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, March 02, 2008
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama: America's first Gay President?
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



If William Jefferson Clinton was America's first "black" president, could it be that Barack Obama is positioning himself to be the nation's first "gay" president?

His supporters have argued vehemently for months that Barack Obama does not represent the interest of the radical homosexual activists. Chicago "South-side" radio talk show hosts declare with confidence that Senator Obama has said he would oppose the redefining of marriage to include unions that only the imagination could cook up. Obama has blindsided black clergy across America with the con-game that they should not worry about his views on homosexuality.

He has uttered a "Praise the Lord" at the side of Gospel uber-star Rev. Donnie McClurkin, who himself was sexually abused by a homosexual and thusly forced to struggle with the issue in his own life at times. Obama has gone from church rally to church rally making vague references to God's power, and God's purposes - while never defining one ounce of what any of it means.

Yet as someone who has followed his career since long before he was a national stage player, I have warned that his aggressive support for the radical homosexual activist agenda in America is a part of the overall picture of who he is.

In this way he may be more "gay" than Clinton was "black" - and by a wide margin at that.

For all the shell game that Obama was able to juggle in the run for President to date on the issue of his real, underlying views on the radical homosexual agenda - this week he removed all doubts.

In an alarmingly pointed written statement Obama signed his named to the personal promise of greater advance against the institution of marriage of any candidate to ever run for the highest office.

Pointedly so he gave his full pledge to overturn, or repeal, the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

"I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether."

This act was signed by the last liberal President in office William Jefferson Clinton. In pledging to do so Barack Obama has now staked out turf that threatens the viability of the next generation of children that could subject them to an operative norm that would contribute to the de-constructing of families as to however one could imagine in one state - and then forcing recognition of that sexual union by its neighboring state regardless of what the citizens of that state say.

In pledging to overturn DOMA Obama seeks to remove state's rights, violate the principles of federalism, violate a major tenant of all traditional religious systems observed in America, and subject children to a quite non-healthy home-life. Studies of which have confirmed would have a detrimental effect on said children's scholastic, emotional, intellectual and physical health. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
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.

y
obamaaaaaaaa

what
how is obama gay?im his butler at the white house... he only wears tight pants on wednesdays?

Obama is VERY Gay
Obama is gay. http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/2009/06/gays-get-their- month.html And he is made fun of by this black conservative who is one of my favorite writers! 2 blogs and you too will be hooked!

Wow
I have to give you credit. You'll go to almost any lengths to rouse rabble and attack your enemies, no matter how ridiculous you look in the process.

Why not just be honest: http://tinyurl.com/56rtww

Love
I love every single one of you.
I love heterosexuals, homosexuals, blacks, whites, democrats, republicans, the ignorant, the the intelligent and everyone else.
Why can't everyone else love each other?
Set aside your differences and see the fact that we are all brothers and sisters. Love is the answer.

omg
who ever said barack obama is gay doesn't like him...that's the stupidest thing i have ever heard of

Chester A Arthur
I have read that Chester A Arthur was our first Gay president.

homosexuals
are mentally ill. The APA was PC'd into taking homosexuality out of all its textbooks. They are not being given the help they desperately need. How is that caring for them??

First Gay President
In case you hadn't read, James Buchanan, Jr. is widely cited by historians to be America's first gay president.

Do your research.

Solo610
It was dumb to assert to a gay person they made the choice to be gay.

But this point: "Freud is used as a history lesson, to not be applied."

Oh, z'at so?
One could say the same of the Bible. As a foundation on how ancient peoples chronicled and ordered their lives. And as we've progressed, more people have become educated and experienced, there is much in the Bible that can't be applied or a part of public policy in civil life.
Religious persecution of a certain class of people still debated as a suspect class is no justification for discrimination.
Especially since said discrimination has garnered nothing good or positive to warrant it.
Your unquestioning certainty about the Bible is weird. Men wrote it, implement it and enforce it. Making me suspicious of it, since women and homosexuals the world over suffer the most from religious persecution.
I don't think it's because the Bible is irrefutable.
But because the men who wrote it and to this day men still don't want to know much about what gender and it's role really means.
Maybe it's that you can't get your mind around the complexity of it either Solo610.
The Biblical proscription is simple. Very.
Reality isn't. What I want to know is: since your own experience is ALSO limited and when legitimate authorities across the board tell you that gay people are normal and are not social reprobates, why isn't this good news to you?
When gay people DO prove the Bible or anyone else wrong...why resent it?
.
BTW, historically Christians aren't above extortion for more converts, especially gay people.
Heaven isn't certain.
Equal justice has a better track record than the Bible.
And some of us would rather take our chances with the Constitution and Bill of Rights (as you do too), than any religious text.
Fair?

bigot bait
To believe that gay people are more diseased or are the greatest carriers of it begs any sane person to ask: why do you want to believe it so badly?

To believe that gay people make up a miniscule, insignificant population, yet somehow there is a HUGE conspiracy of gay people out there trying to indoctrinate your children begs the question: how did such a tiny bunch of people give you the vapors and look so threatening to you?

To believe that gay people are a bigger threat then illegal immigration, terrorism, the economic downturn, casual violence and the drug scourge begs the question: how is it that gay children are bullied in school, but THEY aren't the bullies in kind?
The indoctrination is really coming from heterosexuals demanding that gay people change, can change or should and that their lives would be a whole lot better if they were celibate or behaved like heterosexuals.
The hypocrisy of who is indoctrinating who would be laughable if the consquences weren't so tragic.
After all, there ARE camps, therapy and all manner of intimidation to make gay people be afraid of being gay.
heterosexuals sure can't claim that gay people are trying to turn anyone else gay.
It's impossible.
As AndyR so eloquently points out...thing what it would take to make you gay.
Same goes for a gay person to be hetero...not even the point of a gun would make it happen.
Gay people know a lot more about heterosexuals than the other way around.
And it shows in the stupid comments on this thread.

it's very easy
to pass judgment on a suspect class that has until very recently been isolated for humiliation and discrimination. And yet are judged as people who don't want to commit to each other, or have strong bonds and nurture children.

