Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Ashley Herzog :: Townhall.com Columnist
Gay Activists Show Their True Colors
by Ashley Herzog
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Apparently, gay rights activists aren’t serious about their demand that government “stay out of the bedroom.” Instead of advocating privacy for homosexuals, at least one gay man is making a career out of destroying it.

Yahoo! News began an article about Mike Rogers, owner of BlogActive.com, with the words “Members of the 110th Congress, consider yourselves warned: Mike Rogers is making his list.” Called “the most dangerous man in Washington,” Rogers uses his blog to “out” gay conservatives who don’t want to be outed.

His victims include Dan Gurley, the former field director for the Republican National Committee, Senators Larry Craig and Barbara Mikulski, and Representatives Ed Schrock and David Drier. It doesn’t bother Rogers that many of his “outings” are based solely on hearsay. According to him, he has a moral duty to violate alleged homosexuals’ privacy because “if congressman X thinks that gay people shouldn't have equal rights but goes home and is having sex with men, and not disclosing that, then we have a problem."

Alright, fine. I suppose I can accept the argument that prominent politicians risk having their bedroom habits scrutinized no matter what they’re up to. It’s an occupational hazard. But what about gay activists who make a sport of humiliating closet homosexuals who have no direct influence on America’s domestic policy?

Consider Rogers’ horrifying June 12 blog post, in which he targets Rep. Tom Tancredo’s 18-year-old webmaster, Tyler Whitney. Yes, you read that right: Whitney is fresh out of high school. After posting his picture and a link to his MySpace page, Rogers spends a paragraph sneering at Whitney, sarcastically calling him “a real winner.” Then he announces that Whitney is a closet homosexual.

After posting a link to an article bearing the apparently earth-shattering news that Tancredo’s teenage webmaster is gay, Rogers expresses phony concern for him: “I feel sad for Whitney and I worry what he might do. Up to 1/2 of teen suicides are of gay and lesbian teenagers struggling with their own sexual orientation.”

In the event that Whitney really is contemplating suicide, being ridiculed on a popular blog should really help. What effect does a webmaster have on America’s policy on gay rights?

The practice of outing gays who don’t want to be outed is not meant to fill some noble goal, as Rogers and his ilk would like us to believe. It is used to harass and humiliate gays who don’t subscribe to the radical leftist agenda.

Rogers isn’t the first activist to embrace this kind of behavior. In February 2005, The New York Times used its op-ed page to out the children of several prominent conservatives.

These people are not public figures. They’re not even necessarily conservatives. But because they associate with people who are, their sex lives become fodder for left-wing blogs and gossip rags.

This is how liberals demonstrate their renowned commitment to gays’ dignity. As long as the homosexual in question embraces the left-wing agenda, they are safe. If he dares to express dissident views – or spends time with people who do – liberals will investigate his private life, find out what kind of videos he rents, and report the results as if they were front-page news.

So much for privacy.

I want to finish by saying that I generally support gay rights. The idea of homosexual marriage doesn’t bother me one bit, and I’ve already written columns voicing my support for gay adoption. I strongly believe that what goes on between adults, in their own homes, is none of the government’s business. But I also believe it’s none of Mike Rogers’ business.

Once again, the gay rights activists have shown their moral bankruptcy.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ashley Herzog is a Townhall columnist and the author of Feminism vs. Women.

Be the first to read Ashley Herzog's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

more stereotypes
none, you are speaking in stereotypes...and you'd hide to if you were at risk of the barbarism that heterosexuals teach their children towards gay people.

There are health risks involved in heterosexual sex too. Indeed, throughout time WOMEN were making mortal decisions to become pregnant. And the statistical shame of domestic violence on women and children by their own fathers and husbands and boyfriends means you are casting stones from a glass house.

Gays and lesbians are quite capable of being allies against great evils in this world that each of us as human beings are concerned about, gay or not.

Heterosexuals abandon their own TO be adopted, don't they?
Your obvious ignorance and hypocrisy is just more of the same, lame and overdone spastic hysteria that the subject at hand generates.

your values
as i read the story i was shocked that you believe that homosexuals should be able to get married and to adopt children...that is a totally unnatural life style not to mention the health risks...if it is so normal why has it been hidden for so long? of course with hollywood showing their true values, there is no shame in any thing any more and thats why homosexuals are so free to flaunt their way of life.....well i will tell you one thing and that is, peoples values may change but i can assure you that Gods does not change one bit...His word still stands today as it did in the beginning...

how you would have voted
It's easy to see how you would have voted, talli2long...et al...on slavery, women's subjugation and Jim Crow.

The reason I know is I have and can compare the opposition had to those groups being equalized. And the public (who also used Biblical rationalization), bought into EVERY stereotype and myth that YOU buy into about gay people.

The issue of gay and lesbian's civil standing and equal access, raises MORE animus than the subject of illegal drug use, gangs, family disruption and terrorists.

The language you use is the same, the attitude you have, the opinion without empirical evidence...you reveal that what you feel and what you know, is the SAME as the people who created and maintaine some of the cruelest laws against their fellow citizens...and called it 'for their own good' or for the safety of the family and nation'.
As if gays and lesbians aren't a part of, or don't care for or about ALL those things as much as you do.

I recognize that echo. And I can see you don't.

But then again...you know you don't HAVE TO.

May Day Plus?
I understand where you are coming from. But when you call sex between an older adult and a younger adult (age or species of consent changed) "child rape", then you are putting your personal opinions in the path of future RIGHTS. And in the future may well be considered a BIGOT by others who champion those RIGHTS. But if these are passed correctly by the legislature, (you will still be against them but will know it was done by society). This is much better than having a judge just DECREE it as law.

The fact that you or I or Will (i suspect Will would OK this process for PEDO's and BESTIAL's if it got gay RIGHTS) think that they are "2 different things" matters not... We are the present and not the future. The future belongs to the next 2,4,or whatever generation that following our example will invoke bad law for thier own ends. (the ends do not justify the means)...

This is true for marriage or civil unions or whatever,, this change is for the Legislative and not Judiciary. Otherwise we can OK CIVIL UNIONS for others,,, "that are not affecting you or me"

As for WILL,,, well thier are nutjobs on both sides of every issue.. Just look at his postings, they fail to address the issue here of Judicial vs. Legislature process on RIGHTS, they reference polls that are in favor of Gay RIGHTS (this backs up my argument) but lets vote on it rather than polls-EHHH, he insinuates that I am trying to get you to not be Homosexual- did'nt think I was but if you took it this way I apologize, and finally his comments on my comparing this to animals of the past-don't think that requires anything from me (to clarigy) for all those non-nutjobs out there.

May Day Plus ?
Lucifer,, let's turn the tables and see if this still fits,, OK,, Lets assume that within the next 30 years we can find someone in teh Judiciary to grant consent to minors by lowering the age to (whatever). I think our judges are mostly good folks but in that amount of time I'm willin to bet on just 1 judge who LOVES his 15 year old neighbor and she probably loves his $.

The raising of animals or differnt species to our level of rights is well on the way..
I know both of these make you sick as well as most others today. But 30 years ago so did HOMOSEXUALITY. So who's to say that 30 years down the road PEDOPHILIA and BESTIALITY will no longer also be making us sick.

Some well meaning individual will write to you LUCIFER in 30 years,,(assuming you are still against these 2 rights)...
I'm still confused what's your issue if PEDOPHILE/(age of consent changed) or BESTIALITY/species consent changed) enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships.
If marriage is a union between one man & one woman how does a civil union and or domestic partnership which are legal agreements and not faith based unions - how are you affected?

Your answer should be that it is up to society to determine the RIGHTS AND PRIVILAGES thru the elected LEGISLATERS (slimeballs I know, but our slimeballs) that are answerable to the people. And not to the JUDICIARY to determine RIGHTS AND PRIVALGES. You would also inform this well meaning individual (who may well practice either of these rights and thus will hate you emotionally) that you do not hate them but view it as extremely DANGEROUS to society as a whole that the process whereby PEDOPHILIA AND BESTIALITY are OK,, may in the future OK other RIGHTS for other groups that you would consider sicker than the last(too much for this feeble mind to conjure up at this time). If your agreeing with this then you and I are putting our personal beliefs at odds with other citizens future changing standards.

If society thru the legislative process gives RIGHTS to HOMOSEXUALITY for Marriage or Civil Unions or whatever,, SO BE IT.
If society thru the legislative process gives RIGHTS to PEDOPHILIA OR BESTIALITY OR EVEN DOES AWAY WITH MARRIAGE,, SO BE IT.

You and I may agree or disagree with both or any of these prior thoughts but what we should both agree on is the method they become LAW IN OUR CIVILIZED OR UNCIVILIZED SOCIETY.

The Homosexual lobby is proceeding on the wrong path in changing the LAW by looking to the JUDICIARY to give RIGHTS to a group in society.
They need to be trying to change the hearts and minds of those in society so they can do so legally thru the legislative process.

This should be clear whether you agree with HOMOSEXUALITY, think it is a sin, don't think it affects others, are ambivalent, or whatever else.

In response to Lucifer
"I should be able to enter into a civil union and have my government honor that union the same way it does my Heterosexual counter-parts"

Ummm.
Who is 'the government'? Who decides what powers 'the government' should have, and what actions it should take?

The government of the United States is NOT a government by the government, for the government and of the government.
The government only exercises those powers and takes those actions which the people, the foundation of political authority, approve and consent to.

Thus, if the people of the United States agree that civil unions should be the law of the land, then so be it. It is a secular government, not a theocracy.
However, I have little use for those who think that a small cabal of judges or legislators should impose their political and social mores on a population consisting of hundreds of millions.

Let's have a referendum, then let the results stand.

gay tyrants
I admire you Ashley. You will not go unpunished for not backing chicken plukers and all the fruits nuts and flakes. Why does everyone sell out for utopia. Morally it doesn't exist. We do have STD, drugs, shacking up, unwanted babies, abortions, ad infinm.

Our politicians are mostly shamful, not leaders.
Stay in journalism, PLEASE. I am sick of Walter Concrite demigogs. You are needed!!!!

In response to Lucifer
"However personal beliefs - shouldn't stop Homosexuals from entering into civil unions with the person they love."

The same might be said of polygamous relationships; it might be used to justify reducing the marital age of consent (after all, our leftists already believe 12 year olds adult enough to make decisions on surgical procedures such as abortion, without parental notification or consent).

No, sorry, society still has the right to determine what constitutes marriage. It might anger you that most Americans seem to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but there it is.

May Day Plus ?
Chairman, Lucifer does not want Homosexual Marriage. He also wonders if slavery and the womens vote would have happened if the people were to decide.
AHHH,, my young follower,, first things first
On Homosexual marriage to just civil unions,,
I guess we could just push for civil unions in pedophile cases or bestiality,,,, but obviously we would still need some judges somewhere to push the consent issue in our favor. This also would not help much up front to the cause as we are really looking for acceptance from society.

Secondly,, his questions of the will of the people and if they would do the right thing are perplexing.
Slavery when LINCOLN was voted president was only legal in Half the states, the reason the civil war came about was because the south up until that time had control of either the president or the senate. When they were losing that with LINCOLN (he siad he would not let slavery states grow),, they set up a seperate country. Thus the civil war, and after Gettysburg his emancipation proclamation which freed the slaves was ratified in the congress and the senate. (of course the southern states were not present at this because they were currently at rebellion). These people voting in congresss were the will of the people at that time.
Womens rights to vote are clearly labelled in an amendment to the constitution. 13th I think,,, this to had to voted on and passed by the peoples represetatives.

