Thursday, December 22, 2011

The Gingrich Who Saved the Election

Turkey Vulture by paynehollow
Turkey Vulture, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Words of wisdom from Newt Gingrich...

(CNN) - Asked how he plans to engage the gay community in his bid for president, Newt Gingrich on Tuesday told a voter he wouldn't be the right choice for those basing their decision on the issue of same-sex marriage.

"If that's the most important (issue) to you, then you should be for Obama," Gingrich told Scott Arnold, a man who identified himself as gay.

======

So, there you have it: IF you are gay, you SHOULD NOT VOTE for Gingrich, according to Gingrich (and, by extension, you shouldn't really vote for the GOP*).

IF you have friends, family and/or colleagues who are gay or lesbian, you shouldn't vote for Gingrich/GOP.

IF you are concerned about equal rights and justice, you should not vote for Gingrich or the GOP.

IF you believe in marriage and faithful, loving, healthy marriage commitments, you should not vote for Gingrich or the GOP.

It's not often I'll agree with a fella like Gingrich, but when he's right, he's right. I appreciate the honesty and would encourage everyone to listen to Gingrich at least on this point, where he is right on target.

=======
* CAVEAT: With the possible exception of Ron Paul who, IF he is consistent with his Libertarian leanings, is probably okay with marriage equity for all people.

There are a whole host of OTHER reasons not to vote for Ron Paul.


73 comments:

John B said...

Unfortunately, same-sex marriage isnt about homosexuals as individuals or groups of people. Just like incestuous marriage isn't about the mothers and sons/fathers and daughters/brothers and sisters. Its about marriage. Of course this is irrelevant to activists.

John B said...

People of your political mindset attempt to make it about individuals in order to have the maximal emotional impact. Marriage is more than loving the person you're having sex with.

Dan Trabue said...

John, I welcome you back to my blog and wish you a Merry Christmas.

And I would ask that you please observe a little basic respect when you visit places and that you don't make presumptions that are easily dismissed as false.

"People of my political mindset" would prefer to speak for ourselves, thank you, rather than have people like you try to put words in our mouths and falsely assign motivations to us that aren't ours.

People of my political and faith mindset are concerned about justice, John. Justice for the individual and at a societal level.

Tell me John, are you opposed to us taking a stand for justice, as we understand it?

That would be a strange position to take.

Also, John, while you are welcome here, your uglyass comparisons of gay people to incestuous people is sinful as hell, and I'd thank you to stick to polite comments about the post, rather than make up BS.

So, again, I wish you a gracious welcome in this, the season where we celebrate the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ, AND I would ask that you not sully my blog with excrement from your hands. You can hold all the excrement in your mind and hands that you want, but don't spread it here. It's not welcome.

It is a matter of justice.

Dan Trabue said...

ON the topic of the post, John, would you agree with Newt and myself? That those concerned about justice for gay folk ought not vote for him (and by extension, the GOP)?

I'd be glad to entertain comments on the topic.

Marshall Art said...

He talks about grace in commentary while using "uglyass" to describe the beliefs and feelings of those he chooses to chastise. The hypocrisy is astounding! Perhaps Dan, you could tell us what is so "uglyass" about a brother and sister, or mother and son, or any other union of close relatives, who may be loving, committed and desirous of acceptance and tolerance of their expressions of love. Where do you get off judging so harshly their fervent desire for marriage equity? What a hateful bigot you are.

Indeed, if one's primary concern for Nov 2012 is the election of someone who will redefine the word marriage to include that which the word itself does not, and that this concern overshadows far more important concerns such as the economy, foreign affairs and the size and scope of the federal government, then yes, Newt is not the choice for you, nor is any other rational candidate. Barry O is your man if immorality is your bag.

Dan Trabue said...

Conflating loving, non-harmful, respectful behavior to harmful, oppressive, unhealthy behavior and trying to associate one with the other is uglyass. It is wrong. It is diabolical and not of grace or love.

I don't mind if John or you want to disagree, but do so honestly, not deviously.

I'm merely calling obviously something wrong, "wrong."

There is nothing hateful in my comments towards John. You will notice I spoke with respect to him as a person and only called the uglyass behavior "uglyass" and I did THAT because that behavior is wrong.

It would be like saying, "Well, Marshall is a conservative so that means he supports pedophilia, just like all those perverted conservative pastors who abuse children..."

Conflating one non-harmful behavior (conservatism, in that case) with another obviously harmful behavior (pedophilia) is wrong. Do you disagree?

ON topic, do you agree with Newt and me that folk concerned about justice for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters ought NOT vote for the GOP?

Alan said...

(Ever notice how many "conservatives" spend so much time thinking about incest? It's the very first thing they think of regardless of the topic. Want to talk about Newt Gingrich and politics? That makes John think of incest. You could post something about your favorite ice cream flavor and John would likely want to talk about incest. Let's just say John wouldn't be my first choice to play Santa this year, if you know what I mean. And don't worry, Dan, about John being offended, because according to him -- and he apparently knows ALL about it -- incest isn't about individuals.)

Anyway, ON TOPIC, anyone who votes for (or against) someone based on issues like gay rights or abortion is naive. No President is going to influence whether or not gay marriage happens. No President is going to end abortion. Remember that a Democratic President and Democratically controlled House gave us DADT. And Republican GW Bush, with a Republican-led House and a strongly conservative Supreme Court (with his own two arch-right wing justices) didn't do anything about abortion.

So, I, for one, don't vote for Presidents based on topics on which they're never going to do anything about. But I realize that I'm an anomaly, as most people only consider such issues in their voting.

But gee...I am glad I found out about this now because I was TOTALLY going to vote for Newt before I heard this. After all, who would be a better expert on marriage than someone who's been married so many times like serial adulterer Newt?

And one last one:
John "Marriage is more than loving the person you're having sex with."

LOL. I have no doubt whatsoever that your wife agrees completely, John. It better be, for your sake.

Seasons Greetings, kids!

Marshall Art said...

Leaving aside Alan's lame implications, I would ask Dan to explain what is so wrong with an incestuous relationship that makes each one "harmful, oppressive, unhealthy behavior"? Do you insist that there are none that are not the result of mutual consent between partners that desire to live together in a committed, monogamous loving relationship? I ask again, where do you get off judging their desires in such a bigoted manner?

It does not follow that to compare the two forms of relationships, homosexual and incestuous is akin to a purposeful lie such as trying to make a connection between conservatism and child molesting. What a desperately lame comparison indeed.

What is clear here is you are again going to lengths to defend your favored sin by trying to disparage those who might partake of another form of sinful behavior as being somehow worse for doing so. You cannot make this case if your life depended upon doing it.

What's more, John B wasn't even commenting on the sins themselves, but the fact that the issue isn't about the people involved but the institution of marriage. So good of you to pay attention.

So let's hear you arguments in opposition to incestuous marriages and see if you can do so in a manner that does not also condemn homosexual marriages as well. This should be special.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I shall most definitely compare the apple of same-sex marriage to the orange of incest. One is a sweet fruit filled with the goodness of equality for two consenting adults having their union recognized by the state.