A moral person would ask themselves: when did I help that gay person reach their full potential? Did I help them in their romantic endeavors and support them as a young gay person as I would their hetero peers?

An immoral person would ignore a gay child's needs and later on judge them harshly. Conveniently forgetting how society tries to set up gay young people to fail, and when they don't...resent it.
And a moral person would know when to discern what does pose threat and harm, as opposed to perceiving it with irrational paranoia.
And a moral person would spend more time in the shoes of someone they didn't understand and know when they DIDN'T and would be open to being educated.

But everyone here who claims some special moral intuition when it comes to gay people fail IMMEDIATELY as soon as they argue a gay person can choose celibacy or they choose to be homosexual...and all the while forgetting and ignoring the spector of threat that hangs over a gay child their whole lifetime if they DON'T want to be heterosexual or be celibate.

cont.
Heterosexuals are not denied the basic human rights that foster health and prosperity and family cohesion because of how they use their genitals. They are not reduced as sum to their sexuality.

However, homosexuals constantly are as if nothing of merit can possibly be offered society despite sterile sex.
Heterosexuals are not held to such an inhumane standard.

The moral relativism, virtuequest is in how heterosexuals try to romanticize themselves as morally superior ONLY by being heterosexual, fertile or fecund.
That is NOT a moral condition, but a HUMAN condition of which some people have no choice. Animals, after all can be opposite sex attracted, fecund and fertile.

And the reduction of homosexuals as having no more moral love or commitment THAN animals, is heartless.
That is the thinking of committed bigots and a dangerous, even lethal threat to homosexual children.
To continue to argue that homosexuality is a choice, and to live a lifetime with no romantic companion is preferable is to charge gay people with something that most heterosexuals know THEY wouldn't want or choose.
It is immoral to ignore the very humanity of a gay person and expect them to BEHAVE as less than you would have or want.

And it's immoral to not even recognize when gay people ARE trying to get along with you and work alongside you as an equal.

virtuequesst
Here's how you define MORALITY.
It is the pursuit of justice. It is the understanding the value of another human being and whether or not they cause harm or betray another human being. Which murder and theft and adultery does.
A person does not have to be taught how to respond to being assaulted and betrayed.
However, hostility, prejudice and violence are consistently taught in how to respond to homosexuality. Otherwise it's doubtful anyone naturally would.
Morality is about the virtue of kindness and equal standards being applied to another human being as they are to a community of human beings. Suspect classes, such as blacks, Jews and homosexuals have historically and socially been denied equal partnership and sometimes pathologies among them reflect that.
Morality is about listening to a person who tells you they ARE being violated and assaulted for being different, when they are NOT doing anything but trying to ally with and adhere to the same standards of the community but are constantly met with different, impossible or contradictory standards.

Athesim / morality
"An atheist... can never talk about the concepts of right and wrong with any real meaning"

Utter nonsense. The Golden Rule - one of the most universal moral ideas - makes no reference to a deity. And many of the great moral philosophers have been atheist. The two biggest philanthropists in history are both atheists - Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Virtue
"Whether the issue is homosexuality, abortion, drunkenness, murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc., anybody can rationalize their behavior by adjusting their concept of God to "fit" into it."

And whether it's compassion, opposing slavery, forgiving enemies, accepting science, trying to prevent disease, or not murdering others - anybody can rationalize NOT doing these things by adjusting their concept of God.

You including of homosexuality with murder, lying, cheating and stealing is a TRIUMPH of the very self-delusion you speak of.

Morality
"If someone declares himself an atheist, not believing in any God, then he can never talk about the concepts of right and wrong with any real meaning - He is forced to believe that morality is man-made, and therefore, subjective."

Morality is just as much a problem for God-believers. Either a sin is a sin whether or not God decrees it to be - in which case we don't need God to tell us. Or it is only a sin BECAUSE he decrees it, in which it is still abitrary.

Believers still have to choose morality - they have to choose which God to follow for a start. Then there's all the different moral view points different Christians manage to form from the same bible. A couple of hundred years ago Christians couldn't even decide whether the bible supported slavery or said it was wrong.

Virtuequest
"Those who promote, approve, or practice homosexuality, best be sure they are not willfully ignoring any evidence that would lead them to think otherwise."

Likewise, those who denigrate or disapprove of homosexuality, should be equally vigilant that they are not willfully ignoring evidence.

Myself, I tend to allow the evidence to influence my opinion, rather than interpret the evidence to suit my prejudices.

"It cannot be said, from a physical point of view, that homosexuality is natural; it is obvious to all that it is not."

Quite the contrary. Are you talking about homosexuality, or anal sex? The evidence is that homosexuality is natural. Remember how you said it was important not to willfully ignore evidence?

As for anal sex, I've now pointed out about five times that not all gay men practice it, and many straight couples do. Whether anal sex is any more unnatural than oral sex, hand jobs or whatever is another subject. However, the male G-Spot is found in the rectum. What's it doing there? Giving pleasure.

What is the basis of your morality?
If there is no objective standard or truth that all human beings can refer to in order to determine what is moral and what is not, then it follows that each man becomes the arbitrator of what is right and wrong for himself, which is another way of saying that there is no objective morality.

Every person, whether he knows it or not, has developed some form of moral code by which to guide his life. It may be conscious or sub-conscience, but exist it does.

