The American Spectator : The Gay Old Party

Jack in Wi.| 5.9.12 @ 6:53AM

These people can repeal the laws on normal marriage. They can't repeal the laws of God and Nature. You give these people an inch they take a mile. Toleration has led to intoleration of those with religious, and moral scruples on the subject. All the glorification of homosexuality has done is lead to the further collapse of our culture. Why should people want their children to be expoosed to this filth in schools and the media? It is a losing position everywhere and every time it is put to the polls, even in the most liberal states. The more they push this, the more people are rebelling.

Frank Drackman| 5.9.12 @ 7:08AM

Homo says What???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jack, your such a Mo'

Frank "hetero-er than Wilt the Stilt" Drackman

Doctor Right| 5.9.12 @ 8:37AM

Actually, Jack is correct.

God doesn't have much regard for our worldly rationalizations. His position on homosexuality has been quite clear for several thousand years, and it's not going to change.

darcy| 5.9.12 @ 2:35PM

Absolutely and positively right and correct, Jack in Wi. and Doctor Right.

Moreover, "overtures" to the "gay" community are death to the Republican Party in that conservatives will not support a party that subordinates religious freedom to radical individualism, aka the demand for state-imposed "equality" and state-enforced "respect" for sinful behavior. It's a shame that our culture has degenerated morally to such an extent that some Americans -- who demand societal approval for aberrant behavior -- care nothing that such approval must come at the expense of our First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The "swinish herd," as Petronius here likes to call them, the demanding "gay" community, may try all they like to silence Christians on this issue -- but it will be like kicking against bricks. Christians obey God; and when man-made laws conflict with God's law, guess who wins?

Occam's Tool| 5.11.12 @ 12:19PM

Jack is correct on this; however, he also supports child rape through his adoration of sharia law---his consistency on moral issues is highly problematic.

I have no problem with Civil Unions, and I really don't care who sleeps with whom as a general governmental issue. But children do best in families with strong daddies (especially boy children), and Marriage exists to tame males into becoming appropriate, civilized men.

I see the consequences of the breakdown in this every day.

Paul Kotik| 5.9.12 @ 10:56AM

When Jack's right, he's right.

Clint| 5.9.12 @ 11:09AM

Jack's Right.

Vern Crisler| 5.9.12 @ 12:49PM

"Palin hinted that she supported repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell.""

Where?

Alan Brooks| 5.9.12 @ 2:25PM

Way back when someone on the playground would ask: "are you a homo", and we would exclaim "no!"
And the kid would reply, "you mean you're not a homo sapien??"

spike59| 5.9.12 @ 4:06PM

did you ride to this playground on a short bus?

Alan Brooks| 5.9.12 @ 4:11PM

'Tard? well you say that about Clint, and everyone you don't care for.

Alan Brooks| 5.9.12 @ 5:35PM

... everyone Spike doesn't like is a 'tard.

spike59| 5.10.12 @ 3:56PM

actually, i never used the term 'tard'...of course, for a true Prog/Lib troll such as yourself, a little thing like 'lying' is no big deal; maybe your 'ideas' are 'evolving'

now, i HAVE called used the terms 'dullard' and 'dolt' to describe Clint...but if you think that's the same as 'tard', that would reveal you as more along the lines of a....'halfwit Obamanite'(but i repeat myself)

Dittohead| 5.11.12 @ 9:47AM

That Daniel Allott looks suspiciously gay to me. hmmmm

HOLLY GOLIGHTLY| 5.14.12 @ 9:33AM

@Jack in Wi. "Leave unto Ceasar which is Ceasar's" It is up to God to judge, afterall.

Midnight| 5.9.12 @ 7:20AM

Homosexuality is immoral.

Old Soldier| 5.9.12 @ 7:41AM

So is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Neither of them hurt others, therefore the government should avoid both.

Lawrence| 5.9.12 @ 8:07AM

Indeed, the government should not officially condone the behavior by radically redefining the legal definition of marriage to include it and by issuing marriage licenses to couples who engage in the behavior.

9thID| 5.9.12 @ 9:53AM

Most of us don't want to pay for your 44x higher rate of STD infections, nor the HIV/AIDS scares you bring into my VA Hospital. Only those who engage in this gross depravity call it "victimless"...

Richard M| 5.9.12 @ 2:02PM

It certainly hurts someone - children.

