-
Obama’s Far Left Hand
May 15, 2013 | 133 comments
-
The Left’s Captive Mind
May 8, 2013 | 85 comments
-
A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian
May 1, 2013 | 291 comments
-
The Price of Obama’s Islamophilia
April 24, 2013 | 196 comments
-
The Perverse Logic of the Left
April 17, 2013 | 138 comments
The Nation's Pulse
My Left Breast: The Carrie Prejean Story
Are we witnessing an outbreak of “heterophobia”?
Perhaps only in a pop culture as demented as America’s could Donald Trump emerge as a reassuring figure in the same-sex marriage debate. Carrie Prejean gave an “honorable answer” to the gay-marriage question at his pageant, pronounced Trump earlier in the week.
Yes, the manner in which Trump defends Carrie Prejean’s opposition to gay marriage is characteristically ludicrous. She suffers persecution because she is “seriously” hot, he says repeatedly. And, yes, having paid plastic surgeons to enhance her now-exposed upper torso, Trump has a fiduciary interest in its future use at his pageants.
But let’s give Trump at least a few points for Jujitsuing gay-marriage activists by invoking Barack Obama’s opposition to it. Citing Prejean’s answer at the pageant, he said, “It’s the same answer that the president of the United States gave.”
The difference is that she actually believes it. Indeed, the “dumb blonde with fake boobs,” as homosexual activists have called her, has provided a more spirited and courageous defense of marriage than many Catholic bishops. They are apparently tied up with other important matters, such as penning memoirs in which they announce their “struggles” with sodomy.
Yep, I’m gay, says retired Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland in his forthcoming memoirs. Weakland “retired” after it came out that he had “borrowed” $450,000 of the faithful’s money to pay off a male Marquette graduate student who accused him of “date rape,” and now Rembert is poised to discuss the glorious if troubled trajectory of his sexual preference: “how this came to life in my own self, how I suppressed it, how it resurrected again,” as he put it to AP.
No penitential manual labor in obscurity for this Benedictine monk; Rembert is ready for Oprah. The release of and reaction to A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church will, I suspect, satisfy my 2002 prediction on this site:
Expect Weakland to hit the liberal Catholic speaking circuit in the coming years as a “victim” of pre-Vatican II repression. The scandal, we will be told, is not that a successor of the apostles conducted a homosexual affair and raided the resources of the Church to conceal it, but that such a talented homosexual couldn’t serve “openly” in the Church and that the Church’s “hypocrisy” forced him to cover his homosexuality up.
But back to Prejean: How is it that a culture as drenched in depravity as this one could describe her as “disgraced”? Is that even possible anymore? As Trump noted, the culture is settling into “the 21st century.” In other words, kids are too busy “sexting” their friends to care about Prejean’s left breast.
Nevertheless, the sexual revolutionaries at MSNBC, who usually encourage off-the-rails carnality, want to “vomit” over Prejean. Despite presiding over a culture that would probably make the orgy-attending pagans of the past blush, liberals have managed to find a risqué model that revolts them. I haven’t seen the Andrew Sullivans so worked up since Mel Gibson’s “obscene” film about Jesus Christ.
Are we witnessing an outbreak of “heterophobia”? The violent reaction to Prejean’s remarks illustrates once again not only the intrinsically violent character of homosexual activism — it rallies around a sexual act that violates nature, after all — but also its deep fear of fertile, heterosexual women. Carrie Prejean scares the hell out of them.
Perhaps Prejean should apply for protection under Obama’s “hate crimes” statutes. Or has “heterophobia” not yet been added to the list? If not, proud heterosexualist Donald Trump, whose interest in heterosexual marriage before this episode was fitfully displayed by his repeated return to it, could ably take up the cause.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Kitty| 5.14.09 @ 6:38AM
Imagine if Carrie Prejean had begun her answer like this: 'I agree with President Obama on the issue of gay marriage...'
...
Darin| 5.14.09 @ 6:54AM
Kitty,
Good response. Another possible one would be "I'd be happy to say what I believe about the issue of gay marriage, but individuals such as you are not ready to listen to the answer. When you display respect for other viewpoints, the subject can be discussed. Until then, I must invoke the Fifth Amendment."
David Mathews | 5.14.09 @ 7:01AM
If gay marriage was legal a lot of closeted conservatives could get married. Ted Haggard, Larry Craig and Rush Limbaugh could all get married ... perhaps to each other.
Robert Rosencrans| 5.14.09 @ 7:09AM
Debauchery is the first step to tyranny.
El Rey| 5.14.09 @ 7:41AM
The gleeful acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as 'nornmal' -- or rather, the demand by the elite and perverts that it be accepted as so -- is a sign that scociety has lost its way and is sick unto death.
I Taht I Taw A Putty Tat| 5.14.09 @ 8:10AM
Evil Hetero Trash
http://phillips.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834515c6d69e200e5538aecd78833-320wi
OR The Mathews Family
http://www.radioalgoa.com/assets/images/siegfried_roy_tiger_1_r.jpg
YOU DECIDE
Andrew B| 5.14.09 @ 8:21AM
What a sad day when a creep like Donald Trump is one of the few champions of free speech left. I can only imagine what fresh horrors the left will unleash after this current feeding frenzy. They smell blood in the water and, like the sharks they are, will want to gorge some more.
wyatt salt| 5.14.09 @ 8:34AM
"its deep fear of fertile, heterosexual women.'
True enough. Their preferred sexual act is innately unhealthy and infertile. And it enrages them to know that 99 percent of men prefer women because they spend a lot of time reassuring themelves that lots of men are secretly gay. Not surprisingly, they hope others suffer from their problem.
BTW, ladies, Ms Prejean is beautiful, but i see women in everyday life who are more attractive.
Griff| 5.14.09 @ 8:35AM
If homosexuality were genetic, the trait would have been found in the genes going back to Neolithic times (and beyond). Since homosexuals don't tend to have a lot of children, a "homosexual gene" would, by now, be extremely recessive, if present at all in the gene pool. Hence, many (all?) homosexuals could benefit from therapy instead of trying to convince themselves and everyone else that their "condition" is "genetic".
ds80| 5.14.09 @ 8:40AM
C'mon David (Matthews) ... what are you so afraid of? Heterosexual women? Beautiful women? Intelligent women?
As a great blogger previously posted: Reproduction: it's a heterosexual thing. You wouldn't understand.
wes| 5.14.09 @ 8:44AM
Hey DM,
I guess if gay marriage were legal you could marry too. Heck, head off to Iowa now.
This decline in our culture will only change when the majority held view finally throws the deviants back into the closet. The kind, tolerant people have patiently waited for the progressives to "play nice " but wait for it, the backlash is coming. Yes, the same folk who are so exercised about Ms. Prejean's opinions view the Abu Garaib
"torture" pics as a fun weekend away!
