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
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why liberals love adultery
by Kevin McCullough
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?


Liberals are always cheering for the wrong people.

Have you ever noticed?

In our war on islamo-facism they ask America to withdraw. When Hugo Chavez smells sulfur at the United Nations, liberal democratic Senators "understand" him (i.e. Tom Harkin). But no one is a liberal's hero the way an adulterer is.

You would think in a world shaped by modern liberal feminists that liberal media types and liberal politicians would be rushing to the aid of the poor wife and kids offering them welfare and state-funded counseling and beating the offending man to within an inch of his life. But not so.

The original love affair with adultery happened with the former President who to this day can not be offered a cigar without a range of comments flooding through people's minds. Yet by comparison William Jefferson Clinton's adultery was a little bland, even unimpressive by the new superhero, extra-marital fornicators of our time.

Who are they? Men who engage in same-gender sexual activities!

This is why Bishop Eugene Robinson of the now nearly defunct Episcopal church is revered by those on the political left. "He was true to himself," they say with almost breathless whisper - as if this act of discovering his belly button was some form of epic courage.

Forget the fact that he has ruined an entire denomination of Christian faith, the fact that he can go home at night and engage in sick sexual perversion makes him a legend amongst the political left.

But now there's a new kid on the scene. Having done all he could to ruin the state of New Jersey - a state he took a solemn oath to protect and serve - the new adulterer that liberals all love is Jim McGreevey. Just in the last week alone he's held hands with Oprah, and shared New Jersey rest area secrets with Matt Lauer.

He's also invoked God's name about three hundred times.

And now he says, "it's all about telling the truth."

But I'd like to know, "since when?"

It wasn't important enough for the Governor to keep his pants zipped after pledging to do so before God and man... with his wife... twice!

There was no commitment to "telling the truth" or "confessing" (a reference to the poorly titled book the ex-governor is now pimping) when he's arriving home from the busy day in Trenton and telling his wife and child everything but the truth - only then to whisk himself away under the late night guise of more work to go have an anonymous tryst with psychopaths along turnpike hide-a-ways.

Enough!

There is no need to tell us about the prayer cards you read before you made your big press conference announcing your resignation.

While Oprah, Lauer, McGreevey, and the throngs of democrats who "support" him may be holding hands singing Kumbayah - some adult needs to come along and ask a few serious questions.

Questions like why should you be praised for your "honesty" now when you are putting sexual pleasure ahead of the security of the state you served? Who can trust you after you named a lover to the post of homeland security czar who was neither an American citizen, nor was qualified to even attend homeland security meetings?

But what about the deeper questions that no one ever asks these jokers?

Robinson, McGreevey, and even Clinton to a certain degree became sympathetic figures because of this "true to your self" mantra. But in the grown-up world don't we try to instruct our boys that the definition of a hero is someone who overcomes his own natural fears to accomplish more, and be more, and do more than they think is possible? Isn't it good to teach our young men that when they enter into a marriage that they should strive to be their family's superhero?

Isn't it a healthy thing for a father to leave the home in the morning thinking, "I'm going to go slay the dragons of this world so that my family, and the sacredness of my home won't be victimized by the evil in the world?"

One of McGreevey's actual excuses, as relayed on Lauer's interview was to blame his parents for being bad role models - because they themselves did not engage in homosexual activity.

Is he listening to himself? Did he want them to?

If they had - HE would not even be here!

In the whole spin cycle of garbage about sexual behavior and why we're "made a certain way" we forget that choices are made for every single action taken. With Clinton the issue was "come on every body does it." With Robinson and McGreevey its simply, "I'm being true to myself."

In truth its selfishness coupled with the refusal to curb their sexual appetite. Its the refusal to make the choice to not be a slave to their impulses. Basically they are still little boys who do not know how to discipline themselves - only now they wish the world to feel sorry for them. And in McGreevey's case he's openly seeking to work with kids for his life's mission now.

Uh... no thank you!

I don't understand the attraction. But one thing is true - liberals love adulterers.

And today, if you break your vows of commitment to your wife and children, abandon them, and get kinky with rest stop lowlife, while simultaneously endangering the most populous state in the union - in the midst of a war on terror - you're a rock star!

Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution" is now available - everywhere! Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He also provides PodCASTS and blogs daily at Amazon.com.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

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

McGreasy
is an individual who has no shame, no ethics, and no conscience. I saw him on O'Reilly's show, and he basically assumed a passive position and agreed that he was a loathsome, vile creature.


Actually, he has an exellent strategy. He plays "kick me, spit on me, hate me, I deserve it". What he is doing is selling a book and becoming a homosexual lobby icon.


The real problem here is that he is welcomed on the talk show circuit. Oprah welcomes him and totally refuses to look at the fact that this pervert destroyed his family and betrayed the trust of the people who voted for him. How honest is that?


We now live in a society in which a man can hang around outhouses performing perverted sexual acts, endanger national security while occupying the Governor's mansion, and be applauded by idiots who view his sordid revelations as heroic. Even super wealthy idiots like Oprah.


He has accomplished something that may benefit us all though. By describing his outhouse sexual encounters, and his sick betrayal of his family, he reveals an often overlooked fact. Homosexual men are not all monogamous, loving, caring people whose civil rights are being violated by denying them the right to marry each other.


McGreasy is the kind of homosexual who spreads aids and other STDs. He is not alone. His groveling, disgusting confession will not only make money for him, it will tarnish the portrayal of homosexuals projected onto America by the homosexual political lobby. That is a good thing. Perhaps it will help get them out of the schools.

Adulterer's Like Newt, Reagan, Hyde, etc
McCullogh's schtick is getting tiresome. "Why liberals love adultery...child molestors...communists...terrorists, etc"

I had no idea Bill Clinton was the first person ever to commit adultery! Funny how McCullogh left out Ronald Reagan, who ditched wife Jane Wyman for that trampy Nancy Davis after he met her on a movie set. Funny how he left out Newt Gingrich informing his wife who lay dying in the hospital that he was leaving her for his former teacher. I think he just left #3 or #4 recently too.

Funny how he forgot Bob Livingston having to resign during impeachment. Funny how he forgot Henry Hyde's confession to those "youthful indiscretions" committed in his 40's. Etc, etc, etc.

Judging by the numbers, I'd say Conservative "Christian" Republicans have a lock on the adultery market.


JSH proves GOP not Dems punishes its own
You made the case on how the parties treat bad behavior in your own post. In the GOP there are consequences. Shame is still alive in conservatiuve circles. Reagan's first wife left him before he ran for office. She left him to pursue a movie career rather than fulfill her marital vows and "settle" for whatever he accomplished after fighing communists in the Screen Actor's Guild. Gingrich and livingston resigned in shame. Hyde's sins were ancient. Clinton's were raw and ongoing.

Like Clinton should have.

Conservatives..but not RR
JSH is right about the conservatives there and I'd actually add people like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Sandi Patty and Amy Grant there too. Where he is dead wrong is Ronald Reagan...the 'trampy' Nancy Davis is the accomplished daughter of a very prominent Chicago physician. Anyone with an iota of history knows that RR's marriage to Jane Wyman fell apart not because of what he did. Reagan had his faults..lack of fidelity was not one of them.

Dems reward bad behavior
Nixon resigned without being impeached. Clinton wore it like a badge of honor. Agnew resigned. Gore found no controlling authority. Lott was forced out of leadership for making an old dying man feel good. Chris Dodd wasn't questioned.

JSH
Why is it that whenever someone on the right points out the bitter truths about gays like McGreevy and Robinson, there always has to be someone like JSH to try to point out the sins of well known Republicans. It's an old liberal trick, you don't acknowledge or try to defend the gay situation, you try to blacken the name of a Republican. That is commonly called using the "apples and oranges" argument. The subject of the column was the dishonesty of men like McGreevy and Robinson, not how straight people act. Please stay on argument or keep out of the discussion.

a bit of a double standard?
Heterosexual adultery is bad if you are conservative. Heterosexual adultery is acceptable (but we'll go Tsk! Tsk!) if you are liberal. Homosexual adultery is lionized on either side. Can you imagine what would happen to an Episcopal priest if he left his wife and children for a 20 year old Hooters waitress? Can you say excommunication? Sure you can. At the very least he'd be drummed out of the priesthood. But if he destroys his family to practice an abomination (oops, I meant to say that if he frees his family from his double life of lies and self-actualizes his sexuality with a committed life partner) he is elevated to bishop. I'd bet Jimmy Baker is too jealous for words. And now McGreevy. I'd bet the only reason for resigning as governor, when you get right down to it, is that his future is far more lucrative as a gay apologist than a dim-witted public servant (sic).

Will everybody please calm down.
Why in God's name do you to think that sexuality in any way affects the morality of the person. What you do in the bedroom is rarely a measure of morality, JFK commited affairs but was one of your greatest presidents, who's veiws on social issues were visionary (such as his stand on civil rights). On the other hand Hitler was a married man who's fidelity was never questioned, I am not as comfortable with his morals.

It is a point proven time and time again, that those who live lives that are not the paradigm of morality, often make the best leaders. While does who live outwardly moral lives often are the most morally defficient or innefective public figures.

So...
homosexual people acting badly is, well...bad. We can agree there. When is Kevin going to focus on the millions of young straight men who spend every waking moment trying to "nail" any piece of "tail" they can catch? Gotta love that male privilage, right? Boys will be boys! Just as long as they are white, heterosexual and show up at an approved Protestant church, who cares?

GO europe
This is NOT Europe. We have this quaint idea here that a man- or a woman- should be faithful to his/her spouse. Anyone who is not willing to be honest with his life's partner certainly will not be faithful to the country. What's more, we have had this proven to us only just recently- "Ah did NOT have sex with that woman- Ms. Lewinsky."

JFK was NOT one of our "greatest leaders" and honor and character matter. Too bad it just bores you over there.

JamesB
You are right. I've come across so-called "Christians" going into virtual pornographic detail over how THEY imagine gay sex must be like. Every lewd, lascivious and lurid description is lavishly rendered for our shock and dismay. It does make you wonder. They talk about things I've certainly never heard of before!

Celtic Dragon
Good Point, ah the wonders of projection! The human mind often projects that which it feels most ashamed about onto others. This is why the most judgemental in society are often just as "perverted" if not more so than those they condemn. Just recently an aquantence of mine, who was about as homophobic as you get, came out.

My, My
Go Europe tells us that sexuality in no way affects the morality of the person. J.F.K. was a visionary, and he committed adultery with regularity. Hitler was married and his fidelity was never questioned.

Go Europe says that immoral people often make the best leaders, while those who live outwardly moral lives are often the most morally deficient or ineffective.

So I guess now immoral sexual behavior could become a good indicator that a political candidate will probably be an effective, perhaps visionary office holder.

Hitler was a madman who didn't evwen get married until the game was almost over for him. Also, wouldn't you say that he was a visionary? He changed the world and went into the history books.
Isn't that what visionaries often do?

I want someone to tell me how hanging around public toilets offering homosexual services is anything except sick and degenerate. As to McGreevy's morality, he probably escaped prosecution for putting his "friend" into a Homeland Security slot.