Dittohead| 5.9.12 @ 10:40AM

God will shall the sodomites! And if He won't do it, then conservatives should! We must drive them from our lands into exile.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 1:34PM

So is eating shellfish and divorce. Guess we're all d* to h*, huh? Or are you cherry picking from the Bible again?

Alan Brooks| 5.9.12 @ 4:14PM

it is also based on white trash eschatology:
"the Lord will burn these sodomites in Hell.."

Wingnuts.

Vern Crisler | 5.9.12 @ 6:55PM

Purp, in the Bible, there is a difference between moral laws on the one hand and ceremonial and ethnic legislation on the other. St. Paul saw no difficulty in affirming the moral laws of the Bible even though he refused to require Gentiles to follow the Jewish ceremonial and ethnic legislation (e.g., food restructions, sabbath days, holy days, etc.). He regarded homosexuality as a sign of the ultimate degradation of mankind.

Finzi Holst| 5.9.12 @ 9:38PM

Vern, neither Paul nor Yeshua changed the Sabbath, Holy Days or dietary restrictions ordained by Yahwe and given to the Israelites, not just the Jews. They remain intact and extant. Scripture can and has been perverted to meet certain ends, but it can't pervert truth. Further, the Sabbath was made for man and predates Moses back to creation.

The Sadducees and Pharisees, amongst others, added to the law of Yahwe for earthly vainglorious reasons and made them a burden as a means to exalt themselves and judge others -- as any honest reading of the Bible confirms. It is to these that Yeshua and the NT church reacted. Conversely, the laws have been removed for similar reasons -- to which the many false religions attest. Cardinal James Gibbons, amongst others, has been very open about this.

Though you are correct about homosexuality being condemned in both the old and new testaments.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 9:46PM

Point to one thing JESUS said against gay people - just one. Jesus is love and anything else is hate, pure and simple.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.9.12 @ 10:10PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know Christ said "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them" if you were at all Bright.

You would know "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" is part of the Law Christ came not to abolish but to fulfill if you were at all Bright.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.11.12 @ 12:15PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know "Honor your father and your mother" is part of the Law Christ came not to abolish but to fulfill if you were at all Bright.

Vern Crisler | 5.10.12 @ 3:42AM

Finzi, St. Paul said not to judge one another in respect of holy days or sabbath days. I know that crank Sabbatarians try to get around this but it's what the Bible teaches. There is no longer any sacred time in New Testament teaching.

Finzi Holst| 7.19.12 @ 9:45PM

I 0f 6

Dear Vern-

Obviously, one can't understand what one has not been given to know. As Yeshua says in John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw (actually meaning 'drag') him: and I will raise him up at the last day." And there is Romans 8:7 and Ephesians 4:18.

The fact is that Yeshua and Paul, and all the apostles and His called to this day still observe the Sabbath and Holy Days, for they picture the plan of salvation. Many have died rather than bow to heretical pressure: died at the hands of "Christians."

Many attempt to pervert the words of Paul to justify their ways or bend scripture to their will. You are not the first or the last.

You refer to Colossians 2:16, 17: The main thrust of this passage is "let no man judge you." It doesn't say whether the Colossians were keeping the Sabbath festivals or not. For that matter, it also doesn't say whether they were eating and drinking.

The word translated "regarding" is not a preposition. Had the author, Paul, intended the meaning "regarding," he could have used the pronoun peri ("concerning") as in 1 Corinthians 8:1. Instead, he used the noun meros (from merizo, meaning "to cut"), which means "portion or part." So the meaning here is a part or portion or aspect of the observance of the Sabbath, new moon or festival. The problem in Colossae was likely gnosticism. The gnostics did not object to observing Holy Days, only the aspect of feasting (eating and drinking) to celebrate the days.

Finzi Holst| 7.19.12 @ 9:45PM

2 of 6

Notice also that the passage says these days are (not were) a shadow of things to come. Based on the tenses of the verbs, the verse cannot mean that Christ's coming does away with the biblical Holy Days, because He had already come when Paul wrote that the days (still) are a shadow of things coming.

Ironically, this verse, which is often used to argue against the Sabbath and Holy Days, is actually a positive statement in favor of Sabbath and Holy Day observance.