But I think what Lucifer is trying to get across to us is that were Womens rights and Blacks rights impeded before they were given the right to vote or be free. YES,,,
did society eventually come around to the correct decision through the legislative process?
YESS,,, Is there a huge danger when the Judiciary (not answerable to the people) are making these decisions on a right rather than the people? YES Do I sometimes need to stop being satirical and quite possibly a JERK? YES Does pushing for a point that no sane one is ready to go to using current bad law clairfy a point? YES
These are the dangers ,,, society for many years is oblivious to impeding on a groups rights, such as womens suffrage or black slavery etc...
OR
The Lawyers and judges in our legal system are able to make or (interpret) rights that are not open for the society to decide upon, such as Gay Marriage (remember a right cannot be voted on).

Pick the first and let society decide the rights,,, at least we can blame ourselves if we screw up.

May Day Plus ?
Comrade Chairman,,, Lucifer still does not believe that Pedophilia and Bestiality can become rights in the same way as Homosexuality.
My young CADRE this is good,,,
You see if people like Lucifer were around 30 years ago that had his opinion then more resistance against Homosexual rights would have followed (nobody back then pushed for gay rights). Same thing today,,,with nobody believing in PEDOPHILE or BESTIALITY rights there will be less resistance (maybe Lucifer secretly does this on purpose to push for these oppressed groups rights). Lucifer if this is the case DON't come out of the closet, I love your plan.
ALAS Lucifer,,, I am left to defend these oppressed groups rights by myself.....SIGH...
As a good socialist,, anything that takes power away from the people and gives to say (me) or the Judiciary (not as good but better than the people) is GREAT for the socialist cause. And when RIGHTS are handed down from an organization that the majority of the populace is against then this is a WIN for us. That this RIGHT also damages the traditional family makes this a WIN-WIN.Read KARL MARX or IT TAKES A VILLAGE BY HILLARY.

Regarding Consent, Well if this is your only hangup then I'm making more PROGRESS THEN I THOUGHT.
Traditionally speaking in all known tribes and societies from the beginning of records until about the time of QUEEN Elizabeth in ENGLAND.
Consent was given by the parents of the girl maybe 10 years old, to older men over 2times the girls age. This stopped about the time that Western society (magna carta stuff) stopped viewing people as slaves or serfs. Many cultures and societies in the world today still practice this (don't hate them remember we don't judge other cultures just our own).
Why bring this up? No society anywhere has ever gone thru with the practice of HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. Yet the worlds history (and current) is littered with Plural Marriage and Pedophile Marriage. This silly world 10,000 plus years of recognizing Plural and Pedophile Marriage but not Homosexual. In the last 20 years Western society is now recognizing Homosexual RIGHTS.
HMMMM 20 years vs 10,000, HMMMM
Lucifer, I love your name, even though I believe you are really on my side (in your own twisted way) surely even you can admit and see that body of evidence historically is for Pedophile or Plural Marriage and against Homosexual Marriage. If this be the case then how can Pedophilia be against the law and Homosexuality is OK. Are all past and some current societies wrong but todays current Western(thanks to some JudgesS)societies right. How easy is it I say again for our Judges to look historically and grant Pedophilia rights when they have already done so with Homosexuality. What is to stop the age of consent law moved back to 10? I know of lots of 10 year olds that speak very plainly and surely we should not trample on thier RIGHTS.
This does not have to be about sex folks. It is about any process or method which takes the decisions we are discussing and moves it from the people to something else, like the Judiciary. Homosexual Rights were placed upon this society by the Judiciary and in likewise so will others. I have no doubt that Homosexuality is no more of an orientation than is Pedophilia. We can no more cure a Homo then we would a Pedophile (talk to the prison psychologist about this one) nor should we want to.
What we keep getting back to and Lucifer ignores is that the PEOPLE through the elected officials make these rules and Judiciary is suppossed to make sure they are followed. But when the Judiciary makes up a RIGHT for an oppressed group then they are taking the RIGHTS of the people away. You cannot vote away rights(again as a socialist this is good precedent)
Bestiality, consent shall be determined by the person who knows the different species the best (living with it). LUCIFER, LUCIFER, LUCIFER, again I love your name. come on board, join all oppressed groups in thier quest for RIGHTS and not just your own. Embrace the process by which Homosexuality was freed for others. Can you not see that you are acting the same way as the HOMOPHOBIC crowd regarding other Rights (hypocritacal if you really think this way).

But if you believe that society should determine Pedophile rights, or Bestiality rights, And not the Judiciary, then it must needs be that Homosexual RIGHTS must be voted on by the peoples representatives in congress as well. (for a socialist this would be bad to hand power back to the people).

Lucifer again I trust you are with me. Pedophilia and Bestiality are more than just having sex with younguns and animals they are ORIENTANTIONS of people born thet way, and the sooner you realize this the sooner we can have a REAL debate.
love ya, from 1 socialist to another adieu
gotta go...

Getting Covered in Slime
When you work with slime or talk about slime, you will get splashed. This Mike Rogers is slime.

I read this editorial and nearly did something about it. I teach high school and was offended by his treatment of an 18-year-old. I write a blog and was going to make this a topic for it. But then something occurred to me.

Until I read this editorial, I'd never heard of Tyler Whitney. I didn't know about his dating life either. Thanks to Ashley Herzog, I now know all about it.

This Mike Rogers needs to be exposed, and she will get some slime on her by discussing him. By citing this case in a tone of "sympathy" she also publicized it to a new group. She didn't just get splashed with slime, she got covered in it.

I may have gotten a little slime on myself by responding here, but I will not be discussing this kid in my blog.

Lesbian disagrees with "outing"
I disagree with the practice of "outing" in general, however if you are already posting your orientation on the web and speaking to reporters you can't claim you arn't out. And any gay conservative knows that he can expect abuse from the left and the "gay community" when they find out about him. Try being a conservative minded lesbian--most other lesbians won't even speak to you.

For the record--Homosexuality is an orientation, not just behavior, we all know who we were attracted to before we ever acted on that attraction. I would be gay whether or not I ever actually had sex with a woman. Also, I find your sexual behavior just as revolting as you find mine--and I am subjected to depections of and references to hetrosexual sex every day. I promise I'll take the picture of my girlfriend off my desk as soon as you take the picture of your wife and kids off your desk. After all, we wouldn't want to "flaunt" our sexualities, now would we?

May Day Plus ?
Comrade Chairman some readers on townhall believe that homosexuality is different from bestiality or pedophilia. They insist it has to do with consent and that non-adults or animals cannot give this consent.

YES,,, my young CADRE this is the law today. But just like 30 years ago when homosexual marriage had NO CHANCE it is today being considered a RIGHT. This became a RIGHT through the media and the JIDUCIARY. NOW if this right is placed upon the population when they are not given the chance to vote against such (you can't deny a right) then I am quite confident that other RIGHTS will come out in the future.

Let me elevate my status today and proclaim myself as legal representation to NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)or ACLU.
1. The name of our organization needs to be changed to NAM-Young Man-LA,, Yes, jury, the arbitrary age of consent that has been set by society is trampling on the rights of young men everywhere. This age should more readily be accepted by society by the famous DR KINSEY. Who way back in the 1900's gave detailed examples of young (men) down to 6 years of age that got EXCITED (literally). (he also gave us the 10% of society is gay figure,, what a trailblazer)... How many scientists have proven that over time adolescents bodies are going thru puberty younger and younger each generation. Why we certainly have a higher % of 12 year olds giving birth today than 30 years ago. The age of consent should be puberty or for young men whenever they can get excited (literally).
For girls it should be the youngest proven age of pregnancy.

2. Regarding Bestiality, this is the wrong word.
It is all about LOVE. How many in society truely love thier pet...(does or does not have to be about sex) We should show our love of nature by bestowing true protection upon the animals that need and deserve it... Just think of the spotted owl that has the same rights as you or I...(no one can mess with his habitat then enviromentalists). Everyone in our society has been wronged by a human at least once,,, who ever heard of thier own dog doing something like that,, they certanly deserve the same rights as humans if not more,, Concerning sex with animals well lets just leave other species alone when it comes to the bathroom... On the consent issue I think the people that LIVE with the opposite species can more readily discern consent than this jury. Plus if you don't believe consent is given regarding sex between different species then how is consent given to eat or even live.

Finally as the legal representative of both these groups that are haveing thier rights trampled upon,,, I ask You JUDICIARY to avail these oppressed groups (in the same manner as HOMOSEXUALITY) to BESTOW UPON THEM EQUAL STATUS!
IT'S ALL ABOUT LOVE , Who among you is against love...

If not and you don't like anything above then recognize SOCIETY'S role in determining what and what is not deviant and acceptable..."suckers"

Remember folks maybe not now but 30 years in the future your grandkids will be wondering how old fashioned you were or worse,,you were a AGEAPHOBE OR A SPECIESAPHOBE (future words to scare those against these new rights, similar to homophobe today)

Homosexuality, Pedophilia, and bestiality are different issues but the process of them becoming rights will be the same. BET ON IT

secular religion & homosexual Hitler
"You seem to be very religious, which can clash with your homosexual desires."

The atheism-adherent Hitler had a secular religion, was "very religious," had "homosexual desires," and acted on his "homosexual desires" by engaging in homosexual activity.

Goebbels, Joseph. 1982. _The Goebbels Diaries: 1939-1941_, translated
and edited by Fred Taylor (USA: Penguin Books), 490pp. On 76 and 77,
from the entry for 28 December 1939. Fuller text is at
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=21672
_ _ The best way to deal with the churches is to claim to
_ _ be a 'positive Christian'.
_ _ ==
_ _ We come back to religious questions again. The
_ _ Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-
_ _ Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of
_ _ decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race.
_ _ This can be seen in the similarity of religious rites.
_ _ Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of
_ _ contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end,
_ _ they will be destroyed.

Mend
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143649100.859299.209200%40v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com

details desired re: Hitler's "confession of intimacy with" Rohm?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164898275.379195.263270%40l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com

executions ordered by homosexual activity engager Hitler
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1158779706.445563.132870%40m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com

Hitler's secular religion
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120837574.592972.268980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

atheist Hitler preached a secular religion w/ race as 1 of its gods;
Hitler: "our two Christian denominations...bother the negroes with
their preaching.... It would be better if they left this work alone"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178805476.971439.53680%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com

Huxley's sermons have exegesis of god's holy scriptures
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157035607.079463.274980%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com

secular religiosity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157425453.315717.30590%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com

SHOCK AN AWWWW
If you want to really get your nickers in a twist try taken your family to Disney World and not knowing that it was Gay Week. My wife and children were SHOCKED and I was AWED. They were not just there to ride the were there for homosexual ride week. They were groping and mauling each other. We went on ITS A SMALL WORLD and when the ride stopped I thought that I was in a Homo movie. It was sickiening to watch grown men with their hands and mouths all over each other. They were not their for the rides that was for sure. So I have learned a very good lesson and that Disney WORLD IS NOT A family theme parK, but a Gay ACTIVIST PARK.

In response to Allen
Actually, I have no problem with compassion towards gays. We should be compassionate toward everyone who hasn't made themselves into demonstrably evil people.
Just as long as everyone is clear that compassion does not equal approval for all one's acts.
Unfortunately, there are certain people out there who insist that if you are to have compassion on someone, you MUST approve of everything they do. That is not the case in the least.

This was a hoot!
Thank you Joe.My.God for exposing this ridiculous article way back at 2:53AM.

Many have expressed outrage that Herzog's column managed to be posted on TH. Not anti-gay enough, they say. Some of these same people berate gays and liberals for not tolerating dissent. Is there an inconsistency in there somewhere? Oh, Herzog's column shouldn't have been posted. Not because she supports same-sex marriage and adoption rights, but because the central example of "outing" is easily disproven.