The other is a rotten, worm-filled fruit that, even if occurring between two consenting adults, has all the hallmarks of serious mental and emotional issues needing address.

Since the topic of incest seems to arise any time someone talks about gay marriage, perhaps it should be noted that consanguinity is not a barrier to marriage in many states. First cousins are permitted to marry in many states, including Illinois, my adopted home-state, and New York, where I grew up.

So, apparently incest - which includes such close relations as first cousins - is no barrier to marriage.

Which, obviously, begs many questions. Considering the travesty so many straight couples make of it - think Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries, or the Republican Speaker of the Minnesota House - it seems the US is just trying to prevent gay couples from the legal hassles of the ending of legally sanctioned relationships.

John B said...

Dan

I disagree with what you consider to be matters of justice.

The reason incest always comes up is because the line from those defending samesex marriage do so on the premises that love and consent are the most significant reasons to allow any two individuals. Bringing up incest exposes the hypocrisy. Since all the arguments used to defend samesex marriage can logically be used for defending incestuous marriage. But for some reason, its just different.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

On the topic in question, I agree whole-heartedly with Alan. That there are those, such as the man who confronted disgraced former Speaker Gingrich, who were looking for some affirmation that his pet issue would be addressed in a positive way speaks more about the earnestness of far too many Americans moreso than any political or other failing on Newt's part.

Considering Pres. Obama's recent agreement to sign a bill that will give the President sole authority, based on secret information, to detain without trial or habeas corpus hearing, anyone including American citizens here in the United States, applauding his sense of "justice" on this issue is just as myopic as criticizing Gingrich for observing the reality that he will in no way support the legalization of gay marriage.

That is how intelligent folks think about these matters. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Marshall Art said...

Of course you agree with Alan. You two are cut from the same soiled cloth.

The point the dude was making was clear and simple, which is still above the two of you. If his sole concern is homosexual marriage, then Newt is the wrong choice for him. Newt's response has nothing to do with what constitutes a quality marriage, but only what constitutes marriage: one man and one woman. Period. I know this probably disappoints Geoffrey, who wishes to heap as much scorn on Newt for his personal life, while maintaining that God doesn't care about sexual immorality, but that's the facts.

As to what a president can influence, that is dependent upon the quality of the president, isn't it? A good leader will have all sorts of influence on the behavior and attitudes of the people he leads. But inspirational leaders are few and far between. THAT is a fact that works against us as a people. In the meantime, I will prefer a flawed individual who still supports virtues and standards with which he himself might struggle, than one flawed in another way that will acquiesce to the worst desires of the people. Like Barry O.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I only poke at Newt because he is such a hypocrite. I do not care about his personal life, and I never said God doesn't care about immorality. So, that's three strikes in a sentence and a half, Art.

A new record.

Dan Trabue said...

John...

I disagree with what you consider to be matters of justice.

Okay. So disagree with me and I will disagree with you.

Nonetheless, it is graceless and irrational to try to paint false strawman positions of others. I'd thank you to let us speak for ourselves, rather than saying "people of your mindset..." and making shit up.

Fair enough? You won't make shit up and you can disagree with me still.

Like respectful adults.

Can you do that?

Dan Trabue said...

John...

The reason incest always comes up is because the line from those defending samesex marriage do so on the premises that love and consent are the most significant reasons to allow any two individuals. Bringing up incest exposes the hypocrisy.

1. Incest as it occurs in the real world appears to be 99% (100%?) abusive.

2. Incest in the real world is usually talking about adults forcing sex upon children or older child relatives abusing younger relatives.

3. Thus, comparing unhealthy, abusive incest to healthy relationships (gay or straight) is misleading, slanderous and graceless. It's the same as comparing healthy relationships to bestiality. It's a non-starter for an adult conversation on the topic of marriage.

4. And, even in the case of consensual adult incestual relationships, I have heard of no instances of that occurring in mentally healthy adults. It's fairly non-existent.

5. So, when you mention "incest" most folk are going to think of how incest happens in the real world - which is about the abuse of children.

Again, that line of reasoning is a non-starter IF you want to have a respectful adult conversation on the topic of marriage.

Want to try again with some rational arguments? Or better yet, you want to address the topic of the post:

Do you agree with Newt and me that folk concerned about justice for gay folk ought not vote GOP?

John B said...

Dan

Did you skim right past the qualifier in the incest example: love and consent?

I was clearly not talking about abuse toward children and you know that. The fact that you feel the need to obfuscate that speaks volumes.

Now, if you would like to offer an objection to adult incestuous marriage between loving consenting parties marrying, I'd like to hear it.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Shorter John B: Dan, please tell me why this apple you praise isn't like this orange I offer which is rotten.

Marshall Art said...

This is without a doubt an apple to apple comparison. Dan prefers to look at the worst examples of incest when the comparison suggested the same arguments offered by supporters of each fruit.

To look at it in another honest manner, homosexuals have on average shorter lifespans, experience more drug and alcohol abuse, suffer more STDs, and choose suicide over more sane options in dealing with their issues. What could possibly be mentally healthy in choosing to live life in such a manner?

As to mental health, those who choose incest simply do not have the activist numbers within the psychological community to "vote" their condition off any list of mental disorders as the homosexuals did. No science, no studies, no proof of "normalcy", only a vote by less than half the members of the APA.

Considering both are explicitly forbidden in Scripture, Dan provides a loophole for homosexuals that he doesn't for the incestuous, that being Scripture "seems" to forbid "some forms" of the sin. What rank dishonesty!

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Regarding hypocrisy...

That would include those who pretend to be Christians while supporting some sins as moral and others they don't like as immoral. It would include the personal lives of some politicians while pretending the same misbehavior in others should be ignored. I don't believe Newt worried so much about Bubba's personal life as much as the fact that he lied about it so blatantly and under oath. The impropriety was simply the subject about which he lied. That's how I recall it, anyway.

As to mental illness, again, that is very subjective of you to decide that a mother and son hot for each other and willing to marry (or a dude and his sister) is somehow more mental than two dudes wanting to marry. Maybe you can explain how that might be the case, seeing as how Dan has copped out.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

OK, Dan wishes to stay on topic. I have made my position pretty clear.

As far as what constitutes mental illness, I guess I would defer to actual mental health professionals who removed same-sex attraction from their list of mental illnesses a long while back. I have no idea if incestuous longings are in there, but it seems, at the very least, if two consanguinous adults mutually agree to a relationship that includes sexual relations that bespeaks a host of issues best addressed by mental health professionals.

See, here's the thing, Art. Mental illness is just that - an illness. There are doctors called psychiatrists and neurologists whose lives are dedicated to understanding and treating these illnesses. Calling something a "mental illness" isn't "subjective". It's something real doctors do all the time, the same way an oncologist understands something is or is not cancer.