Mike| 5.14.09 @ 8:48AM
So a beauty queen with surgically enhanced breasts who posed nude has replaced the unwed, pregnant Bristol Palin as the cause celebre du jour in the right wing's defense of family values in our hedonistic, doomed civilization. I will say one thing for conservatives: they provided enormous comic relief. At least as much as those on the far left.
pregnant, unwed Bristol Palin and now
Son Of Sam | 5.14.09 @ 9:00AM
OK, let's see if I've got this correct:
A) A woman in a beauty pageant dares to have an independent thought, and she speaks up for what she believes in, AFTER she is asked a direct question about it
B) The "man" who asked the question has a hissy fit because he doesn't like her answer, so he
C) makes sure she doesn't win the contest, after which
D) he and a bunch of other "men" do their damnedest to publicly crucify this woman for daring to step out of line and NOT think the way they do
Other than the fact that these "men" are licking each other's assholes, how are they different from the Taliban?
stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos
Pingback| 5.14.09 @ 9:07AM
Twitted by CommonComrades links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Doorgunner| 5.14.09 @ 9:14AM
Mike,
We didn't choose Carrie as a cause, a self-important (aren't you all?) lefty did. We're merely defending her. We didn't choose Bristol as a cause; self-important lefties did. We merely defended her. Like Carrie, I can say this is "...how I was raised."
Nittany| 5.14.09 @ 9:34AM
Thank you ,Mr. Neumayr, for the wonderful new term "heterophobic" . I would like to expand it a little to describe a deep fear of fertile womem AND virile men.
I hope "heterophobe" becomes common usage in discourse and argument so as to neutralize the name-calling hissy fits of those weak-minded degenerates who use ad hominem attacks as their primary response.
stephanie| 5.14.09 @ 9:38AM
Son of Sam said it best. How are these horrible "men" any different than the Taliban?
How dare this woman speak her truth?
Rocin| 5.14.09 @ 9:52AM
Kitty is right, and this is just hate erupting against her.
Another answer could have been, "I represent the State of California, which just voted heavily to outlaw gay marriage. I stand with the majority of my fellow Californians."
Boyd Tinsley| 5.14.09 @ 9:54AM
David Matthews
I like your little attempt to smear Rush.
I guess you also think Obama is getting BJs in Chicago taxicabs.
Anything to further your agenda, right?
Jack | 5.14.09 @ 10:01AM
The intruder has found his shadow.
Who wouldn't want to agree with Carrie? After all, if we agree there is some chance she may choose one of us! Imagine the height of your relationship goal to be Seigfried? Pass the Xanax please.
Patrick| 5.14.09 @ 10:18AM
Griff,
Your comments about homosexuality and genetics show how you don't know the difference between something that is "genetic" and something that is "hereditary". There are plenty of things that are genetically-determined or -influenced without being hereditary. Anyone else remember seventh-grade biology? So your argument against homosexuality being innate is completely without merit.
Darin| 5.14.09 @ 10:34AM
Interesting that a conservative has to be perfect, including a perfect family, to express any opinion on anything. Otherwise they are attacked, maligned, spat upon, and subject to other such forms of "tolerance." A liberal, on the other hand, only needs to have a pulse and can, without fear of retribution, say or do anything.
A rational person would recognize this as a double-standard. Conservatives would likely agree. I'm curious to hear how liberals feel about this.
I Love A Parade| 5.14.09 @ 10:41AM
Patrick,
Did you hear the one about the two gay Scotsmen, Patrick Fitzhugh and Hugh Fitzpatrick?
Pete| 5.14.09 @ 10:42AM
She was merely representing her state, CA, which voted down gay marriage last fall. She is, in effect, a representative of the people, and she gets attacked ? Maybe she should say "We won, get over it" or "elections have consequences."
Texas Male| 5.14.09 @ 10:43AM
here's what Ann Coulter had to say today....brilliant:
http://anncoulter.com/
Liberals wouldn't attack James Dobson with the amount of bile they've directed at a 21-year-old beauty contestant. It's not just Christianity -- it's women liberals hate.
From Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso and Bertrand Russell, who treated women -- mostly their mistresses -- like dogs, to Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton in our own day, liberals are ferocious misogynists. They share Muslims' opinion of women, differing only to the extent that liberals also support a women's right to have an abortion and to perform lap dances.
You'd be better off in a real burqa than under the authority of a liberal American male.
Dropping By| 5.14.09 @ 10:45AM
I support Prejean, and I'm glad Trump made the point he did that her thoughts on the matter echo Obama's. But I agree with commenter "Kitty" above -- if Prejean had taken the time to formulate a decent answer in advance (e.g., "My position is the president's ...", she would have won the pageant and much of this brouhaha could have been avoided (both for her and for all of us). She KNEW that it was a question she might get, has said so in interviews many times, and yet her prepared answer was merely adequate. Frankly, mediocre.
This sudden gay backlash over Prop 8 is instructive, however, in that it demonstrates that gays are gunning for the religious. Conservative religious believers of whatever brand are going to be fighting this fight for a long time (or until another foreign-inspired domestic crisis like 9/11 jolts the country back into a sense of proportion on such matters, and hysterical gays are seen by the country as the whining misfits that they are).
Larry C.| 5.14.09 @ 10:48AM
David Mathews, I love when Leftists fling the "Hypocrite" bomb. Let's face it...lefties admit we conservatives are better than you...why? Because we're to a higher standard. We conservatives are EXPECTED to be upright, moral, and decent AT EVERYTHING WE DO. Meanwhile, lefties can do anything (and anyone) they want because they have no standards.
As for the "hypocrites", if you look at the proper definition of a hypocrite-someone who doesn't live up to the standards he or she sets for him/herself, then we're ALL "hypocrites". The only one who wasn't was Jesus Christ.
Laurey Boyd| 5.14.09 @ 10:55AM
This situation is absurd to the point of Felliniesque. I was somewhat sympathetic with her until she said that the semi-nude photos were the product of the wind or the photographer getting just the right angle. Don't you hate it when that happens.
Doorgunner| 5.14.09 @ 11:14AM
“Censorship is advertising paid by the government.”
Federico Fellini
Ms. Boyd, and anyone else who cares to listen, we (conservatives) understand that Ms. Prejean is a beauty pageant contestant and has, presumably, an intellect commensurate with her peers- and apparently one or more judges. The point is, well, as Mr. Fellini put it.
Bob Alou| 5.14.09 @ 11:15AM
Yes Dave, but you would still only have your Kodak and your mother.
Big J| 5.14.09 @ 11:31AM
The other Dave Mathews:
"Incidentally, I recommend that humans spend time with dolphins every day. Spend more time observing the dolphins and less time listening to humans and you will be a happier person indeed!"
Take some of your own advice, Davey.
After visiting his website, I have come to the conclusion that Dave Mathews either has multiple personalities or he is just plain WACKO (not to be confused with the other "David" in WACO, or maybe so?).
I hope to be spared from his brilliant commentary on the days current events.
"Davey, Davey go away,
Don't come back on ANY other day:
Wish I could, wish I may
Make little Davey go away!"
macdaddy| 5.14.09 @ 11:37AM
What do nude pictures have to do with gay marriage? Oh, excuse me, semi-nude, well, not really, actually more like some cleavage, but from the side. Like what's on the big posters in the windows of Victoria's Secret... AT THE MALL. So now we know what offends these neo-Puritans, I ask again, What do some modeling pictures have to do with gay marriage? Even if Miss Prejean were a cheap prostitute, what would that have to do with gay marriage? Other than trying to send a message to anyone else who dares to speak out against it, I mean.