The significant thing about what Go Europe had to say is that it is an example of how morally deficient and ethically blind many in our society have become. Please! Give me a break!

Go Europe
I was incredibly hateful to GLBT people before I "came out" as being trans.

Let's think before we post
Horn-dogg (nice name by the way, but I think dog is spelt with one "g" but then again I'm a liberal and we use gay-communist spelling so I may be wrong), IT WAS A HUMOROUS EXAGERATION. I used it to prove a point. I'm guessing none of your presidents did that (then again you can never be sure, we must run a long investigation just in case, wasting months when something useful could be done).

Let's get REAL!
Oh come on! This article is rediculous and smacks of complete denial! Why did Newt Grinch have to step down? Why did the Republican Judge, hearing the Clinton case have to say "Those were youthful indescretions" for cheating at the age of 45? Why did we have to endure the tears of a certain evangelist! Wake up people! Are you really going to be driven like cattle? This is the most bogus assessment of a political party I have ever seen! I am not right or left, but this smells REALLY bad! Let's bring some reality into this. People do things they shouldn't and their political party has nothing to do with why! For the love of God, how does political affiliation lower itself to articles like this?

Why libs love adultery...
is just to get under our conservative skins! Fortunately, all of my conservative heroes are straight-laced, play-it-by-the -book leaders. Althought Newt Gingrich was forced out by the gains made by the Dems in the 1998 mid-terms, and not by his wife-swap; and Lott was drummed out by the hue and cry over his remarks and not just by party elders who found latent racism in his remarks.

Celtic Dragon, and Go Europe: if I read what's implied by some of your posts, Mr. McCullough may be trapped in the closet himself....

Sex, lies and
statesmaship. When i am evaluating the possibility of voting for someone, all else being equal i vote for the person who is true to his/her marriage vows. The correlation is not perfect, but it is there. Lie about one thing, lie about another. Moreover, there are degrees. FDR and Eisenhower were not Satyrs. JFK and LBJ were. Another nasty side effect of public figures doing things that adverselyaffect ordinary people, is that us ordinary folks and our kids tend to imitate. Clinton has raised promiscuity among teens to new levels. Does anyone think the new teen dance styles are harmless dry h**ping? Sexual orientation should be private, discrete and responsible. Insofar as anyone of any inclination applies these as far as poosible within limits of human fraility, i can get along ok with them. I reserve the right to disapprove of public salatiousness or crudely displayed lust.

Skip
I realise that I am becomeing somewhat of a serial poster here, but there are some flaws in your argument. Firstly I was not saying that everyone who led an "immoral" private life would be an exemplary leader, nor was I saying that all those who live "moral" lives were destined to become Hitler. I merely stating that personal morality is a poor indicator of leadership qualities. Also I feel that your understanding of the word visionary is somewhat lacking, a visionary is someone who has a widely acknowleged vision for the future which is beneficial to man kind. Not someone who merely makes an impact. If we are going to go down your exageration of my argument, and say that "immorality" is a sign of greatness here is a list of people who were great but led "immoral" live; Martin Luther King (adultery), Gahndi (adultery), the Beatles (drugs), Oscar Wilde (just about everything), Winston Churchill (alcoholism), Rolling Stones (see Wilde), Charles Dickens (opiates), Julius Caesar (adultery), Cleistenese (Homosexuality) Need I go on (I know some of these aren't strictly speaking leaders but they are all great people).

On your question about gay prostitution, it is no more immoral than regular prostitution, someone is still being exploited, the actual sexual act makes little difference to the morality of the action. Also those who use these services are mostly closet gays who are unable to be honest to themselves or those around them and cannot establish a long term loving relationships, or wierdo's who occur everywhere along the spectrum.

If what you are reffering to is mere promiscuity, I see no problem with two consenting adults having sex assuming no-one is being exploited.

Rushsux
Let's get him the key and get him out before he meets a lion and a witch.

Sorry. I'm still stuck...
... on the idea positied by Goeurope that JFK was one of our greatest Presidents.

???????????????????????????????????????

I can't get my brain to compute on that idea.

BrianR
Personally I reckon that anyone who managed to end a nuclear crisis peacefully is a pretty decent bloke. His stance on Civil Rights also earns him my deepest respect.

Liberals love anything that is wrong
It's not hard to understand why liberals have to be on the opposite side of right. Right represents God, and all three of these people have had trouble with how they view God. McGreevey, now in his interviews speaks of God as if God stood there and took an active part in all of his sick relationships with other men. Don't ask McGreevey if he feels his actions had an effect on other people. He gets upset because he feels thats all behind him now, and since he repeats God so much all is forgotten. Lets move on. McGreevey hasn't changed at all. He just changed his game plans to fool those forgiving hearts. He just wants to sell his book. As for Robinson. Look where he comes from. The Episcopal church. What don't they vote on. They vote so much on what they will adhere to, and what they won't in the Bible, it's ridiculous to recognize the Bible in their religion. The Episcopal church is a perfect example of what happens when a bunch of liberals gets control of it. When there is so much diversity in a church like that of the Episcopal it can only produce someone like Robinson. Clinton, the poster boy of the liberals loved to enter churches holding his bible as if it was a ticket to Waterworld. It didn't represent anything else to Clinton but another way to fool people. Clinton took pride and it showed how his words sway people from their own sense of right and wrong. Clinton to this day still has no conscience nor a sense of God other then his own existence. The Path to 9/11 demonstrated how Clinton was so preoccupied with Monica, he still hasn't acknowledge how his personal life contributed to the deaths of almost three thousand people. Instead he sits on the sidelines letting President Bush take all the attacks for 9/11. Now, the woman who allowed Clinton to administer to Monica, is still sitting by letting President Bush take all the attacks for 9/11, wants to be President. Hillary was co-President with Bill Clinton. If Clintons personal life with Monica was responsible for the Path to 9/11, it was also Hillary's responsibility that 9/11 happen. If Hillary exercised her role as the worlds smartest woman, and a strong liberal woman, almost three thousand people might still be alive today. Did adultery pay off for these three people. In each case listening to these three speak now, you can hear the little boy in each one of these men. Their selfish desires and their violation of authority contributed to and harmed all those around them. Do any of these men have a guilty conscience for what they did. Not one of them. Why, because they praised as heros by the liberals for going against that which is right. God.

Contradicting
"One of McGreevey's actual excuses, as relayed on Lauer's interview was to blame his parents for being bad role models - because they themselves did not engage in homosexual activity."

Of course while liberals as such, make every excuse on earth for their activities, they show a viscious prejudic against those who oppose it.

It's funny how his parents don't seem to get the benefit of being true to their nature.


Goeurope
Well, obviously you're referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The only reason that situation elevated to the near-disaster it did was due to JFK's fumbling of the whole issue to begin with, including his earlier summit with Kruschev, which he handled so badly that Nikita thought he was a lighweight.

As to the Civil Rights issue, here's a little illustration of how well he handled that issue. Sammy Davis, Jr., at the height of his Rat Pack fame, campaigned vigorously for JFK's election. Davis was scheduled to marry Mai Britt, a white actress. Frank Sinatra, at JFK's request, asked Davis to postpone the wedding until after the election, and Davis readily complied. After the election, the Davis-Britt marriage went forward.

For his efforts, Davis wasn't even invited to the inauguration. JFK didn't want to be "embarrassed" by having to deal with such a high-profile inter-racial marriage.

Yeah, there's your icon in action.

Go Europe and Caletic
Maybe the fact that the acquaintence was against it before coming out is an admission that he or she knows that homosexual acts and lusts are morally wrong and socially deviant, and the coming out is a surrendering to the power of sin? Just a thought.

No one can be a Christian who is not an overcomer, but it is God who gives the victory. We cannot have it by sheer willpower.

Brian and Jerubaal
Brian:

I am not denying that he was perfect, but he was a damnsight better than any other modern American president (with the possible exclusion of FDR). Would you really want Dubya in charge in the same situation?

Jerubaal:

No, immorality was never really a consideration for this aquaintence, and he was not anywhere near Christian. He was deeply insecure and angry with the world, which is why he projected his own fear of homosexuality onto others. That and he was a grade A* tw*t, which may have had something to do with it. I can only hope that his ability to finally be honest with himself has made him more "christian", i.e. love thy neighbour rather than the hate filled bits which are a direct contradiction of the Golden rule.

Being a homosexual is not he problem
in either of these cases. The governor would have been just as shameful if he had appointed his girlfriend to a sensitive position that she wasn't qualified for. And he broke his vows to his wife. Either gay or straight this man did not have the moral compas to guide a state. And the same thing for the Episcopal Pastor. Sex outside of marriage breaks the vows he is supposed to teach. It doesn't matter that he is gay and is just forwarded to change the subject and hide the fact that these 2 men are ethically challenged. No matter how you feel about gays and gay amrriage these 2 mmen were pathetic. I don't think anyone has accused Clinton of being gay and he is universally seen as a moral disaster for his adultery, sexual harrassment, lying perjury and inability like a child to control his urges. It's not gay or straight--it's moral bankruptcy. Focus on that and the discussion should be over.

What do the wicked think?

In this forum we do not usually see sexual perversion associated with violation of the seventh commandment. We will limit our praise of you and just thank the Lord for encouraging us with truth. Psalm 94 came to mind while considering your article:

[The wicked] say, “The Lord does not see, nor does the God of Jacob understand.”…He who formed the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct? He who teaches man knowledge, shall He not know? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are vain. Blessed is the man whom You instruct, O Lord, and teach out of Your law.”

For those who love the Scriptures and are interested in what the Bible teaches about the Kingdom of God and the church, we have started a series of articles on the blog. Part I is an introduction to the subject of the Christian and the law…


Nuttier than ever
A thoughtful conservative like George Will must be hiding under a table somewhere in red-faced embarrassment at appearing in the same line-up as Kevin McCullough. Are Townhall editors so anxious for exposure that they actually print his deranged rhetoric? Does McCullough lie awake all night thinking of how to surpass Ann Coulter in venomous ideas? Or maybe (as one writer suggests) the air in the closet is so stuffy, it is hampering his thinking.
But the amazing thing to me is that some of the responders to his "column" are scarier than he is. And even scarier, they claim to be Christians. Since I am an Independent, I visit websites of all kinds. I thought (because of the name, "townhall") that Townhall would deal in valid arguments. I was wrong.

Goeurope: LOLOLOLOLOL....
....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeck, yes!

And better than any American president? Reagan could eat his lunch and have dessert left over.

That's an Americanism that means you're full of crap.

The stereotyping liberals industry
Is this the depth of conservative thought? First, find some "liberals" who engage in some not so good behaviour (like adultery), then find some other "liberals" who might say something that can be construed as approval, and wallah! Conclusion "Liberals love adultery".

I have to agree with OKJoyce, that the echo chamber amps up the nuttiness.

To jsh
McCullogh's "getting tiresome?" Try not reading him. The shoe seems to fit, or you wouldn't be getting tired of it!

