Here were my top five favorite cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post! We start with two projected Academy Award winners tonight…
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
by John Deering at GoComics.com…
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Jim Morin at GoComics.com…
by TobyToons…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I like No. 1. Yes, our nation is indulging in a great deal of willful ignorance.
I voted for No. 5. The situation in Ukraine is dire. Obama and his nation are not comprehending the magnitude of this problem.
“does this dress make my hypocrisy look big?”
Hilarious line. I voted #3. “You look great, honey.”
I’m voting for #5 this week.
So sad that some of the Arizona cartoons didn’t make it in (other than the one).
Can’t vote for one this week – we need a ‘none of the above’ option!
#5
I don’t see eye to eye on anything with Obama either.
LL :(
Religious liberty? You call ostracizing a segment of the population based on orientation “religious liberty”?
You know what totally sounds like Jesus? Refusing to associate with people because they are “sinners” and denying them goods and services. Oh wait, that sounds like the opposite of the Jesus I’ve read about in the Bible. I’m pretty sure that Jesus would be ashamed of you pathetic people who think it’s okay to deny people service or shun people or their sexual orientation.
I’m really trying not to dislike conservative Christians in general but you guys make it so dang hard.
That came out angrier than it should have, sorry.
I wish, for once, people could try to put themselves in other people shoes. Your religion is a legally protected class at the federal level, you can’t be fired or denied housing, food, or other services for what you choose to worship. Why would you deny that to other people? I really think that sounds like the opposite of something Jesus would do. I think he loves LGBT people as much.
DLPL – the argument goes that supplying goods for something like a gay wedding is equal to supporting it.
I don’t buy that argument, but that’s the argument.
Whatever Ex, the language of the law made it so it would be legal and fine to deny people services simply on being gay, not just for services directly relating to gay marriage or adoption. So I guess LGBT people shouldn’t be allowed to eat or rent an apartment if other people don’t like them. That’s so Christian.
And these law makers are sneaky about it too. They know that since Christianity (and all religion) is protected legally at the federal level, they could make a law looking like it’s equally against everyone, but really it’s targeted at LGBT people because religious people will be protected by federal law from being denied services, that trumps state. LGBT people have no such protections.
This is why I don’t buy it when some Christians claim to “love” me. “Oh we love you Jack, we just want to make it legal to legally make it so if you’re in a really religious area, you might not be able to find an apartment or a place to shop for food! Such love we have for all people!”
Agreed – I thought it was a BS law. I actually had hoped it would get signed because I think it would have created a nationwide backlash that the country needed to get over this last hump. Very, very interested to see what happens to the similar bills in other states, and what happens to the AZ politicians who supported it.
Well, I doubt anything will happen to the AZ politicians. It’s Arizona, you can encode racial profiling into law and keep your job. I know the similar bill in Kansas didn’t get anywhere, but I’m worried about other southern states. I can see it passing in some of them. I just don’t understand how they can read the same Bible I do and get that Jesus would want this. I don’t get it at all.
I’ll take an honest bigot over a hypocritical one any day. What I’m sick is the talking out of both sides of their mouths from this certain type of Christian. Stop pretending to love non-heterosexuals, just go the WBC route and admit you want them ostracized and punished. Just start introducing bills like Uganda and Russia and stop pretending it’s about anything other than ridding your perfect society of having to interact with those who you find disgusting. Good thing these people are a small minority of people.
When people are blinded by anger, they can’t see the love.
Pouring an alcoholic’s stash of liquor down a drain is a loving thing to do, but the addict does not appreciate this discipline.
The Arizona law, I am told, was written poorly. It allowed anyone to reject homosexuals for any purpose — denying jobs, housing, food service, entertainment, everything. This is not justice… All people deserve to have life, jobs, housing, healthcare, and freedom. Only genuine bigots and eugenicists could desire to deprive anyone of these things. This is the arena of pro-aborts, not pro-lifers.
What we need is a very narrowly written law, one that protects people of conscience from being punished for refusing to serve at religious ceremonies and secular facsimiles (like wedding parties) that offend the conscience of the service provider.
Jack – I know. I hear you. I lose sleep over this stuff. But I’m inclined to believe, especially lately, that these are the last gasps of a pathetic, desperate, reactionary minority. They are losing and they know it, and these insane and completely unconstitutional bills are the last stand. Maybe its overly optimistic of me, but I have to believe it. And I will be having a lot, and I mean a LOT of conversations about this when I’m in Uganda in a couple of weeks – its all I can do.
“When people are blinded by anger, they can’t see the love.”
There’s no love in telling consenting adults what they can and cannot do in their own lives when it’s not harming non-consenting parties. Tell them you think it’s a sin if you must, but this crap like allowing them to be fired for simply being gay or trying to bring back sodomy laws and such is simply un-American. Don’t blame LGBT people for being angry when all we want is legal protection like Christians get. You can’t legally be fired for being a Christian, your choice of religion is a protected class and the federal class, if you get fired for your religion you can sue. In the majority of states it’s perfectly legal to fire people for being LGBT. This is why people are angry, not because you think homosexual behavior is a sin.
“This is the arena of pro-aborts, not pro-lifers.”
Except that it’s “pro-lifers” (i.e. extremely conservative Christians, not necessarily those who are active in the pro-life movement but definitely those who support this AZ law are anti-abortion) who supported and funded and got this law passed in the legislature. I’m tired of this No True Scotsman stuff. I’m actually a pro-lifer, and I’m sick of those in my own movement supporting this stuff while their fellow travelers say that they don’t support it. People just need to admit there’s a huge problem with discrimination and hate towards LGBT people in conservative Christian circles and y’all that don’t support that kind of stuff should start speaking out against it in your churches and when these laws show up. Because I don’t buy that most of you are against it like you claim. There’s too much silence and tacit support from the rest of you when people do things like this. It makes Christians really difficult for LGBT people to trust and it affects pro-life work because it keeps LGBT people and their supporters from participating in the movement. It really does feel like many of you see us as less than human and deserving of ostracizing and punishment. About a month ago at church I had the pleasure of sitting through a sermon about how LGBT people were “infiltrating” churches all over the country. I’m not sure if they mean that people were trying to make homosexual behavior seem like it’s not a sin, or if they were talking like LGBT people shouldn’t be allowed to go to church, but it certainly doesn’t seem welcoming.
“What we need is a very narrowly written law, one that protects people of conscience from being punished for refusing to serve at religious ceremonies and secular facsimiles (like wedding parties) that offend the conscience of the service provider.”
All right, I’m fine with that. As long as it’s legal to refuse to serve a Christian wedding if you’re a Muslim or something. Fair is fair. What I usually see when people say that they want these type of laws is that they just want Christians protected, not those who are opposed to Christianity for whatever reason. No true American should support unequal laws.
“And I will be having a lot, and I mean a LOT of conversations about this when I’m in Uganda in a couple of weeks – its all I can do.”
Be really careful if you’re going to speak in pro-LGBT terms down there. People have been seriously hurt doing that. :( I really hope that it does some good though.
And of course it was American evangelicals who helped fuel the anti-gay laws in Uganda, and I haven’t heard many Christians over here speak out about throwing people in prison for the crime of being openly gay. This is why it’s hard for me to buy that Christianity is all that loving, though I do try.
I actually got fired for being a Christian, once upon a time. Well, reprimanded and forced to quit. I offered to give the wrong person a Miraculous Medal. I was never told who complained about me.
But I share your righteous anger: No one should be persecuted for having a confusing set of sexual attractions (as long as no children are put at risk).
Just as no one should be forced to pretend that the unnatural is natural. Or that drunk is just as good as sober, perhaps better.
Trouble is: There aren’t any people who want to persecute LGBTQ people. No one wants to bring back anti-sodomy laws or imprisonment in concentration camps. I am told that the folks who supported this law just wanted to protect innocent people from being enslaved into violating their consciences. No one wrote letters to the editor or ran election ads about the joys of persecuting gays. The law was quickly deleted when it became clear that it failed to protect innocent persons, and could be used to oppress innocent persons.
It is time to lose the persecution complex. LGBT activists have won full civil rights and even special rights above those of average citizens.
Somehow, you are going to tell me that I am being hateful for saying this. Please, don’t.
“No one wants to bring back anti-sodomy laws”
Really? Facts beg to differ.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-sen-garretts-revision-of-anti-sodomy-law-advances-he-denies-anti-gay-motivation/2014/01/15/e7c8d4f0-7d72-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/14/virginia-anti-sodomy-bill-could-punish-consenting-teens/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/anti-sodomy-laws/
So Jack. What are we (Bible-believing Christians) supposed to do with God’s Word? Homosexuality as sin is not something we made up.
“I actually got fired for being a Christian, once upon a time. Well, reprimanded and forced to quit. I offered to give the wrong person a Miraculous Medal. I was never told who complained about me.”
Then sue if you’re so inclined. Unlike me, you actually have legal protections for what you are (even though you choose Christianity, and I don’t choose my sexual orientation). If I get fired for being bisexual I have no legal recourse in most states, you have legal recourse in all states. Don’t tell me I have privileges you don’t when the opposite is true.
“Just as no one should be forced to pretend that the unnatural is natural. Or that drunk is just as good as sober, perhaps better.”
We’re not unnatural. Being LGBT is not bad in itself, even if the behavior is a sin. There’s nothing more natural about your heterosexuality than anyone else’s sexual orientation. Unless you think God made a mistake in making me, then you can’t really call me unnatural. You really think telling people they are unnatural is loving?
“There aren’t any people who want to persecute LGBTQ people. No one wants to bring back anti-sodomy laws or imprisonment in concentration camps. I am told that the folks who supported this law just wanted to protect innocent people from being enslaved into violating their consciences.”
You’re being lied to, or you’re willfully ignorant. Amanda posted some resources for you to peruse about how people are attempting to bring back anti-sodomy laws. And like I said it’s still legal to fire people for sexual orientation in the majority of states, and there are no federal protections for us to keep our jobs. Also, LGBT youth are disproportionately homeless because of “Christian” parents kicking them out of their homes because they can’t love a gay or bisexual kid: http://homeless.samhsa.gov/Resource/Supporting-LGBT-Youth-and-Their-Families-The-Family-Acceptance-Project-46133.aspx. American Evangelicals are going to African countries to pass anti-gay laws to criminalize and throw in jail people for being openly gay: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/us/ugandan-gay-rights-group-sues-scott-lively-an-american-evangelist.html?_r=1&. People are tearing kids away from their biological parents for being in a gay relationship: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/judge_tells_lesbian_couple_to_separate_or_lose_kids/.
Why don’t you care about these people Del? Why are you either being willfully ignorant about the reality or just approving of the disgraceful way your country is treating a segment of society you claim to love? Don’t you know gay and bisexual teen boys commit suicide at four times the heterosexual boys do? Why do Christians oppose anti-bullying measures against LGBT youth in school? Do you know when I was fifteen I was dragged in front of my entire church to confess to “homosexual behavior ” (which was actually them blaming me for being sexually abused). Do you consider me loved and lucky for that? Was that LGBT privilege to be traumatized like that?
“The law was quickly deleted when it became clear that it failed to protect innocent persons, and could be used to oppress innocent persons. ”
Why are you lying? It passed. The only reason it’s not law is because it was vetoed.
LGBT people have no “special rights”. We actually, as I’ve shown you with proof, have less rights than you.
“So Jack. What are we (Bible-believing Christians) supposed to do with God’s Word? Homosexuality as sin is not something we made up. ”
Where have I ever, in my life, said it’s wrong to say homosexuality is a sin? That’s literally never what I’ve complained about, ever. All I want is the same legal rights to not be fired, have somewhere to live, and have the same legal protections that you do. I don’t have that for something I cannot help, and your fellow travelers that none of you will bother calling out are forever trying to restrict the rights LGBT have to live their lives even more. That’s not “loving”, that’s not “Christ-like”. That’s nothing other than vicious bigotry.
Oh, another discrimination that is important. The Federal Fair Housing Act protects you all from getting evicted because of your religion, or any of us for our race, national origin, having children, etc. Those things are federally protected from unfair eviction or renting practices. But if someone finds out I’m not straight they can legally evict me and my children and there’s nothing I can do about that. They cannot do that to you for being heterosexual, or Christian, or white, or anything like that. Tell me again about how LGBT people have “special rights”. Name them if you’re so certain we have rights.
Or go complain that some Christian song didn’t get an Oscar nomination or whatever. That’s true discrimination!
Here are the states you can be fired for being gay: http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-you-can-be-fired-for-being-gay-2013-4
States where you can be evicted for being gay: http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/housing_non_discrimination_laws
Keep in mind there are no federal laws protecting gay people from evictions or firings on basis of sexual orientation, so an evicted or fired LGBT person who lives in a state where it’s legal to fire or evict over sexuality has no appeals, no federal recourse. Unlike you, Del, if you were so inclined you can sue over that firing (though if you decided to quit instead of filing for a hostile work environment, I doubt you have legal recourse anymore). Your religious status is protected, even though it’s a choice. My sexual orientation status is not protected, even though it’s not a choice. And some Christians seemed determined to make it even more legally able to discriminate against LGBT people for various things.
How can you honestly, really think that LGBT people have “special rights” when we don’t even have the legal rights you have?
No shirts, no shoes, no service. Oops, can’t do that. Who are we to criticize a life choice? All you black bakers must decorate a cake for a KKK group saying “Whites are the only human race”. You gay bakers must wish a Happy Birthday to Fred Phelps.
There should be some kind of line between selling to the GENERAL public and being forced to contract - collaborate – with a party you do not wish to work with. Freedom of association must include freedom to not associate.
Just as no one should be forced to pretend that the unnatural is natural. – as long as you are factual about what is natural and what is unnatural.
LGBT activists have won full civil rights and even special rights above those of average citizens. – oh yes, please explain what these ‘special rights above those of average citizens are’.
Just as I suspected, people are going to focus on the possibility it might be legal to sue for denial of services in a couple of states (Colorado and New Mexico, off the top of my head) and are going to completely ignore the multiple discriminations I’ve pointed out.
Do you guys care, at all, if parents get fired or become homeless because of their orientation? Do you care at all about kids being kicked out of their homes and ending up on the street. Do you care about a fifteen year old terrified kid getting pulled in front of an entire congregation to take the blame for getting raped? Or are Oscar nominations really that much more important?
We’ve had marriage around for decades upon decades.
Can somebody post an article of a bakery that refused to sell a cake to somebody who was marrying somebody off of a divorce?
What about a couple who was living together before they were married?
Links please?
“So Jack. What are we (Bible-believing Christians) supposed to do with God’s Word? Homosexuality as sin is not something we made up. ”
The Bible was written by people, sometimes by prejudiced people, sometimes by people who were not who they claimed to be. There is no proof there’s any “divine inspiration” behind it.
Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors — a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that — that the Bible actually contains lies?
Most people wouldn’t put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.
Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books “pseudepigrapha.”
You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It’s the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means “writing that is inscribed with a lie.”