Michael Harding| 5.14.09 @ 11:50AM
Let me be the first to say that not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a hate monger, and not every one who supports it is a hate monger. The attacks on Prejean are vile and disgusting. So are the calls for "throwing them back in the closet". Gay people do not chose to be gay. It is even the official Roman Catholic teaching that it is only a sin to commit sodomy. It is not a sin to be gay. As a Catholic you are OBLIGATED to agree. This is on the same level as the church's opposition to the death penalty. The church calls for celibacy for homosexuals not secrecy. It also calls for ALL people to be treated with decency and respect. And the fact that the pagans don't return the favor is NO EXCUSE to violate this command: LOVE your enemies. Do GOOD to them that HATE you.
Pingback| 5.14.09 @ 11:54AM
My Left Breast: The Carrie Prejean Story « Depravity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Joe Turner| 5.14.09 @ 12:04PM
I think I need to take issue with Michael Harding, just above, when he says that as a Catholic you're obligated to be against the death penalty is on the same level as your obligation to sodomy is a sin. I've never read anywhere that the Church obligates us to oppose the death penalty. Yes, the Church opposes the death penalty but I don't think that someone who is for it in selected cases is guilty of failing to abide by Church doctrine. On the other hand, a proponent of homosexual sin is clearly in conflict with Church doctrine.
ds80| 5.14.09 @ 12:04PM
Hey Mikey, I thought the Left promoted "anything goes". As in breast implants, teen pregnancy, etc. So what's your point?
Michael Harding| 5.14.09 @ 12:10PM
Not writing as a proponent of sodomy but of the Church teaching that BEING gay is a sin. The ACT of sodomy is the sin. The church teaches that homosexuality is a state of being and that homosexuals are to be loved and taught celibacy from an ACT not secrecy about their state of BEING. My larger point was the last few sentences. I'll repost so you can review them: "And the fact that the pagans don't return the favor is NO EXCUSE to violate this command: LOVE your enemies. Do GOOD to them that HATE you."
Michael Harding| 5.14.09 @ 12:12PM
Correction for my above post
I wrote:
Not writing as a proponent of sodomy but of the Church teaching that BEING gay is a sin.
The correction:
Not writing as a proponent of sodomy but of the Church teaching that BEING gay is NOT a sin.
Joe| 5.14.09 @ 12:19PM
If she did all of this, left breast exposed, modeling underware, etc. for the world to see. This is not a model for our side either. Carrie Prejean is/was correct in everything she did in the pagent. However, lets not make her some sort of wholesome role model for our girls to immulate like Miley Cirus is not.
By the way, Davey, you are just jealous Rush won't marry you, you pervert.
Son Of Sam | 5.14.09 @ 12:46PM
Hello Michael Harding,
I'm not sure what you mean by "throwing them back in the closet", and to be blunt as a spoon, that is hardly the issue at hand. The issue is freedom of speech. Perez Hilton is an OBAMANAZI. He clearly believes that if someone disagrees with him by saying something that he does not want to hear, then that person needs to be verbally assaulted, publicly vilified, punished and made to shut the hell up. That is the end game of ALL the ObamaNazis out there: after all their posturing and all their speeches and all their slogans about "tolerance" and "diversity", they want freedom for themselves and chains and slavery for everyone else.
To which we say, "tolerance is a two way street, there's a lot more of us than there are of you and you better step back now while you still have time to do so gracefully"
stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos
PS I thank you for your kind comments Stephanie.
Roy| 5.14.09 @ 1:01PM
Re:ds80: He doesn't have a point.
The foot soldiers of Democratism, the gangsta rappers, porn industry execs and bloviating Hollywood actots, do ten times worse than this every day. I think Bristol Palin screwed up, but so do tons of other people and it was absolutely vile for the Left to pile on her like that. However, if they want to play, I'll play:
Question: What do you do if you're a drunk driver who killed his mistress, a blatant adulterer who actually dared the media to find anything, which took them all of a week, a guy who cheated on his wife with such monotonous regularity that he had a standard denial of sex affidavit on file, or a guy who blatantly cheats on his wife while she is dying of cancer?
Answer: Run for the Democratic nomination for President and, in some cases, win it.
MICHAEL HARDSOMETHING| 5.14.09 @ 1:13PM
Don't you LOVE IT when we LEFT-TARDS LECTURE and HECTOR you on the subject of MORALITY and RELIGION and STUFF!!! WE always use CAPITALS and EXCLAMATION POINTS to show how EMPATHETIC we are and that we REALLY, REALLY FEEL STRONGLY about what we're saying. WE MEAN IT!!!!
Think First| 5.14.09 @ 1:16PM
All this hoopla is just another example of how far out PC has gotten due to the lack of any supposed republicans to grow a pair and declare loudly and repeatedly the hypocrisy and dangers self evident in any attempt to restrict speech, hate or not.
Why are these people we voted for so afraid of democrats who hate them, the MSM who hate them or these radicals who hate them no matter what they do short of pulling an Arlen Specter?
In what way do they think groveling and pandering wins any points with anyone except to make you look like a worm to be stepped on as much as they want because you are too afraid of offending to fight back?
Could there be a more stark contrast on who is a raving hypocrite than to listen to the rant of any liberal as they rail against any supposed "hate crime?"
Several representatives of local chapters of gay and feminists have denounced this idiot for not representing their views and treating her so badly and calling her names. What we are dealing with here is people who are getting braver all the time as no one is calling them on their horrible behavior. Like kids running amok because no one's telling them no, they continue to get louder and more shrill because no one is willing to confront them on their bad behavior.
Michael Harding| 5.14.09 @ 1:21PM
Son of Sam,
I completely agree. The 'throw them back in the closet' line was referencing one of the earlier posters not the article. But if you want me to cite over the top invective in the article here's one "Despite presiding over a culture that would probably make the orgy-attending pagans of the past blush" The ancient pagans would mutilate their genitals to serve their disgusting sex gods. The modern disagreement is with people of the same sex wanting to have the gov't bless their domestic living arrangements. Such exaggerations are the same as the argument that everyone opposed to same sex marriage wants to stone homosexuals. People of good will can and do disagree over this issue. Further, when the pagan/secular media demonizes all who disagree with them it does not give carte blanch to Christians to return the favor. We ARE called to be better. Pagans will act like pagans. Will Christians act like Christ? Let us pray for our lost brothers, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."
Michael Harding| 5.14.09 @ 1:26PM
re: Michael Hardsomething
read my post again. Not a far leftist, used no exclamation points and am simply taking Christ seriously and admonishing my fellow Christians to do likewise. Read the scriptures. Christians are called simply to follow Christ in the face of persecution, but are never called to persecute those that don't follow him, but to be loving to all. I am sorry if the caps were seen as shouting. There is simply no way to do italics on here. It would have been my preffered mode of emphasis. Thank you for illustrating my point about a very non-Christlike attitude by mocking my last name. Perhaps you should display the courage of your convictions by using your real name.
