear Mr. Klavan: I can only ascribe value to your article if I take it as a talk on tactics for winning elections on the part of the GOP. How people talk in private, is irrelevant and unworthy of discussion in PJM. But you and the others in PJM who have taken up the theme have failed fundamentally to understand what is going on (an understanding I am experiencing concretely in Germany). The theme is not about "gays" and their private behavior, rather it is about "gay marriage", i.e., where "to be gay" is seeking a forceful, political, indeed, social engagement in order to alter "fundamentally" the social status of gays or, more specifically, using gay marriage as an issue. In a comment in your original article I affirmed leaving gays alone, but noted that gays are not letting me, i.e., social conservaties, alone. There is a "fundamental change" movement going on here, sometimes seeing itself as an offshoot of the civil rights movement in the 60s. What is so serious about all that?

Please turn to Paula Bolyard's article "Implementing Andrew McCarthy's Proposed Compromise of the Marriage Question" and look up my 3 part comment--longer than the article. I cannot repeat it here. But, the sum of it all is that you and others do NOT understand the seriousness of the gay movement. Just a word or two:

The question is not one of "toleratation", but of "acceptance" or, indeed, "affirmation" of homosexuality >> pansexuality (any form of non-violent sex as normatively acceptable for society). The gay, transgender, or whatever (deviates from sex aimed towards family life and hence hetero-) MOVEMENT intends to alter fundamentally societal evaluation of sex into pansexuality. NON-acceptance (e.g., mere tolerance) is seen as prejudice (as is anti-Black non-acceptance is). The goal is to undertake a reorientation of social values. The root of prejudice towards poly-pan-sexuality is the coupling of psychological identity with biological identity, a process that takes place particularly in marriage. The gay movement in Europe and, I think, in the US, is seeking a remedy called "Gender Mainstreaming", i.e.,a reeducation that 1. begins with pre-school children, i.e., kids way before puberty, 2. sexualizes them ("fumble with yourself, kiddies"), and 3. uses this sexualization to degenderize children, i.e., instigateto a hiatus between biological sex identity and socio-psychological identity. Pschychologial identity based on biological sex is supposedly learned. So, re-learn that one's sexual identity is but a social construct. The goal is to produce "genderless sexual identity". (By the way was the name of a tv show I saw in German tv about the Swedish attempt to develop "The Genderless Sex", i.e., no fundamental difference between boy and girls. The Swedes even got rid of their equivalents to "he" and "she", and sought to press upon each child that it is an neutral "it".)

I will end this comment here. I think that you have missed the fundamental meaning of gay marraige as a wedge issue seeking to bring about a nation of ''genderless" citizens, starting with young children. Gay acts in private do not concern me. My male identity is coupled with my biological sex. And I resist politically any acceptance of a new insitution, gay marriage, that holds my identity as a source of unacceptable prejudice. Note, Mr. Klavan, I have made no use of religions values in my FUNDAMENTAL ed-evaluation of homo- marriage.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let me start off by saying I am a huge fan and I understand what you are saying.I have to say that I do not care whether the gay marry or not, and to tell you the truth I don't think that they care about it either, I believe that the whole gay marriage thing ,for them, is more about changing our culture then about their rights, but that is just my opinion.
My problem with the gay community as a whole is their insistence of force feeding their lifestyle on everyone else. Why must our children be taught about the gay lifestyle in school? I think what you probably encountered in the comments is the result of the constant bullying and berating of anyone who happens to have a different opinion than what is now considered the norm. Have you seen the beating a guy like Kirk Cameron takes in the media?
He, like you, takes the high road, but your average everyday person usually takes a more angry approach. When I get slapped my reaction is to punch it's just the way it is. Get slapped enough and you start to want to preemptively punch.

24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (312)
All Comments   (312)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I think one of the reasons that gay marriage is such an inflammatory topic is that we have government-mandated sex-ed in most (if not all) states. California is a prime example. I left California many years ago and will never go back, because the government has decided to indoctrinate my kids into their way of thinking despite my wishes as a parent.

Do I think homosexual acts are sinful? Yes.
Do I think it's my business if two gays want to own a business together, live together, leave each other property in a will, or have hospital visitation? No. They have the right to enter into contracts and the right of free association, and I afford them the same respect to exercise it however they like that I expect.
Do I think it's any of my business if someone is gay? No.

That said, I reserve the right to teach my kids that God says not to commit homosexual acts. It's not right that I have to fight against the state in order to teach my kids what I as a parent believe is what's right.

On top of that, I think a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone they like. That means if a Black decides they hate whites and refuse to do business with me, tough luck for me. People should not be allowed to sue because someone doesn't want to enter into a contract with them.

My problem with gays is that the movement overall isn't about having the same rights as you and me; it's about them having special rights. Gay marriage in the contractual sense already exists in 50 states. Gays can file taxes together, own a home, write a will, and have a visitation list at the hospital. What the gay movement is after isn't even social acceptance; it's after social endorsement of their lifestyle. That they will NEVER get from me.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Once, CombatMissionary, I would have agreed with you, but look at the link provided by Prof. lw in the top rated comments above. They are at war with us. Cardinal Sebastián Aguilar in Spain is in big trouble for teaching Roman Catholic doctrine, with the local branch of the homosexual lobby demanding charges against him that would jail him. The similar situation existed in Canada with religious preaching against homosexuality resulting in court ordered total silencing backed by a court's ability to increase the punishment for failure to obey. Ezra Levant, the then editor of the only North American publication with the guts to publish the Jyllands Posten Mohammed cartoons defeated that court and went on to publish one of the banned preachers letters as a freedom of speech stand.