And that’s what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere — except for our friends among the fundamentalists — will tell you that there is no way on God’s green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you’ll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn’t. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.
The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul’s name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi — lies.
This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don’t depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that — he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul’s name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).
Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history’s great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.
It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the “Paul” of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as “the word of truth” (1:13); he indicates that the “truth is in Jesus”; he tells his readers to “speak the truth” to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to “fasten the belt of truth around your waist” (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.
It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.
Deluded LGBT’r,
Do you think a Christian baker should be forced to bake a wedding cake for homosexual wedding services.
I already answered that question, a million times at least on this blog alone.
Hans: All you black bakers must decorate a cake for a KKK group saying “Whites are the only human race”. You gay bakers must wish a Happy Birthday to Fred Phelps.
Hans, on a situational basis, it may well matter what is requested to be put on a cake, and there are already “hate speech” provisions in the law forbidding such, let alone that an opposing group would be forced to go along.
That’s a far cry from a unilateral declaration that “we’re not going to serve” those who we are prejudiced against, on religious grounds.
Doug,
Whatabout your thoughts? Should a Christian be forced to bake weddinng cakes for homosexual services?
A florist, a bakery, a hobby store, these are not religious businesses. If you don’t like the customers who make your business a success and generate your income, do something else.
I have customers who are very religious. What they do in their own lives has no impact on me so why would I refuse to provide services to them. Having a gay customer is no different for a religious store owner.
truthseeker, do you care about people getting fired and evicted for the mere fact of their sexual orientation? Do you give a crap about the hugely disproportionate amount of homeless gay and bi kids who’s loving parents kicked them out because they couldn’t accept them? Or are wedding cakes and Oscar nominations the only important discrimination issues in the US today?
You are aware aren’t you truthseeker, that a lot of the pressure to veto came from businesses?
They cited the negative economic impacts of becoming known as the hate-state.
“Do you care about a fifteen year old terrified kid getting pulled in front of an entire congregation to take the blame for getting raped?”
Of course we do Deluded One. In our eyes that doesn’t happen at Christian ‘congregations’ it only happens at cults where adults perverts cover for one another. And I would like to ask you a serious question. Would it bring you any healing or sense of peace if the people responsible for your unjust subjegation were brought out into the public for their complicency in your unjust beration.
Reality and Deluded one. Great non-answers. How many questions do you typically pose prior to getting around to giving a person a direct answer.
No, I don’t feel the need to berate or punish any of them.The only thing that would bring me healing or peace is to make sure that the same attitudes and social stigmas that created the kind of people who will look the other way when stuff like that happens to a kid, just because he/she isn’t straight, are no longer perpetrated.
If you allow businesses to refuse to serve people on the basis of their sexuality then you also need to allow them to refuse to serve people on the basis of their race, their brand of religion, physical impairments or even which sports team they support.
Otherwise it’s discrimination!
I’ve already told you truthseeker. I don’t have a problem with laws about people not providing services they disagree with, I just don’t want people discriminated for what they are. Like, I wouldn’t expect an atheist baker to cater a Christian wedding but I would expect they deserve to be sued if they refused to serve someone just for being Christian. I’ve thought about it and it seems to be the only way to respect everyone’s rights.
I’m not going to answer that particular question anymore because I’ve seriously told you a million times what I think about that.
Truthseeker: What about your thoughts? Should a Christian be forced to bake wedding cakes for homosexual services?
TS, not if he’s a butcher or a candlestick-maker, but otherwise, yeah – if he’s in business as a baker, it’s none of his business. You can’t legally discriminate against gay people anymore than you can against people with different skin colors or with red hair (even though it is said by some that, “Gingers have no souls”).
DLP-lifer: I guess I have to take back my previous assertions: There is still a great deal of anger toward TLBG activists, as evidenced by truthseeker here. And when there is anger in the culture, there will be irrational backlash and persecutions.
This sexual politics is really not a passion or concern of mine, so I spoke beyond what I know. For this, I apologize.
Personally, I am not concerned about the private sins of consenting adults, as long as no innocent persons are being harmed. They can smoke pot, or play at adultery, or indulge in homosex or fornication, or worship little idols. It makes no difference to me.
But there is a grave disease in our culture when certain sins become celebrated as mandatory goods. Forcing contraception on the culture, allowing easy divorce, killing children by abortion, and sanctioning unnatural relationships as equivalent to natural marriage — these will be the death of our culture in a few generations. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we have to strive against these things.
A baker who happened to be christian – or anyone who may wish to practice anti-gay discrimination – should not be permitted to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple.
Nor should people be allowed to refuse service based on factors such as race.
Do you think people should be permitted to refuse service based on race truthseeker?
What about doctors and nurses, should they be allowed to refuse service to gay folk?
Contraception, divorce, abortion and gay marriage (which is not an unnatural relationship) are not mandatory or forced on anyone Del. So why say so?
Don’t wanna do them? Then don’t. See, it’s easy.
“This sexual politics is really not a passion or concern of mine, so I spoke beyond what I know. For this, I apologize.”
Well I accept your apology, and I’m sorry I tend to be overly broad and overly angry in these conversations. This stuff did quite literally help ruin my entire childhood and even as an adult I always worry, so I can’t quite discuss it dispassionately as I want to. I don’t understand why you always respond to me if you don’t care about the subject though.
And excepting abortion (which should be illegal), you simply can’t hope that discriminating against and degrading LGBT people will magically make homosexual behavior disappear. It’s never worked in the past, it won’t work now. We all have to live in the same country and removing a certain segment’s right to work and have somewhere to live and all that isn’t saying that you agree with what the person is doing, it’s just being a decent human. I mean, we’re really all supposed to be equal here. There’s no valid reason y’all should have more rights than me or anyone else.
Why won’t you ever answer my questions truthseeker? Do you think it’s okay to fire someone or evict them just for being gay?
Jack - In discussing this lunacy the other night, my friends and I came up with a pitch for a reality show where those screeching about gay marriage with Bible verses have to live by all the laws of Leviticus or which ever book they’ve taken their anti gay stance from. It would actually be hilarious, if it wouldn’t need to involve things like enforcing the death penalty on non-virgins. :P
Evangelical Christians and gay rights activists have one thing in common: Neither understand what Natural Law is.
The Bible Christians do not understand why Leviticus and St. Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians offer condemnations of homosexual acts. They don’t understand why Jesus forbids divorce & remarriage. Or if they understand it, they don’t explain it well. And so they do not understand why something like contraception is also contrary to God’s plan for human love and marriage. God has a reason for every commandment.
Likewise, the homosexual activists do not understand why their naturally occurring temptations are contrary to human nature. They insist that it should be “equal” to do whatever they want to do, because human nature demands that heterosexual couples must join together in covenant marriage. They fail to explain how and why homosexual marriage will be just as necessary for our society.
It is a common mistake nowadays to misunderstand human nature. From ancient pagan times until a few generations ago, we were all a lot smarter about human anthropology. It is only in this era of widespread ignorance that we imagine ourselves able to sustain a culture that permits legal abortion, epidemic divorce, and same-sex marriage.
To be “fair” in this age of ignorance, we should grant same-sex couples a legal status of “marriage” — because we tolerate heterosexual couples who cohabit, divorce, remarry, and use contraception. In short, our society has forgotten what true marriage really means — so it is unfair to suddenly remember the meaning of marriage only when we consider same-sex couples.
And it is never justice to deny basic human rights to anyone — employment, housing, equal protection under the law, privacy, life and liberty, etc. Everyone is entitled (by God!) to an equal opportunity to these. A just society cannot deny these rights to people for living a sinful life, whatever their vice may be.
The Bible Christians do not understand why Leviticus and St. Paul’s…..why Jesus forbids divorce & remarriage. Or if they understand it, they don’t explain it well…..something like contraception is also contrary to God’s plan…..God has a reason for every commandment. – it’s really quite simple. People pick and choose, ignore and adhere to, the bits that suit their tastes, preferences, biases and prejudices. Always have, still do.
Likewise, the homosexual activists do not understand why their naturally occurring temptations are contrary to human nature. – it simply isn’t. Claiming it is contrary to human nature is the misunderstanding.
It is a common mistake nowadays to misunderstand human nature. – I see a lot of that happening :-)
From ancient pagan times until a few generations ago, we were all a lot smarter about human anthropology. – I don’t think so! I think what you mean is that you don’t like what anthropologists have enunciated in recent generations. The recent era in which more detail and accuracy has been achieved.
we should grant same-sex couples a legal status of “marriage” — because we tolerate heterosexual couples who cohabit, divorce, remarry, and use contraception. – sounds like a certain mindset is rapidly diminishing doesn’t it.
our society has forgotten what true marriage really means – whose idea of ‘real marriage’? Which culture? Which era? Or do you just mean yours?
So you are saying you won’t oppose same-sex marriage?
Deluded Lib Pro-lifer says:
March 2, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Del wrote: “This sexual politics is really not a passion or concern of mine, so I spoke beyond what I know. For this, I apologize.”
… I don’t understand why you always respond to me if you don’t care about the subject though.
I care quite a bit about the topic — I’m just not concerned much about the politics of sexual orientation. In my post above, I tried to explain that both sides of the sexual politics debate are insane. Neither side is playing with a full deck. A sane philosophy of human nature is missing from the discussion.
Our schools do not teach natural philosophy to our children, because that would mean encouraging certain behaviors and condemning others. Do don’t expect any sanity soon. Do expect more “Gay-Straight Alliance” and similar fads.
Del, the purpose of Gay-Straight Alliance groups is to make sure gay students are not bullied, humiliated, physically abused, and driven towards self harm and suicide. And its a way for straight students to say “this is not ok, and we’re going to stand up WITH you”. Based on your previous post, your own words, I don’t see what you’d have against more GSAs existing.
And its no fad. I was part of my high schools very first GSA as a freshman in 1997. There were 8 of us then. Almost 18 years later, they need to meet in the cafeteria because there are too many members to fit in a classroom.
Homosexual acts are sins.
Unloving acts are sins.
Amanda: How large is the school’s Purity and Chastity club?
Does the school have a Christian Charity club?
How about the school’s Students For Life club?
How about the school’s clubs for “protecting the environment” and PETA and such?
Expect more politically correct fads. People who are steering the culture toward their enthusiasms are in control.
Do not expect a restoration of the traditional values that built and sustained Western culture. What used to be the common sense of our culture is now called “bullying.”
No, beating the crap out of a 14 year old kid because he has an effeminate voice and having it dismissed for years as “boys being boys” is, and always has been bullying. 15 year old girls having dildos stuck to their lockers because they have short hair and wear boys jeans and having it dismissed because school administrators are too squeamish to deal with the topic of female sexuality is, and always has been bullying. That kind of behavior is what led to GSAs, and until that behavior ends, there will always be a need for them in our school systems to protect our peers.
Let me try to be more clear and straight-forward, Amanda:
Real bullying has always been a problem. I am very glad to see that schools are finally addressing the issue and teaching against bullying.
But the “Gay-Straight Alliance” puts sexual activity ahead of civil behavior. The reason that GSA has grown is in the last few decades is because teens are encouraged to more and earlier sexual activity.
Our kids don’t need a Gay-Straight Alliance club. They need an Alliance Against Bullying club. The only reason that there is a GSA club is because adults are politicizing what should be private sexual behavior, and they are pushing this attitude onto our kids.
It is the worst sort of indoctrination, because it undermines the message that parents want to give to our kids for their safety and happiness.
GSA says that teens need to encouraging and accepting of all variety of sexual orientations…. When parents are saying that our teens should not be engaging in sexual activities until they are mature enough to handle the responsibilities of marriage and children.
Planned Parenthood supports Gay-Straight Alliance. That should be a big red flag, right there. GSA sounds good, but it is not good for our kids. They need an Alliance Against Bullies…. something that teaches civil behavior without the subtle indoctrination of sexual politics.
Neither side is playing with a full deck. – I disagree. Those who recognise the science of sexual orientation are dealing in facts, therefore using a full deck.
A sane philosophy of human nature is missing from the discussion. – I agree, that’s why I try to help.
Our schools do not teach natural philosophy to our children, because that would mean encouraging certain behaviors and condemning others. – what is ‘natural philosophy’? Whose version? Based on what?
Do don’t expect any sanity soon. Do expect more “Gay-Straight Alliance” and similar fads. – sounds like you do have a position on the politics of it all. And the ‘gay-straight alliance’ is not a fad.
Homosexual acts are sins. – well, some people do believe that. And those people don’t have to commit homosexual acts if they don’t want to. So there’s no problem.
Expect more politically correct fads. – what’s wrong with politically correct anyway. Sounds positive to me.
People who are steering the culture toward their enthusiasms are in control. – what you really mean is that people steering the culture towards your enthusiams are reducing in number and losing control.
Do not expect a restoration of the traditional values that built and sustained Western culture. – which ones? From which era? Whose version? Which western culture?
What used to be the common sense of our culture is now called “bullying.” – that says so, so much. Making people suffer because of your beliefs is ‘common sense’ rather than bullying. Rich.
But the “Gay-Straight Alliance” puts sexual activity ahead of civil behavior. – wrong. It is active in regard to quelling bigoted and discriminatory civil behavior. It doesn’t focus on ‘how to’ lessons.
It is the worst sort of indoctrination, – oh no it’s not.
GSA says that teens need to encouraging and accepting of all variety of sexual orientations…. – no, not ‘encouraging’, supporting the truth. Yes, accepting. Otherwise it becomes bullying.
When parents are saying that our teens should not be engaging in sexual activities until they are mature enough – yes. Which is why the GSA isn’t telling teens to go out and do it.
to handle the responsibilities of marriage and children. – not necessarily all parents.
They need an Alliance Against Bullies…. something that teaches civil behavior without the subtle indoctrination of sexual politics. – an alliance against bullies would need to tackle the less than subtle indoctrination attempted by an outdated and unjustified version of sexual politics :-)
I was a member of the GSA for all 4 years of high school and all 4 years of college. While some members vented about relationships, and sex was sometimes included in those discussions – it was discussed equally as often or less often as other controversial topics such as… music, grades, crappy teachers, great teachers, food, clothes, celebrities, jobs, friends, parents, and other things that make up LIFE. Never once, in 8 years of attending GSA meetings, was I given lessons or tutorials on anything involving sex, or encouragement to experiment with the same sex, or even to have it at all.
I have a feeling, Del, that out of the 2 of us, only one is actually speaking from experience when they write about what being part of a GSA means.
Reality says:
………
Why do you read our posts?
We don’t read yours….
You mightn’t, others do.
For those referring to The Bible. King James of Bible fame was gay.
Do we get the specific background on every person we serve or care for? My colleagues and I had to care for a child molester who had been in the news. Should we have refused? Was it my option to refuse to care for the worst prisoners in the state when they came to the hospital in need of care?
Amanda says:
March 3, 2014 at 12:10 am
I have a feeling, Del, that out of the 2 of us, only one is actually speaking from experience when they write about what being part of a GSA means.
