-
Is Kleiner Perkins Sorry It Ever Met Al Gore?
May 13, 2013 | 32 comments
-
America’s Oil Revival
February 8, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Want to Stop Violence? Start in Hollywood
January 21, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Brandon in the Basement
January 8, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Time for Some Ju-Jitsu
December 10, 2012 | 51 comments
Another Perspective
The Battle of the Sexes (All Four of Them)
The heart of the sickness in the Obama Administration.
The first night I went to college in 1960 a gang of us who had just arrived for freshman orientation decided to cross the quad and challenge the incoming freshmen in another dorm. When we got there it turned out the only resident was an upper-class dorm proctor who also happened to be a huge football player. He came out in response to our taunts, some words were exchanged and before anyone knew it the mob of us had pinned the football player to the ground, somebody produced a scissors and we cut his hair down to the scalp.
I don’t know whether you could call it “bullying.” The huge football player could have taken any one of us. I cringed the next day when I saw the shaven warrior crossing the campus, fearing he might recognize me. It was the kind of outpouring of exuberance common on all-male campuses of that era.
Little did any of us realize that such an incident might one day disqualify any of us from running for President.
The Mitt-Romney-at-Cranbrook issue and President Obama’s awkward embrace of gay marriage have quickly turned an election that was supposed to be about unemployment and the ailing economy into a debate over the fate of people who believe they were socially abused while young. It seems almost absurd that such a pivotal election is even discussing such an issue but as long as we’re addressing the subject, let’s face up to a few things.
First of all, let’s admit it — childhood is a jungle. We come into this world not entirely civilized and childhood and youth is the period when these things are thrashed out with a vengeance. I remember during my first three years of grade school the consuming issue not learning to read or fashioning clay ashtrays in art class but who had the “cooties” of a girl two years ahead of us. She was a big, raw-boned girl whose name “Elizabeth” had been shortened to “Lizard.” The most terrifying thing that could happen was to be given “Lizard’s cooties.” The rumor was that she went to the bathroom like a boy.
Sexual ambiguity is something that has always frightened children and primitive societies. Tribal cultures usually have elaborate taboos about what men and women can do, which building they can enter, even what they are allowed to touch. Such societies have elaborate initiation ceremonies to make sure young people assume the proper sexual roles as they reach maturity. It was Margaret Mead who in a moment of weakness once said, “The most stable societies are those that make the clearest distinction between men and women.”
Yet every society also produces a small number of people who feel uncomfortable with traditional roles and incline toward what early 20th century anthropologist Edward Carpenter called “the intermediate sex.” Most societies have created a place for them, often one of considerable honor. Men who feel uncomfortable with the traditional male role often become witchdoctors or priests or scholars, shunning the traditional male role but revered for their differences and respected for their wisdom. Women have done the same thing. Athena, the patron goddess of Athens, was born directly out of the head of Zeus without a trace of motherhood in her and was always represented as armed with a helmet and a sword. The Delphic Oracle, who virtually ruled Classical Greece, was a farm girl who had heard voices telling her to shun the female role and live among vestal virgins (or temple prostitutes, no one has ever decided which) spouting prophecies. Joan of Arc was another young heroine whose inner voice told her to assume the male role and rescue France. She became the national symbol.
Altogether, the progressiveness of a society can probably be measured by its ability to tolerate sexual ambiguity and grant flexibility in sexual roles. We are probably as tolerant as any society has ever been in this regard. But putting homosexual marriage on a par with traditional marriage is an entirely different thing. Marriage is a ceremony designed to bind the two halves of humanity together. Homosexual marriage leaves them further apart and isolated. Few societies have ever granted it, yet alone celebrated it, as we appear to be on the verge of doing.
There is very good reason. Every society blesses the yoking of male and female together as the crucible for the propagation of the species. This is no small thing. The Theory of Evolution is based on the premise that all organisms are driven by an irrational imperative to reproduce themselves and “spread their genes.” Parents and other relatives do not want to see their children or nephews or nieces becoming homosexuals because it means they are not likely to have grandchildren or other closely related kin. This will be the basic biological response no matter how many “Proud-Parents-of-Gay-Children” organizations are formed.
But of course we are a super-progressive society that can by-pass all this biology with the simple question, “Who says you have to be married to someone of the opposite sex to have children?” And this is why homosexual marriage, no matter how innocently intended, inevitably challenges the whole principle of marriage itself. If any two people can yoke themselves together in an institution created for the nurturing of children, then why not any three or four or even one? With male homosexuals this may involve some complicated ju-jitsu but for lesbians and even for women who just don’t have much tolerance for men, it all becomes surpassingly easy. Why not just pick an attractive man, get pregnant, have a baby and forget about all this social convention about getting married?
You don’t have to look very far to see the results. It’s on the cover of Time magazine this week. The controversial picture shows a blond young supermom breast-feeding what appears to be four-year-old boy. The headline claims it all has something to do with “Are you Mom enough?” but the subliminal message is clear. This is the new American family. This woman is “Julia,” the Obama-administration-conjured “new woman” who needs no parents or husband or supporting relatives but can marry the government instead.
And who is this young man? Why he’s the New Woman’s sexual counterpart, an infantilized, totally dependent male. (It’s no accident that it’s a boy in combat fatigues she’s nursing. If it were a girl in a tutu, the whole message would be lost.) This is a feminist dream, a world without adult men. And is there the slightest chance this little boy is going to grow up to be a husband and a father? Forget it. We’ve already created this kind of matriarchy in the African-American subculture through the welfare system. Now let’s do it in society at large.
And this gets to the heart of the sickness in the Obama Administration. It is why the President and his crew will go on embracing gay marriage and single motherhood and every other form of deviance from the traditional husband-and-wife family, showering them with government blessings. Together they form a constituency that can overthrow the basic adult male-female relationship that has been at the core of every society in human history.
Homosexuals and people of ambiguous sexuality can and do play successful, even leading roles in traditional heterosexual society. Rock Hudson played a leading man and heartthrob for millions of women even though he was personally gay. Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres entertain millions in largely heterosexual audiences. Elton John and Lady Gaga have made their fortunes singing about heterosexual love. The whole arts community has always been filled with people who played one role in public while living entirely different private lives. But the question is not whether any individual should be praised or condemned for their sexuality. The question is whether the homosexual norm should stand on a par with the heterosexual bond. When any society reaches this point of challenge, it’s worth pushing back.
So yes, let’s forget about the economy for a while and conduct an election campaign over whether tradition sex roles can be defended — whether boys can be boys or whether candidates should be ostracized for exhibiting traditional male behavior in their youth. It’s probably more important anyway.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (151) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Tucker
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/16/the-battle-of-the-sexes-all-fo
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 5.16.12 @ 6:30AM
While everyone comments on what Mitt Romney may or may not have done as a teenager, emphasis must be placed on the fact that we still know almost nothing about Obama's past.
DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 6:54AM
I heard Obama read from his autobiography saying in high school he drank beer, smoked pot, and did cocaine occasionally. We know that about him - he claims to have done it, and he thought that this was something that the world should know about him.
It tells me three things about him - no character, a go-along-to-get-along type, who's not very smart politically.
That's not nothing - it's something, its telling, and it's irrefutable. Except maybe Obama (or Ayers) was just a 'composite' of who he (they) wants to say who he is.
We know lots!
Don't Tread On Me!!!