If you think it couldn't happen here in the United States, it already has. Famously, Phil Robertson recently was temporarily kicked out of his big media entertainment job for stating Christian doctrine on homosexuality. He was too powerful for the gay lobby ordered punishment to hold, but this is not the case most of the time. Usually, an abject apology is issued. Meanwhile, most people who would state Christian doctrine in the media are terrified to do so.

Bakers and other service people are taken to court and convicted of charges which violate their freedom of speech and freedom of association rights on the question of refusing to endorse homosexuality through refusal of service.

You ended by stating that they would never get your endorsement, but it's long past a live and let live situation. They will run right over you. It is time to take the fight to them.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I accidentally hit the "Report Abuse" button instead of the "Reply" button on hornspe's reply to ddcan, so I am reposting his comment here.

hornspe's comment follows:

[-----------------------------------------]

Here we go again. You don't like gay sex. Fine. I don't like either peaches or pineapple. The difference is that I don't drum up pseudoscientific nonsense to "prove" that eating peaches and pineapples is "bad".

Look outside the desert religions to the rest of the world where homosexuality is sometimes unremarkable, and often temporary. Among Japanese artisans with apprentices (all male) the apprentices were expected to "take care of each other" so as not to insinuate themselves on the women of the household. Then they finished their apprentiships and got married.

Closer to home "it doesn't count" in prison. Then again some individuals seem born to homosexuality. So what's the deal...

The deal is this is COMPLEX. It isn't "wrong" because G-d said it is, because he sure as hell didn't tell anyone outside the Levant. It also isn't "right" or natural in some cosmic sense. No homosexual predisposition can exist if it isn't reproductive or doesn't maximize inclusive fitness in some way (sorry for the jargon, but you people keep pretending some higher level of erudition on this subject).

This is HARD TO UNDERSTAND. Homosexuality clearly has both genetic predispositions and cultural components, and may be temporary in some cases and hard-wired permenant in others. We are talking about a fundamental characteristic of people's lives here, and it is not only unhelpful, but probably flat out evil to pretend you have all the answers and everyone who disagrees with you (especially those who are struggling to understand their own feelings) are bad people. It's just as bad to claim Divine sanction to hate the sin and love the sinner, when in reality this is just a flashy way to hate iky sex and hurt people while claiming to be moral.

The corallary is that it is also wrong for homosexuals to pigeonhole anyone who has ever had any kind of a homosexual experience as gay forever after to try to force acceptance. I do, however have a little more sympathy for them (although if they keep up with the Phil Robertson style PC censorship that will cease).

The most appalling thing isn't that some people are small minded or ignorant of all but the history their Pastor chooses to teach. The really tough thing is HOW I CAN NEVER CONVINCE ANYONE IN MY CIRCLE TO VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE THEY HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF THIS BIGOTED CRAP!

Dozens of young, successful professionals who will not give conservative candidates the time of day, even as they whine and complain about THE TOTAL INEPTITUDE OF THE LEFT. They are BEGGING to be saved, but they will not vote for anyone who seethes the kind of hatred for their homosexual friends that I see on the site EVERY DAY.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Among Japanese artisans with apprentices (all male) the apprentices were expected to "take care of each other" so as not to insinuate themselves on the women of the household. Then they finished their apprentiships and got married."

blah-blah-blah. What a great 'teacher' you are.

Do you think we who fight to protect children from the depredations of the selfish homosexual lobby think we are going to stop homosexual activity? Your story implies that homosexual marriage did not occur in Japan actually. Not a very good example to proffer in support of homosexual marriage, but it does illustrate that people who have fallen for the insane '2+2=5' (see George Orwell) absurdity which is homosexual 'marriage' can't think properly as you seem to think that you offered an example that supports homosexual 'marriage'.

Let me ask you, you pathetic flinger of the word 'hate'. If it could be shown to you that homosexual marriage would result in a 5% increase in the rate of single parent children, would you still demand it? Can you demonstrate that it would not? Are you aware that the rate of single parent children rocketed up after the last selfish lobby, the feminists, got away with imposing their destruction on marriage. "Marriage without fault free divorce is slavery for women they screeched". Imagine, marriage being an actual real contract. No, get rid of the female's obligations, leave in all the male's obligations, and look what happens. Males, of course, avoid the commitment in hordes, all so that a group of anti-social revolutionaries can have a 'contract' that isn't a contract for them, but for which all the contractual duties remain for men.

I stand for the children.

But it's 'hate' you scream out, because when I express the truth that homosexual sex is dirty, disgusting, dangerous, and it spreads disease, you can call it hate because you can pretend your feelings are hurt and claim moronically that that means it's hate, even though I haven't said a single word that I wouldn't say to my own son if he came to me and announced that he had bought the 'homosexual identity' BS.

Go and cry and scream like a child who has a temper fit because he can't have what he wants.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
People who feel that I am 'mean' with my talk about homosexual activity in uncompromisingly negative and descriptive terms, think a little.

Ever hear adultery described in terms of strong condemnation, words that might hurt the feelings of a sensitive adulterer? That I should worry about feelings is ridiculous. Does MADD worry about the feelings of drunk drivers?

Killers break down in court and weep. Courts are too nasty? The poor killers should not be confronted by what they've done?

But doing the same thing to homosexuals or their duped friends is hate speech?

Idiots.

23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Adultery is harmful. Driving stupidly and injuring other people is harmful.
Homosexual activity is not, as far as I can figure out, inherently harmful. Some homosexual relationships have problems and promiscuous sex exposes people to illness. Neither of those facts, and facts they are, justifies the positions you have taken.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Homosexual activity is not, as far as I can figure out, inherently harmful."