No, Bill Clinton was not the first adulterer, but the first to commit it in the Oval Office, and then to perjure himself during a Congressional investigation, as far as anyone knows. His crime, from which he walked away, was perjury, not adultery. His sin was both!

Better do a little more research on Reagan and Wyman. She walked away, and divorce prior to adultery, may not be approved by God, (which is for Him to judge): still it's an order of magnitude different from sleeping around and then saying, "Honey, I want a divorce!"

In this age of AIDS, promiscuity ought to carry a felony sentence! The man or woman who want to risk health on their own is one moral problem, but to risk it and an unaware spouce's is unconscionable!

Everything you listed you think "funny" it was not mentioned is a pathetic attempt to compare the proverbial apple and orange. Try to come out of that defensive, denying, la la land, liberal tree, and do what we fondly call "thinking" instead. Just try it: you might like it.

Brian
Iran-Contra?

Also, this may not sway many of you but he supported Thatcher, who ripped the heart out of everywhere north of Birmingham. Which is why he always leaves me with a bitter taste in the mouth.

Try to be accurate
if you can, Go Europe. Here are a couple of
examples of your inaccuracy.

"Firstly, I was not saying that everyone who led an "immoral private life would be an exemplary leader". Who said you did?

My comment was:

"Go Europe says that immoral people OFTEN make the best leaders, while those who live outwardly moral lives are often the most morally deficient or inefficient". See what a difference one word makes?


You then say to me:

"Also I feel that your understanding of the word visionary is somewhat lacking, a visionary is someone who has a widely acknowledged vision for the future which is beneficial to mankind. Not someone who merely makes an impact".

According to the dictionary the definition of visionary is

1. full of foresight: characterized by unusually acute foresight and imagination

2. imaginary: produced by, resulting from, or originating in the imagination

3. incapable of being realized: so idealistic or unrealistic as to be unrealizable in practice

4. given to dreaminess: tending by nature to be dreamy or to have impractical schemes and ideas

5. having visions: given to seeing mystical visions


Nowhere in those various definitions did I see any reference to "being beneficial to man kind". That appears to be your definition.


Your assertion that my understanding is lacking seems typical of the leftist tendency to be condescending. Leftists seem completely convinced that anyone who disagrees with them does so out of stupidity or ignorance.


You then say "On your question about gay prostitution, it is no more immoral than regular prostitution, someone is still being exploited, the actual sexual act makes little difference to the immorality of the action.

Also those who use these services are mostly closet gays who are unable to be honest to themselves or to those around them and can not establish a long term loving relationship, or wierdos who occur everywhere along the spectrum.

If what you are referring to is mere promiscuity, I see no problem with two consenting adults having sex assuming no one is being exploited"


Well, to clarify what I was saying. I was not referring to prostitution. My understanding is that the kind of homosexuals who hang around bus stops and other places are soliciting strangers, not for money, but to gratify their own unnatural urges.


Now I am fully aware that there is homosexual prostitution. I also agree that those who patronize homosexual prostitutes are frequently homosexuals themselves. As to them being unable to be honest with themselves, I don't know whether they are or not. That probably varies from one individual to the next. I am also aware that there are heterosexual customers of prostitutes who are unable to form lasting relationships with members of the opposite sex.


When you refer to "mere promiscuity" you make a statement about yourself. I won't throw stones at you for being comfortable with promiscuity. When I was young I was certainly promiscuous. I guess men have always tended to pursue women with sex in mind. It has something to do with human nature, or testosterone or something. It accounts for procreation.


As to whether anyone is being exploited, the feminists claimed that women are always being exploited. It made no difference to them whether a woman engaging in sex with a man was a prostitute or a wife. Of course those nut cases have been discredited for some time now. There can be no doubt that promiscuity contributes to the spread of STDs, including the HIV virus.


Finally, Celtic Dragon makes that same tired, shop worn smear of anyone who expresses a basic disgust with homosexual behavior. (Yes, some people do find the practice of homsexuality, especially between men, disgusting). Branding people as homophobic is another defensive slur too many homosexuals attempt to brand people with who disagree with them.


"I was incredibly hateful to people before I 'came out' as being trans".

Give it a rest. Kevin McCullough also talks quite a bit about his opposition to abortion. Is he a closet abortionist?






Hypocrisy
It is impossible to be a hypocrite unless you stand for something.

skip
I have no idea what Mr. McCullough may or may not be hiding. My obsevation was aimed more at some occasional posters here in TH who seem awfully obsessed with what gay people are up to behind closed doors. Mr. McCullough hasn't gone into particular detail there.

Absolutes in Right and Wrong Behavior
Aside from being a biblical no-no common sense dictates that homosexual behavior will always be considered deviant behavior by any society at large in spite of all the attempts by leftist activists to define it down as "normal".

To make the claim that sexual activity between individuals of the same sex is no less normal than between a man and woman is nothing more than a social construction invented by liberal elitists to help those that participate in this activity absolve themselves of their guilt.

If it was truly "okay' to engage in same sex activity there would be no need to worry about guilt.

Telling and retelling this lie to several generations of children under the title of sexual "education" in our public school system will not ever change the truth in the minds of thinking people.

None of us are capable of getting through life without making several very wrong moral choices, but people who call themselves conservative try very hard not to repeat their transgressions, because unlike many of those on the permissive left their concepts of right and wrong are not obscured in a fuzzy cloud of moral relativism.


Hey others do it too
Notice the leftist's reply? Not, "OK it's wrong and I admit I have failings that should be overcome."

It's always. Hey - republicans do it too.

Well, to the degreee that is so - IT'S ALSO WRONG WHEN REPUBLICANS DO IT.

Two wrongs do not make a right. That's what conservatives say.

Liberals say, show me two wrongs, and we'll show you a thousand more, because we're a bunch of screaming narcissist ostriches.

If you take a vow . .
and break it, you are, essentially, untrustworthy! Gay, straight, bi, poly, whatever, . . if you cannot keep your vow to your mate, I certainly don't want you running my state, or my church, or teaching my children or representing MY values in a legislative body! You cannot represent my values if you lie about your own.

On the other aspect, homophobia is a word created by heterophobes! I fear no homosexual, I'm just sick of having to discuss them with my 10 year old!

Adultery
After reading some above of the comments on this article, I begin to think that maybe the Islamists are right: the USA needs a thorough cleaning up, and nobody can do it better than the mullahs and the shariah cops, with their swords and knives. They would cut off hands, chop up heads and bring the country back to its senses, the rough way. Along the way we would lose a lot of our beloved freedom to do wrong things, but it would be a heck of a cleaner place.

GoEurope
I continue to laugh! Your post is pathetic.

And the fact that he supported Thatcher is a BIG PLUS for me.

No wonder Europe is on such a downhill slide. A whole continent of has-beens.

Do not attack the person attack behavior
Kevin:

Homosexuals ought not be attacked.

They are men and woman just like the rest of us.

They are likened to an Alcoholic. An alcoholic that's my Dad my Mom, My Brother My Sister etc.

Gays are ;like the alcoholic who is a threat to society when driving, abuse to his family in too many way to mention and self destructive of mind and body.

So the Gay is violating the law by passing on communicable diseases that maim and kill. They destroy themselves mentally and physically with these diseases. They are a grave danger to society by trying to inject their HIV blood into the Nations Blood supply. They will destroy the institution of marriage if allowed to marry. They are behind the filth coming into our schools. They promote pedophilia via NAMBLA.

What should be attacked on Gays is their behavior and laws not being enforced. No school should say the Gay lifestyle is Normative if they hurt others and themselves. They are now infringing on my right of freedom of speech using hate laws by saying they are separate gender which is a lie as no gene has been found.

In short their behavior must be attacked and associated with the man/woman that's on the wrong path.

The tactic of attacking the person is getting us nowhere fast.


Tragedy
I remember reading somewhere that the old Greek defentition of tragedy (or A tragedy) was when a man is unable to rise above his own nature. A true hero is one who can do just that, rise above, and not simply give in to his own whims, desires and fears. Whether or not a man indulges in adultery (and I am by no means saying that such indulgences are anything but base weakness) is not necessarily the measure of his charachter. It is an INDICATOR of his charachter, sure enough, but not the only one. If anything, it shows weakness, a truly tragic reaction. However, when he tries to justify his weakness by degrading others of greater charachter or using sophistry to claim that HE is the morally superior, all the while flying in the face of what HE KNOWS to be right and just, that is more than just weakness. When a man cannot (or rather, chooses not to) rise above his own nature, that is tragedy. When he invites others down into the mire to justify himself and seek company in his iniquity, he has crossed the line into evil. And all those who join him share equally in his blame.

RE: Ianflaming
You need to tell that to the author of this blog when he goes on a rant attacking ONLY Liberals.

You are absolutely correct. Republicans do it also, and two wrongs don't make a right. If only you and others on this blog would take that and follow the example.

We can start with Mr. McCullough.

McGeeevey and New Jersey
Gosh, I don't know what the hoo-haa is about Jimbo; NJ has the most corrupt political system in the nation, maybe the world. We have come a long way from "Machine Gun" John Basilone to Jim McGreevey. We have a parade and festival for John Basilone in his home town every year. We should have one for Jimbo, too -- in the sewage treatment plant. (For those of you who don't know of John Basilone, check under Medal of Honor, Guadalcanal, and Navy Cross (Posthumous), Iwo Jima.) Barry

Thanks Lydia
"Adultery is the utlimate betrayal and anyone willing to do it cannot be trusted to be a loyal person. If they stoop to adultery, they may stoop to anything."

Amen Lydia! Not only is it one of the indicators of performance in office but a very key indicator. If one can breach the most solemn promise for a temptation, it simply tells me that the person has a price: give him/her enough temptation, he/she will sell his country and Constitution. Sorry, adultery is a national security issue for, not just a moral or ethical one. Can't trust a person like that with national secrets, defense, or the safety of the COnstitution.

Diversity, Episcopal??
Maverick wrote "When there is so much diversity in a church like that of the Episcopal .." I wish that were true my friend. Take it from a parishioner, there is NO diversity in most Episcopal dioceses: it is lock-step ideology of gay pride, environmental extremism, pseudo-feminism, and pro-abortion fanaticism. The official ECUSA is nothing more than the ecclesiastical affiliate of the DNC. Those who question this orthodoxy imposed from the New York based church bureaucracy are tarred with the 'intolerant' bursh very fast. And if these Bible believing critics happen to be non-whites from Africa or Asia (where the Anglican Church still remains true to Christian principles), you have gotta see the sneering racism emnating from the lips and pens of these 'tolerant' 'diverse' liberals.

The Hole Sorted Mess
When we think of soceity today, we should look at what we let the youth's look at and let them see. Frist we have abortion, and partial birth abortion, now we have young women cutting the babies out of another young woman's abdomen, is it any different than the doctors doing the partial brith abortion. Then we have the gay's getting married and then we indoctrinate the children into the homosexual agenda. Our youths watch MTV, VH1 and black entertainment. Oh yes we now have the abortion pill. We also have kidults raising children. And grown women having sex and children with children. We have a society that embraces all of this. Companies fighting to support gay rights and marriage. Politicains and Judges more corrupt than the crimanals that live in prision. No wonder why they let them out.Also sexual preditors and murderers and any evil element, that we can't even dream up. When is it time to say enough is a enough. When is it time to act like human beings with some morals, principles and values. I guess well just have to wait for the rath of God. Just the hole sorted mess. I sure I left something out!!!