Dagney Taggart| 5.17.12 @ 5:54PM
Actually, what he said was that he spent the last 2 years of high school in a drug-induced haze and "sparingly" attended class. Speaking as one who had no familial support and had to work like a dog to get a 4.0 GPA so that I might get noticed and awarded an academic scholarship, I know how hard it is to get financial help unless you have an absolutely stellar record (not only grades -- community service, athletics, extra-curricular achievements like drama, choir, debate -- ALL of those are required for a full scholarship!). How the heck did this druggie kid get into Occidental?
Marlene| 5.16.12 @ 8:18AM
Love the scarf! Did you design it yourself?
Justine| 5.16.12 @ 8:19AM
And look how it it is oh-so-carefully draped to frame his lovely face.
Happy Hour| 5.16.12 @ 8:20AM
Yeah, that scarf tells a lot about Tucker.
He's a pretentious asshole.
Paul Revere| 5.16.12 @ 8:22AM
Warn your neigbors! Toll the bells!
The gays are coming! The gays are coming!
Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 8:32AM
Too late.
They're already queer...Eric, I mean "here"...
We're here!| 5.16.12 @ 8:35AM
We're here all right, and we're here to stay, and we are asserting our power ALL THE WAY!
Maurice Sendac, a queer, died this week. One more brilliant queer has left us, but we have millions to take his place.
Pelleas| 5.16.12 @ 9:01AM
if you wish to honor one of our dead, PLEASE find out how to spell his name--SendaK, CORRECTLY, NEXT TIME.
Rollando| 5.16.12 @ 11:36AM
I believe the correct spelling of "Pelleas" is "Pusillanimous."
Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 1:21PM
Actually, I think it's p-o-m-p-o-u-s.
Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 1:49PM
Sendak did brilliant work. Let us honor one of G-d's creatures by his best work, if we may.
I'm not always going to slap you, Pelleas. Nice work the other day with the Hitler youth, by the way.
However, although I have no problem with "Civil Unions" and gay couple being able to get insurance coverage and be next of kin for hospital purposes, marriage is an institution whose PRIMARY purpse is the traditional raising of children to perpetuate the species, and children do best raised in the context of a marriage. By definition, a homosexual couple will NOT be raising a child that is the biological offspring of both parents. And men, the vast majority of men, are both heterosexual and need the harnessing to properly sublimate their drives, Pelleas. It is what it is.
Of course, the best joke on this was by Woody Allen: "When we got married, we had 3 children---one of each."
Pelleas| 5.16.12 @ 2:14PM
O/T:
THANK-YOU..!-
WHILE we might be on opposite ends in regard to our philosophies and attitudes, it is nice to OCCASIONALLY come to a common understanding
It gives me no pleasure or satisifaction to resort to meaningless name-calling, in general- all does is make an unpleasant noise-(-BUT-- I WILL respond to pure rudeness in kind)
I wont respond to your attitudes and beliefs about marriage right now, since you have acted like a real mensch towards me ( at least in this post-LOL!--I hope that doesn't ruin your reputation among your fellow travellers, here!-: )..)--BUT..needless to say, we will have to respectfully agree to disagree about that!
Brubaker| 5.16.12 @ 10:06AM
Cockroaches are also "here to stay."
AVCurmudgeon| 5.17.12 @ 12:55AM
You have millions of Maurice Sendaks (his name is spelled with a 'k', not a 'c') waiting to take his place? Really? Bring 'em. We need more of his genius. But somehow I think you're just bloviating.
nick099| 5.17.12 @ 12:05PM
"We're here all right, and we're here to stay, and we are asserting our power ALL THE WAY!"
What "power" might that be eh???? Be serious.
Let's not get stupid. make all the insults you wish but what Tucker states is true..factually...something delusionals ( and Dummycrats) have trouble with.
"Millions" to "take his place" ???? Hardly, unless you
have created a serum to reproduce.....
Patti LuPoneletti| 5.16.12 @ 8:26AM
That scarf Tucker is wearing is a very expensive brand-- Forzieri of Italy. I imagine it cost between 4 and $800.00.
Beautiful scarf, Mrs. Tucker. Oops. Make that Mr. Tucker.
Xanax Express| 5.16.12 @ 8:31AM
Old man Tucker was a Don't-Fuck-With-Me Fucker when he was at an aggressive all-male college. Wow!
Wow! Wow! Wow!
Impressive. Love the scarf.
Chuckie Fist in your Face| 5.16.12 @ 8:32AM
Yeah. Scarf rhymes with barf. And after reading this shit, I'm ready to barf myself.
Skippy| 5.16.12 @ 12:12PM
If you knew how chilly it is in Humboldt County, you'd understand the scarf.
Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.16.12 @ 1:24PM
You are a vulgar cow.
Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.16.12 @ 1:23PM
Oh, puh-lease!!!
That scarf is a tasteless knock-off from Dillards.
Mr. Tucker, you need a visit from the crew at "Queer Eye." Your outfit is a disaster!
Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 3:14PM
Hey Alex, you still pedalling the notion that your man Obozo is as straight as an arrow, or has Team Obozo given you a new assignment?
Kilgore Trout| 5.19.12 @ 9:09AM
Hey Tuck! If a queer visits you, queer their OTHER eye! And do it hard.
Richard Simmons| 5.16.12 @ 8:07PM
Mr. Tucker, that scarf is to die for!
Where, I beg you, tell me where did you get it?
Erma| 5.16.12 @ 8:08PM
The scarf is fabulous!
F A B U L O U S !
Tyrone| 5.16.12 @ 8:10PM
Tucker, you sho know how to vogue!
Vogue it man. Come on down to the Club and vogues yo stuff!
Lillian Poo| 5.16.12 @ 8:12PM
As an authority on men and women's fashion accessories, I must say that Mr. Tucker shows extraordinarily metrosexual taste in his drop-dead scarf.
The scarf speaks volumes about Mr T!
JimH| 5.16.12 @ 8:51AM
Regarding the scarf, maybe Tucker is a Tom Baker Dr. Who fan; or of Isadora Duncan. Having only attended commuter college my knowledge of Greek life is confined to Animal House, but the idea that forcibly overpowering someone (a stranger no less) and cutting off their hair is just a jolly prank is bizarre.
Sam1427| 5.16.12 @ 6:46PM
It is just a prank in fraternities and the NFL. Don't grouch, don't complain about it, don't act like a girl. Hair grows back. No biggie. On the other hand, if you hold down and shave a football lineman, expect payback.
Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 8:43AM
Except we know Romney took on a guy, while Obozo beat up a girl.
Yep, that sums up our Obozo to a T.
Pelleas| 5.16.12 @ 2:29PM
EXCEPT--
Obama acknowledged the incident with the girl ( "beating up" is a little over the top, no?- he pushed her away...)-- without prompting, or an investigation into his past-- and seemed to be pretty (rightfully so) embarassed by it, at the time- unlike the responses/reactions by Mr. Romney in a far more serious character-defining situation.
Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 3:10PM
You mean Bill Ayer's thought that adding this literary touch of Obozo beating up a girl would enhance the fake life and times of Obozo the Great!!
You people are truly pathetic, is that all the dirt your whores could dig up on Romney, what he might have done in High School?
Pellass, you are indeed an Obozo zombie, swallow it whole why don't ya boy, there's no hope for you.
Pelleas| 5.16.12 @ 3:42PM
Anthony:
In point of fact-- I don't really much like Obama all that much-- never have, from the beginning, actually-- so, I am not really "swallowing" anything from him.