OK, you drink up that chocolate milk with excrement mixed in from a single homosexual male on a regular basis. You are so sure that homosexuals selfishly horning in on an institution whose essential social function is to protect children could not possibly actually result in harm to children that you really ought to do it.

Go ahead. Black is white, 2+2=5, homosexual sex is safe, chocalate milk spiced with excrement is safe.

Regularly.

I fight for the children.

You fight for forcing society to endorse dangerous sex.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sigh. I should learn to control myself and leave your posts to stand for themselves.
Your second paragraph is the kind of vulgar ad hominem that has salted many of your comments. You do not know what my sexual practices are or have been -- although I've left enough hints you should be able to tell.
Your comments still portray more of distaste -- hatred -- than of logic or fact to explain your position. You state as facts "the thing that is not" very often.
And I'm silly enough to rise to your bait.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"And I'm silly enough to rise to your bait."

So stop it already. He is just here to rattle others' cages on this ONE issue.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm actually defending children. That's hate to you, because it hurts feelings.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's not an ad hominem. It's a challenge. You are so sure that one male having sex with the same male over an extended period is safe, expose yourself to the same risk and show us.

"Your comments still portray more of distaste -- hatred -- than of logic or fact to explain your position."

There is distaste and more. It's a physiological defense mechanism that prevents my strong male libido from driving me into easy gratification in the arms of another male.

"You do not know what my sexual practices are or have been"

You are right, and I have no interest in knowing either.

"You state as facts "the thing that is not" very often."

Yeah, right, and when I ask you when that happened, you say [paraphrased from memory] "I'm a high school debate judge and my students do that to avoid the fact they've been proven wrong".

You could conceive the possibility that you are actually wrong. You could give up the vapid and cowardly notion that if I hurt your feelings that means I am a hater.

You can't beat me, and the reason is that you are wrong.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
NEWEST News Flash from "LifeSiteNews.com";, Peter Balinski, "Spanish prosecuter to investigate Cardinal-elect for calling homosexuality 'defective', Feb. 7, 2014. (Actually the Cardinal said "deficient" in Spanish.) In the "Top Rated Comments" above the reader will find my NEWS FLASH taken from Katholisches.info. The gist was that the local Mallorca authorities were moving towards taking legal action against Cardinal Sebastián Aguilar for his interview in a local magazine in which he specifically designated homosexualit as sexually "deficient" and curable by treatment. Now the Spanish gay lobby, Colegas, is pushing the matter to higher legal levels on the grounds that such talk of its very nature "discriminates" against homosexual. Apparently, Church men or prelates are the least qualified to utter statements and that such use of religious status is in conflict with the law or constitution. A new age of religious persecution may be in the making. Check out the website as it is in English and there are some other articles on the matter.

What is it that makes a negative evaluation of homosexuality unacceptably discrimatory in itself, indeed, so much so that legal action against it as a form of criminality is needed. The Cardinal has expressed the judgment that homosexuality is deficient. If this evaluatin is picked up and believed (even by Catholic believers) by the general population, those affected by the Cardinal will have a lower opinion of homosexuals. Perhaps they will tolerate homosexuality; but, forget not, toleration of "X" means that it is not on par with "Y", if "Y" is to be the social norm. Not toleration is called for, rather affirmative acceptance of a new societal norm is demanded. What is going on in Spain (and a recent EU parlamentary decision to criminalize "homophobic" statements will have the same effects) is to ban BY LAW, which means police ENFORCEMENT, any opinion or expressed belief that views the normative status of homosexuality as a deficiency, immorality, perversion or whatever has negative meaning (which will spread to any opposition to pansexuality). The new politically correct excludes any negative utterance against homosexuality.

I objected to Klavan's article (and other recent ones in PJM) on homosexuality as missing the point. What is going on in Spain and is building up in Europe is an active movement to "fundamentally change" allowed human values constituting the cultural framework of society. It is a deadly cultural war! This is no matter of poor or inpolite talk about homosexuals (which should not be carried out out of decency). On the contrary homosexual marriage is being used as a wedge to "fundamentally re-program" society along the lines of pansexuality. One will find that, as noted in my comments, the key to eliminating decrimatory evaluations of homosexuality (or pansexuality), evaluations derived from the social process as now ongoing, is an individual's constructing a socio-pyschological identity with one's biological identity. If humans are neither "he" nor "she" socio-psychologically, rarther constituting a non-gender mass of "its", then they will express their sexuality in any way whatsoever and demand normative respect for that way at the point at point of a policie(wo)man's gun.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is a lot more than 'pansexuality' they are after. The homosexual lobby is trail blazing for the entire Marxist cultural revolution. When 'what we are' has been destroyed there will be nothing to defend. The substitution of the murderous Marxist ideology will be easy.

I have defined homosexual marriage as the sign that a society is insane. It has done the equivalent of Winston's final acceptance that '2+2=5' in George Orwell's famous novel which exposes Marxist methods. At the point that society accepts the bizarre idea that a man should be able to marry a man, it is defenseless and ready to have imposed upon it any perversion of any healthy convention whatsoever that formed part of the essential foundation of the once strong and vital societies of Western Civilization.

