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
Friday, August 31, 2007
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Republicans unzipped
by Kathleen Parker
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?


WASHINGTON -- In the interest of time and limited space, rather than mention all Republicans who are either closeted gays or clients of escort services, we'd like to ask those who do not belong to either group to please come forward.

Ah, excellent. Thank you both for coming.

What's up -- or going down -- with the GOP? Is there something in the water? Are Democratic operatives lacing Republicans' Dasani bottles with heavy sodium, as in Walker Percy's novel "The Thanatos Syndrome"?

Paging Dr. Thomas More.

In Percy's novel, More is a psychiatrist who notices that people in his town are acting strangely. Speech patterns are peculiar and, more to the point, sexual inhibition is missing. Apparently, someone has been loading the water supply with heavy sodium to suppress cortical function in an attempt to eliminate depression and other afflictions. Side effects include an Olympian libido.

Recent revelations about Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's odd behavior in an airport men's room, where he allegedly sought to bond with an undercover cop in the adjoining stall, are so bizarre that speculation along science-fictional lines seems as sound as any other.

Craig, who has disavowed a guilty plea to disorderly conduct, says he copped just to make the nasty thing go away. Can't blame him.

Maybe he didn't run his hand along the bottom of the stall divider, which we're told is well-known in certain circles to mean, "I'm in the mood." And maybe Craig really does have a wide, manly stance and was not trying to touch the other man's foot. Benefit of the doubt granted.

While doubt is clouding saner minds, another perplexing issue tugs at credulity: Why are undercover cops hanging out in airport restrooms? Are we all done with terrorists? Does this mean that Appalachian grandmothers can pass through airport security without being frisked for explosives? Just asking.

Democrats must be backstroking in schadenfreude as the party of family values -- propped up by evangelical America -- seems to be wandering in the wilderness of moral confusion. Craig is but the most recent Republican caught in compromising circumstances.

Earlier this summer, Louisiana Sen. David Vitter's telephone number was found in the phone records of a Washington escort service. Last September, former Florida Rep. Mark Foley admitted writing sexually explicit e-mails to a teenage boy who previously had served as a House page.

Even the evangelical pool seems to have been tainted. Not quite a year ago, the Rev. Ted Haggard admitted to buying methamphetamines and receiving a massage from a gay prostitute, who claimed to be the pastor's lover of three years. Haggard denied the relationship, but nonetheless resigned as leader of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Craig, who had not resigned from office at this writing, despite urging from fellow senators, did quit as co-Senate liaison for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. A spokesman for Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who has lived a life so clean he looks younger than his sons, said the campaign accepted Craig's decision.

And then everyone fasted and scrubbed their hands with lye.

Rudy Giuliani's campaign took a similar hit several weeks ago when his South Carolina campaign manager, state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, was indicted for buying and distributing cocaine. Did we forget anyone?

Outing Republicans as closeted gays, philanderers and drug users has become modern sport for hypocrisy posses, including Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt, whose investigative team actively seeks evidence against Republicans who fall from grace. Flynt's team was responsible for breaking the Vitter news.

It does seem that the erstwhile buzz-killer party is on perpetual spring break. Republicans Gone Wild! The truth is that Republicans are no better or worse than Democrats. The difference is that Democrats are more open and forgiving of their human frailties, while Republicans -- bless their hearts -- try to take the moral high road where secrecy and shame necessarily ride shotgun.

The higher the road, of course, the harder the fall. And hypocrisy always shadows failed virtue.

As the 2008 election looms, the political parties seem to have traded places. The Democratic Party is now the churchgoing, family values party, with Mama Clinton as lead lip-purser and aspiring scold-in-chief. She's earned it.

Republicans may as well kick back, enjoy a reprieve from the impossible burden of perfection, and get those bumper stickers to the printer: They Don't Call Us The Grand Old Party For Nuthin'!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Just like old times.
The Clintons are back with their Asians with shopping bags of cash to buy votes. The Daley City family that contributes more money to the Dems, mostly Hillary, then they earn. Remember Algore and the monks? So what’s the big story? A red state Senator who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. If he was from San Francisco and/or a Democrat he would be getting a medal. Just imagine if someone was to suggest that Barney Frank should be run out of office for the same thing. Yet Voter fraud is ignored.

for Dave Stone
Dave Stone writes: "Why can't people who've been given enormous power and trust just act responsibily while they're in office. Don't they have enough to do and isn't the privilege of high elective office enough reward to stiffle their disgusting urges?"

The urges are not "disgusting." No form of consensual sex among adults is disgusting. Consensual sex is natural and human. If you have hetero drives, seek out a willing partner of the opposite sex; if you have homosexual drives, seek out a willing partner of the same sex.

What's "disgusting" are society's hypocrisies that make one ashamed of his own sex drive, even if that sex drive is aimed at consensual sex among adults. If Craig didn't have to feel that the people of Idaho would never forgive him for having a gay sexual relationship, he wouldn't have had to go sneaking around bathrooms secretly. He could have hooked up with a gay partner and been seen with him openly and proudly, in all the best Washington DC restaurants.

for RodT
RodT writes: "If he was from San Francisco and/or a Democrat he would be getting a medal. Just imagine if someone was to suggest that Barney Frank should be run out of office for the same thing."

For an openly gay person like Barney Frank to be seen soliciting gay sex would not be anywhere near as bad as for a self-styled strait-lacecd moralist like Craig to be seen doing it.

If you believe that there's nothing wrong with gay sex, then sure, get all you want, publicly.

But Craig was known as a staunch defender of so-called "family values." Yet he was about to cheat on his wife--with a homosexual one-night stand.

If you claim the moral high ground, then don't be surprised if you're held to a higher standard than others.

The GOP keeps aspiring to a moral standard that is impossible for many fallible human beings to meet. Politicians are not a Benedictine Order or angels or priests. They are elected officials with all the same foibles as anyone else. The GOP's incessant claim to personal morality higher than that of the Democrats is what is trapping them when it is revealed that they're not.


A few points, Ms. Parker
1. Bless your heart for being one of the few columnists at townhall who regularly produces witty, insightful, and engaging commentary.

2. You did forget someone: Bob Allen, the Florida state rep. (also head of John McCain's Florida campaign), who solicited sex in also in a bathroom because he was afraid of being mugged by the African American men in the loo.

3. I disagree with you that Republicans try to take the moral high road. In my view, the real problem is that the GOP has created a climate of such hostility towards gays and lesbians that people like Larry Craig have no choice but to sneak around public bathrooms. This is not taking the high road.

for RPWoolf
RPWoolf writes: "In my view, the real problem is that the GOP has created a climate of such hostility towards gays and lesbians that people like Larry Craig have no choice but to sneak around public bathrooms. This is not taking the high road."

In the interest of historical accuracy, the GOP did not create the climate hostile to gays and lesbians.

The climate was already hostile throughout most of the 20th century. Neither political party dared to defend the rights of gays.

In the late 1960s, the Democratic Party changed its policy and began to be gay-friendly.

The GOP did not. They went backwards, embracing the nativist and exclusionist ideas of Christian evangelicals.

RPWoolf
RPWoolf writes: "In my view, the real problem is that the GOP has created a climate of such hostility towards gays and lesbians that people like Larry Craig have no choice but to sneak around public bathrooms."

---

No, RPWoolf, the "real problem" is that there are people around who make lifestyle choices and who don't accept responsibility for those choices.

Homosexuals have no entitlement to respectful treatment. The US Constitution neither guarantees a "right" to be homosexual nor to force people to agree with perverted homosexual lifestyle choices.

It is that freedom to reject people who engage in perverted immoral conduct that is your real target.

Neither the Constitution nor the laws require anybody to show respect for perverted behavior - quite the contrary. A "climate of hostility towards gays and lesbians" is legal, perfectly acceptable and is the established social norm. There is absolutely no reason to feel sorry for the homosexuals. They made their choice, now they have to accept the consequences.

Homosexuals need to understand that both their perverted behavior and their farcical co-optations of the English language ("gay", misuse of rainbow) make them unwelcome among decent, normal people. I don't allow them near my kids.