I am , however, are more concerned with an honest playing-field- and all these rumors and innuendos thrown out against The President do leave a rather bad taste
Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 9:36PM
It's Twilight Zone time. I'm glad I ate supper a few hours ago with the family before checking in one last time tonight. My dinner is safely digested.
So Pelleass, you say you're not that enamoured with The One, yet your daily posts are filled with vile vitriolic hatred for all things conservative, including yesterday's hope for physical violence against some of us posters.
Rumors and innuendos bother you so you say eh? Try being Sarah Palin for one hour!! Who's son is Trig, you might want to ask some of your fellow lefties?
You don't know the meaning of the word decency. Now I'm off to bed, hopefully, with no nightmares of you!!
Not Special Ops Bill| 5.17.12 @ 9:07AM
That seems fair; now, if only the lefties would refrain from calling us "racist" every time we criticize the President for an incompetent decision or collectivist policy.
AVCurmudgeon| 5.17.12 @ 12:59AM
Nonsense. Obama pushed her to the ground, not "away." He acted like a scared, defensive little boy. Hasn't changed much.
As to Romney's "character-defining situation", how about looking at his actions as an adult, including rescuing a woman in a lake at dusk (take that, Teddy Kennedy) and shutting down the headquarters of Bain Capital for a week so they could all go find one of the partners' daughters in New York?
I am no Romney fan, but I must say that whatever you might think of the hazing incident (and by me, no big whoop), surely the man he became is far more important than the boy he was.
TLP| 5.16.12 @ 9:05AM
I think that Mr. tucker is reading way too much in to all of this. He's trolling the Queer Community for Votes and Money, much like Alan Brooks trolls Rest Stops, for Dates, and the occasional Hot Dog.
He could give a Sh*t about a buncha Queers. To him, they are but a Means to an End. Just like everybody else. We are ALL Infidels, in the eyes of THE ONE.
"But what about Blacks. He cares about them, more than anything."
Really? Cause, where I'm standing, to Him, Blacks are only good for one thing, and that's their utter Stupidity, when it comes to casting a Vote on Election Day. He KNOWS that they would vote for SATAN, against CHRIST, if his Skin Colour matched theirs. (So much for: "I had a Dream")
The Black Unemployment Rate is way Higher than that of Whites, and the Unemployment Rate for Black Teens is over 50%. Add to that, the fact that one of the FIRST THINGS he did, upon taking office, was to ABOLISH the school Voucher Program for all of the young Minority Children in D.C. The Pleas from their Mothers fell on deaf ears, as he chose the White Teachers Union's Green Money, over their Black Children, thus condemning them to the very same D.C. Public Schools, that he claimed "Don't come up to MY Daughters Standards".
He's the Ultimate Con Man.
How many times has he claimed that "The 1st thing I think about, when I wake up in the morning, and the last thing I think about, before I close my eyes at night, is JOBS, JOBS, JOBS?
Look at all of the Money that he rakes in from the Private Sector Unions. And, what, pray tell, do these dumb schlubs have to show for it? NOTHING! He only cares for the Public Sector Unions. And, if you Schlubs don't believe me? Go look up where most of his Stimulus/Slush Fund Money, went.
It's all about him. It's always, all about him. Hell, it's been all about him all of his life.
That's what I'm talking about.
I've read your story TWICE, and I still don't know WTF you're driving at.
Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 12:26PM
Sorry Tim, the gay community ARE his base as well. That truth will soon emerge along with all the other obfuscations.
Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.16.12 @ 1:25PM
Sweetie, I'd love to be Obama's "base"...as in, DEBASE ME, BARRY!!
Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 3:19PM
Well Alex, all you have to do is continue to pretend for us at TAS that your man is Dudley Dooright for another 6 months.
Then you can mount the mountie all you want, or vis versa. Whatever turns you on babe.
TLP| 5.16.12 @ 2:47PM
I know that they're his base.
That doesn't mean he gives a Sh*t about them, any more than he cares for the Blacks.
They're a Means to an End.
Period.
Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 3:27PM
Got it, you're correct as usual.
TLP| 5.16.12 @ 6:48PM
And, you, my friend, are getting very good at this.
Welcome aboard.
Rich Fisher| 5.16.12 @ 9:17AM
Darin, I'm afraid that comment, "we know nothing about Obama's past" has become an excuse rather than a fact. We know a lot about his past but are afraid to bring it up. It's a convenient way of looking the other way so that we don't have to appear racist or judgmental. His past is all over the place if we would only look at it and publish it.
Teaghan| 5.16.12 @ 11:14AM
ABSOLUTELY RICH! We know LOTS about his past, but the MSM refuses to talk about it. And Tim refreshes our memory at least twice a week, for which I thank him for. We need to be reminded. DAILY!
darcy| 5.16.12 @ 12:44PM
Here's the thing, Teaghan. Liberals and drones simply don't care about his past anymore than they care about his present disastrous actions as President (which the media at any rate cover-up and tout as gifts from heaven). I'm sure the media think of his past as cool and hip even as they admire his governance as if he walks on water.
And why? Because they are like him, selfish and narcissistic, and they cringe at all things decent, much as vampires retreat from the cross. The whole "progressive" mindset inhabits a people who deny the good and worship the individual will, however evil that will is and all the while pretending that evil exists only in intolerance, discrimination, and racism: their own Three Commandments -- Thou shall not be intolerant (of deviancy), Thou shall not discriminate (against this week's favored group), Thou shall not be racist (acknowledge differences between races).
Liberalism is a religion just as much as it is a disease. And it will NOT tolerate anything that stands in opposition against it.
The only people who care about the one's shady past are conservative voters; so the media's job is to set Romney up as a bogeyman, or just as morally inept as the one was (is), in order to confuse the brain dead and sheepish public.
Dittohead| 5.16.12 @ 9:45AM
Obama should be making jobs, but not green jobs, just dirty jobs, instead of supporting the homos who should all be locked up for being gay. Ask El Rushbo, he will tell you.
oldfart| 5.16.12 @ 6:46AM
To think that the current administration is so scared of their re-election prospects that a national issue would be made of an adolescent prank is beyond absurd. Talk about childish – WaPo, and those that support this foolishness have never advanced beyond their Sophomoric year, mentally.
Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 7:26AM
Lets face it. We have 2 weirdos running for President. Obama has written 2 biographies about his young, not very intresting life. The Republican spinmakers like to make things personal. So do their Democrat counterparts. Heaven forbid that we have a real debate on the issues. Lets keep talking about nonsense to keep the boobs, who like reality TV, intrested.
Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 1:55PM
Yup, Mitt was a weirdo. Married his childhood sweetheart, raised his kids well, made mucho millions, snagged two graduate degrees with honors from Harvard after graduating BYU as Valedictorian.
As opposed to the perfectly normal guy who thought it was a cool idea to threaten a President and taunt the Secret Service one year after Kennedy's assassination. That is, Jack in Wi., scumbag extraordinaire.
By the way, in Minnesota, I wear a scarf at times when it goes to 30 below. In my prime, before marriage, when I was in my 20s in California, my scores of female conquests would not have described me as "gay," and my wife knows full well what hours looking at the ceiling are like. Tucker's scarf wearing has nothing to do with orientation.
Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 4:23PM
The Pychotic Psychiatrist who wants nuclear war and genocide on millions is the normal one, right Occcam. I pity any patient who falls in the clutches of your treatment. You are an extreme weirdo if there ever was one. It's no wonder you are gung ho for another one Romney. The only thing you care about is that Romney is surrounded by the same weirdo neocon foreign policy advisors that Bush was. That is reason enough to never vote for him.