So, yet again, fail seems to be your middle name.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I understand you have answered the question Dan has posed, Art, but I just gotta wonder - for the thousandth time - why you, and so many others, seem unduly concerned with what consenting adults, feeling a mutual emotional and physical attraction to one another, do in the privacy of their own homes. How does asserting that the state should recognize a class of relationships - between members of the same gender - in the same manner as it does those between men and women create social problems?

I have been, and continue to be, at an utter loss as to how granting certain civil and legal rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples poses any threat whatsoever to anyone, let alone a whole institution. No church or synagogue or mosque is being forced to perform ceremonies it feels lie outside their theological limits of acceptability. Not a single, solitary couple of whom I am aware, has cited the emergence of gay marriage as a reason for their own marriage disintegrating. The country is better, it seems to me, the more it extends a certain leniency toward groups that had once existed outside social respectability.

In other words, Art, why do you care so much?

John Farrier said...

I support the legalization of gay marriage because I believe that the individual is sovereign. If consenting adults decide to marry, it's their business.

John B wrote:

Now, if you would like to offer an objection to adult incestuous marriage between loving consenting parties marrying, I'd like to hear it.

I can't think of one.

And I think John B's question is reasonable. If we advocate a policy change based upon a certain premise, we should be prepared to look at the consequences of the application of that premise to other subjects.

John Farrier said...

Marshall wrote:

To look at it in another honest manner, homosexuals have on average shorter lifespans, experience more drug and alcohol abuse, suffer more STDs, and choose suicide over more sane options in dealing with their issues. What could possibly be mentally healthy in choosing to live life in such a manner?

I don't know if these statistics are true, but let's assume that they are. On what basis do you claim a causal relationship between homosexuality and these sufferings?

Also: are you saying that sexual orientation is a choice?

John B said...

John F

http://www.advocate.com/Health_and_Fitness/Love_and_Sex/STDs/CDC_Syphilis_on_the_Rise/

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/08/28/14358

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/06/gay-teens-risk_n_871898.html

http://cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/08/14/Nearly_Half_of_Gays_In_Treatment/

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/study-shows-that-anal-cytology-predicts-anal-precancer-in-HIV-positive-gay-men-1428-1/

Maybe take a look at some of these from gay friendly or neutral sources.

Homosexual sexual behavior is harmful to health.

Dan Trabue said...

No, John B, and I'm sure your links prove your conclusion wrong.

Licentious and unhealthy behavior can be unhealthy. On the other hand, faithful, loving, committed relationships ARE healthy.

Your links support my conclusion, not yours.

John Farrier said...

John B, I'm willing to concede that anal sex can be risky. A causal relationship is plausible between anal sex and damage to said anus. And this damage (key point here) would apply to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.

That said:

1. You haven't established a causal relationship between anything other than anal sex and anal damage.

2. Other ills suffered by homosexuals, namely depression and suicide, are more likely to be caused by homophobia than homosexual sex. Example: Jamey Rodemeyer, a prominent contributor to the It Gets Better project, was driven to suicide by homophobic harassment at school.

Think about it: if your sexual orientation was regarded as perverted and wicked by a large portion of society -- if you faced social ostracism because of your sexual desires -- what would that do to your mental health?

3. None of your anal sex arguments apply to lesbians in particular

4. Assuming that everything that you have alleged is true, so what? Some homosexual sexual activities may be damaging to people. But what consenting adults do with their own bodies is their own business. Condemn them if you wish, but do not use force against them.

Marshall Art said...

Who spoke of force, John Farrier? No one. Unless you're speaking of the force being pressured upon those of us who don't quibble over the fact of the sinfulness and abnormal nature of homosexual attraction. It is the activists for the agenda that doesn't exist that is trying to force acceptance upon the rest of us whether we like it or not. They are the ones looking to force the lie of normalcy and moral neutrality of the behavior upon children regardless of the wishes and religious beliefs of their parents.

All that is happening from this side is the desire to see that this force is not strengthened by federal or state legislation making it illegal to believe the truth.

The activists, and their enablers like Geoffrey and Dan, would have us believe that the psychiatric community found some proof scientifically that the attraction is not a mental disorder. The fact is that is was voted off the list by a small segment of that community, with less than half the total membership voting at all. They would also have us believe that attractions of some people to blood relations is somehow more mentally disordered than attractions to someone of the same gender. How does THAT work exactly?

And now you wish to ignore the facts regarding harm done by improper use of sexual organs. You do so by suggesting that heterosexual couples might employ some of the same practices in their sexual encounters. So what? The heterosexual scenario is not defined by such things, but by the proper use of sexual organs. Deviant practices, even when practiced by heterosexual couples, is not the lone argument for standing against legal legitimization of the lifestyle, anymore than WMDs was the sole or primary reason for invading Iraq.

So to answer question #4 posed to John B, I would answer that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes has never been the issue. But one also has to remember that there is a push for universal health care, and even the current health insurance situation means that the practices of some place a financial burden on all. If they are willing to absorb the total costs of their own risky behavior, they can do what they want and so decrease the surplus population.

Better still would be that they grow up, act like mature adults and stop giving in to carnal desires that are harmful to their very lives.

John Farrier said...

Marshall wrote:

Who spoke of force, John Farrier? No one. Unless you're speaking of the force being pressured upon those of us who don't quibble over the fact of the sinfulness and abnormal nature of homosexual attraction. It is the activists for the agenda that doesn't exist that is trying to force acceptance upon the rest of us whether we like it or not. They are the ones looking to force the lie of normalcy and moral neutrality of the behavior upon children regardless of the wishes and religious beliefs of their parents.

Excellent! I, too, support the legalization of gay marriage and oppose the use of government force to prevent gay people from marrying each other.

All that is happening from this side is the desire to see that this force is not strengthened by federal or state legislation making it illegal to believe the truth.

I'm not sure what constitutes the different sides. But there appear to be people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage. That goes beyond "making it illegal to believe" that homosexual sex is immoral. Those who wish to make it illegal to say that homosexuality is wrong should be opposed by all liberty-minded people.

The activists, and their enablers like Geoffrey and Dan, would have us believe that the psychiatric community found some proof scientifically that the attraction is not a mental disorder. The fact is that is was voted off the list by a small segment of that community, with less than half the total membership voting at all. They would also have us believe that attractions of some people to blood relations is somehow more mentally disordered than attractions to someone of the same gender. How does THAT work exactly?

No idea. I don't care what the APA says about sexual orientation, one way or another.

And now you wish to ignore the facts regarding harm done by improper use of sexual organs. You do so by suggesting that heterosexual couples might employ some of the same practices in their sexual encounters. So what? The heterosexual scenario is not defined by such things, but by the proper use of sexual organs. Deviant practices, even when practiced by heterosexual couples, is not the lone argument for standing against legal legitimization of the lifestyle, anymore than WMDs was the sole or primary reason for invading Iraq.

So you're saying that homosexual experience is defined by anal sex? Or is at the center of the homosexual experience?

No, I argued about anal sex because that seemed to be the center of John B's argument. If there are other arguments, then by all means advance them.

