Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
9:12 AM
According to Fox News Mary Cheney, the 37 year old daughter of Vice President Cheney is pregnant. She and the woman she lives with and engages in sexual behavior with - Heather Poe - are ecstatic at the news.
This development prompted some important questions...
1. How did the exclusive sexual union of these two women bring about this conception?
2. What does it mean, from a biological nature to realize that a man WAS in fact necessary for this conception to take place?
3. What does it mean to the supposed "intimacy" that "two people share" which was intended by the Creator to be a function that creates life, to be forced to include a third party?
4. Doesn't it make a rather strong statement that biologically speaking, the sexual union these two women share - is in fact, scientifically speaking - inadequate?
5. Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?
6. Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario - purposefully, simply to stroke one's own desire to have a child - sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes?
Would love to know your responses to these five in that order in the comment section below... (Most likely I will report your responses on my show.)
This reminds me of a book title: My Two Mommies.
This is just wrong. I feel this will only confuse the child allowing to think this type of "union" is "normal". I would feel sorry for the children. They would be teased and harrased by other children from normal families. |
|
1. How did the exclusive sexual union of these two women bring about this conception?
They are trying to recreate to their own liking the natural progression of love relationships between a man and a woman in love, a child, the product of their love.
2. What does it mean, from a biological nature to realize that a man WAS in fact necessary for this conception to take place?
They must look at it as a minor inconvenience that they deal with out of necessity to achieve what they want.
3. What does it mean to the supposed "intimacy" that "two people share" which was intended by the Creator to be a function that creates life, to be forced to include a third party?
Like it or not they know that their love did not create the child growing in the womb, only their desire to let the relationship progress as if it were the same as that between a man and a woman. But they cannot escape the fact that one of them has no part in creating the child, except that they agreed to forego the intimacy between the two of them long enough to get the necessary ingredient they are lacking to complete their dreams of being normal.
4. Doesn't it make a rather strong statement that biologically speaking, the sexual union these two women share - is in fact, scientifically speaking - inadequate?
Yes, inadequate and ultimately unsatisfying.
5. Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?
In my opinion, NO. The reasons too numerous to list here. It does not contribute and shows a total disregard for a society trying to live by principles long established and proven to be the best for mankind.
6. Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario - purposefully, simply to stroke one's own desire to have a child - sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes?
Absolutely NOT. It indicates a total disregard for what is best for the child. Most parents want to reduce the problems their children will face, not cause them unecessary ones. It indicates an "I want what I want and I want it my way, and I want it right now" attitude.
|
|
1. I dont know if it was exclusive or not. Sexuality is not a black and white thing. That being said, of course (for the time being at least) you need eggs and semen to make a baby
2. you need eggs and semen to make a baby
3. you need eggs and semen to make a baby
4. If yo want to get pregant.
5. If its just biology, then it no, but its not unhealthy either
6. Knowing from scientific data
Sorry, I havent seen this data, could you site the study please?
>given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father,
Having a baby is the easy part. Raising them is the hard part...and I dont see how someone is a better parent just because of their gender/
|
|
Yet saying any of this - no matter how gently or respectfully it's done - labels one a hatemonger.
We are not allowed to express any other view than to fully accept and celebrate it. |
|
My responses to your questions:
1) Their union didn't produce the child. They probably had artificial insemination; just like tens of thousands of infertile couples. Why, some of these infertile couples have even gone so far as to "adopt" children to whom they have no biological relation!
2) Not much. There are a lot of men who are needed to produce children. And then go ahead and desert them.
3) See point 1 above. I didn't realize the "creator" was now writing our legislation. Glad to see 'separation of church and state' in action.
4) I think the majority of Americans would agree that sex is more than just procreation; otherwise everyone would have dozens of children. However, if we were to leave it to the majority, maybe slavery would still be around.
5) "Inadequate sexual unions". Do you mean that one of the participants isn't reaching orgasm? Apparently, in your world view, it only counts for men. You seem to have inordinately intimate insight into Mary Cheney's relationship.
6) My wife had volunteered at a children's shelter outside of Chicago that had plenty of products of male/female parents. A child's life is more dependent on the decency of the parents; not their gender.
Glad to see conservatism being choked to death by self-righteous, self-appointed guardians of societal morality.
|
|
I can't believe I have to write this.
First, I'm sure that they did not invite a third party into their bedroom. I'm sure they used a donor and fertility clinic like tens of thousands of your so-called "normal" couples do every year.
Second, gay people have kids. Gay people even get to keep their kids in our society. No matter how dangerous you may think it is, we are very lucky that the morality police can not come in and rip a child away because some people in society only believe in Leave It To Beaver land (pun intended).
Third, families take on all shapes and sizes. Get used to it. Their are single moms, single dads, grandparents raising grandchildren, older brothers raising sisters and yes even those evil homosexuals. In an age where children are abandoned, beaten, neglected and sold into sexual slavery, I can think of many worse fates for a child than a loving gay couple.
Fourth, if you are afraid of the children being teased by other children then do us a big favor...DON'T TEACH YOUR KIDS HATE!!!! The hypocrisy is almost blinding. Don't teach your "normal" kids to look down on gay couples and maybe they won't act out the hate that you so cleverly hide underneath your righteous indignation.
Finally, Ms. Cheney does not have a "woman she lives with and engages in sexual behavior with - Heather Poe." She has a life partner (dare we say WIFE). She does not "engage in lesbianism". She's a lesbian. Reword it any way that you want so that you can cast as much judgement as possible, but remeber that hate by any other name would still smell like YOU.
I know you hate gays. I know you wish they would all crawl back in the closet only to emerge on halloween with the other evil spirits. Gratefully, you do not set the rules for how others live their lives. Luckily, you don't set the standard for "normal". And thankfully, society is beginning to see through this wall of shame you have set up and is coming to the realization that there are much bigger problems than gay families.
When you are ready, the 21st century is ready to welcome you.
|
|
|
The homosexual agenda thinks it can change the definition of marriage by passing laws that redefine marriage. However, these new "laws" are nothing but words on paper because homosexual marriage will never be marriage in God's eyes. What is interesting to me about the pregnancy issue is that it is the one law that the homosexual agenda can't change even on paper: God still creates a child inside a woman with a sperm and an egg and it still takes a man to contribute a sperm and a woman to contribute an egg. |
|
The phrase "sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes" INFURIATES me! How can you say this about an unborn child? How does it feel to label this kid with this, and how would you feel if twenty years from now he or she shows up at your door to call you to account!
I understand you disagree with gays having children. That alone is a respectable position. But to take such a cheap shot as a kid who isn't even born yet is disgusting beyond belief. You know full well that the child will be loved and cared for, and that having the child was a decision that was likely taken on with great thought. Whether Mary Cheney's decision is right or not has nothing to do with the hatred for the unborn that is exhibited by the label you slap on this kid.
It's cheap shot and you should be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you go get some guidance on how to have respect for life? You clearly need it! |
|
1. How did the exclusive sexual union of these two women bring about this conception?
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing their sexual union had nothing to do with the conception AND that that sexual union has remained exclusive.
2. What does it mean, from a biological nature to realize that a man WAS in fact necessary for this conception to take place?
Has anyone ever said that from a biological nature a man was NOT necessary for conception to take place?
3. What does it mean to the supposed "intimacy" that "two people share" which was intended by the Creator to be a function that creates life, to be forced to include a third party?
The same thing it means for infertile couples.
4. Doesn't it make a rather strong statement that biologically speaking, the sexual union these two women share - is in fact, scientifically speaking - inadequate?
No stronger a statement than it does for infertile couples.
5. Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?
I am assuming the design you are referring to is the "function that creates life." By that definition, sexually active infertile couples and couples beyond childbearing years are also "inadequate." If you are referring to some other intent for the design that intent is presumably available to gay couples as well.
6. Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario - purposefully, simply to stroke one's own desire to have a child - sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes?
Infertile couples and adoptive couples are not the natural parents of their children. Do they want children simply to stroke their desire to have a child?
This set of questions says more about the shallowness of your thinking than about exploring anything meaningful about this story.
|
|
Please provide the definition of marriage. Is this the definition in which wives were considered property? Does it include bans on interracial marriage in place in the 1950s?
Really, what difference does it make to you?
If you want to defend marriage, why not outlaw divorce? The vast majority of marriages end due to divorce. I'm not sure how two people of the same gender marrying impacts the marriage of others.
Oh, wait... outlawing divorce would make a great deal many of fundamentalist Christians 'sinners'.
Why is it that no one, including the blogger, has had any coherent response to myself, joliliberty, or naked pagan? |
|
Question 1...
The sexual union didn't produce the child, obviously. They felt they had created a stable and loving environment to raise a child.
2. The answer is obvious, in that a male is still necessary to donate the other chromosome. So?
3. Not your business, really. What does it mean to the thousands of sterile straight couples who must adopt or use medical procedures? I guess God wants them to be childless also. Maybe their grandparents were cursed unto the 7th gneration, and those couples are being disobediant to God by getting around His curse. You need to go smite them in the name of THE LORD, Kevin, and show who's boss!
4. See above...
5. It's not society's business. You can't complain about GLBT people talking about their private relationships if YOU keep sticking your nose into them!! Sanctimonius busybodies are SOOO amusing! Try sticking your nose into MY marriage, and you may get it cut off.
6. What study? Citation would be helpful. |
|
|
Why not just say "congratulations!" and send a card like real, civilized people do? Nope! Too easy and demonstrative of Christian love! Hate, condemnation and feigned rightousness are so much more fun, yes? Of course they are!!! |
|
This comment has nothing to do with the six questions. It has to with the ignorance of most these comments. If there is any shallowness it is the LACK of KNOWING the Living God.
Maybe if you strive to have a "intimat" relationship with the Creator you might understand where Mr. McCullough is coming from.
Intimacy does NOT require SEX. Having children does. Between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Why is that so hard to understand? Ah, I know. You have no "intimate" relationship with God through His Son Jesus.
For all the 'christian' liberals out there, what do you think would have happened if God chose to have Joseph become pregnate? That might be to far out there for you to think about. Now that's shallow.
Put the questions in context with God's word.
By the was, as for God writing legislation, it is sure better than what is being written now!
If judges would adhere to the law of God we wouldn't have this problem to the extent we have. And as for, "Glad to see conservatism being choked to death by self-righteous, self-appointed guardians of societal morality.", who is being self-righteous. Calling the kettle black are we!!? Scripture tells us that these would come to pass and much worse. (By the way, thanks for making it worse by YOUR WISDOM. Thank
God that man's wisdom is FOOLISHNESS to God.)
Back to Mr. legislation glad to see conservatism being choked to death, you must read the book of Revelation. You see, WE WIN BECAUSE GOD HAS ALREADY WON. Sorry for YOUR loss.
|
|
My head is spinning from the ignorant and predjudiced remarks on this board. Since the Vice-President is your hero, why not show both him and his daughter some respect? How dare you all impune Mary Cheney's motives? And treat her newborn with such flippant remarks. She must want to love that child badly to go to all the trouble. Some "family values" you are showing.
And how ironic that children who grow up in "normal families" learn to be predjudiced and cruel and tease non-traditional families. Children aren't born with predjudice, they LEARN it. |
|
I love the comments like "marriage in God's eyes". What hoot.
Listen, marriage in the United States has nothing to do with God. It is a legal contract allowed for some but not for others. You don't have to be Christian to get married. Athiests, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Satanists can get married. Under your definition, would Hindus be married in God's eyes? Does it matter? The short answer to the first question is who cares. The answer to the second is no.
In your world, God's law through the Bible controls all aspects of life. In the real world, fairness through the US Constitution determines our laws. All people are represented, not just Christians.
If judges, legislators and the executive operated from Bible principles only, they would neglect their duty to represent ALL citizens.
Live your life through the Bible. Pray to God. I celebrate and would defend with my life your right to do so. But understand that this country does not belong to Christians or to Chrisitanity. It belongs to the PEOPLE. This is not a country created by God. It was created by very wise men who knew that God should be a matter for the private sector. All are welcome. All are served.
BTW, Jesus was a Buddhist.
|
|
1. How did the exclusive sexual union of these two women bring about this conception?
Perhaps by using one of those frozen embryos the religious right thinks are so important, perhaps with a turkey baster. Perhaps they went to a sperm bank and looked up father=genius. Who cares? The result is what is important.
2. What does it mean, from a biological nature to realize that a man WAS in fact necessary for this conception to take place?
Are you feeling inadequate that you weren't asked to be the father? Sounds like you have some rage built up... Perhaps therapy is called for?
3. What does it mean to the supposed "intimacy" that "two people share" which was intended by the Creator to be a function that creates life, to be forced to include a third party?
Ah yes... All sex has to create life. Welcome to the Church that Martin Luther decided he did not like many centuries ago. Didn't we come to the Americas to escape this sort of thing?
4. Doesn't it make a rather strong statement that biologically speaking, the sexual union these two women share - is in fact, scientifically speaking - inadequate?
Nope. Their relationship is no more inadequate than the relationship of two heterosexuals who can't produce a child.
5. Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?
Who cares what society celebrates? I don't like football, but I'm not out protesting it in the streets as an abomination against the great god Nuggen!
Society "" re-elected Bush the Shrub too. Society can't be trusted one way or another.
6. Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario - purposefully, simply to stroke one's own desire to have a child - sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes?
Is it moral to bring a new child into the world at all, knowing that someone in the Bush family might draft it into an evil war? Is it moral to bring a child into the world, knowing that the child will eventually grow old (hopefully) and die? Is it moral to bring a child into the world knowing that many str8 parents divorce?
Comparing a child to a handbag is morally bankrupt. We no longer believe that the sins of the father are carried unto the seventh generation. That was a crock then, and its a crock now. This child has, potentially, a great future. I'm sure that Dick Cheney will be a properly doting grandpa, and I wish this family all the best.
You could learn some real Christian attitude, and ask the family to forgive your bigotry and hatred. Then ask your god of choice to do the same for you.
Grow up. |
|
...Mr McCullough. You are stating your convictions, and simply ending your sentence with a question mark. That is quite different. You are not really looking for a debate on the subject, are you?
I would argue that Mary Cheney and her partner, who seem to be decent, educated, worldly women, have taken careful steps towards this pregnancy, and believe – like any decent couple – that they can raise a child in a loving, nurturing environment. That's what they hope for, what they're going to try to accomplish. Like any decent couple, any decent single mom, or single dad. In the real world. And I'm pretty certain they've had conversations with the grand-parents to-be. One of them who happens to be the vice-president, who happens to be the father of a lesbian. I don't think an important, personal decision such as a pregnancy should be compared to shopping for shoes. You have all the right in the world to not agree with these two women, but shoes and handbags...that's really low. |
|
I'm a biologist, so let me take a whack at your questions since you invoke so much of it in your post.
1. How did the exclusive sexual union of these two women bring about this conception?"
It's basically a turkey baster. and a sperm donor. The donor could be unrelated to the couple, or could have come from, in this case, Heather's family, to confer the child with biological relatedness to both Mary Cheney (who is carrying and we are assuming the egg donor) and Heather Poe.
"2. What does it mean, from a biological nature to realize that a man WAS in fact necessary for this conception to take place?"
It means exactly that genes are needed from different sex parents in order for successful conception to take place. By the way, it is stupid to gleam morality tales from biological facts (infanticide is practiced all over the animal world, should we do it too whenever there's a famine?). This fact, in otherwords, is amoral, and dictate nothing about moral behavior, or the moral worth of the child. However, it does say plenty about the deep drive to have children and raise families, regardless of orientation, and the general desire of humans to use technology to overcome biology for human ends. That is significant.
3. What does it mean to the supposed "intimacy" that "two people share" which was intended by the Creator to be a function that creates life, to be forced to include a third party?
Intimacy is relative, and so is religion. As for the third party issue, infertile hetersexual couples are 'forced' to consider this option too if they want to be biologically related to their child. This is part of the human (social/biological/both?) instinct to share genes with one's progeny. Sure, one can argue that this instinct needs to be abolished in contemporary society, and I'd entertain that notion, but for the time being, gay couples and infertile couples have similar biological obstacles, and gut wrenching choices still need to be made.
4. Doesn't it make a rather strong statement that biologically speaking, the sexual union these two women share - is in fact, scientifically speaking - inadequate?
Sure, maybe. But our society's treatment of people should not be based on their supposed evolutionary worth. I refer to Hitler and the eugenics movement. To muse on the biological meaning of infertility or sexual orientation or genetic mutants within the human germ line is one thing, but to talk about whether these people deserve their dignity as human beings is an entirely separate, and more relevant, issue. I suggest a reading of the US constitution as a starter.
5. Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?
Good question. Is it healthy for a society to at least respect all infertile couples' struggle to follow their instincts to build families, as we have already done for infertile heterosexual couples? Isn't it healthy for society to allow people who have disabilities or genetic defects or anything else that causes them to fall short of biological human 'norms to live free of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination?
6. Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario - purposefully, simply to stroke one's own desire to have a child - sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes?
First of all, what data? Second of all, well referenced studies have found that children with 2 gay parents do as well as children in straight 2 parent homes. (see/search Ellen C. Perrin, MD.-Tufts). But the moral question is a different matter; is it 'moral' for children to be raised in 1 parent homes? With their relatives instead of their biological parents? In foster care/adoption? Such a hypothesis of morality ignores and belittles actual human conditions that often fall far short of idealized norms. And yes, having a child should be a purposeful decision; that's not debatable. Finally, is it ever apt to compare the overwhelming biological and social drives to have children with the desire to buy a pair of shoes? Now that is an immoral and incoherent analogy. |
|
"Why oh WHY are you so obsessed with gay people?"
Probably for the same reason Ted Haggard was.
I have to agree with the earlier poster, this is a country made up with people of different faiths. If, by any chance, my postings have offended anyone other Christians, I do apologize. I may not agree with your interpretation, but as the earlier poster stated, I would fight for your right for your own personal interpretation.
I'd like to think that there are bigger issues for us to focus on. Right now, a lot of people are being played to divert their attention from a lot of other, more pressing problems. |
|
1. How did the exclusive sexual union of these two women bring about this conception?
The same way the exclusive sexual union of straight naturally infertile people bring about conception- reproductive science you moron.
2. What does it mean, from a biological nature to realize that a man WAS in fact necessary for this conception to take place?
Mostly irrelevant since no man had to be present for conception.
3. What does it mean to the supposed "intimacy" that "two people share" which was intended by the Creator to be a function that creates life, to be forced to include a third party?
How do you know what "the Creator" intended, are you the divine messenger? Maybe we should ban all fertility treatments. If God intended people to have children, they would be able to the old fashioned way.
4. Doesn't it make a rather strong statement that biologically speaking, the sexual union these two women share - is in fact, scientifically speaking - inadequate?
Again, lots of sexual unions (even among straight, married Christians!) are inadequate to concieve without medical help. Until I see you call for an end to all fertility treatments, your arguement is empty.
5. Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?
Well, you just basically said MY (straight) marriage is not what it was "designed" to be since my wife and I do not have children. Perhaps you are suggesting a fertilty test and a legal commitment to pop out a kid or two before anyone can get a marriage license?
6. Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario - purposefully, simply to stroke one's own desire to have a child - sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes?
All decisions to have children are done to stroke one's desire to have a child, how is a gay couple's decision any more or less superficial than a straight couple's? Don't kid yourself, your kid is not a gift to society. I support any family that wants to raise a child in a stable home. Cheney and her partner have been together damn near 20 years. How many straight marriages have been that stable? |
|
This is why a lot of us think people like Mr. McCullough are bigots: because they condemn things when they're done by certain kinds of people but not when they're done by the "right" kinds of people.
So everything Mary Cheney and her partner are doing is done all the time by heterosexual couples who can't have children on their own.
Yet McCullough has nothing to say about that, and instead says that Mary Cheney and her partner are uniquely bad for doing what heterosexuals do all the time.
The only conclusion is that McCullough dislikes Cheney and her partner simply because they are gay (since he offers no example of anything they do that heterosexuals don't). And that's bigotry. |
|
|
Given the seriousness of the situation, it's obvious that all the true Christians should sign a petition for the immediate federal intervention in order to abort this god-damned child. As proven by all those eminent religious thinkers above, this baby just doesn't deserve to be born. [/s] |
|
naked pagan, you said re. this post:
"1. I dont know if it was exclusive or not. Sexuality is not a black and white thing. That being said, of course (for the time being at least) you need eggs and semen to make a baby
2. you need eggs and semen to make a baby
3. you need eggs and semen to make a baby"
But that is not all that is involved, and sexuality, God's way, is indeed very much black and white.
Your allusion that "for the time being at least"
2. "you need eggs and semen to make a baby"
3. "you need eggs and semen to make a baby"
sound like steps from a Betty Crocker recipe book.
A child is not a cocktail or a blob of creme brulee', regardless of the ~supposed~ amazing analysis you've given for the hows and whys of life and conception, naked pagan..
Despite the many missed nuanaces, and flails which keep falling under the feet of Truth, Liberals and their homosexual like-minded friends will never make what they deem right as right or righteouess when it comes to talk about marriage families and babies..
Gettin' "nakkid" and rolling around in mud all day, or whatever other past time controls the time of the unredeemed, then goin to the science lab to "make a baby" will always avoid the principles of God and how He made man to be..His "recipe" is infinite but will always involve one man and one women. In His ideal setting, married and committed for life.
There will always be something-profoundly-missing when these things are not by His hand or in His plan..
And lie-lovers like Mr. Sullivan will keep walking blindly and aimlessly into social and spiritual walls, as they run in the circles of life, in a never ending race to escape themselves..Or defend their sin..and attempt to talk others into a thing they can barely convince themselves of..
Clearly, Mr. Sullivan feels he has some-imagined-moral high ground, but in reality, the "reality" of which he speaks is only him coveting and enshrining and advocating his life of perversion, period.
I have made many an art and kitchen baking project, and I can assure you, there IS a vast difference between the skewed and tampered-with rinse and repeat dialectic you've outlined and the miracle of human life only to be made by God and His Holy Spirit..
Leave out the butter and milk dear ones..
God is in those details..
Fakes need not apply..
P.S. And if by chance a child is wrought by these experiments, do not even think of parallelling such spiritual and social conditions as two men or two women together sexually to a married woman and man who can't conceive or have no kids.
The very idea of that is inane, presumptive, and profoundly insulting.
It not only suggests that we are married people, but that because of our loss of a child or inabililty to bear that we are somehow, in some way, akin or parallell to homosexuals and sodomites who in their private and personal lives do some of the most damnable things.
DON'T DO NOT even go there young ones..
|
|
"Answer to 6 questions
My responses to your questions":
"1) Their union didn't produce the child. They probably had artificial insemination; just like tens of thousands of infertile couples. Why, some of these infertile couples have even gone so far as to "adopt" children to whom they have no biological relation!"
No, not "just like" infertile couples, BIG, VERY BIG difference..And why do you place the word "adopt" in quotes, it's not a fake action. Adoption is a real act, not a pretend overture..
"2) Not much. There are a lot of men who are needed to produce children. And then go ahead and desert them."
If men mean "not much" to you in the process of conception then you are either a homosexual or one who agrees with them. In any case, you feel men are "dispensible" when it comes to Life and procreation..Now why would a child you choose to have born via this procedure think "YOU" are so very important and not dispensible as well? Since you have talked the Father's part out of the picture, at least in your mind..
How very presumptive, short-sighted, how profoundly sad, and ignorant..
"3) See point 1 above. I didn't realize the "creator" was now writing our legislation. Glad to see 'separation of church and state' in action."
That phrase isn't even one that has legs, your divorcing yourself from the Creator makes Him no less real, nor the penalty you will pay for thumbing your nose at His plan and will for mankind. And, as always, when you chuck God's ways, you pay..
"4) I think the majority of Americans would agree that sex is more than just procreation; otherwise everyone would have dozens of children. However, if we were to leave it to the majority, maybe slavery would still be around."
Only a pro-homosexual party would connect, once more, slavery to a non-valid minority, like politicals homosexuals. A majority, no, more like most of the entire population resists homosexuality. it is against Life..And this, the political gays, is a fueled up group that is NOT "oppressed"..but oppressive..SO spare us the gay pity party..no one believes it under age 35..Pity the few that do..
"5) "Inadequate sexual unions". Do you mean that one of the participants isn't reaching orgasm? Apparently, in your world view, it only counts for men. You seem to have inordinately intimate insight into Mary Cheney's relationship."
An elementary understanding of the English language would prove helpful here. I know for you Liberals it's all about monkey love, but with all due respect, this is not about what he speaks..
And, again, you folks are always making it personal..just like those sodomites in Sodom, just couldn't leave the holy men alone..
Life is more than just the culmination of the love union made by God, and more than the mechanations that echo it in illicit associations.
Really is more to the big blue ball than the Kama Sutra ;-)
"6) My wife had volunteered at a children's shelter outside of Chicago that had plenty of products of male/female parents. A child's life is more dependent on the decency of the parents; not their gender."
Yes, and two Lesbians and two homosexual men who engage in their perverse and libertine sexual pasttimes are NOT about "decency"..Apparently, an arbitrary word lost on you too..This is not salad bar decency Sir, decency is decency, across the board..
Homosexuals are humans, fine, this does not make what they do or are attmpting to sell "Decent"..Just.Not...
And since when do bad Moms and Dads make homosexuals as "parents" ok? Really BAD logic..
"Glad to see conservatism being choked to death by self-righteous, self-appointed guardians of societal morality."
Well, sorry but there seems to be a plank in your eye, perhaps you can sashay away and sway back a bit to remove it..
Just because a Democratic win occured recently does not suggest a watershed moment for Liberal ideologies, and sinful faulty reasoning.. |
|
joliberty writes:
"First, I'm sure that they did not invite a third party into their bedroom. I'm sure they used a donor and fertility clinic like tens of thousands of your so-called "normal" couples do every year."
Heterosexuality IS normal. Sorry it's not to you..
"Second, gay people have kids. Gay people even get to keep their kids in our society. No matter how dangerous you may think it is, we are very lucky that the morality police can not come in and rip a child away because some people in society only believe in Leave It To Beaver land (pun intended)."
Homosexuals being allowed to "keep" children they have had scientifically spawned, while leaving the true Mothers and Fathers out of the picture in a normal away does not mean they can "have" kids, only that confused lawmakers have allowed it..It's NEVER been normal and it's NEVER been Right..