JP| 5.14.09 @ 1:32PM
It's too bad a swinsuit model is carrying the burden on this. This entire episode is absurd. Catholics have a term called, "Near occaison of sin". We are told to avoid it, and we make the promise to "avoid sin and the near occaison of sin" at the end of confession. So, have a swimsuit model who prances around the runway in a bikini extolling the virtues of marriage, when in fact her actions run counter to it.
Catholic conservatives like Maggie Gallagher are thrilled to have her onboard! I suppose the pickings are so slim that one cannot complain.
My only observation is that few have picked up the irony of it all.
Pete | 5.14.09 @ 1:37PM
David Matthews, you don't seem to have much to say of any import, but I sure do love your music.
Doctor Right| 5.14.09 @ 1:53PM
America is becoming sick of gays...
Sick of their agenda, sick of their lifestyle, sick of their politics, sick of their depravity...
The backlash is coming...Back to the closet, Perez.
Tim| 5.14.09 @ 2:04PM
Frank Cross: I want to see her nipples.
Censor Lady: But this is a CHRISTMAS show.
Frank Cross: Well, I'm sure Charles Dickens would have wanted to see her nipples.
Carpenter: You can barely see them nipples.
Frank Cross: See? And these guys are REALLY looking.
Michael Hardsomething| 5.14.09 @ 2:08PM
M. Harding,
I'm not mocking your name, I'm mocking you. Please, spare me the pose of christian serenity- I think dmathew1 has that grounded covered, and it is urine-marked if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Neumayr's article is about the illiberal reaction by the politically left in this country toward beauty pageant contestant voicing an opinion that is apparently the view of the majority of citizens of this country. It isn't about the morality of homosexual acts or thoughts, it isn't about Carrie Prejean being the voice of conservatism or marriage or the religious right or anyone but herself, and it isn't about charitable christian behavior. Spare me the pontifications, I don't buy from you anymore than I buy it from the local Fr. Full-Nelson.
dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.14.09 @ 2:17PM
He proposed! He proposed! He proposed!
Yes, Dave Mathews, a thousand times yes. I will marry you.
It is legal for someone to marry their inner child, isn't it?
Oh. And you can be the "bride." I've spent so long bending over backwards for you . . . .
stmichrick| 5.14.09 @ 2:22PM
I am so relieved that The Donald, after Reviewing the Pictures, found nothing wrong as well as an opening to promote his P____y Bank.
Why are we talking about this?
NavyBrat| 5.14.09 @ 2:30PM
David Matthews. First of all, what an intellignet comment. I'll bet you're a star pupil in your 6th grade class. I fail to see how that relates, in any way, to the article. Then again, what can you say about this? Nothing. Because I think you know, deep down in your confused mind, that Ms. Prejean said nothing wrong, & those of us who agree with her are not wrong for having the same opinion. I don't "hate" anyone. I take issue with people who use their cause to subvert the norms of society. You want to be gay, & get married, fine. You want to change the definition of marriage to suit PC run amok? I have to throw a BS card on that. James Antle had a good piece about this a couple of days ago.
Secondly, Dave, I've asked you repeatedly to change your handle. Even though I don't agree with his politics, I STILL like his music. You're ruining it for me. Stop, please. Che Guevera might be a more appropriate handle for you.
Helen Donnelly| 5.14.09 @ 3:21PM
Dear Dave Mathews,
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........
Klabautermann| 5.14.09 @ 3:29PM
Trump is the 21st century's P.T. Barnum. He chose the homunculus Mario Lavandeira as judge and probably posed the question he would ask. This generated a great deal of publicity; the life blood of Trump's ilk. Conservatives are constantly bamboozled by the left. Even they use the term “gay” when referring to homosexuals. Leftist (Reds) chose the term “red” to describe conservative America. One of their best tools is confusion. If Reds were described as “red” it would make things clearer to the American people. Wyatt Salt makes a good point, “it enrages them to know that 99 percent of men prefer women because they spend a lot of time reassuring themselves that lots of men are secretly gay. Not surprisingly, they hope others suffer from their problem.” Homosexuality is a disease. It is the type of disease that causes many of it’s victims to want everyone to share their misery. They call themselves gay. Compare life expectancy of homosexuals and smokers. This is not a healthy lifestyle, bug chasing aside.
I’m a big fan of the scientific genius David Matthews. I particularly liked him in his role as drum majorette at the Necrophilia Pride Parade.
Angel| 5.14.09 @ 3:49PM
Liberals are outraged at the sight of a beautiful woman's breast--but embrace and celebrate anal sex. Good one, perverts. Underscores the assertion that liberalism is a mental illness.
Andrew| 5.14.09 @ 3:50PM
Son Of Sam
i think the Taliban lick each others assholes too.
Daisy| 5.14.09 @ 3:56PM
Forget it, Navy Brat; Dave Mathews is a slimeball-- just like your beloved band that was prosecuted by Chicago for hurling hundreds of gallons of their tourbus sewage onto tourists' heads below. Blech!
Jake Shaw| 5.14.09 @ 4:02PM
At some point, seeing the skidmarks on their c*cks must unsettle even the most staunch of gays. The bashing of the truly feminine, despite the need to hover around the same in many professions, is an outward shouting of inadequacy and recognizing themselves in an inauthentic existence.
MT| 5.14.09 @ 4:05PM
'Necrophilia Pride Parade'--lol.
NavyBrat| 5.14.09 @ 4:07PM
Well, Daisy, I had no idea about that. G*d what hypocrisy these guys engage in. On his Live in Central Park album, he thanks everyone for taking what they brought with them. I can't help it though. I love all kinds of music. Not all of the bands I like have politics I like. Being a classic/Southern rock fan makes it kinda hard. That's why I can't stand when some band I like espouses their lefty (for the most part, let's just say I'm not worried about Hank Jr. or Charlie Daniels) tendencies. "Shut up & sing," I say.
dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.14.09 @ 4:15PM
Hey, Dave: Stop texting me! I was kidding on the wedding thing. First off, well, how do I put this? I've seen a picture of you. Don't take this wrong. I'm sure there's SOMEONE out there for you. It's just that I'm not into the whole hunchback/cleft palate thing. Not that there's anything wrong with it. I'm sure you'll have takers on Craigslist.
And if my high school theater ever does The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I promise I'll call you (we'll save a TON on makeup!). That is assuming your restraining order has expired by then. On second thought, probably not a good idea for you to be around the freshmen. Or the dog that lives nearby.
I have an admission to make, Dave: Hope you don't mind. It tears me apart to say this. My liberal friends will disown me. This is so difficult. I'm STRAIGHT. There. I said it. Let the heterophobia begin.
In all seriousness, I'm very gratified that Carrie Prejean spoke for what I hope is still the majority. I have no problem with tolerance, but the harder the hate-spewing Perez Hiltons of the world try to vilify normality, the harder THIS conservative is gonna push back.
We've given enough ground to the whack jobs in this country; they're coming after us and it's time to fight back.
Middleware| 5.14.09 @ 4:29PM
Mike, his other schoolboy miscreant, and assorted deviant buds find hetero marriage and single motherhood amusing, nay hilarious. Certainly, marriage of any sort is considered bizarre among today's trendy Obamadolators, but aren't single mothers considered to be a protected class? Oops, I forgot that such protections are only afforded to those who are studiously immoral, who worship degeneracy, and who give themselves over to permanent victimhood.