I notice that you denounce 'poor or impolite' talk about homosexuals. The 'poor or impolite talk' which you denounce is the heart of the matter. Homosexual sex is a nasty business that leads to death or illness. This is the fundamental reason why homosexuality is wrong. Well talk about the reality of that nasty business is unavoidable. We are not in a polite discussion in a drawing room. We are in a war. War is a nasty business. You shouldn't be shooting at people on your side. I'm going to show you what it is like:

You pretend a sophistication in thought and speech through your constant reminding us that you are a professor and have done several dissertations. This information is actually rhetorical irrelevancy. Have you ever heard the saying, "those who can't do teach"? Much more than is it that, "those who can't do are professional students". Do you really think that credentialed, "polite" people will win this war? The information about the Spanish Cardinal is very important, and I thank you for bringing it, but I do not thank you for expressing an attitude that gritty talk is beneath you, which actually assists people who want to play the censorship and criminalization game. "Poor or impolite talk"? Who is the judge of what that is? What is its boundary? Your little statement about 'poor or impolite talk' plays right into their hands. Substitution of euphemisms for 'poor or impolite talk' just makes your speech weak and mealy mouthed. If you give the cardinal's speech as an example of 'acceptable' talk, well I'm sorry to inform you that while the cardinal is a very important player, his case is based on authority. He can avoid the nasty talk o 'poking brown stuff', etc, which serves to help people understand just how nasty and dan gerous homosexual sex is - that is, if they don't have a pretentious revulsion at essential truth.

Like it? Well guess what, I don't either, so stick to shooting at the enemy.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Homosexuality has been, is, and always will be 1) a perversion of the natural order. The fact that it has always been practised is no argument and doesn't change its unnaturalness. 2) Morally wrong on the basis of number one. 3) Unhealthy on the basis of number one. Unfortunately the three points above will not keep it from being fully legal. A "free" people may choose any immoral way they wish, but they will find it leads to bondage in the end. True freedom doesn't consist in being legally free to practice any abomination; true freedom is being free from the darkness within us.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Homosexual bonding has been well documented in the animal kingdom. Penguins in particular are notoriously gay. (Male penguins sitting on eggs to hatch them, for example).

So I don't know what you mean by homosexuality being a "perversion of the natural order." The natural world has numerous examples of it.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
A simple observation of male and female sex organs and their obvious purpose shows that homosexuality is a perversion of nature. Such perversions are not limited to humans.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Death and disease and dysfunction are all part of the animal kingdom too. What animals do is irrelevant. You cannot justify a behavior be observing it in animals. BTW, 'gay' as a description of male penguins hatching eggs is ridiculous. It is the way the species survives. Homosexuality, OTOH, is an activity that gives humans diseases and kills them before their time.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
The "natural order" was perverted at The Fall -- when sin entered the world, the entire natural world became corrupted. No longer is everything "good"; rather, the Creation has been subjected to the bondage of corruption, until God restores the "natural order". So, you cannot point to what occurs within the "natural world" to justify all actions -- the natural world also has cannibalism, and incest, and "murder". I don't think you want to point to the natural world in order to justify similar human behavior.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm with Klavan - sticks and stones may break my bones...
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
...but homosexual sex will never hurt you, unless you get some sexually transmitted disease, right?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
As if STDs only occur among homosexuals. Sheesh.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"As if STDs only occur among homosexuals. Sheesh."

You are either totally dishonest, or you really don't know how to think.

You are one of the ... who tries to argue, using one fallacy after another, that homosexual sex is pretty much just like healthy sex. Here is a parallel for the dishonesty you commit here:

Reasonably intelligent person: "People who are drunk should not be allowed to drive because they cause accidents."

Responding dope: "As if accidents only happen to drunks. Sheesh."

Will this exposure embarrass bobbcat? Not likely. Back she will come, hoping to trick with stupid arguments (hint to bc: learn from MT Geoff, he is much slicker at it than you are). I was called a 'hater' for expressing the truth that goes beyond what the homosexual lobby can handle. Bobbcat pretends that she is for freedom, while she is all for the bullying techniques used by the homosexual lobby to keep the real debate entirely unheard.

A clue: if you don't want the homosexuals to steal marriage from children, you have to say the stuff that gets you called a hater - true stuff only, of course. Stuff like "homosexual sex is dirty, disgusting (the disgust we feel is a physiological defense reaction. If you don't want to shake hands with someone who is "proudly out", that is normal and all right. Refusing to shake hands, in fact, puts pressure on the person, who by being "proudly out" is trying to shove down our throats that homosexuality is OK, it pressures him to change from "proudly out" to discrete, which is what people who are doing stupid things should be), dangerous, and it spreads disease. To repeat, since I interrupted it the first time with a big aside, you have to say stuff like "homosexual sex is dirty, disgusting, dangerous, and it spreads disease".

Homosexual sex is almost universally condemned for the reason that societies that do not condemn it are weakened by the diseases spread by homosexuality, and they end up being defeated by stronger, healthier societies. The post modern Marxists behind the homosexual lobby want us weakened. The fall of societies that were strong under Christianity is their aim. They wish to substitute their murderous fantasies.

MT Geoff and bobbcat are now trying to introduce 'psychology studies' to the argument. If they can't win by one fallacy, try another, a sure sign, of course, that they don't actually care whether or not society is weakened by homosexual marriage. All reading this: are you aware that you can already deduce that MT Geoff and bobbcat do not care whether or not society is harmed by homosexuality. You can deduce that they are anti-social. Similarly, it is quite easy to figure out that MT Geoff, bobbcat, and others of their ilk do not care about the harm to children from letting the homosexuals take control of marriage (it is actually a very apt to say that homosexuals are trying to steal marriage from children). MT Geoff writes below of 'sociopaths', people with no empathy for their victims. Well MT Geoff, who also called me a 'hater' *is* a sociopath. The homosexual lobby is a network of sociopaths with a high degree of control over the media through which the true public debate must occur. They have been stimulated by post modern Marxists into their long march attack on society. They don't care. They don't care about children. They don't care about society.