"Third, families take on all shapes and sizes. Get used to it. Their are single moms, single dads, grandparents raising grandchildren, older brothers raising sisters and yes even those evil homosexuals. In an age where children are abandoned, beaten, neglected and sold into sexual slavery, I can think of many worse fates for a child than a loving gay couple."
I don't..I think it is utter confusion and presumptive on the part of homosexuals to deny a child God's inheritance a normal life with his or her Mother AND Father..ANd allusions to exceptions, like Aunts or Uncles or single Moms is unfair..because they are NOT the rule and the missing party, be it a Mom or Dad is always missed there..
"Fourth, if you are afraid of the children being teased by other children then do us a big favor...DON'T TEACH YOUR KIDS HATE!!!! The hypocrisy is almost blinding. Don't teach your "normal" kids to look down on gay couples and maybe they won't act out the hate that you so cleverly hide underneath your righteous indignation."
Define "HATE"..You seem to know a bit about it..What is "hate" to you joliberty? I mean, other than a Conservative view that disagrees with yours..? "HATE"= code word for "A WAY OF SHUTTING UP CONSERVATIVES TO TRY TO MAKE THEM FEEL GUILTY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH"..
"Finally, Ms. Cheney does not have a "woman she lives with and engages in sexual behavior with - Heather Poe." She has a life partner (dare we say WIFE). She does not "engage in lesbianism". She's a lesbian. Reword it any way that you want so that you can cast as much judgement as possible, but remeber that hate by any other name would still smell like YOU."
Yes you DO DARE when you say "WIFE" about a lesbian living with another lesbian..MY Husband would hardly call that a thing akin to me, I am a Wife.."Reword it any way you want" is your domian, not ours..And words like "judgement" and "hate" are really code for: Close your eyes and give me the right to not only my perversions, but my rape of your coveted moral and social/spirtiaul inheritance:Marriage and all that that entails..
"I know you hate gays. I know you wish they would all crawl back in the closet only to emerge on halloween with the other evil spirits. Gratefully, you do not set the rules for how others live their lives. Luckily, you don't set the standard for "normal". And thankfully, society is beginning to see through this wall of shame you have set up and is coming to the realization that there are much bigger problems than gay families."
Get real. I have listned to him for 3 years straight. You wouldn't know this man from a stranger off the street. Clearly, you liberals seem to barely know your own perameters..
"When you are ready, the 21st century is ready to welcome you."
Nu-uh..You stay right.over.there.
.thanks..
*shifts* and we'll stay on our side :-) |
|
"And since when do bad Moms and Dads make homosexuals as "parents" ok? Really BAD logic.."
This after you complain about the use of quotation marks in relation to adoption. Homosexuals with children aren't "parents". They ARE parents. Often, as is the case with Mary Cheney, they are even biological parents in exactly the same way as heterosexual parents.
Your bigotry is blinding you to reality. It's sad, but also really funny. Keep spewing your hatred so that we can all laugh at you. Oh, yeah, and keep being arrogant enough to think you can speak for god in this matter. That's really funny too. |
|
reply to hogfarmer
Okay..head out of the swill now..(Sorry this is a bit tiring, and really sad, some of these replies..)
Hog, I am not even going to reply to all you've said it is such Libertine confusion..
Not to mention how your reply degrades itself into a soup of the lewd and profane..
DO me a favor and look at my other replies previously..
They pretty much sum up my reply to you and the likes of the "salad bar" family and bowing at the throne of orgasms (Sorry but true) that seems to be the stuff of your inclination/direction, moral baromteter..
I mean there is no moral barometer, but if there WERE..if you had some kind of direction, it would be for no morals, no ability to define decency, true decency..and appropriateness..or Rightness..
That would only be for "hate-rs" and "bigots" et al..
of course this is tongue in cheek, but it is really how you Liberals and political gays Do see things..
Newsflash..Life and people are not perfect..but Ozzie and Harriet were normal and the normal ideal..
Deal with it..
And anything less, excdept for God's grace in the life of the child or people, will create pain and problems, hurt, danger and misery..
Not to mention the displeasure of the Living God..
for those who are dealing with a debt of sin.. |
|
joliberty says:
" BTW, Jesus was a Buddhist."
Oh really? Is that what they call Him at "your" spiritual salad bar?
hemm..
And does He make a good Moo-Shoo Shrimp?
(These people are not just afoul, they are ridiculous..)
|
|
JayR writes: "sort of like a new handbag..."?
Kevin is being quite clear..
Politicized homosexuals hankering for parenthood because confused and morally bent lawmkers have allowed it does not make what the gays or the lawmakers are doing right..it never has and it never will..
The children in these cases are ALWAYS treated like accessories, because they are used as a symbol to try to place a stamp on an already nonvalid and illicit union..
Now if the child lives the human life is NO less valid in God's sight..
But those who have done this convoluted and sinful steps to accquire such a child have done so most selfishly..
They have done so with the blind imagining that two men or two women can rightly bring up a child and have them turn out in a normal way..
While Gos makes accomadations for women who are abandoned and men who are or people who are left in unusual circumstances, like orphans and widows, we are not talking about this..
We are talking about homosexuals thinking that renovating homes together and gaining a right to adopt a child somehow makes them and their union "normal" or how they have gone about acquiring said child the normal way, but it's not, and it doesn't..
Such "solutions" being often the last resort for REAL Husbands and Wives does NOT make them even close in alignement with two women or two men using their eggs or sed for a baby..
It's just not the same..
And such an argument is entirely rude, and truly insulting to those of us who cannot have a child or have lost children, but are still every bit as normal and loving in married unions as parents with s house full of kids..
There is just NO parallell between infertile men and women as married people and gays..
DON'T go there..because it's just a lie..
Just like the lie that a Black man can lose his blackness..and a gay is supposed to be a similar "oppressed minority"..
Salad bar ethics based on Evolution ideas..
Ever shifting and changing..
But not our God..
|
|
Richard, snapdigger and Mike lep
because it is NOT the same Sirs..
A man and Wife are NOT the same in seeking help for infertility as tow men or two women..
I know this is a fine point for you..but it is NOT for most human beings..
Let alone for Christians and Conservatives..
And this does not make us "hate-ful" or "bigoted" because we DON'T agree with lawmakers who want to say it's not so..
The King is two men or two women saying they "are parents" because a reporobate morally confused lawmaker allowed them to say they are..
And the King, my friends, still has, as he did in the age old story..
no clothes..
Some day they will all bow to the True King and will account for loving a lie, building their life around it..pushing it on others, at any cost..and dragging many innocent children along in the process..
Two men and two women in sin living together will never be Marriage no matter who says so..
It will always be what it simply is:
A situation..
Not a Marriage..
|
|
celtic-dragon writes
(sorry celtic-dragon, but your replies asked for this..)
"Kevin is at it again...
Question 1...The sexual union didn't produce the child, obviously. They felt they had created a stable and loving environment to raise a child."
Right, there was no sexual union, hence no valid one..Because only one man and one woman can create a TRUE sexual union.
"2. The answer is obvious, in that a male is still necessary to donate the other chromosome. So?"
We must keep in mind here the party I am quoting is an admitted transsexual.mr. dragon here..has shared this freely on these broards..I think that is, obviously, going to skew and blur his comments and replies on this issue..towards a Liberal and pro-homosexual slant..In this realm sexuality is blurred and "evolves" with changing laws..body parts..etc..
"3. Not your business, really. What does it mean to the thousands of sterile straight couples who must adopt or use medical procedures? I guess God wants them to be childless also. Maybe their grandparents were cursed unto the 7th gneration, and those couples are being disobediant to God by getting around His curse. You need to go smite them in the name of THE LORD, Kevin, and show who's boss!"
But it IS OUR BUSINESS when you and your crowd start butting into the realm of our CHILDREN, children as a whole and families and MARRIAGE. For this has not, historically, been your domian, ie not gthat of homosexuals and their company, and with good reason..The Mother and Father are not there, there is confusion, no propriety..God's stamp is not on it..These "life" styles are abborrhent to Him..That is His Word..and a natural fact..
Anyway, celtic-dragon, speaking as woman who has lost two babies in 13 months, I can assure, my loving Husband and I, would not ever feel any affinity to two lesbians or homosexuals who can't get their hands on a child they can be caretakers of in their homes..No connection at all..no matter how we would have our kids..if we are ever blessed to once more..
"4. See above..."
"5. It's not society's business. You can't complain about GLBT people talking about their private relationships if YOU keep sticking your nose into them!! Sanctimonius busybodies are SOOO amusing! Try sticking your nose into MY marriage, and you may get it cut off."
All the "GLBT"=Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgendered parties have DONE, the political ones anyywa, has been to stick THEIR, ahem, noses, into OUR busines,s by way of their pushing THEIR agenda on our schoolchildren, and in OUR courts DAILY, while they spend the REST of their time SLANDDERING us and seeking to SILENCE Christians and Conservatives both in courts, schools AND the media..
Just look at Elton John, Rosei O'Donnell, Andrew Sullivan and the REST of your company..
"6. What study? Citation would be helpful."
Why site what's obvious..
and pernicious..
There are none so blind..
|
|
I swore to myself that I wouldn't respond to another Kevin McCullough article, since he seems to bring out the worst in me. And yet, here I am again. I just can't quit you, Kevin!
Has everyone forgotten the fact that these two women have been together for fifteen years? This is a solid relationship that has withstood the test of time and all the ups and downs they've undoubtedly gone through. It seems to me that one of the most important things for a child is to have parents that love each other, and this baby will have that. Doesn't that count for something?
|
|
kempesh writes:
Mrs. V.."And since when do bad Moms and Dads make homosexuals as "parents" ok? Really BAD logic.."
"This after you complain about the use of quotation marks in relation to adoption. Homosexuals with children aren't "parents". They ARE parents. Often, as is the case with Mary Cheney, they are even biological parents in exactly the same way as heterosexual parents."
"Your bigotry is blinding you to reality. It's sad, but also really funny. Keep spewing your hatred so that we can all laugh at you. Oh, yeah, and keep being arrogant enough to think you can speak for god in this matter. That's really funny too."
Ok kempesh..now tell me more about the-
me you don't know..
And if your estimation "of me" is any reflection on how you size up life, people and situations, it would explain a lot..
It says you come to conclusions about people and things based on knowing nothing about them, or precious little..
I, on the other hand, do know abour Right and Wrong..and that is the domiain of anyone who seeks a redeemed place with the Almighty..
It is free to ALL here, but you have to want it, and THIS means forfeiting and letting go of life "your" way, and living a lie, and trying to shut up all who don't agree with this lie butlying about the people who share Truth and saying they "judge" and "hate"..
What, indeed, do you know of me Sir?
Or I of you?
But I DO know some things about what you defend and believe..how you live, or ways of living that you defend, and what you imagine is moral..
The same for you all, you have proclaimed it here..
And what you defend tells me who you serve..
essentially ..and who you don't..
A man or woman submitted to God will not serve Himself as commander in chief..
He, and his loins, answer to a higher authority than the mishmash of excuses for woeful compromises in child raising and families I have seen outlined here..
"Hate"?
What do any of you know about me or Mr. McCullough? As we have not opened dialogies about "hate", but about Right and Wrong..
It is your obsession with the rhetoric of the word "hate"..
I lost a cousin, my dear, dear one to the LIE of the "life" style you seem to covet..Don't DARE tell me it is based on TRUTH or real Love, because it killed him!!!
And don't lecture me with ignorant tossing about of the words "judge" and "hate", when only a person who Truly cares would take the TIME to inform you of your wrong..despite the braying and hawking reply by you all..
Mark my words you fool NO one and surely not your Maker..
All your twisted laws and "life" styles and excuses will fall as nothingness and dross under His feet when your soul gives and account to why you loved and pushed a lie..
If only I "hated" my dear sweet cousin a bit more..
He might be alive today..
|
|
I make typos when I start to get tired, but my points still the same. I edited my previous post for clarity.MrvV
_________________________________________________
kempesh writes:
Mrs. V.."And since when do bad Moms and Dads make homosexuals as "parents" ok? Really BAD logic.."
"This after you complain about the use of quotation marks in relation to adoption. Homosexuals with children aren't "parents". They ARE parents. Often, as is the case with Mary Cheney, they are even biological parents in exactly the same way as heterosexual parents."
"Your bigotry is blinding you to reality. It's sad, but also really funny. Keep spewing your hatred so that we can all laugh at you. Oh, yeah, and keep being arrogant enough to think you can speak for god in this matter. That's really funny too."
Ok kempesh..now tell me more about the-
me you don't know..
And if your estimation "of me" is any reflection on how you size up life, people and situations, it would explain a lot..
It says you come to conclusions about people and things based on knowing nothing about them, or precious little..
I, on the other hand, do know about Right and Wrong..and that is the domain of anyone who seeks a redeemed place with the Almighty..
It is free to ALL here, but you have to want it, and THIS means forfeiting and letting go of life "your" way and living a lie, and trying to shut up all who don't agree with this lie by lying about the people who share Truth and saying they "judge" and "hate"..
What, indeed, do you know of me Sir?
Or I of you?
But I DO know some things about what you defend and believe..how you live, or ways of living that you defend, and what you imagine is moral..
The same for you all, you have proclaimed it here..