The columnists that Townhall should not give the time of day are the ones who week after week turn out pieces that say exactly what you expect them to say before you read them. What purpose do these columns serve? Why does TH think that the consistently predictable David Limbaugh is worthwhile? Don't we know what the cadre of anti-gay columnists are going to say before we click that link? Are we ever surprised? Do these people cause us to think about anything? If the answer is no, then why bother? Is TH just about preaching to the choir or does it have a higher purpose?

Townhall should raise the bar....and they should do a better job mixing up column post times. Why not post a few at 5 or 6? Let's give those who work a chance to make a relevant point or two before the usual suspects hijack the thread into babbleland.

In response to Lucifer
Why?

And that's not all
How many times have you noticed liberals tossing out, as an implied insult, the accusation that some debate opponent must be a 'closet homosexual'?
Isn't it funny that many of the same people who claim to desire tolerance, claim to desire respect for homosexuals, are the ones using the term as an insult?

Of course, merely stooping to insults is childish enough that the actual *form* of the insult might not signify, anyway.

4 actions you consider immoral?
"Necrophilia - a sex crime against a un-consenting corpse."

What are 4 actions you consider immoral?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not exist"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Is infanticide "evil"?; Reagan; Nordau
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1131387293.922571.147570%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

are court-ordered killings moral? is legislature-allowed pedophilia moral?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164991468.841855.176340%40l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com

caging homophobic pastors; HIV
"Hate crimes legislation to p[olice the way we think. To tell me which god to believe in and to silence anything that the God of the holy Bible has to say, especially if it is concerned with homosexuality."

caging homophobic pastors
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127529658.506206.300210%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler on the arrogant drivel of opinionated sky pilots/ clergymen
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1178220883.051154.190660%40n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com

threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

"Which do you consider hate? I see a person about to walk right into a viper's pit and I say nothing. Or you see the person and you yell, 'stop' and shove the person out of the way."

correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163126085.304075.116520%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

spread of a quite nasty chlamydia strain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145045688.509125.221080%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
HIV/ AIDS statistics; chlamydia charts & tables
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1150976556.997755.85000%40c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com

SAs Rohm & male prostitutes; Hitler+Rohm
will on June 19, 2007 10:13 PM:
> Synthesizer Aren't you one of those
> "ex-gays" that is trying to renounce his
> homosexuality for the Lord?
> Is that working out for you?

Flood, Charles Bracelen. 1989. _Hitler: The Path to Power_ (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company), 686pp. On 196:
_ _ Berlin's specialized establishments included a
_ _ bathhouse featuring black male prostitutes; later,
_ _ one of its ardent devotees was... Rohm.... Rohm
_ _ wrote a friend that "the steambath there is, in my
_ _ opinion, the epitome of all human happiness!"^51

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
the atheism-adherent Hitler's actions are quite understandable
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127506418.014874.230840%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

details desired re: Hitler's "confession of intimacy with" Rohm?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164898275.379195.263270%40l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com

U.S. of today is like 1920s Germany
"Are any of you familiar with the Pink Swatstika"

Yes.

"Was Adolf Hitler a Homosexual?"
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm
older version also at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=14gv61914jp6oun4kep06366r8k1an35la%404ax.com

Mend
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143649100.859299.209200%40v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com

"Nazi Germany was just as blind as America is now.
You are right, pedophilia and bestiality etc. will be next."

Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&

1939 R. T. Smallbones: "The explanation for this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and, in particular, homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany."
Igra: homosexuality a "poisoned stream" in human history
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1144986392.404825.109570%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Note: I currently suspect that the claim that homosexual activity played a role in the Inquisition is based on bogus anti-Catholic anti-Inquisition propaganda.

Compare the pro-homosexual-activity sections of Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc. of today with:

theological disputes among German Protestants
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129228612.176548.107730%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

position on: abortion? necrophilia?
Lucifer on June 19, 2007 9:59 PM:
> Synthesizer:
>> Do you consider any of these activities immoral?
>> homosexual activity
>
> Since I assume you mean
> homosexual sex my answer is No
> when it involves consenting partners.
>
> Pedophilia & Bestiality - are crimes
> against un-consenting victims.

What's your position on abortion performed for reasons of personal convenience?

What's your position on necrophilia between a living individual and a now-dead individual who when alive gave consent to participating in necrophilia?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism-adherent Singer can't: oppose pedophilia while being consistent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1151326524.293477.235520%40b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

27 November 2004
Blue-state philosopher
Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
by Marvin Olasky
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9987

Nazi camps & homosexual activity
Grobie on June 19, 2007 9:00 PM in Poisoned Stream:
> Hey synthesizer evidently you are
> aware of what the nazi camps were all
> about concerning homosexuality........

Details?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
January 1938
Klemperer, Victor. 1998. _I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi
Years: 1933-1941_, translated by Martin Chalmers (NY: Random House),
519pp. This was first published in Germany in 1995. About the book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375753788/qid=1130514028/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8454961-6898342?
On 249, from the entry for 31 January 1938:
_ _ ....the sudden exclusion of non-Aryan doctors from the
_ _ private insurance schemes. Apart from that in recent
_ _ weeks anti-Semitism has once again been very much in
_ _ the foreground (it rotates: now the Jews, now the
_ _ Catholics, now the Protestant ministers).

Thyssen, Fritz. 1941. _I Paid Hitler_ (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
Ltd.), 319pp. Translated from the original French by Cesar
Saerchinger. On 237:
_ _ At Dusseldorf a Reich attorney paraded details of
_ _ immorality cases and presented them in such a way
_ _ as to incriminate the clergy and the Church, whether
_ _ they were true or false.

Grunberger, Richard. 1971. _The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of
Nazi Germany: 1933-1945_ (USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), 535pp.
On 442-3:
_ _ The years 1936 and 1937, moreover, saw a key
_ _ area of institutional Catholicism-- the monasteries
_ _ and the convents-- subjected to a sustained official
_ _ campaign of vilification. Hundreds of monks and
_ _ nuns were arraigned in the courts on charges
_ _ ranging from illegal currency transactions to sexual
_ _ malpractices. .... One monster trial at Koblenz
_ _ involved 267 members of the Franciscan order (out
_ _ of a national total of 500); the charges related to
_ _ offences against the frequently imbecilic youngsters
_ _ under the brothers' care.

Steiner, Jean-Francois. 1966 French, 1967 English. _Treblinka_ (USA:
New American Library), 304pp. On 117, 118:
_ _ The handsome Max Bielas [assistant to a Treblinka
_ _ commandant] had had a harem of little Jewish boys. He
_ _ like them young, no older than seventeen. In a
_ _ kind of parody of the shepherds of Arcadia, their
_ _ role was to take care of the camp flock of geese.
_ _ They were dressed like princes.... Bielas had had a
_ _ little barracks built for them that looked like a doll's
_ _ house.... "....Just as Bielas sought in Treblinka
_ _ only the satisfaction of his homosexual instincts,
_ _ the commandant wanted only to appease his
_ _ sadism. ...."
Re: the "s:
On xxii, from the book's preface by Simone de Beauvoir:
_ _ Each detail is substantiated by the written or oral
_ _ testimony he [Steiner] has collected and compared.
_ _ But he has not denied himself a certain directorial
_ _ freedom. In particular, he has reconstructed
_ _ conversations of which he obviously did not know
_ _ the words but only the content. Although he may be
_ _ accused of lack of rigor, he would have been less
_ _ faithful to the truth if he had not presented this story
_ _ to us in its living movement.

http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/Chapter6.htm
_ _ Stephan Ross, founder of the New England
_ _ Holocaust Museum, estimates that "about 20
_ _ percent of those guarding Jewish prisoners were
_ _ homosexuals." Ross was himself interned for five
_ _ years in Nazi camps as a child and was repeatedly
_ _ sexually abused by the guards. "[T]hey would beat
_ _ you and make you do that [perform oral sex]" he
_ _ said. "To this day I am very angry about it"
_ _ ("Holocaust Survivor: Molested by Guards," _The
_ _ Massachusetts News_, April 5, 2000).

NOTE: this has graphic material
executions ordered by homosexual activity engager Hitler
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1158779706.445563.132870%40m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com

Poisoned Stream
Hey synthesizer evidently you are aware of what the nazi camps were all about concerning homosexuality........

Name calling, Nazi etc.
Are any of you familiar with the Pink Swatstika or overhauling of America?

Were you aware that the homosexual agenda is the same kind of propaganda used by Hitler. Nazi Germany was just as blind as America is now.

You are right, pedophilia and bestiality etc. will be next. How do I know this? Because the homosexual activists are very very close with NAMBLA, North American Man Boy Love Assoc.
Frank Kameny, billed as a “gay civil rights pioneer” by the U.S. Government’s National Museum of American History, addressed a meeting of the notorious “man-boy-love” group NAMBLA in 1981. Kameny once supported the “civil right” of boys to have sex with men — why else would he attend such a meeting?

Kemeny calls us “nutty fundamentalists,” but is there anything more nutty than giving credence to the idea that boys should be able to have sex with men?

The media viciously attack Christian conservative leaders like Jerry Falwell but they give the “gays” a pass. This is why the homosexual “rights” movement has prospered.

For me this is not just frightening it is showing me how sick we have become in this country. To give not only equal rights but even special rights for this sickness to be called a “Civil Right” is unbearable. Anyone of African American decent should be appalled, and many of them are.


Go check out some sites that will give you info on homosexuality and how it got so big in America for the true size of it's population.

Abiding truth Ministries For one, NARTH, for another. Do some research.

any of these activities immoral?
[Lucifer on 19 June 2007]"Homosexuality & Pedophile & Bestiality
Are not the same things"

Do you consider any of these activities immoral?:
homosexual activity.
pedophilia.
bestiality.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not exist"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

atheism-adherent Singer can't: oppose pedophilia while being consistent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1151326524.293477.235520%40b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

views of atheism-adherent Singer
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141777876.224926.284110%40j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com

27 November 2004
Blue-state philosopher
Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
by Marvin Olasky
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9987

are court-ordered killings moral? is legislature-allowed pedophilia moral?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164991468.841855.176340%40l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com

1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com

Hitler on the private lives of Nazis
atheism-adherent & homosexual-activity-engager Hitler: "private life" of Nazi homosexual-activity-engagers "cannot be an object of scrutiny"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1178722980.154401.145310%40w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com

Excusing Child Abuse
You've heard about pedophile priests. Now meet the pro-pedophile
professors.
http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000582.html

Selling Homosexuality
Marketing strategies aren't just for Pepsi. Gay activists have one
too-- and if you want to see the results, just turn on your TV.
http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000605.html

1939 R. T. Smallbones: "The explanation for this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and, in particular, homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany."
Igra: homosexuality a "poisoned stream" in human history
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1144986392.404825.109570%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Note: I currently suspect that the claim that homosexual activity played a role in the Inquisition is based on bogus anti-Catholic anti-Inquisition propaganda.

I'm for gay rights
Any female homosexual has the right to marry any male homosexual she wants.

Things are going to get very hot in this America due to people who think like Herzog. This includes the majority of the media. They take a piece of info no matter to check it out and they run to the printer with it.

Hate crimes legislation to p[olice the way we think. To tell me which god to believe in and to silence anything that the God of the holy Bible has to say, especially if it is concerned with homosexuality.

Which do you consider hate? I see a person about to walk right into a viper's pit and I say nothing. Or you see the person and you yell, "stop" and shove the person out of the way.

I see people headed for eternal damnation, so I do as I know I should, I warn them. That is not hate my friend, that is love. Go read Ezekiel 33 then tell me I am wrong.


scooter
scooter writes:
"I expect that all who support HOMOSEXUAL rights to also support PEDOPHILE AND BESTIALITY rights."