Through their own personal lifestyle choice, "gays" have established a climate of hostility towards themselves more effectively than the GOP ever could. "The climate of hostility" exists not because of the GOP but because homosexuals are inherently disgusting, deeply immoral, highly troubled by their own shocking misconduct and have no place in decent society.

Lesson: Make intelligent and moral lifestyle choices in the first place and you may find your life to be a lot more pleasant.

homos and the democrats
Donna Shalala, former secretary of education, Janet Reno, former attorney general, Barney Frank, current congressman, Barbara Mikulski, congresswoman?, what do these people have in common?

Percentages
The percentage of politicians prone to perverse practices in public places is peculiar, isn't it? If there's a difference between Left and Right in this matter, I can't find it -- except that the Left more often profits financially from its misdeeds (cf. William Jefferson) and "destroys the evidence" (cf. Chappaquiddick) than the Right. Well, the Left has had a lot more practice at extortion and concealing its sins, so one can understand.

Quite frankly, I'm beginning to see the sense in a bumper sticker I've seen around here lately:

LIMIT POLITICIANS TO TWO TERMS:
One In Office,
One In Jail.

cops in rest rooms ..
well Kathy .. the reason that cops hang out in rest rooms ..is that ..if you took the time to read the press release from the cops .. they had received complaints from citizens about lewd activities taking place in those rest rooms ..

We've made such great strides
A sign of the times, these words from SteveL reveal remarkable progress:

"He could have hooked up with a gay partner and been seen with him openly and proudly, in all the best Washington DC restaurants."

But not progress of a very savory sort, not upward, but downward progress -- decline even.

Three decades ago a systematic plan to reverse society's antipathy to homosexuality was implemented, and today we see the fruit of its success as represented "proudly" here.

If you say black is white often enough, loud enough, and use intimidation (you homophobe, you) to try to silence the hold-outs, it doesn't take long before black becomes the new white.

For many, that is, but not for all of us.

Let me just say that guilt is good. It's a good thing, because you need to know when the skillet handle, fresh from the oven at 400 degrees, will burn you if you touch it.

The PC line on homosexuality does a great disservice in attempting to desensitize society to the evils of the practice, in trying to pretend that it is normal and that there is no guilt among its practitioners. If society accepts it, your guilt will go away -- NOT; that is, not unless and until your conscience is dead.

One last thing. I'm going to get theological here. No sin is any worse than any other -- in God's eyes, that is. "We all fall short . . . " is the Biblical assessment. And the remedy for all is the same: forgiveness.

And apart from the general moral decay that societal acceptance of homosexuality presents, the real damage is done to the individual (aided and abetted by a morally-challenged culture) who continues to harden his heart against the stirrings of his conscience, and thereby forfeits the remedy.

mac arthir
and what are Dick Cheney's daughtter and Alan keyes' son .. and all those log cabin republicans

SteveL
You state:
"In the late 1960s, the Democratic Party changed its policy and began to be gay-friendly. The GOP did not. They went backwards, embracing the nativist and exclusionist ideas of Christian evangelicals."

As a conservative Chrisitan, I can tell that nativism and exclusionism are NOT true Biblical Christian attitudes. Some professing Christians may hold such conepts, but that does not make them or their beliefs right.

But you are correct with your reference to being held to a higher standard. The Christian calling is exactly that. Christians who whine about that are either new Christians still learning what the will of God is or they choose to succumb to their own desires for their life and not God's.

The mistake being made here is when people mistakenly attribute Christianity to anyone who is either conservative or Christian. It's like conservatives automatically assuming anyone on the left to be devoid of religious faith. Neither conclusion is correct.

Aside from all that, I take Craig at his word that he is not homosexual. More than likely, he is bi-sexual. If he is, only he knows why he chose to keep that part of his life from public view.

The should have read
The mistake being made here is when people mistakenly attribute Christianity to anyone who is either conservative or Republican.

Sorry!

Am I missing something here?
I thought that hmosexual behavior was the norma, and that it was to not only be accepted, but embraced. Isn't that what our liberal friends have been hammering into our heads for years? So why is it that when a Republican is found to be gay, or suspected of homosexuality it is something that is used as a bludgeon against them by Democratic politicians and their MSM masters?

If there is any hypocrisy here, it is in the attitudes of the liberals who see Larry Craig's alleged homosexuality as a vice, whereas the homosexuality of Barney Frank is a virtue. It seems to me that the real homophobes are on the left, as they are the one's constantly putting homosexuality out there as something to be avoided, and threatening to "out" conservative homosexuals. If being a homosexual was so normal, then why would the left use it to try to ruin people's lives and careers?

Not convincing
...I don't feel confident that if I were a juror that I would find Mr. Craig guilty of anything.

Clearly the officer was manipulative in his questions, which I would expect he would be in order to glean information from the unsuspecting Craig and trip him up.

But, Craig didn't waiver.

If Craig is lying then this is his wake up call to this behavior, but if he's not then another media-frenzied injustice has been thrust upon someone who is innocent of what could be construed as entrapment.

The motives for Craig's plea does concern me, but did he do it to deflect the greater issue of the sex charge to just get the heck out of dodge?

Why and how was this story finally broken?

What were the motives of the reporter who broke the story and pursued this months after the fact rather than immediately?

Would you, if wearing a suit, attempt to spread your legs wide enough to keep your pants off the filthy bathroom ground and higher on your legs? Would this perhaps thrust your feet wider to the other stall? Might you hit the other person's foot as a result? I live in NY, people do weird things all the time to avoid touching things in public because we know the nasty germ factor.

That said.

I'm not convinced about Craig's guilt or innocence. There's enough doubt that the situation should be dropped.

Throwing the phrase about rumors involving Craig for years, is irresponsible unless you're willing to disclose the sources, the actions and outcomes of such "rumors".

Spreading a rumor is like standing on top of the Empire State Building and cutting open a huge feathered pillow. You watch the feathers spread quickly with abandon with no way to retrieve them and encase them once more.

There's no way to un-ring this bell and the media along with others, may have ruined a man's career and life in the process.

Irresponsible at all levels. It's disgusting.

Flagwaver
I don't think Libs are thinking homoseuxality is wrong, their attempt is to out the hypocrisy of the Right because the Right claim sanctimony, piety and cornering the market on virtue and morals. Homosexuality seems to be one of the Right's biggest issues for some reason (which should make everyone take pause that so much effort goes into this subject for them).

Jesus never spoke of it. The Old Testament has long been discredited as being the moral objective for the morally lacking, otherwise we'd be killing people for working on the Sabbath, unruly teenagers, and women who weren't virgins upon their wedding night.

I've made the observation many times on TH that the Republicans need to get off this subject of homosexuality. You may think this works for your base but it doesn't work for a greater majority of Americans.


Flagwaver II
...(continued)

Additionally, I've made the observation about religion, as well. The minute you start going down that road you've limited your audience because religion doesn't touch everyone's values like the nation's security does, or excess spending, etc.

Morals are not gleaned from religion, they are from the ever changing societal norms that continue to evolve over time. When we know more, we react and change our perspective. This is why we stopped slavery, gave women the right to vote, blacks can marry whites, et.al.

Anyone who states they glean his/her morals from the bible is a liar.

If you behave BECAUSE of the bible in some pious way, then you're a fraud.

The fact that what is not inherent in you to live a responsible life and be accountable toward mankind is achieved without your god or bible, shows you to be a liar, a cheat and fraud.

Either you're a good person or not.

Either you care about mankind or not.

No bible close to you is going to give you that.

"If proximity to holy words made us better people, then the location of the Gideon Bible in hotel rooms would have ended adultery long ago".


Flagwaver II
...(continued)

Additionally, I've made the observation about religion, as well. The minute you start going down that road you've limited your audience because religion doesn't touch everyone's values like the nation's security does, or excess spending, etc.

Morals are not gleaned from religion, they are from the ever changing societal norms that continue to evolve over time. When we know more, we react and change our perspective. This is why we stopped slavery, gave women the right to vote, blacks can marry whites, et.al.