The difficult part comes in consciously determining not only what you believe is right or wrong, but why. And on that "why" hangs each person's life and future.

If there is a just God Who created all things and all men; and if this God demands all men to live a certain way; and if there are certain things in this life that will determine things in the next; IF this is all true, IF this is even remotely possible in any reader's mind, does it not make sense to make certain, in this life, the reasons one chooses what he does?

We know that all men die. We all know death is certain. Do we all understand just how serious our choices are in this world?

IF there is a God, and IF HE set up the "rules" for living, He would set up the "rules" concerning any afterlife there may be.

Let us not think that we can outsmart God.
It is not an even playing field. It is His game, and therefore, His rules. We did not choose to be born. Most of us will not choose when we die. We all have choices about what to believe and how to live in this world.

Let no one think that he can determine any rules concerning any afterlife there may be.

I know the basis for what I believe to be right and wrong. The evidence is there for the taking. Those who promote, approve, or practice homosexuality, best be sure they are not willfully ignoring any evidence that would lead them to think otherwise.







The Difference Between Normal & Natural
That which is normal may very well not be natural. Normal refers to what is common; natural refers to primary design and make-up.

People trying to defend homosexuality as natural have a problem with the physical "plumbing". It cannot be said, from a physical point of view, that homosexuality is natural; it is obvious to all that it is not.

When refering to the inner person, people who say that they are born that way may very well have desires that way, but it does not follow that those desires should be acted on.

We would not agree, for example, if a baby, born to an alcoholic mother and found later to have an inclination to drink in later life, should simply follow the desire and become plastered whenever the urge to drink occured.

Those of us who are human - and that includes all who reads these words - realize that we always need to monitor our desires and feelings to determine whether they are right or not. And hopefully, if honesty prevails, we will choose to abstain from desires we know to be wrong and choose to change them if we can.

There is a huge difference between someone fighting against a wrong desire, and failing, and someone simply choosing to give into that desire because it "feels" so natural.

Homosexuality is definitely becoming more and more normal worldwide. But that fact will never change the truth that it remains abnormal.

The Basis for All Value Systems
It comes down to only two questions, and two questions only, when explaining one's deepest convictions and choices:

1) "Is there a God?" and if so, then:
2) "What kind of God is He?"

If someone declares himself an atheist, not believing in any God, then he can never talk about the concepts of right and wrong with any real meaning - He is forced to believe that morality is man-made, and therefore, subjective. He may say that he doesn't like or doesn't prefer what someone else says or does, but he cannot say someone else is wrong, because there is no objective standard of morality.

If someone believes in God, but pictures Him as approving of particular behaviors and actions that, in actuality, are wrong, then he can resolve any issues of morality in his own mind by simply "creating" an image of God that "fits" his chosen beliefs and lifestyle.

Whether the issue is homosexuality, abortion, drunkenness, murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc., anybody can rationalize their behavior by adjusting their concept of God to "fit" into it.

The Bible is either true or false. The proper interpretation of it is, in truth, a matter of life and death. Those who choose to ignore it do so at their own peril.

Those of us who believe that marriage, by definition, can only be between one man and one woman, care about the institution as God created it - and are against how man tries to pervert it.

Sterility
"The sterility of homosexualisty say it all about the legitimacy of homosexuality"

I know a married couple in their sixties. They have no kids. You would class them as 'sterile' presumably and therefore state their relationship had no 'legitimacy'. What nonsense.

"BUT it is NOT normal to put your pen!s in another man's anus"

Not normal for me. But that's because I'm a straight man. But it is quite normal for many gay men. But anyway, not all gay men have anal sex. And some straight couples do. And straight couples enjoy oral sex too. That's sterile too. What a boring life you must lead!

du, yes homosexuality is normal
du writes: Friday, March, 07, 2008 3:21 PM
normal isn't always recognized
Bird, you have only the narrowest of abilities it seems. Normal can come in many forms.
There obviously isn't just ONE sexual orientation among human sexual attraction and orientation isn't gene based in either hetero OR homosexual.
You're light on facts, but heavy on the false information fed to you.

Normal isn't always recognized if a majority has a single standard.
Why do women get silicone implanted in their chests? Asians get their eyes cut? Blacks risk scalp burns to straighten their hair?
It's normal to have small breasts, epicanthic folds and kinky hair.
So why go through such pain, considerable expense and health risks to meet..well, WHOSE standards?

It IS normal to be gay.
_____________________________________________

du, it may be normal to be homosexual, let's not quibble: BUT it is NOT normal to put your pen!s in another man's anus, it is NOT normal to stick a toilet plunger handle in another woman's vagina--the results of those classic homosexual activities are not pretty.

But, of course, none of the elegant, elite, even 'beautiful' (according to Will/will) resident TownHall homosexuals do anything like that, do they? "Nooooo, that is so declasse', that is so dirty, that is so lower class homosexual, you wouldn't catch me dead doing thaaaat." And yet the homosexual icons are dropping like flies. The statistics describe a filty, perverted, shortened life expectancy life.

The sterility of homosexualisty say it all about the legitimacy of homosexuality, not to mention the disease spreading and shortened life expectancy.

du, yes homosexuality is normal
du writes: Friday, March, 07, 2008 3:21 PM
normal isn't always recognized
Bird, you have only the narrowest of abilities it seems. Normal can come in many forms.
There obviously isn't just ONE sexual orientation among human sexual attraction and orientation isn't gene based in either hetero OR homosexual.
You're light on facts, but heavy on the false information fed to you.

Normal isn't always recognized if a majority has a single standard.
Why do women get silicone implanted in their chests? Asians get their eyes cut? Blacks risk scalp burns to straighten their hair?
It's normal to have small breasts, epicanthic folds and kinky hair.
So why go through such pain, considerable expense and health risks to meet..well, WHOSE standards?