You are a lot younger than me. I was done with school long before this sort of sexual license was prevalent in our public schools. Nobody had an “orientation” when I was in high school…. that concept wasn’t invented until sometime in the ’80’s, as I recall.
You still make it sound like the whole experience was framed in an atmosphere that expects youths to act out their sexual desires.
I grew up in an atmosphere that expected youths to maintain virginity and respect the purity of others.
Of course, they didn’t indoctrinate you in permissive sexual ethics. But they didn’t talk to you about self-control, either. I’m wondering when the poison was added to the silence.
The last cartoon sums it up. Obama in no match for Putin.
Del you went to school with people who weren’t straight. Unless you think all the gay men and lesbians your age just randomly turned gay later in life you have to understand they were gay in school with you too. It’s touching you long for the days where people were required to hate and hide themselves, but that’s not how people want to live anymore. No one should have to pretend they aren’t who they are just to be safe.
I was done with school long before this sort of sexual license was prevalent in our public schools. – it shows. ‘sexual license’? Really? You mean ‘truth’.
Nobody had an “orientation” when I was in high school…. – yes they did, they were just too scared to admit it out of fear of being ostracized and bullied. Beaten and even killed.
that concept wasn’t invented until sometime in the ’80?s, as I recall. – it’s been around as long as humans have. It was just too dangerous for people to express it.
Deluded Lib Pro-lifer says:
March 3, 2014 at 12:40 am
Del you went to school with people who weren’t straight. Unless you think all the gay men and lesbians your age just randomly turned gay later in life you have to understand they were gay in school with you too. It’s touching you long for the days where people were required to hate and hide themselves, but that’s not how people want to live anymore. No one should have to pretend they aren’t who they are just to be safe.
Everybody I went to high school with knew that we were in high school, and that we were not supposed to be sexually active until we were older and ready.
Some of us were sexually active, but we knew we were wrong to do so and we hid our shame. The good part is that we didn’t have to worry about an “orientation.”
It was difficult growing up, then as now. I’d like to think it was much safer then.
Since those days, Planned Parenthood has worked diligently to encourage more “openness” about sexuality in our schools. They know that when there is open sex education, there is a great increase in teenage sexual activity. They keep pushing for more explicit education and at younger ages. More sex means more pregnancies and more abortions.
The GSA movement, well-intentioned and established by good people, is just a tool for the more open sexual environment that PP desires.
Seriously… all you young posters: Why is the Gay-Straight Alliance larger than the Purity and Abstinence Alliance? Why isn’t there just a large Anti-Bullying Alliance that encourages confident kids to assist the handicapped and socially awkward and learning disabled and athletically challenged and the effeminate/butch students equally?
Am I the only one who sees that there is a hidden political agenda to the GSA group? Why Gay-Straight? Why not a Gay-Christian Alliance? If it really is about stopping bullies and encouraging good behaviors… and not just an environment that is easy about sexual license.
Check out Amazon for the book “Queers in History”. Fascinating. Kings, conquerors, great military minds, performers, artists, poets, inventors, writers, popes, clergy, saints, social crusaders….all bisexual and/or gay. Susan B. Anthony? gay. Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote the book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” exposing the evils of slavery? The child of a bisexual minister. Apparently gay/bisexual people have long been parenting.
Oh and the Great Emancipator himself, Abraham Lincoln? Very possibly bisexual.
LGBT have been part of the fabric of human history since creation. Sorry folks, it is what it is. They have changed the course of history, struggled for social justice, and influenced the arts and sciences.
I am convinced LGBT is not a choice, it is inborn. Just as talents, abilities, and interests can’t be forced on people, neither can sexual preference.
“It was difficult growing up, then as now. I’d like to think it was much safer then.”
It was probably about equal amounts of safe for people like you. Much, much less safe for people like me.
“Why not a Gay-Christian Alliance? If it really is about stopping bullies and encouraging good behaviors…”
Be honest, you parents wouldn’t let your kids join such a thing. You’ve got to be disingenuous here.
I didn’t go to high school so I can’t tell you about “Purity” clubs but I do know that the students in the schools near where I used to live were released for Bible classes during the school day if their parents approved. There were also student Christian clubs and such. You keep acting like there’s some type of conspiracy, when that’s not true. Nobody is stopping you and other parents from having your teens start or join these clubs and get membership. Those type of clubs exist everywhere! You only see what you want to see.
And I didn’t go to high school, but I did grow up in an exceedingly conservative “Christian” church and town. There was nothing safe and certainly nothing about actual purity there. There certainly was a lot of degradation and bullying though.
The good part is that we didn’t have to worry about an “orientation.” – some did. And they were very worried about it. Because of the ignorant or bigoted attitudes of others. And the threats and delivery of violence.
Planned Parenthood has worked diligently to encourage more “openness” about sexuality in our schools. They know that when there is open sex education, there is a great increase in teenage sexual activity. – no, they do so because it engenders a more knowledgable and understanding society rather than the hypocrisy, hatred and bigotry which was previously so widespread.
The GSA movement, well-intentioned and established by good people, is just a tool for the more open sexual environment that PP desires. – open, safe and equal are the words.
Why is the Gay-Straight Alliance larger than the Purity and Abstinence Alliance? – because people’s decision regarding purity and abstinence still places them at less risk of violence, abuse and discrimination than being LGBT does.
Why not a Gay-Christian Alliance? – would you participate? What activities, discussions etc. do you think such should include?
If it really is about stopping bullies and encouraging good behaviors… and not just an environment that is easy about sexual license. – this sounds like faux naivety.
“For those referring to The Bible. King James of Bible fame was gay.”
King James commissioned a translation of the Bible. I have no idea what you think that means.
Mary & Jack ~ There is no shortage of people who call themselves Christians who are not, and an almost infinite supply of sinful Christians. Both sorts are well documented in the Bible, along with how Jesus deals with them.
I’m just frustrated with all this Lifejoy. Anti-bullying groups are bad if they reach out to gay kids in a way that some Christians don’t personally approve of, apparently. It’s not enough for actually acting out the behavior to be wrong, you also have to cheerfully accept that you’re unnatural and whatever else.
‘
There’s a concept that if people can’t meet expectations that are unrealistically high they will just end up giving up. That’s why you often have children with perfectionist parents end up becoming slackers and alcoholics. That’s basically how I see a lot of Christians treat gays. The basic gist is that you’re expected to put up with about twice the crap that “normal” sinners do, and then still a portion see you as lesser anyway. I don’t know why everyone expects people to just cheerfully accept they are some perverse aberration of nature and second class citizen, I think that’s a pretty ridiculous expectation. All you get out of that is people who hate themselves.
Hi Lifejoy,
That King James, of The King James Bible, was gay. Susan B. Anthony, crusader for women’s rights, staunch opponent of abortion, and heroine of pro life feminists today, was gay. Michaelangelo who painted the Sistine Chapel and chiseled the statue, The Pieta….gay. Were you taught to sing “America the Beautiful” as a schoolchild? That was written by a gay woman.
“There is still a great deal of anger toward TLBG activists, as evidenced by truthseeker here.”
Del, I am seriously interested in knowing what part of my post showed you that there is still a great deal of anger towards LGBT activisits?”
“I’ve already told you truthseeker. I don’t have a problem with laws about people not providing services they disagree with, I just don’t want people discriminated for what they are. Like, I wouldn’t expect an atheist baker to cater a Christian wedding but I would expect they deserve to be sued if they refused to serve someone just for being Christian. I’ve thought about it and it seems to be the only way to respect everyone’s rights.”
” I’m not going to answer that particular question anymore because I’ve seriously told you a million times what I think about that”
It doesn’t make any sense the millionth time either so we can just leave it alone.
“Hans, on a situational basis, it may well matter what is requested to be put on a cake, and there are already “hate speech” provisions in the law forbidding such, let alone that an opposing group would be forced to go along.”
Doug, you must live in a cave cause the hate speech or not the KKK gets legal permits to march through Jewish neighborhoods all the time and goofs like you would have them making HItler cakes and painting swastikas on their murals. You are nuts.
People in the US should worry a lot more about individual freedoms and less about the “group fairness thinkology”. If I am a plumber or a provider of any other private goods and services and I don’t want to work for you then I should not be forced to. Find another plumber. Contrary to public fairness indoctrination gone amok it is Joe the plumber’s right to decide wether or not he wants to fix anybody’s pipes and it is ot the governments place to force him to fix anybody’s pipes at all. If somebody doesn’t want to bake a cake with two queers on top kissing we don’t need government remedies. There are lots of bakers and lots of people who can make cany figurines or put icing on top of a cake. But most people are more interested in forcing others to comply with their group-think then they are with coming up with simple solutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._AnthonyMary,
I didn’t dig too deeply but I didn’t find anywhere that stated Susan B Anthony was gay. I found lots of quotes from her about marriage, many seemed to be about her refusal to be ruled by a man and many about the way being a wife would distract from her work ; but none that said anything about lesbianism.
Hi ts,
I would think some of those quotes would suggest lesbianism. Its not like someone could exactly announce it back then and these may have beenthe excuses she gave for not getting married or involved with a man. Anyway according to my source she had a passionate love affair with Anna E. Dickinson, an abolitionist. In one surviving letter she invites Dickinson to join her in bed, I won’t elaborate further.
I would also point out that civil and church authorities requested Michaelangelo’s artistic services time and again, though Michaelangelo’s homosexuality was well known.
Mary, is there a relationship between hormone levels and sexual preference? And if so , then how can you be so convinced that sexual preference does not change throughout adolesence?
“I would think some of those quotes would suggest lesbianism”
Seems like a stretch unless you are one of those who define lesbianism as an orientation/mentality and not women who have sex with women.
Hi ts,
Look at the era. Its not like anyone could exactly come out and say “I’m homosexual”. Also, women were expected to marry. Anthony’s statements certainly went against the social norms of the times, and may well have been largely motivated by her lesbianism, as well as providing a cover for it. Also, I posted the other information that she was indeed romantically involved with another woman.
As far as I’m concerned its totally irrelevant. It takes nothing away from the woman’s accomplishments and legacy.
About the hormone levels. I haven’t heard of there being any relationship. I’m not convinced sexual preference doesn’t change throughout adolescence, only that kids may not be certain. We all know the teen years aren’t a happy sitcom, but very tumultuous. Emotions, hormonal changes, social awkwardness, and yes maybe even sexual confusion and experimentation may all be part of it. Also denial. To say there were no gay teachers or kids is absurd, we just didn’t know. A neighbor boy in my brother’s cub scout troop, back in the 50’s, was suspected by my mom, the den mother, and the entire neighborhood of being gay, young as he was. Everyone was right. Also his presence certainly didn’t adversely affect any of the boys.
Reading through this book, some of the world’s most accomplished people were gay or bisexual.
“Hans, on a situational basis, it may well matter what is requested to be put on a cake, and there are already “hate speech” provisions in the law forbidding such, let alone that an opposing group would be forced to go along.”
TS: Doug, you must live in a cave cause the hate speech or not the KKK gets legal permits to march through Jewish neighborhoods all the time and goofs like you would have them making HItler cakes and painting swastikas on their murals. You are nuts.
Truthseeker, I think we all can see who is nuts, here. ; )
Somebody had fears and prejudices thousands of years ago, and they wrote down stuff, and sometime in your life you internalized it. Had you been exposed to different things in that way, you’d be just as vehement in your following of those other, different things.
You are not paying attention to what Hans said. Permits for marches by controversial groups may indeed by granted, as ‘hate speech’ is not involved. If it’s not involved with causing prejudicial action against individuals or groups, or with inciting violence, then it’s not seen as hate speech.
This is why you can say pretty much anything you want, here, about gay people or anybody else, and you don’t have to worry about the law coming after you.
And of course this is not the same as denying service to somebody on the basis of race, creed, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.
truthseeker says:
March 3, 2014 at 7:33 am
Del, I am seriously interested in knowing what part of my post showed you that there is still a great deal of anger towards LGBT activisits?”
You appear to wear it on your sleeve, truth seeker. If you don’t mean to sound angry and capable of acting out violence against gays and pro-aborts, then you should pay some attention to your tone.
I worry about the tone of my posts. I come across as way to condescending. I have this message, that we all need to think more deeply. Our culture needs to stop acting so much out of emotion and desire, and regain the question of “what is the real good?”
It does not matter whether same-sex attraction is hereditary, congenital, learned, or chosen…. just as it does not matter whether alcoholism is hereditary or a learned habit. The questions are: Does this desired behavior lead to good for the person who desires it? Does widespread acceptance of this behavior lead to good for a culture that embraces it?
And this precisely the discussion that we are not having.
I’ve had gay family members going back 4 generations that I know of, but not until my aunt came out, at age 28, was it talked about. My great aunt, now in her late 70s, always had a “roommate”, and when the roommate passed away a few years ago, she moved in with her widowed sister. My great great aunt was a “spinster”,who nannied for her nieces and nephews. I have pictures of her from the 1920s, being a rebel – wearing trousers.
My cousin, at age 19, was the first who could actually talk about it without being shunned. The fact that he doesn’t need to be afraid of losing his family or being beaten is the only thing that’s new here, and it’s awfully hard to argue that not being a good thing.
When my grandmother was dying of cancer, she said her biggest regret was the 4 months she spent being uncomfortable about my aunt not living in hiding anymore and the years she spent lying about it to her church friends out of fear of their reactions. “Such a waste of my time and energy” she said.
LifeJoy says: March 2, 2014 at 11:20 pm
“Homosexual acts are sins.”
***
No they are not. It’s people being who they are, just as are heterosexual acts if you are heterosexual.
How on earth did a post about political satire get turned into this ^ ???
“I would also point out that civil and church authorities requested Michaelangelo’s artistic services time and again, though Michaelangelo’s homosexuality was well known.”
That’s because attitudes towards homosexuality varied widely in time and place, even within Christianity. That’s why I get so irritated (sorry guys) when Christians tell me that for ten bazillion years everyone completely suppressed and were against homosexuality right up until the evil Sixties. It’s demonstrably untrue.
Hi Jack,
True, and also the fact the man was an artistic genius who’s talents they had need of. You wanted the best in religious and non religious art, you knew who to call. Who cares about his sleeping arrangements?
Pamela: How on earth did a post about political satire get turned into this ^ ???
That would be #4.
“That King James, of The King James Bible, was gay. Susan B. Anthony, crusader for women’s rights, staunch opponent of abortion, and heroine of pro life feminists today, was gay. Michaelangelo who painted the Sistine Chapel and chiseled the statue, The Pieta….gay. Were you taught to sing “America the Beautiful” as a schoolchild? That was written by a gay woman.”
Yes, I get it. The fact that you think that this makes an important point makes me think you do not understand the “love in truth” Christian perspective on homosexuality. Do I think gay people can’t be geniuses, talented, loving, lovable, productive, amazing people? Do I think they are of less value or wish they weren’t alive? I truly don’t understand the point other than illustrating that you believe anyone who disapproves of homosexuality dislikes the gay person.