So to answer question #4 posed to John B, I would answer that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes has never been the issue. But one also has to remember that there is a push for universal health care, and even the current health insurance situation means that the practices of some place a financial burden on all. If they are willing to absorb the total costs of their own risky behavior, they can do what they want and so decrease the surplus population.

I totally oppose socialized health care, in part because it justifies government intrusions in the personal decisions of individuals.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

"As far as what constitutes mental illness..."

This whole paragraph is absolute nonsense. There is no difference whatsoever by the standards you and the activists supporting the agenda that doesn't exist have laid out. None whatsoever except what YOU decide exists in the hopes of separating your ideologies from reality. There still exist mental health professionals that regard homosexual attraction as a disorder. That the psych community has fallen prey to propaganda and political correctness pressures is without question. With two genders, there is no doubt as to what each gender should be attracted, thus the homosexual attraction cannot be anything but disordered. No degree is required to understand this obvious fact of nature. Neither is any degree required to understand that a Barry O would ignore this obvious fact for votes as he has already shown.

"Calling something a "mental illness" isn't "subjective"."

You stand on a weak platform to say this as the psych community used subjectivity to come to their voting homosexual attraction off the list of disorders. They did not use science as no study supports, frankly, any conclusion either way. If there was hard evidence to support the "normalness" of homosexual attraction, it would surely be common knowledge by now. There's no failure here, Geoffrey, but there has been within the psych community on this issue.

Ferrier mentioned suicides and depression being the result of harassment. But some professionals have considered that, at least in a percentage of cases, that homosexual behavior is a manifestation of depression. What is clear is that the rate of suicides among this demographic is high compared to others and one cannot then conclude that they are "just like us except".

"I have been, and continue to be, at an utter loss as to how granting certain civil and legal rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples poses any threat whatsoever to anyone, let alone a whole institution."

This is untrue. What is true is that you refuse to see. You wish to ignore the statistics and pretend there's no harm being done to homosexuals by their practices. You wish to pretend that sexual behavior of any kind is just fine, regardless of whether or not it aligns with God's Will. You wish to pretend that God's Will is not to be mixed with what we support in the public square despite the ills our culture suffers as a result.

Marshall Art said...

My caring about this issue is simply an extension of my caring about my fellow man and how ignoring the Will of God impacts our culture and society, just as folks like you and Dan claim to do.

I have often cited the problems we will suffer from allowing this lie to be held as truth via legislation. For now I will cite two:

1) The already established rights granted by the US Constitution, that being the rights involving things like religious expression, free speech, and free association will have to take a back seat to the pretend rights of disturbed people to live out their fantasy regarding their sexual desires. We see it happening already in at the mere mention of behavior being sinful and how the Bible is regarded by some of the most corrupted as a book of hate because of God's Will on the behavior being so clearly revealed to us there.

2) Pretending that two men who want to marry because they insist their "love" is sincere and monogamous and committed should be granted civil recognition means that any other arrangement of individuals, like blood relations as close as brother/sister or mother/daughter, MUST be also recognized, for the arguments in favor of homosexuality are no less legitimate (I use the word guardedly) than they are for the incestuous, the polygamous or any other.

If you don't think these two concerns are legitimate, if you can't see problems arising, then you are willfully ignoring them.

Ferrier asked how would I feel if my orientation was considered abnormal or deviant or sinful. The fact is that few people get through life without some aspect of their personal desires being made to be set aside for a host of reasons, God's Will being only one. Adults have no issue with this.

John B said...

Actually Dan

the cdc's statistics dont differentiate between loving partners and non. Also, I'm sure syphilis doesn't differentiate. Maybe hiv does, but I'm not certain.

What is the medical mechanism that makes loving partners not able to contract STDs? Perhaps we should suggect to homosexuals that before they engage in unhealthy sexual behavior that they tell eachother loud enough for the STD to hear, you know, so they wont get infected.

John B said...

I have to ask everyone who dismisses the health risks that plague the homosexual community this: Given that these plagues (syphilis, gonnorhea, HIV, and other STDs) are rampant in the homosexual community DISPITE many of the same kinds of behaviors being practiced by the heterosexual community, what accounts for the overwhelmingly disproportionate infection rates among the homosexuals? Is it a coincidence? Or is it as Dan suggests, that the participants dont love each other and the deseases know this and so are able to thrive?

Why the homosexuals and not heterosexuals who practice some of the same things?

Marshall Art said...

Getting back to Newt's statement, I meant to add the following thought:

Newt clearly mentioned, as Dan's excerpt plainly shows, that he was referring to homosexual marriage as if it was the fellow's most important issue on which he based his voting decision. This is an important distinction. For example, I'm very much opposed to the practice of abortion to the extent that it is high on my list of issues that I seek to find agreement in the candidates presented to me for my vote. I don't have much problem finding a candidate that opposes abortion, but assuming my choices were limited and left between two who were separated by this issue, I would naturally vote for the one who opposed it more strongly or at all.

But, it is only one of the issues that I regard as important and other issues are weighty in my opinion also. Thus, abortion isn't the only issue by which I choose a candidate. If it was, I could definitely not vote for Barry O, because he doesn't give a flyin' rat's ass about the unborn due to his corrupted sense of morality. If I was pro-abortion, he'd be my man because of said corruption leading to the type of legislation I'd like to see.

Ann Coulter has recently gotten flack from some members of the right for her support of GOPRoud (I believe it is called), a homosexual political action committee of the conservative persuasion. I haven't yet been able to determine, but I'm pretty confident she is not supporting their possible desire to see the invented "marriage equity" situation turn to more favorable for the homosexual community. I would wager that she is simply welcoming conservatives who happen to be homosexuals to join in the fight against liberal buffoonery of the type Barry O has brought to our republic. It speaks of the difference between the two "tents".

The left thinks they have the bigger tent because they are so willing to pander to every wackjob cause that's out there.

The right adheres to its standards and values and welcomes all who support them as well, even if they depart on an issue or two.

Thus, the homosexual who understands reality and hopes for the best environment in which success can be had will likely find they are better off voting for conservative candidates. The homosexual who simply wants everything that allows him to be as deviant as he wants to be, and finds that desire more important than anything else, would find Barry, and those like him, to be the best choice (though he'd still be wrong to believe that).

So there you have it: IF you are homosexual, and nothing else matters to you but being homosexual and having the rest of the world made to accept your behavior as normal, regardless of whether it is or not and regardless of what the rest of the world believes, then the GOP isn't the place for you.

IF you have friends or family who are homosexual who don't care about anyone or anything as much as pushing the homosexual agenda that doesn't exist, and you wish to enable them in their sinfulness and abnormal desires, then the GOP is not for you.

But, IF you are a homosexual who believes in a federal gov't who doesn't spend money like a drunken fool, who believes in a strong military, smaller gov't, fewer stifling regulations, less waste, and isn't a selfish ass who demands definitions be changed for his own benefit, laws and traditions be changed for his own benefit, that traditional values are worth adhering to despite your own desires being in opposition to them, then the GOP welcomes you with open arms.

Dan Trabue said...

John B, you keep making that point as if it somehow makes your case rather than supporting mine.