So what about 'psychology studies', studies conducted by 'psyentists' (mock scientists). Note that it is very easy to find people who hold that psychology is quackery, especially among more intelligent people (did anyone ever read the story about how Richard Feynman, after being trusted with the secrets of the Manhattan Project, after being trusted even though he had a hobby of cracking safes with top secret material in them to remain in Los Alamos where the nuclear bomb was being invented, after being trusted to go to Oak Ridge, Tennessee to inspect the uranium purifying plant to ensure that the workers who were kept in the dark about what they were doing did not accidentally do things like stack too much uranium hexaflouride solution together that it became subcritical and far more radioactive and dangerous than it would be properly stored, after that trust put in him to undertake the most highly important, top secret work, that the quack psychiatrists found him unfit to serve as a grunt in the army of occupation - Feynman had not told them who he was). So why are the 'psyences' quackery.

Well, they just find to be true whatever it is that they have sustained significant social pressure to be true. Look at all the normal males children being 'diagnosed' as having ADHD in schools and forced onto dangerous drugs because they don't act enough like girls to satisfy the feminists with their Marxist 'blank slate' theory. Pressure source - feminism. Ever hear of 'recovered memory syndrome' under which a 'therapist' would coach a pathetically weak and unhappy female into denou
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Almost every general statement you have made here starting with "universally condemned" is simply, factually, wrong. Will this exposure embarrass ForTheWest...

...forget it, I don't have the heart for this anymore. Just hate who you want, and say whatever you want to be able to live with yourself.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Never used the words "universally condemned" anywhere.

As for "hate" I haven't said a word I wouldn't say to my sons if they announced they had the 'homosexual ID'. But, hey, maybe you can work at having me thrown in jail. That, of course, wouldn't be hate now would it.

As for your awful loss of heart, I have zero sympathy for someone trying to steal marriage from the people it actually protects. I can't imagine anything more insulting, either, than your attempt to accomplish this theft by asking me to believe that '2+2=5'.

Here's the real problem for you. I can think better than every single last one of you 'black is white' salesmen and women, all your degrees and BS credentials all stacked up, all your high court positions, all your pretension.

Poor disheartened baby.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
wull, hey....... as you know...... turd burglary is the worst crime against western civilisation.....'>>.........
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am truly amazed at the number of people who think that because (they believe) something is immoral, it should therefore be illegal, or at the very least, practitioners of the behavior should not be afforded the same rights as non-practitioners, (bearing in mind, of course, that gay people pay the same taxes as everyone else, to support the same government.) There are all kinds of things that I might find immoral- excessive drinking, sado-masochism, leering at women, making fun of the disabled- but to make these things illegal is a cure that is worse than the disease. I never knew so many PJM members are supportive of a nanny-state. It is not the government's job to protect culture or cultural norms. It's job is to protect the individual.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
You have suddenly awakened to the fact that many Christian SoCons are NOT against Big Government. They're against SECULAR Government.

Over on RedState.com, the moderator has written diaries calling for reinstatement of anti-sodomy laws on a state-by-state basis, which would make gay sex itself a crime once again in states where a majority find gay sex icky.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"icky"

Sure, since it doesn't promote your anti-social end, let's euphemize and mock that homosexual sex actually kills people, and at the same mock that the disgust that people feel about homosexuality is an essential physiological defense reaction.

But I admire your ability to put so much into a single word, false though what you put into it is. Ability at wordplay, unfortunately, is not ability at logic, nor does it equate with the judgement to differentiate between right and wrong. In case you don't understand what's wrong with homosexual activity - it kills people (and makes them sick when it doesn't).
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Tolerance of homosexuality does not compute into advocacy of an 'anti-social end'. Fact: All citizens pay taxes. Fact: All tax-paying citizens should be afforded the same rights, regardless of whether YOU agree with their lifestyles. This is not wordplay. It is simple, Constitutional logic. You either agree with the basic premises of the US Constitution or you do not. Apparently, you do not.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well let's see, Accipiter. "It is the government's job to protect the individual," you opined. Would that include protecting the individual from diseases, such as AIDS, which killed more than half a million Americans, ten times the number killed in the Vietnam War, more even than were killed in World War II, and which killed many children and heterosexual women who got it from their homosexual spouses?

I was all for tolerance until the homosexual intolerance of marriage between man and woman, to which ancient judge made law applies sensibly, and which protects children, and until the homosexual intolerance of free speech. Since then, I have rethought it, and I have realized that anything whatsoever that society does that recognizes homosexuality as anything other than a dangerous, anti-social perversion of choice is a mistake.

Yeah, once I could not have cared less, but the homo lobby has forced me to think (you have yet to think). I am a big free speech advocate and am unwilling to tolerate shutting people up. Once, I worked as the lead campaigner for a Jewish politician in an election campaign. News came out about the criminal conviction of a Holocausdt denier. Led by me, we forced the politician to denounce the conviction for 'hate speech' and in support of freedom of speech. Now if I was anti-Semitic, why would try to get a Jew elected to office. No, I am someone who fiercely believes in freedom of speech. The homosexual lobby made an enemy of me when it showed its colors about freedom of speech. After thinking about it I realized that it is all one big con game.