Donaldd
"When did Homosexuality become illegal in the United States?"

From the time is was settled by Europeans until 2004, when the oligarchy of the Supreme Court passed a law saying it was legal.

Morality
I find it interesting that posters like jsh (assumes adultery is wrong), GO EUROPE! (assumes that committing an affair is wrong), Celtic Dragon (assumes that straight men trying to “nail” any piece of “tail” is wrong), and goblue (assumes that sex beyond the bounds of marriage is wrong) don’t seem to question whether a sexual ethic exists, they simply question where the lines should or should not be drawn. So who is to draw those lines and by what authority are those lines drawn?

Do we look to cultural norms, if so, do not criticize Hitler as you are merely projecting your cultural norm on his culture. Do we look to human instinct? Now that would be dangerous. Do we look to the laws of the land? Nazi Germany and our own country’s slavery laws would say that this isn’t a good indicator either. The only sure indicator is to go to the source of life and see what God has to say. The Bible does indicate that sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is contrary to the pattern that He set. It is also contrary to the desire of mankind in general, which is to find unity in diversity. The bringing together of man and woman in marriage displays an earthly picture of that which God displays in the Trinity – unity in diversity, through the community of the Trinity. Something to think about.

LNC

Minds in the gutters
You guys are showing yourselves as overly obsessed and just can't seem to get your mind out of the gutter. As If you know anything about liberals. Well, you know how to label, I will give you that much. What is that quote about having a slate that is clean? I think that was Jerry Fallwell right before.... oh never mind. oh yeah, it was Pat Robertson right before.... oh no that is not right either. It was Rush... no, I won't go there. That is too tough a pill to swallow. not him either. That is right, it was Jim Baker and his Wife Tammy.... No, they were upstanding, I forgot. Oh Never mind.

All these fine upstanding Right Wing People to be the voice of conservatism. What a bastion of citizenry. I am sure it is an honor for all Republicans to be spoken for by the likes of these fine Americans. The intellects of gutter mongers as this columnist is truly something to emulate.

Actually... I just realized how wrong I am to challenge you. Of course you need to dwell in gutters. You have little else of substance or good to talk about.

My Bad.... please continue. The conversation is most compelling. Perhaps someone can get PHD doing a disertation whereupon the writer will pray that the Lord will provide their crib notes.


Sometimes take a day off
This is really reaching to find somehting to write about. If you have writers block next time just take a day off.

Wow
Wish I had checked Townhall this morning. I bet I've missed out on quite a conversation. I don't have the time to read through everyone's comments, so forgive me if I touch on anything that's already been discussed.

Okay. Robinson and McGreevey are not model moral citizens. It's not because they're gay, it's because they've committed adultery and are rather unapologetic about it (McGreevey may SAY he's apologetic, but his capitalizing off his affair runs counter to that, and I don't know much about Robinson, so I won't comment on him). I just wanted to get it across that I hold these men in very low esteem before I get into the rest of my thoughts on McCullough's column, lest it be thought that I'm defending them in any way.

The biggest problem that I find in McCullough's article is the somewhat indifferent manner in which he refers to same-sex attraction. He speaks of it as if it's some minor vice that can be overcome easily, and that gay men are perfectly capable of having healthy sexual relationships with women should they choose to. Granted, this is simply something that I inferred. It wasn't directly stated, but I have a feeling it is something that McCullough believes. That, or he's ignoring the real complexity of situations just to make his article more polemical, in which case I have little patience with him.

I doubt either Robinson's or McGreevey's sex lives with their respective wives were very good. This isn't to say I condone their adultery, of course, but how easy could it be for a man to have sex with someone he isn't attracted to? In my opinion, if they knew they were gay when they met their future wives (and I don't see how it's possible that they couldn't) I think it would have been far better had they not married at all. This would have been "being true to yourself." What they did, instead, was succumb to social pressure and trick two innocent women into marrying them--marriages that, being based on pretense, were doomed to fail from the start.

Now let me break apart this selection. "In truth its selfishness coupled with the refusal to curb their sexual appetite. Its the refusal to make the choice to not be a slave to their impulses. Basically they are still little boys who do not know how to discipline themselves - only now they wish the world to feel sorry for them."

He's right to a point, but again it seems he's trying to make the argument that Robinson's and McGreevey's homosexuality was an addendum to a healthy heterosexual sex life. This fuels the misconception that "homosexuality is a choice," which itself is true to a point, but so is "heterosexuality is a choice." You can refrain from having sex altogether and take yourself out of the sexual realm (this is what I have decided to do based on my faith, even though if I was currently sexually active I would be considered gay).

The real sins of Robinson and McGreevey are that they usurped the sanctity of marriage in a way that's far worse than if two gay men decided to get married. They married women who probably thought they loved them with all their heart and all their body. The first I can't comment on, but I'm sure the second is untrue. That said, it is good they are divorced now, lest their charades have continued.

Celtic Dragon
Thank you for the clarification.

Kimmie, Kimmie!
Newt's indescretions are numerous and known. What you seem to forget, is he left in disgrace, . . as did any and every Republican who crossed the line by the slightest smidgeon over the years! Major difference, here, is Republicans take their lumps, . . every time! O' Reilly is not n elected official, and to invoke his private life is pointless. If he is a sinner I'll pray for him, . . just like I did for Clinton, . . but if he runs for office, and evidence of infidelity is produced during his campaign, . . he will lose my vote! Plain and simple! Cut and dried!

As to Mr. Bolton, I find your prose interesting. It almost reads as if Bolton, himself, was corroborating the "allegations"! In fact, your assertion that any such report is "corroborated" requires that you supply a link to any such "corroboration", and cannot stand on your word, alone! If its "corroborated" who " corroborated" it, . . where, when, how, and why? Might it not be that the State Department refuses to comment because such "corroboration" does not exist?! I cannot fathom a reason for the State Department, despite its current leadership, to aid the administration in concealing such an obviously assertainable allegation! If its true, they know it, and the NYT would have been blaring it for the last year! You really need to think through the propganda you're ingesting a bit more thoroughly!
Good luck with that!

OH. MY. G*D!
You guys have GOT to go to that site Kimberly linked to. It is U N B E L E I V A B L E !!!!!

I have NEVER seen anything so SICK and PATHETIC in my life.

Besides for complete lists of anything any Republican has ever even come close to doing wrong it includes:


*Talking Points : Rapid Responses for Current Topics

*Why paying taxes is Patriotic

*What Liberal Media

*NeoCon Media

*A memetank entitled: BUSH is STUPID complete with: Talking Points !!!!
Rebuttals
Analysis
Suggested Symbology to use
Suggested Nicknames (The Chimp, Incurious George)

*Other Memetanks Entitled:
Bush Flipflops
Bush is Unelected
Bush is a Terrorist (of course)
Bush is out of Touch
Bush Family Crimes
Cheney is the Real President
Kerry the Redeamer (I just fell outa my chair)
ETC. ETC. ETC. ETC.
each with its' own talking points, possible counter points, etc.

There is even a section entitled 'Liberal Memes that Backfire' warning what NOT to say!

You know, I've always heard the term *talking points*, and assumed it was something the talking heads and politicians got....I must be naive.

This explains Kimberly dropping these little *bomblets* and then scramming, rarely answering replies. And you know how these guys (phylo, etc,) present you with arguments and then when you get into details with them they don't have a clue what they were just spouting off about and can't maintain the debate? HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEee

You lefties SLAY me! This *&% is TOO funny.

I have a little list ...
Several of the right wing apologists posting here have noted primly that Republican adulterers atone for their sins by virtuously stepping down from public office. A brief examination of the (incomplete) list at the end of this post will show this assertion is not at all the rule.
Giuliani, Dole, Schippers, Murdoch ... and many other Republican adulterers continue brazenly in public life, in apite of having flouted God's holy writ.
The GOP's wierd ambivalence toward homosexuality is perfectly illustrated by the head of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, who continues to lead an active "gay lifestyle", while vigorously working to suppress same. He's not the only Republican "fudge packer" - isn't that what you people call gays? -to lead a self-hating double life. In contrast openly gay people like Rep. Barney Franks are admirably well adjusted.

By the way, it was heartening to see that a few conservative posters were actually embarrassed by McCollough's article. Good for you!

Although I've assembled this little list in order to provide a modicum of balance, I myself don't condemn people merely because they commit adultery. It's not the sex that matters so much as how they treat the other people in their lives. So Gingrich is a creep, not primarily because he slept around, but because he abandoned one wife after another, divorcing one of them, while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for cancer; and because he seduces the wives of his own staff workers. Henry Hyde callously destroyed a marriage, in spite of an appeal from the husband. Bob Barr walked out on his wife and two sons. Men like these have the moral integrity of cockroaches, and the interesting thing is, it often shows in their public policies.
In contrast, I might add, the much maligned Bill Clinton has stuck by his family, treats his wife with respect and affection and by every indication is a superb father. Now in private life, he works tirelessly and effectively to improve the lives of millions of human beings.

Don't forget! Here's my little list:

Rep.& House Speaker Newt Gingrich –
– committed adultery with Anne Manning while married to his first wife, Jackie.
– commited adultery with aide Callista Bisek, while married to Anne [nee Manning]

Rep. Henry Hyde –
- had a seven year adulterous affair with a married woman, Cherie Snodgras, ignoring pleas by her husband to desist & eventually broke up their marriage.

Mike Bowers -
- GOP Gubenatorial candidate in Georgia, had a ten year adulterous affair.

Rep Bob Dole –
- committed adultery with current wife, Liddy, while married to Phyllis Holden

Rep. Dan Burton -
- committed adultery with numerous women & fathered an illegitimate child with one of them

Rep. Bob Dornan -
- committed adultery with numerous women, beat his wife, Sallie, and fathered an illegitimate son (whom he refuses to acknowledge.)

Rep. Bob Barr –
- committed adultery with third wife, Jeri, while married to second wife, Gail – then abandoned Gail & their two sons just before Thanksgiving.

NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik -
- fathered a daughter with a South Korean woman, then deserted his daughter and her mother in 1976, had two extramarital affairs at the same time during his third marriage.

NYC Mayor Rudolf Guiliani –
- wife divorced him after his notirious adultery.

UN Ambassador John Bolton –
- divorced after his wife testified that he had compelled her to have group sex.

Rupert Murdoch –
- committed adultery with Wendy Deng, while married to wife, Anna

Sol Wachtler –
- Republican Judge from New York had long term affair while married and threatened at one point to kidnap his mistress's daughter.

David Schippers –
- Republican lawyer & chief counsel prosecuting Cinton during the impeachment hearings committed adultery with Nancy Ruggero while married to wife, Jackie.

George Roche III –
- had a long affair with his daughter-in-law, who committed suicide hours after Roche revealed their relationship publically.