Teaghan| 5.16.12 @ 7:33AM
And to think this is the institution that broke Watergate.
L. Ross| 5.16.12 @ 7:00AM
Mr. Tucker. Strong words about homosexuality from a man wearing a scarf. I'm just saying.
oldfart| 5.16.12 @ 7:16AM
Not sure where you are from, but you obviously have never been to Scotland or Northern parts of Europe. The scarf is designed to keep heat in your wrap.
Teaghan| 5.16.12 @ 7:34AM
Ross, that was the stupidest comment ever.
Fredx| 5.16.12 @ 8:43AM
That must be a new world record for shallow.
somnolence| 5.16.12 @ 7:19AM
Not just Elton John. Heterosexual couples have conceived for five decades with Johnny Mathis crooning in the background, "Chances Are". He admitted he is gay years ago.
maggie15228| 5.16.12 @ 7:23AM
Lets have "don't ask, don't tell" for all of society. Really, lets get over ourselves and find something else to talk about. I for one a all for puting homosexuals back in the closet and start dealing with really important issues.
Fredx| 5.16.12 @ 8:44AM
I was much happier in the closet.
DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 8:51AM
So go back there, no one's going to stop you.
You'll probably be happier. Really.
Let's make a deal: I won't talk about my sex life, and you don't talk about yours...that includes non-verbal communications! And I think it means scarves are out!
Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 8:01AM
Nero fiddles while Rome is burning. Our so-called best and brightest are about the least qualified of all, and they want to change the subject.
This whole debate is also intended to break down tradition and morals return mankind to the "Noble Savage" so Cass Sustein and John Holdren can carry out their "Brave New World" experiment. If they use their brilliance and superior reason, they can fix us just right. Then we can have a socialist Utopia and adopt the creed of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along." Ironic that Obama and holder see the way forward through race riots.
Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 11:24AM
Jr:
At one point in thime there was a consensus of opinion about what constituted proper behavior and acceptable moral standards for a civilized society. When that broke down, the hedonists managed to get themselves "accepted" as being viable alternatives rather than transgressors of sociatal norms. As a result, we can no longer call persion, immorality or criminality what they are but rather must consider the sensitivities of those who offend us and our once accepted standards. All the while of course, we must not be offended by others "choices" as all choices are equally valid.
Unless there emerges another societal consensus regarding common standards, civility and morality, the decline and fall of this culture and likely all of Western Civilization with it, will become inevitable. Many of the opposition wish for just such a result, but we will all reap the whirlwind should that come to pass.
Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 11:57AM
This anarchy and debauchery existed during the French Revolution with the Reign of Terror. But as Gustav Le Bon points out in "The Psychology of Revolution" that people tire of the radicalism and violence returning to sanity. We are experiencing this after just 3.5 years of Obamanism.
But I will not be silenced in what I can or will say. The ruling class elitist are immoral and criminal. Why is John corzine still walking around while they chastise Jamie Dimon and JPM for losses from mistakes? The division that experienced the losses made money overall, and nobody stole the money. Corzine stole a similar amount of money and lied to Congress, and he is not even discussed by the politicians or MSM.
Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 12:09PM
Jr:
The people do tire of of it, hence Bonaparte. Not a happy scenario for a once free nation. Can only a dictator restore order? If so our choices seem pretty limited.
Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 5:47PM
We have one now and he is about to get his a$$ booted out of DC in 25 weeks.
Have you heard the new Rush parody "Twenty-five Weeks to Go Now?" "Got to keep on talking, talk on...do-do, do-do, do-do-do" Hillarious.
Shadow| 5.16.12 @ 8:16AM
"You cannot legislate morality" has been used to degrade our society for decades. I agree. You cannot, but they have legislated the means to abolish them and our nation is suffering because power hungry "do gooders" meddle in the laws of God and nature.
R Martin| 5.16.12 @ 8:17AM
"The question is whether the homosexual norm should stand on a par with the heterosexual bond. When any society reaches this point of challenge, it's worth pushing back."
The problem is that all the pushing is coming from the homosexual side, and they thereby exert undue influence for their ultra minority views. Educators are also pushing that minority view (effectively), as so many young people regard homosexuality as perfectly normal and consider opposing views as bigoted.
Perhaps society will push back, quietly, in the coming election.
DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 8:53AM
As they have in thirty-one states where they have outlawed gay "marriage."
It belongs in quotes, because it is an oxymoron of the first order.
Claypoole| 5.16.12 @ 8:19AM
The boy on the current cover of Time will be ridiculed mercilessly by his peers and will spend most of his adult life in therapy. The poor kid's mother seems to be intent on keeping him an infant to satisfy her own emotional needs.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.16.12 @ 8:48AM
I recall another real life example from a woman (employed part time by the state in the WIC program as a breast feeding peer counselor) who continued to breast feed her child past the age of three. The boy had his first felony arrest before the age of ten, and continues to amass criminal arrests in the dozen years since that time.
Frekki| 5.16.12 @ 10:50AM
"Mother's milk leads to heroin"
-George Carlin
KyMouse| 5.16.12 @ 8:50AM
I wonder how long the TIME photo shoot lasted, with that kid hanging on to her. Magazine photo shoots can take quite a while.
This reminds me of the sexual experiments on children that Kinsey did. Where were the parents? Where were the police?
And in this case, where was the father? The grandparents? What do they think about the exploitation of this boy?
THKrupp| 5.16.12 @ 8:59AM
According to the Time article the woman is married and her mother breast fed her until she was 5.
sinanju| 5.16.12 @ 12:38PM
Oh, if I know anything about how the world works, I'd say hubby is down with it and he tanks up at her spigots far more than junior.
Rich D| 5.18.12 @ 4:46AM
Why weren't the mother, photographer, and editor arrested for child porn?
THKrupp| 5.16.12 @ 8:55AM
I tend to agree. My brother calls it competitive parenting. Mothers compete with each other to see who will be the most perfect mother. If someone doesnt subscribe to the whatever the current fad of perfect parenting is, then that parent is snubbed or worse.
Mike G| 5.16.12 @ 9:09AM
I can't help wondering if it really was a photo, or if it was computer generated.
Louis Jenkins| 5.16.12 @ 8:47AM
Really can't say much about the Time cover, but that boys sure is .... in an enviable place. If you're into the picture in an unholy way that is.
You will notice that the above posters have polarized the author, and accused him of abstract behavior. Typical troll techniques, and the Ayers principle.
The newsmedia has blitzed and went bananas over Romney's behavior. Cutting the hair off of the fellow who was dressed oddly and had long hair. Now the man was alledgedly gay, and has since died (?). What killed this particular man? Did he die of a AMI, or was he killed in an automobile accident? Unfortunately, he is no longer alive to tell his part of the story, which is much more convenient for MSM. Perhaps he committed suicide over the incident. None-the-less, the dead will tell no tales, which again is very convenient for the newsmedia.
Alice Moore| 5.16.12 @ 10:04AM
It seems many posters have bought into the assumption that this incident occurred. The alleged victim's family members have stated they heard nothing about it. Last week the story was imploding because of a lack of coroboration. What has happened? Even conservatives are buying the Washington Post story. Why?
Louis Jenkins| 5.16.12 @ 10:40AM
My point exactly.
scotchieguy| 5.16.12 @ 10:43AM
How long were the Axelrods of the world sitting on this "huge breaking story." Timing is everything.