And what you defend tells me who you serve..
essentially ..and who you don't..
A man or woman submitted to God will not serve Himself as commander in chief..
He, and his loins, answer to a higher authority than the mishmash of excuses for woeful compromises in child raising and families I have seen outlined here..
"Hate"?
What do any of you know about me or Mr. McCullough? As we have not opened dialoges about "hate", but about Right and Wrong..
It is your obsession with the rhetoric of the word "hate"..
I lost a cousin, my dear, dear one to the LIE of the "life" style you seem to covet..Don't DARE tell me it is based on TRUTH or real Love, because it killed him!!!
And don't lecture me with ignorant tossing about of the words "judge" and "hate", when only a person who Truly cares would take the TIME to inform you of your wrong..despite the braying and hawking reply by you all..
Mark my words you fool NO one and surely not your Maker..
All your twisted laws and "life" styles and excuses will fall as nothingness and dross under His feet when your soul gives an account to why you loved and pushed a lie..
If only I "hated" my dear sweet cousin a bit more..
He might be alive today..
|
|
Wow, two replies. Actualy the same reply twice. I must have struck a nerve. But where to start?
"Ok kempesh..now tell me more about the-
me you don't know.."
I know only of you what you have revealed through your posts here. But that is enough to know that you are a religious zealot and a homophobic bigot. And that you have no problem calling people liars when they have not in fact lied about anything. Your behavior tells me everything I need to know about you and your "morality".
"And if your estimation "of me" is any reflection on how you size up life, people and situations, it would explain a lot.."
Yes, it explains that I do not have the same blinders on to the world that you do.
"It says you come to conclusions about people and things based on knowing nothing about them, or precious little.."
The conclusions I have reached about you are based upon your own words. If my estimation of you is false, it is mostly your own fault.
"I, on the other hand, do know about Right and Wrong..and that is the domain of anyone who seeks a redeemed place with the Almighty..
It is free to ALL here, but you have to want it, and THIS means forfeiting and letting go of life "your" way and living a lie, and trying to shut up all who don't agree with this lie by lying about the people who share Truth and saying they "judge" and "hate"..
What, indeed, do you know of me Sir?"
Well first of all I know that you are delusional. I also know that you base your homophobia and bigotry on vauge and conflcting scripture. I also know that your savior said exactly NOTHING about the topic. Your preocupation with what two consenting adults in a commited relationship do in thier bedroom is also curious...
"I lost a cousin, my dear, dear one to the LIE of the "life" style you seem to covet..Don't DARE tell me it is based on TRUTH or real Love, because it killed him!!!"
I find this claim to be suspicious at best, and probably a lie. But Even if it is true, I have a dose of reality for you. No one ever dies from homosexuality (except for those people killed for being gay by bigots like you of course). I'm going to assume that your cousin, if he existed, died of AIDS. I have to assume because you didn't specify. AIDS, unlike what you have been lead to believe by liars, is not a gay disease. AIDS kills regardless of sexual orientation. Your cousin died because he didn't use proper protection. The same thing has happened to thousands of straight people. Homosexuality didn't kill your cousin, a lack of condoms did.
|
|
|
Why would we need to slander you? You do a good job of looking hateful and selfish all on your own. It's sad, because I actually like you, yet you persisty in this bizarre notion that ALL children are somehow YOURS. No, they are not. Period. You have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in how I raise my son, and if you believe you do, then you are no conservative! That is a LIBERAL fallacy right out of Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village..." book. Mary Cheney's child is a blessing, and the classy (not to mention polite) thing to say is "Congratulations!" and leave it at that. I pray you will be able to have another child. You still have no real right to bother Mary about hers. It's not our business. |
|
|
Well maybe an angel came down from heaven and told Mary (how fitting) Cheney that she is to bear the brother or sister of Jesus. Hey it worked once before and lots of people believed it. It's just another miracle from God! |
|
When will all you Bible Thumpers realize that not everyone subscribes to your religion and we will not, EVER, barring a totalitarian takeover, subscribe to it. I couldn't care less what the Bible says about anything, so stop pushing on other people. The only difference between you and the Islamists is that they back it up with guns, a big difference I'll grant you.
There are many gay people of faith, and I will let them debate the Bible with you but I couldn't care less.
And also, while gay parenting is a topic of reasonable debate pro and con, nearly all of the invective against Mary Cheney comes from a general hatred of homosexuals. If it were just about parenting, I could respect your opinion, if not agree with it. But you really don't want gays to be or do ANYTHING except turn straight or disappear. You are not fooling anyone. Gays having kids is merely the worst of a long list of things you hate about us.
But barring a holocaust, let me assure you we are NOT going away.
|
|
I'm sorry for the loss of your cousin.
If you had "hated" him any more, it wouldn't have made a difference. Don't you think Ted Haggard tried hard "not to be gay"? He was pretty familiar with the bible and had great incentive not "to go that way". But you know what? Ted Haggard was a jerk who cheated on his wife and ran the risk of exposing her to diseases that infect both straight and gay people.
If you want to say that being 'gay' is not normal, then fine, statistically, you'd be correct. However, it does occur in about 3-5% of the population. These people shouldn't be discriminated against because they're attracted to the same sex. Do you really think Britney Spears would be a better mom than Mary Cheney by dint of her sexual orientation?
I'm fine with you not 'accepting' the lifestyle. However, the problem is trying to enshrine our perceptions of acceptable lifestyles into law.
Where would we start? Leviticus? I'm sure I can come up with dozens of examples of cases where we could put 'violators' to death. How about Leviticus 20:2 "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones."
|
|
Mary Cheney is the new Virgin!
That's brilliant!
This thread desperately needed a touch of light-hearted humor.
But wait...what if it were true? Dick's daughter, the Virgin...
Mrs V. you certainly have a lot of time on your hands, replying to all these posts. How nice for you to be so convinced you can be the arbiter of Right and Wrong. The simplicity of your beliefs is quite tempting. Hmm, Temptation. I see horns.
|
|
kempesh writes:
"Mrs. V Wow, two replies. Actualy the same reply twice. I must have struck a nerve. But where to start? I know only of you what you have revealed through your posts here. But that is enough to know that you are a religious zealot and a homophobic bigot."
I am not sure how any of my posts indicate a thing about me other than that I am strongly in favor of God's will and plan for people and that I am a Christian. I see and saw nothing "bigot"ed about my words, not was there anything especially "phobic" about them at all.
But this is the rhetoric homosexual activists and blogggers use, yet the REALITY isno one who is speaking out against these things is particularly "phobic" about anything or any one.
Sharing that we do not AGREE with you, kempesh, is not a "PHOBIA", despite the rhetorical anthem the gay promoting community says it is..
It is not "hate" because "hate" has nothing to do with NOT agreeing with what others are saying and doing..
Do you "HATE" others because you disagree with them? Are you "PHOBIC" because you don't buy what they are saying and don't agree with them?
I think not..
"And that you have no problem calling people liars when they have not in fact lied about anything. Your behavior tells me everything I need to know about you and your "morality".Yes, it explains that I do not have the same blinders on to the world that you do.
The conclusions I have reached about you are based upon your own words. If my estimation of you is false, it is mostly your own fault"."
The Bible says that those who give over their lives to homosexual sin will love a lie, this lie being that this is what they are and all they are and that that is what defines them and their world. But it is not true..
As for my "morality" I don't see how what I have shared can create any chance for you to judge that, since you don't know me, number one, and since I have only shared about the error and sin behind homosexuals making these kinds of overtures and moves..
Sharing with you, and them that what they are doing is wrong is not just me saying it but God and His Word..
I have not come to any judgements of anyone here except that if they do these things it is wrong and bad for children and families and outof God's perfect will and His holiness..
And that is a fact if you read the Bible..
I, along with Mr. Mc have noted that these things aren't accomplishable by any science because there will always be the missing important fact and part of one man and one woman to bless each other and the family. That and that it is not normal or right or honest to suggest that two men or two women can actually make a child..
These things these women are doing are not just compromises, nor are they "evolutions", they are simply wrong..
The baby can't be blamed, he or she won't know this..
But any two men or women who do will surely hurt and confuse that little kid..
And NONE of these things say a negative thing about me except that I follow God's Word as the standard..for people..
NOR do they say anything especially "bigot"ed or "hate"ful about me, except that we am clear where we stand..about these things..
The fact that you can try to come to estimations about "me" when I have not come to any about you, except an analysis of why your points are wrong, shows what many have shared, that you folks can't argue for Truth and only end up falling short in your replies by coming back with intellectually dishonest and rhetoric filled untruths about "me"..
As if you knew a thing about me..
|
|
|
The key to homophobia is phobia not homo. Another conservative value that can be traced back to fear or religious self-righteousness. |
|
Mike LeP writes:
"Mrs. V - You are a bigot..Kevin says that Mary Cheney's sexual union is "biologically inadequate" because it is unable to result in the Creator's "desired effect." You can say these same things about any heterosexual couple that can't reproduce."
No you CAN'T. We have lost TWO babies in the last year and a half, and my Husband and I are QUITE biologically "adequate" because GOD made us a man and a woman! (Regardless of whether or not we can hold a child to TERM!!!)
"If Kevin is opposed to Mary Cheney's sex life because it is inadequate - and I don't believe for a second that he really is - then I've got to wonder why he doesn't seem to be bothered by straight relationships that also can't result in pregnancy."
Because Kevin does not AGREE with homosexual expression as a God blessed and valid or vialble form of sexual expression, nor do we..
I said it before IT'S JUST NOT THE SAME!!!!
"At least you admit it that your problem with Mary Cheney has nothing to do with pseudo-biological babble and you just oppose her homosexuality for religious reasons. And that's terrific - you have every night to feel that way. Just like I have a right to consider you a hateful bigot and a poor excuse for a Christian."
SIR, you have NO RIGHT to speak to ME that way when you know N O T H I N G about me, my family, my personal inner life, nor about MY heart or how I think or feel about PEOPLE.
All YOU "know" is some words on a screen and my views about these things and that is NOT quite enough for you to come to IGNORANT, DISHONEST, and politically vacuous and rhetorical statements about who "YOU" think I am or an to be..
As it stands, you, not knowing the love in my heart, or even seeing my face or expression, would not know me from a BUM OFF THE STREET.
"It must be very sad for Mary Cheney to know that her father has spent the last six years pandering to people who hold her committed, 20+ year relationship in such disregard."
The worst lost come to untrue judgments about a group or individual when they know nothing of them or their hearts or motives..
But I DO understand what the gay people are promoting they have been VERY CLEAR About it as have the Liberlas like you, so we CAN reply honestly that they, and YOU have been WRONG.. |
|
I am certainly prejudiced against gays. I have no problem admitting it. Why people cringe when these lefties throw around the word "bigotry" and "hatemonger" is constantly a source of confusion to me. . What we're talking about is prejudice. Its especially amusing when the same persons are obviously so prejudiced against Christians that the ONLY way you see us is as "hate mongers" and "bigots".
I've explained this a million times to lefties and I'll do it again - just because you disapprove of someone's conduct or lifestyle without hating doesn't mean the rest of us can't do that. The continuous denial I get from lefties about how thats not possible tells me everything I need to know about them.
Also, why do so many obviously gay people spend so much time in these threads ? Do you honestly think throwing around words like bigot and hatemonger are going to change anybody's opinion ? Or does it just give you a thrill to throw ad hominems at people in the comfort of mom's basement ? |
|
*How nice for you to be so convinced you can be the arbiter of Right and Wrong.*
I'm pretty sure Mrs. V has made it quite clear she is not the arbiter, merely the messenger.
You assume there is no God and thus, Mrs. V is making things up. Well, as has been pointed out to most of you on numerous occasions, if we're wrong and you're right, none of this will mater- when we're dead, we're dead and because we'll be dead, no one will be looking back on their death bed and after (if there is any after) at their lives and saying "Gosh I wish I had more gay sex".
But if we're right and you're wrong, well, I'd invest in some fire resistant clothing.
|
|
Let me get this straight: Merely being accepting of gays but not being gay is enough to get me sent to hell? How about voting Independent?
Why do you pick and choose which acts will get one sent to hell? Again, let's go back to Leviticus.
Are you following the word of God just to avoid hell? It sure seems like the fall-back argument. Do you worship God for the sake of worshipping him and for his glory or is it merely the fear of hell? |
|
|
I updated my blog with some thoughts about Pearl Harbor and remembrance. Click on my name if you care to read... |
|
*Merely being accepting of gays but not being gay is enough to get me sent to hell?*
Nope, not at all. I believe if you die without Christ, you will go to Hell. I also believe it is very difficult for a homosexual to be both homosexual AND christian. However, thats between them and God and I'm certainly not the person to make that definitive judgment.
*Are you following the word of God just to avoid hell? It sure seems like the fall-back argument"
I'm not sure how you gathered that by my comments but its a pretty big stretch. My point, of course, was that many secular liberals believe there are no ultimate consequences for their decisions and conduct. When I face off against someone who admits they do not believe in God, I usually pose the argument to them in the way I've set out above - ie "whats the long term consequences" if you're wrong and if I'm wrong. I want them to think about that. Plus, fear of Hell is, when boiled down to it, fear of eternal seperation from God. Yes, I fear hell as I fear God, if fear equals "healthy respect for ultimate power and consequences". |
|
*The inconsistent and illogical rationales people like Kevin McCullough toss around to justify their beliefs and; *
Hrm, just because you don't understand it and/or agree with it doesn't mean the Kevin's position is illogic or irrational. Thats a juvenile position to take. For example, I can see both sides of the swearing in with the Koran issue thats such a hot topic, even though I have an opinion on the subject. If you'd like to expound more on the irrational/illogical points you think Kevin is making, feel free to set them out.