Anyone who states they glean his/her morals from the bible is a liar.

If you behave BECAUSE of the bible in some pious way, then you're a fraud.

The fact that what is not inherent in you to live a responsible life and be accountable toward mankind is achieved without your god or bible, shows you to be a liar, a cheat and fraud.

Either you're a good person or not.

Either you care about mankind or not.

No bible close to you is going to give you that.

"If proximity to holy words made us better people, then the location of the Gideon Bible in hotel rooms would have ended adultery long ago".


scooternyc
You make a valid point about the morals of the OT. But you miss other important facts.

If we argue that the Republican membership is closer to traditional Christianity than the Democrats (not something we should just assume), we would have to ask what that means in terms of political values. What values would a publi-minded Christian in today's political world espouse?

You are right that many of the moral determinations (in Deuteronomy especially) no longer appear relevant. But this does not mean that Christians are without a moral compass. For the last 2000 years Christianity has had a moral center, whatever the real actions and corruptions of its actors, and whatever syncretisms have decorated it.

Within that moral center is the standard of Christian family life, based on the exclusive and permanent relationship of husband (man) and wife (woman). In traditional Christianity divorce is forbidden except in special cases (for example infidelity). Homosexuality is also out.

The ground for these strictures comes from not just one verse in Deuteronomy, but from a wider reading of the scriptures, with special weight given to the New Testament. Paul's writings include a lot of guidance of spiritual and family matters, and Jesus' words are not the only NT authority.

Cultural conservatives, and not just Republicans of the same persuasion, are "on the subject" of homosexuality because traditional Christian teaching is very clear and very strong on the subject and because our society has made rapid lurches in the direction of acceptance of homosexuality over the last few decades.

Republican cultural conservatives are not on the subject of homosexuality (as a general rule) to get votes but because the commitment to traditional marriage is a deeply held value. And because the slide towards acceptance of homosexuality indicates a decadence in society that conservatives do not want to lend their names to.

hypocrisy
(repost from other story)
If craig were a hypocrite he would denounce Homosexual behavior then openly do it himself.

The fact that he tried to hush it up says he believes its wrong for himself as well as others.

Here is a good list of scandals in the two parties:
http://andrews-dad.blogspot.com/2007/01/difference-between-republicans-and.html

Note all democrats continue to serve whilst all Republicans were ousted.

Gay Bashing
It isn't just the irony of Craig's behavior versus his anti-gay exhortations that matters here. People are forgetting that giving lip service to traditional values has been the foundation of Republican power for many years. Republicans set themselves up as moral role models in order to obtain political power, and for no other reason. Turning Americans against their fellows was a political strategy.

They profited handsomely, in the political sense, from highlighting their superiority on values issues. Craig's hypocrisy isn't his alone: it is the hypocrisy of an entire political movement. Even conservatives are now beginning to see how they have been abused by Republican political elites.

Republican unzipped
It is a sad day for America when our government has lost site of family values. One side our the other is always ready to cast the first stone without a thought of there own imperfections. It would be neat to put all of them on a stage hook them to a lie detector and see what their answers would be then. I bet they would be totaly different and that they are wanting office for prestige and power to bring America to its knees. Because they do not understand the needs or government affairs of the world today. They need to turn to the Bible and start taking lessons.

"Hypocrite"
is the favorite word of those with no values but plenty of resentment.

All Have Sinned
Christianity is based on the assumption that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". When dealing with the woman caught in adultery Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", but there were no takers. The book of James tells us that "there is no sin that is not common to all man", meaning that ultimately, while we may differ in the specifics, ultimately we really are all the same when it comes to sin.

A good deal more humility on the part of moral conservatives would serve them well. Make no mistake, I am a Christian and a conservative, but I have no illusions that I have any better standing than a crack-whore or a sexually mixed-up senator. We are all deserving of a one-way trip to Gehenna, and the more self-righteous you are, the more pitch-forkings await you.

The good news is that Christ paid the penalty for us, not because we deserve it, but because God created us to enjoy the pleasure of our company. He seeks to perfect us, but we should not labor under the delusion that we will achieve perfection this side of Heaven.

A Compliment
A wise man once said "hypocrisy is the unwitting compliment that vice give to virtue".

Jack
While I agree with you that paying lip-service (no pun intended) to morality just to get elected is deeply offensive, I do not think that you should tar all social conservatives with the same brush. There are many politicians who genuinely believe in Biblical morality, while acknowledging that nobody can ever truly reach it.

While we are examining that concept, do you think that all Democrats truly care about the poor, or blacks, or women or homosexuals? Do you not think that many of them are "all hat and not cattle"? This does not justify Republican hypocrisy, I just want to register the notion that hypocrisy is "common to all man".

I had a pastor who once responded to a man who refused to go to Church because it is "full of hypocrites" by simply saying "no, there's always room for one more".

Scooternyc
It is hard to tell from your posts if you are an atheist, or if you only hate religions. Since there are so many religions, each one having its own set of interpretations, you should not confuse religion with God.

Your opinion about morality is just that, your opinion, and it does not square with thousands of years of history. "Morals ....are from ever changing societal norms that continue to evolve over time" is false. I would like to see some information you have from any credible source that demonstrates your position. You certainly will not find it any writings of the founding fathers.

The only so-called moral change these days is apparently about homosexuality, that being the case because of the powerful "gay" lobby that is pushing for "gay" rights. What are all the other changing morals that you think are so liberating?

The problem with Senator Craig is what is wrong with the entire political structure in Washington, two parties with a virtual lock on the election process that allows them to continue in office and hold power.

The Real Problem
The real problem is that politicians of both parties are just as human as anyone else and since power corrupts the longer they are in office the slimier they get. When the American people wake up and stop sending the rapidly rotting incumbents back to Washington we will eliminate most of the corruption.

Peter(part 1)
Peter,

My point may have been missed which means I failed in making it.

The fact that religion of any type, belief in a god, or adherence in a bible is utilized as a moral compass is, in and of itself, fraudulent within the nature of the individual.

Either you are respectful of mankind, life around you, responsible and accountable to self and others, or you are not.

You need nothing outside of the self if these qualities, genetic or otherwise, reside within yourself.

Any political party, which is utilizing religion as a platform, has, by its own volition, just eliminated a huge majority of people.

There are over 2000 religions in this country. Which one then is the unalterable word of god?

You respectfully acknowledge that many passages are no longer relevant; this is the most honest of statements ever made.

But if those statements are no longer relevant, why is any of it relevant?

Can you and others not make moral choices for yourselves without the crutch of a bible?

Is the bible only useful when it is utilized as a shield to protect against the claim of discrimination and bigotry? (“I hate f*gs; the bible says it’s okay to hate f*gs, therefore I have back-up to my anger, fear and hatred of “those peope”).

Peter(part 2)
Correlation is not causation. I accept it as scientific evidence against this notion about man-made Global Warming and the same is true about religion.

A perspective of “decadence of society” being held and credited to the decomposition of marriage by allowing gays to marry is ludicrous. How do the gay guys next door getting married affect your marriage or mine? It doesn’t. I don’t care and neither should you.

If you believe that such behavior denigrates your marriage or weakens the foundations of marriage, well then the institution isn’t very strong to begin. If the institution isn’t strong enough to become more inclusive perhaps it may be time in our societal development to start eliminating such a decree.

Ask yourself, why was it okay for blacks to marry whites after 1967? Was that the appropriate thing to do or was it just because a law stated such?

Isn't it time that our society got ahead of the law having to impose responsible action instead of it forcing us to make a change for which we look back on and wonder why we ever behaved so abhorrently, to begin with.


Peter(part 2)
Correlation is not causation. I accept it as scientific evidence against this notion about man-made Global Warming and the same is true about religion.

A perspective of “decadence of society” being held and credited to the decomposition of marriage by allowing gays to marry is ludicrous. How do the gay guys next door getting married affect your marriage or mine? It doesn’t. I don’t care and neither should you.

If you believe that such behavior denigrates your marriage or weakens the foundations of marriage, well then the institution isn’t very strong to begin. If the institution isn’t strong enough to become more inclusive perhaps it may be time in our societal development to start eliminating such a decree.