Fredx| 5.16.12 @ 8:52AM
It always has and always will boil down to penis envy. Women can have all the spoils of power, but they'd trade it all for that one unattainable thing. Sorry, girls. Hehe.
Hondi| 5.16.12 @ 8:53AM
The Communist Manifesto - "Abolition of the family!"
The push for gay marriage is no coincidence. Resistance to traditional marriage has been around at least since Marx.
THKrupp| 5.16.12 @ 8:58AM
The odd thing is that in the USSR the communist party was extremely homophobic and were very prudish.
PolishKnight| 5.16.12 @ 9:28AM
This is perhaps because the USSR didn't need welfare mothers, gays, and immigrants to win elections. They simply fixed them.
I love to remind smug feminists and leftists of this fact along with a history lesson that the left abandoned the working class white males who put FDR into office. Their turn will come someday...
Alice Moore| 5.16.12 @ 10:10AM
In every past Communist Revolution, once power is consolidated, the Chattering classes that helped them to power are always the first to go.
Not Special Ops Bill| 5.16.12 @ 10:24AM
Actually, the first to go after any successful Communist revolution are those who actually were willing to put their lives on the line for the revolution. Those people are considered much too dangerous to be left around while the New Order is being established.
OregonBuzz| 5.16.12 @ 9:25AM
I was prepared to make an erudite, comment re the issue of same sex "marriage". However, since the general tone of the comments to date has devolved to schoolyard taunts and language I'll just join in.
Oh yeah? So's your old man.
SUBVET| 5.16.12 @ 9:58AM
This artical was a waste of ink or should I say time...it's just another distraction form the obvious.
This reminds me of a firing solution without a periscope. THEY are just trying anything that will gin up their base.
Iam not sure THEY even know what their base is anymore.
Not Special Ops Bill| 5.16.12 @ 10:29AM
In my day, we said "Yer mother."
Not Special Ops Bill| 5.16.12 @ 10:21AM
Margaret Mead said, "The most stable societies are those that make the clearest distinction between men and women?"
Wow, if she'd known how her name and works (or work) would be bandied about these days, she might have kept that one to herself. As it is, even the biggest liar occasionally tells the truth. God bless her for that.
Remnant| 5.16.12 @ 10:52AM
I think this is a really good article. And you can tell by all the wailers and gnashers of teeth.
Seek| 5.16.12 @ 11:32AM
William Tucker has written learned article in opposition to state recognition of gay marriage, displaying expansive knowledge of history, anthropology and religion. It's certainly one of his better efforts.
Robert Pinkerton| 5.16.12 @ 12:04PM
1. Philip Slater devotes a portion of his The Glory of Hera to the phenomenon of "attachment parenting:" He considers it part of the reason for the prevalence of psychopathology in Greek antiquity as reflected in their legends and classical histories.
2. I am no one important, (legitimate) son of no one important, working-class but educated above my station, an old-age pensioner resident on the matgins of society in a provincial city; in sum, I am the opposite of properly positioned to ask the Gods for a world-historical favor. Yet I say this: If the Gods were ever disposed to grant a petition of mine with world-historic import, it would be to change every level of American law in order to provide that, thenceforth, in cases of divorce, custody of the children defaults to the father.
I believe that, among other things, this reform would result in a much more Apollinian society than we have today.
To the contrary of "boys will be boys," I say, boys must grow up; they must, in order to be men (Adult male human beings) outgrow the little boys they were when they were children.
Guido | 5.16.12 @ 12:20PM
Excellent article. For other reasons to oppose gay marriage see:
http://www.setourchildrenfree......riage.html
Petronius| 5.16.12 @ 12:48PM
Where is Oliver Cromwell when we need him? "Homosexual norm" is an oxymoron as a general reference. Discussing such a term at the national level is proof enough that Real Normality is politically beaten. The trash control the culture. There will be no respite for Normal Americans until the end comes. But when it does, I will make a public announcement as I'm on the Membership Committee of Hell. All perverts will spend Eternity in Utah. So mote it be.
jwmatney| 5.16.12 @ 3:02PM
Oliver Cromwell? The man who ordered his soldiers to use Irish babies for practicing their swords and spears? The Oliver Cromwell who stole the crops of Irish farmers causing them to starve? Yeah, we sure do need Oliver Cromwell now, doh!!
Seek| 5.16.12 @ 6:54PM
Remember, this is a website where many strange definitions of "liberty" can be found as antidotes to alleged Cultural Collapse. Cromwell isn't exactly my idea of a man of liberty either.
Michael Thornett| 5.16.12 @ 1:52PM
Marriage is a legally-based commitment between two people. Many marriages don't produce children. With homosexuality there is a genetic factor at work. Homosexual behavior is common throughout the animal kingdom and occurs as
an alternative to the heterosexual bond in the most intelligent primates, such as rhesus macaques, baboons and chimpanzees.
Sociobiologists accept homosexuality as entirely normal in a biological sense and believe that homosexuals have always existed in
socially well-adapted populations because they are genetic carriers of rare altruistic propensities which are of importance to the
survival of the group. Moreover, studies have revealed greater concordance for homosexuality between identical twins than
between fraternal twins--even when the identical twins are reared apart. ( see Anthony Stevens, On Jung). So if Mother Nature and not choice produces same-sex attraction, NO ONE has the right to legislate that marriage is only for straight people. Gay couples also produce families with happy children.
cowgirl| 5.16.12 @ 3:28PM
Animals do not understand "homosexual" behavior and it is not common among animals. If that were so there would be no animals left on this planet. I have lived around livestock and in the country almost all my life. I have never, never seen homosexual behavior among any breed of animal. Again, they do not understand homosexual behavior. They only understand things like eating, surviving and reproducing. I have seen both wild and tame males dogs "mount" another dog, but this is strictly a power/control behavior. It has nothing to do with love (animals don't understand love) or reproducing.
Marriage is a legal commitment between a man and a woman which results a high percentage of the time in children. Marriage protects the right of the children to be raised by a mom and a dad
Homosexuality is sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It has nothing to do with marriage. If two people of the same sex want to live together they can have a civil union. Same thing - draw up a contract.
Scientists can conduct experiments and garner whatever they wish from those experiments. Whether those results are right or wrong depends on their interpretation of the results. Just look a the Religion of Global Warming - all their experiments have been wrong, wrong, wrong and mostly fabricated.
One more thing - I don't care who or what anyone has sex with - they have sex with dogs, cats, telephone poles, donkeys, stops signs, chairs, ropes, etc. etc. Because someone has sex with something or someone doesn't mean we have to change the concept of Marriage to fit their whacked out practices. Marriage is the key to a stable, mature, and liveable society. Sex has nothing to do with it.
darcy| 5.16.12 @ 6:21PM
Amen. We're not talking about sex, we're talking about what is GOOD for children and the stability of society. That the homo lobby would place their deviant appetites and demand for APPROVAL above both the well-being of children and society speaks volumes about their lack of regard for both.
The homo lobby in Hollywood, the media, and homos themselves would gladly, with three cheers and a world-class celebration rejoice in the demise of Christian morality -- so they can swim in their sewer at will with the state prosecuting anyone who dares to object to the manifold unintended consequences that ensue. Or are they unintended, the myriad lawsuits already underway against people of conscience? Or the implicit REJECTION of our First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech and conscience?
Are they unintended consequences or the tacit goal?