Paul is not saying, as many believe, that once Jesus Christ, the "reality" or "body," came, observance of the Sabbath and biblical Holy Days is no longer necessary. In verse 17, the word is is not in the text. Translators added it in an attempt to clarify the meaning. But the contrast between shadow and body doesn't fit the main context of the passage, which is judging.

I am sorry you resort to insult. I have not done the same to you.

There is also of course prophecy in both the old and new testaments that the Sabbath and Holy Days will be kept after the return of Yeshua. Please do the study yourself and refute the Word, the Lamb, Yeshua, the Messiah.

Finzi Holst| 7.19.12 @ 9:46PM

3 of 6

As far as Sabbath goes, please consider the following.

It was decades after the death of the apostles that a politico-religious system repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and substituted the observance of the first day of the week. The following quotations, from Roman Catholics and a large variety of Protestant sources, freely acknowledge that there is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday and that it was the Roman Church that changed its Sabbath to the first day of the week. They all frankly admit that there is no Biblical authority for Sunday as the day to worship Yahwe.

James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.
"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.
"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

"Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

Finzi Holst| 7.19.12 @ 9:47PM

4 of 6

Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67.
"Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

"Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.'

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter. Again.
"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day - Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!

The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."

What do Catholics state is the Sabbath of the Bible?
Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."
"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."

Finzi Holst| 7.19.12 @ 9:47PM

5 of 6

Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50.
"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
"Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.

"Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."

Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927), p. 136.
"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday .... Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."

Finzi Holst| 7.19.12 @ 9:51PM

6 of 6

Should Protestants go to observing a Saturday Sabbath?
Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, Illinois.
"Regarding the change from the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:

"That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man."

"We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.

"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."

One day your eyes will be opened, against your will, see Isaiah 55:11. And that will be a great day.

Best,

FH

martin j smith| 5.9.12 @ 7:21AM

This issue in a way replicates the Socialist Communist so called Democrat(ic ) Party vision of Society broken down into interest groups. I do not like that. That said I do favor All Americans having the same rights based if nothing else on the Declaration of Independence: "All Men ( people ) are created Equal...etc. I am fully aware that this issue and similar issues will never really be resolved both for moral and political
differences. Perhaps these matters such as Gay rights should be handled regionally not nationally--I do not have the answer. In the end we are all Americans or we are little tiny interest groups. I prefer a country where we are all Americans and we vote for the welling being of our natio0n not pitting this group against that. That is why the race card,gender card,religious card, etc. are destructive to our society why this is what Obama uses to divide us and to prevent a united opposition.

Stilton A. Cheese| 5.9.12 @ 7:36AM

I agree, Martin. We're all Americans. Those gays who sign on to smaller, more limited government and fiscal restraint/responsibility are welcome to share in shaping a solid conservative majority

ERG| 5.9.12 @ 9:00AM

Mr. Cheese, you are assuming that those who are in every essence of every pore of their being -- perverts -- that these perverts can somehow have minds that grasp the "good." Failed logic. A twisted mind cannot produce or abide with the "good." Gays have turned their backs on God and angrily shove their fists in God's face. Thus, they are Satan's. And I've never seen Satan aiding and working toward good societies here on this earth. Let's be candid, okay? Gays have corrupted minds, fully corroded minds. They aren't much aid in building wise coalitions for responsible behaviors. If they were firmly 'into responsibilities,' they wouldn't be behaving irresponsibly, now would they?

Stilton A. Cheese| 5.9.12 @ 10:02AM

I do not believe in The Gawd based on a Bedouin Patriarch and I don't believe in Satan. If I did then I would point out to you, sir, that you are writing heresy on the relationship between Gawd and Mr. Scratch. Satan works for Mister Big.

I believe that my rights end where your nose begins and what consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business provided no one is injured or maimed.

ERG| 5.9.12 @ 11:43AM

Mr. Cheese, except you, if you are a gay and those who are gay, want to and always clamor to adopt a child, teach children, coach a child, or tutor children, hold music lessons or invite teens to the glee club and that is indeed where my fist will smash through a nose and face.

Jesus speaks very clearly about never leading a child astray.

If gays kept it all very quiet, very unknown (and somehow full of fidelity for just that one other person) we probably wouldn't have this discussion. But that is the biggest canard of all: "It's just in the bedroom between consenting adults!" As if this were just a privacy issue. As if it were, and they were very discrete about it just as a monogamous heterosexual couple is to be, then there might be less needed public policy discussion.