IF hyper-promiscuity leads to bad health and results, then the answer is IN ENCOURAGING FIDELITY AND MONOGAMY like, oh, I don't know, A MARRIAGE ARRANGEMENT.

Thank you again for supporting my position with your "evidence," even though I don't think you're getting it.

Marshall Art said...

Are you suggesting, Dan, that these hyper-promiscuous people are hyper-promiscuous as a result of their having the ability to redefine marriage to include them denied? That's ludicrous. If no state had ever legalized the twisted notion of same sex marriage, these people would still have the opportunity to commit to monogamous relationships until early death do they part. Monogamy and fidelity is a choice that does not require licensing of any kind.

But regardless, the improper use of the sexual organs is enough to cause physical harm without either partner having been exposed to STDs. Hetero couples that engage in the same behavior are equally exposed to the same risks. But they are equipped to indulge their lust without resorting to those methods. The same gender arrangements cannot do otherwise without remaining platonic.

Dan Trabue said...

Improper use? Who determined "proper use?" I could think of all manner of questions to ask, but I really don't want to know your answers. Suffice to say, I don't trust Marshall to define "proper use." Nothing personal, I just don't think you get to decide.

I hope you can see how rational that is (or, conversely, how irrational it would be to make you king of deciding "proper use" of others' bodies).

As to what I'm suggesting, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm pointing out that many studies show that promiscuous people are more likely to contract diseases and MORE promiscuous people are MORE likely to do so. Thus, the rational and caring response is to DIScourage promiscuity and ENCOURAGE faithful, loving, committed relationships, you know, like in a marriage.

Thanks again for propping up my points, guys.

Marshall Art said...

"Improper use? Who determined "proper use?""

Uh...nature? Biology? Common-freakin'-sense? Biologically and sexually speaking, the human sex organs have specific purposes that homosexuals (and some heteros) do not abide. We can use a wrench to hammer nails, but hammering nails is not the designed purpose of the wrench. Thus, hammering nails would be an improper use of the wrench regardless of whether or not we are pleased to use it in this manner. Are you so incredibly a sheep to the agenda that doesn't exist that you would deny these plain and undeniable facts?

So you can dispense with this lame and routine crap of "what Marshall says, thinks or has determined". There is nothing "irrational" about acknowledging the truth. I don't care whose body is being discussed. Facts are facts.

And if you were truly concerned about rational and caring responses, it would be that all people leave their carnal desires to live as God intends, be they promiscuously engaging in either homosexual or heterosexual affairs. And your idea of "marriage equity" is NOT a part of what God intends.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Somehow a discussion about whether a gay man confronting Newt Gingrich about gay marriage has devolved in to a discussion of butt sex.

Said discussion begun, by the way, by people who, apparently, think such things between two men is so icky they have to discuss it endlessly.

Just . . . wow.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Oops. I messed up a sentence in the above comment. The discussion is about "whether a gay man confronting Newt Gingrich on gay marriage was right".

John B said...

Dan

If the problem of Stew is a matter of promiscuity, why does not the heterosexual community suffer in the same proportion, even among the promiscuous? Are homosexuals more inclined to promiscuity?

But aside from that, if it is the case that STD rates are only directly related to promiscuity (which is a predominant characteristic of the homosexual community) then why is that never discussed by bodies like the CDC or other homosexual sympathetic foundations? Why the silence on your position?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

The issue is gay marriage. Not sex. Not sex of any kind. Not gay sex. Not straight sex. Not butt sex, or oral sex, or the right kind of sex or the wrong kind of sex.

It isn't about STDs, either.

It's about whether or not Newt Gingrich was right in telling a young man, who happens to think gay marriage is an important issue, that he should vote for Barack Obama. That's it. That's all.

Get your minds out of the gutter.

Dan Trabue said...

The "problem of Stew..."? I don't know what that means.

I also don't know that heterosexuals who are promiscuous at a certain level are any less likely to be at-risk as homosexuals at that same certain level. Are there studies that show that? I'm not aware of any.

Again, I think you're doing an excellent job of emphasizing the point that IF promiscuity is a problem, THEN the answer is in discouraging promiscuity and encouraging fidelity and monogamy.

Are you thinking that a gay male who is promiscuous and not careful in his promiscuity is MORE likely to suffer ill-affects as a straight guy who is promiscuous and not careful in his promiscuity? On what would you base this and what would YOU say is the reason?

Are you suggesting that you think God "punishes with illness" promiscuous gay folk more readily than promiscuous straight folk or what is your point?

Dan Trabue said...

And, of course, Geoffrey is right. You're still not answering my direct question: Do you think that folk who are concerned about marriage equity for all ought not vote for the GOP? If so, then we agree.

That is the point of this post.

Move on.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

They can't move on, Dan, because for folks like John B. and Art, being gay isn't about loving others in ways that are different.

It's about icky butt sex that leads to STDs, which never existed before liberals took over the Universities convincing all those nice straight boys to go have butt sex with one another.

In other words, they are ignorant, bigoted, sex-obsessed clods. They can't think "gay" without thinking icky butt sex. They seem to think about it more than most folk, gay or straight, than I have ever met.

As for Art's Aristotelian approach to sex, all I can say is, "Way to build a bridge to the third century BCE!"

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey really seems to enjoy saying "butt sex".

If you had any shred of honesty in you, Geoffrey, you would acknowledge that it was Dan who's comments led to any reference to how homosexuals engage in sex. I refer you to his comment of 12/23/11 7:42 AM wherein he begins...

"Conflating loving, non-harmful, respectful behavior to harmful, oppressive, unhealthy behavior and trying to associate one with the other is uglyass."

This non-factual statement regarding the health consequences of homosexual behavior led to John B's reference to CDC statistics. It also cannot be allowed to stand without pointing out how the improper use of sexual organs is harmful regardless of who is doing it.

But you go on with your childish delight of typing out "butt sex" since doing so seems to please you so much.

By the way, fraud, my approach to sex is Biblical, not Aristotelian. Perhaps if you spent any time studying Scripture rather than liberal theologians, you'd understand such things.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I think I answered the question quite distinctly. Those for whom redefining marriage to mean something that what the word actually means have few choices (if any) among the GOP hopefuls. Barry is their best choice because he'll say anything to get votes.

"Are you thinking that a gay male who is promiscuous and not careful in his promiscuity is MORE likely to suffer ill-affects as a straight guy who is promiscuous and not careful in his promiscuity? On what would you base this and what would YOU say is the reason?"

The answer is "yes" and the reason involves the improper use of bodily parts. If both subjects never dealt with partners who carry an STD, the homosexual encounters greater risk due to his desire for, as Geoffrey loves to say "butt sex". This isn't rocket science here.

And once more, you seem to have suggested that the current legal situation has some connection to he promiscuous behavior of some homosexuals. That somehow, they cannot or will not commit themselves to each other in a monogamous (as defined by normal people) manner unless they can also procure state sanctioning. Is this your position?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Actually, I wrote "butt sex" over and over to reflect what you and John B. obsess over - butt sex. I have no idea how Dan's comment over consensuality and exploitative relationships has anything at all to do with how two people have sex. Furthermore, I try, as much as possible, not to think or wonder or imagine how other people have sex. In fact, I spend most of my time not thinking about sex, my own or other people's, at all.