Michael Thornett| 5.16.12 @ 8:27PM
So you've exhaustively investigated all breeds of animals in the entire world and never seen incidences of same-sex attraction. Never seen gay penguins? My, you do live a sheltered life.
There are plenty of happily married gay couples with well-adjusted children. They deserve the same rights and respect as straights. You're right about global warming but little else makes sense in your reply. Sex has nothing to do with marriage? Try telling that to married couples.
cowgirl| 5.16.12 @ 9:16PM
Again, animals DO NOT UNDERSTAND homosexuality - you are reaching and reaching and obviously don't understand animal behavior. For future reference do not use animals as a way to further your homosexual agenda. Try something else.
Happily married gay couples with well-adjusted children. So you have exhaustively investigaged all married gay couples and their children. Let me help you with that one - gay couples experience the highest rate of domestic violence. Proven fact. I can't imagine that Rose O'Donnell's ADOPTED children are well adjusted.
Sex has nothing to do with marriage. Dogs, cats, horses, single men, single women, gay men and gay woman all have sex.
If you have ever been married you will understand this fact: Sex has nothing to do with marriage. It is a lot more than screwing. Get a clue.
Michael Thornett| 5.18.12 @ 5:54PM
I will use same-sex attraction among higher primates anytime I want because it's true, as confirmed by intelligent researchers. Have a happy down on the farm.
Kilgore Trout| 5.19.12 @ 10:42AM
STOP SIGNS!?!?!?!??
What kinda pervert are you????
Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 1:57PM
Albert C,
yeah, I noted the cultish fixation of the breast feeding advocates, too. Tried to get women taking thorazine to breast feed.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.16.12 @ 10:07PM
Cultish seems to be a well chosen descriptive term. I checked out the record of the woman's other younger son today. His first arrest for a felony was at age 7, and his most recent (he is now age 20) arrest was 4 months ago for felony drug charges.
Having a felonious mother is likely more dispositive for a youth to become a felon himself, but I can't help but think that there is a direct relationship between breastfeeding a son until after kindergarten with having his first felony arrest before third grade.
Purp| 5.16.12 @ 1:58PM
A football player? Seriously, that's who you compare to someone who was really being bullied for who he was as a person?
And, by your story, you obviously condoned the behavior - now you know why it happens - what's wrong with your parents that didn't teach you better than that?
Continuing - You are so wrong on a lot of counts regarding marriage equality. I for one could understand civil unions as promoting that equality. But, gay people are born, not made. Think about it, why in h** would you choose to be gay - can you, sitting there right now, make a choice to be what you're not?
Whether you promote or like gays, they are here, are Americans and deserve the same rights, privileges AND responsibilities as all Americans do. If given marriage equality and removal of other discriminatory practices, you won't hear about gays anymore - they are fighting to be equal, that is all. Allow them that respect, and this all goes away. And, you won't have to care anymore. They will live peaceful, loving, happy lives with their families just like you want to do. What's wrong with that?
Tex Expatriate| 5.16.12 @ 3:54PM
Only some homosexuals are born, rather than made. Many formerly heterosexual males indulge in homosexual sex as a matter of choice. As for so-called gays deserving the same rights as heterosexuals, they already have them. Matrimony is not a right. It is an observance of union between men and women for the purpose of propagation, economy, and strengthening of the society.
Your remarks consist of the very silly talking points of the homosexual community and Democrat Party.
Purp| 5.16.12 @ 10:15PM
"It is an observance of union between men and women for the purpose of propagation, economy, and strengthening of the society." - So by your definition single parent homes and couples without children should be abolished because they don't serve all 3 of your observances? That's ridiculous. The fact that people are hurting because you who stand as high and mighty as the "normal" union say they don't deserve what you take for granted is selfish, self-centered and definitely not a Christian attitude of the Golden Rule. Do you really think that society is not strengthened by promoting love, commitment and responsibility of 2 adults in a loving, life commitment? Do you really think that doesn't add to the purpose of economy? Propagation is not the monopoly held by only straight people in any case.
Your arguments are old, lame and deserve to be thrown on the trash heap of history along with resistance to interracial marriage, denial of voting rights and other civil rights that make us all equal with equal protection under the law. Notice religion plays no part in this discussion. Religion has the right to recognize what they will or not.
Do you accept Civil Unions, granting same-sex couples equal status under law or no?
Paul McGrath| 5.16.12 @ 3:58PM
The whole point of marriage, Purp, in the traditional sense, is to protect the child that might result from it. A child can not take care of itself. So society decided, long, long ago, to give certain benefits to those who might have children.
Traditionally, in the classic sense, a marriage consists of a man and a woman standing in front of their parents, their relatives, their friends, and everyone they know, to exchange vows. These vows aren't just to love one another, they also vow to stay together, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, etc. What isn't stated, but what is transparent to everybody, is that they will stay together if they have children. Because no one else wants to have to take care of them, and because all of their friends and relatives know it is the best way to bring up children.
The issue here is not political, it is biological: gay couples can not produce children. Why should society bestow the marriage benefit on couples who can not possibly produce a child?
Your next argument will be, well, what does it matter? How will allowing gay people to marry affect traditional marriage? Well, it will matter because marriage, as an institution, as a means under which we desire children to be raised, will lose meaning. Nobody will take it seriously anymore. It will not stand out as the ideal we wish to promote, as a society, to raise children.
You will argue of course that the institution of marriage in the U. S. is severely damaged already, what with divorce and single parenting, and you would be correct. But because marriage is not what we wish it to be does not mean we should abandon the concept entirely. It can, and has in other eras, improved.
But to allow gay marriage would tear asunder the fundamental building bloc of society altogether. Eventually, the state would have to raise all children. I admit that some people seem to want that.
Michael Thornett| 5.16.12 @ 7:45PM
"The issue here is not political, it is biological: gay couples can not produce children. Why should society bestow the marriage benefit on couples who can not possibly produce a child?"
Really? Then couples who can't have their own children should be separated? Look. Anyone, straight or gay, can have children via surrogates.
Paul McGrath| 5.16.12 @ 8:42PM
True. And nobody is denying the right for them to do this. But in my humble view, society should not encourage this. Allowing gay marriage would, in its way, encourage this, or at least help to remove what little stigma there is left to such a thing.
Purp| 5.16.12 @ 10:18PM
You mean similar to removing the stigma against interracial marriage? Is that what you mean? This resistance should go the same way on the trash bin of old, lame ideas in history in favor of freedom, liberty, and equal protection under the law. THAT is American - oh and all the rest of the Industrialized world as well.
Louis Jenkins| 5.16.12 @ 4:10PM
And homosexuals will shut up? No they will not, and they never will regardless of the rights that are granted or approved by voters. Once marriage is achieved Pandora's box will just begin to crack.
Purp| 5.16.12 @ 10:19PM
Do you hear anymore about interracial marriage? No you don't - because it is not resisted, it is not stigmatized, and it didn't cause marriage to fall apart as an institution - and neither will marriage equality for gay people.
Larry| 5.18.12 @ 3:00AM
Purp, you are analogizing gay marriage to interracial marriage? A typical bozo-Democrat argument, but one that loses a lot of strength in the face of the fact that interracial marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN, regardless of the color of skin.
This is NOT a civil rights issue. There is NO time-out-of-mind argument that one can make from either history or anthropology that gay marriage is a "right" that must be legally recognized. Indeed, such an argument is unprecedented in history and in culture previous to our bozo culture here in the 21st century.