OK, trot out your shell game where you make out that a great injustice has been perpetrated upon people who actually endanger and weaken society through their action.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Paying taxes does not "give" anyone equality before the law. In the US we have that before we pay taxes: i.e. a disabled American who can't work does not have to forfeit his/her human or civil rights. With that kind of logic anything can be justified. Some famous mafioso declared once that he was a good American because he paid his taxes but being a taxpayer did not justify the legalization of his unusual lifestyle. Soon we will see the legal consequences of gay marriage and this will become more evident to many. Any American man can marry a male foreigner (this is just an imaginary example) bring him to the US, divorce him and then go marry another foreigner, bring him in etc. That can become a lucrative "immigration" industry. All I have to do is charge the "applicant" a nice load of money and voilá! I can live without working!
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
First of all, the 'unusual lifestyle' of a mobster can in no way be compared to the 'unusual lifestyle' of a gay person. The mobster operates via the exercise of force, but of course you know this. Secondly, if marrying male foreigners was so easy and so lucrative, every woman in every trailer park in the nation would have done it. Lastly, and most importantly, people keep trying to muddy the debate by endlessly discussing how they feel about homosexuality. It doesn't matter! Your feelings about it are completely irrelevant! As long as something doesn't interfere with your rights and liberties, mind your own dang business! Yall sound like a bunch of tongue-clucking church ladies. I do take comfort however, in that SoCons days are numbered. I live in a VERY conservative rural area, and most the kids don't give a flip about whether or not someone is gay.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
So shutting up people on the media by threatening their jobs is not use of force?

"most the kids don't give a flip about whether or not someone is gay"

Of course they don't, since they have never heard how dangerous it is, the media totally censoring any discussion with any reach. But that's good stuff isn't it? Censorship that keeps people from 'minding anything but their own dang business. The AIDS epidemic that killed more Americans than any war is none of my business. You sound like a tongue-clucking, booze addled dope.

I guess you like it that a Spanish Cardinal is now being investigated for the hate crime of expressing Catholic doctrine?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Like you, I fiercely support free speech, and so I abhor hate-speech laws. As someone with strong libertarian leanings, I actually oppose hate-crime legislation. The fact that I do not oppose gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with my thoughts about the leftist tactics of some gay activists. I do not conflate the two, as you have done above.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have not 'conflated' the issues. Rather, you've peeled off the issue of suppression of speech as if it is separate, which it is not. The issue cannot even be properly debated until speech is protected.

I tried on libertarianism years ago and came to realize that it doesn't work. I do not consider libertarians to be conservatives at all. Rather, you are just another brand of revolutionary. You are mistaken if you think the founding fathers were libertarians. Libertarianism is more like something from the French Revolution than anything that was in America until quite recently.

Your views that the government has no business in marriage are radical. Marriage is a contract which courts have been defining for a thousand years making it inextricable from the government. You can go ahead and think that marriage is not something that actually stabilizes liberty, but that does not make it true.

Libertarianism - A few years of glorious anarchy and then war leading to the worst tyranny you can imagine. Do you actually think that any amount of freedom is stable?

I accuse you, as well, of not caring what happens to society. You pride yourself that you are a superior political philosopher, so proud in fact, that you would throw over an institution that has stabilized our free way of life for a half baked experiment that has never been tried.

No you are no conservative. You are a revolutionary with radical ideas which you would happily foist upon us and the consequences be damned.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Regardless of how one feels about homosexuality, I would urge anyone who calls themselves a 'conservative' or a libertarian to consider the disconnect between advocating for less government intrusion while simultaneously advocating for a government which sees fit to determine who can marry. Why is the government in the marriage racket anyway? Gay or straight, no one should have to petition the government for permission to marry. Marriage is a ceremony designed to show that two people have determined to commit their lives to one another. If those people want that ceremony to be legally binding, they can go to a lawyer and have a contract drawn up.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your logic is faulty. Conservatism seeks (or used to seek) adjustment to natural norms as a constant. Conservatism is different from Progressivism in that Conservatives understand progress as advancing towards a better integration with, and application of natural norms. When government respects the natural normative it is not interference. In fact it is simply governing within the boundaries of natural law.

"Real progress consists in the movement of mankind toward the understanding of norms, and toward conformity to norms. Real decadence consists in the movement of mankind away from the understanding of norms, and away from obedience to norms." Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things, 1969
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy Catino
Homosexual attraction appears to be wired rather than chosen.
Homosexual activity is a choice. In itself, it bears about the same set of risks as heterosexual activity. It's hard to tell if the dysfunctions in homosexual relationships mirror heterosexual relationships, if they are inherent in homosexual attraction, or if they are related to social condemnation of homosexuality and activity.
Homosexual people are not going to fit into the standard reproduction and family model. Since their activities bear on themselves and not the rest of us, we should at a minimum leave them in peace. For myself, I am glad they can find happiness together.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"In itself, it bears about the same set of risks as heterosexual activity."

Sure, as long as it's monogamous. To demonstrate how safe homosexual excrement is, why don't you choose a monogamous homosexual male and stir a liberal dose of his excrement into your chocolate milk about as often as he has sex. We'll watch to see how long you remain undiseased. /sarc

"we should at a minimum leave them in peace."

I was once willing to do that, but they wouldn't leave us in peace.

I wonder how many single parent children there are as a specific consequence of the fact that the homosexually dominated entertainment media produces an endless stream of crap that portrays easy sex as a fun way to live, mirroring the infamous homosexual promiscuous lifestyle that sets such a 'good' example for our children.

"I am glad they can find happiness together."