But a gay man or a lesbian woman always wants to make a big splash, big headlines, big coming outs! Big in-your-face "you gotta luv me even though you find me repugnant!" Isn't it this way when an actor, actress, mayor, congressman, public official, lawyer of some account, or the occasional athlete acts? The soldiers who have openly and smugly defied someone to take them on? I don't see any muted, adult-like, mature quiet discretion.

It is not a benign or stagnant thing. It is not an inactive thing. Gay means gays are always on the prowl.

Evil always wants to invite, lure, bring in, recruit and initiate new ones to the evil. It preys on the weak and less well defended. It looks to ensnare just as the pimp and drug pusher do.

Gays are not quiet about their behaviors, they are ugly in-your-face boisterous about it, they are not monogamous, and they do prey actively upon children while doing like Savage did last week ranting while simultaneously haranguing and recruiting the young. Like how they tear apart deluded liberal church parishes who have tried to accommodate, to meet them halfway.

I am sorry for you that you so openly boast of being lost, but since you do not believe in the God of the Bible, you've nothing to say. Nothing at all because you've relegated yourself to nothing of value. Nothing can come from nothing.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Mr. Cheese, without Jesus, here are the facts: You have lost your way (you are wayward), you have no truth in you, and you are lifeless.

Is this the choice you really wish to make?

Stilton A. Cheese| 5.9.12 @ 1:09PM

I'm a happily married (the one and only marriage over 30 years now) hetero who still finds it amazing that somehow or the other, out of all the beautiful women in the world I landed a *keeper* first time I said the *I do's*. And I've been faithful.

As to Jesus, well he's your cross to bear. I'm religiously tolerant; I'm socially tolerant and I vote conservative. Your views are shared by many but not all, and I do believe that some of our more important documents allow for freedom of though as well as expression. I'm enough of a constitutional scholar to know what the anti-establishment clause is and what it was intended to do. You are free to espouse your positions and I am free to reject them. Nothing more, nothing less.

As a wise USENET sage wrote thirty years ago or so "the after-life will provide us with the necessary time needed to debate the details of the various theologies." or words to that effect.

It's also useful to remember that in classical Western religions we all go to Hades where we have eternal life though it is somewhat like being stuck in a Motel 6 in Rocky Mount, NC, for all eternity; kinda shabby, not much to do, but it's better than nothing.

Stilton A. Cheese| 5.9.12 @ 4:14PM

Children need loving parents who will look after them and instruct them and launch them into citizens who can take-care-of-themselves. That's it as far as I'm concerned

By the way: We heterosexuals and Christians haven't set the sexual-abuse-of-children and women bar very high, have we? There doesn't seem to be a week that goes by without some horrific story of familial sexual-abuse, and then there's the sicko/weirdo's who kidnapped girls and rape them and so on...

And then there is the Catholic and Anglican and probably everyone else clergy and the minority that prey on children. These guys (and Gals) pray to Mr. Big every day.

So (your objections to homosexuals) it ain't *fo de chilluns*, it's for your narrow definition of conservatives.

Richard M| 5.9.12 @ 2:03PM

Marriage, however, is not done behind closed doors. It's a public act, with legal consequences.

Stilton A. Cheese| 5.9.12 @ 3:54PM

That it is, and my sister, the Barrister, who practices *family law* in Western Australia gained a few clients when *Gay Marriage* was made legal Down-Under. Divorces are quite often messy and Australian law compensates the *stay-at-home-spouse* to the detriment (or in fairness to the the *stay-at-home-spouse*) of the *bread-winner*. England has seen it's first multi-million Pound Sterling Gay *divorce * settlement. I believe there have been Gay or Lesbian prosecutions for Bigamy.
All good news for lawyers.

Not Bill| 5.9.12 @ 10:05AM

The entire pro and anti-gay movement was conjured up by socialists to divide us into two easily conquerable groups.

A simple proposal for a solution would be to have the government shrink in size and stop dictating what marriage is. Let it be forever a word defined by the church you attend.