:)

May Day Plus
Comrade Will says we are the dying breed. That our point of view in accepting all is dying.
My young CADRE what will does not understand is that 30 years ago someone similar to him also said that to someone similar to those that opposed gay marriage. And we can all see today how that is ending up. Just remember my young CADRE as long as a judge can determine what is a right and not society then "Will" and his hipocritical, closed minded, and bigoted view will be burned in the future on the ash heaps of history.
Don't stop me now but WILL sounds awefully similar to those against HOMOSEXUAL Marriage.
Yes, by not accepting others who are "born that way" then WILL is the dying breed.

May Day Plus
I expect that all who support HOMOSEXUAL rights to also support PEDOPHILE AND BESTIALITY rights... I'm sure the accepting in society among us will not turn thier backs on another oppressed group. If you can't find it in your heart to accept these oppressed groups (you bigot) then at the very least accept the path given to them by the HOMOSEXUAL example.
To be given these rights by a true and just JUDICIARY. Remember just because YOU don't agree with these lifestyles please don't deny them thier RIGHTS.

WHO'S THE BIGOT NOW? WHO'S JUDGING OTHERS NOW?
WHO'S PUTTING THIER PERSONAL OPINIONS AND FEELINGS WHERE SHOULD NOT?
If you are then you find yourself in the same group as those who oppose HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.
And more importantly how this became a right.

May Day Plus ?
Comrade lets give some more reasons for PEDOPHILE AND BESTIAL rights...These have all been given before by the HOMOSEXUAL rights lobby.
LIVE AND LET LIVE, STAY OUT OF THE BEDROOM, NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE, PROGRESS, DON'T BE PEDOPHOBE OR BESTIALPHOBE you BIGOTED NAZI.
We can certainly change the age of consent or adult to whatever we like(with a judge) to help our "oppressed" Pedophiles. Also who out there does not know someone that LOVES thier dog more than any other,, yet cannot will the cannine the inheritance. Yes citizens of this JUST nation these rights (just like homosexuality rights)need to come out of the closet>>>>> and be placed upon society by our all knowing JUDICIARY.

May day plus ?
Comrade chairman ,, some of the readers here on townhall do not understand where issue of homosexuality was 30 years ago.
I see my young CADRE,, let us repeat it the progress of society.
30 years ago homosexual marriage had as much chance and relevance as PEDOPHILE marriage or BESTIALITY marriage does today. Homosexuality became a civil rights issue through the media(you are born that way). Thus even though society as a whole never voted for this judges can pass it off as a right.
What is to stop the "rights" of PEDOPHILES or BESTIALS from being recognized in the future? Should we try to stop these rights from People who are (born that way)?
People today think this has nothing to do with HOMOSEXUAL Marriage, much like Homosexual Marriage 30 years ago had nothing to do with changes in AMERICA that weakend the traditional family, 2 incomes(no mom at home),no fault divorce, loss of religion.
Remember a right is whatever a judge OK's, based on Homosexuality's example. And within the next 30 years I'll bet we can find a judge that can put all you PEDOPHOBES AND BESTIALPHOBES in your places by giving these people (born that way) thier legal rights.
BIGOTS OF TODAY it's time to fast forward 30 years and recognize,,,EVERYONE'S RIGHTS.
If not,,, then recognize societies role in prescibing what is and is not "DEVIANT" behaivior (like homosexuality) and let us vote (homosexual marriage)whether this is a right.

gays
As a society we need to stop pandering the this very small segment of society. It does not help society to try to normalize this obviously abnormal behavior. Our children, our families and our society have taken a turn for the worse since they came out of the closet. I wish they would go back inside.

Slacker
Its really that simple, isnt it?

eddie
We may not disagree. But here is my opinion:

Marriage is a religious state. Various religions give it different meanings. Some even support polygamous marriages. Most don't. Some support homosexual marriages. Most don't. If a couple wants to get a marriage that is blessed by a religion, they should be able to shop around tell the find a church, synagog, mosque, ashram or whatever that will marry them and "bless" the union in the eyes of god.

The fact that one church recognizes a couple as married and another does not should have no legal or financial consequences for a couple. There should be no obligation for one religion to recognize marriages blessed by another.

A civil union is a legal arrangement that requires the state to treat people in a certain way with respect to inheritance, taxes, medical proxy rights, etc. It is a legal document and couples entering into them have obligations legally as well as rights. If they have or adopt children for example, there are child support consequences, custody issues, etc. if they break up. They can't just walk away from these agreements any more than a heterosexual couple can.

Thus there is a big difference betweeen marriage and a civil union. Or should be. The reason this topic causes such heated discussions is because people who don't think logically mix up the religious and secular issues.

If you separate the religious and secular issues the problem doesn't exist.

eddie
>What is so terrible about marriage?

It is the government forcing its religous beliefs on its citizens. This is a first amendment issue.

Paul RE: evolution
Paul, think carefully. If evolution had selected against homosexuality, it's more than likely it would have been eliminated by now. What is much more likely is that homosexuality is linked to other essential traits so that it cannot be selected against.

The issue Herzog addresses is that of hypocrisy - is it hypocritical for someone who egages in homosexual behavior to be opposed to government sanction of gay marriage. The answer is no, even if the person believes there is nothing wrong with their behavior. As an example, one might favor laws restricting the availability of pornography (particularly to minors) or the nature of pornography (softcore versus hardcore), yet still believe it is OK for an adult to view the some pornography. In other words, just because one engages in a behavior that many find inappropriate, doesn't mean you have to support free and full availability or expression of that behavior.


Two things are obvious - gay tendencies (ranging from natural tendencies of intersexuals to heterosexual 'experimentation') will be with us forever and second - it's not necessary to afford gays with ostensibly 'equal rights' to heterosexuals in order to treat gays with dignity and respect as human beings. 'outing' gays presumeably to make a charge of hipocrisy only illustrates the corrupt nature of the GLBT agenda. GLBT agenda drivers can't have it both ways - you can't ask to be treated identically the same as heterosexuals when you're at the same time trying to highlight your unique and diverse qualities.

If you actually look around, most gay couples do just fine and are accepted as members of our society. Many disagree with their choice of behavior, yet do nothing to interfere with their lifestyle. Passing laws to legalize gay marriage will not make them any more accepted.

The burden of proof
is on those who want to change the laws to eliminate heterosexual marriage and replace it with state sanctioned arrangements that include two men or two women. Why should the state do this? What benefit does the state receive from doing this? Why eliminate marrriage? What is so terrible about marriage? In anticipation of the irrational, I reiterate marriage is between a man and a woman. Those supporting the so-called gay marriage standard are in essence eliminating (say changing if you like) marriage as it is and calling something else marriage. The heterosexual relationship is not equivalent to the homosexual relationship. To say it is, is to engage in a lie and deceit.

inkling_revival you prove my point
Once again you illustrate conservatives lack the ability to think logically.

If the article in question does acknowledge that some gay activists oppose outing, it is burried.

The first paragraph lays out the point of the article:

"...gay rights activists aren’t serious about their demand that government “stay out of the bedroom.”

She doesn't say ONE or a Minority. She implies ALL.

The last sentence that concludes the article says:

"Once again, the gay rights activists have shown their moral bankruptcy."

She doesn't say ONE or a minority. She says THE gay rights activists. Just another way of tarring the entire movement, including Log Cabin Republicans, with the actions of a single individual.

inkling_revival
You wrote: I can imagine fewer policies more obviously DAFT than allowing homosexuals to adopt children."

I can think of few policies more obviously DAFT than denying gays and lesbians the right to adopt. Why would you deny thousands, if not millions, of parentless children loving, stable households?

Leftist agenda
Do you mean the leftist agenda that seeks to grant equal rights to people regardless of sexual orientation? Very sinister . . .

A Sewer Lifestyle
Gay sexual acts are sewer fodder and end up being like evolution's natural selection of only the strong survive to live into their 30's.

Why this writer supports these sicko's only shows she really does not care about them living a full life.

AZPhil
It depnend on the situation. In Tibet, there was a shortage of women, so two brothers would share a wife, to insure the male blood line would continue.


Since men earn more money, for example, they the child with two fathers would have more advantages (In theory at least, this is assuming the parents put the intrests of their child first)

It's not just the leftist agenda....
It's not just the leftist that wrongly out closeted homosexuals. Look at all the enterainment magazines and trash rags. It sucks, but if you're in the spotlight or even affliated with someone that is....they don't care. But stop blaming just the gays that want them to jump on board with the "leftist" agenda. Straight people do it too and the gays aren't out blaming all straight conservatives for it.

naked pagan
Just from a matter of passing on genes, polygamy makes sense - one guy can impregnate multiple women simultaneously. But polyandry (again, just from a sheer reproductive standpoint) doesn't make sense.

Good Job Ashley!
Ashley, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite columnists on this site. Like you I am a conservative who is supportive of same-sex marriage ad adoption. I am aginst hate crimes however and I think its terrible when marriage is handled by the courts. That being said I would never think to actually say to anyone who disagrees with me to get out of my party or ideoloigcal movement. That type of behavior is generally associated with leftists. I guess the conservative movement has a few bad apples who become enraged when they see someone who disagrees with them. There are plenty of good-hearted people on both sides of this issue. I don't think in any political forum we need people questioning how the editors put you on our site. You are brilliant. Don't move to Moveon, Ashley, we need more young conservatives like you who are out there battling the ridiculousness that feminism is.

Lolo
I agree with you on the polygamy issue. It's bad enough having one wife nagging at you:)

lolo
Poly relationships have been around since the begining of man. Some of the most rightoues men in the bible had mulitple wives, and the Bible certainly does not speak against it.

I see it simply as the pooling of rescoures. If three people work, they can own a nicer house, and if one of them loses their job, there are others to pick up the slack. True, it is a human relationship so it has its own set of issues, but nothing insurmontable

Honestly polyandry is really common place in the States(That one woman with mulitple husbands) Consider a divorced mother with a father that still wants to be active in his childrens lives, and the mother does want to date, maybe even remarry....She has two men in her life fullfiling the role of husband and father.


never mind
I found it

http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/

Truth is both sides agree there hasnt been any good solid research done on this subject.

naked pagan
I cannot believe you think polygamy is a good thing. You are absolutely clueless.

inkling_revival
There has been a great deal of research done on this and good many books written.

Raider Nation
I can tell you from my own experience that just having a mom and dad does not make a loving nuturing enviroment, and is no panacea to the worlds woes. Its better that children have a parents that take care of them, and gender really doesnt matter there.....and honestly, dont you think its better for an orphan to live with a same sex couple than in an institution?

Raider nation
Stand down, soldier, we're on the same side.

I have not heard that any research has been performed specifically on the effect of same-sex parents on child-rearing. But I think you're right about the married parents of the child providing by far the best situation for the child, and any studies I've read about seem to bear this out.

Yes, by "two-parent households," I was talking about married male/female couples.


Raider Nation
>I was pretty specific in my comments about any living arrangement that has been tried and studied which deviates from the optimal rearing environment for children has had calamitous results in the real lives of real kids


I would like to read these studies myself....could you post a link to them?

me too, Gabby

Excellent post. Don't give up the fight.

Inkling
"I don't know that this pertains specifically to homosexuals. Raider Nation seems to think it does. I don't think research has been done on this."

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain? I was pretty specific in my comments about any living arrangement that has been tried and studied which deviates from the optimal rearing environment for children has had calamitous results in the real lives of real kids.

When you write "two-parent homes," you mean a child living with his own mom and dad, right? I addressed other "two-parent" homes earlier and just "any two people" doesn't work. I will assume you meant a married mom and dad unless you say otherwise.

yankette
> If gays are allowed to "marry", what's next? 3 or more people allowed to marry? 10 people? What about Joe Shmoe wanting to marry his pet rock? Where/When will it end

Religously, it is up to a church to decide who gets married. When the government starts to regulate it, then then are interfering with a persons religious beliefs.