It IS normal to be gay.
_____________________________________________

du, it may be normal to be homosexual, let's not quibble: BUT it is NOT normal to put your pen!s in another man's anus, it is NOT normal to stick a toilet plunger handle in another woman's vagina--the results of those classic homosexual activities are not pretty.

But, of course, none of the elegant, elite, even 'beautiful' (according to Will/will) resident TownHall homosexuals do anything like that, do they? "Nooooo, that is so declasse', that is so dirty, that is so lower class homosexual, you wouldn't catch me dead doing thaaaat." And yet the homosexual icons are dropping like flies. The statistics describe a filty, perverted, shortened life expectancy life.

The sterility of homosexualisty say it all about the legitimacy of homosexuality, not to mention the disease spreading and shortened life expectancy.

normal isn't always recognized
Bird, you have only the narrowest of abilities it seems. Normal can come in many forms.
There obviously isn't just ONE sexual orientation among human sexual attraction and orientation isn't gene based in either hetero OR homosexual.
You're light on facts, but heavy on the false information fed to you.

Normal isn't always recognized if a majority has a single standard.
Why do women get silicone implanted in their chests? Asians get their eyes cut? Blacks risk scalp burns to straighten their hair?
It's normal to have small breasts, epicanthic folds and kinky hair.
So why go through such pain, considerable expense and health risks to meet..well, WHOSE standards?

It IS normal to be gay. And legitimate research has shown that homosexuality doesn't compromise a person's ability to function at high levels of competence ON THE SAME level as heterosexuals in the same environment.
Differnce incites curiosity, but the most important issues on homosexuality have been settled, and that has to be enough for you unless you ARE willing to hold heterosexuals to the same standard.
Which you aren't, so the subject should be closed.

AndyR is quite right. And it's easy to see who is wrong for some very simple reasons.
Gays and lesbians have every right to not be lied about, treated unfairly and at risk for assault and violence.
And they don't respond in kind and don't have the power too in the policital arena.

But the information put forth by organizations such as massresistence, family research council and focus on the family IS false.
And Christians are not under attack. Christian children are not bullied, at risk for dropping out of school or violated in any other way.
It's not a violation to be muzzled from spreading inflammatory or disruptive information.
This isn't protected speech.
And schools are obligated to protect ALL students from language or actions that could compromise a student's very life.


Du
Thanks Du.

It's interesting. Psychologists used to make the same 'a priori' assumptions as Birdman. Assuming that homosexuality was a mental disorder, they did all their early research into gays by interviewing men in prisons. Thus they 'discovered' a link between homosexuality and crime.

Their biased, unscientific findings lasted for some decades, until someone had the idea of using samples that didn't make such presuppositions. New research, among a random section of the population, showed there was no link between homosexuality and any form of crime or mental disorder. Both hetero and homosexuality developed in human beings in pretty much the same way.

if you think
This is about 'behavior' so therefore you are justified in adhering to your prejudice regarding what homosexuality is, look at the comments from people like Bluepiper or Luis.

As we have historical record on when someone takes behavior and embellishes it with falsehoods and inflammatory language to guarantee fear and loathing of the target.
Blacks were considered less intelligent but especially more sexually irresponsible and aggressive with an unnatural attraction to white females.
If you listened to your own words, the prevailing assumption is the same. That homosexuality inherently makes a person as sexually aggressive and irresponsible as black males were thought to be.
As a matter of fact, if our culture let the rap videos, criminal and out of wedlock birth stats, and health risk stats inform them about blacks, the rationalization for Jim Crow would still be in place.
Color simply made it easier to find the target.
Gay children however, don't even have the benefit of family and church support to support them, as blacks did back in the day.

AndyR
Folks, AndyR has made the most cogent and accurate points of anyone on this thread. Swampfox is a gay person. Whether any of us has a sex life or not, we will be hetero or homosexual, period.
Which is the point and the definition of sexual orientation.
As for the rest of you...
I would trust those of you who seem to claim morally grounded judgement if you allowed the basic commandment of treating another the way you'd want to be treated prevail when discussing gay people.
You tend to lose IQ points on this subject alone.
Blanketing the discussion with FALSE claims that ALL homosexuals accept the abuse of children, or support it is one of those dangerous lies that threatens lives.
And the FALSE claim that Christians are under siege, or attack for your beliefs on homosexuality is a straw man.
A gay child was shot to death by a classmate not a month ago in my home state of CA. Across the country, terrible brutality is exacted on gay CHILDREN or innocent gay adults simply attending to their own business.
They are NOT engaged in threatening or violent attacks IN KIND, on anyone Christian or otherwise.
In self defense, gays and lesbians call for the courts, the schools and their workplaces to engage in dialogue, education and fairness.

Bird
You argument seems to be follows:

1. x is immoral
2. Adultery and murder are immoral
3. Adultery and muder are choices
4. Therefore x is a choice.

I could proclaim that being left-handed is immoral, or Spanish people marrying Italians is immoral. Or people over the age of 60 is immoral (it's not like they'll have kids, right?). Your line of logic is simply circular reasoning.

In fact, in the past some people DID try to force left-handed people to write with their right-hand. It took a while before it was shown that left-handed people were not doing it through choice.

Interestingly, men whose index finger is longer than their ring finger are much more likely to be gay. So to say there's no evidence that homosexuality is genetic is simply false.

Bird
"Homsexual acts are abnormal"

Another thing for you to look up. 'A priori' statements. Abnormal for you, not for someone who is gay. For a gay man, having sex with a women would be abnormal.