Jack ~ I understand your frustration. So many do not articulate it well or love all people well. I think it’s a manifestation of self-righteousness, which God detests. As for the rest of us poor slobs who just keep trying, don’t let us keep you from Him either.
No Lifejoy,
I’m trying to point out that GLBT people have long been part of the fabric of the human race. Also, homosexuality wasn’t always considered wrong, or a sin. Of course this varied from culture to culture. Their contributions to the human race and the course of history have been immeasurable.
I respect your religious perspective, I’m not trying to dissuade you. But the Westboro church, who harass families of slain soldiers, are no less convinced of the righteousness of their cause. And no I am not putting you in the same category as them.
I must admit that when the gays marched on Washington in the early 90’s, they put on public display every negative stereotype of gay people imaginable, including a “comedienne” who used the most vile language to discuss how she wanted to have sex with then First Lady Hillary Clinton. Why they would do this is beyond me, talk about giving your opponents ammunition, but I have no doubt any number of gay people were cringing in horror when they saw this. It was the equivalent of let’s say Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers making vile sexual comments or putting every imaginable racist stereotype on proud display during Civil Rights events.
At least Obama has always known that Putin deserves the benefit of the doubt should be the leader of the world.
Del, as far as I am concerned you can suppose LGBT discrimation of XYZ till your OBG prescribes you HCT and you teach somebody there ABCs. It may not matteer to you if peoiple are gay by choice or inherently predispositioned but it doesn’t mean you should infer bigotry in people who see it as a choice determined through adolesence and enviroment and emotional needs. wth not?
“It may not matteer to you if peoiple are gay by choice or inherently predispositioned but it doesn’t mean you should infer bigotry in people who see it as a choice determined through adolesence and enviroment and emotional needs.”
Lol it’s just ridiculous to think someone would choose that though. Hey, truth, go and be attracted to a guy, right now. If you can’t just make yourself attracted to men let me know.
And I’ve never got a satisfactory explanation from anyone who whines about how it’s a “choice” for why in the world anyone would choose something that they weren’t inherently disposed to and that makes the world see them so poorly.
Doug, you sound scientifical when you talk about the unsteadiness of the polar vortex caused by a change of 4 degrees Celcius in the arctic. Tell me. Could it be that events on the sun “gasp” have a far greater effect on wether the globe warms or cools than any events on the earth could ever have? Just asking for your scientific opinion cause you seemed to state it as being an undeniable certainty that we are heading into a global warming?
Diluted Lib,
Are some people inherently predisposed to abuse drugs even if the world looks on them poorly for doing it? Or what if a prostitute chooses to have gay sex just for a few bucks and gay sex is worth more per trick. Are they gay ?
Yes… Addiction propensity is understood to be heavily genetically influenced and social condemnation doesn’t seem to affect that much. You’re proving my point though
You edited your comment. Not all “gay” prostitutes are gay (and nearly all male prostitutes perform services for men because women rarely buy sex), a lot of times they are homeless young straight guys looking to feed an addiction or make money without many skills. I knew several boys like this when I was homeless. I have no idea what that is relevant to though.
What this is relevant to is that sex is a choice. All it would take to make a man attractive to another man is to have some other greater pleasure that would outweigh any of the negative connotations. For one man it might be nothing more than a ‘fix’. For another man it might be the promise of a job. For another man who was hungry enough it might take nothing more than dinner and a few drinks. On the other hand, a person couldn’t just give up being ‘black’ for a few minutes in order to get a sandwich now could they? See the difference.
Truth if you really think that you could find men sexually attractive given the right circumstances you’re not nearly as heterosexual as you think you are.
Sex acts are a choice, sure. That’s why exclusively homosexuals have gritted their teeth and gone through with marriages and had children with the opposite sex for decades in this country. Nobody denies you can force yourself to have sex if you really want to whether you find someone attractive or not. Lie back and think of England indeed. Your orientation doesn’t change though. Which is why ex-gays get caught with flings on the side so often after they are “cured”.
L0l how would your idea work with people who are bisexual? *Has sex with a woman* Yay I’m straight! *Has sex with a man* Crap, I’m gay! Lol.
Anyway truthseeker, I’m not stupid. I know the real reason behind the “it’s a choice!” mindset is because it feels pretty crappy to discriminate against people for things they can’t help, but if you convince yourself that they chose to be like this you can discriminate and judge and harass to your heart’s content and not feel bad. I’ve known people like that my entire life and I’ve completely lost any indulgence or patience with it. “You didn’t want me to punch you, you shouldn’t have been such a f***ot”. The mindset is stupid. If one thing is definitely, undeniably a choice it’s religion, but I don’t see any of you thinking it’s okay or justifiable for you to be discriminated against or treated badly for your choice to be a Christian. And I don’t think y’all should be treated unfairly either. It would be cool if the favor was returned.
btw Del, I like most of your posts. sarcasm alert…..but I’ll try not to speak too openly about it so you don’t have to worry about being associated with a hater like me who likes to spend their time bashing and plotting violence against gays and pro-aborts……sarcasm alert over.
Deluded One,
You can choose a sexual preference but you cannot choose your race. That is why I have seen many people in the civil rights movement get so perturbed when people look at preference as if it were a civil right.
Didn’t sound particularly sarcastic to me ;-)
OMG Truthseeker you can’t choose who you prefer sexually. You can choose who you bang, but that’s as far as choice goes. If you could choose I would have chosen straight 100 times out of 100 because this is not a particularly fun orientation to have, even in 2014, in the US.
You can choose a sexual preference – no you can not. This statement of yours is why what you claimed as ‘sarcasm’ doesn’t come across as such.
And “choice” has never stopped Christians from screaming about persecution so find another argument for once. Unless you want religion treated legally like you want sexual orientation treated legally, which I really really don’t think you do.
Jack, you are a male; regardless of how you mat prefer yourself to be recognized . You can proclaim any sexual preference or your religious preference choice you like. But if you tried proclaiming yourself to be a female with nuts and a shlong then people could make a good case you were incorrect. Same if you tried claiming you were Chinese; people could see scientifically that you were mistaken. Absent the scientific discovery of the gay gene then sexual preference will always be a choice.
How, in the world, did we get to transgender from discussing whether it’s inherent or not to find women or men attractive?
It shows that sexual identity is not a choice but sexual preference is a choice.
Conversation has gone to cuckoo land. Directions unclear. Self-destruction sequence begins now.
Trans issues and gay issues are similar in some ways but separate in others, it’s not really bolstering your case or mine to bring them up. And you’re not making any sense whatsoever.
Absent the scientific discovery of the gay gene then sexual preference will always be a choice. – why? So until science discovered why people had different colored hair it was simply a choice? At what age do you think people made that choice? What influenced them?
Your choice to ignore what science tells us about sexuality doesn’t excuse you repeating your incorrect assertion.
STOP editing your comments because it changes them completely!
“Absent the scientific discovery of the gay gene then sexual preference will always be a choice.”
This is utterly false. First off, there’s not even one gene that influences eye color (a relatively simple thing), so I don’t know why you think something as complicated as human sexuality would be down to one gene. I’ve long thought it’s probably genetically or biologically influenced but other factors probably influence as well. But I think that’s probably too subtle for you.
Jack – you really are a hero. No hyperbole, no exaggeration – your patience, you level-headedness, and your intelligent responses make you a hero when it comes to changing the perception of pro lifers as homophobic bigots. You may not see the difference you make when it comes to the regular commenters who butt heads with you in these discussions – but there are young people reading. People who are pushed away, repulsed, by the anti-LGBT sentiment that pervades the pro life movement will see you and see the future, or at least, a little bit of hope. You ARE making a difference. Don’t doubt it for a second. Thank you. <3
Jack, it is not utterly false. What other things do you believe, other than sexual preference being genetic, do you insist on being the truth without any scientific data?
Amanda,
I actually agree with you about the Deluded Lib. At least he speaks openly about his bi-sexual tendencies and that is the best policy for both sides of the debate and for people on both sides to hear.
Thanks Amanda. I feel like my comments come across and whiny and angry most of the time, I’m glad that someone doesn’t see them that way.
“Jack, it is not utterly false. What other things do you believe, other that sexual preference being genetic, do you insist on without any scientific data?”
Can you please copy and paste where I stated definitely that sexual attraction must be genetic? There’s evidence that it is, and there’s evidence that other factors play a role as well. Like I said, I think it’s a bit too subtle for you. You realize there’s quite a huge gulf between “caused by multiple factors, in which genetics plays a role” and “must be a choice those queers are making”.
Truthseeker…. based on your logic, autism would be a preference too. I honestly can’t even let myself believe that you actually believe what you’re writing.
The scientific information is out there. Just because you choose to ignore it or deny it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Why don’t you try to demonstrate that sexual attraction is just a choice.
Even if science hadn’t yet found why it is not a choice, that would not necessarily indicate that it is a choice.
We didn’t used to know why some folk had red hair. Would you therefore have claimed it was a choice?
Amanda I’m actually confused as well at the “the only way something isn’t chosen is if it’s genetic” thing. I don’t know where he got it.
Autism is a good analogy, it’s influenced genetically (probably, they think) but there are multiple factors there.
The scientific information demonstrating that same-sex attraction is not just a matter of choice has been provided here previously and is readily available truthseeker.
Why don’t you provide something scientific which demonstrates that it is just a matter of choice? Do it.
You remind me of the edgy new-age comedians who say stuff that is so outrageous that people don’t know whether they should laugh or groan.
Truthseeker, can you please humor me and tell me which circumstances you would be attracted to men. Not circumstances where you could see yourself having sex with a man (I really, really would rather not know), but a circumstance where Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are both hitting on you but only Brad is turning you on, to be crass. Could you choose to have no attraction to women, and genuinely get turned on by guys? If you can’t then why in God’s name do you think other people “make a choice”? I don’t get why you think that gay dudes were normal straight guys once upon a time and were like “nah” and made a willing choice to be attracted to men.
Your ilk seems to like to fall back in semantic games when faced with questions that you find difficult to debate. I used the gene analogy because it has been a popular point made by born-that-way gays in the past. I say there is no evidence of any gay gene. There is some evidence that genes can play a role in sexuality but none that point to a gay gene. Is there some other scientific discourse that you would prefer?
I give up. Everyone who claims not to be straight is actually just kidding. You’re right. ;)
Then why don’t you present some evidence that same-sex attraction is just a matter of choice truthseeker?
If you are going to ignore the scientific evidence which demonstrates that it isn’t just a matter of choice the least you could do is proffer somethingwhich demonstrates the alternative.
Or do you just get a kick out of making absurd claims?
No no, you’ve got it wrong DLPL, everyone who claims to be straight is putting up a brave front in defiance of what nature has made them :-)
Heterosexual preference is also a choice but can be over-ridden by cultural forces. In the Pashtun culture of Afghanistan they discovered an abundance of adolescents who were granted favoritism by the tribe elders for performing sexual acts with them. Had these boys been left to grow up in a more normalized culture I would guess they would have been less prone to act out homosexually. I don’t think they were born that way. Maybe you have other theories though. If so, then I’d like to hear them.
Is there evidence of a talent gene? A savant gene? A genius gene?
The human psyche is so incredibly complex leaving us with more questions than answers. All my children were born with completely different personalities that I saw from the time they were born. I knew an old OB nurse who could tell, with remarkable accuracy, what personality traits a child would have simply by observing them as newborns. Yet personality formation is still debated and old “knowledge” has been debunked. Even the “experts” can’t agree among themselves when it comes to the human mind.
I view human sexuality the same way. We don’t know. Why would anyone want to be TG? I can’t think of a more miserable existence. Yet TG people will tell you they knew from their earliest memories they were the “wrong” sex, or “different”. Gay people will tell you the same thing, they knew they were gay. That little boy in my brother’s cub scout pack already had people suspicious. Where did he learn or obtain the “desire” to be gay? He came from straight parents and an intact loving family. He lived like any other little boy.
I think human sexuality has no set boundaries and is for the most part inexplicable. I also think it is inborn. That doesn’t necessarily mean genetic. Maybe just brain wiring, my less than elaborate term for how the neurons in our brains work.
Hi ts,
These boys sound like they were selling sexual favors. When life is very difficult, and I imagine it is for them, a little favoritism can go a long way. Also tribal elders command a great deal of respect in their culture. The boys may have had little choice. I don’t know what a more “normalized culture” is, but maybe they would have been less likely to act homosexually if they had enough to eat and a roof over their head. I thinks its possible they were born straight or homosexual. I’d have no way of knowing.
Is anybody stopping Christian students from starting a Christian-gay alliance club? Are students trying to start or interested in a purity club? If no students are interested in a club does the school still have to offer that club? I know tons of people who didn’t have sex in high school, myself included, who weren’t really interested in advertising something we considered a private decision by belonging to a club about it, but if other students had wanted a club I doubt anybody would have objected. Just because students are homosexual doesn’t mean they are sexually active at that age. I also know plenty of people in college who could he seen flashing one of those purity rings on Thursday and flashing a room full of frat boys on Friday night.
So you don’t even think people are born heterosexual, truthseeker? Wow.
You’re the strangest person ever. Are you actually bisexual or something? When I was a kid and I didn’t know what was “wrong” with me I thought that everyone was equally attracted to both genders and the “good” people overcome the attraction to the same gender. I later learned that most men are never or rarely attracted to men and that I was just a little different. You remind me of my thirteen year old self, as if I grew up without figuring out it’s not common to be attracted to both lol. You’re kinda cracking me up here.
Afghanistan has a cultural issue with male sexual abuse that’s exceedingly prevalent (and hypocritical, because they seem to dislike gay men who actually like each other, but coercing adolescent boys into sex is fine apparently). It’s got little to do with “homosexual orientations” and a lot to do with “pervy guys on power trips who hate women want sex somehow”. Watch a documentary or something.
Actually watch “The dancing boys of Afghanistan” truthseeker. It goes into the problem of adolescent and even younger boys being exploited for sex by adult men in Afghanistan. It tore my heart to pieces. Like I said, it’s not got much to do with homosexuality in the US, but I think it’s important that what’s happening to those kids in Afghanistan gets international attention, because it’s literally an epidemic. That’s what you get when you force women and girls out of actual lives, men and boys gets screwed up too.
And anyway, I’ve said this a hundred times, but I’ll say it again. Male-male sexual abuse is not “homosexuality” no more than men raping women is “heterosexuality” and it seriously, personally offends me when people try to paint it as the same thing. I really wish people would cut it out. It’s victim-perpetrator conflation (for gay or bisexual victims of sexual assault) and it’s not good. And it obfuscates the issue anyway, because sexual abuse isn’t even part of the discussion when we’re talking about homosexual orientation. Straight men who rape women outside of prison sometimes rape men inside of prison, but it’s got nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with his power and degradation trip. So I wish people would stop obsessing about it.
Had these boys been left to grow up in a more normalized culture I would guess they would have been less prone to act out homosexually.