Ask yourself, why was it okay for blacks to marry whites after 1967? Was that the appropriate thing to do or was it just because a law stated such?

Isn't it time that our society got ahead of the law having to impose responsible action instead of it forcing us to make a change for which we look back on and wonder why we ever behaved so abhorrently, to begin with.

the cure for hypocracy
I suppose that the liberals have found the the cure for hypocracy . . . it's called having no standards, shame, or moral compass.

Since they don't claim to stand for anything, they can never be labeled hypocrites.

What's that you say? Oh, that's right, there are areas of life where liberal politicians and ideolical leaders want to dictate how we live, but do something completely different . . .

See algore and his energy-guzzling abode - and don't even try to bring up the "carbon off-set" farce.


Joe (part 1)
Joe,

Thanks for your response. While I disagree with you, I appreciate your post, you're most generous to speak to my writing.

Your polemic about attempting to label me for the implications for which an emotional response becomes activated in myself or others, is not worth pursuing. It bears no relevance.

There is no god without religion; there is no religion without god. These are the rules set up by man eons ago when man created god and religion and go hand in hand. While some may not adhere to such thoughts, the back tracing of such is evident.

If you believed there was a god but adhered to no religion, how then do you square with yourself the existence of god in your mind. How did god appear to you? For what purpose would you believe? For what purpose did he appear?Where did you come to your belief in god? Rhetorical questions, all.

Sir, are you making the claim that your behavior then, is only predicated on whether or not the bible deems it so?

Would you then not treat others kindly if the bible didn’t tell you to do so?

If you would, then whereby did you come to such understanding for yourself?

If not, then we all would be wise to steer clear of you, then wouldn’t we?

I jest. I don’t know you personally so I have no charge of that kind to make, but you get my point.


NEWS FLASH!
We're all human, with all of the imperfections and failings that come with the territory. None of us is holier than thou.

However, that does not mean that we should not strive toward the goal of perfection, even if we fail from time to time.

Having moral standards and supporting them for the community as a whole does not mean that we oppress those who do not meet our standards. It means that we establish societal standards as a guideline, a benchmark toward which we strive.

Without these standards, we're lost. I'm afraid our society has become increasingly lost as the moral and ethical fiber of our society have been stripped away, little by little.

You are free
to have your opinions and values - that is a political statement.

Although there are many religions and non-religious value systems, there is only one truth. One of our tasks as sentient beings is to determine the truth. I cannot convince you of the true value system in this blog, although I may be able to open your mind a tad.

Although you may not believe it, many people have had personal experiences of God and Jesus, and their very strong faith finds powerful roots in such experiences. Whether you accept that or not is irrelevant.

To those of us who believe in God and espouse an absolute set of values, the fact that many disagree is not only acceptable, it is a given. Most religious traditions have a special space for experiences of "persecution" and other expressions of the lack of faith of others. Therefore the vehemence of the attacks of atheists and others makes no difference.

When faith enters the political realm, as it will, there will be those who, not understanding faith, denigrate it and mock it. That is also a given. In fact, it is a badge of honor.

I am sorry that scooter does not understand the pride of place that traditional Christianity accords marriage. But we must not allow your ignorance to undermine a sacred institution.

Joe (part 2)
What of other societies, perhaps tribes in other countries who get along just fine and don’t have any knowledge of god, religion or a bible?

The other large issue for Republicans is abortion. However, nowhere in your bible does it state that abortion is of anything. Yes, according to your scripture you should not hit a woman who is pregnant thus causing her miscarriage, but that’s about beating her, not her making the choice toward cessation of her progeny.

No, the problem is that certain factions in our society think they hold the moral compass to ALL AMERICANS and they don’t.

The biggest problem facing ALL AMERICANS is accountability and responsibility.

When individuals stop acting like they are being victimized and start taking responsibility for their personal choices, thus being accountable in life, THEN and ONLY THEN, will the shift happen which seeks to satisfy all.

Holtonfb
"well Kathy .. the reason that cops hang out in rest rooms ..is that ..if you took the time to read the press release from the cops .. they had received complaints from citizens about lewd activities taking place in those rest rooms .."

Hmm, so now the cops are the Sex Police?
My question is, why isn't the Gay Community up in arms about cops arresting people for homosexual activities? It sounds to me like official oppression of homosexuals wanting to hook up. But nary a peep out of them.
Leo, Van, anyone?

http://www.countrymanscorner.blogspot.com

Be it noted
The 11:45 AM post from Patrick is from a different Patrick.

Craig
Are all sins equal? Murder is equal to stealing a loaf of bread?
Are all lawbreakers equal?
Do you think the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence came out of thin air somehow? Weren't all the Founders either professing Christians or Deists?
Where in history do you find a moral code that is not religiously based?
Was Communism religiously based? Was the French Revolution religiously based? One could say that both were reactions against organized religion, but both set off reigns of terror at least as bad and one could say even worse than those bad behaviors associated with organized religion, such as the Inquistion, pogroms against Jews and the religious wars in Europe between Protestants and Catholics.
As to the Republicans: What don't I like about them:
1. Spending
2. Failure to do anything about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
3. Adding prescription drugs to an already over committed entitlement program
4. Failure to secure the borders, the seaports and the airports.
5. Failure to profile at the airports
6. Failure to enforce the laws regarding hiring illegals.
7. Failure to go full blast against radical Islam.
Will the Democrats be any better about any of these? I think (and almost know they will not).
At least, Republicans have the grace to be ashamed of bad behavior.
Granted talking one way and doing another is bery bad, but, if you have no standards, you can have nothing to be ashamed of no matter what you do.
Donald W. Bales

When the leak stopped
Most phone books are alphabetical. I have read there were hundreds and hundreds of names in the
"Madams Book Of Johns". If our progressive educational establishment will still stipulate
to the use of the old alphabet then hundreds and hundreds of names were "skipped over and ignored"
in order to work all the way down to the "Vitters". Anyone else curious why none of the Johns whos names begin with A,B,C etc have not become common household words? Why only one name leaks out (Republican, of course) and then the cork goes back in the bottle?

Peter
Peter,

You write eloquently, but your statement about there being one truth is not a fact, it is your opinion. You cannot make such a claim without providing evidence to such. Why would you set yourself up to such a position?

It is this very thought process of the claim “one truth” that creates the disparity in our world today. Some faction thinks they hold the secret and everyone else are just sinners who can’t figure it out.

Again, you cannot seem to discuss the idea of your morals or values without the crutch of religion or god, therefore you are the bigger threat to the world because without those precepts your nature is one of anger and most likely violence.

The ignorance comes from the religious of our society who continue this adherence to that which they have no basis for claim and from which they would and continue to attempt to impose on the greater society through the courts.

You cannot, as one great write put it, name a moral action or statement that can be made by a religious person that cannot be made by a person of no religious background.

Additionally, you skirt the issue of being able to example your human behavior as being natural within you as opposed to coming from some deity. This should concern all people, but yourself most of all.

If you make the claim that your values come from religion, your bible in other words, you would have to give the criteria for which you have decided on some to enforce and others to not.

You would have to explain why some behaviors are now okay with you and others are not.

You would be compelled or unmasked as a fraud, to give reason as to why punishment for certain behaviors is not being abdicated this day and age.

While you may think that religion corners the market on marriage viability, the fact is that it does not. Nor does others who wish to engage in the act denigrate your own.

NOW IS THE TIME
to purge the Republican Party of all the people who might be hauled out by the Left next year as "October Surprises."

As much as the Virulant Left is always whining about the right to privacy, they do not respect the privacy of others, and will stop at nothing to tear down the reputations of conservatives.

You see, the Left cannot win in the marketplace of ideas, if the truth is laid out clearly and honestly. This is why they are always repackaging their Marxism, and stealing slogans like "family values," and renaming them.

The only way they can win is to demonize their opponents. They are more determined to destroy conservatism than they are to battle the sworn enemies of the United States.

We must not give them any ammo.