And you're still avoiding the questions I posted a couple up. I've a funeral to go to now, so you'll just have to re-read my posts above, I don't have time to re-pose them for the third or fourth time.

Genes
"There has been NO gay gene ever found."

What, and there IS a hetero gene then? Try again.

I am certainly gld you see
that being 'black' is genetic. There has been NO gay gene ever found. But I am positive that you will keep searching for it.

By peverse, I follow the dictionary definition. You can find it here:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perverse
"1 a: turned away from what is right or good : corrupt b: improper, incorrect c: contrary to the evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law (perverse verdict) 2 a: obstinate in opposing what is right, reasonable, or accepted : wrongheaded b: arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinacy 3: marked by peevishness or petulance : cranky 4: marked by perversion : perverted"

Wear the shoe; it fits.

When I said, "Not sure what you mean. Let me state that you don't bring a bat to gun fight" I did not understand your hypothetical phrasing; so I phrased my response clearly so that you could not find any mud to stir up the water.

heterosexuality
is normal, homosexual behavior is abnormal. There, I have compared the 2.

I could have a voluntary, willful, heterosexual relations with a woman that is not my wife. The sex would be normal, the voluntary, willful act would be immoral. Homsexual acts are abnormal. There, I have compared it again.

Redefine your terms however you like. I will continue to explain my answers by standard, normal meanings.

All willful acts are voluntary. All voluntary acts are willful. Homosexual acts are voluntary and willful. Homosexual acts are also abnormal.

Caps
"Your article reads like a neo-conservative right-wing Christian radical conspiracy rant."

If it walks like a duck, talks like one...

To Solo610
Your God (I've since rejected him) is a sociopathic, genocidal, masochistic homophobe. The New Testament is preposterous. Jesus smited a fig tree because it didn't bear fruit out of season. Jesus is not even descended from the House of David. Even the Bible will tell you that Jesus isn't the prophesied messiah; he doesn't have an earthly father.

If you're educated and still believe the Bible, you're a gullible, wishful-thinking idiot. Sorry. You're dumb. If you want to go head to head on Christian apologetics, I'm game.

Satiric Hyperbole
Okay, this is ridiculous; this has to be satire. Who are you?

Your article reads like a neo-conservative right-wing Christian radical conspiracy rant. You clearly have latent homosexual tendencies since you seem obsessed with the topic.

I think you nailed it on the head when you used the phrase "traditional values." If you're a fan of a static society, then I suggest you hop on the "pro-life" and the "anti-stem-cell" bandwagons as well.

If these really are you views, I suggest you hide yourself in some Christian nation that you are free to establish of your own accord. You lack the most basic precepts of rational thought. At a young age, someone told you everything you needed to think, and you accepted it blindly for the remainder of your life. I'm sure you never learned calculus, you couldn't form a modal logic conclusion, and if you had the faintest idea what quantum chromodynamics were, I'd eat my own shoe.

The world is not static. Stop being an idiot and come into the 20th century. From there it's a short leap to the 21st.

Grow up.

BirdmanII
BirdmanII: "Being 'black' is genetic; acting 'black' is choice."

I think you have just about got it. You can 'act black' [by which you seem to mean act like a certain group of young, black, working-class men] but that doesn't make you black.

By peverse, I mean complete failure to address the obvious flaw in your argument. Which you still haven't addressed by the way. Can a heterosexual not call himself that until he's lost his virginity.

You fail to address it AGAIN here:
"...the homosexual act is still voluntary and willful just as the acts of murder, theft, and adultery are."

Would you say that the HETEROsexual act is as voluntary and willful as murder, theft and adultery?

There are two possibilities here for your refusal to address this point.

1. You've realised you HAVE no answer but are hoping I won't notice that.

2. Perhaps you view gay as a choice simply becuase you yourself may find men and women equally attractive. If this is so, then fair enough - you chose women. But do some research on the stats - you are quite unusual if you are equally attracted to both sexes. Most men aren't attracted to other men at all - and therefore it is not a choice for them to go out with women.

BirdmanII: "Not sure what you mean. Let me state that you don't bring a bat to gun fight."
Look up hypothetical situation. Again you miss the point. But I won't discuss the gun thing in this thread as it's off topic.

To Birdman II
No Jimmy Carter is not an authority. But, did you know about his 1976 Playboy interview? He was our first born again, fundamentalist Christian PRESIDENT. And, he was a DEMOCRAT. I guess that you think that I am a heterosexual because I am a still a virgin ... but, I know darn well that I am homosexual. What are your thoughts on that?

Respectfully,

Swampfox

Swamp, find out about the Episcopalians
Swamp, you who think that there are Christian denominations which are open minded about homosexuals--you do remember that I corrected you on that subject, but I forgot to mention that the Episcopalians in the U.S., because of the ordination of homosexuals and a lot more regarding homosexuals, are leaving for other denominations, with whole parishes leaving their dioceses for dioceses in Africa that don't pander to homosexuals. Before you become Episcopalian, find out which kind they are.

Right, Hal, homosexuality is wonderful
Hal Donahue writes: Sunday, March, 02, 2008 2:23 PM
paul = idiot
"Gay = HIV
Gays will eventually have to be quarantined because they carry the HIV virus."