What is the rate of same sex attraction amongst young Pashtun boys truthseeker?
What is it amongst the tribal elders truthseeker?
Does Pashtun society contain a higher rate of same-sex attraction than most other societies?
Is their society’s identifiable genetic marker differentiating them from other breeding groups that of having a higher rate of same-sex attraction?
What is their naturally occuring rate of bisexuality truthseeker?
What is your actual evidence that it was a choice within a culture rather than some sort of genetic predisposition delivering a higher rate than in other breeding groups?
What does your anecdotal observation have to do with individual males and females in modern western societies?
Thank you for your comments Mary. I really appreciate another pro-lifer speaking up. I get tired of fighting everyone.
Not that I don’t appreciate the pro-choicers defending LGBT people too! But I do think the pro-life movement has a problem with degrading and bullying LGBT people so I would like to see more pro-lifers stand up and say that not only do we care about unborn babies before they are born, we’ll continue fighting for their rights after they are born, even if they are LGBT.
And I do appreciate Del and Lifejoy for taking a gentler approach even if I don’t agree with them. :)
“Does Pashtun society contain a higher rate of same-sex attraction than most other societies?”
I do know something about what he’s going on about (education is a great thing!). There’s a problem in certain places in Afghanistan specifically, but it pops up here and there in other male-dominated societies where women are so subjugated that they can’t even leave the house basically, and men are given way too much power and patriarchy.
No, the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men is, by all accounts not appreciably different than western countries. The rate of young boys being sexually abused is MASSIVELY higher though. Most psychologists and sociologists who have looked into this area (and other areas where male-male sexual abuse is very high) and found it has to do with domination and sexual desires that have no healthy outlet. Most of these men are heterosexual males, given a healthier culture where healthy relationships with women were encouraged and women were treated as equals, they wouldn’t be abusing boys, they’d be dating women like men in western countries do and only a small percentage would be abusing boys like happens in western countries too. So, it’s a combination of gender segregation, male domination, and sexual suppression. Not “homosexuality”.
You’re welcome Jack and thank you for your kind words.
it has to do with domination and sexual desires that have no healthy outlet. – ah yes, we’ve seen that.
For example, the rate of boys sexually abused in the US (and it’s not all by men, about 30% of the time that a minor boy is abused there is a female perpetrator) is about 1 in 6 boys (as compared to 1 in 5 or 4 girls, it varies by sources). Of course, these rates are ridiculously, terribly high and we should be working on that and protecting all children, but the rate in Afghanistan for the abuse of minor boys is about 2 in 3 in some places. I mean, that’s over 60% of boys who will be sexually assaulted or molested before age eighteen. That’s not “homosexuality”, it’s rape and it’s a huge, huge problem over there.
But of course, people don’t talk about it often out of a concern for the boys, it seems that yet again male-male sexual abuse is used as an excuse to bash on gay and bisexual men (who, like straight men, are mostly perfectly safe around children). As a non-heterosexual survivor of sexual abuse and rape, I really, really, really (times fifty billion really) don’t appreciate the most painful stuff in my life used to score rhetorical points against other people who share my orientation (and me, obviously). It certainly doesn’t help male victims, and it’s vicious.
Yep, as with much sexual abuse it’s about power and/or control, especially amongst those with a self-imposed frustration.
It’s always got me that some people think their daughter is safer in the care of a heterosexual male than a lesbian or their son in the care of a heterosexual female rather than a gay man.
I’ve started seeing an older woman but I’m confident I don’t fall into that 30% category ;-)
Congrats on the new relationship Reality, I hope she’s pro-life. O.O Though at your age I doubt unplanned pregnancy is an issue you two have to worry about. :D
“It’s always got me that some people think their daughter is safer in the care of a heterosexual male than a lesbian or their son in the care of a heterosexual female rather than a gay man.”
This drives me up the wall insane. Men are much, much more likely to commit sexual abuse (though like I’ve pointed out, women abusing boys is more common than people acknowledge, it’s often a case where a woman preys on a barely adolescent boy around age 13 to 15, is the most common type of abuse that women commit), but people are so terrified of LGBT people that they act like lesbians are dangerous when really your uncle or male friend (whatever orientation he claims) is statistically much, much more likely to abuse your child than a lesbian or straight woman is.
And I get sick of people thinking fixation on male pre-adolescents or adolescents is the same as being attracted to adult men. It actually freaks me out, because it’s usually straight males who say it. So, are they saying that since they are attracted to adult women they are also attracted to little girls or adolescent females? Creepy stuff. Like I said, my father exclusively abused boys, but he was never at any point in his life “gay” or even bisexual. He had no interest in consensual relationships with people his own age, male or female. He was a child rapist and a sexual sadist with a fixation on male children and adolescents (he seemed to enjoy ruining innocence and dominating young people). I get seriously offended when people call him “gay” or insinuate he was bisexual because he was married to my mother. No, he had no interest in my mother besides having children with her so he had access to more kids to abuse. He was simply a predator with a gender and age preference, not “gay”. And predators like him exist everywhere.
What is actually very interesting to me is that in regards to girls being abused, only about 5% of abuses are committed by women. So, if we’re going to commit the fallacy of assuming that rape and pedophilia are the same as being attracted to adults, wouldn’t that statistic indicate that lesbians should be the only ones caring for children of either gender, since statistically very, very few women abuse girls?
Nor am I gay Jack, yet it is still something which I worry about and I will always advocate for LGBTI folk :-)
I’ve always felt that lesbians are probably the safest people for children to be with.
Deluded LGBT’r, Why would it strike you as me being one of the strangest people you know because I do not think newborns are wired for sexual preference? Do you think sexuality even crosses the minds of newborns? That seems really strange to me if you do.
Truthseeker, all people are genetically coded (before birth, actually) to eventually become sexual beings when they begin puberty. When you start puberty, your secondary sex characteristics begin to become like adults, and you begin to have a sex drive. This is encoded before the person is even born, the genetic information is all there. So, it stands to reason and the evidence seems to support that the propensity for homosexual orientation begins before birth, in our genetic code. That doesn’t mean that’s the only factor, but there is evidence that it starts there. There is also evidence for biological factors (like female hormones in the womb affecting male fetal brain development), and yes environmental factors could possibly play a role as well. None of this means that people choose their attractions.
“I’ve always felt that lesbians are probably the safest people for children to be with.”
In regards to sexual abuse, yeah, maybe. If I were to oppose gay adoption (which I don’t but this is hypothetical), I wouldn’t oppose it for gay women, just gay men. Also, I’m a lot more iffy about allowing a single man to adopt a child than I would be for a single woman. Men are much more likely to sexually harm children whatever orientation the man is (or claims to be). Women commit comparatively little sex crimes, so I don’t see why anyone would worry about a lesbian couple abusing a child sexually, it’s not very likely to happen at all by virtue of the women’s gender, regardless of their orientation.
When it comes to physical child abuse and neglect, I think women commit more of those types of abuses statistically, but it seems to be correlated with women spending more time taking care of children in general. But regardless, I don’t think sexual orientation has anything to do with someone’s propensity to beat or starve a child. Actually, single parents commit more child abuse (it seems to be correlated with stress and poverty), so maybe a gay or lesbian couple would be safer with a child in regards to physical abuse than a single woman would be.
I don’t think you can predict these things very well though, so I think the most important factor is carefully vetting the individual adoptive parent(s), not focusing on irrelevant factors like orientation. Mental stability, financial stability, prior history of anger issues or sexual abuse, etc, is much more telling than any sexual orientation could be, if you’re looking at assigning custody after a divorce or giving a newborn to an adoptive couple.
Why would it strike you as me being one of the strangest people you know because I do not think newborns are wired for sexual preference? – because you deliberately ignore the science?
Do you think sexuality even crosses the minds of newborns? – does walking or talking? How about their favorite color? Which foods they prefer? Can you put them through an IQ test? Can you tell if they’ll be athletic or not? How about how tall they’ll be? Do you think these things cross the minds of newborns?
Guys have genetic code to be men. Girls have genetic code to be women. I imagine the two are complimentary. Nothing else is rational.
They mostly do truthseeker, but not always.
That has zero to do with peoples sexuality anyway.
Things don’t need you to imagine them for them to be rational, or otherwise.
Heterosexuality is a part of our genetic makeup and the complimentary nature of the sexes is undeniable and natural. What is the purpose, in nature or genetics of homosexual sex other than ‘pleasuring’ one another?
Are you seriously denying that sexual development (as in, the urge to procreate/have sex) is not genetically influenced? Truthseeker, where did you go to school? I think they need to refund your money.
Why do you think you get sexually aroused? Do you think it’s magic or did your body develop according to your genes to have a male reproductive system that responds sexually to certain stimuli? Apparently (though I am starting to wonder about you) it’s adult women that trigger a sexual response in you. Some are only sexually aroused by other males. Some are sexually aroused by both males and females. Your brain and body are wired, the genetic coding was in place, for you to see sexual and secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite gender and get aroused and desire sex. I can’t believe I have to explain this to an adult man that’s old enough to be my father!
You did it again, lol, you commented and contradicted your statement, and now my comment looks stupid.
Truthseeker, I don’t know the genetic “purpose” of same sex attraction. I just know it exists, and that it seems to be genetically influenced. I don’t think I’m unnatural, aberrant, or otherwise bad or wrong for not being heterosexual. It’s just the way I’ve always been, as long as I’ve been attracted to women I’ve been attracted to men, gender has never had any bearing on whether I find someone sexually attractive or arousing. Most people with same sex attractions are like me (though bisexuals seem to be more rare than exclusive homosexuals, in my experience). Pretty much all gay or bisexual people will tell you that we’ve been like this since puberty at the latest. There was never a time in a gay persons life where he or she sits down and thinks “hmm, I could like the opposite gender and have a marriage and kids someday, but instead I’m going to choose attraction to the same gender and make everyone hate me and I won’t be able to have biological kids with the person I love! It makes perfect sense!”.
The purpose and the complimentary nature of heterosexual genetics is pretty obvious. The fact that you can find no genetic purpose to homosexuality in genetics speaks for itself.
Other than getting your rocks off, Tell me one reason you have sex ?
Truthseeker, do you find intersex people (used to be called “hermaphrodites”) who are born with neither XY or XX chromosomes, “unnatural”? How about those who have normal chromosomes but have ambiguous genitalia (as in neither a penis plus testicles, or a vagina plus ovaries, but a combination of both? What about those with normal chromosomes but do not get proper hormone dosages so they develop as the opposite sex? Girls who are born with XY chromosomes but are immune to androgens (like testosterone) develop looking just like biological girls, but they are infertile and have “male” chromosomes. Are all these intersex people unnatural, aberrant, and purposeless?
Seriously, I want an answer to that. For some reason these people who are intersex genetically exist and nearly all of them are infertile. Do you think they are bad and aberrant?
Is is moral for an androgen-immune XY female to marry a man? Even if she has XY chromosomes? Do you consider her male or female?
I really want an answer to this.
Truthseeker I’m abstinent at the moment and not looking to start a relationship any time soon, so I don’t have sex. When I was sexually active when I was teenager I was generally looking for affection and someone to love or even like me. And I certainly didn’t have sex with my wife just to “get my rocks off”.
What would you say are the biggest difference you see between sex as an adolescent boy looking for affection and sex with your wife?
Truthseeker, the only reason you and I have a penis and testicles is because both of our bodies used testosterone and other androgens while we were in the womb and during our childhood development and puberty to develop our bodies as a typical male with typical male primary and secondary sex characteristics. If one of us were immune to androgens, like some XY people are, that one of us would have developed a vagina, ovaries, and breasts, along with female secondary sex characteristics. Now, is it really as simple as you’re making it out to be, or are their variations within gender and sexuality that make this more complex and different?
For some reason, in your development, you developed a typical heterosexual orientation and were attracted to adult female primary and secondary sexual sex characteristics. For some reason, in my development, that process went differently and my brain doesn’t have exclusively attraction to females. I didn’t choose it. I don’t think it’s more immoral for me to exist than it would be immoral if I had been immune to androgens and developed as a woman rather than a man (albeit with XY chromosomes). It could have happened to either of us. But for whatever reasons, we both developed as typical males and I developed an atypical sexual orientation. But it wasn’t my choice and it’s not “unnatural” or wrong for me to be me, no more than intersex people are unnatural or bad.
“Seriously, I want an answer to that. For some reason these people who are intersex genetically exist and nearly all of them are infertile. Do you think they are bad and aberrant?”
No, I haven’t really studied intersex people but it sounds like God has called them to some purpose other than fertility
“What would you say are the biggest difference you see between sex as an adolescent boy looking for affection and sex with your wife?”
I don’t know why it matters. I was a screwed up kid who slept with an unhealthy, ridiculously huge amount of people because I was poorly supervised and badly abused. With my wife I was faithful to her and sex was more about attempting to have a real and loving connection with her than a desperate attempt to make someone like me. But I don’t see what this has to do with the existence of non-heterosexual orientations. I would be the wrong “typical” gay or bisexual person to ask about sex, because sexual abuse really messed me up. But most gay and bi people are not screwed up sexually. Most gay people connect with and love their exclusive partners like you love your wife.
“No, I haven’t really studied intersex people but it sounds like God has called them to some purpose other than fertility”
Okay, so you can see that God doesn’t intend everyone to be a perfectly normal biological male or a perfectly normal biological female. For some reason he created a small amount of people who are atypical in regards to their genitalia, hormones, fertility, or chromosomes, and are not so easily classified as “male” or “female”.
So if you can see that God creates some people who are atypical in gender, is it really so hard to understand that he creates some of us who are atypical in regard to sexual orientation? That maybe LGBT people are not disgusting aberrations, but we exist because he loves us and intends us to be who we are? I refuse to believe that God would create and love and care for intersex people just like typical males or females, but that he didn’t create and love me the way I am too, even if my orientation is atypical.
God created you for a reason and also to be who you are but that does not mean God doesn’t want you to change to confirm with living in the way God intended. You said yourself that you would rather have heterosexual preferences is you could and I believe God could grant you this if you truly submitted yourself to God’s help and mercy. Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to allow yourself to believe in or submit your sexuality to God’s awesome power. Good night.
“God created you for a reason and also to be who you are but that does not mean God doesn’t want you to change to confirm with living in the way God intended”
I’ve said, about ten thousands times, I’m not discussing whether acting on a non-heterosexual orientation is immoral or not. I have no interest in that discussion, to be honest. I’m talking about whether it’s inherent to be homosexual or bisexual.
“You said yourself that you would rather have heterosexual preferences is you could and I believe God could grant you this if you truly submitted yourself to God’s help and mercy. Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to allow yourself to believe in or submit your sexuality to God’s awesome power”
This is a vile, disgusting thing to say to me in particular. I’ve told you, multiple times, that I was a believer when I was a kid until I was at least fifteen or sixteen, I don’t think I really lost faith completely until I ran away from home for good at seventeen. While I was a believer, it’s a good bet that I was more fervent than you for a good portion of my life. Cult members tend to be seriously faithful. I believed that nothing was more important than pleasing God for a good portion for of my life. I breathed, at and slept with prayers and fear of the Lord until I was at least fourteen, and even then I was still a believer even as I became less fervent. You seem to keep forgetting I was raised in an extremely conservative Christian church and the possibility of God not existing didn’t occur to me until I was well into my teens.