Charles Martel| 5.10.12 @ 9:13PM

Government should get out of the marriage business and tax those who "live in sin" the same as those who get married.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 1:48PM

No need to worry - the youth of America have no problem with anyone being gay and when all the old geezers die off, the polls, elections and attitudes will all be indifferent to being gay. The status of equal citizen is all that gay marriage is about. It affects no one else's marriage whatsoever. Divorce is the real scourge on marriage.
Gay people have existed forever, in God's image. Who are we to denigrate them? Jesus would welcome gays as he did prostitutes and money lenders. Only the old testament mentions gay people - and eating of shellfish as an abomination, and quite a few other things we all do today. So what? If you are Christian, Jesus provided us with an update ... ;-)

9thID| 5.9.12 @ 2:21PM

Just as with Abortion/genocide, the youth are now starting turn against gay marriage and its associated STD costs to our nation.

Yes, Jesus would welcome them, as with the prostitute, to repent and "go and sin no more".

New Testament: Romans 1: 24+; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 7...

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 3:04PM

You're dreaming ...

NLP| 5.9.12 @ 7:38PM

"Divorce is the real scourge on marriage."

so sick of this shit -- if SSM is law there is absolutely nothing that can be done to tighten divorce law, because then marriage is explicitly not about children. oh sure, homosexual couples can adopt, but the point is that having children becomes just an option and no longer something intrinsic to the relationship/expected. therefore since all marriage is is "two people who love each other," there's no legal logic against people divorcing and remarrying indefinitely.

what makes this line of argument particularly irritating is that if the Right actually DID support rolling back no-fault divorce, or even some minor legal obstacles to our current divorce regime, the Left would be blasting them as a bunch of patriarchal, misogynist oppressors. so cut the BS, really.

Seek| 5.10.12 @ 6:23PM

So are you implying that a marriage isn't legit if it can't produce children? What an awful thing to say about two middle-aged or elderly people who want to get married!

Occam's Tool| 5.11.12 @ 12:32PM

Seek:

no, I'm not saying that. I am saying that THE PURPOSE of marriage is to set up the structure whereby men are tamed into supporting civilization and protecting women and children.

The fact that it can be used for the purposes of elderly and middle aged heterosexuals to form a permanent commitment is not the underlying rationale of the institution.

I'm also saying that The Gods of the Copybook Headings are not to be mocked. Note specifically the passage in which "the women have no more Children."

"The Gods of the Copybook Headings

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! "

By the way, on Australia:
From the CIA Factbook:
The mean age of Australian women is 38.4 years.
1.77 children born/woman (2012 est.) (2.1 is replacement)

I grow tired of cleaning up the vomit, but it does pay well.

NLP| 5.9.12 @ 7:43PM

i mean, if your version of being against divorce is telling people on blogs "don't divorce!!" and you don't actually, you know, support any changes to current divorce law and prefer to use it as political points against the current state of marriage, just own up to your cynicism man.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 9:50PM

No, I just hate anyone's civil rights being squelched by stupid, hateful, uneducated or immoral action s or pronouncements used to cover the bigotry in the heart. If you have never lived a gay life, you don't know what your talking about. You can empathize with an oppressed people, but you don't really feel what they feel, do you?

Lively & Carefree maybe . . .| 5.9.12 @ 10:13PM

You would know to not lie with a man as one lies with a woman if you were at all Bright.

NLP| 5.10.12 @ 1:22AM

are you actually gonna respond to anything i said, or just feel all comfy in your enlightened zone?

i imagine when there's an increase in trend pieces on male homosexual nonmonogamy you'll hail that as Progress too, yeah? monogamy is soooooo heteronormative after all.

NLP| 5.10.12 @ 1:31AM

another thing -- what about people (mostly women) who've previously identified as homosexual and don't anymore? i'm not talking about those ex-gay ministries, i mean people who come to that conclusion without feeling religiously obligated to. there's a couple famous examples.

does this have any implications on how early kids should be educated on the concept? or is this another whatever-bloats-your-goat lefty issue? Kinsey scale and all that crap.

POST American | 5.9.12 @ 7:23AM

---Putting this '90's Show' smile button
EUGENICS op to one side---

Japanese papers reporting, should
GE reactor # 4 collapse we --WE! in
America and Canada will be doing with
the equivalent of --84!-- Chernobyls.

-------Just a trifling side issue we know,
but --hey.

NOW ----back to your fearless, unflinching,
and up to the minute coverage
of the way things --REALLY-- are.

Maybe you could cover GE's
Jeff 'I--Melt-down's taste in sunglasses?

--------HUAC ------is NOW Nuremberg 2012--------

This --IS-- the 11th hour. . .