An innocuous comment by Dan comparing exploitation versus consensuality led you and John to start musing about how awful two guys having butt sex is. My guess is you probably aren't that jazzed about oral sex between two men, either, although I'd bet the farm you wouldn't turn down an offer from a woman, even though it doesn't fit your definition of normal.

I have no problem talking and writing about sexuality; I am not ashamed to write about all the inventive positive ways human beings have invented to seek pleasure with one another in the privacy of their own homes. God gave us brains and bodies that, among other things, try to find out new ways of expressing love for one another. Because you, Art, and John, and a lot of other people find some of these things icky has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are good or bad.

Also, since the general topic is marriage, not sex, I'm not even sure how various sexual acts have anything to do with the topic. Promiscuity, either, but then again, you always seem to think everyone has no problem with people mating like oiled minks except for you. Which is not only not true, it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

So please keep your perverted obsessions to yourself. Talk about marriage, not whether icky butt sex makes people go to hell and your weird obsession with the definition of a word. The question is simple: Should gay folk who strongly support marriage equality vote for any Republican candidate?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art did a major fail. Usually, I just skim whatever he writes because reading him is like walking through bramble. Ahem: "By the way, fraud, my approach to sex is Biblical, not Aristotelian. Perhaps if you spent any time studying Scripture rather than liberal theologians, you'd understand such things."

Aristotle was neither a theologian nor liberal. Living three hundred years before Christ would have made both rather difficult. Furthermore, as a description of your general attitude toward sex - that human sex organs were made complimentary and therefore any other use of them (anal sex, say) is a misuse of their function and design, is exactly Aristotelean.

I do not know if you actually read the Bible, based on the things you claim to read in it, but there are all sorts of things out there to read, too. Aristotle is one of them. My suggestion is you find a translation, although even that would be difficult for you because English often seems beyond you, let alone ancient Greek.

John Farrier said...

Dan wrote:

As to what I'm suggesting, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm pointing out that many studies show that promiscuous people are more likely to contract diseases and MORE promiscuous people are MORE likely to do so. Thus, the rational and caring response is to DIScourage promiscuity and ENCOURAGE faithful, loving, committed relationships, you know, like in a marriage.

Well said.

I recently encountered a book written in the 80s consisting of autobiographical narratives by older gay men (60+). Growing up gay in 1990s was hard, but in the 1920s? Wow!

Anyway, two of the aspects of the book that were so striking were (1) how debauched were their sex lives and (2) how fearfully they hid their secret identities.

(I knew the latter, of course, but it was particularly well expressed in these first-person recollections.)

If a person is considered a grotesque pervert hated by society and unable to find any place in it -- if a person cannot express his/her desires in open, loving relationships -- that person is unlikely to develop a healthy sexuality.

I suspect that legalizing gay marriage will have a civilizing influence on homosexual relationships. Treating gays as outcasts will continue to have the opposite effect.

John Farrier said...

Marshall, let's assume for the moment that you're right and that male homosexual sex is physically damaging and sinful in the eyes of God.

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry anyway? Shouldn't consenting adults rule their own lives?

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Perhaps you should read my posts a bit more closely, for while having your head up your butt might be sexually acceptable to you, it is intellectually problematic. Better yet, show you aren't full of crap when you say you don't care what I think by not reading them at all and then missing the point. To wit:

"Actually, I wrote "butt sex" over and over to reflect what you and John B. obsess over..."

I know you'd like to think that is the source of our "obsession", but it is totally dishonest of you to say so when you know it is not true. Or at least you'd know it if you actually paid attention to our words rather than simply looking for ways to demonize your opponents.

Furthermore, it is really stupid to assume sex consumes our thoughts simply because we are engaging in blog discussions on the topic of sexual perversion and whether it should be legislated toward normalizing it. When the subject is taxes or war, you don't seem to believe we're consumed by those subjects. Again, you're obviously more concerned with demonizing, otherwise known as "lying", your opponents. But then, that's really all you have, isn't it?

To speak about homosexual marriage cannot help but touch on reasons why it should not be licensed. This cannot help but lead to the obvious regarding it's depraved nature and negative health concerns. And once again, since you didn't even read my comment that copied and pasted the start of all this, Dan was the one who first spoke of homosexual behavior in terms of it NOT being harmful by comparing it to incest, which you both try to frame as ALWAYS harmful. John B and I, as well as Craig and others, try to discuss these things based on facts and truth. Thus, we must address falsehoods that you sad sacks will always bring about.

The time of Aristotle's birth in relation to Christ's is irrelevant. What is relevant is that my views of marriage and human sexuality is based on Biblical teaching first, supported by biology and common sense. YOU would like to think that you, and those like you, have found some wonders that transcend Biblical and biological truth and thus makes it all OK. That's called "sin" and sexual immorality and you support it.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art, you have no idea what facts and truth are. It's really that simple.

You are an ignorant, bigoted, small-minded, contemptible, pitiable fellow, to be perfectly honest. You revel in that ignorance the way an elephant revels in a good mud-wallow. Your mind is so depraved you cannot even talk about other human beings without betraying your preference for imagining what they do in the privacy of their own homes with the ones they love.

Honestly, you are one of the more pathetic individuals I have ever encountered.

Dan Trabue said...

Fellas, let's let it go.

The point of this post (made at least a bit in jest) was that IF you are concerned about equity for all folk, then the GOP's position is not for you, at least on this topic.

All this other is silly drivel. Of course, it is self-evident that IF promiscuity is unhealthy, then encouraging fidelity and monogamy is a good thing.

That much is obvious to anyone who's mind is not up their bottom. But either way, it's not the point of this post.

Let it go.

And thanks again to Marshall and John B for making that additional point abundantly clear (that fidelity and monogamy are good things) even if you think it somehow supports your position.

Marshall Art said...

John Ferrier,

Regarding your last to Dan, you make some assumptions that are illogical. (Just like he does.) First, Dan's words may have been well said, but the meaning is horrible. What he suggests is that there's a better way to engage in harmful, abnormal, and from a Christian perspective, sinful sexual practices. There's nothing whatsoever caring about that. That's why my response was to encourage living a more Godly life rather than one defined by one's own urges and desires.

And your anecdote regarding the persons about whom you've read does nothing to dispel the point I've been trying to make, that legalization has nothing to do with whether or not one will be promiscuous. The proof is in the promiscuity that exists among the heterosexual population. Licensed unions have no impact on the behavior of the individual and a slut will be a slut whether single or married. Marriage is simply the supposed vow to fidelity, but we've seen how that works for some. At the same time, a license is not in the least bit required for one to promise fidelity to another and never was. To promote the idea that licensing will change the scene is ludicrous because it not based on anything substantial, but only on emotion, which is all the pro-homosexual proponents have. This is especially false:

"If a person is considered a grotesque pervert hated by society and unable to find any place in it..."