What the Government controls is the Marriage contract, not the marriage sacrament. This is the business side of things, the insurance, the pensions, the heirs and powers of attorney. This being the case, why should a persons gender be a deciding issue?

I personally dont have a problem with poly relationships. Its simply the pooling of rescoures to make a more stable enviroment, which would benefit everyone, children included.

The rock/animal/child thing wouldnt work legally because none of these groups can enter into a contract, and you know this.

Whos right is it
I want to know why god create men and women? What or who gives the right of a man to represent a woman and a woman the right to represent a man. If god wanted to to create a shehim why didt he just create men or women with both body parts.? I have yet to see a man have a baby. Please advise me when two men married to each other have a baby. This gay/homosexual
crap has gotten out of hand.

Gabby
GREAT post.

Social "progressives" have been selling "what we do in private affects nobody else" for decades, and it's so incredibly, obviously false that it's sickening. Just the flaming epidemic of venereal diseases among teenagers alone proves that it's nothing but a rationalization for what they intuitively know to be horrid behavior.

I loved this:

"Who on EARTH, with any intelligence, honestly believes what is done is private has no affect on others?

Oh.

Never mind."

Indeed.

Critical Bill
"does that apply to what we might call "broken homes" - where one parent has moved out and no longer plays a part in a child's upbringing, or does that apply to what we are talking about here - single mothers who have had children specifically without a father or homosexual parents?"

Wow, what a post. It's pretty obvious you're reaching, and I mean REALLY reaching, for a reason to ignore what you know perfectly well -- there's a general consensus in the social science community these days that a two-parent household is vastly better for the kids than a single-parent household. I don't recall a distinction between deliberate single-family situations and situations that are the result of divorce; it might be worth exploring, but I seriously think you're just fishing for an excuse to ignore what you know.

I don't know that this pertains specifically to homosexuals. Raider Nation seems to think it does. I don't think research has been done on this.

My analogy to alcoholism is the result of a great deal of personal experience in the world of addiction recovery, and yes, that experience has encompassed plenty of homosexuals. The psychosocial profile between alcoholics and gays is comparable, although not identical. If you can convince me that it would be appropriate to allow alcoholic couples to adopt children, I'll go along with allowing gay couples to do so.

By the way, your comments about the effect of divorce on children is VERY relevant -- given the incredible instability of gay couples. I did mention this in my last post: the average tenure of a gay "committed relationship" is 1.5 years. So if you let a gay couple adopt a child, the likelihood that that child will experience a "family" breakup is very, very high. Still want to let it happen?

Yes, I'm sure you do -- because what you said of Raider Nation: "...you're making definite statements based on your own prejudices that have very little backing in real evidence..." -- is actually true of you.

Finally, it really doesn't matter what the gay couple you know is like. Because adoption agencies are not clairvoyant, they have to make decisions largely on broad categories of probability, looking for indicators of stability, maturity, and good citizenship. Membership in a category exhibiting astronomically high incidences of sexual promiscuity, depressive disorders, and relational instability (i.e. homosexuals) would be a criterion for automatic rejection, if it weren't for political correctness.

I can imagine fewer policies more obviously DAFT than allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

Pirate
>is that a "marriage license" is literally a license to create children and a system of liability for those who do.

Thats just silly. You dont need a license to have a baby. You dont need to be married, or even have the father in the picutre at all. Where did you come up with this nonsense?

Critter Bill Can't Connect Dots
"You don't get the argument, do you?"

Bill, I don't think you get the argument. Let's just break it down for you:

It cannot be denied that children statistically do far better when raised by a married mother and father. Any other prevalent category of "alternative family" ("single moms," whether abandoned or "single mom" by design, divorced homes, "mixed" homes, etc.) are generally poor environments for kids. The reason children do far better when raised by their own mom or dad is dictated by nature and common sense. This is one of those things "you can't not know." You have replaced critical thinking, reasoning and common sense with a need for "experts" and "studies" to do your "thinking" for you. If you believe that just any two people will do, you must believe that one parent or the other is disposable or that there is no difference between men and women or that it is utterly meaningless that the only union that can by nature produce children is a sexual union between one man and one woman...can't be that this is the way it is supposed to be, right? No matter which way you slice it, all evidence and common sense leads to the unarguable conclusion that kids do best when raised by a married mother and father and that kids raised in any arrangement that deviates from this ideal model do statistically worse, and much worse in many cases.

Do you really think that it's OK to just experiment on kids like they are just so many red-eyed lab rats? Or do you think that if government has any role whatsoever in promoting anything that it should be in the business of promoting what we KNOW (by common sense and by a mountain of evidence) to be the optimal (though not perfect...what is?) environment in which to raise our generations rather than a social-engineering trial-and-error with the real lives of real children?

"The rise of the no-fault divorce is partially to blame, for sure, but don't blame that on liberals. Come on - what sort of arument is that?"

This single statement demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to admit what can't be denied. Who favors no-fault divorce and who opposes no-fault divorce? The two answers are Leftists and Conservatives. You know which is which. This is not a serious argument.

Some resources:
http://fathersforlife.org/fatherhood/fatherlessness_table_contents.htm

http://www.childrensjustice.org/fatherlessness2.htm

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Regarding women who choose to purposely deprive a child of a father, nearly every story you read, nearly every woman who does this (usually older professional women) does so for (shocker!) "personal fulfillment." Yes, many of these women may be able to provide for their children financially, but overwhelmingly, these women, in order to do that, must either dump their 10-week-old into daycare or pass the mothering duties on to a nanny. No, I don't have "study" on this specific situation, but the studies on kids condemned to daycare are pretty clear. "Shockingly," the daycare model has generally hurt kids. This is another instance of common sense dictating reality. It's obvious that kids are better off raised by their own parents than by a parade of cold strangers. It's equally obvious that kids are best off when they are raised in a home with their married mother and father. Again, Bill, it is hard to believe that there are so many people like you who argue against things "you can't not know."

inkling_revival
inkling_revival writes:
"You guys aren't serious, right?"

Sure.

"I mean, the article acknowledges that some gay activists oppose outing as an invasion of privacy, but others endorse it. This is the general analysis that you both claim is missing from the article."

Where does it acknowledge this?

"This isn't hard, guys, all you have to do is WANT to understand. But even that's asking too much of gay activists, arguably the most consistently vicious and dishonest group in modern American politics."

Yeah, all I have to do is understand that "gay activists are vicious liars". No, I don't WANT to understand how you came to the conclusion that they're like that.

Chuck
LOL!

As for homosexuality, there's 2 issues which are never separated: homosexuality itself, and marriage. Let's address them 1 at a time.

1.) Homosexuality - there are several points of disagreement between the left and right wings on homosexuality. For example:

What is homosexuality?

Left-wing answer: a person's set of sexual desires which are directed solely towards a person of the same gender.

Right-wing answer: a person's set of behaviors and actions which consist of foreplay and/or intercourse with a person of the same gender.

There are a certain amount of "straights" who have sex with other men. In a leftist's mind, these would be simply straight men... who have sex with men (something a right-winger would find absurd). In a right-winger's mind, these people are homosexuals, as are those who openly profess homosexual desire.

What then, if anything, is wrong with homosexuality? The right-wing consists primarily of functionalists. Functionalism is a philosophy that asserts every part of the body has a function. Eyes let you see, ears let you hear, and sex organs let you reproduce, and one's sexual desires serve the function of fulfilling this end. As such, homosexuality is regarded as "deviant" or "aberrant" as it reveals signs of a mental illness. Combine this functionalist sentiment with the sentiment that not only does the body have a function, but a purpose (because a vast majority of conservatives believe in God), and that this purpose carries a moral responsibility, and now homosexuality is no longer simply the product of a mental illness, but is morally objectionable. You can hate that line of argument all you want, but that is the thought-process that goes on here, visiting liberals.


2.) Marriage - once again, along the same lines of function and purpose, what is the function and/or purpose of marriage? The conservative answer is simple: to formally recognize moral responsibility for the creation and upbringing of children, and to serve as a contract dissuading the avoidance of this responsibility. Liberals have never been able to assign a purpose to marriage: they don't believe in sexual exclusivity as they endorse having multiple "partners" (read: f*ck-toys), and they often abhor children given the concentration of DINKs (double-income, no kids) in their ranks. For liberals and homosexual activists though, it was never really about marriage. Otherwise they could simply endorse a new institution called civil unions. Rather, homosexual activists want to redefine marriage in order to gain acceptance, and liberals want to redefine marriage so as to erode at these "prudish" conservatives who would endorse such "antiquated" ideas like sexual exclusivity and responsible parents.

Man your battle stations
Why should we out closeted staffers for conservative anti-gay politicians and groups?

Because this is war, Silence = Death, and you're the enemy. Get used to it.

By the way, this kid is president of YAF at WMU?!? Get a rope.

----------------------
p.s.- I'm also confused about the Mikulski thing. Everyone in MD knows she's gay, but only because she never responded during her race against TH's own beloved Linda Chavez. Everyone also knows that she's golden.

Raider Nation
You don't get the argument, do you? Again, you are talking about what we would normally call "broken homes", not homes where a woman has specifically chosen to raise a family without a man's involvement. Believe it or not, personally, I don't think that's a great idea. But I also do not believe that there is enough evidence to conclusively say one way or another that being raised by two homosexuals has a detrimental impact on a child's life, happiness and future prospects. My point about divorce is that regardless of the evidence, or lack of, about homosexuals or single mothers who have totally skipped the father's role, it is a racing certainty that messy divorces between two heterosexual parents do mess kids' lives up and certainly do lead to a higher number of the problems you describe. I just think you're making definite statements based on your own prejudices that have very little backing in real evidence. Again, you talk about a "mountain of evidence" - well, name some of it.
Inner city issues you describe aren't a result of your "single mother" scenario or homosexual parenting. They are the result of fathers abandoning families and poverty. You are using totally irrelevant "evidence" to back your argument up. The rise of the no-fault divorce is partially to blame, for sure, but don't blame that on liberals. Come on - what sort of arument is that? Oh yes, I'd forgotten, this is Townhall and all of societies ills are the fault of liberals, aren't they...

So to carry out Critical Bill's logic
He says that heterosexual couples can get divorced and "mess up kids pretty good." So, he concludes, how can that be worse than being raised by an intentionally single mother or a homosexual couple?

Well, shoot, let's just carry that out and let kids be adopted and raised by any ol' person or group that applies for it. Hell, let's kick out appraisals and approvals of prospective parents altogether, hmmm? Since we never know when a heterosexual couple might fall apart and "mess up a kid," then how can society, in all good conscience, prevent ANYONE who wants to give it a try from adopting innocent children??? I mean, you never know, things just MIGHT work out . . .

Or did I misunderstand your line there, Billy?

EXIT FROM THE REAR
I belive that if got wanted human beings to have rectal sex he would have made it and entry point instead of an exit point to rectum.

Shillary
As MAD TV character says "Women with short hair are lesbians" Shillary has short hair....

By...
"...society of spoiled, self-serving children"

I meant the adults in today's world who act like children whose each fleeting emotional need must be met and honored by the entire society. I wasn't talking about children in the literal sense.

To Critical Bill
"I don't know anyone who was brought up by an intentional single mother or two homosexuals, but I do know people whose parents went through messy divorces when they were children. And it messed them up good."