I propose a
new game. I have heard it said that it can't get a little boring debating the 'liberals' on this site, a wee-bit tedious. NOT to worry, my fellow conservatives!

*How would you like to liven up the debate?
*Bring a little friendly competition to the thread!
*Win fabulous prizes!

How many times have you leaned back in your chair, sighed and thought:

'Oh, how I wish I had a worthy opponent! It's just all too easy. There seems to be no point.'

Well, my friends, relief is just seconds away!
How, you ask?

Compete against the Best! That's right, you can carry on your debates without ever missing a beat, and all the time have an on-going side competition with the very best! Head-to-head bonafide conservative competition!!

Each time you beat a quick link over to dkosopedia and successfully predict and quote your local lefties' next post prior to said lefties ACTUAL post AND before your conservative competitors, you win 10 BIG points towards our annual GRAND PRIZE!

All you have to do is sign up for a small fee of $50! That's right, just $50! And for the fiscally conservative among you, let me mention our Instant Rebate Coupon, reducing your ACTUAL out of pocket expense to a mere $49.95!!!

Actual prizes may vary.

Now taking applications for naming rights.

ROFL!
After typing up my last message, I posted it only to find a new post from Ahjil proving my point!

See how easy this example would have been???


I'm dying laughing here!

Thank you, Ajhil!
You made my day. (Your line about "I've assembled this list" was a bit of an exaggeration, now wasn't it?) Tee Hee

sloopy - a name suggestion
The Jerome Armstrong Liberal Channeling Award. Name dafter Jerome Armstrong, the dKos boi and democrat campaign advisor/ astrologist.

Jay in NC
"how easy could it be for a man to have sex with someone he isn't attracted to"

I thought the man had kids, so it can't be a herculean feat. Besides, visual stimulation is only one of many types of arousal.

jerubaal
Re:The Jerome Armstrong Liberal Channeling Award.

Thank you for the excellent suggestion! I shall take it under advisement and give it serious consideration.


Annoucement: Special 10 point bonus and $5 discount to the winning entry in the Name the Game Contest!

An Example of How to Play
Ajhil, didn't you want to mention:

The Log Cabin Republicans are a dissident or troll group within the Republican Party at both federal and state level. They are more like libertarians in outlook, especially on social issues, where they favour less intervention to ensure social justice, but also no systematic discrimination against for instance homosexuals in matters where they deal with the state.

Some positions they take include:

position:the state has no place in the bedroom, i.e. no sodomy law
Because these people and other dissidents like John McCain and Colin Powell exist and are quite vocal, it is not entirely reasonable to use the term:Republican as if it were strictly a description of evil or stupidity. Nor is it technically correct to take positions that do this, although it is perfectly acceptable in position:namespace to make extreme statements:

position:Republicans are unbiblical on abortion
since, all this does is speak to the credibility of the position itself, not of dkosopedia itself which does not endorse statements on the position:list.

Retrieved from "http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans"


oh, i'm sorry. dkosopedia does no recommend taking a position on the subject of log cabin republicans. Maybe I'll have better luck with my next prediction

sloopy sez I'm a troll
fer bein' a Log-Cabin Republican. Imagine my concern.

The Gay's The Circus Parade
One thing for sure is that the Gay's (Homosexuals} certainalty don't have any morals or values. They are a contiunous circus of fairy's parading their unnatural sexual conduct for all the world to see. If they want to talk about conservatives missgivings, at least they have enough sense to know that they have sinned and try to keep it low key. Also the homosexuals beleive the youths need to practice their immoral acts, by indoctrinating them into this devaint conduct. It's not bad enough they are stained and replusive but it is now put on the hearts of children to contiune this plight. With the politicains corrupting the consitition and the laws to accomplish this vile, dispicable and dishonest fate. Certainatly the bussiness world jumps right in to claim their profits. At what costs to the natural human family of man??? At what to to the nation that we claim as God Blessing America. Oh please why would God want to do that. If man destroys what decent and viable way of life God gave him??? War arrives on the vileness of man. God help them all, for they will comit themselves to the fires of He!!.

Well
I thought McCullough was a little one-sided in his comments but in the end I’m glad. Once again we’ve been offered a definition for a ‘liberal’ and once again, I find that I don’t fit it. Now in the future, when I’m accused of being one, I have additional evidence to refute it.

Too clever ...
Sloopy –

When you finish your self congratulatory paroxysm (if this ever happens) perhaps you’ll be good enough to explain what’s so clairvoyent about your posts. In response to a mean-spirited, hypocritical screed by Mr. McCollough, I (and a couple of others) point out that Republicans are equally guilty of adultery (or moreso) and even less likely to take responsibility for their actions. What other response would you suggest?

By the way, I’ve never been to dkosopedia – I do my own thinking. (You should try it.) If you want to assert otherwise, then produce a quotation from that site - or any other - that duplicates my post.

Tell you what. Here’s a worthy exercise for someone of your intellectual attainments. During the last week I’ve confronted your fellow radical conservatives on a couple of threads only to have them disappear, rather than continue the debate. Why don’t you step into the breach?

On this thread Liberal Promoter challenged me explicitly to prove that George Bush is a liar. When I did, he vanished.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/EmmettTyrrell/2006/09/21/the_guantanamo_fourteen

And on this thread Shrinque parroted right wing dogma that detainees aren’t protected by the Geneva Conventions and went on to make the absurd claim that detainees haven’t been subjected to torture in American prison camps. I proved him wrong, and lo and behold, he vanished too.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CalThomas/2006/09/19/wisdom_and_judgment_deficiency

So, go ahead Sloopy. Step away from the mirror, give yourself a couple of minutes for the thrill of admiration to pass, and have a go at a real head-to-head debate. I’m just a “moonbat” right? Shouldn’t be too tough for you.

Otherwise, just shut up!

celtic-dragon
Celtic,
I neither called you nor log-cabin republicans a troll. I copied a section straight from the dkos site advising 'libs' on what to say when debating conservatives.

I find it amusing that this is what the 'tolerant' ones have to say on the subject. There is also page after page 'outing' conservatives on the site(even if they last held office in the 50's). All for the express purpose of helping 'libs' further any debate they may engage a conservative in.

Sorry you thought that was my opinion.

NRAlifer
Oh, I know. You can only talk to those who come to conservative sites. As far as I can tell, all of the 'liberal'(hardy-har) sites ban anyone not spouting the party-line.

Fear, Smear and Queers
Well two of the three. Classic GOP mislead: headline screams ADULTRY next to a picture of their big threat Obama even though he has nothing to do with the piece other standing in front of Harkin who is cited for Chavez support not even adultry. But anyway, maybe someone can answer a Religion question for me. Do Episcipalians(sp?) not take a vow of celibacy? If not, is sex outside marriage approved? Being Catholic I don’t get how apriest can even state to have a sexual preference. Also if the question is adultery, hetero and otherwise, than I bet the GOP can go toe to toe with Dems. Especialy the ones who spent millions of tax dollars pilloring Clinton.

Half right & half of the story
I think that "Why liberals love adultery," misses a significant point. Liberals only forgive adultery by fellow liberals. Any lack of fidelity on the of a conservative is royally demonized...if not for the lack of moral integrity, then at least for the standpoint that the conservative was a hypocrite.

Liberals who adopt the public faith of "relative morality" are not constrained by their fellows to the same standard imposed on those of us that profess to differentiate between moral and immoral, right and wrong, good and evil.

The liberal confession of contrition and remorse is as hollow as the liberal lionizing of the same...everyone goes through the pandering motions for public consumption by the most gullible of their adherents.

While else would Bill Clinton seek the Rev. Jackson as his "spiritual advisor"? Given the Reverend a few years earlier admitted to fathering children with at LEAST one of his mistresses [concubines technically--he was providing financial (albeit illegal) support to some of the women], the Reverend was the either the least appropriate or most-appropriate individual to provide Pres. Clinton “moral counseling”...dependent upon if you view repentance as a spiritual activity or a purely political expediency.

Half right & half of the story
I think that "Why liberals love adultery," misses a significant point. Liberals only forgive adultery by fellow liberals. Any lack of fidelity on the of a conservative is royally demonized...if not for the lack of moral integrity, then at least for the standpoint that the conservative was a hypocrite.

Liberals who adopt the public faith of "relative morality" are not constrained by their fellows to the same standard imposed on those of us that profess to differentiate between moral and immoral, right and wrong, good and evil.

The liberal confession of contrition and remorse is as hollow as the liberal lionizing of the same...everyone goes through the pandering motions for public consumption by the most gullible of their adherents.

Why else would Bill Clinton seek the Rev. Jackson as his "spiritual advisor"? Given the Reverend a few years earlier admitted to fathering children with at LEAST one of his mistresses [concubines technically--he was providing financial (albeit illegal) support to some of the women], the Reverend was the either the least appropriate or most-appropriate individual to provide Pres. Clinton “moral counseling”...dependent upon if you view repentance as a spiritual activity or a purely political expediency.

Jerubaal writes:
"I thought the man had kids, so it can't be a herculean feat. Besides, visual stimulation is only one of many types of arousal."

Fair point. I suppose I'm speaking from my own personal experience (which, granted, is fairly limited). Still, like I said I have a hard time believing that their sex lives with their wives were healthy, mainly because they were based on pretense (at least to a certain degree). Marriage requires trust and transparent honesty. Robinson and McGreevey failed at both.

The Spinning of Facts
I must admit before I read this erroneous option piece I didn’t know Kevin McCullough existed. After a little bit of research, I still don’t understand why this guy is given a public voice. Either way, he’s wrong and I am saying this from who recently finished researching this topic for a report. As both a Christian and a man who’s heart has been called to the ministry, adultery is as rampant among those who consider themselves Conservative and Christian and sadly more so with those who claim to represent both. I have also found the paucity of truth in McCullough’s diatribe leads me to believe he’s merely using this platform to “work up” the lazy minded.
There are as many if not more in the Religious Right, Neo-Conservative end of the G.O.P. who is divorced and remarried or homosexual as there are in the so-called Godless Liberal sect of America. The saddest part is we are ignorant and not living a Christ-like life especially when we listen to know nothings with a chip on their shoulder like our little friend McCullough. Folks, we are not any better than anyone else and we should not believe we are.

Kathy writes:
Kathy writes: "One thing for sure is that the Gay's (Homosexuals} certainalty don't have any morals or values."

Well golly gee. Hey Celtic, did you know you didn't have any morals or values? And here I was thinking you were a nice, respectable, tax-paying, law-abiding Republican whose lifestyle choice I merely happened to disagree with. Now, thanks to Kathy, I know that you're part of a "contiunous circus of fairy's parading their unnatural sexual conduct for all the world to see."

Give me a break, Kathy. Even though I'm a non-practicing homosexual (I've used the term "ex-gay" before, but I don't particularly like it), that still smarts. You do know that you're supposed to try to WITNESS to homosexuals, right? Call me crazy, but I don't think calling them "stained and replusive" is the best way to do that, unless you call all sinners that (including yourself).