In Africa HIV is a hetrosexual disease.///You are right, it is a heterosexual disease and there are two reasons: One, the WHO defines AIDS in such a way as to allow things like a persistent fever to be classified as AIDS; and two, the filthy trisexuals and quatrisexuals have passed it on to normal people.\\\ At least in my area of the US I know the majority of cases are drug users not gay.///That is anecdotal is probably very wrong, but then maybe there aren't many homosexuals in your area--more anecdotal stuff. Then, of course, homosexuals, certainly not the resident TownHall homosexuals, don't engage in anal 'sex,' "nooooo, it's filthy business, we are dignified, it's just the San Fransicko homosexual that do thaaaat," but the statistics say otherwise and Mattie Foreman of the National [Male and Female Homosexual] Task Force also says otherwise--he admitted that homosexuals produce and spread disease, not to mention shorten their life expectancy by their filthy ways." Gay doesn't mean HIV at all any longer and only did initially in the US because of how it entered our population///Right, the homosexuals just stopped getting HIV/AIDS all of a sudden.\\\

THE STERILITY, DISEASE, AND SHORTENED LIFE EXPECTANCY OF HOMOSEXUALS SAYS IT ALL ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF HOMOSEXUALITY.

NOTHING FAVORS HOMOSEXUALITY, NOTHING RECOMMENDS IT.

Swampfox

Swamp: "Now, without too personal, is it possible to be celibate adulterer?" Yes, at least according to Jimmy Carter.


Wow!! Jimmy Carter is an authority on adultery? Here is the point I was trying to make, adultery happens only by being UN-celibate. I think being celibate and being an adulterer are mutually exclusive.

The New Testament
I understand where you are coming from on that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament. And, if I understand the New Testament the references are only about pederastry when referring to homosexuality. I must admit that I think that the mental health professionals know far more on thw subject of human sexuality than people who only use the Bible as an ultimate authority. Obviously, I was raised in a family where I was taught to be heterosexual. I considered heterosexuality as NORMAL, and that homosexual was ABNORMAL. And, that it was only a matter of will power. Its not.

Swampfox
I would be interested in what you have to say. As for the Bible, I don't think that you can't do much better than the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Christ, whether or not you believe in God or that Jesus was the Son of God. As I think that I have said, if we took the Bible as the absolute moral authority, slavery and polygamy would still be legal...........and, I would dare any modern person to adhere to all the laws in the Book of Leviticus."

Im sure you have heard that we are not bound by Old Testament law? Do you see anything in the NT not able to be practiced today? Context is very important when determining what applies. The NT is what i am referring to in my view that homosexuality is wrong.

In the end, the Bible tells us that God is not the author of confusion. There seems to be some confusion here, i cannot see laying that at God's feet. He is not silent on this issue and how it applies today. What are your thoughts?

To Solo610
Solo610 writes, "Your situation is somewhat different, i find it interesting, but i cannot say that i understand it completely. As i understand it(and without trying to get too personal) you claim to be a homosexual, and you are celibate. There is something to be said for that, but i need to think about it more before i open my mouth."

I would be interested in what you have to say. As for the Bible, I don't think that you can't do much better than the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Christ, whether or not you believe in God or that Jesus was the Son of God. As I think that I have said, if we took the Bible as the absolute moral authority, slavery and polygamy would still be legal...........and, I would dare any modern person to adhere to all the laws in the Book of Leviticus.

To Birdman II
Birdman II writes, "Now, without too personal, is it possible to be celibate adulterer?" Yes, at least according to Jimmy Carter. Here is a link to his famous quote in his 1976 interview: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

As for the Bible it is the seventh of the Ten Commandments. And, is one of the most discussed sins in the Bible. Here is a link to a discussion to this fact: http://www.twopaths.com/faq_adultery.htm

AndyR

AR: "I explained quite clearly why I believe it to be a false choice."

Me: You say false choice, I say not. Stand off.


AR: "Consider the following two scenarios BirdmanII: a bank robber breaks into the bank with either a baseball bat or a gun, which would you prefer".

Me: Not sure what you mean. Let me state that you don't bring a bat to gun fight. Boy Scout motto: "Be prepared". If He has a bat and I have a gun, the odds are that he might change his mind about the robbery. IF we both have guns, there is still the chance he might get hurt therefore he might change his mind again. If he had a gun and I have a bat, well too bad Birdman, band, bang, you're dead. Robbery proceeds. Be prepared


AR: "To view homosexuality not in the same way as the above drives, but in the same way as individual acts of crime, seems perverse to me."

Me: We differ on what is perverse. But fact remains that the homosexual act is still voluntary and willful just as the acts of murder, theft, and adultery are. BTW adultery is not a crime is it?


AR: "Your reference to 'acting black' is similarly confused."

Me: No, not really. Being 'black' is genetic; acting 'black' is choice.


Now, without too personal, is it possible to be celibate adulterer?

Swampfox
I am sorry to hear what you have had to go through. I would like to say that i do not see homosexuality as the SIN of SINS. Your situation is somewhat different, i find it interesting, but i cannot say that i understand it completely. As i understand it(and without trying to get too personal) you claim to be a homosexual, and you are celibate. There is something to be said for that, but i need to think about it more before i open my mouth.

In my previous post i suppose i took the long way in saying i hold the Bible above the APA and Freud. Without absolutes, what is really "wrong" or "right" ? We are dipping our toe into the world of relative morality. Im not sure the Bible, as i understand it, endorses such a view. You see something i don't?

I do appreciate the discussion.

Swampfox
Thanks, Swampfox, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I was 19 when I lost my virginity, but I was still heterosexual before then.

To AndyR and Birdman II
I am still a virgin, but I know that I am gay.

Comparison
Instead of comparing homosexuality to being an adulterer, or a murderer, or even to being a butcher, a black man, or to being a communist, why not do the obvious and compare it to being a heterosexual?

You don't believe people are genetically pre-disposed to being a murderer - good, neither do I.

But people are obviously pre-disposed to finding other people attractive. It's not coincidence, circumstances or conditioning that men are attracted to women, women to men, that dogs are attracted to other dogs, cats to other cats. Gay men's attraction to other men doesn't really seem that different to the attraction women feel for men. Likewise lesbians' attraction to other women being pretty much the same as men's.