But we also must go after them as vigerously as they do to us. They have plenty of bad actors in the Democrat(ick) Party, and the Repubs just sit by passively while these trash continue to serve on Capital Hill.

We should yammer and yammer until every Democrat(ick) Senator or Representative who slaps a cop, runs prostitution out of their house, takes a bribe, comes to work at the Senate drunk, or exposes himself in public is tossed out on his ear.

Poot
Poot,

You make sweeping statements about all Liberals that cannot be true and likely you are having an emotional reaction to ideas or thoughts that don’t agree with your own. There’s no issue with such, but why make an all-encompassing statement when certainly there are many Liberals that have a moral compass for themselves.

Just because someone doesn’t have a religious ideology doesn’t mean they don’t have values and morals. You have no proof of this, only your opinion which you play off as fact and toss about like an emotional Molotov cocktail.

Your own values, as I’ve posted to others, are not bestowed upon you from the bible or your religion. In fact, whatever discrimination you may feel toward a faction of society, I’m guessing gay people; you derive your distaste prior to utilizing the bible as your endorsement of such.

Nowhere in your bible does god, jesus or anyone else say that gays are bad people and are not afforded the same civil rights as anyone else in this world.

Religion INTERPRETS certain passages to lay claim to this idea.

The grander problem is that it still doesn’t give you endorsement to have ANY religion be the precept for any law toward or away from a particular issue in our society.

Politicians should NEVER be discussing religion, mentioning god, et. al. while acting within their civic duties once appointed or elected. This discriminates against a huge majority of other AMERICANS.

If a politician can’t make his/her arguments about a particular issue without referencing, citing, utilizing a bible as the precept for such, then it shouldn’t be discussed. This isn’t a theocracy it’s a democracy. We’re not North Korea.

Mountain Rose
Mountain Rose,

Instead of trying to play games why not just insist on honesty from your own party, be it Republican or Democrats.

Why not stop trying to moralize everyone under a dogmatic religiosity and ask for your representatives to be more responsible in spending, more responsible in our nation’s security, more responsible with regard to education.

Who’s minding your business while you’ll be minding everyone else’s?

Focus on what’s important and ignore the other party.

Focus on your representatives acting responsibly and conserving resources such as our tax dollars.

Focus on the immigration issue, which is still not resolved properly.

Focus on giving more individual freedom of decision about social security and school voucher programs.

Focus on a fair tax for all Americans.

If you stop setting yourself up to criticism then no one has anything to criticize you about. You do this by dragging religion and sanctimony regarding who has the moral compass of the nation in their corner rather than focusing on problems, concerns and issues, which will speak to a broad spectrum of Americans.

What is so difficult...
...about keeping your pants zipped, not doing drugs and not being corrupt? Power is what makes it difficult. I think that is the problem with BOTH parties is they want to be "IN POWER." What they fail to realize is we don't want them to be "in power," we want them to do the peoples business that is required in Washington and get their butts back home. Unfortunately, our government has become so bloated with agencies, committees and programs that our Funding Fathers would not recognize it. It is time for The People to take back the government that We establish. End socialism/communism and get back to a federal republic.

Slummer
You have done an excellent job of exposing some of the more shameful events related to religion in the West. The atrocities you describe should never have happened, and the perpetrators deserved punishment.

But my standard for judging the events as shameful is... the Bible. While the people who committed these acts may have been religious, they were certainly not following the logical outworking of Christ's teachings. You should also note that the abolitionist movement was largely a religious movement, populated by people like William Wilberforce, Sojourner Truth, and the Quakers (who, during the late 1700's not only banned slavery among its members, but required any Quaker who owned slaves to free them AND pay back wages). Was this moralizing acceptable to you?

I would ask you, why do you oppose these acts? Do you have a moral objection to cutting gays to pieces or persecuting Jews? Perhaps these societies had overriding reasons to use extreme measures to deal with what they thought was a serious threat to their society. I would like to see you condemn their actions without invoking some form of transcendant morality, which supercedes man's short-term interest or popular opinion.

I am most definitely NOT saying that you have to believe in God to live a moral life, I am just saying that you cannot condemn moralizing without abandoning your own right to moralize, else you become a hypocrite. And I genuinely believe that you would never want that.


Founding Fathers
not "Funding Fathers." Might have been a Freudian slip or the fact that I was on the phone :-)

yeah...
but Funding Fathers is funnier. LOL!

The Unitarians
That is folks who deny Jesus was fully God (and a great deal of whom took a cafeteria approach to the Bible elevating man's reason over revelation) did most of the work fighting to abolish slavery in the 19th Century.

Likewise, plenty of orthodox evangelical Churches "literally" interpreting their Bibles were pro-slavery and supported the Confederacy.

If the Bible is your standard, there's really not much in it that is anti-slavery, arguing not an anti-slavery book at all.

You have to wonder about a book that views consensual homosexual relations as sin but slavery as not.

Jon- in the 19th Century, the Unitarians
actually believed in God and in Jesus Christ, unlike today, when they have been hijacked by a bunch of activist Leftie Losers.

Jon
Nice post and I might add that the "lie with another man as you would with a woman" does not necessarily mean homosexuality as it does sexual position or so as it has been researched by other scholars.

http://www.godsfriends.org/Vol16/No1/natural-gender.html

This was an interesting site I found when researching the subject of this issue. I've not read the book as of yet, but intend to do so to further understand the problem of religion and its condemnation of others while holding itself up as a moral compass to the rest of the world.

Today Medved pointed out the hypocracy
of the Left who are howling like the jackels that they are over Larry Craig, while they are opposing a Texas law that would outlaw sex in public restrooms.

In a related story, the Leftist Gay activists are trying to shove something down our throats (no surprise).

Of course, it is Gay Marriage, and some Loser Activist Leftie Judge just overturned the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Well excuse me, but I still have a gag reflex, and the bathroom antics of Congressman "Tappy-Toes" Craig will not sway me from opposing the Leftist agenda.

scooter the cooter
I am laughing at the ridiculousness of your remark.

Just exactly how do you know this? Has some gay archeologist unearthed stone-aged porno tapes that were sanctioned by the Sanhedron?

The wild made-up stories that the Left repeat to one another get more and more outlandish every year.

Almost absurd as the Lesbian who claimed that Shakespeare was a woman.

Mountain Rose
I find your rhetoric interesting.

You probably accept that Global Warming caused by man is not proven scientifically because of the scientific evidence negating such an opinion.

But then why would anyone listen to the rantings of a person who makes such sweeping claims about a political party who also happens to believe that Darwin's Evolution Theory is still a hypothesis.

You entertain if nothing else.

for PeterE
PeterE writes: "Within that moral center is the standard of Christian family life, based on the exclusive and permanent relationship of husband (man) and wife (woman). In traditional Christianity divorce is forbidden except in special cases (for example infidelity). Homosexuality is also out. The ground for these strictures comes from not just one verse in Deuteronomy, but from a wider reading of the scriptures...."

The Bible doesn't just say that "homosexuality is out." It says that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. That is the source of the problem: Christians don't just dislike gays, they want to punish them in various ways for being gay. The posters on this discussion we're having now have made that clear that's what they want. And that is a violation of our Constitution, right?

It's not just that Christians think gays are citizens who have committed a sin; it's that Christians think that by being gay they have forfeited the same rights that Christians have. Go read some of the posts on this discussion. And that is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, an even bigger issue for Christian conservatives has been abortion--but abortion is not even mentioned in the New Testament. Jesus never told his followers that personhood begins at conception. So where did THAT come from?

Again Mountain Rose
The information is linked for further research, as was suggested. Clearly that type of education is lost on you.

Your claims to any bible, god, or religion has far less credibility than that of the author of the book I cited.

You have nothing to present that would endorse such fantastical claims as you make.

You only reveal yourself as the bigot you are to which no bible will shield you from for that is what is in your nature - anger, hate, contempt for life, rooted in the unresolved experiences of your own path in life.

You like to sanctimoniously judge others to deflect from your own ineptitude and transgressive behavior, no doubt.