Is that supposed to an argument FOR homosexual adoption or intentionally fatherless homes? Of course messy divorces "mess them up good." This is another tragic example of what Leftists have done to destroy the lives of children -- focus completely on the "fulfillment" of adult "feelings" instead of concentrating on how to best protect children. No-fault divorce, heralded as a panacea for spineless, fragile adults and innocent children alike has been DEVASTATING to those children. Even low-conflict, "I just don't have the same feelings for you as I did when we met" marriages routinely end in divorce because society has made it acceptable for adults to be perpetually adolescent, driven by the emotion of the moment, the well-being of children be damned. And NOW we want to make it even worse by pretending its OK to purposely deprive children of one parent or the other. All this so adults can feel good about themselves in this society of spoiled, self-serving children. Pretty sick stuff, bro.

Are you really not aware of the mountain of evidence regarding that statistical fate of children without dads? Please don't waste my time arguing a point that is both self-evident AND backed by every piece of social science evidence that exists. If dads are so important that their absence, yes, DEVASTATES the lives of children, I would guess that the absence of a mom (though more rare, thus less studied) would carry similar consequences. Therefore, logic says, that PURPOSELY depriving a child of either a mom or a dad is a selfish and destructive act that more than likely leads to deleterious results for the innocent children forced into such a life by selfish adults. If you come back with the "what about a home with two loving adults, regardless of gender" argument I say two things 1) what makes the number "2" sacrosanct? If "2" is better than one, can't 12 people be parents of a child with results that are 6 times better? No, the most important thing for a child is a Mom AND a Dad. To deny this is to deny common sense and all social science evidence. (Please spare me the phony pro-homosexual "studies" that show there is "no difference" -- each one I've seen is an advocacy piece which doesn't stand up under the least bit if scrutiny). 2) I direct you to any inner-city neighborhood. Many children in these neighborhoods are raised by a mom and grandma or a mom and an auntie...result...have you check the crime, poverty, substance abuse and illegitimacy perpetuation rates in said neighborhoods?

inkling
I'm not sure I agree with you on any of that. The "evidence" you present in the first paragraph - does that apply to what we might call "broken homes" - where one parent has moved out and no longer plays a part in a child's upbringing, or does that apply to what we are talking about here - single mothers who have had children specifically without a father or homosexual parents? The former I'd bet - so a totally irrelevant answer. I wonder - is it more of a problem when a parent leaves having played a part in a child's life? I reckon it is. I'd also take issue with your claim that life in a household run by homosexual parents is like living with two alcoholic opposite sex parents. Where do you get that? Again, it's a pretty definite position you have taken there - I presume you have some hard evidence to back that up? Like academic papers and the like? I know a couple of homosexuals - and they can't be any more highly strung and emotional than my mother was!

Critical Bill
"...what evidence do you have to support your statement that single mothers or homosexual parents "devastate" the lives of the children that they raise?"

There's a great deal of evidence suggesting higher incidences of antisocial behaviors, depression, poor performance in school, delinquency and the like occurring in single-parent families than in dual-parent families. I don't know if I'd call that "devastating the lives of children," but I'd certainly call the single-parent model a problematic environment that mitigates against a normal, well-adjusted upbringing.

Raider nation seems to think that it's the presence of two genders, not just the presence of two parents, that produces the stability of a normal upbringing. I'm inclined to agree, though I honestly don't know if there's research supporting that claim. Given the marked instability of gay couples (average tenure of a "committed" gay couple is 1.5 years), and the impact of a divorce on children, I'd say allowing gay couples to adopt children is insane.

Think of it this way: if a heterosexual couple in which both partners just happen to be ALCOHOLICS try to adopt a child, they'll be told, not "No," but "HELL No." This is not because we think alcoholics will deliberately do nasty things to children, but simply because we know that alcoholism is accompanied by predictable, developmental and emotional weaknesses that mitigate against a normal, healthy environment for children.

The atmosphere in a gay couple's home will not be all that different from the atmosphere in an alcoholic couple's home, because gays exhibit the same sorts of predictable, developmental and emotional weaknesses as alcoholics. The gay couple may treat the kid fairly, but it's still not going to be a good environment for normal development.

Captain America
Yet another dinosaur. Stop talking gibber. Accepting gay rights does not mean accepting polygamist rights, paedophile rights or presumably, bestiality rights. The key to this is consenting adults - I don't think children are consenting adults, neither do I think sheep are either. Polygamy, when everyone involved is an adult and making their mind up freely, is legal. You just don't get married. A man can live with as many women as he wants - he just can't marry them all. And so can any woman too. Like Lord Bath and his "wifelets". It's hysterical nonsense to say that supporting homosexual rights leads to paedophile rights too. See what I mean Ashley? Don't give in to the dark side - see the light and stop being a conservative.

"Gay" Rights?
So it has come to this. First, "Conservatives" accepting and using the term "Gay" (which is designed to distract from what these people really do behind closed doors) to describe homosexuals. Then a "Conservative" columnist, on a Conservative website declaring her support for "Gay" rights. Once the door labeled "Other" has been opened, you must also support pedophile "rights", polygamist "rights", and the "rights" of any other group of people sexual habits other than one man and woman in a heterosexual relationship.

Actually ..
I suspect that only people who have the luxury of a lot of free time could possibly be so damn obsessed with their own or someone elses genitalia.
Most of us are so damn busy working to stay afloat that it's a choice between trying to stay informed as a citizen; or just taking advantage of the circus activity with our 'free time'.

Personally, we're all sinful and I don't see a big difference in any of the old fashioned sexual sins. Sin is sin and that is quite frankly why so many want to kill God. Not rocket science.

Slacker, JohnUnderhill
You guys aren't serious, right?

I mean, the article acknowledges that some gay activists oppose outing as an invasion of privacy, but others endorse it. This is the general analysis that you both claim is missing from the article.

As many as endorse outing, are examples of the sort of invasion mentioned in the lead line. Those who don't, are not.

This isn't hard, guys, all you have to do is WANT to understand. But even that's asking too much of gay activists, arguably the most consistently vicious and dishonest group in modern American politics.

Jack
It's only blackmail if a threat is issued with the intent of controlling behavior. "Outing" is not illegal. It's vile, vicious, uncivil, unwarranted, and evidence that the perpetrator has the soul of a hyena. But it's not illegal.

And they do it to cause as much pain as possible. Because they're just ordinary citizens, you see.

joe.my.god, grumpy
Gotta love those liberals...

YAF is a Republican activist group for college students, period. It's called a "hate group" by liberal organizations pretty much solely as part of the Left's attempt to criminalize the Republican party. It's never, EVER been involved in anything more nefarious than campaigning for issues and candidates endorsed by the Republican party.

Calling YAF a "hate group" is simply laughable. Calling it "Hitler-Youth-like" is nothing but Leftist hyperventilating of the worst sort.

Given the record of gay activists, I am COMPLETELY, ONE HUNDRED FREAKING PERCENT certain that if there actually exists a picture of the young man involved holding a sign saying "Back to the Closet" or any such thing, it was created in Photoshop by a gay activist.

And a young gay man's choice to tell his friends and co-workers about his private matters does not, in the slightest way, justify a hate campaign designed to embarrass and defame that young man.

Gay activists are vicious liars. Don't let them get away with it.

the homosexuals being exposed publicly
With respect to exposing a person as a homosexual, it seems that they are predominantly interested in conservative homosexuals.

What concerns me the most about this is the thing that seems to be unstated.

Didn't this sort of behavior or the implied threat of it used to be called blackmail?

Isn't that a crime - a felony, in fact?

slacker
slacker writes:
"Why Conservatives Can't think Logically
Herzog says:
"... gay rights activists aren’t serious about their demand that government “stay out of the bedroom.” Instead of advocating privacy for homosexuals, AT LEAST ONE gay man is making a career out of destroying it."
Apparently there isn't a single conservative (unless I missed your post) who noticed the faulty reasoning in that lead paragraph!!
Herzog finds ONE person whose behavior she finds objectionable and uses that case to imply that behavior extends to all gay rights activists."

Rest assured, plenty noticed...but plenty are just used to it. Look all the way back to yesterday to the article titled "Why Do Gays Hate Religious Freedom?". Did the article go on to explain how all gay people, how most gay people, or even how some gay people hate religious freedom? Did it explain how some gay people dislike religious freedom? Did it explain how some gay people dislike a portion of religous freedom? No, all the article said was that certain gay activists disagree that the hate crimes bill will affect some religious freedom of expression.

Isn't a conservative ideal shy away from group-think? Is this ideal abandoned to aid in vilification?

Raider Nation
Just out of interest, what evidence do you have to support your statement that single mothers or homosexual parents "devastate" the lives of the children that they raise? I mean, to have such a definite opinion, you must have some pretty hard evidence to support your case. So what is it? I also wonder if those two examples you give are any worse than a messy divorce between a man and a woman. I don't know anyone who was brought up by an intentional single mother or two homosexuals, but I do know people whose parents went through messy divorces when they were children. And it messed them up good.

To CharlieS
"That is NOT "pap," or a myth. Not completely anyhow.
True, SOME gay couples do want a baby. But lots of them also try to adopt the hard to place kids that you mention.
WHY? Because they figure, and rightly so, that ANY PERMANENT HOME is better than an orphanage/childrens "home," or constantly being moved from one foster home to another."

Nope. You need to reverse your claim. I'll do it for you.

"SOME 'gay' couples try to adopt hard to place kids, but most attempt to adopt newborns."

Homosexuals do not adopt "harder to place" children at a higher rate than couples that allow children to have both a Mom and a Dad.

You are talking theoretically. You seem to be saying that since there are kids out there who need to be adopted and who are harder to place that automatically means that homosexuals are trying to fill that gap. Untrue. Not only do most homosexual couples go after newborns, many choose surrogacy and IVF, methods that do not show up in adoption stats, but do offer a look into your false assertions. Additionally, homosexuals are increasingly looking to international adoption, a point that further withers your attempt at masking the issue and the truth. Going further, check out the LA Times series by Kevin Sack last year in which he followed a bizarre homosexual couple in their quest to have the perfectly genetically-engineered child through surrogacy.

Bottom line -- I can't think of a more selfish and destructive act than that of homosexuals and "single moms" (I'm talking about women who DECIDE that a father need not be part of a child's life) who PURPOSELY choose to devastate the life of an innocent baby by intentionally depriving her of a Mom or a Dad. If that doesn't bother you, I wonder what possibly could bother you.

du
du wrote, "Many gays and lesbians in this country have little representation" and "closeted polititicans who have supported anti gay laws".


Those two statements by an obvious "gay" sympathizer are the reason for the backlash against homosexuals in America.

"Little representation"? What kind of "representation" do you want? Homos have the same representation everyone else has. Poor little victims (as the homos like to see themselves), pretending to be a minority and demanding minority rights.

Why would a homo politician advocate "anti-gay" laws? Name one homo pol who has advocated "anti-gay" laws. You can't. There ain't none. There's no such thing as an "anti-gay" law.

You homos need to get in touch with reality. Almost everyone in this country doesn't give a sh*t who you sleep with. We hetros just don't care about that.

It's ironic that you homos demand to be treated preferentially because of your sexual orientation, but when someone thinks sexual orientation is a personal and private matter, you homos want to "out" them.

Keep up the hypocrisy, homos. You aren't winning any sympathy.

Why Conservatives Can't think Logically
Herzog says:

"... gay rights activists aren’t serious about their demand that government “stay out of the bedroom.” Instead of advocating privacy for homosexuals, AT LEAST ONE gay man is making a career out of destroying it."

Apparently there isn't a single conservative (unless I missed your post) who noticed the faulty reasoning in that lead paragraph!!

Herzog finds ONE person whose behavior she finds objectionable and uses that case to imply that behavior extends to all gay rights activists.