Dr. X| 5.9.12 @ 7:48AM

The Republican Party seeks to become part of the postmodern Power Elite, which is inherently corrupt, perverse, and advances the Sexual Revolution. Therefore, they advance gay rights even if their "ignorant" constituents in North Carolina oppose perversion.

"Conservatives" ought to recall that it was "Republican" Earl Warren who advanced the Sexual Revolution in Griswold v. Connecticut and "Republican" Harry Blackmun who wrote Roe v. Wade and "Republican" Anthony Kennedy who announced a constitutional right to sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Need I say more?

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 1:50PM

And, yet 43% of North Carolinians who VOTED, voted for gay rights. Times are changing - get on board or get rolled over.

Dr. X| 5.9.12 @ 2:15PM

They didn't vote for "gay rights." They voted for anal perversion, sodomy, AIDS, hepatitis, and mental illness.

Ever study the science of biology? The anus is a organ for the excretion of feces from the colon, not a receptacle for the penis. A society that indulges perversion and sanctions perversion and sickness with the title of "marriage," yet mocks the normal, healthy, heterosexual relations by which its next generation of offspring is produced, is doomed.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 9:53PM

How idiotic - yeah, I'm sure that's what they voted for - boy are you history. On the other hand, Greek and Roman men frequently had "boys" on the side and you know what? They created the most enlightened and most powerful and longest lasting civilizations the world has ever seen - in the case of Rome, that is still the case. You need to learn something, Chuckles. Your view of "normal" is your view, period. There is no Commandment of what it means to be "normal", now is there?

Lively & Carefree maybe . . .| 5.9.12 @ 10:13PM

You would know to not lie with a man as one lies with a woman if you were at all Bright.

9thID| 5.9.12 @ 2:24PM

Just as we didn't "get on board" with abortion/genocide, and are now winning, we will not get on board with your sexual depravity...

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 9:54PM

and you to shall pass away to make way for a more tolerant people. As if you are so perfect.

9thID| 5.10.12 @ 9:46AM

Your depravity will pass away from lack of reproduction and STDs like HIV/AIDS...

irnhd| 5.10.12 @ 12:03AM

Typical, the real totals were 61.04% for the amendment 38.96% against. Can't help lying about the small stuff, says a bit about the crowd that uses this tactic to sway weak minds. I live in N.C. and nobody here voted for or against "gay rights" it was about keeping crazy judges from forcing their, and obviously your, views on us all. There is a difference of opinion about what "tolerance" means, rolled over huh, nice.

A Sphincter Says What?| 5.10.12 @ 1:16AM

Perp, what the fuck is it with you and telling people to "get in line," or "get on board," or "get rolled over?" I'm telling you.....Eat a Bag of Dicks.

Derek Leaberry| 5.9.12 @ 7:53AM

The Republican and Beltway conservative establishment certainly has given up on cultural questions of all sorts. Witness how beloved Dick Cheney is by the establishment. Cultural conservatives have been shown the door. In response, cultural conservatives should ignore the requests of the Republican and conservative establishments when asked to support their anointed candidates beginning with Mitt Romney.

I am a conservative. Homosexuality is dishonorable just as adultery is dishonorable. Anyone who does not agree with such a moral stance that was once taken for granted for most of the history of Western Civilization is not a conservative and is an enemy of conservatism.

Not Bill| 5.9.12 @ 9:59AM

I am a conservative. Being a busybody and keeping an overtly scrutinizing eye on the actions of your neighbors in their bedrooms goes against our nation's foundational independent self-governing nature and is dishonorable. Anyone who does not agree with such a moral stance that was once taken for granted for America's history is not a conservative and is an enemy of conservatism that has taken in socialist ideology.

SteveN| 5.9.12 @ 10:53AM

So how is it that marriage wasn't radically redefined immediately upon the ratification of the Constitution if, as you state, your view of such matters is consistent with the founding? Or maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about.

g wayne| 5.9.12 @ 11:40AM

Not Bill..that is b.s. and you know it. If this had been kept in the bedroom, as a private matter like it had been for thousands of years we would not be talking about it and this would not be an issue. But once gays get to the militant stage, and many are, they have to introduce their lifestyle choices, their preferences, their attitudes, etc..into all areas of public discource, public policy, arts and entertainment. They do this so they can feel or be percieved as normal. Knowing in their consceinse which is seered as a hot iron that this lifestyle is against God and the God of nature. They are encouraging young children to abandon the concept of family as that of one man, one woman into 2 men or 2 women and saying this is equal. I think you confuse libertarian with conservative. As Billy Graham once put it, "if God does not judge Americal he owes Sodhom and Gomora an apology." Thank you Daniel for writing this article. We need more men and women with courage to stand up for what is right.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 1:52PM

If God is so against gays, why are they still here? God is merciful, man is vengeful.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.9.12 @ 2:35PM

Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

If God is so against child raping murderers, why are they still here?