Here, let me complete this for you: "I am glad that they can find happiness together while engaging in a filthy, dangerous, disease spreading activity that endangers society and in the well documented case of AIDS alone, killed more than half a million Americans." Of course, if they were 'married', then by magic, promiscuous homosexuals would turn into monogamous homosexuals. And of course, by accepting marriage between homosexuals, society could in no way be signalling that homosexual sex is alright, where it should be signalling that it is a danger to all of us.

Stop lying to us.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
FTW- I notice that your lurid references to homosexual sex are ALL to male homosexual sex. Do lesbians not spread enough AIDS to suit your argument? And do the over 1 million- mostly undiagnosed straight people -with Hep C not fit neatly with your idea that homosexuality is the largest vector of contagion in the modern world?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh the libertarians to the rescue.

Where did I say that homosexuality was the largest vector of contagion in the world.

You are miles from thinking straight. Does the fact that most people killed on the highways are killed in other ways make an argument incorrect that people with inadequate vision kill people when they drive so they should not be allowed to drive?

"lurid" - oh, gee, this really gives you logic points. My words are "lurid" for a reason.

[Lesbian comment] - Oh gee, you've really proved me wrong there. How did you come up with such a brainy (and previously unheard of) demonstration of my fallacy?

Guess what? I don't happen to feel like talking about lesbians.

Oh but you're a superior thinker. I've had it now.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
The issue of homosexuality and homosexual marriage is in fact about "pegs and holes" is the sense that it is about nature. Any minority human right that trumps majority opinion, or the opinion of the "right-minded," must appeal to something outside of us. The history of the U.S. prior to the Progressive movement rested that appeal on Nature and Nature's God. It has only been since we've accepted the idea of all law as positive law that anything like legalizing homosexual marriage has been conceivable. But if all law is positive law, resting solely on opinion, then the foundation for minority human rights, not conferred by opinion, is undermined. Paradoxically, then finding a right for homosexual marriage undermines all minority human rights. I am, of course, assuming the very thing Robertson assumes, that what is at issue is Nature and what is consistent with it, i.e., "pegs and holes."

I happen to believe that homosexuals can and do fall in love with each other. However, I also believe that such is against Nature. Law does not rest upon what feels natural to individuals, but what is consistent with biological complementarity. Even the atheist evolutionist must believe that something has gone wrong with homosexuality sine reproduction is the goal. The fact that homosexuals do fall in love elicits our compassion and, frankly, breaks our hearts when we assert that homosexuality is a sin and against nature.

As to your statement that no one can judge whether you are a good Christian unless he/she is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: your comment shows that you do not know your New Testament very well. There are many situations in which men and women are called upon to make that judgement precisely. The apostle Paul even goes so far as calling upon good Christians to distinguish between "insiders" and "outsiders" on the basis of behavior and assertions that are consistent with the gospel or not. Your statements about Christianity or the Judeo-Christian heritage do not rise above those of many in our biblically illiterate culture.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Important point, terogs.

The "plumbing" issue, explaining and illustrating the fact that two men or two women can't be married (i.e., joined) is the basis of, and one of the best arguments against, the insane, illogical claim of gay "marriage". Ask any electrician, as well, if you need both a male and a female part in order to make a connection. A child could explain this to you as well, in his simple terms.

We conservatives also believe, but from a different (sociological) perspective, that a healthy person always seeks "the other" in romantic love or merely sexual relationships. This "other" is FAR more than, but necessarily includes, the forementioned opposite parts.

Lastly, we defer to nature, and nature's God, in this matter, as was revealed to us in His Eternal and Inerrant Word. He makes the rules, He knows and loves us best, and He has spoken clearly about His will in this matter.

Klavan was right in arguing for civility, but not much else. Given his tone and his defensiveness, he comes across to us (who TRULY ARE under attack) as if he was saying back off and back down. As far as this old man is concerned, that aint gonna happen.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Evidently you are unaware of how prevalent homosexuality is in Nature.

CHECK YOUR FACTS before you post a claim like that.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
The fact that crocodiles eat their young or penguins in the Brooklyn zoo have homosexual sex is immaterial. The point is the natural use of the human reproduction system. Writing laws for humans based on the behavior of ants, bees, crocodiles, platypuses, or any other animal is NOT an application of natural law, in contrast with positive law. Maybe you should learn the distinction before you make such a vapid response.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've done some research. My dog licks her own butt. I guess that raises fisting and teabagging and golden showers to the level of normal behavior.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
So is cannibalism. Your point?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Phil Robertson did comment on the exact physical act that comprises gay sex, which is seldom stated. His statement of the act was repulsive, which caused all the hysteria. It was not Phil's opinion that was repulsive, it was that he had the audacity to state in a public forum what gay sex involved. The statement had no option but to be a description of an act that is a 100% violation of nature, therefore the public revulsion. But Phil was not, in reality, stating "his opinion". He was stating God's instructions to man that homosexuality is a sin. God's words, not Phil's. This is crucial. God created the universe and he also gave us rules to live by. The act Phil described violates God's rules, not Phil's opinions. Individuals like the author or others can disregard and even mock God's rules. But don't attack Phil. He is the messenger. And he is actually speaking to help the homosexual. If that person sees the error of operating in opposition to God, they might stop. Wouldn't it be better to be right with God? Same would apply to a heterosexual adulterer or a thief or a murderer. It is about God's law.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"...a description of an act that is a 100% violation of nature, therefore the public revulsion. But Phil was not, in reality, stating "his opinion". He was stating God's instructions to man that homosexuality is a sin."

Great. Now, what are we all to say to all those straight people who are into anal sex? Do some research to find out just how pervasive it really is.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Do some research to find out just how pervasive it really is."

10% at most. Next question we might ask is how come it is that high?