Call me crazy, but I was taught that God's divine spark--a tiny fraction of his pure Being--rested within each of us. Sin tries to hide that spark, but it's still there. There is good in everyone--believe it or not: homosexuals too! And by appealing to that good, by calling out to it and bringing it to the forefront of one's personality (through kindness and humility), then one can begin on the path to finding Christ.

Yet there was no kindess or humility in your post. There was ridicule and judgment. Yes, some gays flaunt their sexuality, spread STDs, and try to indoctrinate others into the lifestyle (not that it can really be done, though; you can't just change your sexuality on a whim). But the majority of gays I've known seem to be average folks: teachers, nurses, shopkeepers, etc. Maybe that's just because I grew up in small-town America. But you know what? Just because I (and others) disagreed with their personal private lives, that didn't stop anyone from showing them respect. That didn't stop them from being part of the community. You know why? Because people judged them by their character, not what they did in their bedrooms. People saw that they were kind to others, and thus were kind to them.

You write "God Blessing America. Oh please why would God want to do that."

Because this is the land where men can choose, and aren't forced, to follow Him. Because this is the land where there are people--unlike you--who care about the sinners of the world and are showing them love, not hate. Because this is the land where there are people who aren't waiting around for God's wrath, but are trying to save society from itself in an attempt to create heaven on earth in the here and now. Because this is the land where there are still men who do not want a single soul to go to He11. Because this is the land where everyone: liberal, conservative, gay, straight, sinner, saved, all have a chance to worship God as they see fit. And all these people, disagree with each other though they do, are guaranteed the basic human dignity that is one of God's gifts to man. That is why God would want to Bless America. If you disagree with any of those reasons, then by all means dear, you may leave.

Responding
I have to make two comments mostly in response to Ajhil.

One, the sheer volume of your posts limits the likelihood of response, and purposeful dialogue. Most of us have way to many other things to accomplish to wade through all of it. It is quite possible that the two scenarios which you ask for answers to the individuals simply didn't read your posts, or didn't have the time to respond.

Two, using quotations from newspapers does not provide proof. It is quite common for newspapers to be inaccurate and/or biased. It does provide weight to your argument, and therefore it would be necessary to consider them more thoroughly prior to response, than a statement without support. But to say that you proved that Bush lied is arrogant.

Unfortunately I fall to my own point; I haven't the time to properly address your issues.

As for the issue at hand, it is all to common for a single article to be slammed because it isn't broad enough in scope. I think you will all agree that this article is not a book. Every angle and proof was not addressed in it. It is an opinion piece.
My opinion is that the evidence lends credence to Kevins point. That is not to say that there aren't failures in all parties, or individuals, just that in general, it seems Dems are accepting of actions which most Repubs consider morally reprehensible.

hooray
How comforting it is to know that when the coming theocracy is finally firmly entrenched the sex police, a.k.a. conservative Christian Republicans, will be ever vigilant, with a history of keeping track of our bedroom behaviours.

Is their possibly a record book somewhere, with our names, numbers, and number of encounters?

Jay in NC
LOL, yeah, I am apparently leading my community down the paths of unrightousness, as far as Kathy is concerned. I'm trying to recall when I have been so venomous to her, but it doesn't really matter. Some people are truly unable to think outside of a comfortable little box of indoctrination, and end up with a legalistic version of Christianity where Gods wrath becomes far more important then Gods love and mercy.

Jay in NC
"Still, like I said I have a hard time believing that their sex lives with their wives were healthy"

Me too, but that's because they didn't love their wives.

Aelhues
You've made some valid points and it appears that you've even taken the trouble to at least look through the "sheer volume" of my posts, so I'll try to respond (succinctly) to your comments. I'm no fan of encyclopedic rambles either. Having debated a contributer here whose posts make mine seem positively taciturn, I understand how unappealing those can be (although, unlike the individual in question, I don't dump huge blocks of copied text into my posts!)
Real debate - rather than the mere exchange of vapid insults - requires at a minimum these elements: a premise, evidence or argument, a conclusion. In the examples at hand, proving George Bush a liar wasn't difficult; and I think you'll agree that I didn't use a lot of space doing so.
Refuting Shringue's claims that detainees aren't protected under international law or that torture isn't (or hasn't been) prevalent in American custody is a different matter. Would one or two examples have sufficed? Doubtful. As I noted in my post, I could have spent more time and presented many more proofs. How many were necessary? I made what I thought was a reasonable judgment.
Last point: If news services are ruled out, where do you suggest we seek information? Of course, newspapers and broadcast news too, are subject to mistakes and bias (see Fox News!), which is why prudent people do fact checking, compare sources, look for evidence of error. In this case, I invite you to present evidence that George Bush didn't make those statements. Or that he wasn't aware of the truth.
Or you can imitate Sloopy and fill up space with neither substance nor reason. Works for him.

Smears, Queers & Tears
The only crying going on here is all the whinning about the gays:

“What two adults do in the privacy on their homes really effects me, really it does somehow, wha wha wha. They’re prancing all over the place indoctrinating the young ‘uns wha wha wha.”

I live in a large city with a large, vocal gay population and never once have they infinged upon my civil liberties, and I imagine someone would really have to go out of their way to have someone do so. But then again maybe I just have a flabby unappealing a$$.

btw, I know and hate that Clinton perjured himself in front of a Grand Jury and lied to the American people. Can you admit though, that what was a personal problem became an expensive national nightmare after GOP politcal opportunists some just as adulturous, used it in an attempt to take him out of office?

I've never understood all the confusion.
I've never understood all the confusion over homosexuality from the christian perspective. Certainly it's sinful, but why the perception that it is any more or less so in God's eyes than any other sin? Why the prideful superiority? I am Christian. I like and am friends with a few (3 that I know of) homosexual people. I love them. I hope for the best for them. I tell them the truth when they ask and never pad my views about it. I use no evidence other than the empirical results born out by their own lives to make any point - I don't have to. Sin, any sin, leaves a mark - spiritually, physically, emotionally - it always leaves a mark. I have thousands of them. Just not from sleeping with men. But fornication? Oh my. If I could have my teens & twenties to do over again...

Point being, what makes that sin any less repulsive in that respect - in God's eyes I mean? Near as I can tell, nothing. (And thank you Rev. & Family Phelps for not carrying signs outside my house id'ing me as a sick fornicator - I most certainly was... Of course, I'd probably have shot a couple of you if you had. Hey, I said I'm Christian - I didn't say I was particularly mature, strong, faithful or otherwise well behaved. Bump to those here who are - helps with my compass when I read your stuff.) The fact is, certain specific problems in my life didn't improve until I got married and stopped that specific sinful behavior. I think this is the nature of sinful activity. No more, no less.

Yes, behavior matters!!!
re the cheaters:
When Chelsea and the others find themselves in bad relationships, what will Bill and Hilary provide in the way of advice?
What will McGreevey's comforting words mean to his children?
Indeed, not if....when!

I am a Sinner
I am a sinner, but I would not indoctrinate children into behavior of anykind that would disgrace them or my lord. I pray constantly for all of us, sinners but it's not only the homosexuals it the whole pansexual tree they are pushing and forcing children in school in Massachusetts to subcome too. The children are being dragged into this very dispicable behavior at the instruction of the educators. That is sheer hateful and against God's Ways. For it says in the bible better a man trough himself into the ocean, than to hurt a child. And I know I am a sinner and pray to God everyday that he will stop people from bringing hurt and saddness into the life of the innocents.

Barry, I know what you mean---
My Dad is a retired medical doctor; and it made quite an impression on me (though he only used this expression once) when he said that homosexuals are "making love in a cesspool."

mission america , massresistance
If anyone is interested in educating themselves to the homosexual indoctrination of our contry's youth into the homosexual agenda, they may visit missionamerica.com and also massresistance.com. This is the sad reality of our children's moral and value based education today.

Yep, that gay agenda!
How dare GLBT people demand to not be harassed at work or assaulted at school! How disgusting that they insist that self rightous, voyueristic snoops stay out of their bedrooms! What unmitigated gall thay have to ask that they not be fired from jobs for being gay or transgendered! Don't they know that they belong in the gutter as filthy prostitutes? So much easier to laugh at them and despise them when thay go along with your predjudice! You really do make this too easy, Kathy....

Kevin, it was great to meet you and your
LOVELY BRIDE (you robbed the cradle, right?) in D.C. this past weekend at the "Values Voter Summit." I wish all of your conservative/Christian/Jewish, etc. readers and listeners could have been there at the conference. (btw, I have something in common with you, as my husband is a decade younger than I am.)

Re this article--I think most people understand that you do not write these articles to stand in "judgment" of individuals and their personal problems/sins. (After all, God is the JUDGE.) But our society and elements of it are deserving of criticism, when those who flagrantly betray their commitments-- and the people who depend upon them-- are LAUDED by the msm and many prominent Liberal politicians, for succumbing to their weaknesses and selfish appetites.

Here is one of the disturbing FACTS I became aware of at the conference this past weekend:

Every DAY, 18,000 teenagers in this country are acquiring STD's. They are following the example of too many libertine political leaders and entertainment and sports figures in this country. And these teen-agers, and their future spouses (or sexual partners) will pay the costs in reduced quality of health (such as cervical cancer), infertility, etc., not to mention the emotional cost of too early and/or promiscuous sexual relationships.

Moral issues are CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to this nation's future, and that of its citizens. Keep up the good work, Kevin.


OkJoyce..Nuttier Than Ever?: No....
Someone here said Kevin's article is:

"Nuttier than ever"..Well then call me Almond, Joy..

Because I, along with many, many others, Christians and Conservatives of every color, background and stripe, are in full agreement with him..

I'll go you one further..

Not ONLY do I think he's mostly accurate in things he has to say-particularly his insights on moral issues, things of this nature..I think THIS article is extremely accurate and on target, if possible, more than ever!

Kevin sometimes uses big generalizations to drum up people coming to see and make his point. That doesn't mean his points are not true!

If this is "nutty", count me into the house, dear one..

In my humble estimation, adulterating a gift from God, like marriage, is as nutty as it gets, only to be topped off by those who can't even foul up with the proper sex..(As if any sin is right..)

Kev then says:

"Robinson, McGreevey, and even Clinton to a certain degree became sympathetic figures because of this "true to your self" mantra. But in the grown-up world don't we try to instruct our boys that the definition of a hero is someone who overcomes his own natural fears to accomplish more, and be more, and do more than they think is possible? Isn't it good to teach our young men that when they enter into a marriage that they should strive to be their family's superhero?"

BRAVO Absolutely here, here and right on, Sir..

He adds:

"Isn't it a healthy thing for a father to leave the home in the morning thinking, "I'm going to go slay the dragons of this world so that my family, and the sacredness of my home won't be victimized by the evil in the world?"

It is not only normal and healthy, it is God's mandate and calling for the majority of men..

Finally, Kevin says:

"One of McGreevey's actual excuses, as relayed on Lauer's interview was to blame his parents for being bad role models - because they themselves did not engage in homosexual activity.

Is he listening to himself? Did he want them to?

If they had - HE would not even be here!"