Unable? No. Unwilling? Yes. There is always the struggle between what one would like to do versus whether or not one should. If society prefers slavery be abolished, do those who support slavery have no way to find a place in society? Of course not if they alter their habits and practices. This is true for the lazy, the gluttonous, the adulterer, the child molester, the covetous and the oppressive. They all have no place in society if they choose to remain as they are and must act in secrecy or transcend their desires in order to be a part.

And again, being denied civic recognition is a very lame excuse for reverting to promiscuity. Quite childish in fact.

"Marshall, let's assume for the moment that you're right and that male homosexual sex is physically damaging and sinful in the eyes of God."

I am right because both are facts.

"Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry anyway? Shouldn't consenting adults rule their own lives?"

This would require an entire post of its own, and I've listed reasons many times over the years. But to your last question, consenting adults might want to marry their sisters or mothers. Consenting adults might want to marry several women or men. Consenting adults might want to marry a twelve year old girl who also agrees to the idea and has the approval and blessings of her consenting adult parents. Society limits marriage in a number of ways for reasons also requiring another post, but are well known to honest people. Consent of adults has no role in it so far as compared to the reasons the definition of marriage has been maintained by honest, thoughtful and logical communities.

However, most proponents of actual marriage, often referred to as "traditional" marriage, are willing to let consenting adults be perverted in the privacy of their own abodes.

Parklife said...

It is an interesting question, Should gay folk who strongly support marriage equality vote for any Republican candidate? I dont think there is any doubt that a Republican will do anything to promote equality. But, why would the Republicans put so much weight on this one issue? Seems they are missing on a whole group that potentially could vote for them. Sure, it energizes people like Marshall Art, but at the cost of other votes.

Parklife said...

"However, most proponents of actual marriage, often referred to as "traditional" marriage, are willing to let consenting adults be perverted in the privacy of their own abodes"

... except when Marshall objects.

"Consenting adults might want to marry a twelve year old girl.."

"Marriage" isnt about sex. Did that just blow your mind? No? Let that sink a bit Marshall. Its an agreement for benefits provided by the state. Period.

Marshall, while I appreciate your ability to communicate directly with God. The rest of us mortals all have to live together. Using your interpretation of the bible to justify your personal convictions is great. But, allowing adults to engage in a contract with the state is really not the place for this argument.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

OK - how about some Christians like Art and John B?

Ron Paul gets and an endorsement that should make him happy: "Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.

--snip--

"Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals — including the death penalty — even if he didn’t see much hope for it happening anytime soon. While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights, noting that Paul recently voted for repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he supported the campaign because he believed Paul’s federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law. Especially since under Kayser’s own interpretation of the Constitution there is no separation of Church and State."

Surely, Art and John B could get behind this guy. After all, he's Biblical. The same way they are.

Craig said...

"Art, you have no idea what facts and truth are. It's really that simple.

You are an ignorant, bigoted, small-minded, contemptible, pitiable fellow, to be perfectly honest. You revel in that ignorance the way an elephant revels in a good mud-wallow. Your mind is so depraved you cannot even talk about other human beings without betraying your preference for imagining what they do in the privacy of their own homes with the ones they love.

Honestly, you are one of the more pathetic individuals I have ever encountered."

We all know how much Dan soesn't like Ad Homs, wonder how long this stays in the thread.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie said,

"But, why would the Republicans put so much weight on this one issue?"

Who's really putting on the weight? For centuries marriage was defined as a union between men and women. And for all that time, 99% of the population was quite cool with that tradition. But that tiny percentage and those too stupid to look beyond the surface have been putting tons of weight behind the effort to change what has been true since the dawn of time, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This is natural and the fundamental to our culture and is worth defending against the whims of a tiny minority the fools who enable them.

"Seems they are missing on a whole group that potentially could vote for them."

That group is very small. By most surveys, no more than 2-3% of the population. Of that small segment, there exists the Log Cabin Republicans who vote for Republicans because homosexual causes aren't all that concerns them. For the rest, there is Barry and other morally challenged Democrats. It is exactly what Newt as speaking to as regards those for whom what is laughingly known as "marriage equity" is their sole reason for going to the polls at all. IF that is the main reason they vote, then they aren't likely to find their fantasy world becoming reality by voting Republican. However, for homosexuals for whom finding a real job is the most important thing, voting Republican is their best bet.

""Marriage" isnt about sex. Did that just blow your mind? No? Let that sink a bit Marshall. Its an agreement for benefits provided by the state."

And apparently you, like Dan, would deny that contract to those consenting incestuous adults, polygamous adults, and those consenting adults who want to marry ten-year-old girls who desire it as well and have the approval of their consenting adult parents. You hateful bigots.

Nice try at thoughtful commentary, Parkie. Keep trying.

Marshall Art said...

Craig,

Thanks for the defense, but Geoffrey just likes to attack those with whom he disagrees. He's never been able to maturely counter my arguments, he far too often misses the point for that, so he only has trash talking left. Pray for him. Someday he'll find the spine to actually engage my points rather than pretend there's some real problem on my end. And if Dan wants to let his comments stand, that's fine with me.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I don't know what you're trying to pass off with this:

"And thanks again to Marshall and John B for making that additional point abundantly clear (that fidelity and monogamy are good things) even if you think it somehow supports your position."

We've never said otherwise. But to suggest that saying so includes sinful behavior is to bear false witness against us. It does not support your position that we believe in fidelity in a marriage, because we believe marriage has a specific definition that you and those you enable insist be changed to satisfy their sinful lusts. I also believe that licensing any union has nothing to do with the promiscuous behavior of some people, nor would it influence a change in their behavior if they did not desire that change within themselves already. In other words, yours is a totally bullshit argument to suppose that granting marriage rights to those who do not meet the definition of marriage would affect their licentious behavior one way or the other. People are either mature or they are not.

Marshall Art said...

I wasn't going to address Geoffie's hatred, but it's just too goofy.

"You are an ignorant, bigoted, small-minded, contemptible, pitiable fellow, to be perfectly honest."

The humor here is that you state you're being honest. What precedes that laughable claim is a list of words with only one that is worth pointing out: bigoted. This charge is leveled against me constantly over this issue with no one, least of all (and I mean "least") Geoff, providing anything in the way of evidence of bigotry. The other words are no more than filler, chosen by Geoff in the manner lefties like to debate, by crapping on their opponents. They are as meaningless as the one who uses them.

"Your mind is so depraved you cannot even talk about other human beings without betraying your preference for imagining what they do in the privacy of their own homes with the ones they love."

Really. As if any imagining is necessary. Is it a secret how two people of the same gender might pleasure each other sexually? Is it a big mystery? Are there thousands upon thousands of possible techniques that would not simply make use of the limited body parts available to the average human being in slightly different ways?

No. What's quite clear here is Geoff's desire to have me regarded as depraved in order to defend that which is depraved. I support the moral teachings of Scripture, and Geoff wants to label me depraved.