The congressman's business is none of yours or mine. Either he's guilty and will need to accept responsibility or he's innocent and the transcript that's been posted since this A.M. may well show that there's room for doubt.

Poor Rose
"Of course, it is Gay Marriage, and some Loser Activist Leftie Judge just overturned the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

Since when did it become the duty of the religious to decide what is or isn't a marriage?

I know you think someone died and left you in charge, but reality check - no one did.

So, your religion is bigoted toward other people having the same rights as you, so what?

Enjoy your imaginary god and superstitious prayer, but freedom and democracy, not theocracy, don't protect the majority, it looks out for the minority that may well be denigrated by the likes of those such as you.

Like the George Wallace before you, all things will change whether you endorse it or not because freedom and democracy belong to every human being, not just those you think deserve it.


You decry hypocrisy!
Yet when a judge or a member of the Supreme Court rules in YOUR favor, whatever that is, then clearly that judge made the correct decision.

Oh please, isn't there another episode of Jerry Springer on for you to indulge in and leave the more important conversations between the rational take place on the thread.

scooter nyt-wit
ever since the beginning of time.

I don't want to confuse you, because I know that all you read is Leftie Loser reconstructed history texts given to your by your activist Marxist professors.

But someone has to speak the truth to you losers.

As I said before, I still have a gag reflex, so I don't swallow the BS that the Left is shovelling.

You know...
...I heard those tapes this morning, well I heard part of what the cops had taped anyhow, and after listening I feel kinda bad about pouncing so fast.

Without seeing what happened just listening to the conversation on the tape you get a different view than what I expected after the initial reports.

One of the reporters ask if he was really innocent why did he sign the statement? I figure, shoot you sign traffic tickets cause the cop says "Sign here", having never been involved in a sex sting I guess if the cop said "Sign here" it would seem the thing to do.

If he is guilty I hope they can him, if he isn't I'm afraid he has already been hung out to dry.

Simplistic Scooter nyt-wit
"The congressman's business is none of yours or mine."
***************************************

Yes it is NOMB, however I am certainly glad that I don't have to share bathrooms with men who have such disgusting practices.

It is no wonder that many men dress up like women to get into our girlie bathrooms, which are clean and do not smell like masculine fluids.

I worked at a fortune 500 company that tried to force us into same-sex bathrooms.

The guys, being the slobs they are, didn't care, but all the women raised a big stink!!!!!

In the end, we had to put up with a guy who wore shocking pink hair, a plaid skirt and Doc Martin boots coming in our bathroom. He claimed to be transgender, but he had a girlfriend (a real girl) who dressed similarly.

Yes, I know from first-hand experience the pit the Left is trying to shove us into, and am doing my very best to shove back.

SteveL
You are right - some "conservatives" on this blog do say stupid things. Thankfully I don't have to go to bat for them.

I think that the requirement of compassion over-rides any punishment for homosexuality that comes up in the OT. But you have to remember the "rider": go and sin no more.

Poor Poor Rose
"ever since the beginning of time."

I'm guessing this is your incomplete sentence regarding the following statement:

"Since when did it become the duty of the religious to decide what is or isn't a marriage?"

Clearly you know nothing of history, biology, evolution or science so it's to be expected that with you limited knowledge you would lay claim to something for which you have no right or deed to; not surprising.

Once again Rose
You reveal in your post your unresolved experiences as stated before:

"You only reveal yourself as the bigot you are to which no bible will shield you from for that is what is in your nature - anger, hate, contempt for life, rooted in the unresolved experiences of your own path in life."

BTW, no, it is none of your business about the Senator's behavior as he was not working, it wasn't in your house and it had nothing to do with you.

Walker Percy
My hat is off to Mrs. Parker. Walker Percy, who considered himself an old-fashioned southern liberal spliced with devout Catholicism, may be the last American novelist of importance with the possible exception of John Updike(the Rabbit series) and Thomas Wolfe(Bonfire of the Vanities is brilliant). I suggest that all conservatives read Walker Percy, starting with THE MOVIEGOER, LOVE IN THE RUINS,and LANCELOT and ending with the THANATOS SYNDROME.


Have a good Labor Day weekend.

scooter
It is possible to find experts to express just about any opnion you are looking for. However one still has to make up one's own mind.

For my part my reading of the Bible does not validate any form of sexuality other than that between a man and a woman in the confines (and the liberty!) of marriage. To make this clear it is good to read and re-read the first two books of Genesis, as they indicate through the creation myth the essence of the relationship of God, man, woman and nature.

Peter
See my post at 9:10am, I, too, was not convinced after having read the transcript. I've come to understand for myself that I prefer to wait until everything that can be revealed is revealed.

Pat Buchanan made a comment on his article about "the rumors about Craig for years" but offered no evidence of such, no names to whom we could verify so his comment only serves to fuel a rumor that has no basis in reality unless others were to come forward with such evidence of Craig's behavior of an unlawful nature.

"Spreading a rumor is like standing on top of the Empire State Building and cutting open a huge feathered pillow. You watch the feathers spread quickly with abandon with no way to retrieve them and encase them once more.

There's no way to un-ring this bell and the media along with others, may have ruined a man's career and life in the process."

scooternyc
Congratulations.

Without a doubt you have to be awarded the trophy for the most Self-Righteous commentary of the day.

It isn't often writers on this post will extoll themselves to the level upon which you have placed yourself.

Be careful. It's a long fall to the bottom from where you are standing.

Peter again
While I respect your post I disagree with it.

Certainly you have every right to read your bible and glean from it that wish you which to utilize for yourself.

However, it is not the unalterable word of god by which every human being is compelled or bound to so all opinions based on such ancient texts, unauthenticated, are just that, opinions.

For anyone of any religious ideaology to suggest such action would only reaffirm that particular religion as being closer to the subjugation of others much like Islam seeks the same.

Those seeking freedom and democracy will be better employed to support those ideals which do not discriminate anyone nor do they require suspension of reason or logic; simple ideals that have amazing reverberation through the centuries.

scooter - on truth
There is only one truth regarding the existence or otherwise of God. The same is true of most questions -there is a true answer and a false one (or a baker's dozen).

Having come to the conclusion that there is a God who is a personality, it follows quite tightly that His creation had a purpose, that there was an ideal guiding His creation. The ideal that I believe in is either true or false. Of course I think that it is true.

The epistemological question of how one arrives at such knowledge is separate from the nature of truth.

The political question of whether I would try to impose my understanding of truth on others is yet another question. Since I believe that God gave us free will as an essential precondition to true love, I am probably less dogmatic on this point than many a liberal.

It helps nobody to throw all these things together like Hitchens and say that the problem is all these people who believe in absolute truth. That gets things very much arse-up, as we say in the colonies.

Sonny
I can only glean from you response to me that you apparently have a fair amount of uncertainty of yourself, intimidated by others, along with lowered self-esteem and self-worth which exhibits through the caustic writings toward someone like myself who discusses reasonably some very important issues which affect all Americans.

If you have something valid to add to the discussion perhaps your time would be more useful.

Cooter nyt-wit
Yes, I must admit that when I used to clean the men's room at my dance studio, I used to hate it when it smelled like the men had been trysting therein.

And I admit that I hate it when my company tries to force me to share the powder room with some 6'5" guy with pink hair, and a mini-skirt just because he wants to "stick it to the man."

Oh, and BTW, I got an "A" in every physical science class I took, when I was young and now, when I have returned to college.

So you can congratulate yourself that you called me ignorant just because I disagree with you, but it doesn't make you right.

You will only be right if you leave the land of Losers and come over to the REAL Right!!!

Peter
Peter:

“Having come to the conclusion that there is a God who is a personality”

This is certainly an opinion, which, although I disagree, is clearly only an opinion. There is no fact to back this up so it still remains within the realm of opinion.

With regard to free will, there is no such thing. All behavior is innate and the idea of “free will” is itself the antithesis of such. Your “free will” would by nature make the correct choice for yourself. Indulging in the idea perhaps brings succor to some but it still doesn’t exist.
Much like the flower, which leans toward the sun, naturally for life, so too do we act from that which is inherent within each of us.