Which you would know if you were at all Bright.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 3:06PM

You can say that about anything you don't like. So what?
God is therefore not against gay people. You are. And no man speaks for Him.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.9.12 @ 3:20PM

You would know how merciful God is to humans who do not repent of their sins - much less how merciful God is to humans who deny that their sins are even sin - if you were at all Bright.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 9:57PM

I do, and my Father is all forgiving and merciful. You may think as little of your Father as you like.
If your father sees you break a rule, does he love you any less? Of course not. And, that is a human father. How then can you question the forgiveness and acceptance of our heavenly Father ? What right do you have to do such a blasphemous thing? Forgiveness is divine, you are not divine.

Lively & Carefree maybe . . .| 5.9.12 @ 10:14PM

You would know to not lie with a woman as one lies with a man if you were at all Bright.

9thID| 5.10.12 @ 9:48AM

No, but His word in the Bible does speak for Him and it is very, very clear on the depravity of homosexuality...

Derek Leaberry| 5.9.12 @ 12:56PM

What is your take of George Washington drumming out homosexuals in the Continental Army? Or the Reagan-Weinberger policy of drumming out homosexuals in the military? Or the scores of anti-sodomy laws?

America was never a nation of extreme libertarianism.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 1:56PM

Man is fallible ... "All men are created equal .. ." are they or aren't they? " Endowed by their Creator" - are they are aren't they ? "with certain inalienable rights" - are they are aren't they? "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" - are they or aren't they?
God is divine and blessed this country that was founded on the above principles, not human attitudes, however fallible.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.9.12 @ 2:41PM

You would know to ask the 55 million Americans allowed to be aborted by the highest court in the land for the answer to this question if you were at all Bright.

Vern Crisler | 5.9.12 @ 7:01PM

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote those words, wanted homosexuals to be castrated.

Purp| 5.9.12 @ 9:59PM

yeah, you're right .... and Jefferson didn't own slaves.

loupgarous| 5.18.12 @ 7:06PM

Washington kept Baron von Steuben, who appears to have been cashiered from at least one European army under circumstances that pointed to his carnal knowledge of another man. That could very well be slander by a jealous brother officer, or it could be the truth.

I hold with C.S. Lewis who, on reflecting that in the 1940s England had already become a state in which Christians were the minority, advocated civil marriages for those who couldn't or wouldn't live Christian lives, and religious marriages for those who wished to honor God by observing His Sacraments.

What "social conservatives" who want to impose their definition of marriage on the entire country are doing is handing the social engineers of the Left a priceless precedent. For logically, if the "social conservatives" can gut the Constitution by ignoring the First Amendment and drafting marriage laws which de facto impose religious values on a country in which observant Christians are at best, a plurality - then it's child's play for them, when they have solid majorities in all the legislatures and compliant Presidents and Governors, to force all citizens to observe new and strange rules for marriage which no one now can predict.

It remains for those of us who believe in small government to put our votes and our political activity where our mouths are. Not everyone believes as we do. Not all Christian sects find homosexuality to be an abomination, even.

We could do a lot worse than mind OUR business (I speak as a straight male married for 33 years to the same woman - I found a "keeper" the first time) and let other Americans mind theirs. It wouldn't mean abandoning our principles, but adhering to the highest principles we have, the ones George Mason and Thomas Jefferson enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We would be seeing with a single eye again.

Bob Miller| 5.9.12 @ 8:19AM

If America continues to disintegrate morally, remember that it's a bipartisan effort.

The Big E| 5.9.12 @ 8:20AM

"Those may be valid arguments. But they don't get to the heart of the case against gay rights, which is that homosexuality is immoral and harmful to those involved and to society."

Ergo, I am in search of a party. The Republican party has not only abandoned its moral principles and ceded the moral argument to leftists on gay marriage, they have also done so on almost everything else as well.