*The fact that some people on the extreme religious right try to use the legislature to force their own personal, religious beliefs on society via the legislative and judicial branches.*
First, what is the "extreme religious right" ? Thats a term lefties use as an ad hominem. Am I a "extreme religious righty" because I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry ? If so, there's alot of "extremists" in this country and not surprisingly, not all of those extremists are christian. So you're overgeneralizing without defining the term.
Second, the "progressive" agenda has been shoved down the throats of conservatives by the court's for years. I'm not fond of abortion but I'm not bombing abortion clinics- I'm voicing my opinion with my vote. Are gays doing that ? Of course not. My solution to the entire gay marriage issue is leave it up to the states- keep the federal government out of it, don't amend the constitution, etc. But the response I get to that most reasonable of solutions is that its "unfair" that most states would pass laws banning gay marriage and only a few would pass state laws permitting it. The only thing gay advocates really want is for every person to be forced to accept that their lifestyle is normal, primarily those people who find it morally repugnant. And those gay activitists are circumventing the legislative system we have in this country to do it. So when you look at who is using the legislature and the courts to push their agenda forward, look no further than gay "rights" activists and their sponsers in the democratic party.
Finally, YOU may not care what we think about homosexuals but every single person who chimed in about how we're bigots apparently does. If you didn't care, why attack people who do ?
|
|
*The premise of Kevin's post is that Mary Cheney's inability to conceive through sexual intercourse with her partner renders her relationship "biologically inadequate." By his logic, my sister's relationship with her husband is also biologically inadequate by virtue of her inability to get pregnant by traditional means*
I should point out that the distinction is, no matter what, Mary Cheney and her lesbian partner are biologically inadequate to ever produce a child whereas your sister suffers from a medical condition that many times can be treated so conception can occur. Even if it can't, your sister was created (or evolved, however you look at it) specifically to mate with another man and conceive a child. |
|
Bear with me for a second. You say:
"The only thing gay advocates really want is for every person to be forced to accept that their lifestyle is normal, primarily those people who find it morally repugnant."
Now please try to imagine, for a second - or two - being told that YOUR lifestyle is morally repugnant. Don't switch to "yes, but..." mode for a few seconds. YOU ARE MORALLY REPUGNANT. REPUGNANT.IMMORAL. ABNORMAL.
Now, how should I expect you to react? You consider yourself a decent person, with decent moral values, going about your life, trying to do the best you can. How offensive are those words to you? Should I, in return, expect you to have nice things to me?
|
|
*Now, how should I expect you to react?*
Fair enough. I certainly understand why homosexuals don't want to hear that. I really do. I think most people consider themselves decent people with decent moral values but that doesn't necessarily make it so. However, I've known gays who are fine decent people and I like them personally. Liking them personally does not mean I have to accept everything about them, including their sexual preference. I don't "hate" gays as I'm constantly accused of when I oppose gay marriage.
Your comments raise another point though - Christians are not hunting down gays in the streets, barring them from restaurants, trying to make homosexuality illegal etc. I'm certainly not an advocate of any of those things. But homosexuals activists have been in our faces for a decade about the gay marriage issue and they wlil never back down until they get their way. Christians and non-christians who oppose gay marriage are drawing a line in the sand. Gays have already pushed through adoption, which I disagree with. My opinion (mostly speculation) is that gays only want marrriage so they'll be accepted as the "same", not because they think marriage will in any way change the feelings they have for each other.
I've put myself in the shoes of homosexuals- now you put yourself in the shoes of a CHristian. Marriage is a sacred promise between a man and woman- Christ compared the bond between a man and a woman to the bond between Christ and his church. No fault divorce has somewhat devalued marriage in some ways (and for a laugh, look at how/why/when/where no fault divorce came about) but though its less sacred to humans, that doesn't mean its any less sacred to God. Many many people still consider a marriage a sacred bond and those who do not are much more likely to get divorced.
|
|
... look no further than this man.
"They are angry with our nation. But we tell them 'so be it and die from this anger'. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth," he said.
The outspoken president also maintained Iran's defiance ove"
THAT is the real enemy my friends- not Christians, not gays. If he wins, everybody loses, both those who worship God and those who worship tolerance/open mindeness.
|
|
Do you see leaving the whole gay marriage issue up to the states as a compromise between both sides?
I certainly think it would be a whole less divisive and would remove it from the table from extremists (on both sides) as a wedge issue.
Given that positive attitudes towards gay marriage have gained traction in recent years, I think gay marriage in most states would be a given in about a decade.
At that point, people can focus again on the quality of parenting rather than sexual orientation. I don't have a problem with people having a problem with gay marriage, I just don't think they should be denied the same rights as other Americans.
There's got to be a third way; I don't think this country can continue its present course of everything being an all-or-nothing fight.
We still have the war on Islamo-fascism, deficit spending, Social Security reform, Medicare reform, global warming, etc. to contend with. Let's find the middle ground and move on.
Peace. |
|
"Your comments raise another point though - Christians are not hunting down gays in the streets, barring them from restaurants, trying to make homosexuality illegal etc."
huh? Yeah, actually, there are Christians who are doing exactly that. The Traditional Values Coalition was added to the Southern Povert Law Center's hate groups list for advocating the imprisonment and even execution of GLBT people. Numerous "Christian" commentators (Cal Thomas especiallY) openly supported laws criminalizing gay relationships. GLBT people are still fired from their jobs, denied insurance for partners, denied visitation at hospitals and denied essential dignity...just so people like you can be smug about your rightousness. Actually, it's just disgusting. |
|
Thank you for acknowledging that language can be extremely hurtful. You've got to be ready to be called names when you're using them yourself.
I was raised Protestant, in Switzerland, a country known for its "neutral" take on social and political issues (as long as it is convenient, or brings in cash. Or gold teeth from the camps, in the early 40s). I have no problem putting myself in the shoes of a christian, believe me.
You can be opposed to gay marriage, to gay adoption. Be my guest. A lot of gays are actually not interested in getting married. Or in adopting. Or in being "the same." A lot of gays found it preposterous, over a decade ago. "Why would we want to get married? Just to be like the heteros?" Truth is, marriage can be many things. A social contract, a sacred promise, a spiritual bond, a declaration of love, a joint bank account, hospital visitation rights, etc...etc...
A religious wedding is certainly one of those options. A jewish, a muslim, a sikh wedding. None of them define religious marriages, or marriage in general.
The discussion over gay marriage came about in the late 80's when more and more people faced the fact that a gay man could lose his lover of many years to illness (and women who lost their lover to AIDS also), having been refused the right to hold his hand at the very end, and finding shared belongings locked away by the family of the lover who had passed. That's when it truly started. Because it happened over, and over, and over again. Because of fear, ignorance or a simple lack of love.
As you said, your opinion about gays just wanting to be "the same" was only speculation. We have a history, Matt. We've always been here and always will. We've been your uncles, your school-teachers, your priests, your fathers, your mothers. Everybody. Always. Everywhere. As God and/or evolution intended. Society simply wouldn't function if everybody followed a single model of heterosexual couples married with children. You need that unmarried aunt who takes care of the kids, sometimes. |
|
"I am not sure how any of my posts indicate a thing about me other than that I am strongly in favor of God's will and plan for people and that I am a Christian. I see and saw nothing "bigot"ed about my words, not was there anything especially "phobic" about them at all."
Well, let's get started then, shall we? How about this little gem...
"They have done so with the blind imagining that two men or two women can rightly bring up a child and have them turn out in a normal way.."
That's pretty bigoted. And factualy incorrect. Many thousands of gay couples have raised children that turned out perfectly normal. In fact it is the consensus opinion of mental health proffesionals that there is no inherent disadvantage for a child raise by homosexual parents.
Now back to this little blurb again...
"And since when do bad Moms and Dads make homosexuals as "parents" ok? Really BAD logic.."
I loved this one. And since you didn't adress it, I thought I'd give you a second chance. Listen, homosexuals can and are parents in exactly the same way as heterosexuals. Lesbians can be mothers, and gays can be fathers. Period. To insinuate otherwise with your quotation marks is factualy incorrect and VERY bigoted.
"But this is the rhetoric homosexual activists and blogggers use, yet the REALITY isno one who is speaking out against these things is particularly "phobic" about anything or any one. Sharing that we do not AGREE with you, kempesh, is not a "PHOBIA", despite the rhetorical anthem the gay promoting community says it is.."
Oh, poor confused bigot. Let me help you with this. Here's the commonly accepted definition of the English word "homophobia" taken from Webster's dictionary.
homophobia
One entry found for homophobia.
Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
This definition fits you and your comments to a "T". You discriminate against homosexuals as parents, as spouses, and as people. This discrimination is profoundly irrational. This behavior makes you a homophobe. This is not rhetoric, just the facts.
If you are upset about being a bigoted homophobe, you need to change your behavior instead of complaining about people who point out this unpleasent fact to you.
"It is not "hate" because "hate" has nothing to do with NOT agreeing with what others are saying and doing.."
'I don't hate homosexuals, I just think that their behavior is evil and that they are doing the work of Satan whenever they express their love for eachother physicaly. I also think that they are immoral and that my god is going to send them to Hell where they be punished for eternity with torment and anguish when they die. And my god is perfect and doesn't make mistakes, so they must deserve their punishment.'
Sorry sweetheart, but that is a distinction without a meaningfull difference.
"Do you "HATE" others because you disagree with them? Are you "PHOBIC" because you don't buy what they are saying and don't agree with them?"
No I don't usually. But as I demonstrated above, you do.
"I have not come to any judgements of anyone here except that if they do these things it is wrong and bad for children and families and outof God's perfect will and His holiness.."
Well I'd call that a pretty big judgement. And one totaly unsupported by evidence. That's what make you a bigot. |
|
*uh? Yeah, actually, there are Christians who are doing exactly that. The Traditional Values Coalition was added to the Southern Povert Law Center's hate groups list for advocating the imprisonment and even execution of GLBT people*
Send me the link to the story proving it, send me a link to the email for that organization and I promise you I will send an email denouncing it. However.. I know the southern poverty law center is not exactly... shall we say "unbiased". I have no interest in trying to change what occurs in your own home. I can't say everyone doesn't but I also can't control "everybody"
*Numerous "Christian" commentators (Cal Thomas especiallY) openly supported laws criminalizing gay relationships.*
I think thats gross overreaching to assert that gay relationships should be criminalized. My personal stance is you can do what you want in private, assuming its not hurting anyone but yourself and its not breaking any laws. Its between you and God otherwise. If you don't believe in God, then its between you and your conscience, with human law as the ultimate boundary.
|
|
|
The real problem is that there is about to be another Cheney in the world. |
|
*Do you see leaving the whole gay marriage issue up to the states as a compromise between both sides? *
Yes, basically. I'm certain several states would pass laws permitting gay marriage and if the majority of a state's citizens want gay marriage to be legal, I would accept that. If a state passed a law that so offended the individual voter, one way or the other, said voter could either chose to move to another state or accept the will of the majority.
I object to gay marriage for traditional reasons, religious reasons and constitutional reasons. However, I do not think you can force morality on an individual and if you try to do so, you end up with the middle east. What I find most ironic about the conflict between gays and Christians is that while Christians might tell you they think what you are doing is wrong, they will not under any circumstances attempt to behead you.
*We still have the war on Islamo-fascism, deficit spending, Social Security reform, Medicare reform, global warming, etc. to contend with. Let's find the middle ground and move on.*
Even as a rightwing religious zealout (apparently) I wholeheartedly agree with that. The United States is quite honestly, big enough for most of us to co-exist, even if we have to somewhat apportion out (on a state level) which states will tolerate what behavior from a legal standpoint. Supreme Court precedent is sufficient to keep gays from being criminalized and again, from a religious right wing extremist position, I don't care what anyone does in the comfort of their own home. Maybe I should but I always go back to, "thats between you and God". |
|
Matt Esq said:
"Its especially amusing when the same persons are obviously so prejudiced against Christians that the ONLY way you see us is as "hate mongers" and "bigots".
I've explained this a million times to lefties and I'll do it again - just because you disapprove of someone's conduct or lifestyle without hating doesn't mean the rest of us can't do that. The continuous denial I get from lefties about how thats not possible tells me everything I need to know about them.
Also, why do so many obviously gay people spend so much time in these threads ? Do you honestly think throwing around words like bigot and hatemonger are going to change anybody's opinion ? Or does it just give you a thrill to throw ad hominems at people in the comfort of mom's basement ?"
Thank you Matt for saying everything I was too tired/busy/pressed for time/upset to say...
If Matt keeps this up, he is officially appointed my backup reply person if I can't make it to speak on these boards..at least for most of his points..
I mean, that's not written in stone.. |
|
kempesh said:
"How about this little gem...
Ok I think I've seen you write here before as a homosexual advocate on another area of this forum, at other columns of Kevin's in the past few months..