Finally, to have these discussions is important as religion seeks to control others, which is fine in your own house but no in the greater society – this above all concerns the most.


I have enjoyed the exchange between us, thank you for your ideas and thoughts on important topics such as these are.

Indeed
My statement of your ignorance stands, as physical science is not of the biological science or evolutionary science for which I referenced, which is quite different from the physical science you wish to credential yourself with.

I care not that you disagree with anything I post, I welcome it.

You're ignorant because you are limited in your view of the world and the knowledge that is abundant in our historical existence, which, when learned and applied leads many to give up bigotry knowing that the differences that lay within each of us are simply that - different, and bear no burden of discrimination toward others.

one more thought
(Whether there is fact to back up my expression of opinion, you cannot know.)

I'll take a massive leap of faith and guess that you love someone. Try telling your beloved that your behavior, although apparently loving, is really only an innate activity, genetically determined, and not springing out of your free will.

Maybe I should have saved this for Valentines Day. Have a terrific Labor Day weekend.

Scootie-ny-cootie
Yes, I guess you have a broad vision of the world, imagining lofty things like men buggering each other in filthy restrooms.

Ahhh, what a paradise to look forward to!

While I have such a narrow vision of the world, when I dream of a society where people realize that they are higher than rutting animals, that they realize that they are made in the image of God and treat themselves and others with a modicum of respect.

Peter, I cannot, not reply :)
"(Whether there is fact to back up my expression of opinion, you cannot know.)"

Opinion can only be constituted as fact when evidence shows it to be so. My not knowing it because of the lack of presentation of such evidence only keeps the opinion as opinion and has not yet moved it to the column of fact.

Truly, those that I love understand that which is deterministic within one another and realize those behaviors which move us toward the relationships with one another and those that move us away from one another.

The difference is that we judge not the individual behavior only to the extent of whether or not it is a behavior we want to be in the presence of; additionally, we understand that we don't own one another in any capacity so the freedom to move in or out of the relationship always has empowerment, which often leads to greater commitment, ironically.

Basically, you're there because you want to be, not because you have to be, are married, contractually bound or any other slight of hand extortion, as it were.

Touj- you have made my point
that Lefties have no sense of humor.

You mistake ridicule for rage.

I suspect that you Lefties were the dweebie little guys who were laughed at in HS, and felt rage.

So now you associate laughter with rage.

Just a little suggestion: perhaps the rage you feel is your own, and not mine? Since I am laughing you and not angry, who is the one filled with rage? Hint: if you are feeling it, it belongs to you.

He who smelt it dealt it.

Touj
Thanks for your experienced advice; indeed, you are most correct in your assertion of this bellowing bag of hot air with nothing to offer in the conversation.

I surmise that religion continues to exist, as you state, because of emotionality, but I find that rooted in the inability to integrate experiences in life which sets them up for continual reliance on a "parental figure" with whom to work these things out, delegate responsibility and not be accountable to self or the society at large.

Further, religion endows them with the credential of being judgmental toward others all the while trying to feel better about themselves, trying to rid the self of the bible-inflicted original sin and all the accoutrements that come with it.

Ever notice how one only comes to religion through the indoctrination at childhood or some intense emotional experience(s)? Both are at one’s most vulnerable and impressionable. “Where’s my mommy; where’s my daddy”.

Constantly waiting for someone to “save them” rather than saving themselves by making adult, responsible choices throughout life.

I know I said
I was going - but I think I detected a faint wiff of free will in your answer, scooter. Not that I should say that I know it, as that might offend the sensibilities of those who are thin of skin.

Well...
"He who smelt it dealt it."

Your level of intellect continues to entertain and bewilder as to how you don't fall down more in life.

Or perhaps this is the result of the most sever damage to the blood brain barrier by route of the much consumed alcohol you indulge and that which within you has eliminated all reason, logic, and humanity.

At least that would explain some of your stupidity.

Of course, there is the transgression of familial chastity that may be the culprit - only your siblings and parents would know.

"adult responsible decisions"
Hey, Scoot!

"Adult responsible decision."

Hmmmmm...

Is that what you call guys playing tappy-toe and hide-the-baguette in the men's room at the airport?

Sounds like a loftier, better world to me!!!

Much consumed alcohol?
I don't think so Scoot!

I have had the same half-consumed bottle of wine in my cupboard for the last 6 months.

I won't ask you how much you consume.

But if you play the bathroom-stall shellgame, ala Senator Tappy Toes, and if you take whatever walks out of the stall door, you would simply have to comsume much, much more than I do.

Touj, PeterE and ScooterNYC
You all are good writers. It has been interesting following your discussion.

Apparently K Parker.......
has been drinking the kool-aid. It appears that since the Democrat operatives are now colluding to out their fellow neurotic brethren within the Republican Party, ergo everyone must be qu**r. Yes, KP, that's why the APA does not want us to address neurotic women as self-defeating, sadistic, periluteal phasic, and borderline psychotic. Why else would the LGBT staff of the RNC and RSCC be foisting social liberals on the conservative base for the 2008 POTUS nomination if not to divert attention from the goal of neurotic legal and medical professionals since the revision of the ALIMPC in 1955? Does "stare decisis" apply to law based on fraudulent science? Folks, the disagreement among social liberals and social conservatives regarding the social culture of the Uniteds States is not about gay rights, gay adoption, or gay marriage. It is whether the social activism of neurotic individuals (professional or oterwise), without the aid of legitimate scientific research and supportive empirical data, can redirect the United States to ignore the welfare of children by normalizing neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias. One's sexual behavior is merely the etiology of abuse specific to one's psychopathology. Neurotic adults, who are reasonably intelligent, has been given a free pass since the revision of the ALIMPC in 1955. For those knowledgeable conservative adults, the free pass effectively ended in March 1998. We're still waiting for a legitimate conservative candidate for the 2008 POTUS nomination.

Very funny caption! Ha, ha, ha!!
Very funny caption! Ha, ha, ha!!

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

Why Craig has to go
Not because he's gay/bi/whatever: that's between him and his partner(s).

Not because he tried to cheat on his wife: that's between them.

Because any public figure who thinks they can get away with anonymous sex is too d@mn stupid to hold any position of responsibility.

No better, no worst
Kathleen sums it up; no better,or no worst can be expected from the Republicans nor the Democrats as both Parties are not wondering,but rather lost in the wilderness.

reply to SteveL
Morally wrong, yes--unconstitutional, no.

You're absolutely on target with most of the following:

"The Bible doesn't just say that "homosexuality is out." It says that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. That is the source of the problem: Christians don't just dislike gays, they want to punish them in various ways for being gay. The posters on this discussion we're having now have made that clear that's what they want. And that is a violation of our Constitution, right? "

Christian conservatives do indeed want to punish gays for being gay. Homosexuality is wrong because God has said so, and you can't find a higher authority than that. Of course, liberals can see easily that such hatred is morally wrong, but then, as all conservatives know, we liberals don't know anything about right and wrong.

Where you're incorrect is in that last point about the Constitution. There is no constitutional right to be gay, and if, as conservatives believe, our government was favored by God, it follows that there is a sense in which God's will should be implemented in and through the constitution. Or, more simply, using our democratic process, it would be possible for conservatives to create and implement a "final solution" to the problems of gays. Congress could pass legislation to criminalize homosexuality, could attach the death penalty to conviction under such a law, and a conservative Supreme Court could uphold its constitutionality. I agree that this is unlikely, but it is not inconceivable.

Conservatives, after all, have no real basis in Christian conservative principle from which to oppose all of this. They simply lack the decisiveness to make it happen. A dose of red-blooded American manliness is in order.


Viagra is a menace to society
I wouldn't be surprised if Senator Craig is in posession of a convenient ecomomy size bottle of the stuff.

The medication is a menace.

Old guys in nursing homes are chasing little old ladies around the shuffle-board courts.

My stepfather, in his 80s, was sexually harrassing his next door neighbor, who happend to be half his age! She would call me up crying because she would wake to find him standing next to her bed, waving handfulls of Viagra at her.