If you like Geoffrey, I am more than willing to offer space at my blog in order for you to elaborate on your charges against me, proving that they are accurate and not just the whining of a child with no other recourse for defending the indefensible. I've devoted space to Dan in the past, so if you think you've got something intelligent to say, you can do so there. For Dan's sake, I won't spend another moment on you here.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

We all know how much Dan soesn't like Ad Homs, wonder how long this stays in the thread.

I've left both the ugly comments from Geoffrey AND John B and Marshall, Craig, as well as yours. But I AM tired of it, fellas.

This post is over. We all agree on the point of this post so let it go. You are only generating heat, no light.

And with every post from you and Marshall and John B, you support that which you oppose, albeit unwittingly. So, I'd suggest quitting while you're behind.

Dan Trabue said...

I will say, though Craig, that it is telling that you don't speak up when folks from "your side" spout ugly-isms, but when folk from "my side" respond in kind, THEN you start to worry about it.

You'd have more credibility if you addressed your comrades who are starting the ugliness.

First, remove the beam from thy own eye...

Parklife said...

Well said Dan. I appreciate your comments.

For the record, I would prefer to be called "Parklife" by those responding to any of my comments. Thank you.

Dan Trabue said...

I figured that was another infantile bit of demeaning behavior from our friends on the Right (not that this sort of behavior gets called on by their compatriots, that would be expecting too much in the way of consistency...).

May I ask, Why "Parklife..."?

Parklife said...

Its a tip of the hat to the band Blur. Not only was the album one of my favorites, but the single as well.

Marshall Art said...

Please, guys. There was nothing "well said" in Dan's remarks as they were not accurate in the least. Let's look more closely...

"I've left both the ugly comments from Geoffrey AND John B and Marshall, Craig, as well as yours."

Exactly what comments were ugly that were made by either John B, Craig or myself? I've already dispelled the crack Dan made regarding John's initial comments, calling them "uglyass". In the meantime, Dan has not retracted the comment or demonstrated why it might be accurate. Clearly it wasn't as the comparison was a good one. On this side of the issue, we know the truth and express it, that homosexual behavior is sinful from a Christian perspective, abnormal from a psychological perspective and unhealthy from a biological perspective. These points are all true unless one refuses to acknowledge truth in favor of liberal fantasies and desires.

But Dan, and those like him, ignore all that and insist that everyone else does as well for the benefit of those he believes want nothing more than be regarded as "just like us". All the while, he maintains hateful and bigoted attitudes toward the incestuous as if there is absolutely no possibility that there exists, or can exist, couples who are brother/sister or mother/son who feel exactly the same way and might be capable of living lives no more or less "normal" than homosexuals. This is not a reasonable or logical conclusion to reach for someone who champions "equity" in marriage.

"And with every post from you and Marshall and John B, you support that which you oppose, albeit unwittingly."

This is something that makes no sense. How is it true. I implore you, Dan, to explain how we are unwittingly supporting that which we oppose.

"You'd have more credibility if you addressed your comrades who are starting the ugliness."

Two points here:

The first is that what you're asking is that we (or Craig) address what YOU decide constitutes ugliness. Clearly, you are incredibly subjective in this regard as explained above.

Secondly, this type of hypocrisy has been addressed quite recently. No one demands "grace" in discourse as you do. You are the king of such demands. If you posture yourself in such a manner, it is a breech of your own standards of etiquette to then allow it to fester to the extreme displayed by one of your own (Geoffrey). To insist that such is acceptable because Craig won't call us out ignores this reality as well as another, such as my case, where I've openly stated that I do not mind snark and shots in conversation (though some people don't know how to limit themselves). Therefor, Craig is not displaying a double-standard, but calling you on your own rules of engagement. What's more, there is a clear difference between what John has said, what I have said, and what Geoffie has said whether you want to be honest enough to acknowledge it or not.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

I implore you, Dan, to explain how we are unwittingly supporting that which we oppose.

In multiple ways. This is off-topic, but I'll use it as an educational moment that will, no doubt, go unlearned. You do this in at least two ways, Marshall...

1. You all keep pointing to studies that show that promiscuity can have negative health affects. This argument SUPPORTS the encouragement of fidelity and monogamy, both gay and straight.

2. You keep coming across with bigoted-sounding and abrasive commentary, lacking in grace or rational adult conversational style. Folk see that sort of behavior and say, "well, I'm not sure about Dan's position, but I SURE don't want to identify with that sort of bigotry and hatefulness being expressed by John B and Marshall A."

Accept it or don't, doesn't matter to me. I'm just offering you one man's opinion that I think is completely valid and you can take for what it's worth.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

1) This would make sense if you could support the notion that these people are incapable of self-control ONLY because they are refused their demand to redefine marriage to include them and/or because no one is encouraging them to be more mature in their lifestyle. Licensing has nothing to do with the character of those seeking licensing. I had already committed myself to my wife before we set any date for marriage. Marriage had nothing to do with my decision to do so. Marriage was simply the logical result, the formality. But it was not required to insure my fidelity and it does not insure it to this day. My vow does. A vow is a vow regardless of whether or not a license goes with it. If these people are promiscuous, it's not a license that will change that. And if they care enough to promise their fidelity, a license isn't required to do so.

2) This is untrue. What is true is that you want our positions to be regarded as bigoted and hateful. You cannot point to anything we say that qualifies as either, regarding our position on this subject. You haven't yet, nor has any other supporter of this behavior. You'll need more than just your saying so to have it qualify as "valid".

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I meant to include the following to my response to your first point:

It seems to me that according to the position that you have taken, that homosexuals are completely childish and if they aren't given rights they demand, they will be promiscuous. In other words, they are promiscuous because their demands for so-called "equity" is not granted and they have no one like you to encourage them toward only sinning with one person exclusively. John F seems to concur as his post with the anecdote (12/28/11 11:43 AM) suggesting as much. How do you respond?

Craig said...

Dan,

The only "ugliness" in my comment (not comments) is in quotation marks. That signifies that someone esle actually said those words and I was just repeating them.

I am sorry that pointing out your inconsistency causes you such distress.

The fact remains that you are quick to call out "ugliness" from those who oppose you while tolerant of "ugliness" from those who agree with you. If simply pointing this out is "ugliness" then I guess your right.

I've gone into great detail with you in other formats regarding your continued insistence that I don't call out those who agree with me. The problem with your assertion is that it is factually incorrect, and is not supported by any reality. I have had disagreements and called out many on "my side" in the past and will continue to do so as I feel the need. The difference between you and I is that I tend to do the "calling out" via e mail, not in public. You know this to be the case, and I have told you a number of times. I even cc'd you on an e mail to make my point. The fact that you continue to repeat this patantly false charge, while not answering legitimate questions, makes me wonder.

It's your blog, and your rules, just don't chastize folks for doing what you permit and thinsg will be fine.

Craig said...

PS

The only reason I didn't respond to your false charges in private as I have done before, is because you have made the false charge in public, and I felt that it was appropriate for me to respond in kind.