I remember you because of that phrase..
You were advocating gays, and gay yourself, I believe, but am not sure..
In any case, you sought to take my quotes, my words..and used them as what you called "gems"..
You then proceeded to play games with "my" 'gems' as you called them..
You know as much as I am entirely uninterested in having deep,long, argumentative, rangey, stressful and boring dialogues with folks who continue to seek to define "me" (and do not know me) by their rhetoric repetoire, I think, with you sir I will sit this one out..
First, because I don't see a discussion with you, it is all about guilding the lily in the direction of your point like a blood hound (you) missing my point, time after time after time..
It's tiring..
No one wins in those talks, they are endless, tedious bandies back and forth about one person blaming another and then name calling, what have you..
I have enough to contend with in my blessed and happy everydaylife than to sit and try to explain the mes of "me" to a couple of disgruntled gay folks..
The fact is, no one knows the heart of anyone here, so words that are the basis of "hate" and hate crimes are quite meaningless, unless actual hateful acts occur, ie really flagrant crimes, not calling Clay Aiken a homo..
SO let's deal genuinely or not at all..
I will agree that kempesh and I have no further discussion, because his talk to me has deteriorated into a discussion where there is no real one..
And I will agree to consider talking to him and addressing him/his comments once more when he can act like the humaan being he claims Mr. McCullough and I are not..
As for Mike LeP, you're just insulting..
Thank you..
P.S. And this is not because I have no real or logical replies to all this swill, it is because some discussions are fruitful and others are an excercise in someone else's abuse.in this case mine I think.or wasting of their time..No thank you..
Then you, kempesh, started going on about my sharing about my deseased cousin who was a practicing homosexual, suggesting my sharing was a lie. You said this to me:
"I find this claim to be suspicious at best, and probably a lie. But Even if it is true, I have a dose of reality for you. No one ever dies from homosexuality (except for those people killed for being gay by bigots like you of course). I'm going to assume that your cousin, if he existed, died of AIDS. I have to assume because you didn't specify. AIDS, unlike what you have been lead to believe by liars, is not a gay disease. AIDS kills regardless of sexual orientation. Your cousin died because he didn't use proper protection. The same thing has happened to thousands of straight people. Homosexuality didn't kill your cousin, a lack of condoms did."
But you're wrong. Most gay men are the bearers and carriers of this disease, and those who have been intimate with them. It was once even called the "Gay Plague"..
Anyway, I tire of feeling need to explain to perfect, or imperfect, strangers, the truth about real people in my life and real things that have happened to them and me by being connected to them..
I shared this because losing him is part of why I share here on these things today, that and because I care about my family and Christians' rights and liberties, and everyone's and the welfare of people in the world..
I find your words kempesh, and people here like you, not only presumptuous, and rude, but bigoted and hateful in your own right, not to mention harsh, and insulting..
The mere suggestion that I would LIE about my cousin in order to make some kind of point at a political forum, or any place, is beyond belief to me..
Maybe that's the sort of thing you and your ilk do, floating around all over Townhall with 50 different names and a barrel of insults and rhetoric all trippy-like, but not me..
P.P.S And I don't just have issues with gay politicos who actually vigilantly 'hate' Christians. I take exception to anyone and anything that is against men, women and society, the essence of God and faith, families and the beauty and wholesomeness of Life itself..
That means, in certain cases, I would, yes, shocktoyou, even defend the rights of a 'gay' person, if they were wanting legitimate rights..
Not fake rights going after things gthat were never their birthright to begin with, nor ever should have been..
Nor can ever truly be..
Like two girls making a child, or children not deeply needing a Mom AND a Dad, etc. etc. etc.
|
|
Here is some info. The TVC has called for the criminalization of gay people according to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Values_Coalition
although I cannot find attributation. My best guess is that the TVC, according to its own website believes that most or all gay people are pedophiles, and should be imprisoned on that basis.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/
“Today’s Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas law against homosexual sodomy is a defeat for public morality and America’s families. This ill-conceived decision will have serious repercussions upon public health and welfare in Texas and other states that still criminalize sodomy.”
—Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of Traditional Values Coalition.
Here is another link.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2049
here's another story with some interest:
First appeared in Reason, November 1998.
FOR CONNOISSEURS OF SURREALISM on the American Right, it's hard to beat an exchange that appeared about a decade ago in the Heritage Foundation magazine Policy Review. It started when two associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote an article which criticized Christian Reconstructionism, the influential movement led by theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, for positions that even they as committed fundamentalists found "scary." Among Reconstructionism's highlights, the article cited support for laws "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards". The Rev. Rushdoony fired off a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his followers' views all wrong: They didn't intend to put drunkards to death.
Ah, yes, accuracy does count. In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishmentÑwhich would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution would include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or "betrothed virgins." Adulterers, among others, might meet their doom by being publicly stonedÑa rather abrupt way for the Clinton presidency to end.
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26856.html
From "wired news":
Out of this wreckage, North and many other Christian Reconstructionist men hope to build a harsh biblical order where sinners, such as adulterers and gay men, can be severely punished, even executed, preferably by stoning.
"Female homosexuality, or lesbianism, is a manifestation of the same evil as the masculine form, but the death penalty is reserved for the men," wrote R. J. Rushdoony, North's father-in-law, in The Institutes of Biblical Law. North contributed an appendix on Christian economics to the 1973 treatise, which laid the intellectual foundation for the Reconstructionist movement.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,17193-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1
If you google "Judge Roy Moore stoning gay" you get quite a bit on him also. He was the former chief justice of Alabama. have fun with the info |
|
"Ok I think I've seen you write here before as a homosexual advocate on another area of this forum, at other columns of Kevin's in the past few months..
I remember you because of that phrase..
You were advocating gays, and gay yourself, I believe, but am not sure.."
You're a funny bigot. No mam, I have never been here before. I've never posted here before this thread. And no, I'm not gay. I'm straight and recently married to a beautiful woman whom I adore with all my heart.
But what if I was born gay? What if I found a man that I loved in just the same manor that I love my dear wife? Who the hell would you be to pass judgement on my feelings for him? Who the hell would you be to tell me I didn't love him the same way I love my wife? Who the hell would you be to tell me my feelings for him were immoral and evil? I didn't wake up one morning and decide to like girls. And I didn't wake up one morning and decide to love my wife. I'm sure it's the same way for gays, but harder. Why would they chose to be a persecuted and hated minority? Why would they go through all the crap they have been forced into over the last two thousand years just to be treated as equals? Would you want to fight for your right to love your husband? Would you put a tenth the effort into maintaining your relationship in the face of people screeming about how evil you are just for acting out of love for another human being? I doubt it. In the end, you're a speed-bump in human history. People like you will slow down human progress, but you can never hope to stop it. Homophobes like you will fall by society's wayside just as the racists and the sexists have before you. You have already lost this argument. It will just take a few years for it to sink in.
"Then you, kempesh, started going on about my sharing about my deseased cousin who was a practicing homosexual, suggesting my sharing was a lie. You said this to me:
'I find this claim to be suspicious at best, and probably a lie. But Even if it is true, I have a dose of reality for you. No one ever dies from homosexuality (except for those people killed for being gay by bigots like you of course). I'm going to assume that your cousin, if he existed, died of AIDS. I have to assume because you didn't specify. AIDS, unlike what you have been lead to believe by liars, is not a gay disease. AIDS kills regardless of sexual orientation. Your cousin died because he didn't use proper protection. The same thing has happened to thousands of straight people. Homosexuality didn't kill your cousin, a lack of condoms did.'
But you're wrong. Most gay men are the bearers and carriers of this disease, and those who have been intimate with them. It was once even called the 'Gay Plague'.."
Indeed it was mislabeled as the gay plauge by people who didn't know any better back in the 80's. People who were motivated out of ignorance and fear, just like you today. However the rest of the sane world has learned and moved on. AIDS doesn't care what your orientation is. Being gay doesn't give people AIDS, unprotected sex of any orientation does. This is a simple and inescapable medical fact. You can lie to yourself as much as you care to. It will change nothing. Your cousin wasn't a 'practicing' homosexual any more than I am a 'praciticing' heterosexual. Your cousin died from risky sexual behavior, ie, unprotected sex. This can and does happen to gays and straights alike. AIDS is not a valid argument against homosexuality no matter how badly you want it to be. Deal with it. Bigot.
|
|
|
Thanks for the links, I'll check into it today. |
|
*But what if I was born gay?*
If you were born gay, you'd be a protected class under US discrimination laws. I can't tell you there's *not* a gay gene but I can tell you if there was a verified gay gene, thats all gay rights advocates would need to claim protected status under US law and I suspect much of this discussion would be moot.
*Who the hell would you be to pass judgement on my feelings for him*
We're not. We're telling you that we believe marriage is between a man and a woman and we want the institution of marriage preserved as such. I can disapprove of gay lifestyles without trying to ban them.
*Why would they chose to be a persecuted and hated minority?*
I'm not sure but again, until its proven otherwise, sexual preference is a choice. I'm not trying to be difficult here but when you're discussing homosexuality, you can't throw around "gay is not a choice" without backing it up with facts. I've seen one study out in California that indicated there *may* be a gay gene but again, its never been proven and its never been scientifically accepted.
And in a related note, "why do woman choose bad men?". Humans do terribly self destructive things to themselves and its not limited to sexual behavior. So the *why* of it is not known- I assume (not being gay myself) that the reasons are typically different from gay person to gay person- the one thing in common is the person feels attracted to the same sex.
*People like you will slow down human progress, but you can never hope to stop it.*
Why do you consider undermining societal norms "progress?". You are missing the big picture as to why societies encourage and reward marriage with a special status- its simple- survival of the society. You are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes progress, neither am I- the country as a whole is and the country has said, very loudly, on numerous occasions, "no gay marriage". We're not a speedbump, we're a big !@#!ing mountain and attempting to run us over and/or insult us is not going to make things any easier.
*AIDS doesn't care what your orientation is. Being gay doesn't give people AIDS, unprotected sex of any orientation does. *
If you want, I can try to find some studies which indicate homosexuals are much more likely to pass on the AIDS virus then heterosexuals. I believe it has to do with tearing relating to anal sex but honestly, I'm not an expert. But neither are you, as you are throwing out "facts" which are, quite frankly, not true. I think most of us can agree that like it or not, homosexuals were the primary carrier of the disease and unfortunately, due to our promiscuous society, the disease was passed to heterosexuals. Is this fact in every case ? Of course not. But at the same time, attempting to minimize the impact that AIDS has on a person's perceptions of gays is intellectually dishonest.
*AIDS is not a valid argument against homosexuality no matter how badly you want it to be. *
So if a much higher percentage of homosexuals suffer from AIDS then heterosexuals, you don't think that would be a significant factor against homosexuality from a health risk standpoint ? Come on, you're not thinking, you're throwing around words like "bigot" and I'm not even sure you understand what the word means. If homosexuals are at higher risk to contract AIDS, its an argument against the homosexual lifestyle. Its NOT an argument against gay marriage, however, which is rooted in more religious and traditional grounds. |
|
|
I have had it with these forum. Gays , just stay away from these people - they are hopelessly predjudiced and ignorant, and I think the best defense is to ignore them. |
|
*I think the best defense is to ignore them. *
You'll be missed. T |
|
"...until its proven otherwise, sexual preference is a choice."
Do you mean to say that one "choses to prefer" or "prefers to chose."?? Would you maybe want to take into consideration that 99.9% of homosexuals are telling you it's not a choice. Or is it that our first-hand, intimate knowledge of the subject is of no value, compared to your opinion of it? Again, why would I chose to be called "repugnant," "abnormal" and "immoral"? Because gay sex is just so incredibly more fun than straight sex, because loving my boyfriend is so much more extraordinary thrilling than the love my brother has for his wife? Come on...
"societies encourage and reward marriage with a special status- its simple- survival of the society"
At 6.5 billions, I think we're ok for a while. And I think society is doing fine. We don't have many historical examples pointing to much better times than these. We can certainly do better, but we've certainly done much worse.
"If homosexuals are at higher risk to contract AIDS, its an argument against the homosexual lifestyle."
Again, you're smarter than that. It's a virus. Some people are always at higher risk. And if God had decided to kill off the homosexuals, as it's been pretty widely suggested by loving souls, I'm quite certain he could have come up with a much more safe-proof method. Otherwise, he's got some major anger-management issues to deal with in regards to Africa. |
|
"If you were born gay, you'd be a protected class under US discrimination laws."
Only once the language of those laws are updated to reflect that reality.
"I can't tell you there's *not* a gay gene but I can tell you if there was a verified gay gene, thats all gay rights advocates would need to claim protected status under US law and I suspect much of this discussion would be moot."
Ah yes, the gay gene falacy. Listen, human genetics and behavior is so much more complex than that. The likely is no single gene anywhere in the code that can be flipped on/off to make someone homosexual or not. It's more probable taht it's a series of genes that need to be triggered. And genes are not the only things that can influence the development of a person, the mother's hormonal levels in the womb have been shown to have a serious impact. So has the mother's immune system. So has the presence or absence of important nutrients. So has the presence of foreign substances like alcohol. That we haven't yet pinned down the exact triggers of homosexuality, yet, doesn't mean that there's any serious debate about if it's a choice anymore. Among mental health and medical proffesionals the consensus is strong and the evidence is compelling. The only people still stirring debate are those trying to maintain a reason to persecute gays.