But that's ok. Let them vote themselves "gay marriage." Let them vote to affirm whatever immorality they choose. Regardless of legality or illegaliy, there will ultimately be consequences which will have to be paid, for those cannot be avoided. Water will still wet us and fire will still burn, and you can no more vote yourself an exemption to morality than you can vote yourself an exemption to gravity.

RR| 5.9.12 @ 8:48AM

The Big E., yes, you can handle it when you "let them vote themselves 'gay marriage.'" I ain't worried or concerned 'bout you. You a big man, an old man. You only got 'bout 10, 15 more years to live max.

You've already had lots of time to learn by life's hard knocks, learn that the Bible is indeed always true, and to get right personally with God. You've been given reasonably peaceable, stable, docile, and benevolent decades to get your life all set up right.

I'm focused on kids who are aged 8 or just 18 who still haven't a clue in this life. Many of whom don't have both a mom and and a dad. Or if they even have one or both, well, the adults in this kid's life aren't behaving as adults. The teachers in this kid's life aren't behaving as mature adults.

I'm also very concerned about the unborns. You know, they are unborn but will be out of wombs in the remaining seven months of this year 2012. Or next year. Or in year 2014.

See -- we're supposed to provide for them a firm foundation. A society that is upright, good, moral, just. A society that does not take a Greece-approach to wanton human secular humanism and secular hedonism all the time.

I ain't worried a bit about you, Big E. And you don't need to be concerned about Big E., either. You see, our job is to focus on others. Those who are still enslaved and held captive by Satan's lies. The kids who look up to all of us adults to live upright lives as proper examples. We focus on them; we pave a road that leads them to God and His righteousness.

Right now, every kid that grows up in greater Berlin is messed up in the head because the pop media figurehead they see as their city (and state) leader, the mayor of Berlin, is a flaming gay. And he's been reelected.

That well paved road we are to construct for the weaker, the smaller, the younger, the future generations, that road has to be in your community, my community, and in every community across this land. Otherwise we are failing at the mission God's given us.

God does not fail us. He never does. We who know the truth are not to fail Him.

The Big E| 5.9.12 @ 11:16AM

"I ain't worried or concerned 'bout you. You a big man, an old man. You only got 'bout 10, 15 more years to live max."

I HOPE I've got more than that - I'm only 46!

"I'm focused on kids who are aged 8 or just 18 who still haven't a clue in this life. Many of whom don't have both a mom and and a dad."

Government cannot replace the missing parent in any chaild's life - whether actually missing, or figuratively missing. Laws passed to attempt to do this are doomed to failure as surely as laws passed in an effort to exempt one from morality.

"See -- we're supposed to provide for them a firm foundation."

I agree, but that foundation can ONLY be laid in homes and in churches. Homes and churches may be abdicating their responsibilities in that regard, but as I noted above, government efforts to supplant parents and churches in the foundation building role run afoul of the Gods of Copybook Headings as surely as government efforts to make sure no-one has to suffer the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, such efforts by government only ENCOURAGE irresponsibility by the parents and churches who are supposed to assuming responsibility in the first place.

"The kids who look up to all of us adults to live upright lives as proper examples. We focus on them; we pave a road that leads them to God and His righteousness."

True, but do not do that at the point of a sword, and bear in mind, ultimately, anything government requires or forbids is done so at the point of a sword.

"God does not fail us. He never does. We who know the truth are not to fail Him."

I fully agree. And do not misunderstand me, I vehemently oppose gay marriage, period. My point is not that we should accept gay marriage, my point. On the contrary, my point is that ultimately, those who attempt to vote themselves and exemption from morality will, and we need to remember that.

We, as Christians, ALSO need to remember that those who cast those ballots, those who vote to legalize gay marriage, even those who choose to enter a gay "marriage," are all God's children the same as you or I, and while He may disapprove of their sin, He also loves them the same as you or I, and as a result, we are to love them as well.

The Big E| 5.9.12 @ 11:51AM

Let me try that one sentence again before I slip fully into dementia:

My point is not that we should accept gay marriage. On the contrary, my point is that ultimately, those who attempt to vote themselves an exemption from morality will find no such exemption exists, and we need to remember that.

grant1863| 5.9.12 @ 10:25AM

Gods of the Copybook Headings by Rudyard Kipling
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.