To view homosexuality not in the same way as the above drives, but in the same way as individual acts of crime, seems perverse to me.

BirdmanII
"What makes a man an 'adulterer'? I don't buy it that a man is gentically disposed to do any one of the above. But, until he actually does a deed, he cannot be referred to by the title associated with the deed. I also see it that same way with the homosexual act."

You've explained this already, and you haven't responded to my point. Your logic suggests that a man can't be referred to as a heterosexual until he has 'carried out a heterosexual act'.

Your reference to 'acting black' is similarly confused. A man is black whether or not he chooses to 'listen to rasp music, talk ghetto, and join a gang." Plenty of black men don't do that. They're still black. Plenty of white men DO - they're still white.

If a dude fancies other men, but hides it and gets married, has occasional joyless sex with his wife while thinking of Tom Cruise, beats off to Breakback Mountain, and pretends the rest of his life that he isn't gay... guess what, he's still gay. He's just a gay in denial.

Look at that Ted Haggard bloke. So much to lose, all those people praying for him... he still couldn't hide who he was.

False choice
I explained quite clearly why I believe it to be a false choice. Look on having a gun in your house as a form of insurance policy. You are preparing for an eventuality that is actually quite small. Fair enough, lots of people prepare for the worst. Why would anyone NOT take an insurance policy against a particular disaster? Because, like I said, they weigh up the odds against the costs. The cost in insurance is obviously the small premium you pay. The odds with having a gun in the house is the small chance that it might end up damaging my family.

Now I don't insure against earthquakes because they're not likely in my area. Likewise armed criminals breaking into my house. So if you said to me "If an earthquake hits your house then wouldn't you wish you were insured," I'd say "yes". But that still doesn't persuade me to take out the insurance.

However, this analogy is imperfect, because the people Giles is arguing against believe that laws against concealed weapons actually LESSEN the chance of being caught in a situation against armed criminals in the first place. (You obviously think they are wrong to believe this. You may well be right, but that's not the point).

That's my point about the false choice. Anti-gun people might as well offer YOU the following choice
"Consider the following two scenarios BirdmanII: a bank robber breaks into the bank with either a baseball bat or a gun, which would you prefer". Obviously you'd choose the baseball bat, but you wouldn't find that a convincing argument against concealed weapons. You would view that as a false choice, because that's not where the argument should lie.

It should be about whether tighter laws on guns will actually make it harder for criminals to carry them, or just easier for criminals to overcome civilians.

AndyR

I'm off to work. I cannot respond further until tonight.

AndyR

What makes a man a 'murderer'?

What makes a man a 'thief'?

What makes a man a 'liar'?

What makes a man an 'adulterer'?

I don't buy it that a man is gentically disposed to do any one of the above. I do believe that man has a propensity or an ability to do these things. But, until he actually does a deed, he cannot be referred to by the title associated with the deed. To do the deed, the man has the choice available to him to proceed or to stop but he decides to proceed.

I also see it that same way with the homosexual act.

AndyR - My Giles post is gone
Fortunately, I saved it:

How is it a false choice? You even recognized the 'obvious'! You made the 'obvious' choice! Sometimes, to make a point, one must examine the ramifications of all choices even to the extreme. The real reductionism is this: the ONLY choice available to the woman at the time was talking on the phone to the police who were 2 minutes away. That is reductionism down to one choice. How false is that?

Self-defense is a personal right. That right to self-defense is in effect where ever a person is, whether in the home, school, store, or on the street. By disarming the citizens (as in D.C.) the government is effectively taking that right of self-defense away from the people. Even Jesus said to get a sword (at the time guns were not available and the sword was the pinnacle of technology). As you might gather, I am against even the smallest infringement on the 2d Amendment. How's that for reductionism?

I come from the position that ALL men have the same potential to do evil. I believe that if a man figures he can get away with something evil, he will do it. If an evil man KNOWS that his personal safety is directly at risk, then he will suppress his evil potential. The evil killer of the women mentioned above made no attempt to suppress his evil potential because he knew he could get away with it. Bad men do bad things unless they are stopped.

And btw, if any one breaks into your house, you have already stated that you have reduced your choices down to one. I hope when you dial 911 that the police can arrive before the killer opens fire, otherwise, you and your family will be dead. It is your responsibility to defend your own. It is the policeman's responsibility to catch your killer. But, he can only react after evil has happened, as in Tinley Park. Don't give out your address.

I would still rather see the killer buried than the women.

BirdmanII
...In fact I've pointed this out before on these posts, and no-one's got an answer to it.

I'll ask again: is someone only hetero once they start having sex? Can a celibate man call himself heterosexual, or would you say that 'it is only the heterosexual act that makes you so'?

Thus, is it possible that I'm not redefining words, and in fact being gay is something you ARE, even if you are celibate?

I looked on the Giles link you posted - there's no post from you there following mine to you dated Tuesday, March, 04, 2008 8:02 AM.
Unless you are also posting as 'Steve'.

BirdmanII
"You syas that you are currently 'straight' but, you could choose to engage in the act."

Simple as that? Not really. How can a man have sex with someone he doesn't find attractive? To put it crudely, I would not be able to get it up for another man. Could you?

"The thing that makes a homosexual is the homosexual act"

How do you figure this? Does that mean getting raped by a gay turns YOU into a gay, because you've carried out a homosexual act? If you screw a very convincing female impersonator when drunk, does that make you gay, or just a rotten drunk?

Does that mean that you can't call someone heterosexual or gay until they've lost their virginity? I was heterosexual before I first had sex. It wasn't the heterosexual act that made me hetero.

AndyR writes: Sunday, March, 02, 2008 11

"I'm straight - turning gay would certainly never be a 'choice' for me."