"We're not. We're telling you that we believe marriage is between a man and a woman and we want the institution of marriage preserved as such. I can disapprove of gay lifestyles without trying to ban them."
No, you're saying that you believe Christian marriage is between a man and a woman. That's fine. But marriage in the U.S. is a civil contract overseen by a secular authority. If you want to extend your own marriage to include Christian beliefs and hold it in a church and have it administered by a priest and live your life to Christian standards to set what you believe is a good example, that's great. But, when you take it outside yourself, and fight to keep gays from doing the same thing, gays who may not share your religious beliefs about what constitutes a good marriage, then you have crossed the line and violated their civil rights. It is just that simple. And the world is waking up to this simple truth.
"I'm not sure but again, until its proven otherwise, sexual preference is a choice. I'm not trying to be difficult here but when you're discussing homosexuality, you can't throw around "gay is not a choice" without backing it up with facts. I've seen one study out in California that indicated there *may* be a gay gene but again, its never been proven and its never been scientifically accepted."
It has been proven otherwise. It has been accepted as fact in the psychological community and much of the medical field for over a decade already. As I said, the exact triggers for homosexuality have not yet come into precise focus as yet, but there is no longer any serious question as to their existence.
BTW, I find it funny that you insist on seeing the exact scientific reasons for homosexuality before you will accept the fact of sexual orientation, yet as a Christian you hold many beliefs completely unsuported by evidence of ANY sort as gospel. Isn't the double standard interesting?
More later, I need to go shopping with my wife. |
|
Thanks Kempesh! I must be retarded... how did it never occur to me to see it that simply: this obsession with scientific data about gays, from people who have no need for it to support THEIR beliefs.
Could I demand scientific proof for, let's say, this one?: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man"
|
|
|
My son is autistic. We can't find a definitive gene for autism, although some genetic component is thought likely. We can't rule out environmental factors like mercury either. However, according to the logic of the "Christian" crowd here...my son must have CHOSEN to be autistic, since nobody can prove what causes it. What a bunch of geniuses. |
|
"And in a related note, 'why do woman choose bad men?'. Humans do terribly self destructive things to themselves and its not limited to sexual behavior. So the *why* of it is not known- I assume (not being gay myself) that the reasons are typically different from gay person to gay person- the one thing in common is the person feels attracted to the same sex."
And how does homosexuality compare to any of these "terribly self destructive things" you alude to? Homosexuality in and of itself is no less healthy than heterosexuality. And it hasn't been considered to be harmful from a mental health standpoint since the early 70's. The above observation is meaningless to the current conversation.
"Why do you consider undermining societal norms 'progress?'. You are missing the big picture as to why societies encourage and reward marriage with a special status- its simple- survival of the society. You are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes progress, neither am I- the country as a whole is and the country has said, very loudly, on numerous occasions, "no gay marriage". We're not a speedbump, we're a big !@#!ing mountain and attempting to run us over and/or insult us is not going to make things any easier."
Okay, a whole lot of fallacies in this block. Let's start with the obvious one. Just because a practice is a societal norm does nothing to lend it creadibility or any intrinsic value. Slavery was a societal norm for millenia, subjigation of women was a societal norm for just as long. Should those norms have been retained just because we always did it that way? This is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to tradition. Sometimes societal norms SUCK and deserve to be changed. History will look at people currently trying to subjugate gays in the same harsh light as those who fought to retain slavery and those who tried to keep the vote from women.
Next one. Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, as in this case of gay marriage and parenting, it does not give it more creadibility. That is a fallacy of popularity. A majority of people once supported the aforementioned slavery, and many other dumb things like segrigation of blacks. They used to be a big $%*#ing mountain too, now they're a speed bump. The same is currently true of our government's treatment of homosexuals, but that is changing rapidly. Within a generation society will have changed its mind and do the right thng.
If you're really interested in stopping it, you'll need to stop apealing to fallacy and explain to us WHY gay marriage and parenting would be harmfull. WHY would letting gays have children put our societies future survival at risk? Why would expanding marriage to include a more diverse group of people harm it as an institution? I've heard people make these claims over and over again in the last few years, but never once have I seen them explain their position or support them with anything other than a vauge chapter and verse. That's not a good enough reason to deny people their civil rights. Try again.
"If you want, I can try to find some studies which indicate homosexuals are much more likely to pass on the AIDS virus then heterosexuals. I believe it has to do with tearing relating to anal sex but honestly, I'm not an expert."
Well that's obvious. It is true that homosexual males engaging in unprotected anal sex do have a higher rate of transmission than straight couples. However a condom nearly eliminates this risk for all couples. Again, it is not homosexuality that is risky, it is unprotected sex.
And as a fun trivia fact, lesbians have the very lowest rate of STD transmission of ANY group. So if you really want to play this risk card as an argument against homosexuality, you're going to have to admit that it is better for women to be lesbians than straight, or drop this insipid argument. Hoisted by your own petard often?
"But neither are you, as you are throwing out "facts" which are, quite frankly, not true."
You are welcome to try to show why anything I have said is factualy incorrect. Just saying I'm wrong won't cut it. I'll wait...
"I think most of us can agree that like it or not, homosexuals were the primary carrier of the disease and unfortunately, due to our promiscuous society, the disease was passed to heterosexuals. Is this fact in every case ? Of course not. But at the same time, attempting to minimize the impact that AIDS has on a person's perceptions of gays is intellectually dishonest."
Hardly. Here's a fun idea to ponder. Maybe if you people hadn't been so adiment in preventing gays from forming long term relationships protected by the civil government, then they would have had the same incentives as straight people to settle down and stop being promiscuous, slowing the spread of the disease. Reap what you sow and all that. Just a thought.
"So if a much higher percentage of homosexuals suffer from AIDS then heterosexuals, you don't think that would be a significant factor against homosexuality from a health risk standpoint?"
See above. And don't forget the fact about lesbians. It is a signifigant argument against risky unprotected sex, nothing more.
"Come on, you're not thinking, you're throwing around words like 'bigot' and I'm not even sure you understand what the word means. If homosexuals are at higher risk to contract AIDS, its an argument against the homosexual lifestyle. Its NOT an argument against gay marriage, however, which is rooted in more religious and traditional grounds."
No, it's a great argument against promiscuity, but that applies to everyone, regardless of orientation. The infection rates of homosexuals have been dropping like a stone since the AIDS epidemic begain. Beter education of the disease, and less ignorance and fear surounding it, has reduced the risks enormously for gays and straights alike.
What else you got? |
|
"Thanks Kempesh! I must be retarded... how did it never occur to me to see it that simply: this obsession with scientific data about gays, from people who have no need for it to support THEIR beliefs."
Always remember. These people are not rational, nor do they care about being rational. The chances of getting through their fog of ignorance is slim, however in the attempt you may be heard by bystanders and lurkers who really are sitting the fence and are willing to think outside of their preconceptions and dogma. I doubt sincerely that either Mrs. V or Matt, Esq has any intention of learning something new from this debate, but I take the time anyway because there is a larger audience I hope to reach. You should shoot for them to. |
|
"My son is autistic. We can't find a definitive gene for autism, although some genetic component is thought likely. We can't rule out environmental factors like mercury either. However, according to the logic of the "Christian" crowd here...my son must have CHOSEN to be autistic, since nobody can prove what causes it. What a bunch of geniuses."
I almost spit out my soda when I read this. You have effectivly used a simple comparison to utterly demolish this ridiculous argument. Well done. |
|
autism is no more actively persued homosexuality than a disability is the parallel of one's personal sexual life..
autism, and I AM sorry your child suffers with this celtic, it is a very hard cross to bear, is a disability and does not involve choice, for either the parents or the hurting victim of this disease..
by the same token, a disability, most if not all, are not a choice of most people..they just are..
comparing or paralleling them with on some level an active choice to -by one's will- be sexually involved with another person..is beyond me..
I simply do not give creedence to such a mindset making such a parallel.
|
|
I mostly agree with you. There's a lot of irrationality, and a lot of anger going around these posts. And Mrs V is certainly a verbose fanatic. I was interested in the conversation with Matt, mostly because of moments like these: "...I've known gays who are fine decent people and I like them personally. Liking them personally does not mean I have to accept everything about them, including their sexual preference."
That christian notion of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is always very interesting to me. Particularly when it slips (and it almost always ends up slipping) and turns into personal attacks (i.e. the terms "repugnant," "abnormal" and "immoral" – hard to not take it personally!). I generally don't spend a lot of time posting, but I knew that Mary Cheney's pregnancy was going to stir some good moral battles! (I got here with a link from Andrew Sullivan's blog).
Always good to be remembered that there's still a lot of work to be done to keep this country's best democratic assets and civil liberties in place!
|
|
“You're a funny bigot. No mam, I have never been here before. I've never posted here before this thread. And no, I'm not gay. I'm straight and recently married to a beautiful woman whom I adore with all my heart.”
Well kempesh, you are free to keep calling me that lying name all you like. I understand that can be an accompaniment of this lifestyle, your, clear and apparent, dislike of women...
To wit, I don’t buy you are married. Not unless your “Wife’s” name is Herb. Your replies to me have crumbled into nothing but your punctuating every reply to me with the word “bigot”.
Now it’s not just a dishonest term about me personally, it has become a definition of your ignorance, inability to properly access people and their communications & motives, but also it’s, at this point, so sorry, just a set of words that keeps making you look like a horses buns..
”But what if I was born gay? What if I found a man that I loved in just the same manor that I love my dear wife? Who the hell would you be to pass judgment on my feelings for him? Who the hell would you be to tell me I didn't love him the same way I love my wife? Who the hell would you be to tell me my feelings for him were immoral and evil? I didn't wake up one morning and decide to like girls. And I didn't wake up one morning and decide to love my wife. I'm sure it's the same way for gays, but harder.”
Couldn’t tell you. But I don’t know why you are seeking to invite, or “involve” “me” in their dilemma...
I don’t see that I have “passed judgment” on anyone or their “feelings” because I shared that their seeking to be “wed” is not right and that what they seek to push on our children and society is not just unbiblical but wrong...
You’re really not looking heroic here kempesh, you’re just looking like a not-clear-minded Libertine, and I might add, and sorry once more, kind of a jerk...
“Why would they chose to be a persecuted and hated minority? Why would they go through all the crap they have been forced into over the last two thousand years just to be treated as equals? Would you want to fight for your right to love your husband? Would you put a tenth the effort into maintaining your relationship in the face of people screeming about how evil you are just for acting out of love for another human being? I doubt it”
I find these comments “you” to “me”, again as if you know me, very contrived and manipulative. In fact your whole “approach” in your last few diatribes, I mean replies, to me kempesh has been nothing but entirely too personal, and attacking, not to mention not genuine. The word disingenuous comes to mind about your approach to replying to me...In fact, at this point, it almost defines you/your replies to me here..
Who did I say was “evil”? Where? I never said homosexuals chose the sin struggle they deal with. And DON’T talk to me about MY Husband,when you are batting a thousand here for anyone actually believing you have a WIFE (sorry again, but true..)
And if the way you speak to women is any indication, you have more struggles than the homosexuals you seem unusually fond of...
In any case, sorry to say this kempesh, but your last few sets of comments to/”about” me are the found head of idiocy and ultra drama queen..
They are only a bunch of personal insults wrapped around theatrical, and entirely unnecessary personal attacks with drama aimed at, somehow, trying to size “me” down.
As if you could...
No one here is buying it; accept maybe a few who agree with you...
Nothing you’ve said has held water, because it, in making, particularly your replies to ME personal, you've effectively shown millions of holes in your argument...
Efforts to blame “me” for fixes that homosexual adults by CHOICE get THEMSELVES into is truly bizarre...
It speaks volumes for Liberal’s lack of clarity AND inability to properly access people and things and take appropriate responsibility for their reprobate actions...and lack thereof..This "blaming" of "me", as if you knew me, for the flagrant bad behavior of others, or their struggle with their sins..
Take it up with God chum, apparently, in your lack of knowing Him, you've mistaken me for him..
“ In the end, you're a speed-bump in human history. People like you will slow down human progress, but you can never hope to stop it. Homophobes like you will fall by society's wayside just as the racists and the sexists have before you. You have already lost this argument. It will just take a few years for it to sink in.”
In the end you’re a duped Libertine with a true inability to properly access when you’ve been had by an agenda that will kick you and political gays to the wayside when it’s through...
In the “end” you, and those who push such insane ways of living on normal humanity will account for their truncated way of thinking and blind allegiance to Hollywood mores and false accusations of good people and disingenuous theatrics, when all else fails..
Be a corrupted pervert lover and woman hater kempesh, and keep on as you do...abusive and dishonest as ever in your speech here...
Just a namecaller...no more no less...
The real hatred on this board shines through your replies to me. It can’t be wiped away, just like the stain of sin, without submission to a loving, but just God...
P.S. But keep with the writing and drama, in another context you may have ripe material for a few laments on next years "Will & Grace" or maybe Broeback PT 2 ;^) |
|
|
...the lady needs a pill. |
|
"keep calling me"
"Your replies to me"
"about me personally"
"seeking to invite, or “involve” “me”
"as if you know me"
"your approach to replying to me"
"defines you/your replies to me"
"And DON’T talk to me about"
"last few sets of comments to/”about” me"
"your replies to ME"
"Efforts to blame “me”
"This "blaming" of "me"
"as if you knew me"
"you've mistaken me for him..."