Tucker has written previously on the evidence that we have evolved into a marriage culture, based on marriage between men and women being the optimal survival strategy. Our religious and legal values recognize that basic fact. Of course, I don't expect you to recognize this, because you are only interested in spouting slogans and knee-jerk analysis.
Petronius| 5.16.12 @ 2:09PM
Social acceptance is Not a Right. Nobody can tell anybody who they must like. The government can pass all the "civil rights, affirmative action", or whatever they will call the perversion preference act that will come next, but they cannot force us to Like it! We've been told that We can't legislate morality. Fine. Liberals cannot legislate Our attitudes or command Our approval. They shall have it Never.
Pelleas| 5.16.12 @ 2:49PM
Petronius:
To be honest--I actually couldn't care LESS whether or not you LIKE us--ALL we are demanding is the same rights that every other American citizen enjoys--"liking" never even enters into the equation.
Skip| 5.16.12 @ 5:37PM
Strange, yet you want the societal acceptance of a 2,000 year old institution, "marriage". This fact was laid bare in the In re Marriage cases:
"Offering a legal relationship called "marriage" to opposite-sex couples while consigning same-sex couples to "domestic partnerships" impinges on the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships EQUAL DIGNITY AND RESPECT." (emphasis mine)
You see, the long and stable historical institution, "marriage" carries dignity and respect due to its foundational nature of Western Culture: the nuclear family.
You can't legislate this "dignity and respect", no matter how hard you try.
If not for social acceptance, for what then?
California had domestic partnerships that offered the same legal protections, for 13 YEARS.
Why wasn't it enough, again?
darcy| 5.16.12 @ 7:34PM
Ah, yes. Demands. I demand you shut up.
Larry| 5.18.12 @ 3:03AM
Read my reply to Purp. There is NO such legal right, there never has been, and there never will be. Stop wasting everyone's time with the bogus argument that this is about "civil rights," because it is not, and you know it. This is not about voting and paying your taxes, so quit pretending like it is.
Purp| 5.16.12 @ 10:22PM
No one cares if you like it? Nobody is asking to marry a gay man. That is not the point.
I don't like everyone having a gun, but it is an American's right, period.
LiveFreeOrDie| 5.16.12 @ 2:38PM
Oh good! Another article about a subject, which the author claims is unimportant and to be ignored, then goes on to discuss it at length. Huh?
wolflen| 5.16.12 @ 3:04PM
so king crimson was correct after all..21st century schizoid man lives..alive and well..
not long ago it was "normal" to smoke tobacco everywhere..even expecting mothers smoked..at the same time other drugs were "products of the devil" .. now of course tobacco is "legal" but banned in just about all public places and even in some private homes (attached condos, apartments etc) and there is a strong push to legalize ALL drugs..
i am going to marry my car..go ahead laugh...i dare ya!
Tex Expatriate| 5.16.12 @ 3:42PM
In 1960 when William Tucker was entering college and ganged up on a college football player to cut his hair another eighteen-year old American youth was lying in the mud of Viet Nam, eye glued to the end of a rifle scope to snipe communist village elders because American politicians had embraced a fraudulent foreign policy. What did either event have to do with a homosexual ideology that fraudulently equates matrimony with rights? If you answered, "Why, nothing," you were right. Right, that is, except that youths as well as adults are often impelled and encouraged to do foolish things peculiar to American society.
Men and women who wish to marry others of the same sex don't deserve serious attention. Rational people are right to laugh at them, and at the political party that promotes such foolishness, and in fact most rational people do laugh at them. It's even more amusing to consider that pure Marxists of old--who created the political model that Marxist Democrats endeavor to follow--would never have suggested any behavior as foolish as homosexual matrimony. It has taken Democrats to embrace that foolishsness, and do it while wearing a sincere and earnest face.
EDC| 5.16.12 @ 4:04PM
"From the beginning God made them male and female...what God has joined together let no one put assunder." -- Jesus Christ, the Author of Love. "Love rejoices at the truth." -- Paul, I Cor. 13 Enough said.
Louis Jenkins| 5.16.12 @ 4:14PM
Get ready, Pellas and crew are out to put male and female assunder. In fact, they have taken the entire scripture and thrown it in the trash can.
Pelleas| 5.17.12 @ 11:23AM
Louis:
WELL.. if I had my way.. I gotta admit that the "Scriptures" WOULD BE, if not "tossed into the trash", at least set aside, when discussing CIVIL (non matters of religion )issues
Paul McGrath| 5.16.12 @ 4:28PM
Every time the bible is brought up as an argument against homosexual marriage, the argument against homosexual marriage is diminished. Why? Because not everyone in this country is a Christian. People who are not Christian do not care what the Bible says. Get it?
There are very good secular arguments against homosexual marriage--some of which I have outlined above--that have nothing to do with the Bible or any other religion.
If you think you are going to change the mind of a non-Christian by quoting the Bible, you are deranged.
THKrupp| 5.16.12 @ 5:13PM
Good point Paul and to add to it marriage is not exclusively Christian. The marriage liscense given by the government doesnt have anything remotely to do with religion. Its a legal contract pure and simple. A religious wedding ceremony is something much more than a marriage liscense or what you get with a justice of the peace.
THKrupp| 5.16.12 @ 5:34PM
I think that this subject of gay marriage is important from the standpoint of how does a society wish move forward. Obviously there are some very strong opinions and reasons on both sides. Personally I have no problem with gay marriage. Civil Unions would probably be the best compromise but calling something a civil union when confers the same benefits as marriage is just marriage by another name. Its a matter of symantics.
What I dont like about this debate is that its a side show. Its not even in the top 20 problems that our nation is facing right now. To waste time and energy debating if a small percentage of people can form civil unions/marriages is taking the eye off the ball. The best thing to be done for traditional/non traditional marriages is to get the economy back on track.
In my opinion gay marriage/civil unions will eventually be accepted nationwide at some point in time. For better or worse the younger generations have different view of homosexuality than the generations preceeding them. A stable economy that is able to employ everyone at a wage in which they can raise a family is the environment which favors strong families of all stripes the most. If young people do not have options to make enough money to afford families and children it wont matter who can get married.
Dmac | 5.16.12 @ 5:36PM
Can we just have our cultural revolution alreayd and put the gays back in the closet where they belong, and put ;iberlas in insane asylums where they belong?
I do remember the 80's when aids broke out and America was pissed off at the gays for the outbrak and spreading of the disease. The democrats made it a political thing rahter than recognize it for the health issue it really was. We can lock you up in your own home if you have mumps, measles, TB or chicke pocks, but we couldn't tell a homosexual to keep it zipped up. Reagan, instead of sticking to his guns tried to be humane and politely asked gay Americans to keep it toned down and not try to indoctronate America into a gay way of life. The gays and lesbians have done just the opposite. They try to shove their lifestyle and way of life down our throats on a daily basis. It's time for a social pushback! You gay and lesbians are a smaller part of the community than you think you are and the majority is getting sick of all of it.
All the little special interest groups are tearing to country apart, not brining it together. It is a society that has common beleifs that is strong. A society that feels the individual is greater than the society itself is weak and doomed to fall from within.
THKrupp| 5.16.12 @ 5:59PM
Actually I would say that the whole Constitution is about the individual. Thats what our country is all about. The beautiful thing about the United States is that we are a nation of individuals that often disagree sometimes to the point of open warfare. That is where our strength lies. We are much like a rope that is made from multiple fibers. We have competing view points and we debate them at length. While the process is not always pretty to watch, I like to think that the results are superior than what you get in other systems. Are things perfect? Of course not but then what is. I would not want to live in a country where the rights of one are superceded by the needs of the whole. A good example of that is the former Soviet Union and other communist countries. Nazi Germany is another good example.