Right, and it logically follows, that those who love and embrace DEATH will feed on a life and mindset that promotes it..

Kevin has also quite accurately described this when he details how the acts of men who are undone (practicing 'gays') actually take life giving seed and place it in a body part that is for waste..Not to speak in a way that is not dainty, we are talking about acts based on death..

Mr. McGreevy loves a LIE and lives to prepetuate it..

God's Word also adds that "He who loves his Wife loves himself"..

Not the self-adulation that makes *myself* a teeny trinity onto *me*, 'me myself and I' who is the last word and so selfish one can't maintain a relationship, because self adoration doesn't know how to love..Not true love anyway..

Only Truth and a life that bears it out saying "Yes!" to love and life as God has planned it will ever truly know or understand the reality of making choices based on Life, rather than one based on lies, which is death..

It's so clear to me..

Nothing, no person, no plan, no agenda, can ever prosper based on death and a lie..

Just ask Jim McGreevey, who wishes he had no parents..

Talk about a death-wish..

Choose yee this day blessings or cursings..Life or death..

Who said it would be easy?
Celticdragon,

I think you hit the nail on the head. I am to understand you like the easy way out of life. Not myself nor my family, we know to live as christians it will be a struggle, for God has given us strength for that battle. The battle, Good agaisnt Evil. That's never easy in a world of ungodly one's. Our saviour is our fortress, our rock our salvation. We must strive to be like Jesus, and pray for grace, because of our nature to sin. So don't say I make it too easy, that is just another one of your solgans.

Kathy
Hey, you don't think it's easy for you!? How do think it is for me? Here I am, daily fighting my same-sex attraction in accordance with what I believe God is calling me to do, while at the same time trying to expand my Christian faith so as to be a more loving, humble, and pure soul, and then I listen to your paranoid rants that seem to be completely devoid of Christian love.

I don't know you, so all I have to judge you on are the comments you have left here. But if those comments are indicative of your overall character, then let me say that Christians like you make me wonder why I'm Christian at all. I don't doubt that you know Christ, but I don't think you know how to express that knowledge well. Your kind of Christianity seems to be the type that stigmatizes, not attracts, others to the faith. To be honest, you are a bigger challenge to my faith than my homosexuality impulses.

But then I think about the wonderful Christians I have met--people who are full of compassion, generosity, and reason. Then I remember why I believe in Christ and why I've chosen to serve Him.

Not Paranoid
Jay,

I love Jesus, and as a christian I must speak the truth. Tough love is a value that needs to be practiced when comunicating with souls that are rebellous against morality. These souls are battling against their parents, themselves, God and anyone whom does not think as they say. It is difficult to go against my loving christian nature, to deliver the truth, which they will not understand in their state of denial. But rest assured I love them totally and compelety. For if I did'nt I would take the easy way out and do little or nothing, and say little or nothing. And I pray to Almighty God for my sinful nature and The fact that I am only a human full of sin.

Our walk with God Increases understandin
Our walk with God increases our understanding. We as children of God must understand that God is a loving and a forgiving Lord. To love someone, is to take the responsiblility to bring light, life and hope into one's soul. My heart is broken to see, actually open up the eyes of the heart and see the pain, caused by the sin. Let's as christians open up the eyes of our hearts and see the sin that is disgracing ourselves, and causing us to turn against our God. For our denial of our sin, is our denial of God. Love cannot survive a heart that's dark and cold.

And with that
I can agree completely, Kathy. I always encourage the truth, but I am a realist and I know that the truth has to be presented in a way that will make people want to hear it. Instead of telling a homosexual that their sex life is sinful, why don't you tell them that their pride and selfishness are sinful? For one, they'll agree with you. After all, these are sins that ALL humans share, and they are the biggest stumbling blocks on our way to Christ.

By all means, I think homosexuality is incompatable with a true understanding of God's plan. But my own experience tells me that people don't choose to be gay because they are "rebelling." There might be some, but most, like me, merely feel attracted to the same sex, and act according to those impulses--no different than an unwed straight couple.

I look to you as a sister in Christ with whom I disagree. But I look at Celtic-Dragon the same way. I want to see both of you be happy in this life (and the next). So I will tell you that I disagree and pray for you, but I will also respect you in the here and now.

You are Heterosexual
You are Heterosexaul
As the sun of the earth must rise to give sustaining warmth, light, and life
The sun of Man must rise for he has a purpose too
To rise up and bring forth life with all that God has given him
To honor and love
To protect the blood of his offspring
To give and receive this love it takes a heterosexual
The blueprint of the Creator
You are heterosexual

God's Children
God's Children have lost their way
Jesus has very much to say
Will they listen?
Those restless souls
Or will they go their own way?
Loneliness, trouble and despair
They will meet at their will
But Jesus will shall never fail
To come and heal them and bring them home

Kathy
"To give and receive this love it takes a heterosexual"

Good grief! What kind of stained and threadbare soul writes this kind of ugly doggerel? If your "God" existed, then he would love all his creatures, since he made them to be what they are. I've known many gays in my life and almost without exception, they are kind, generous, gentle people, unlike those who judge and condemn them here.

Good grief is right!
Okay, Kathy. I was starting to like you until you cracked that one out. Ajhil had it right (except for the part about God not existing; He does). But still, God loves all his creatures and all of them are capable of giving and receiving love, no matter what their orientation is.

Consider me. I am a homosexual (in a sexuality sense, not a cultural sense). Even though I have decided to live celibately, I still am what I am (and I firmly believe that God has a purpose for it, or will use it for His purpose, either way). I have no beef with your second poem, but c'mon, that first one is ridiculous.

Praise people for being moral, praise them for being just, for loving mercy, for being kind, for being charitable, humble, or chaste. But don't praise people for being heterosexual. For one, they didn't have a part in it! You might as well prasie them for being black, or blue-eyed, or something else. Please, you're starting to sound like a member of the Phelps clan.

Wouldst pave my way with trap and 'gin?
Jay –

Most of the opinions about homosexuality expressed on this thread are composed of equal parts ignorance, superstition, and bigotry, reflecting accurately, I think, the character of those who express them.

Yours, however, fills me with wonder. Scientific research increasingly supports what you and Celtic-Dragon and every other gay person I’ve ever met has known instinctively: that you’re different from heterosexual men and women, and that your sexuality is as basic and intrinsic and natural to you as mine is to me and as Kathy’s (whatever that may be) is to her.
Yet you say that “homosexuality is imcompatible with a true understanding of God’s plan.”
Howso?
Did God not make you?
Did he farm this part of creation out to some standin?
Did he not mean you to be what you are?
And, if not, why not? Couldn’t he make up his mind? Was he drunk at the time?

I can understand people like Kathy. Their nastiness at least straightforward. But you … If you don’t respect yourself and who you are, how on earth do you expect anyone else to?

Ajhil
Our point of divergence is our belief in God, a belief that I'm a little too young and inexperienced to defend as well as you can defend your unbelief. I will defend my position on homosexuality, however (to the best of my ability).

Yes, God did make me, as he made all of us. He did not farm this part of creation out to some standin, as you said. I was meant to be here just as you, wherever you are, were meant to be there.

Now, as far as me being who I am. Who exactly am I? Homosexuality is not my only sinful impulse by far. I can also get angry, bitter, rude, pridefull, and selfish. These are natural human responses to situations, usually based on a natural need to survive. Yet I (and hopefully, you) suppress these less-than-savory urges because society (and in my case, religion) has told us that is the right thing to do.

Sexuality is also a natural instinct. Our bodies are made to reproduce as early as 12 or 13. Yet do you think it's right for kids that young to be having sex? Do you think it's right for you to have sex with any woman you are attracted to? Of course you don't. Society has told you to suppress a natural urge for the sake of your health (both emotional and physical).

So, even if homosexuality is a natural part of my makeup--even if I do carry some "gay gene"--what of that? I could also carry a gene that might pre-dispose me to alcoholism, but that doesn't make it right for me to become an alcoholic.

Because of my faith, I believe that God revealed himself to humanity through the Bible. Inaccurate though it may be at times, its view on homosexuality is hard to dismiss (though there are many GLBT Christians, like Celt, who do--and note that I still think she's a Christian and deserving of respect). My choice to not practice homosexuality does not mean I don't respect myself. I don't deny or suppress the fact that I'm gay, actually. It's a part of me and has actually given me a unique view of the world that I wouldn't trade for anything. My choice not to lead a homosexual sex life is not because I'm afraid of what society thinks. It's because I want to serve my God to the best of my ability. I doubt you can understand that last part, but I hope I argued my points well.

Be fruiutful and Multiply
ajhil,

God's frist word's to man was be fruitful and multiply. That is why being heterosexual is the natural state of man and woman. For to give and receive this love it takes a heterosexual. I think God was quiet clear. A man and a woman, a father and a mother, that is what it takes to create life the way God created life. It is my God's plan for mankind to thrive and succedd. It is not Kathy's law, it is our God law. He provided mankind with this plan, the path to life to live and become a child of God. I love all of God's children, that said I, I can not love the sin that man has chosen to disgrace himself and his family by going against the Creators blueprint.

ajhil writes:
ajhil writes:

"Most of the opinions about homosexuality expressed on this thread are composed of equal parts ignorance, superstition, and bigotry, reflecting accurately, I think, the character of those who express them."

And I suppose *you* are the *enlightened*, unbigoted, impartial *advocate* 'mongst us all..

If you can determine anyone's "character" from a bunch of words on an anonymous board, then you see things a lot less accurately than I'd give any stranger here credit for..

You want to make estimations of groups or individuals saying things that amount to you as wrong, or a thing you don't agree with, fine. You want to be annoyed at what you deem bad "behavior"..by those you disagree with here. You can do that, this much is true..

However, don't, do not, think that just because you hold a, currently, popular sentiment and opinion which is fancied by 'gay' activists and Liberals, that your words fool anyone here..

Standing up for or against a thing you do or don't agree with is one thing, imagining you know the very hearts and minds of men is quite another..

We Christians talk as Kevin does because we understand God's guideline about Right and Wrong, not because we are "perfect"..That does not make us hypocritical..

It makes us willing to speak out, despite what others say or do..It makes us hungry for Truth and for others to be free. Ultimately, despite how we have been misrepresented and maligned, it is a loving thing that we do..

Adultery, along with some other commandments, is on line in God's list of 10, right next to Thou shalt not Kill and Thou Shalt Not Steal, there's a reason..

I am so tired of lengthy diatribes by Liberals talking about "feelings" and why "feelings" is, supposedly, what it's "all about"..

"True to myself" is always the last step before a grave spiritual decision which goes the wrong way..

It is the way Satan led Adam and Eve in the Garden. Misguided people are still doing it today..

Worse than that, they do it publically, for profit, and to the detriment of others..

In this, Mr. Clinton and McGreevey are just alike..

They hurt and ruin and shun the gift God gave them in marriage and a loving Spouse.They steal from their own purity and sully another's. They rob others of a future where they are present and belong. An equal sin and shame is that the use their sin and peddle it for sympathy to the world. As if it's a "good" thing..