Alice L.| 5.14.09 @ 4:53PM
Great article! The villain is the dork known as "Perez Hilton". Even if gay marriage were legalized, nobody would marry Perez. Miss Prejean should sue him for the way he marked her down costing her the crown. I hope Carrie gets a job on Fox - another fox for Fox!
Michael Harding| 5.14.09 @ 4:58PM
Mr. Hardsomething
Personal mockery is not an acceptable Christian behavior. I won't answer any more of your diatribes because clearly you haven't learned that Christlike behavior is the first obligation of a Christian. Christian is not a political label or an identity. And I personally don't care whether you 'buy it' or not. I assure you that I do practice the adage that what you say is not as important as how you say it. (not perfectly of course but let us at least try)
I agree that the response to Miss Prejean was illiberal. That still does not give us as Christians the right to hurl invective and insult. I expect pagan behavior from pagans (whether on the right or the left). Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, pagans gotta act like the devil. Of course it's illiberal. Still we don't have much to complain about. There were once lions in coliseums.
It is our reasonableness in the face of unreasonable savagery that distinguishes us and shows that the Holy Spirit has transformed us. There is absolutely never a just cause for a Christian to use abusive language or harbor hatred or hostility toward any human being. 'Blessed art thou when men say all manner of evil against you for my sake.' Do we believe what Christ said about being a servant or do we rant and rave whenever we are persecuted. I do not disagree that Prejean is being persecuted. But Christ went to the cross without complaint and we are to follow his example if we wear the name of Christ. If you don't, sir, then I am not addressing you. If you do wear the name of Christ your viciousness and hostility tarnish His reputation.
Alice L.| 5.14.09 @ 5:04PM
Mike, of course you had to attack Bristol Palin. You guys just love attacking fertile young women who chose NOT to abort. Unlike you, Mike, we realize that people fall but they can pick themselves up. I guess you and the other libs are in a rage because the young lady did not choose to abort. In fact, I hope the next question in the Miss USA pageant is, "Do you support partial birth abortion?" Of course, the correct lib answer, is "I support infanticide" just as the cows of NOW do and people such as Mike.
Pingback| 5.14.09 @ 5:08PM
too pretty « RockStar PeterSon links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jordy2009| 5.14.09 @ 5:27PM
I'll believe in gay marriage the day some mad scientist finds a way for spermatozoa to fertilize sh*t!!!!!
Angel| 5.14.09 @ 5:38PM
Jesus Christ was so enraged at the moneychangers in the temple that he overturned their tables and threw them out. He didn't ALWAYS turn the other cheek, Harding; and I'm damned sick and tired of always turning mine. Stop being such a holier than thou weenie.
Jake Shaw| 5.14.09 @ 5:45PM
jordy2009,
Check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFQUOElTwgU&feature=related
MT| 5.14.09 @ 5:50PM
Anal sex and partial birth abortion are two important sacraments of liberalism. Liberals are so disgusting, so loathsome.
Nick| 5.14.09 @ 7:47PM
Mr. Harding,
If you are going to admonish others, it is important to be accurate. And you cannot admonish non-Catholics with the Magisterium. I am a Roman Catholic, so I will use the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).
Sodomy is not just a homosexual sin, it applies to all of us. Also, it is NOT "...official Roman Catholic teaching that it is [ONLY] a sin to commit sodomy." CCC p. 2351 states in part: "Lust is a disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual plesure." So homosexuals, bisexuals, etc., can commit sin without an overt act, like the rest of us. It is what is in our heart that counts.
And CCC p. 2359 states: "Homosexual persons are called to [CHASTITY]." Not celibacy. Being celibate means to be un-marraried. It is a recent corruption of it's meaning to use celebacy to refer to abstaining from sexual acts.
You wrote: "This is on the same level as the church's opposition to the death penalty." This is wrong, and therefore a non sequitur. Please see CCC pp. 2265-67. The Roman Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty. It has certain criteria that must be met, but it is not a sin for the state to put someone to death justly, it never has been.
There is no such institution as "gay marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been, always will be.
Yes, homosexuals should be treated with the respect and diginity due all people as children of God, being created in His image and likeness, but so are murderers and rapists. They can be JUSTLY discriminated against (CCC p. 2358). A landlord does not have to rent to them, or a man and woman who are not married.
Speaking for myself, the phrase "get back in the closet" is the same as saying "quit trying to legitimatize homosexuality", which the Catholic Church does condemn as Scandal (see CCC p. 2284). Sometimes rebuking sinners requires strong measures and language, especially when the sinner is trying to take others with them.
Where does the Church teach they should be open about their same sex attraction?
If you don't believe this is being Christ-like, then you don't know your scriptures very well. Try reading the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 23; and see how Our Lord spoke to the Scribes an Pharisees. See how many times He calls them FRAUDS, and other nasty things.
Telling homosexuals the Truth is obeying the command to "Do GOOD to them that HATE you."
ruth| 5.14.09 @ 8:20PM
Right on, Nick!
Christine| 5.14.09 @ 8:23PM
I love how the people who are the most morally outraged by homosexuality are the same ones who fixate obsessively on the associated sex acts, the body parts and the "unnatural acts" when the issue of gay marriage is raised. It's so delightfully Victorian.
Christine| 5.14.09 @ 8:25PM
I also wonder if they know that gays are not the only ones to commit these "unnatural acts", and whether or not that also causes a state of apoplexy.
Nick| 5.14.09 @ 8:54PM
Thanks Ruth!
Nick| 5.14.09 @ 9:17PM
Christine,
It is not "moral outrage", it is because I try to love all my brothers and sisters that I rebuke their behavior. I don't want them to go through all that grief, and I especially fear for their eternal souls. I'm not saying I'm morally superior to them. I'm also a sinner. But I won't say EVIL is GOOD and GOOD is EVIL.
I'll admit it though, when I hear someone like Perez Hilton spew his venom, my first instinct is to strike back in kind. I am a fallen creature. And sometimes I will say to myself, "At least I'm not as bad as that guy." Pride is the hardest sin to shake. But I admit these are sins, not try to excuse them.
The reason we have to be so exact is because you bleeding heart liberals are as slippery as eels. Trying to pin you guys down to exactly what you mean is like trying to catch a greased pig. Reminds me of "it depends on what the meaning of IS, is." This is why trial lawyers are all liberals.
If you Soldiers of Satan (he was the first to play these word games back in the Garden of Eden) wouldn't keep trying to change the meaning of words, i.e. "gay", the world would be a better place indeed.
A-train | 5.14.09 @ 9:26PM
um, i don't think i understand how this female is being praised as a "good christian" when she poses for provocative and distasteful pictures, calls her breasts the two greatest weapons she has, "supports enhancement" of the natural female form, and is ready to tour around the country getting naked and shaking her fake paid for breasts around for "jesus".
i'm sorry isn't that, like, the actions of a whore?
since when is being christian synonymous with morality?
was it during the Crusades? was it on the Trail of Tears? was it during the forceful and violent subjugation of native peoples all over the world in the name of Christanity?
if history proves correct, Christians seem to be a group of vicious, hateful, warlike, hypocritical, judeo-centric and somehow at the same time jew-hating group of people.