But anyway, like I’ve told you before, I begged God to make me “normal” and “good”. If shame, self-hatred, prayers, and self-disgust could make you heterosexual, I’d be the damn straightest man to ever walk the earth. Ever since I was like eleven or twelve years old and realized to my horror that I wasn’t becoming “normal” like I thought I would, I begged God over and over to make me good, I promised him anything. I promised him that if I could just be straight and good like I thought he wanted me to be I would go into ministry. I promised him celibacy for the rest of my life and no children. Or marriage at eighteen and a dozen children. Anything. Every single day. When I was younger I even self-harmed because I thought God wanted me to punish myself for not being straight. I thought the sexual abuse from my dad and others was God’s punishment because I wasn’t “normal” or “natural”, because that’s what happens to “aberrations” and “abominations”. And I thought the abuse was my fault anyway, so I begged God to forgive me for that too. I thought being forced to take the blame for the rapes in front of the entire damn congregation was just and fitting punishment for such a disgusting piece of garbage like me. If there’s a form of self-hatred or punishment you can do to yourself that you can imagine, I probably did it to myself. You have no idea truthseeker what kind of pain and damage that causes. None at all. Don’t you ever blame me or imply that I didn’t try. Because I did. For whatever reason, God did not see fit to “make me straight”, no matter how much shame, punishment, humiliation, or flat out severe abuse people would heap on me or I would heap on myself. Because it’s not something that can be changed, it’s inherent to me and it doesn’t make me wrong.
So don’t you dare to say things like that to me. I will not accept this blame anymore. You Christians have to accept that some people aren’t straight. You just have to. You believe your God made us, well then he made our orientations too and he made them for a reason. There are celibate gay and bisexual Christians who are wonderful, moral people all over the place, how dare you degrade them by implying they just haven’t submitted to God enough. This is why I have trouble not getting furious with some Christians about homosexuality. You guys are so full of yourselves, so pleased with your self-righteousness and so disgustingly self-centered that you can’t imagine that not being exactly like you could possibly be okay.
Okay I don’t actually hate Christians, I know that last comment sounded really angry and hateful and I’m sorry if it hurts anyone’s feelings. I just am sick and disgusted by the attitude that if you’re not perfectly, 100% heterosexual, that you just didn’t try hard enough or love God enough. Stop. Your God made some people gay or bi. You just have to accept that. You don’t have to accept the morality of homosexual actions and I would never expect you to, but you have to accept that gay and bisexual people can have their orientations and that’s okay and doesn’t make them wrong or less Christian than you are (if they are Christians). If you refuse to accept that, you’re causing real and serious harm and causing untold mental damage to innocent gay and bi kids who hear or read these things. You realize I haven’t gone to that church or lived with my parents for like eight years and still have nightmares every single night about burning in hell for not being straight or “letting” my dad abuse me (which was also supposedly going to send me to hell). So stop with the “you can change if you try, and if you don’t you’re just refusing God”. It’s not Biblical and it’s cruel.
Or worse, you’ll help create someone else who is as damaged as I am and you’ll have another person making angry comments at you online. Lol.
Truthseeker I thought about it (and tried to pray about it) and I have to offer an apology. I’m not reacting to you as you, you just remind me so much of how my father-in-law used to be and I’m blowing up at you as if you’re him. It’s not right of me to do so, you are not him and his mistakes are not your responsibility. So I am truly sorry and I hope you can forgive me.
I will tell you why you remind me of him, and also why I think you’re a good person and that you can learn to be more loving and you don’t have to hold these views forever. I don’t want to go into something that personal on this blog though, it’s a long story and it hurts me to talk about. I’ll send you an email. The basic gist of it, if anyone here is curious and doesn’t want to email me, is that my father-in-law thought being gay and bi was evil and perverse until experiences with me as a teenager changes his view on the inherent evil (or lack thereof) of LGBT people. Basically, I’ve known my ex’s family since I was a baby, they belonged to the “church” (cult). They were never bad people, just manipulated like most of us were, there were only a few truly evil people and they were mostly at the top of the hierarchy like my dad was. Anyway, my parents in law were just as anti-gay as anyone in that church, and they shunned me just like everyone else did after my “confession”. It was unbearable for me. But after I ran off when I was seventeen, my FIL found out (well, my dad didn’t confess but he laughed when confused, which is not the reaction of an innocent man when accused of abusing your kid like that) what the confession was actually about. And he realized what he had been a party too. He tried to make up for it by paying for my rehab and getting me off the street, but the damage to me from being treated like that was very bad and I still think he feels guilty when I struggle with things if my parents in law find out I’m not doing well. But anyway, the important part is he realized that even if I actually had been confessing to consensual sexual activity, however gay, no young teenager ever in a million years deserves to be humiliated and punished like I was. Ever. For whatever sin. And he realized that LGBT behavior was no more sinful than other things, and quite a bit less sinful than traumatizing a child like that church traumatized me.
So I believe truthseeker can change his views if he chooses to, but maybe like my FIL he needs to realize what damage this stuff causes before he realizes what he is a party to with his treatment of LGBT people. My FIL will probably always believe homosexuality is a sin, but he finally realized after seeing how much damage that church did to a young kid who hadn’t done anything wrong, is that LGBT people deserve to be treated with respect and love and not blamed for not being straight.
#5 for me too. I like the comparison, very telling about O, haha.
May Ukraine prevail.
Dayum…. y’all been busy on this thread….
Truthseeker: Doug, you sound scientifical when you talk about the unsteadiness of the polar vortex caused by a change of 4 degrees Celcius in the arctic.
Thanks, TS. : P
It’s surprising how such a few degrees can make so much difference. Ocean temperature is a huge deal – the thermal mass of the oceans is enormous, compared to the air and the little bit of land that changes temperature. It’s over 1000 to 1, water versus air.
Some “anti-global-warming” people and websites will mention that the air temperatures, going up through the layers of our atmosphere, have not risen as much as have land temperatures. This is true, but it’s not a meaningful factor. The amount of energy is not a significant deal, there, not compared to what goes on with the oceans.
We humans experience land temperatures and the layer of air right down against it, for the most part, and that’s what we think of as “hot” or “cold,” but the oceans are the real deal as far as global warming or cooling.
____
Tell me. Could it be that events on the sun “gasp” have a far greater effect on whether the globe warms or cools than any events on the earth could ever have? Just asking for your scientific opinion cause you seemed to state it as being an undeniable certainty that we are heading into a global warming?
First, we are not “headed” into a global warming. We’ve had a relatively fast-warming earth for over 100 years.
http://imageshack.com/a/img191/4721/xeaz.png
Since about 1910, the trend has been up.
Now then, the sun is where our energy comes from, pretty much entirely. But the amount the earth receives from the sun hardly varies at all, regardless of sunspot activity. Maximum to minimum, the difference is 0.1% or less. The sun hits the outer edge of our atmosphere, and the average is 1366 watts per square meter. There indeed is a “solar cycle” and differing sunspot activity, but it only changes things up to roughly 1366.5 watts, and down to 1365.5.
It’s been quite constant for thousands of years, and we couldn’t even detect the difference in real time until we had satellites up.
The sun could make a huge difference – to be sure. If the amount of energy from it changed meaningfully, we’d most definitely feel it.
Thomas R: #5 for me too. I like the comparison, very telling about O, haha. May Ukraine prevail.
What do you want Obama to do? Personally, I hope the US doesn’t get involved in another conflict. We cannot be “the world’s policeman.”
Or, “policeperson.” : P
There is a a lot of concern about the business aspects of denying services to those that do not adhere to your expected way of life. This is a sure way to kill small business, YOUR business. Christian stores don’t ask if you’re a Christian if you want to purchase memorabilia, and if anything – if a non- Christian/homosexual individual wants to, why not allow the opportunity for a possible conversion?
The driving force behind any business is financial health and thus having a paying customer is much better than limiting oneself to a group that may not even like what you have to sell. And if you limit yourself, you will most definitely have to raise your prices so being competitive is out of the question.
So what would happen if I had a gas station or a delicatessen in the Andersonville neighborhood in Chicago, predominantly a homosexual community. Who would I provide services to?
Hey I don’t like hard-core feminists but purchase great books at the Women and Children First bookstore in the Andersonville neighborhood (owned by hard-core feminists who love children) and our children have wonderful books to read…. Luckily, I was never asked whether I hate women but only whether I aam paying by cash or credit…
Hi Doug – this is not about what I want O to do. I was responding to the cartoon comparing O’s strategic skills. I don’t want the US to be the world’s police either but O dropped the ball by snubbing the Olympics in terms of any lead politically. No wonder the cartoon has him playing checkers..
Thomas R: Luckily, I was never asked whether I hate women but only whether I aam paying by cash or credit…
Ha! Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about…. : )
this is not about what I want O to do. I was responding to the cartoon comparing O’s strategic skills.
What “strategy” are you advocating? Doing nothing may be the best thing. I think you just want to whine and moan, when Obama is doing what a huge majority of Americans favor.
I don’t want the US to be the world’s police either but O dropped the ball by snubbing the Olympics in terms of any lead politically
What, exactly, do you mean, there, TR? What do you think Obama should have done as far as the Olympics?
A leader that purports to support our athletes and yet does not go to the Olympics because he wets his pants everytime he sees Putin, is no leader at all…..
The Olympics are not supposed to be a political thing. Not at all the stage for employing any “strategies” toward other world leaders, TR.
If Obama had gone, you’d probably be complaining about him doing it.
Quite a few countries’ leaders did not attend. If anything, it was a comment on Russia’s anti-gay policies.
No I would not be complaining if he had gone. And as far as the comment on Russia’s anti-homosexual policies – can’t you just see Putin and company shaking in their boots? If you can’t see that Putin won the show-down than you need to re-examine this….
Jack,
Thanks for the kind words. I haven’t been through the same hardships you have but we all have our trials by fire and we either burn or come out proven and stronger like forged steel.
Hey Thomas, the US has a lot of economic and political power compared to Russia. Putin may well be shaking in his boots if he continues down his anti-human route. I think Uganda should worry as well. As western countries become more accepting and loving towards LGBT people, backwards countries who consider not always slaughtering or beating LGBT people will be left behind politically and economically (well, unless they have oil as Saudi Arabia shows us :/).
No problem truth. Like I said I do think that you’re a good person and that if you truly realized what kind of damage you could be causing people with your words, you would be able to change how you treat and view LGBT people. And I hope you realize it soon. Like I said, I think my FIL still does and probably always feel guilty for what he allowed and participated in happening to an innocent teenager. I don’t think he’ll ever stop feeling guilty completely, especially not only because of the “confession” thing and shunning a fifteen-year-old, but because him and my MIL ignored blatant physical abuse even when I was just a little kid. I forgave him and my MIL the best I can, a long time ago, but I don’t really think they’ve completely forgiven themselves, especially seeing the long term damage they help cause, which helped ruin their daughter’s marriage and such.
Ruskis were capable of holding hostage the entire Eastern Bloc for well over 50 years. Putin has so many allies (three come to mind) that can give the US a good spanking if they join forces. You are globally savvy Jack. Look around. The UN is useless to intervene. They could careless about any sanctions from the West. Never under-estimate the enemy…
Whatever Thomas, considering you think lesbians getting hired is “connections to PP” and think it’s bad for children, I suspect you’re fine with Russian anti-gay laws. It’s all about “protecting the kids”, eh?
The USSR held the Eastern Bloc hostage because of multiple factors, not least among them was the policy of MAD between the US and the USSR. The political landscape has changed a bit. Now I don’t think that Russia will cave any time soon, and I’m actually quite a bit more worried about issues in Ukraine causing another WW than I am anti-gay policies, but I am hoping Putin is politically savvy enough to realize a lot of the world will side with the US if it comes down to it and Russia doesn’t have the economic and military power to take us all on, unless they get China. Then it will be a blood bath.
Thomas, I agree that the UN is pretty much useless.
I don’t think Putin is feeling much pressure, really, to ease off on the gay issue, no, but I also don’t think that Obama going to the Olympics would have done anything there, nor with respect to any other current issues.
There has been no “show-down” and there would not have been had Obama gone.
Heterosexuality is a part of our genetic makeup – not for all, for some homosexuality is a part of their genetic makeup.
and the complimentary nature of the sexes is undeniable and natural. – agreed. So is homosexuality.
What is the purpose, in nature or genetics of homosexual sex other than ‘pleasuring’ one another? – love. What is the purpose of mens nipples?
The fact that you can find no genetic purpose to homosexuality in genetics speaks for itself. – there’s no genetic purpose to having more than one hair color. Or that we aren’t all exactly the same height.
No, I haven’t really studied intersex people but it sounds like God has called them to some purpose other than fertility – so why would the same not apply to homosexuals?
you would rather have heterosexual preferences is you could and I believe God could grant you this if you truly submitted yourself to God’s help and mercy – this has been shown not to work. Even some of the ‘leading lights’ of this cause have now come out and admitted it doesn’t.
“you would rather have heterosexual preferences is you could and I believe God could grant you this if you truly submitted yourself to God’s help and mercy – this has been shown not to work. Even some of the ‘leading lights’ of this cause have now come out and admitted it doesn’t. ”
Yeah, the dude from Exodus International issued a really touching (genuinely touching) apology for the way that he lied about his ongoing same sex attractions, and how he treated LGBT people while he was trying to “cure” them.
Deluded Lib,
Ask yourself, is my love of my FIL greater than my love for myself? Is my love for my children greater than my love for myself? Is my love for me ex-wife greater than my love for myself? Is my love for those who chastise me greater than my love for myself?
May God’s grace continue to watch over you Jack. You are normal but that does not mean you are not also disordered. Normal people have disorders that fall outside of God’s plans but we are still God’s children You are one of God’s children. Only by the grace of God so am I.
Hi ts,
Maybe intersex people are biological aberrations that occur for reasons we have yet to comprehend. Like savants. Like geniuses. Also, efforts to force intersex people into the gender others deem they belong has been catastrophic, in some cases resulting in suicide. Maybe this just shows how very little we know or understand about human sexuality.
Here is one of the key differences I can see why the reconcilliation you request is so hard for you to come by.
As a sinner I used to abuse strong drink and many time put those around me in grave danger because I only saw how my ‘disease’ was hurting myself and not how it hurt others. Once I realized that my drunkeness could leave some twelve year old kid walking home or riding her bike dead on the side of the road; it became easy for me to stop my behavior. Should people have still loved me and accepted me as a sinner and continued to try and help me? YES, they should. But should that mean they must accept me with the sins I carried and let me continue to drive blind drunk? Would that have been the accepting Christian thing to do because we are all sinners anyway? I say NO!