There are plenty of gay activists who DON'T engage in this behavior. Indeed, many of them are conservatives, not wild eyed and crazy liberals. For example the Log Cabin Republicans who publicly advocate fairness and freedom for gays and lesbians: http://online.logcabin.org/about/

Not to mention that Joe.My.God has shown Herzog is guilty of incredibly bad research before publishing an article on a public forum. Much the same kind of things she is accusing her lone gay activist of doing.

This is what is wrong with the conservative movement today. The majority of conservatives seem to have lost their ability to think logically. I have to admit that the title of my article implies I have an answer to why that is the case, but I don't. All I can say is the past 6 years or so of the Bush administration seems to have greatly contributed to the dumbing down of the American conservative movement.

We need at least eight years of Hillary and her shenanigans to force them to sharpen their wits again.

is it that impossible?
Is it that impossible to have a conversation about gay people without bringing up multiple wives, bestiality, pedophilia, addictions, mental illness or sermons?
As if these pathologies don't and never did exist in heterosexuals?


I mean is it REALLY that impossible?

And the same people who keep doing that get offended by being called bigoted, prejudiced or a hater.

And apparently, couldn't care less about how offensively they speak to, about and for gay people.

I thought TH would attract people who were invested in learning something, but having your prejudices validated means a lot more.

It's easy to go to a dictionary and look up the definitions of murderers, thieves, adulterers, mental illness, addictions and prejudice.
And at no time will you find those definitions synonymous or analogous to homosexuality.

And those of you who think gay people already have equal or special rights...haven't ONCE wished you could trade places with someone gay...what you believe doesn't square with what you'd really want if IT WERE YOU.


But you know it ISN'T you who has to deal with what gay people have to.
And you know you never will.

It's just easier to pass judgement and however incorrectly, doesn't matter or move you.

You are mere mortals after all, prone to stupid mistakes and mean spirited pronouncements and directives.
Including whoever has interpreted Scripture, the Qu'ran and Torah over the centuries.

Some people here are as impossible to have this conversation with as the Islamic extremists who think 'we're all sinners', and would like to see us disappear off the face of the Earth.

With them, it's all of us, plus the Jews.
With some on these threads it's homosexuals.

Okay, so if all the homosexuals disappeared today.
What problems in the great straight world would be solved?

See what you're in for Ashley?
Any opinion that exhibits the slightest trace of humanity is immediately trashed by the good Christians of Townhall. I suggest you jump ship and join the Democrats where people are a hell of a lot nicer.

younger people...and career mentors
In the entirety of the gay blogsphere...there are but a few gay people who engage in outing.
As pointed out, this T. Whitney is VERY young. Pretty much just starting out on a serious political career path.
And he's doing what a politician WOULD do, seek out a mentor who could raise the profile of his experience.
And if he sacrifices a certain amount of intergity or fellows along the way, so be it.

But once again the easy blame goes to GAY people...as if the POLITICAL culture isn't rife with hedging, backstabbing and glad handing before a betrayal.

Many gays and lesbians in this country have little representation. And the few Democrats or liberals...or even Republicans who showed up with open hands for campaign millions from generous gays and lesbians, betrayed them eventually with EXTREME anti gay policies that have turned out to be damaging to the ENTIRE COUNTRY in the long run...like DADT.

And closeted polititicans who have supported anti gay laws, considering what's at stake..., are doing something that speaks of the culture of systemic prejudice, rather than being gay.

This kid is covering himself, trying to protect his career path.


However...many heterosexual politicians cover THEMSELVES with a token gay staffer to gain the trust of gay voters.
And even with a close professional relationship like that, would still betray that gay person with anti gay laws.

That's like a white politician parading his black staffer around or coming to black churches...to get the attention of black voters, only to turn around and DIS-represent that block in anti black laws.

Users are users in the game.

Rogers is a cynic. And considering politics in general...who wouldn't be?

CVN65
I'm not sure anyone is supporting the outing of closeted homosexuals simply for having conservative views. Where the line is crossed is when people choose public life rather than private and take openly hypocritical stances, much like the lad who is the subject of this column has done. For example, I have no problem with someone who is anti-gay marriage and is also gay - there are penty of them. The problem lies with the Ted Haggards of this world - open hostility to homosexuals yet joining the queue for the bath house on the side. I don't think many people have a problem outing that type, and this lad clearly falls into the same category.

CVN65:
Please quote me back where I "painted all conservatives as radical fascists." I did not say that. However, in the case of Whitney and the YAF, I'd say that being a member of a campus group whose leader openly calls on YouTube for the imprisonment or murder of gays does INDEED quality for the title "Hitler Youth."

THAT, my friends, is the crux of the Tyler Whitney story. As has been sadly proven over and over and over again, the worst and most vocal enemies of the gay community are ALWAYS eventually revealed to be gay themselves. It's the oldest story in the movement and the list of names only gets longer daily, now to include Tyler Whitney, and I suspect, soon, Kyle Bristow. As my granny in North Carolina used to say, "The guilty dog barks loudest." You may prefer Shakespeare's, "The lady doth protest too much."

I support the right to sexual privacy of all Americans, however, when somebody works to HARM my own sexual rights and those of my friends, while being gay themselves, THOSE people WILL be exposed. It's called hypocrisy, kids. If an anti-abortion leader were to be revealed as having had a secret abortion, you don't think THAT would be loudly made known?

Robert E Lee you are a dinosaur
And you are fighting a losing battle. You may never accept homosexuality; judging by the username you have chosen that doesn't surprise me. But the reality is that among the younger generation, by that I mean anyone under 40, people don't really care that much and even most younger conservatives think along similar lines to the writer of this column. The Ben Shapiros of this world who think like you are becoming an ever increasing minority - good job too. Contrary to your opinion, normal people are happy for people to choose how to live their lives and if that means being homosexual, so be it.

joe my god
Wow. What a well-researched and written rebuttal. It is clear that you are either very familiar with this particular issue or an amazing researcher. It is extremely unfortunate that someone of your obvious intelligence has to lapse into a "Hitler youth" diatribe. Painting all conservatives as radical fascists, anti-gay and as haters is the same as conservatives stereotyping all gays as drug addled, irresponsible and whorish. Surely you can see this if you take one step back. While Ms. Herzog has not done her homework in this case, do you still support the outing of gays and lesbians as political punishment for conservative views? How does that fit with a call for tolerance of different lifestyles and "Celebrating Diversity"?

A bad argument to be avoided
I know a lot of people here hate liberals, and find homosexuality objectionable, but you should avoid making arguments that are so bad that they make you look silly.

The argument that it is inconsistent to oppose the government using its power to obtain information against you, while not opposing individuals passing on information about you that they obtained legally but you would rather not have out there is of this type. It is such a bad argument that it is more likely to make people wonder what your motivation is for making it than to take it seriously.

The government is entrusted with various powers for good reasons, but that makes it particularly important that there be rules in place to make sure that they do not abuse that power. There is nothing comparable about the power of gay blogger.

Right on, markg!
I couldn't agree more. Poor Ashley belongs on Moveon, not here. Where were the editors and managers of Town Hall on this one? Asleep at the switch?

And now a personal note to Ashley: you are young and most, if not all, of your political views were formed by leftist profs. You may not know this, but the ideological source of your support for homosexual marriage, homo adoption, etc. is derived from the writings of Karl Marx, who, for reasons, too complex to go into here, considered the traditional family a form of oppression to be done away with in his ideal society. So, despite the fact that your profs no doubt told you that only backward, superstitious, sexually repressed bigots opposed the homofruitic agenda, let me set your straight: there are, out here in realityville, only one type of folks who support traditional marriage and the idea that sex is meant to enjoyed within a traditional marriage: normal people!

Grumpy
I am generally on the anti-outing side, but do not see the argument as being as ludicrous as you do.

You say:""out of a belief that supporting the closet is harmful to the gay community" Are you frakin' kidding me? Rogers is a petty, vicious individual: this is a policy of ruining lives for the benefit of the "community." "

But why is it ruining someones life for the fact of their being homosexual to become known? Only because the level of hatred of homosexuality remains so high. Fortunately that level is decreasing. And the main reason it is decreasing is that so many homosexuals have come out of the closet, and it is hard to maintain some of the ludicrous slurs against homosexuals when people know actual homosexuals. That is why the same-sex marraige issue exploded with a boom in Massachusetts, but has now died with a whimper. It is why even outside of Massachusetts, the level of opposition to homosexuality is so generational, with younger people who have grown up with so many "out"
homosexuals, being much more accepting than old ones who grew up with the idea that gays should hide what they are because it is repugnant.

I still tend to favor letting people make important decisions for themselves. But from a purely consequentialist perspective I would guess that the outing does benefit the gay community as a whole. I am just not ready to sacrifice individuals to the good of the whole.

Young Americans for Freedom
RE: "The YAF as been categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the only university-related group on the SPLC list of hate groups."

The YAF should consider that a badge of honor. All that means is the YAF is a group of clinically normal Americans who are proving increasingly darn effective at defeating the leftist line on our campuses. My fellow Americans, whenever a Marxist front group like the SPLC accuses you of "hate" you KNOW you're in the right!

Young Americans for Freedom
RE: "The YAF as been categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the only university-related group on the SPLC list of hate groups."

The YAF should consider that a badge of honor. All that means is the YAF is a group of clinically normal Americans who are proving increasingly darn effective at defeating the leftist line on out campuses. My fellow Americans, whenever a Marxist front group like the SPLC accuses you of "hate" you KNOW you're in the right!

Not all "gay activists" are alike
While there have been some vile and cruel comments about Tyler Whitney on various web sites posted by some (primarily leftist) gay activists, there have also been some responsible writers who have made thoughtful and considerate comments, as well.

Here are three examples.

Matt Comer, a liberal gay youth activist in North Carolina:

http://www.interstateq.com/archives/2121/

GayPatriotWest, a conservative blogger:

http://gaypatriot.net/2007/06/14/what-does-it-accomplish-to-out-a-gay-republican-teenager

And finally:

http://ricksincerethoughts.blogspot.com/2007/06/outing-of-tyler-whitney.html

There are no doubt others, as well, who may come to light.




Mike Rogers...
...the self-styled “the most dangerous man in Washington," is merely a legend in his own mind. To call his cause less than trivial would be to overrate it. Tiny fruity pebbles with big egos like him should be on all normal people's "Must Ignore" list.

Rights???
"I want to finish by saying that I generally support gay rights. The idea of homosexual marriage doesn’t bother me one bit, and I’ve already written columns voicing my support for gay adoption. I strongly believe that what goes on between adults, in their own homes, is none of the government’s business. But I also believe it’s none of Mike Rogers’ business."

They have rights...to pay taxes, buy house, buy a car...

My opinion is that you not really conservative if you hold to these ideals...

It is incumbent
upon the advocates of homosexual expression and marriage to prove that their proposed new order is equal to the current order. They are the ones who must prove that homosexual sex acts and heterosexual sex acts are equal in terms of naturalness, healthiness, outcomes and benefits to society. They are proposing a new order and they must defend it. If they cannot prove that homosexual sex acts are equal, then there is no reason for society to condone or sanction them.

privacy
As usual, liberals will scream about violation of privacy when it comes to things done in the name of national security. However, they apparently could care less about privacy when it suits their agenda.

NO RESPECT for SPLC, not any more....
> Joe.My.God. writes: The YAF as been
> categorized as a hate group by the Southern
> Poverty Law Center, the only university-
> related group on the SPLC list of hate groups.

Good Lord!

Of all the groups that are university-related and promote hatred, the SPLC has decided to only go after the one group that only exists in response to the other groups. Seriously - the only reason kids form a YAF chapter is to respond to the crazies on the other side.