God save me from the Christians.
@Christine @ Nick. tru dat my friends, tru dat.
Angel| 5.14.09 @ 9:37PM
I can only guess what the 'A' stands for, A-train. Bet your backside gets more traffic than Grand Central Station. You crazy Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro lovin' atheist; your role-models killed many, many millions of innocent human beings in the 20th century. God save us from the atheists like you.
stmichrick| 5.14.09 @ 9:40PM
A(hole)- Train
We would love to save you from Christians by deporting you to Saudi Arabia. Enjoy.
Just Askin'| 5.14.09 @ 9:44PM
Christine, how much do you charge when you perform these 'unnatural acts'? Do you charge more when you include assorted animals? Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Nick| 5.14.09 @ 9:45PM
A-train,
How dare you be so judgemental!
You are going to lose your ACLU membership card. Or is it your Communist Party membership card?
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 9:46PM
You people are freakin crazy, only a clost homo would obsess over tossed salads and skid marks...... freakin GROSS.....
That said, I am a 37 y.o. hetero male and I have no problem with gay people marrying each other. We practice seperation of church and state in this country. That means that your church doesn't have to recognize, validate, or perform marriage ceremonies for gays, but the federal government should and eventually will. You people are on the wrong side of history on this one. I pray that you all see the light soon.
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 9:47PM
clost = closet
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 10:00PM
one more thing, in regards as to whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice, it's irrelivant. The fact of the matter is it's a human rights issue. Gay people should be allowed to marry and have the same federal benefits in regards to taxation and inheritance laws. Anything less would be a voilation of their HUMAN RIGHTS......
Nick| 5.14.09 @ 10:01PM
Richard,
You wrote: "We practice seperation of church and state in this country."
Wrong! We've had it forced on us by stinking liberal judges. "Separation of Church and State" is not in the U.S. Constitution, in case you didn't know.
And exactly to whom are you praying?
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 10:28PM
Nick,
I'm pretty sure we are all praying to the same God. Whether you are concious of that or not.
Just for full disclosure, my niece is gay, it has been apparent since early childhood. I do not think that she has something she needs to be "cured" of. I admit I may be a little more biased towards eqality out of my affection for her.
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 10:30PM
concious = conscious
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 10:33PM
eqality = equality
I can't spell!!
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 10:39PM
Re: Nick
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I belive seperation of church and state is covered here.
Angel| 5.14.09 @ 10:48PM
Pssst, Richard--that's 'separation' of church and state. Bet you went to public school!
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 10:54PM
Thanks Angel, I went to catholic school. I'm just a bad speller and even worse typist.
Daisy| 5.14.09 @ 10:58PM
Richard, unlike your phony baloney separation of church and state, FREEDOM OF SPEECH is included in the First Amendment. Carrie Prejean was merely exercising her's.
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 11:15PM
Re: Daisy
I have no problem with Ms. California for speaking her mind or having her own beliefs.
Am I not also entitled to have a different viewpoint from her and voice that?
I see everyone involved in this issue as coming out a loser. Ms. Prejean for her inhumane stance cloaked in faith. And the community involved in trying to publicy shame her for their dastardly tactics.
Nick| 5.14.09 @ 11:22PM
Richard,
The fact that your niece is homosexual doesn't change the Truth that God has revealed to His Church. You are the one living in darkness cursing the Light.
The U.S. Constitution is not a document of faith. It says what it means and means what it says. There is no "separation of church and state" in it. You can BELIEVE all you want, it won't change that fact.
When the constitution was ratified several states had state sponsored religions. Try educating yourself.
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 11:26PM
Re: Nick
The separation of chuch and state is coverd under the First Ammendment. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?
Richard| 5.14.09 @ 11:31PM
Re: Nick
Also I would hardly say that I am living in darkness. I don't happen to share your viewpoint. That may not make me a good christian in your eyes, but that hardly matters to me or the God that I worship. I get much more of the messages of tolerance and forgiveness that Jesus spoke of. I don't recall any passage where he condemned gays.
MT| 5.15.09 @ 12:01AM
Love the sinner, hate the sin, Richard.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 12:04AM
Re: MT
I'm pretty sure there is no sodomy going on so what sin are you referring to?
MT| 5.15.09 @ 12:08AM
Richard, you think it's tolerant to call Carrie Prejean's opinion on gay marriage 'inhumane cloaked in faith'? That's a personal attack and not so tolerant. Carrie didn't attack anyone personally, but Perez Hilton did, and so did you.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 12:19AM
MT
I did not attack her in any way. You are trying to twist my words. I gave my opinion of her stance on gay marrage as inhumane. I said nothing of her personally. I think the same of anyone that opposes it on the same grounds.
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 12:20AM
Richard,
Can you read? I've told you otherwise twice. All you've done is restate your false statement.
You pick and choose what you want to believe about Christ, hence you don't know Jesus at all. All I did was repeat what the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. the Bride of Christ, teaches on the subject of homosexuality.
If you want to know what Christ said about homosexual acts, try reading Leviticus 18:22. If you want to know what Saint Paul, Christ's Apostle said, read Romans 1: 24-27.
I'll pray for you and your niece, Richard.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 12:37AM
Nick
You can save your prayers. Neither of us needs you appealing on our behalf.
My point here, Nick is that there IS separation of church and state. Regardless of you not being able to see the First Ammendment as valid or not. It is the law of the land. Whether it's called civil unions or marriage remains to be seen. But one day it will be equal for everyone, regardless. Consenting adults have the right to choose to live their lives peacefully without you forcing your morality on them.
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 12:46AM
Richard,
All of us need prayer. And you will have mine.
Where did I write the 1st amendment wasn't valid? I did write "separation of church and state" is forced on us by liberal judges, it's just not in the U.S. Constitution. Hence it is not the law of the land.
How am I forcing my "morality" on anyone? But all laws force morality on all of us, that's what a law is for, isn't it?
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 1:15AM
Nick, you seek to have the rights of a protion of the poplation denied because your religion takes offence to their lifestyle. That is where you would like to see your morality legislated.
It's not gonna happen. The times they are a changin......
Last post from me here
Palin/Prejean 2012 !!
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 1:25AM
One more thing, amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution. Just because it was added on doesn't make it any less THE LAW OF THE LAND. Next you'll say black people and women shouldn't vote.
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 1:32AM
Richard,
Bzzzzz! Wrong again!
There is no "right" to marriage. Not only are you ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, constitutional law, and what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches; you're also ignorant of what a "right" is.
Please educate yourself. It is because of citizens such as yourself, that the country is in the mess it's in.
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 1:36AM
Richard,
Straw man. I never said an amendment wasn't part of the constitution. Why are you making stuff up?
pete the mediocre| 5.15.09 @ 1:36AM
The establishmment clause in no way created separation of church and state. The first amendment provides a one way barrier. Separation of church and state comes from a letter sent to Danbury Baptist Church by Thomas Jefferson.
It's amazing that liberals cling to their creative interpretation of that letter while happily ignoring the Federalist Papers that provide clear and concise original intent.