To tell you Christians are perfect and never sin is to tell you a lie, but that's not the point. We are not, nor are we looking to be hypocritical..

Our making an argument about Right and Wrong and how people should be, does not remove our own personal accountability..

It, in fact, makes our need for it only stronger..

None of any of these things removoes the truth of the arguments Mr. McCullough has outlined here..

Spiritual lassitude was never an admirable stance for anyone of any faith..




The Faithful, The Greatful
Mrs.V.

God Bless you, I love you, and your insight and the blessed wisdom that God has gifted you with. For when we speak the truth, God truth, it fills the heart and soul with peace. That is what I wish for all of mankind, children of God
living the way the Creator, made them in truth and love. Praise Jesus, Prasie Almighty God, now and forever, the living word of God, from generation to generation. Bless you and yours.

Amen!!!!!!

Why
is it that shame seems to have disappeared from American (and more so European) civilization? It seems to me that if you do something that fly over country deems outrageous, you are an instant celebrity.
My young son stole. I put a sign on him telling the world and made him clean the parking lot at the store where he stole a box of raisins. He had money. He just did it for kicks. That was in the 70's. Today I would be arrested for child abuse. He was teased by teenage boys that knew him, and I can tell you truthfully, he was so ashamed of his behavior that it was NEVER repeated.
Where is the shame of these men who have let down their wives, children, churches and the people who put them in office?

Jay, your last post was SUPERB
IMO, your arguments were very cogently, patiently and inspirationally expressed. (Maybe even unbelieving Ajhil's heart was touched---mine certainly was, although I held a Christian love for you already, and have enjoyed reading many of your posts.)

The only slight clarification I would suggest is that most of the inaccuracies in the Bible are probably due to mistranslations, over the centuries of translation and re-translation from one language to another and then another. Or perhaps you don't agree and meant something else? Then of course, as others on various threads have cited---many times particular verses and chapters (certainly in the Old Testament) were intended for specific people at specific points in time, and are no longer valid as current "Law," or have been "fulfilled in Christ."

Thanks, Tricia
Thanks. What you said about the Old Testament and the Old Law were basically what I meant when I spoke of inaccuracies--things that could be perceived as contradictions by those without much Christian training. Truth be told, I'd have a much harder argument if Leviticus was the only place in the Bible that spoke of homosexuality.

Jay
Don’t underrate yourself. Your response was both eloquent and cogent, indeed one of the best I’ve read on this site.

But I can go along with you only so far. The “sins” you catalogue – anger, bitterness, rudeness, etc, as well as alcoholism – all produce manifestly harmful effects in human society.
But homosexuality is not intrinsically harmful. (The association with HIV infection in this country is accidental, witness the primarily heterosexual nature of the disease in the rest of the world, such as India, Africa, and China.) As I mentioned in my previous post, I have always found gays to be among the most admirable people I’ve known. This is purely a personal observation – I know of no scientific study to confirm it.

Nevertheless, I feel confident in maintaining that homosexual acts, like heterosexual acts, are in themselves morally neutral. Their character depends entirely on the context in which they occur and marriage often has very little to do with it.
Thus, an unmarried couple who sleep together in a loving, generous and honest relationship do no wrong, whether they’re gay or straight.
But a man who forces his wife to have sex, when she doesn’t wish to, or a wife who uses sex a weapon against her husband, both commit immoral acts.
I submit that your decision to regard your sexuality as a sin is not based on a dispassionate assessment of its role in your life, but on primitive superstition.

You say that the Bible’s stand on homosexuality is hard to dismiss. I’d like to suggest otherwise. First of all, the Bible is largely silent on the issue. Except for one or two instances (e.g. Leviticus, of course) the topic just doesn’t come up. As for dismissing those instances, modern Christians ignore a great many things in the Bible – such as stoning women to death for adultery, performing animal sacrifice, and so forth – because those tenets are incompatible with modern civilized life.

Defending your faith? You do a great job. It’s been a pleasure.

Mrs. V
If you post hateful, bigoted, ignorant, or superstitious opinions on this site, then to that extent, you’ve provided insight into your character. Don’t blame me for taking you at your word.

Regarding your implication that I base my views on what’s currently in vogue, I got into fights defending my gay friend when I was in high-school in Georgia forty years ago. A popular sentiment? Not then!

You claim to “understand God’s guideline about Right and Wrong.”

This is precisely the viewpoint of Osama bin Laden!

As long as the world is filled up with people like you and bin Laden and the deplorable Mr. McCollough, who think that God speaks to you and gives you a peculiar insight into “Truth”, humanity will never escape the horrors of its past.

And finally ...
To all of you who applaud Keven McCollough for this sophomoric exercise in disingenuous self-righteousness -

His assertion that liberals forgive or even admire adultery in contrast to oh-so-virtuous conservatives has been somewhat glossed over in recent posts. However, as I showed in my first post, it's purest BS. Republicans have been guilty of adultery as much or moreso than Democrats and they’ve only rarely paid any kind of price for it. (See Gingrich, Hyde, Dole, Giuliani, Murdoch, et al.)

Or not ...
Simon says …

It never ceases to amaze me that supposedly sapient people, who go about their daily business with at least a semblance of basic intelligence, casually suspend their judgment, when it comes to religion. Posters on this thread repeatedly substitute dogmatic assertions about God for rational discussion. As I pointed out to Mrs. V, in this respect they differ not at all from Osama bin Laden, who believes with equal conviction (and equal lack of proof) that Allah endorses his actions.

The human brain is a remarkable organ with amazing capabilities, but unfortunately it’s still subject to dangerous aberrations, the worst of which must be its predeliction for superstition. In the dawn of the twenty-first century, humankind stands on the brink of becoming a totally self-determinant species, able to direct its own evolution in addition to controlling its environment. The exponential expansion of our technology is rapidly giving us godlike powers; but, if we continue to base our actions on the outmoded precepts of ancient beliefs, those powers will lead us to destruction.

If tomorrow’s newspapers contained photographs of a painted witchdoctor in the Oval Office, chanting and sprinkling herbs, most people would be (quite properly) shocked. Yet, absent the primitive accoutrements, the current President routinely entertains similar visitors and openly espouses their doctrines as the basis for national policy. It’s hard to imagine anything more imbecilic or frightening.

If we survive this critical stage of our development, I believe that people like bin Laden, Jerry Falwell, George Bush, and, yes, you, Mrs V, will be treated like potentially dangerous lunatics and carefully excluded from positions of power and influence. Sadly I won’t live to see that day, but perhaps my children or grandchildren will.

Who's telling the truth, What is the tru
The truth is, we all sin and come short in the Glory of God. The truth is we all want to protect someone from evil and attacks. That is why to become a Christian and accept Jesus, is not to say we are not sinners, rather is try to refrain from sinning. This is a new chapter in the Christians life that tells him, accept the sinner but not the sin. I pray for all of us to refrain from sin, love each other, but do not love the sin. It only keeps it going. Homosex is a sin, not natural in the law of God. Not intended for natural human love. It is a preverted sexual act. I say all of this under the belief that God has made man in his own image. And God's frist living word to man was and is always to be fruitful and mulitply. Call out to him and accept the protection under the blood of Jesus. He will guide us to the path of rightouesness and will set us free, truely free.

Some of these dreamers
I ponder, but not long, if the statements of this insanity were truth, would bat man evole into a bat? and would my cat evole into a cat woman??? insanity rules.

AJHil
The primary difference between religious folks and yourself is an ability to set aside pride, at least to acknowledge that we cannot answer all questions by measured observances.

This is neither necessarilly dogmatic or irrational. It is honest.


A little disappointed in this article
I agree that lefties tend to excuse such sexual liasons a lot more quickly than righties, but how he approaches the thesis is off. It opens the door to accusations about the right, which there are plenty.

Thwe difference, though, from the left and the right in terms of love affairs is that the left seems to not have many problems with them, while the right, not likely has them less, but acknowledges they are wrong.

Why Liberals Love Adultery
The reason being they love sex of any kind, but unfortunaly they don't now what real love is. This is why they practice with anyone and everyone trying despartely to find out!!!!

You've been in the Lab too long
ajhil-

Come out, come out where-ever you are. I beleive you have been in that laboratory far too long, you sound like you are e-voling into some kind of freaky, coo-coo bird!!!!

You've been in the Lab too long
ajhil-

Come out, come out where-ever you are. I beleive you have been in that laboratory far too long, you sound like you are e-voling into some kind of freaky, coo-coo bird!!!!

ajhil..Man, You're Gone..
replies to ajhil

you said to me:

"Mrs. V If you post hateful, bigoted, ignorant, or superstitious opinions on this site, then to that extent, you’ve provided insight into your character. Don’t blame me for taking you at your word."

~I saw nothing "hateful, bigoted, ignorant, or superstitious" in what I had to say, though you may hate me for what I shared..You then went on to say..

"Regarding your implication that I base my views on what’s currently in vogue, I got into fights defending my gay friend when I was in high-school in Georgia forty years ago. A popular sentiment? Not then!"

~And the Christians might not be today..As for your "gay" friend..I say: Want a medal?

~You then add...In a crazed whoppping mouthful..

"You claim to “understand God’s guideline about Right and Wrong.” This is precisely the viewpoint of Osama bin Laden!As long as the world is filled up with people like you and bin Laden and the deplorable Mr. McCollough, who think that God speaks to you and gives you a peculiar insight into “Truth”, humanity will never escape the horrors of its past."

~Now I see you have no ability to see truth clearly or understand it..Apparently, time here or in your life has caused you to have quite poor judgement of character and to, apparently, have taken leave of your senses as well..~I say this not in a derogatory way..

~If you want to say Mr. McCullough and I agree, fine..If you then want to suggest you don't agree with us, this is one thing..But broad, dramatic proclamations which are lies about the character of others does you and your argument no good..

~Lumping me and "Mr. McCullough" in with "bin laden" is a bit crazed, to say the least. The argument is old (lumping Christians in with terrorists) and it holds no water, there are no real parallels there..

~To *then* drag in talk about "humanity" and "horrors of its past", is just simply insane..

~I urge you, ajhil, to take some breaths and absorb the mad and wild reality(for you I'm sure) that God does exist, there is a right and wrong, and that you are definitely in the latter camp with your sharings here..

~Wrong, that is..

~And while you're at that, consider that your replies have been nothing but the ramblings of (*sorry*, but true) brainwashed secular humanist rhetoric down to the bone..that can be gotten at a local community college, anywhere..

~I think it's been established that doesn't make it right..

~As for *you* and *your* *character* ajhil..I think you've done more in the way of damaging *that* perception than a million mes and my posts could do ;-)

kathy
In the end we have, mainly, only a very few to answer to..God, ourselves, and a few select loved ones or friends..

You've no need to defend your inner person here..
(As if anyone here knows "the soul" of any other anyway..)

Just use the phrase I'm fond of using when strangers make efforts to pretend to *know* me..

"Tell me more about the *me* you don't know"..

Always works for me..Don't let them vex you..

Thanks for your kind words..my Husband and I appreciate then :-)
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.