The same applies to your disorder. For me it is plain and simple that homosexuality and ‘gay marriage’ are attacks that strike right at the heart of God’s plan for the family. Every bit if not more than my drunkenness was an attack on God’s plan for man. I have admitted my sins and I have tempered them much as you have in your current situation of abstinence. But don’t expect part of accepting you to ever include denying that God’s plan for a family is for a man and a woman to unite and raise children. But do expect I can accept you lovingly as a person and blog with you and email you and do my best to understand you; all in the hopes that we can both become better followers of Christ. I will pray for you and your family to be re-united.
Mary, I agree. Socrate’s once said “the more we learn the more we realize how little we really know”
Hi Doug,
Well my good friend, so we’re freezing our butts off because of a “polar vortex”? Good grief, for years we just called these “cold snaps”. When the weather got very hot, we called them “heat waves”, and wished we’d have a “cold snap”. You should have lived in the city during those heat waves before air conditioning. Over history there are some very well known “cold snaps” and “heat waves”. Are polar vortexes something new or were they the cause of ”cold snaps”? Ya gotta admit though, Mother Nature has got a great sense of humor.
Truthseeker: God’s plan for a family is for a man and a woman to unite and raise children.
TS, if you believe in that sort of God then the fact is that that God still doesn’t make every man and woman that way. Some are made differently. If there is a “divine plan for a family” at work then it’s gonna be via adoption, often.
Hi ts,
On this we will definitely agree.
Ya gotta admit though, Mother Nature has got a great sense of humor.
Mary, without doubt. While trying not to be inflammatory, I’ve said many times that if there really is a supreme being or the like, then they are laughing off certain parts of their anatomies.
so we’re freezing our butts off because of a “polar vortex”?
Some of this past winter’s cold times have been that, yeah. A circulating low pressure system filled with polar air breaks off from the main polar air mass and chills out lower latitudes. It doesn’t have to be like that though – just the jet stream meandering and making a “trough” will do it, too.
Again, I really don’t like calling these little breakaway systems “vortexes” or “vortices.” They do, of course, fulfill the definition, i.e. “a region within a fluid where the flow is mostly a spinning motion about an imaginary axis.” (By that, any high or low pressure system qualifies.) But I see it as there being one polar vortex in the northern hemisphere, and another one in the southern, and that’s it – these two big cold air masses rotate, and where they meet warmer, temperate air is where the polar jet streams form.
Good grief, for years we just called these “cold snaps”. When the weather got very hot, we called them “heat waves”, and wished we’d have a “cold snap”. You should have lived in the city during those heat waves before air conditioning. Over history there are some very well known “cold snaps” and “heat waves”. Are polar vortexes something new or were they the cause of ”cold snaps”?
I guess some of the cold snaps were from the now-deemed polar vortexes. But whether it was detached systems, or just a flow of polar air southward, the cold effect would happen.
City-heat wave – no A/C. screw that…. There were some hot summers as I grew up, but being a skinny kid means that a fan may be enough that you don’t really suffer. Now, as more of a “solid citizen,” I’m talking about some <70 degree action.
For me it is plain and simple that homosexuality and ‘gay marriage’ are attacks that strike right at the heart of God’s plan for the family. – that’s ok, those who consider themselves god’s family don’t have to participate.
Hi Doug,
Would you believe my father was a refrigeration/air conditioning man and all we had was some poor old hard working fan in the upstairs hallway window? Talk about the shoemaker’s kids. We big city kids spent a lot of time outdoors. Being young and skinny, I am now neither, we tolerated the heat. Like we had a choice? In school the “air conditioning” was opening the windows.
Anyway, try not to freeze during this global warming crisis. Not looking for a debate my friend, just enjoying the irony! As always, glad to see you here.
Its not whatever Jack. The Ruskis, you agreed with me have allies one of them being China. You realized just like me that it would be a bloodbath ifvthings came to military conflict situation, so you’re actually understand. Remember I lived under Ruski rule for 14 years and know what they were capable off then and now.
I am also impressed that the homosexual issue is moot at this moment as much more vital matters are at hand. The only thing Incannot comprehend is why is Pres O playing checkers. :)
why is Pres O playing checkers. – because the gop are his pieces?
Hi Thomas R,
He’s playing checkers because he is no match for Putin. Obama knows he’s outclassed and outsmarted.
Looks like Putin has outsmarted and outclassed the entire planet then doesn’t it (not that a macho strutting homophobe is exactly classy).
What would you do???
You do know where the Ukraine is located? Ever heard of NATO?
“The same applies to your disorder. For me it is plain and simple that homosexuality and ‘gay marriage’ are attacks that strike right at the heart of God’s plan for the family. Every bit if not more than my drunkenness was an attack on God’s plan for man. I have admitted my sins and I have tempered them much as you have in your current situation of abstinence. But don’t expect part of accepting you to ever include denying that God’s plan for a family is for a man and a woman to unite and raise children. But do expect I can accept you lovingly as a person and blog with you and email you and do my best to understand you; all in the hopes that we can both become better followers of Christ. I will pray for you and your family to be re-united.”
But I’m not even doing anything. I just exist. How can my “disorder” be attacking anything? This is depressing.
Come on LDPL, you know the drill. Anything anyone does which isn’t adhering to what the adherents think everyone should adhere to is ‘attacking’ what they adhere to. They don’t seem to be able to recognise that it is they who are doing the attacking by demanding you change while you make no such demand of them. There is no reason why anyone needs to live according to the adherents beliefs.
Truthseeker, if you had to look in to the eyes of all of the young men and women who have killed themselves after hearing the things you’re saying here, could you do it? Could you tell someone who had a gun to his head or a pill bottle to her lips that they simply hadn’t tried hard enough to be straight? That they needed to pray harder?
Because I’ve had to have that conversation before. After a friend heard those words, exactly what you’ve written here. He told me God obviously wasn’t listening to him, because he had been trying and praying since age 5 when he realized he was different.
He didn’t kill himself that time, but he did a few years later, after his family shunned him from his own sisters wedding… For not trying hard enough not to be gay.
Those words kill people, Truthseeker. If you can’t find truth, maybe try seeking compassion.
Reality,
Kindly refrain from patronizing me.
When I say outclassed its not that I think Putin is classy, its that Obama is no match for him.
“Anything anyone does which isn’t adhering to what the adherents think everyone should adhere to is ‘attacking’ what they adhere to. They don’t seem to be able to recognise that it is they who are doing the attacking by demanding you change while you make no such demand of them. There is no reason why anyone needs to live according to the adherents beliefs.”
It’s simply exhausting to feel like you’re committing a crime by existing and trying to be okay with just being you. I don’t understand why people can’t see that.
“He didn’t kill himself that time, but he did a few years later, after his family shunned him from his own sisters wedding… For not trying hard enough not to be gay.”
This is heartbreaking, I’m so sorry about your friend. He’s like the long list of my friends who ended up on the street after their families kicked them out as helpless teens for not being straight. My friends are all dead too, either accidental overdose or deliberate suicide. I wish people could see them, but they are always overlooked in the rush to make sure that LGBT people never, ever forget how sinful and wrong we are.
“I am also impressed that the homosexual issue is moot at this moment as much more vital matters are at hand.”
No, Thomas, the anti-gay laws and fervor in Russia isn’t “moot”. People are still being beaten and jailed in Russia for not following those draconian laws, and that’s just as wrong as ever and should be stopped. But at the moment, I’m worried about military conflict that will kill even more people. Doesn’t mean I stop caring about the LGBT people in Russia, it’s just that there are more people than just them to worry about too.
I would do no such thing Mary.
On what basis are you belittling President Obama?
What do you think he should be doing?
What do you think he is in a position to actually do?
All Putin is really doing so far is strutting around like a bully in the playground trying to intimidate people.
“But I’m not even doing anything. I just exist. How can my “disorder” be attacking anything? This is depressing.”
Deluded Lib,
If I were to go around preaching that I getting drunk is normal and an ok lifestyle even though scripture tells us that drunkeness is wrong; then I would be attacking God’s plan for man whether I had a drink myself or not because I would be preaching God’s Word falsely to others and leading them into sin.
Question for you. Do you believe that God’s plan for the family is for a man and a woman to unite and raise children together?
“Truthseeker, if you had to look in to the eyes of all of the young men and women who have killed themselves after hearing the things you’re saying here, could you do it?”
Amanda, a lot gets lost on blogs that you can’t get acrosss in face-to-face conversations. I would imagine I could say those things I say and end up being a good friends to many of the people who you think I would hurt.. I had a 15 year old stepson who I found out was being molested by a FIL and I went over and threw him out of the house. I told my MIL that I felt like leaving him in a pool of blood on the sidewalk and I was literally shaking all over just trying to control myself. I refused to leave till he was gone.
I have had nephews hooked on crack who I flew out to visit and put through rehab only to have them commit suicide a couple years later.
You have the right to say whatever you want about yourself and your own behaviors in regards to whatever you believe god’s word to be truthseeker, but that doesn’t give you the right to do so to others. You don’t have to preach that things you don’t agree with are normal and ok but nor should you preach against others.
Reality,
I wasn’t speaking of your god. Perhaps that is why you have such difficulty comprehending.
Thomas R: The only thing I cannot comprehend is why is Pres O playing checkers
Because it’s his turn. When the US invades Mexico, then Putin gets them.
“reality” and Jack: you guys have no clue that Putin comes from KGB. Do your research on KGB will you… Our CIA in comparison is a child’s play. The CIA can’t get intel on so many issues related to our national security and Obama is clueless to that.
I’ve lived the reality’s of the iron curtain for 14 years and know first hand what the Ruskis are capable of but you seem to be on this high horse and rooted in false perceptions. The US did not even get their 1980s propaganda straight. I said before to never underestimate your enemy. The US has a long history of brushing so many issues off until it is too little too late (9/11 rings a bell, hi CIA are you still there?). So laugh and make jokes (Doug that applies to you too) and down-play the seriousness of Putin and how he strings Obama. Checkers to chess is a losing game….
And I’ve got to say that Mary is more realistic in her comments on this issue than “reality” who seems to rely on a US president whose world popularity sank to the dumps, will ever be…
Truthseeker if you want to discuss things further just email me, I don’t want to discuss it on the blog anymore. Same goes for anyone else, just get my email from Carla because I don’t want to discuss it here.
Thomas I don’t know what you’re talking about, I know that Putin was KGB. And I don’t think it’s “not serious”. I’m just hoping Putin doesn’t want to risk WWIII. I don’t think Russia’s demographics could take losing half their young men again!
But with hoping Jack, you have to understand that Putin is like the old SS in Germany were: off his rocker and true to his “ideology.” His historical timeline indicates as much. My only simple message is - never underestimate your enemy – but I see that many here think that message is not relevant. And I will maintain that Obama wets his pants when Putin is in his visual cliff.
I wasn’t speaking of your god. Perhaps that is why you have such difficulty comprehending. – well you’ve made a fundamental error right there truthseeker.
“reality” and Jack: you guys have no clue that Putin comes from KGB. – I think you’ll find we do. It has been repeatedly stated since he first came to prominence.
And I’ve got to say that Mary is more realistic in her comments on this issue than “reality” – really? Unless you or Mary can explain how putin has outclassed and outsmarted obama it’s nothing more than a hollow statement seemingly based on nothing more than your dislike for obama. Why do you back putin?
I don’t envisage obama and putin engaging in hand to hand combat “thomas r.” Obama cannot take a central role in this as it is so far removed from US dominion and is fundamentally within the geo-political realms of Europe.
Thomas R: I’ve lived the reality’s of the iron curtain for 14 years and know first hand what the Ruskis are capable of but you seem to be on this high horse and rooted in false perceptions. The US did not even get their 1980s propaganda straight. I said before to never underestimate your enemy. The US has a long history of brushing so many issues off until it is too little too late (9/11 rings a bell, hi CIA are you still there?). So laugh and make jokes (Doug that applies to you too) and down-play the seriousness of Putin and how he strings Obama.
Once again, Thomas, what do you want Obama to do? What would you do if you were President? Are you gonna nuke Russia? Hey – we know that Putin is an old KGB apparatchik, and that even though he’s a bad guy, he appeals to many Russians as he hearkens back to Russia’s days of Empire.
You are worried about US propaganda in the 1980s, when in 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved……? Good grief, come on, man…..
What would you do about the Crimea? Send in the Girl Scouts?
Thomas R: The US has a long history of brushing so many issues off until it is too little too late
TR, that is true, but there are *so many* issues, period, that there is simply going to be quite a few mistakes. And, as before, we cannot be the world’s police force.
We’ve also driven many countries away from us by our policies and by backing unpopular and/or corrupt people. We really don’t have a good record, there.
Still, it’s easy to point fingers. Let’s say we – the US – did invade Mexico. What do you think Putin would do? What do you think Putin should do, in such a case?
Reality,
LOLLL. I am not particularly fond of Putin, its that unlike you, I can see the obvious. Obama the community organizer turned messiah is no match for the ex-KGB man Putin. For Obama to threaten Putin with with “costs” should he invade the Ukraine is laughable.
Sen. Lindsey Graham on CNN concerning Obama: “Stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators, its not your strong suit. Every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody’s eyes roll, including mine”.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius told CBS News: President Obama does have a credibility problem. He talks about a red line in Syria for chemical weapons and then he lets it be blurred. He says that Russia will have to pay costs if it interferes in Ukraine. And then within hours the military intervention begins”.
What can your hero do Reality? How about shutting up before he makes an even bigger clown of himself. If he plans to do nothing then dispense with the empty threats. He is in waaaaay over his head and the world’s tyrants only laugh at him. Its what happens when you put an unknown Chicago community organizer in a position he is in no way qualified for.
Reality,
My God is spelled with a capitol G, so as not to be confused with all the other gods.
“reality” to Thomas R: “Why do you back putin?”
If you think that in any of my above comments above I am backing Putin, you truly need to re-read my commentary. The cartoon depicted Obama as playing checkers to Putin’s chess, yes? Is that true? YES. I understand my views on Obama’s lack of skill in comparison to Putin are not popular. I also understand that my pants-wetting analogy is not popular. I understand that pointing out that we cannot underestimate Putin, that UN/Obama sanctions are useless and that Putin’s KGB background poses a threat, and finally that Obama is an amateur to do anything about this conflict, is not popular either. None of this, however, is remotely close to backing Putin (especially considering my background). Doug is the only person who seems to understand what I am attempting to convey here. Jack a little by understanding the Ruski/China connection, but you “reality” are in this only to twist my words and shame me. When Putin spanks Obama again (he did this once by banning US adoptions) with more meaningful political action than perhaps you will understand why I am cautioning here never to underestimate your enemy (my enemy too).
Doug to Thomas R: “You are worried about US propaganda in the 1980s, when in 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved……? Good grief, come on, man…..”