MT| 5.15.09 @ 1:48AM
Richard, your statement, "Ms. Prejean for her inhumane opinion cloaked in faith." Sounds pretty judgmental and intolerant to me, Richard. Pretty personal, too. She's entitled to her opinion--just as you and I are. You and your fellow leftists are the ones launching personal attacks.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 1:53AM
Thanks for the reference, from the Letter to DBC from Thomas Jefferson
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. "
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 1:57AM
Richard,
How long have you been spewing "separation of church and state" and you didn't even know where it came from?
Like I said, educate yourself.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 2:01AM
Re: MT
I never said I wasn't being judgemental. I have a right to think whatever I want. How exactly is what I said intolerant though? I said I respect her right to have an opinion and voice it. Not that I would agree with said opinion.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 2:06AM
Re: Nick
I know where it came from. The First Amendment that Jefferson refered to in his reply to DBC. Can you not see that?
Please refrain from calling names, such behavior is beneath grown adults.
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 2:10AM
Richard,
It is not in the 1st Amendment. Can't you see that?
What name did I call you?
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 2:16AM
I feel educated now!
TJ's Precursor to the First Ammendment
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virg_bil.htm
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 2:19AM
Nick, how can you read Thomas Jefferson's own words and still not wrap your head around it?
It IS in the First Ammendment !
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 2:41AM
Richard,
I doesn't matter what Jefferson wrote, I care about what the U.S. Constitution actually says.
1) Thomas Jefferson was in France during the summer of 1787.
2) He had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment either.
3) He wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
4) The words "separation of church and state" are not in the U.S. Constitution.
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
What name did I call you again? You never answered.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 2:59AM
Nick , your argument fails at every level. The intent of the ammendment is clear. If not I believe TJ's reply to DBC should clear it up for you. The ammendment was clearly modeled afer his own legislature. How you say he had nothing to do with it is willful ignorance on your part.
Maybe you should go educate yourself!
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 3:12AM
Richard,
Now you are talking about intent. Before it was your belief, like the constitution was scripture. Come on admit it, you thought the words "separation of church and state" were in the constitution and then found out they weren't.
I didn't know Jeffeson had his own "legistature". I think you mean LEGISLATION.
The 1st Amendment says what it says. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's it. No SEPARATION. No CHURCH. No STATE. CONGRESS shall make no law.
That should be clear even to you Richard.
Again, what was that name?
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 3:18AM
You can scroll up and read your own comment Nick, to imply that I though "Separation of Churc and State" was literal is rediculous. Did you not read that I went to catholic school. You are now down to arguing semantics of the constisution. You hold the bible up like it's laws superceed the laws of the nation. It's just not so.......
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 3:31AM
Richard,
Your parents should demand their money back.
I'm not arguing semantics. "Congress shall pass no law "is not the same as a "wall of separation". Like I told you earlier, after the constitution was ratified several states had their own religions. Like Virginia did when Jefferson passed his LEGISLATION. Didn't you read your link?
I don't beleive the Bible has anything to say about the 1st Amendment, but God's laws do supersede man's laws.
Should grown adults accuse others of calling names when they have not, Richard?
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 3:37AM
I'm sorry Nick, "Straw Man" was incomprehensable to me so I took it as name calling. Care to discuss the semantics of that?
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 3:41AM
And what happened to that state sanctioned religion after his legislation? Oh yeah, no longer state sanctioned....therfore "Separating the Church from the State"
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 4:13AM
Richard,
Ever heard of Dictionary.com?
A straw man is: "a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man." (Source: Random House Dictionary)
Like when you wrote: "Just because it was added on doesn't make it any less THE LAW OF THE LAND. Next you'll say black people and women shouldn't vote."
That is a straw man argument, Richard. I should be charging you for the education you're getting.
You are so close. Yes, Jefferson ended established religion in Virginia, before the constitution. He didn't set up a Wall of Separation. He just ended State support of a particular denomination.
The 1st Amendment states CONGRESS cannot establish a federal church that everyone has to support. States continued to have established churches into the 1800's. CONGRESS couldn't do anything about it. The individual States ended it on their own.
Got it now?
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 4:35AM
I feel as if I didn't even need your little history lesson there. What excatly is your point? That states can and should vote in GOD'S LAW?
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 4:44AM
Richard,
The point is the 1st Amendment does not build a Wall of Separation between Church and State. It was an obscure phrase pulled out of an obscure letter and used in a SCOTUS opinion in the 1940's, if I remember correctly.
Thou shall not steal is God's law, should there be a wall of separation and no laws against theft?
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 4:55AM
According to Thomas Jefferson it does exactly that. Look I don't care what you want it called civil unions or marriages. If the word is so important to you I say let you keep it, change all federal documentation to say civil union and call it the same for everybody. Your religious crermonies will be considered marriage by you and your God, and considered a civil union by the state/fed. The current way things are cannot be maintained.
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 5:23AM
Richard,
Again, Jefferson is not the arbiter of what the U.S. Constitution means. The 1st Amendment says Congress can't mess with the churches. But churches can certainly mess with the state. You don't loose your civil rights just because you belong to a church. U.S. law is based on the English common law, which was based on Catholic natural law. Western civilization was built on it.
The word is important because words have meaning. I'm white. If I go around calling myself black, it doesn't make it so. If a man dresses as woman and calls himself Betty, it doesn't mean he's a woman. And if 2 people of the same sex say they are married, it doesn't make it so.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 5:37AM
Nick you can have the word "Marriage", my point is that these people should extended the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. Anything less would be unjust.
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 5:45AM
Richard,
What civil rights are they denied?
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 5:52AM
Social Security, Medicare, medical leave, and other benefits; property inheritance; the right to visit their spouse in hospital, and make medical decisions if they are incapacitated
-sourced from religioustolerance.org
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 6:05AM
Richard,
How are these civil rights?
Socialist Security and Mediscare are welfare, Congress could pass a law today extending benifits, why don't they?
Property inheritance is handled in wills.
Private hospitals can decide whom they want to let visit. I've been to hospitals alot in the past 5 years, and haven't seen any0ne denied visitation. Sounds like another straw man.
Powers of attorney and living wills take care of medical and other decisions.
So what is being denied, I ask again?
They want society to bless their unions and legitimatize homosexuality. And punish ,through hate crimes, anyone who says it is a sin and wrong.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 6:21AM
Nick, you try to downplay what they are denied there. They are rights extended to heterosexual couples that are not extended to homosexual couples. That is all there is to it. Then you flew off the handle. I don't care whether you consider anyones homosexuality as "legitimate" or a sin or not. I do not endorse hate crime against anyone. You are just pulling stuff out of your behind now. Who is this "They" that you speak of. I am one person please address me as such. And do not try to include me with whoever "They" are, I don't need you to define who i speak for.
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 6:31AM
Richard,
I downplay nothing, I state facts. Facts I notice you couldn't refute. Rather you accuse me again of things I didn't do.
These are not rights. There is no "right" to visit someone in the hospital, or to medical leave. As I told you earlier, you need to educate yourself on just what "rights" are, and are not.
Is English your second language? THEY are the ones who want THEIR unions blessed, i.e. homosexuals. It is a pretty straight foward sentence.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 6:43AM
I didn't realise that "They" were engaging you in a conversation. There is no need to refute your "facts" all of your points are moot. I look forward to the SCoC shooting down Prop 8 soon, after that hopefully the necessary changes will be made to ensure equality for all people.