The Coalition to Preserve Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) comes to mind, they are truly scary at times, quite close to a terrorist outfit. And some of the animal rights folk HAVE been considered "domestic terrorists" by the Feds. But SPLC goes after just YAF...

Let me put it this way: if you talk to your average campus cop, the group they are worried about ain't YAF. They may have to arrest them, but YAF isn't going to put them into the hospital or worse, unlike some other groups....

Unlike other groups, YAF isn't likely armed...

But the SPLC goes after, well, and they aren't making decisions soley on political perspective?

Bluepiper
Bluepiper writes:
"So you support gay rights in general? Well so do I if you mean that they have the same rights as everyone else. But they don't want that because that's what they have always had. What they want is special rights that give social approval of their perverse sexual behavior. They already have the right to marry as long as it is some one of the opposite sex. The have inheritance rights by mere making of a will. And so on. No, they want acceptance for their sexual behavior. Why should people define themselves by their sexual behavior? And behavior is always a choice. There is no difference logically from gay rights than zoophiliac rights or necrophiliac rights or pedophiliac rights. It's a demand for special recognition and approval of sexual behavior. Shame on you for supporting gay rights."

Who wants "special" rights? Gays want to expand the right of everyone (including heterosexuals) to marry a person of the same sex. If gays already have equal marriage rights under the opposite-sex marriage laws, then you must agree that heterosexuals would still have the same rights under the expanded same-sex laws. Nothing is "special" there. Shame on you for mischaracterizing them.

And kudos to the author for supporting marriage and adoption rights. But, I am a little confused about what she considers the "radical leftist agenda" on gay rights. I thought marriage and adoption rights were a part of that.

Character?
To what extent does character matter?
To what extent is a politican an advocate for people and to what extent is he/she/it a mirror of people?

Take Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy - the absolute two last people whom you would want a young lady to be anywhere near. However - and this is a problem that many feminists have had - the blindest advocates for the hard feminist agenda.
Ronald Reagan was actually far more decent to women on a personal basis - yet is hated by the feminists.

So the question is if a politician is an advocate not unlike the lawyers that many of them are. In which case the wifebatterer is the absolute best person to write the laws on domestic violence.

Or is the politician to be the designated representative of the majority - in which there would never be any gay politicians.

Advocate or Idol? Forget the issue of sexual orientation for a minute, do we want a politician who is of good character or one who is a good advocate for our causes?

It is a difficult question

AudiR10
LOL!

That's the most hilarious thing I've read in a long, long time, and sadly completely true regarding the left-wing.

Joe
Why is this Tyler Whitney's sex life anybody's business but his? There used to be something called privacy in this country. It was a pretty good idea. Lets bring it back.

It bears repeating
These are the kinds of problems that are reflective of societies which are in the final stages of disintegration.

Can the future of any society be certain when such a cancer eats away at its young?

It's all about sex, all the time
This is a generation of liberals who are totally and exclusively focused on sex organs. Having discovered their wee-wees in 1964, they have needed no other plaything since then and they want to make sure you and everyone else see both their sex organs and those of everyone else, all the time.

An obsession with what is in one's underpants becomes seriously unhealthy after one passes the age of two, and people who can think of nothing but sex organs day and night, and cannot say an entire sentence without bringing up sex or sex organs in every conversation and regardless of context, fit the classic definition of "perverted."

If you find it necessary to bring up sex organs and what people might or might not be doing with them when other people are talking about religion, housing, choir practice, hair appointments or cooking, then you are one of two things. Either you are a liberal from the Sixties or you are a pervert.

And you may very well be both.

THE LIBERALS ARE THE FIRST
to eat their own.
Should you differ any degree from the rabid liberal mindset you run the risk of being slandered.
It is tactics like these that really do show what they are all about. The ironic thing about it is they love to throw around words like 'fascist' and 'rascist,' 'homophobe' and other invectives. They are the ones who as a first choice resort to this behavior. Behavior they have no problem tarring anyone else they feel is betraying the rabid, liberal mindset.
Like Harry Jackson said yesterday, they are about to suffer a major setback in their quest for special rights so they are flailing around like drowning people looking for rescue.
Talk about tolerance and diversity.
Hypocrites.

Gay rights
So you support gay rights in general? Well so do I if you mean that they have the same rights as everyone else. But they don't want that because that's what they have always had. What they want is special rights that give social approval of their perverse sexual behavior. They already have the right to marry as long as it is some one of the opposite sex. The have inheritance rights by mere making of a will. And so on. No, they want acceptance for their sexual behavior. Why should people define themselves by their sexual behavior? And behavior is always a choice. There is no difference logically from gay rights than zoophiliac rights or necrophiliac rights or pedophiliac rights. It's a demand for special recognition and approval of sexual behavior. Shame on you for supporting gay rights.

Yankette....
"What's next? 3 or more people allowed to marry? 10 people?"

That's a question better left to ask Mitt Romney. His granddad had, what, 8 wives? His greatgrandad, 12? Something in that ballpark? Yeah, he's just the guy you want speaking for Republicans. Silly multiple-spouse-having Christians. Next thing, they'll be wanting to marry 10 years old. Oh, wait.

And here us gays are only asking for ONE adult? I feel cheated. Yankette, take two husbands and call me in the morning. Bah-dum,dum.

Anyway, try to stay on topic. This thread is about outing and Tyler Whitney. Sheesh.

homosexual marriage Ms. Herzog?
"The idea of homosexual marriage doesn’t bother me one bit"

I'd like to take Raider Nation's post one step further with your comment, Ms. Herzog, above and ask you to consider the slippery slope argument: If gays are allowed to "marry", what's next? 3 or more people allowed to marry? 10 people? What about Joe Shmoe wanting to marry his pet rock? Where/When will it end? The family unit - with one mother and one father, married, is the core of any healthy society. Additionally, gays wanting legalized marriage is really a hidden agenda for societal approval of their abhorent behavior. Please reconsider your position.

Grumpy, it's just poor/unclear writing:
Herzog: "Then he [Mike Rogers] announces that Whitney is a closet homosexual."

This line implies that Herzog thinks Rogers had a part in Whitney's outing, even though in the very next paragraph she acknowledges that the story was already out there. You cannot "announce" someone as being "closeted" when they are not. Argh, so much illogic.


Thanks for that, Joe.My.God
It didn't occur to me to check out the kid, just the politician.

Herzog should have given us more on Whitney, you're right: she may have portrayed him more sympathetically than he deserved. Still, she DIDN'T say Rogers outed him: that's obvious from the fact that Rogers posted a LINK.

Of course, I suspect that -- self outed or not -- neither Whitney nor the others (there's a bunch of staffers listed on the site) appreciated the nastiness.

Lon
Maybe Rogers's just behind the times? According to Mikulski's website although she did vote against a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage last year, back in 1996 she voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Actually, I don't care. Whether he's targeting only political enemies (from his tone I'd say he sees them as enemies) or just targets of opportunity isn't the point. The point is that this is a thoroughly despicable thing to do, and that speaks volumes about his character.

The controversy you describe over outing also speaks volumes about character. Here's my two cents:

"Some oppose it as a violation of privacy." These are people with what's called scruples: An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action.

"Others support it based on the hypocrisy of homosexuals who would limit the rights of others." A fair point in the case of anyone with a say in public policy. I'd be just as upset over a wife beater writing domestic violence laws.

"out of a belief that supporting the closet is harmful to the gay community" Are you frakin' kidding me? Rogers is a petty, vicious individual: this is a policy of ruining lives for the benefit of the "community."

Herzog, you have it all wrong
You have this story *almost* completely wrong. The young man in question IS named Tyler Whitney, that much you managed to get right.

The *actual* story:

Mike Rogers did not "out" Tyler Whitney. Whitney had already come out to friends and fellow conservatives activists, a fact which was noted by Michigan LGBT newspaper Between The Lines, which first broke the story. This aspect of the story has been covered by many gay bloggers. Whitney had come out to the Tancredo campaign staff a month before the Between The Lines story.

http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=25528

As far as the appropriateness of even commenting on the gayness of an 18 year old (who, I remind you, was already out of his own volition), this story was propelled into the gay blogosphere due to Whitney's affilation with the Young Americans for Freedom organization, for whom Whitney was Western Michigan University campus chapter founder and president. The YAF as been categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the only university-related group on the SPLC list of hate groups.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=MI&m=5

Whitney was handpicked to head the WMU chapter of the YAF by Michigan State chapter president Kyle Bristow, whom Whitney called "his hero" and who has called for the imprisonment of all gay people and has said that if he were to have a gay son, he would murder him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OigQ8qS9LU

Whitney was photographed at an rally protesting a local gay rights ordinance holding a sign that said "GO BACK IN THE CLOSET", a photograph that he proudly posted in his (now scrubbed) MySpace profile.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2007/06/tyler-whitney-proud-young-republican.html

In summary, Ms.Herzog, your outrage is as misplaced as your facts. You cannot fault the gay blogosphere for reacting with scorn when a Hitler Youth-ish, anti-gay, hate group leader, young Republican working for a presidential candidate reveals himself to be gay. I do pity young Whitney, clearly his ultra-conservative parents have instilled a level of self-loathing the likes of which will takes years of therapy to repair, if ever.

Openly gay conservatives are over the place and I'll admit I don't understand their willingness to work against the rights of their fellow gays. But your characterization of the Tyler Whitney story is wrong, wrong, wrong. His story IS newsworthy, evidence of which can be found on Technorati, where virtually the entire progressive blogsphere has weighed in to express their opinion. Singling out Mike Rogers for this tells me that you probably read one commentary on the situation, then fired off this fact-challenged piece.

The problem with gay "marriage"
is that a "marriage license" is literally a license to create children and a system of liability for those who do.

Gay partners are not going to get each other pregnant, hence no need for a marriage license.

It really is this simple. When two lesbians contribute the DNA for a child, THEN I will have no problem with putting thier names as the parents on the child's birth certificate. But not before...

And why I oppose tort reform...
Look, these folks are not public figures and hence can sue for both libel and defamation.

It doesn't matter if they are gay or not, the person making the claim has to prove it and that is fairly hard to do. And they can sue you big time for doing so.

Having said that, the Republican Party does have a gay problem in that the party leadership is so scared of appearing anti-gay that folks like Foley can not be dealt with.

"Gay adoption?"
So...it's OK to purposely deprive a child of a Mom or a Dad? Nice thing to support, Ms. Herzog.

Please save the pap about homosexuals adopting disabled kids, crack babies and older kids from broken homes. It's a myth. Homosexual couples go after the same things Mom-Dad couples go for -- healthy newborns.

Thus, supporting "gay adoption" means supporting the placement of an innocent child with people who purposely intend to deprive that child of either a Mother or a Father when that child has no choice in the matter.

So, the cop-out that "what goes on between adults, in their own homes, is none of the government’s business" rings meaningless when you are talking about imposing a radical social experiment and an extreme political agenda on defenseless children. Thrusting children into this situation is hardly a "private matter."

You are young Ms. Herzog, so I expect your views are not fully developed. Hopefully this is one of those things you reconsider as you give it more thoughtful treatment.

obvious counterexample
I am puzzled. If gay activists are only targeting people who embrace conservative politics, why is Barbara Mikulski on the list?

Outing is a highly contraversial activity on the left. Some oppose it as a violation of privacy. Others support it based on the hypocrisy of homosexuals who would limit the rights of others, and out of a belief that supporting the closet is harmful to the gay community with its endorsement of the idea that sexual orientation is something to hide. (Well homosexual identity, most of us advertise our heterosexual identity with great regularity).

But if one is to make the case that there is some hidden motive which the outers deny, it would work better if the examples given were consistent with those charges. It seems hard to believe that anyone is outing Mikulski because she is too conservative.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.