"shines through your replies to me"
Again. Wow. |
|
This is my last to these kinds..
My apologies for suggesting you are a gay man kempesh, but, to be honest, it seemed that might be so, up until your proclaiming you werent..
Not to be unkind to you, but your words did make you look foolish, for their scope, about "me", about people, was, and is, quite limited..
Your persistence, and presumption, babbeling on about "me" has become, as I noted, a thing speaking much more about you than my words ever could "about" 'myself'..
Your allusions to me and my Husband made me annoyed, but only because it showed how dishonest and contrived a liberal's arguments can be, and how nothing, and no one, is sacred, in their fury for no-holds-barred nothingness..
I always avoid making investments in time with *true* bigots..
Those being, in this particular case, people who speak like kempesh and Jerome, but see certain (translation Christians/Conservatives) people 1 or 2 dimensionally, and in doing so make gigantic huge, not to mention erroneous, false accusations about them, and stereotypes about them and their "motives", "hearts"..
as if they'd ever know..
It is not only arrogant and presumptive, it is playing God and a huge advance for (True) bigotry..
The 'hatred" part, well that's understood..just look at their words, and the spirit of them..
Insulting..
Namecalling..
Willing to make broad and negative stereotypical characatures of people, like me and Mr Mc, for example, without looking to have a genuine dialogue with them, let alone imagine anything reasonable about them, or what they have to say..
I won't even say about who "they are", because, though they fancy talking tall about this when it comes to others, they know nothing of this themselves..
They wax, in their minds, prosaic about "others", this look into my soul business, when the facts remain, they are all about attacks and seeing and talking about people in a 1 or 2 dimensional way..
This is never loving..
It is the reason why, though by faith we must forgive them, they should be shunned in any other case..especially if genuine respectful communication won't be there..
I've placed enough pearls before the wrong people here today..
I know when I see that coming my way, particularly here, if/when I'm around, I will.now avoid this..
Now "gay" men..who every you are..carry on with flattering one another..
Just like Mary Cheney and company, you really only need one sex on the scence..
N'est-ce pas?
|
|
Too many contradictions and too much self-importance in your posts. Pas de communication possible!
"I don’t see that I have “passed judgment” on anyone..." "...what they seek to push on our children and society is not just unbiblical but wrong... "
That's in the same sentence. And believe me, you do that a lot.
Bye-bye then, au plaisir! |
|
|
You have degenerated into baseless accusation throwing. Your posts contain nothing of any value at all. You are not responding to counter points, haven't engaged in any productive debate, and seem to be fixated on how people's replies reflect upon you. You are not only a bigot, but a self-centered one. You are not worth talking to. Good bye. |
|
kempesh writes:
"Mrs. V You have degenerated into baseless accusation throwing. Your posts contain nothing of any value at all. You are not responding to counter points, haven't engaged in any productive debate, and seem to be fixated on how people's replies reflect upon you. You are not only a bigot, but a self-centered one. You are not worth talking to. Good bye."
Not really kempesh. I have accurately outlined, and with too much generous time I might add, how both you and your friend Jerome here have been the ones throwing accusations at me, and others who agree with all I'm saying. All your last comments amount to are a summary of some of the abusive words to me in your previous posts.
Both of you summarize me mentioning myself, because that's basically all the two of you did in your last few posts, and for a moment I got pulled in. After all I felt, someone here had to defend me.
Jerome writes:
"Dear Mrs V. Too many contradictions and too much self-importance in your posts. Pas de communication possible!
"I don’t see that I have “passed judgment” on anyone..." "...what they seek to push on our children and society is not just unbiblical but wrong... "
That's in the same sentence. And believe me, you do that a lot.
Bye-bye then, au plaisir!"
The point is, the two of you have used incredible tactics of stereotyoing and namecalling yourselves, and have tried to sashay out of here in some kind of graceful way (not), without admitting that this entire forum can see you are the proverbial pots calling the kettle black..
In the last day or so, anyone can scroll down and feel free to look at my posts and yours, they can easily glean, except for one moment of annoyance in one post with you kempesh where I apologized, I have been simply stating my views and have been quite respectful talking about topics and others here.
When I shared my views, the result was the two of you not just coming back and disagreeing or sharing meaningful reasons why, but the two of you coming back with really quite vigilant nasty calling of names.
In the last few days alone the two of you have managed to - or sought to- isolate me as a poster here, and attack me personally, first by calling me "a bigot", then by using more rhetoric about suggesting I have some propensity to "hate"..
After that it was a freefall for you two where the nasty lot of you got together with questioning my word, by personally attacking me, and suggesting I lied about my own cousin who died of HIV aids, as if for some kind of advantage in this online discussion here..
As if that wasn't completely rude and insulting enough, kempesh went further and wrote a long and windied diatribe against and about me personally (Yes *me*, its not like the two of you have made any strides talking rationally about the issues here ), with mr kempesh standing on his virtual soapbox and running on at the mouth, in his mind, "about" me and my Husband,looking to attack us and what we share as a married couple, as if he could..
You both THEN had the nerve to crawl back on here with a cattlecall of quotes from my posts, where I made the error of trying to defend "me" to folks (you) who don't debate fairly, and Jerome made some kind of a list where certain words were quoted by me once more to attack me again!!! By this time, I saw I was making- a useless effort with those who could care less anyway-to try to defend myself to your various slanders..
What's more, you two anonymous repeat offenders not only tried to diss me and my Spouse and family by your words, you both went on, with no remorse, to try to call me "self centered" when YOU were the ones taking the conversation to a place of totally attacking me..
This was the direction you two put this discussion in..for several days!
You topped it off by making nasty comments about my ability to defend my views and points, when the fact remains you both were SO busy attacking me in the last few days I hardly had an opportunity to get a word in edgewise, beyond the original points I had made, which I feel are quite valid, in the earlier prts of this comments area..
I think you two, kempesh and Jerome, ought to be ashamed of yourselves..
You not only counducted yourselves like a nasty, disengenious pack of buzzards, you did it in such a way that bespeaks almost everything about the liberals mindset.that is bad..
Do it in a cowardly way where one can't be caught (Or so they think..)
Do it in an unfair and nasty way, forget about being fair or rational..
When all else fails, don't forget to resort to slanders and namecalling, if one can't rationally pick apart an argument..
But you two have forgotten the most important rule of debates of all..
This is from Harvard, but any knows, attacks points, NOT people..
I realize I can't note the Golden Rule here, since only Christians have the supernatural ability, or maybe the faith to access that power more consistently. But I believe even the unsaved have an ability at some kind of decency and restraint.by God's grace..
As for celtic-dragon, I have never had a thing against you. I sense your pride and your struggle in your words. However you're wrong when you say I "hate"..Which is why I used the word lies..Because it's not true..
The saddest part about how Jerome and kempesh let this discussion fall apart is that there are a lot more Christian friends and family members in and around the lives of practicing homosexuals, me and my family and KMC included, and there's a lot more love and goodwill and a whole lot less nastiness and stereotyping than these blokes have managed to dish out here..
I loved my cousin very much. I miss him to this day. In many ways he was a model of manhood to me, not in the lifestyle he choose, but just things about him. He was amazing. And the way he had to go was painful and tragic, but even though, our God still worked manificently in it to do a great thing. (He was saved ina coma cannot share details here..Don't know they'd be appreciated, much less believed..)
As an artist, I have also had a fairly large accquiantance with gay men over the last 20 plus years, both ones who were saved, and some still living, and the few family and friends we lost who died..
Unfortunately, some folks, like Jerome and kempesh refuse to see Christians and Conservatives in more than a 1 or 2 dimentional light. That's where truth is..But that could cause them to pause and think and maybe actually understand our view, or worse yet in their eyes, admire us or like us..
Maybe even, beyond imagining to them, see us as people and human being like them..
I understand that's how the gay folks feel, but that's the danger of seeing people on only stereotypes..
Which is not to say that I regret anything I wrote, as I still feel these lifestyle are sinful dangerous and wrong..It doesn't mean we "hate" anyone..And I have no interest in moonshine, or Velvetta cheese, much to the gays at the New York Times' chagrin..
But beyond that, folks like kempesh and Jerome won't ever get to beyond that..
They are too busy picking people's replies on anonymous politcal boards, where they can ruthlessly pick apart replies, and mock at people they don't know, and wax prosaically about individuals and people they know absolutely nothing about..
And no, I don't feel we've done that here. We are simply sharing why we feel a thing a behavior a move in society is right or wrong..
People, as I noted, were never attacked, until you two..
And any basic reader also knows that my words here NEVER attacked people, if I say they are wrong and that their behavior is not normal, that is not an attack on them, it is a discussion of behaviors, and why they are wrong..
This was never about me, or anyone, attacking people, until you two came along and jumped on me..
You have sufficiently turned me off from talking to people like you anymore in person or in a forum..
I think your manner and ways of been disgusting, and I urge anyone who saw it here to report it to Townhall et. al., as I have a mind to..
I have no more need to defend me or my loved ones or story..I regert falling into that trap where I had to..
But I still forgive the two of you..
Yes this was lengthy, 'verbose", maybe. I had some things to say..So sorry, deal with it..
Merry Christmas to you all |
|
None of my accusations to you have been baseless, I even took great care to provide you with a clear definition of homophobia, and then explained why and how it applies to you personaly. I have backed my accusations with evidence in the form of your own words.
You have chosen not to respond to these facts in any meaningfull way, deciding instead to rant about how I must be gay just because I don't feel the same way about homosexuality as you do...
"I understand that can be an accompaniment of this lifestyle, your, clear and apparent, dislike of women... "
and that I hate women just because I pointed out accurately that you are a bigot...
"Be a corrupted pervert lover and woman hater kempesh,"
and that my wife doesn't exist...
"To wit, I don’t buy you are married. Not unless your “Wife’s” name is Herb."
"And DON’T talk to me about MY Husband,when you are batting a thousand here for anyone actually believing you have a WIFE (sorry again, but true..)"
You of course have no evidence of any kind to base any of these attacks on, merely your own delusions, which I can see number many. My last estimation of you was spot-on. You are a selfish bigot. I'm sorry to have to be the one to reveal this unpleasent fact about yourself to you. But maybe now you'll be able to cope with this failing and take steps to improve upon it. Either way, I'm through wasting time on you. |
|
You cannot start (and you started pretty strongly) an argument by telling other people that they are fundamentally wrong. It won't go anywhere. You also cannot expect a balanced discussion about a specific group of people (in this case, homosexuals) by throwing around words like "lie-lovers," "perverse," "abnormal," "indecent," or "pernicious". We are talking about – and that's a conservative estimate – 200 million people on this planet. That's a lot of people, and they are bound to be offended by those words.
I understand that your beliefs strongly oppose what you view as un-godly behavior. That's fine. You are certainly allowed to disappove. But the words you use are not voicing simple disapproval. They ARE attacks. Nobody's killing anybody here. We are debating issues of love, relationships, sexuality and reproduction. Grown-ups, making grown-up decisions, in a complicated world.
Again, you might strongly disapprove, and you might consider that some of those people are damned, and will have to face God's judgement. That's all fine. It's just not constructive to tell them they're "against life." That's terribly offensive. And if you do not care about offending them, because you think they are "perverse" and "abnormal", then why bother arguing anyways?
By the way, I for the most part did not get involved in your posts. I made a remark early on about what I saw as entitlement over the notions of Right and Wrong, and then recently made a list of the estonishingly high number of references to yourself in just one single post. You mind is made up, Mrs. V. I'm not sure I understand why you'd even want to discuss it. |
|
Matt, Esq., if you can see this, I wanted to come back and add that my last few comments questioning some of the fellows making comments here were not made to place the persuasion/s of you, or any other people here, into question, except these last two folks who were chiding me.
I suppose that might be understood, but my obvious dissappointment with certain parties posting here did not apply to all who were commenting in those last few posts.
I wanted to make that clear, in case there was a misinterpretation of my words, or any misunderstanding of them by those they were not intended for.
This is probably unneccessary, but I didn't want to take a chance.
Thanks for your comments anyhow. Appreciate the respectful manner. |
|
Intolerance? Bigotry? Ignorance?
You wrote: "BTW, I find it funny that you insist on seeing the exact scientific reasons for homosexuality before you will accept the fact of sexual orientation, yet as a Christian you hold many beliefs completely unsuported (sic) by evidence of ANY sort as gospel. Isn't the double standard interesting?"
And then...."Always remember. These people are not rational, nor do they care about being rational. The chances of getting through their fog of ignorance is slim, however in the attempt you may be heard by bystanders and lurkers who really are sitting the fence and are willing to think outside of their preconceptions and dogma. I doubt sincerely that either Mrs. V or Matt, Esq has any intention of learning something new from this debate, but I take the time anyway because there is a larger audience I hope to reach." ******************************************
Which audience is that? Am I a member? Please educate me, if I am not too far gone. Rationality is extremely important to me, and I do not wish to remain unschooled. I am taken somewhat off balance at these comments from one who espouses a need to "think outside ... preconceptions and dogma".
You do see the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty in your remarks, I trust. |
|
|