I recommend that we make it illegal for sex offenders to have the stuff in their possesion.

slummer failed history and English Lit
slummer don't know much about history and English Lit

slummer writes: Friday, August, 31, 2007 12:38 PM
Joe Oliva
I'll be happy to provide you with a little history.

"In the 1500s pederasty was considered perfectly moral among the religious and usually the elite." THIS IS NOT CORRECT. MORALITY WITHIN CHRISTIANITY DOESN'T CHANGE WITH THE AGE, IT HAS A MUCH MORE SOLID BASE.

"As late as the 1700s gays were tortured to death in Switzerland by being cut into small pieces over a period of four days. As late as the 1800s they were still executed by handing in many countries, and as late as 1902 they were jailed both in Europe and in America. Remember the story of the Scarlet Letter?" IF YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO APPLY The Scarlet Letter TO THE MISTREATMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS, YOU ARE OFF BASE: THE LETTER WAS A AND IT STOOD FOR ADULTERY.

slummer, the rest of your...
...nonsense wasn't worth commenting on.

comments on Gestell and SteveL
Gestell writes: Friday, August, 31, 2007 10:03 PM
reply to SteveL
"...Christians don't just dislike gays, they want to punish them in various ways for being gay. [NOT SO, WE DISLIKE THEIR PERVERSIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO GET SPECIAL RIGHTS, THEIR WHINING]

Christian conservatives do indeed want to punish gays for being gay. [NOT SO, SEE ABOVE] Homosexuality is wrong because God has said so, and you can't find a higher authority than that. [VERY ACCURATE] Of course, liberals can see easily that such hatred [IT IS NOT HATRED, SEE ABOVE] is morally wrong, but then, as all conservatives know, we liberals don't know anything about right and wrong. [IT IS DIFFICULT TO THINK ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT YOU LIBS/LEFTIES, SINCE YOU FIND IT SO NECESSARY TO TOADIE AND KOWTOW TO ALL THE PERVERTS.]

scooternyc - your post 4:55 PM
LOL

You just elevated yourself to another level.

LMAO

slummer, your nonsense is useless
slummer writes: Saturday, September, 01, 2007 12:33 PM
Luis
The debate was about whether societies' moral views change over time or whether they have remained fixed and static throughout human history. [I REPEAT, MORAL STANDARDS, AT LEAST CHRISTIAN MORAL STANDARDS, ARE BASED ON SOMETHING MORE SOLID THAN THE AGE--BUT YOU WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND, AS A LIB/LEFTY, THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, NO TRUTH HAS TO BE RELATIVE]

As pleasureful as you probably find it, you might try to get you brain unwrapped from the subject of gays and gay life for just a minute to understand the larger point. [I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS]

Here's a newflash, Lewis; there are alot of people out there who are interested in other subjects besides gays themselves and are interested in trying to understand why there is so much fear and myth-making about them. (Trust me, if the bible condoned homosexuality, you would probably just dismiss it along with the references to pigskin, sacrifice, slavery, stoning, and pederasty. [THERE IS NO FEAR OF HOMOSEXUALS AS SUCH, THERE IS PLENTY OF FEAR OF THE HOMOSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUALIST TRYING TO PERVERT THE PRINCIPLES THAT THIS GREAT COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON; I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANY 'myth-making' ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS; TRUST YOU? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!]

his conduct was obnoxious and disgracefu
.

Consider this: If someone came into a ladies room and peered through the crack of the toilet stall and stared at the person in the stall, he would rightly be arrested and charged with "peeping tom" at the least, as there is a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public restroom stall.

I think its intolerable that out of control individuals such as Sen Craig can peer into a stall and stare at the occupant, stick their feet under the partition and make physical contact with the occupant's foot (which requires a lateral stretch of approximately 24 inches)
and reach their hand under the stall into their private space, simply because the occupant is a man instead of a woman. Its totally outrageous that anyone (gay or straight) would try to rationalize such behavior.

There no way his obnoxious gestures were either acidental or innocuous.

Senator Craig should have been handcuffed and arrested, and booked, and the press should have been immediately notified of his arrest-as his constituents had a right to know. He is, after all a public figure, who was behaving disgracefully in public and violating the rights of others.

I have no sympathy for the unremorseful senator-but he does need professional help. I hope he seeks it, instead of continuing to deny he has a severe problem.

Touj
Touj writes: Saturday, September, 01, 2007 10:12 PM
Luis
Do you know that at one time the Catholic church condoned abortion?

Look it up.

Touj, do you know that you are wrong?

Look it up.

Touj, that's the simple answer, and...
...here is the more nuanced (as Three-months-and-two-self-inflicted-wounds-to-get-outta-here-sooner Kerry used to say--or does he still use that word?) answer: The Catholic Church has never approved of abortion on demand; there could be unique instances, individual cases, where, indeed, abortion is called for, but certainly not the phony lib/lefty 'health of the mother--I-have-a-hangnail bs).

Look it up.

Touj, you are quoting selectively...
...understanding what you are saying. I have been through this before with other libs/lefties and, you are right, it is useless. You libs/lefties absolutely have to prove that the Catholic Church does subscribe, or has subscribed, to moral relativism.

Nothing in what you have said indicates that the Catholic Church has approved abortion at will, the plague of this otherwise great nation. But we will correct that. We have Resources you libs/lefties can't imagine.

that is, WITHOUT understanding...
that is, WITHOUT understanding...

slummer: you certainly can just
...BET ON THAT. And then, brace yourself for a return to normalcy in this great country.

the normalcy that was the...
...foundation for the creation and growth of the most prosperous, the healthiest, the most successful country with the most freedom ever seen in the world. If you were not a lib/lefty you might even enjoy the normalcy.

Reps. unzipped
Scooter nyc: part one
"With regard to free will, there is no such thing. All behavior is innate, and the idea of "free will" is itself the antithesis of such." Wrong, sir! Most human behavior is a result of socialization, broken down into 4 age periods: 0 to 2 years, 2 to 7, 7 to the onset of puberty, puberty until about 20 years old. The only inst-
inctive behaviors are: eating when hungry, resist-ing a physical attack on ones' person, and engag-ing in sexual activity.
The first and second of these behaviors stem from the instinctive urge to live; i.e., to conti-nue one's existence. The third is the biological imperative to further the existence of the race.
This can be established by empirical evidence; watch species grouping of higher mammals. By extension, pick family groups within a species and you can observe socialization/modif-ication and behavioral development.

reps. unzipped
Scooter Nyc part 2
The more intelligent the animal, the wider the range of behaviors. When we get to the primates; wider yet; then man! Oh my, behavioral choices become unlimited! Man has the intelligence and good judgement to engage in positive behaviors and the stupidity, bad judgement, and FREE WILL to engage in negative behaviors (negative behavior being defined as actions harmful to ourselves or others).
The best thing about Christianity is that when reared in a Christian family a childs' early teachings will provide him/her with a solid moral and ethical foundation. There is no nonsense about moral or ethical relativism.

reps. unzipped
Scooter Nyc: part 3
It would be a terrific world if we all could instinctively develop a moral and ethical compass as harmless to others as the 10 Commandments. Won't work. Human children if left to their own devices without solid adult instruction in morals and ethics develop into little monsters, who become bigger monsters as they age. Lord of the Flies comes to mind.
Organized religion provides an excellent vehicle for early socialization. Since the US was founded by people grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the 10 Commandments are a pretty damned good plan to live by. we should retain our identity as a "Christian" nation. I sure as hell don't want to see an Islamiscist ascension in the US---screw Sharia law and all adherents thereof.
That being said, I am not a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, devout atheist, Druid, Wiccanist. Satanist, etc., etc., etc. I am a practical man who uses what works.
I try to believe in god on alternate days; interspersed with days of total conviction of an existential universe.
To the original point of KPs' article: If Mr. Craig is guilty, his career should be over: first for being a liar and hypocrit; second but equally important, for having the horrendously "bad taste" (pun intended) to go trolling for anonymous sex in a mens' room. That type of behavior is indicative of underlying serious psychological problems.





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.