Richard| 5.15.09 @ 6:44AM
And I'm gone.... Peace be with you......
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 7:08AM
Richard,
You can't refute facts so you try to change the subject again.
And I wasn't talking to "They".
You said "these people" just want civil rights that heterosexuals have.
I asked what civil rights.
You made a list of things that are not "rights" and are not denied to homosexuals that you got from some website. You should try thinking for yourself.
I showed you these things are not denied and asked for more examples.
Then I stated what "these people" really wanted, which is acceptance.
Is this so hard to follow?
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 7:24AM
I'll pray for you and your niece, Richard.
May God Bless You!
Griff| 5.15.09 @ 9:00AM
Patrick,
Spme 7th-grade biology for you:
heredity-
–noun, plural -ties.
Biology. 1. the transmission of genetic characters from parents to offspring: it is dependent upon the segregation and recombination of genes during meiosis and fertilization and results in the genesis of a new individual similar to others of its kind but exhibiting certain variations resulting from the particular mix of genes and their interactions with the environment.
2. the genetic characters so transmitted.
Pingback| 5.15.09 @ 10:01AM
New Paltz Journal » Blog Archive » Throwing strikes in a blizzard of manhole covers links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Michael Harding| 5.15.09 @ 10:38AM
Nick,
Thank you for your corrections re: Catholic teachings. Re: gay marriage: where did i ever advocate for it. Re: "do good to them that hate you" see my comments about pagans being pagans. Re: Christ's rebuke to the scribes and pharisees: These were people speaking hate against sinners in the name of God. To people practicing sexual sin he COMPASSIONATELY preached repentance.
I am not asking for people to stop preaching truth. I am asking for a change in tone not content. I never said it was wrong to speak out against homosexuality.
Michael Harding| 5.15.09 @ 10:47AM
Angel,
If I'm being holier than thou I appologize, but Christ spoke far more about how we treat each other with our speach than he did about sexual sin. So I guess if pointing out verbal sin is being holier than thou, pointing out sexual sin must surely be so. In truth neither admonishment is being holier than thou. Both should be pointed out both put the violator in danger of hell fire.
Angel| 5.15.09 @ 12:57PM
It's not verbal sin to speak the truth. Christ always spoke the truth, right?
Angel| 5.15.09 @ 1:07PM
Nick, your exchanges with Richard are classic. You refuted his liberal illogic point by point until he finally stated that your facts were moot and that hopefully, California would shoot down Prop. 8 soon. Facts don't matter to liberals, feelings do. If you dare to disagree with them, the federal government will intervene and crush debate. Not much 'democracy' there.
Michael Harding| 5.15.09 @ 1:46PM
Angel,
You are quite correct please see the response I posted to Nick. God bless. Busy weekend so I wont be back. Let us have malice toward none and good will toward all.
Pingback| 5.15.09 @ 3:33PM
Steynian 355 « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Angel| 5.15.09 @ 4:36PM
I agree, no malice--but we must always be courageous in speaking the truth, right? We witness Jesus Christ our Savior when we stand up for truth--just like Carrie Prejean! God bless you, Carrie.
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 5:23PM
Mr. Harding,
I didn't think you were advocating it, it's the term "gay marriage" I object to. It is an oxymoron. The same way that "pregnant man" is a misnomer. That was my point.
Christ rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees because they were rejecting God's Messiah, thereby rejecting God. If you keep reading, in Matthew 24, He tells them what is going to happen in 40 years because they rejected God, the total destruction of Jerusalem and no more Temple worship.
As far as speaking compassionately to sexual sinners, are you refering to the woman caught in adultery? If so, she was being used as a pawn to test Christ. Do you have any other examples? I can't think of any off the top of my head.
But Christ's Apostle (which means "sent by God"), Saint Paul, talks pretty harshly about sexual immorallity in Romans 1:24-27.
I think we're both pretty much on the same page. I believe that sometimes it is necessary to hit people with the truth right between the eyes. And if attacked to defend yourself. I pray the Holy Spirit guides me on when those times are.
God Bless!
Nick| 5.15.09 @ 5:28PM
Angel,
Thanks for the compliment!
Richard is another example of willful ignorance. We can only pray that being exposed to the Truth will plant a seed that will grow. That is how it worked in my life.
God Bless Angel!
Brubaker| 5.16.09 @ 10:09AM
A laughably named homosexual activist, "Perez Hilton," asked an obviously loaded question. Only two results were possible. First, Prejean could have taken the easy out and responded with some platitude about individual choices, etc. Second, she could offer an honest answer expressing a view that polls consistently show is shared by a vast majority of Americans.
To her undying credit, this courageous young woman chose the second response and, in so doing, setup Perez for his expressions of "surprise" and "outrage." Some surprise there.
The only problem that I see with homosexuals is that they are not content to go about their business and let everyone else do the same. Instead, their views must be forced upon everyone.
Anyone who dares to disagree, however mildly, is subjected to the vilest attacks (witness many of the comments posted here). Apparently, homosexuals aren't really the intellectual giants they portray themselves to be.
Tom Paine| 5.16.09 @ 4:33PM
Or the moral giants they pretend to be. Not easy to put a happy face on anal sex. EW!
Alan Brooks| 5.16.09 @ 11:47PM
She is a dumb blonde with fake boobs, doesn't matter who calls her that. Simple truth.
Jeremiah| 5.17.09 @ 12:33AM
She's got bigger balls than you, Brooks.
Michael Harding| 5.17.09 @ 4:51AM
Nick,
I guess we are on the same page save one fundamental difference. I know I am in the minority here. I fundamentally believe that there can be no reconciliation between human government and divine governance. To sum up (to agree or disagree is your purview) Christians only role in human government is as examples not activists. (Hear me out) Human government, regardless of form, is Babylon. Used by God in spite of itself, but not ( I cant keep using a pronoun) in YHWH's service. He is omnipotent and can manipulate governments any way He sees fit. We are called to live within them not to form them.
Nick| 5.17.09 @ 6:30AM
Mr. Harding,
"We are called to live within them not to form them."
I must have missed that passage of Scripture. I know God, through Moses, warned the Israelites not to ask for a king. Could you please explain that statement?
Pingback| 5.17.09 @ 1:17PM
Steynian 355 | acorn 8 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.18.09 @ 7:22PM
Random stories « Idea Anaconda links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lingerie | 9.17.09 @ 9:39PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie
balcuizar62| 10.13.11 @ 2:40AM
I found your website perfect for my needs. It contains wonderful and helpful posts.
yaz class action
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 3:25PM
this blog makes me good and helps me a lot for everything for what i have search.i just want to say thanks and i know there will be more for this..
mesothelioma lawsuit
creamer| 10.20.11 @ 1:43AM
I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading
Actos Attorney
abominable putridity| 11.5.11 @ 11:15AM
The theme you are using is very simple and nice. Where can I get it in order that I can use it for my blog too? Thanks sweety.
L Tod Schlosser
HAPPY| 11.8.11 @ 8:23PM
I was just browsing for related blog posts for my project research and I happened to stumble upon yours.
filipina women