I'm white - turning black would certainly never be a 'choice' for me. But, I could choose to listen to rasp music, talk ghetto, and join a gang.

The thing that makes a homosexual is the homosexual act. You syas that you are currently 'straight' but, you could choose to engage in the act. That would make you a homosexual.

Homosexuality
is defined by partaking of man-man sex acts.

For example, a man is not murderer until he has committed murder. A man is not an adulterer until he has committed afultery. A man is not a thief until he has stolen something from someone else. A homosexual is not a homosexual until he has committed an homosexual act. A straight man that commits a homosexual act is, by definition, a homosexual.

Redefining words on the fly is not the way to win an argument.



I did not read Kevin's piece at 1st.

After I ran into this piece; http://www.rense.com/general81/obbm.htm , I went back and read it.

Point of fact: Kevin did NOT say Obama was gay just as he did NOT say Clinton was black. Obama is a very STRONG supporter of 'gay rights'. This is demonstrated in the above article:

"Senator Obama said he would press for the passage of hate crime laws and a 'fully inclusive' Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with equality in the their family and adoption laws."

and,

"Obama ... said, "I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples..."

But, how does this last quote match with the 1st quote about pressing for hate crime laws? Isn't that having the federal gov't stand in the way of states that decide against the gay agenda? And, wouldn't he then be using the bully pulpit to 'bully' the states that do not agree with him or the gays?

What Kevin shows quite clearly is that Obama is the gays' best friend. That is how Obama would the the 1st 'gay' president.

Continue with your rants and rages.

Is Kevin wrong
Didn't the Democrats already have a closet gay president before?

Anyway, isn't a collapsing dollar, and being the largest debtor nation in the world much more important issues at the moment, instead of pety issues.




Kevin McCullough is definitely gay
Don't get down on yourself Kevin. I'm just trying to let you know it's perfectly fine to be gay. Live your your life to the fullest and mind your own business. So much hate coming from the Right. No shock there.

Hannah
Plus, I don't 'praise' homosexuality. I support people's right to do what they want in their own homes, with other consenting adults. I find the idea of eating oysters revolting. But go ahead and do it if you want. If innocent bystanders are not harmed, it's none of my business. If it's not healthy for you - well, welcome to the land of the free! You're free to eat yourself into obesity, or drink yourself drunk. Just don't harm others.

Seems your argument is more with unprotected promiscuous sex.

Hannah
"These people always praise homosexuality and never deal with the fact that sodomy is unhealthy."

I don't know whose posts you've been reading. Plenty of ideas discussed here. I've pointed out several times that a) not all homos practice sodomy and b) many straight people do.

Plus, something being unhealthy doesn't make it immoral. In the land of the free people are free to mountain climb, jump out of planes, eat red meat etc. None of these things are immoral.

Plus, wearing a condom dramatically reduces the danger of any penetrative sex. And yet many see sex with a condom as immoral too.

Name Calling
Please note that few people who disagree with the author have tried to argue with the ideas in this column. They simply call the author bigoted, stupid, etc. and by extension all people who agree with him are also bigoted, stupid, etc. They are "right-wing" nuts. Their ideas are rooted in deep-seated prejudices, and these ideas will die out with the hate-filled older generation. (yawn)

These people always praise homosexuality and never deal with the fact that sodomy is unhealthy. And the fact that sodomy with many partners is even more unhealthy is always ignored.

Words like bigot, racist, etc. are thrown around. And who wants to be a bigot or racist or be associated with one?

But it simply won't work. If you want to discuss ideas, that's fine. If you simply want to call names, you look silly. The people here can see right through you. And I don't know why you bother.

Right wing meet your box
It seems rather ironic that you are attacking Obama because of his stand on gay issues. What, you think that is going to get you a few more votes? The right wing has made a deal with the devil and now has nowhere to turn.

First it was the racist. The vaunted southern strategy played the race card over and over. The result is 95% of the black population will never vote for your party ever. Then in the 90s it was the gay community you demonized and once again you have lost another 10% of the population.

What to do in the 21st century? Ahhh, the dirty hispanics are coming to take your jobs, lets round them up and put them on rail cars and send them home. Another population you are about to lose for good.

Face it Town hall, you backed a man for president (Bush) that has given us nothing but incompetence and mess after mess, disaster after disaster. You are stareing irrelevance in the face and soon all you will have left is the ignorant white trailer trash redneck and the right wing born again christian vote. Good luck with that. Eric in Austin

Gay animals
Actually it seems to be about as prevalent in animals as in humans.

The love that dare not speak its name
Carlos: ""Just like the Gay Penguins... they're very rare."

But not unheard of. In high school, I had a gay rabbit. I currently have two gay cats. Even though they wre neutered, they still go at it occasionally.

GG-AZ
"The same can be said for any human activity, including horrors like murder, rape, pedophilia, bestiality, cannibalism. Should we accept these because their deviant, wicked practitioners were “born that way” (or affected by some terrible “trauma”)? Of course not."

Why would you say that accepting horrors is the same as accepting homosexuality? What do you think it means to compare homosexuality to murder, rape, pedophilia, bestiality, cannibalism?


History 101
billg64: "To debase the civil rights movement by stating it was to end segregation is a folly."

Actually, it was to end state-sanctioned segregation. You are aware of the state-sanctioned segregation that was going on?

GG-AZ
"Their relationships are not generally considered a good thing"

By whom? The people in the relationships consider them good. If your opposition to homosexuality is the spread of disease, then surely marrige is a positive way to promote monogomy. I guess you'd prefer gay relationships to promiscuity, right?

Anyway, if you're against the idea of gay people having relationships, I doubt you'll discourage them by opposing their sanction by marriage.