Are they afraid of the questioner?
Is it because other people have encourage it?
the 10% of the people people you have done it consistently or was it a phase?

Time for you to grow up Bobbcat!
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Same thing. This is not that complicated. You might ask them, if you get yourself into such a conversation, why would you want to do that?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I dealt with this before, but it's still a useful argument as long as it's not jeered at consistently if you don't actually care about truth, which post modern Marxists don't.

Homosexuals are promiscuous, and no, it's not because they can't get 'married'. It's because the male libido seeking another male libido adds up to easy gratification. The male libido seeking the female libido isn't so easy as the female wants to have some help raising the kid that results from sex so she doesn't go jump into the arms of a different male every evening. If she wanted this, she could have it very easily, but she doesn't, so promiscuity in the male libido seeking the female libido is a pale, pale imitation of homosexual promiscuity. That means that the odd pervert sticking his dick into his wife's anus is a far less severe problem for the health of society than homosexual perversion is.

Blurring categories in order to interfere with unwanted speech is a pomo Marxist technique. Are you really against tyranny? All Marxists, of course, say they are too, but you are exposing yourself with all your Marxist style of argumentation.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
FTW, you spend a lot of time screeding about homosexual men.
What do you have to say about homosexual women? Most of your arguments simply don't apply to them.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
A lot of it does.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm ready. Which ones?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Go jump in a lake MT Geoff.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Straight people can be perverts too? Who'd have thought it?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Okay, I'll bite, where's this research about how pervasive anal sex is among heterosexuals...Kinsey...the Penthouse Forum?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

44% of straight men have tried anal sex at least once.
36% of straight women have tried anal sex at least once.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

The availability of free Internet porn has influenced Americans to experiment more with sex.

Ask your local plastic surgeon how many women are now paying for labiaplasty surgery. Guess why.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Google "anal sex in the US" & see for yourself.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
no thanks
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
You asked. If you don't want to educate yourself, then don't argue the point; it's silly.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
A lot of people are into doing a lot of stupid and destructive and sinful things. The fact that they do them does not make them less stupid, destructive or sinful.

By your logic, "what are we to tell the hard core heroin user, anyway, huh, that he is somehow wrong?" "What are we to tell the girl who cuts herself with razor blades up and down her arm, that she is somehow wrong for this?" "What are we to tell the kleptomaniac, that he is somehow wrong for stealing things now and then.?"

Yes.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
By your logic, homosexuals should be shoved back into the closet. Is this a solution? I think not.

There has to be a compromise & there is going to be. Again for the umpteenth time, SSM is here to stay & one day it will occur in all 50 states. You are going to have to deal with that reality.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, they never were in a closet. Discretion is not "in a closet". Of course I'm against homosexuals who "come out". It is an announcement that they are lined up with the homosexual lobby and its Marxist inspired ends. "In a closet" depends on the false equation of "being locked up in a dark place" with "living in a world where its best to keep your mouth shut about the stupid things you do".

Hey, I haven't "come out". I don't feel oppressed. For all you know, I could be someone who has a quiet life with a partner of my own sex who realizes that stealing marriage from the people it protects would be a terrible wrong which only selfish people who do not care about children could possibly ask for.

Most people don't 'come out'. Why is it a great oppression to follow social norms and keep your mouth shut about your sex life instead of shoving it down our throats and expecting us to congratulate you for your 'courage'?

Here's a piece of news for you. The only way homosexual marriage is here to stay in all 50 states is if liars like Obama stay on the throne.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Unfortunately, people who want to talk to the CDC about their intimate sex lives are not normal.

As I pointed out above, it's a category blurring irrelevancy anyway.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy FTW
No, it is not a category-blurring irrelevancy. It's a direct response to your claim that male homosexual activity is uniquely perverted and uniquely dirty and uniquely shameful. bobbcat has demonstrated that this is not the case.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Where did I use the word 'uniquely'?

Stop making things up.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
FTW, your commentary may not have used the word "uniquely". But I am not "making things up." The whole arc of your commentary is that homosexuals deserve to be scorned and degraded because what they do is different from what heterosexuals do. The problem for your position is that heterosexuals do most of the things that you claim concern you about homosexual activity, they just do it as men and women instead of men and men.
So I summarized your commentary fairly.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"your commentary may not have used the word "uniquely""

Oh, but it's OK for you to say I did is it? Your words are "false but accurate" (in case anyone forgets these words were Dan Rather's 'justification' for his shameful role in publishing false documents about George Bush in attempt to win the election for the liars)?

"whole arc of your commentary"

Oh gee, what beautiful writing. It means you can take what I say and 'interpret' it into something I didn't say.

"scorned and degraded"

Quote?

"because what they do is different from what heterosexuals do."

Sorry, no, that's not the reason for my postings. Just another 'interpretation' (read 'lie').

"heterosexuals do most of the things that you claim concern you about homosexual activity, they just do it as men and women instead of men and men"

No they don't. Homosexuals screw each other with deadly consequences, which you in your dishonest it's-the-same-thing commentary fail to mention.

It doesn't matter how you play around with words, 2+2 will never equal 5. It's true, though, that in the Marxist revolution which you unwittingly (I hope) work for, people will be utterly terrified of saying otherwise, but 2+2 will never equal 5 (see George Orwell's 1984).

Wake up! A truth does not become false if it hurts the feelings of selfish babies. Homosexual marriage is an absurd abomination. It's universal implementation, the thought of which bobbcat gets wet over, means that the post modern Marxists have blazed the trail which can be followed to impose any destructive idea they want. It means that society is insane and is no longer capable of defending itself.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All