Pelleas| 5.16.12 @ 6:11PM
"Reagan, instead of sticking to his guns tried to be humane and politely asked gay Americans to keep it toned down and not try to indoctronate America into a gay way of life."
ACTUALLY....
Reagan did--ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING--"politely" or otherwise, until the tail -end of his reign.
He said NOTHING about A.I.D.S, until a Hollywood crony, Rock Hudson , sort of forced his hand to acknowledge the disease-- to even mention the word of a plague that had already killed thousands of Americans by that time
Larry| 5.18.12 @ 3:06AM
And the phony hysteria that was raised by that furor simply politicized what was and should have been a public health issue - and an alarm to those who were gay and recklessly having gay sex, oblivious to the consequences (and I don't want to hear any crap about heterosexual AIDS, because Michael Fumento debunked that myth years ago with compelling scientific evidence that AIDS arose in a primarily homosexual and drug addict culture).
Skip| 5.16.12 @ 5:39PM
That analysis of the Time magazine cover was brilliant. I never though of the "Julia" connection.
Will| 5.16.12 @ 6:05PM
What would the red pornographer and famous-guy-from-Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis have to say about all this?
Frank Natoli| 5.16.12 @ 7:00PM
How often are conservatives told "if only your party would stop trying to force its social views on everyone else, your party would be much more successful in the ballot box"?
Yet which party in the past few weeks is emphasizing changing thousands of years of marital tradition? Trying to force its social views on everyone else?
And which party in the past few months was emphasizing "free" contraceptives? Trying to force its social views on everyone else?
But when the other party pushes back, it alone is branded as the social aggressor.
In living memory, psychiatrists defined "normal", and all words must be backed up with a workable definition, as someone who (1) was a net contributor to the society, and (2) reproduced. Astonishingly simple. Reach a critical mass of people who were net consumers rather than contributors and/or a critical mass of people who did not reproduce, and the society dies. Definition element #2 became a "problem", even though its place in the psychiatric dictionary was never imagined to "get" homosexuals. All it was, was a simple definition of a properous, growing society.
TAS readers have noted that marriage was first and last about what is best for children, to have the benefit of a father and a mother, and their different though complementary teaching and example roles. That benefit is true without picking on a household of two "fathers" or two "mothers" any more than a household of only one parent of either sex. The best environment, not always achieved but still the best, is with both role models. As for the worst environment, one only has to look at violent crime stats in cities where households have only one parent. Are those households missing a second parent of the same sex? Thousands of years of experience says "no".
Why must Americans always rush from one extreme to the other? Are the only two choices chasing someone down the street with a baseball bat, or absolute equivalence in all considerations?
Mike Rogers | 5.17.12 @ 12:59PM
Obama is a Marxist. Marxists pursue policies which destroy normal families. QED
swansong| 5.16.12 @ 9:24PM
Nice scarf, Mr. Tucker. Who arranged it for you?
grossly impolite| 5.16.12 @ 10:13PM
What is the advantage of marriage that gays covet, but can't have some places? Why do heteros, who have the right to marry, disdain the rite/right of matrimony and prefer to just co-habit?
I have heard a lot about a gay loved one being denied visitation rights at a hospital. Hard to imagine.It must have more to do with something else. Like being a beneficiary of the elder gay's Social Security when the Senior Queen of Hearts kicks off.
They all want to get married but no one can really decide what to wear. I have seen two happy brides, hand in hand, both dressed in white, signifying whatever it used to signify. Imagine the uproar if one bride thought she was the only one wearing a gown and now she is to be upstaged at the last moment by significant other.
I have seen two women, one in bridal gown, the other dressed like Chaz Bono.
Two guys, both in tux - or both in Motorcycle leather.
When Barney Frank gets married, is he going to be wearing a bridal gown with sweetheart neckline to
show off his lady breasts he "always wanted"? Too bad he had to wait until he is never going find a comfortable bra. I'm thinking 56DD.
All of this is not to say that there are not 5000 times as many kooks, presumably "straight", who are tying a very loose knot at the altar every day - think Kim
Kardashian.
If certain folks feel threatened about certain other folks being able to enter into a marriage - why don't we just call it pairiage and give gays all the rights and twice the grief of marriage.
I am trying to imagine a Straight Parade in San Francisco underwritten by the bankrupt city. They've got that and we can't have one. It is about the only parade the city manages to find funds for.. . .the gay community's biggest Halloween party of the year and the city gets the bill.
Another thing they get to do that straight folks don't. They get to "come out". (Sounds like making your debut!) Which takes a lot of courage, and bravery that straights don't ever get to experience.
Not Special Ops Bill| 5.17.12 @ 9:12AM
Coming out might have involved some degree of courage a generation ago, certainly not today. Today, coming out is kind of like being a debutante, as you point out. It's a mark of distinction, not a commitment to a life of humiliation the way it was once depicted.
Todd Powers| 5.17.12 @ 1:12AM
Tucker's talking about social issues again,just like a redneck,Santorum supporter would do.
Skip Barrow| 5.17.12 @ 1:12AM
"Why do YOU pay taxes ? Is it so two professional, sports car driving gay yuppies in L.A. can flash their wedding rings in Starbucks for bragging rights ? Is that really why you give up your hard earned money ? Because under the law - the purpose of marriage is for you to invest in the creation and rearing of the next generation that will care for us. The fact that not every male-female union will produce children - for a variety of reasons - is EXACTLY the reason EVERY male-female union is encouraged through marriage; in the hopes of maximizing a return on our investment. Once again liberals ensure they hurt children first, by robbing taxpayer benefits intended to aid families in the creation and rearing of the children in order to hand it over to two guys who want to use your money for their personal romantic gestures. This is the reason marriage is a STATE INSTITUTION - not a private endeavor. So, how many suckers are out there....."
Teaghan| 5.17.12 @ 12:45PM
Where can I find where the quote came from, Mr Tucker, that you mentioned that Margaret Mead said about stable societies? I have gay supporters all over me about posting this quote on my Facebook page. I need to be able to back it up and can't find anything online. Thank you!
Mike Rogers | 5.17.12 @ 12:57PM
All six of them - Not only male and female homosexuals, but the masculine and feminine version of each - for every couple, there is a woman who is more "manly", or a guy who is "in touch with his feminine side".
At one time, there were perfectly acceptable adjectives for such personality types. but these days, they are unutterable insults.
Tim the Enchanter| 5.17.12 @ 2:45PM
It seemed everyone here missed the main point of the article- that girls have cooties. I've always suspected as much, but here it is in black and white. Thank you, Mr. Tucker, for so clearly stating what needed to be said.
PattyMor| 5.17.12 @ 6:29PM
Its all about cultural marxism. That is, smashing all the norms. They have already smashed the traditional family, especially at the lower rungs of society. They have created a "norm" of playing around irrespective of whether people go to church or not. What's next. Smash marriage and the Jewish/Christian Churchs in one felled swoop. Once the "right" is granted, the churches/synogogues will be forced to perform the ceremonies. Then plural marriages will come next. Who is going to tell Mohammed no? We have already been preped with "Sister Wives".
All the prophesies are playing out. We are descending into the abyss, unless things change pretty quickly.