I was not clear enough Doug. I only brought that to point out that Americans went about the communist propaganda the wrong way back than and not to make it somehow relevant to what’s going on now. It was a wrong focus altogether and now I am seeing a bit of a deja vu.
http://www.imdb.com/keyword/1980s/propaganda/
Mary: “Obama the community organizer turned messiah is no match for the ex-KGB man Putin. For Obama to threaten Putin with with “costs” should he invade the Ukraine is laughable.”
That is exactly it Mary! Yes!!! “reality,” given that he’s been around the block a time or two, seems to totally not understand that Putin can cause a lot of damage, in more ways than one, that will ultimately affect the US (and has already). And yet so many here defend this “checkers playing leader.”
The false sense of security the amateur Obama displays, is only understood by you Mary and me, apparently :)
Hello Thomas R,
Something we should find very reassuring. Say what you will about Putin, he isn’t an international laughing stock.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/o3/05/iranian-general-calls-obama-low-iq-president-over-military-threat/
What I find laughable is that y’all seem to think that Obama is the only person in US government and that he has no military advisers. Obama isn’t personally threatening Putin to drag him out for a street brawl or something, he’s making “threats” when he’s backed by US military and economic might.
Lol and I’m sure the Iranian general is a fine indicator of national sentiment towards Obama. Hahaha!
Jack,
Obama is spouting off about “costs”. Any indication of what those are? Apparently our military and economic might don’t exactly have Putin shaking in his boots.
I am certain the general is a fine indicator of how his gov’t, military, and countrymen view Obama. Why wouldn’t he be?
Thomas R: given that he’s been around the block a time or two, seems to totally not understand that Putin can cause a lot of damage, in more ways than one, that will ultimately affect the US (and has already). And yet so many here defend this “checkers playing leader.”
Yet again, what do you want done, TR? Playing checkers may be the best thing, and it looks like a majority of Americans think so.
You can spell your god however you wish truthseeker, your earlier comment is still fundamentally erroneous.
So Mary and “thomas r.”, still no explanation as to why you are claiming that putin is outshining, outclassing, outsmarting, outwhatevering obama. Just more subjective vitriol and empty rhetoric ‘cos you don’t like obama.
You offer no clarity as to what it is that might support your claims. You offer no suggestions as to how things could be done better, what you think obama should be doing. Or even what he could be doing. What is there that a US president can do about a small country being strong-armed by its larger neighbor on another continent, in the midst of the EU, where NATO is the miltary ‘authority’. Should he do what clinton did in the balkans? Should he act unilaterally?
An Iranian general Mary? Really, an Iranian? What other Iranian statements, behaviors, claims, laws and proclamations do you support?
Doug,
Then Obama should stick to playing checkers and dispense with the empty threats. Thankfully he listened to most Americans when he couldn’t figure out what to do next after drawing a “red line” in Syria.
Since Russia is now a free market economy, their shares are under pressure, their currency has fallen and their interest rates have risen. There are travel bans on some russian officials. Welcome to the real world putin, your actions have consequences you can’t avoid.
Reality,
The Iranian general gives us a good indication of how feared and respected Obama is by the gov’t of Iran, with whom he has so proudly negotiated a multilateral nuclear deal. I didn’t say I support the general or the Iranians.
Some suggestions as to what could be done:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/03/03/graham-everybodys-eyes-roll-when-obama-threatens-putin/
The video offers actions and alternatives the president can take. You can draw your own conclusions. Personally I view this like I do Syria, sit down, shut up, and stay out of what is just another civil upheavel. If the Ukrainians, like they Syrians, are unhappy with who’s ruling them, then let them take care of it. These situations always have ages old cultural and historical aspects we neither know or understand.
Putin outclasses Obama. Well, when was the last time you saw Putin standing at a 90 degree angle in front of another world leader?
Reality 5:27PM
As if that doesn’t have Putin quaking in his boots, Obama won’t send a delegation to the Sochi Paralympics in protest of Putin’s actions, though he will give our athletes his support. Take that Putin!!!
Tell me which world leaders The Iranians do fear and respect.
If the Ukrainians, like they Syrians, are unhappy with who’s ruling them, then let them take care of it. – if that’s what you think should be happening why are you complaining that obama isn’t doing anything effective? You should be claiming the new leaders in Kiev are being outclassed and outsmarted by putin. Why haven’t you said diddly-squat about the EU or NATO?
You really don’t want to acknowledge the geo-political realities do you. Something happens anywhere and you just immediately pipe up with “obama’s no good”. Someone gets injured in an accident because they didn’t wear their seatbelt, “obama’s weak”, someone’s dog get’s sick from an insect bite, “obama’s weak”.
when was the last time you saw Putin standing at a 90 degree angle in front of another world leader? – what is this even supposed to mean.
Obama won’t send a delegation to the Sochi Paralympics in protest of Putin’s actions – oh yes, and how do you think that would pan out? Tell us exactly how you would bring that off successfully. What next, parachute some evangelical christians into Iran to protest against christianity being suppressed?
Obama engineered the solution by which Syria relinquished its chemical weapons without any military action becoming necessary.
Drug cartels in south america – obama’s fault.
The repression of the Uyghurs by china – obama’s fault.
Same-sex marriage in france – obama’s fault.
Palestinian hatred of israel – obama’s fault.
My cat throwing up a furball – obama’s fault.
We don’t need us no rhyme or reason, just a good dollop of bile.
Lol:
http://forlackofabettercomic.com/?id=136
Reality,
Tell me which world leaders The Iranians do fear and respect. Irrelevant. Obama, for whom the Iranians view as “low IQ” and a “joke”, shouldn’t be so trusting of the Iranians when it comes to nuclear negotiations. Geez, they might actually think they can play Obama for an idiot…imagine that.
That’s my opinion. If Obama is going to threaten Putin, then he better back it up or he will again look as indecisive and dithering as he did during the Syrian situation. Putin has Obama well sized up and knows his threats amount to nothing. He’s the president, he has the information, he has to make the decisions where this country is concerned and back them up. Not me.
Reality, like every Obama supporter, you whine when anyone criticizes your idol. Directly quote me saying I hate Obama or that he’s no good.
http://www.telegraph.com.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5128171/Barack-Obama-criticised-for-bowing-to-King-Abdullah-of-Saudi-Arabia.html
Sorry link failed,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/10/did-obama-bow-to-saudi-king-abdullah
Then Obama should stick to playing checkers and dispense with the empty threats. Thankfully he listened to most Americans when he couldn’t figure out what to do next after drawing a “red line” in Syria.
Mary, I do agree there – no point in just “saying things,” sometimes.
Reality 6:24PM
You’re beginning to babble incoherently
Reality 6:33PM
Your whining is becoming tedious.
Tell me which world leaders The Iranians do fear and respect. Irrelevant. – if it’s irrelevant then why did you bother saying they don’t fear or respect obama? The truth is that they fear and respect no world leader, rendering your dig at obama on this point utterly meaningless.
shouldn’t be so trusting of the Iranians when it comes to nuclear negotiations. – that’s an assumption on your behalf.
That’s my opinion. – yep, nothing more.
If Obama is going to threaten Putin, then he better back it up – again you ignore the geo-political realities. It’s not just up to obama. It’s not up to the US alone. You still fail to recognise the EU and NATO.
Putin has Obama well sized up and knows his threats amount to nothing. – what you mean is putin thinks he has the group of world leaders involved well sized up. If obama went unilateral on this you would scream even more!
He’s the president, he has the information, he has to make the decisions where this country is concerned and back them up. Not me. – exactly. Try to remember that. Putin isn’t threatening the US. He hasn’t crossed the border into the US. This isn’t a Russia/US conflict. It’s not up to the US alone to resolve.
Your failure to understand the situation =/= incoherence on my behalf.
Thankfully he listened to most Americans when he couldn’t figure out what to do next after drawing a “red line” in Syria. – well that’s wrong. He figured out a way to remove chemical weapons from Syria without the need for military intervention.
Reality,
I already told you, our fearless leader made a nuclear deal with people who view him as low IQ and a joke. Just the people he should trust to honor an agreement.
Its an assumption on your behalf: Well Reality, if these are the kind of people you would trust……so be it.
Yep nothing more: My opinion was in reference to the fact the Obama should either put up or shut up.
You ignore the geopolitical realities: I realize that when you make threats you have to back them up. When you draw “red lines” you have to be prepared to act on your words. Otherwise you just look and sound like a man-child jumping up and down. In other words our president.
What you mean is Putin has the group of world leaders involved well sized up: Uh no Reality, I clearly stated Obama. I wouldn’t know what Putin thinks of other world leaders off hand.
Putin isn’t threatening the US: Exactly. Now you can agree or disagree with those nice people in the video I posted as to what alternative Obama has. Did I not say that its my opinion we should stay out of conflicts like Syria and the Ukraine? These conflicts are ages old and have historical and cultural factors we don’t understand. I also said our president should not be making threats unless he is very serious about backing them up. It makes a leader look very indecisive and dithering.
Well if you want to fall for Iranian propaganda so be it.
Your assumption that I was referring to is that obama trusts them.
What you mean is that the leaders of all nations involved in this scenario should put up or shut up.
Still you persist in ignoring the fact that this is a multi-lateral process. It’s not just about obama.
If you don’t know what putin thinks of other world leaders ‘off hand’ how do you know what he thinks of obama?
I saw no nice people in any video.
I do see a woman-child jumping up and down in a fit of pique.
Reality, 8:15PM
With a little help from Putin.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/times-putin-obama-syria/2013/09/12/id/525321
Delude-Lib,
You are right. It is unfair to keep blaming Obama. He is just a consummate political hack and the most incompetent president ever elected. It is time to blame the idiots who voted for him.
Good link Mary. Obama well and truly outclassed and outsmarted putin there. Obama knew Syria wouldn’t agree to relinquishing its chemical weapons peacefully. So he got Syria’s good friend putin to convince them to do so. And putin insulted the US to make himself look good at home.
I am concerned that you prefer the thinking, assessments and propaganda of places likes Iran, Russia and Syria though.
LOL Reality,
Let me help you.
According to the New York Times the Russian leader has basically stolen the show from Obama by offering his own plan that Syrian President Bashar Assad turn over his weapons to international control and by dispatching his foreign minister Sergey Lavrov to Geneva to meet with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in an attempt to hammer out the details.
“Mr. Putin appears to have achieved several objectives, largely at Washington’s expense” wrote the Times’ Steven Lee Myer on Thursday, noting that Putin “has handed a diplomatic lifeline to his longtime ally in Syria” has “stopped Mr. Obama from going around the United Nations Security Council” and has “boxed Mr. Obama into treating Moscow as an essential partner” on the issue.
Myers quoted Ian Bremer, the president of Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, who said in a conference call Wednesday, “Putin probably had his best day as president in years yesterday, and I suspect he’s enjoying himself right now.
I point out to you Reality this was quoted from the NY Times, who are not known for their right wing sympathies.
Reality,
Where does this say anything about Obama getting the Russians to convince Syria of anything?
Mods,
Why are my response to Reality in moderation?
You gotta email a mod to get it out of moderation Mary. Try Hans, he’s usually up late.
Thanks Jack.
Reality,
Since I was put in moderation for reasons I don’t know, I’ll ask you this. Where in the article does it specifically say Obama got help from Putin?
I didn’t say he got help from putin or that the article said he did. I said he outsmarted and outclassed putin because as soon as putin heard obama threaten action he convinced syria to relinquish its chemical weapons.
Please specify the actual threats obama has made against russia, with valid sources of confirmation.
Reality,
The article clearly states the scenario was not as you fantasize. Also the source was the NY Times, certainly no right wing publication.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-fg-wn-obama-ukraine-20140301,0,3474561.story#axzz2vFkPeA5m
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-raises-stakes-crimean-standoff-putin-22805939
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-crisis-obama-calls-putin-orders-sanctions-1.2562217
Also, refer back to my 5:57PM link. You can also google “Obama threatens to penalize Putin for actions in Ukraine” for more articles.
The article clearly states the scenario was not as you fantasize. – the facts speak for themselves.
link 1 – the U.S. may boycott an upcoming economic summit in Russia and threatened further penalties
link 2 – Obama issued an executive action slapping new visa restrictions on Russian and other opponents of Ukraine’s government in Kiev and authorizing wider financial penalties against those involved in the military intervention or in stealing state assets.
Obama hailed U.S. cooperation with the European Union, which imposed its own sanctions on Russia on Thursday
link 3 – Obama ordered the West’s first sanctions in response to Russia’s military takeover of Crimea today
I also said our president should not be making threats unless he is very serious about backing them up. – We are being told he has. This rather belies what your 5:57pm link claimed.
Thus this tweet from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday: “It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression.”
Graham’s friends explain this away as his effort to ward off a tea party challenge in South Carolina’s June primary. But that’s the point: Republicans indulge in Obama Derangement Syndrome precisely because so many who vote in GOP primaries demand it.
ah, my turn for moderation now :-)
Reality,
Check out yahoo news. Looks like Obama’s threats don’t exactly have Putin shaking in his boots. Putin for the most part told your hero to go take a flying leap.
I know, very difficult to even imagine.
Hope Obama has better luck keeping the Iranians in line!
“Yet again, what do you want done, TR? Playing checkers may be the best thing, and it looks like a majority of Americans think so.”
I guess so Doug. International politics has never been a strong attribute of the democratic party, so we can’t truly expect Obama to know what’s up and how to handle it. What do most Americans agree with – the fact that Obama can’t even face Putin for he may wet his pants? Do Americans agree that Obama screaming empty threats from across the ocean is better? HAHA…
Putin for the most part told your hero to go take a flying leap. - you have a source for this? I hope it’s as good as the last ones you provided :-)
obama shouldn’t get involved, obama should act not just speak, wail against what obama says, wail that obama doesn’t mean what he says – I do wish you’d make up your mind.
Maybe ODS will appear in the DSM by the end of obama’s 3rd or 4th term ;-)
Reality,
LOL. You act like this is my decision. I have made up my mind that we should stay out of this but if Obama chooses to make threats, he better be prepared to back them up. So the glorious leader has spoken, it remains to be seen what he will actually do. Its apparent what Obama can do with his threats and sanctions as far as Putin is concerned.
http://www.eurweb.com/2014/03/crimean-crisis-escalates-putin-rebuffs-obama/
Mary, if only Putin would R.S.P.E.C.T. us.
You act like this is my decision. – not at all. I just wish you were consistent.
So the glorious leader has spoken, it remains to be seen what he will actually do. - according to the sources you provided he’s done what he said he would do.
Its apparent what Obama can do with his threats and sanctions as far as Putin is concerned. – its apparent what anyone can do as far as putin is concerned. The europeans are taking the same actions as obama and are receiving the same response.
Reality,
I have remained consistent. Its what Obama does, not what I think.
He has made the threats. It remains to be seen if they will in fact be carried out or have any effect. So far no evidence Putin is about to change course.
LOL. You asked for a source on how Putin rebuffed Obama and I gave it to you. As for the Europeans, these are more likely the reasons Putin can tell them what to do with their threats as well.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/03/05/286231844/sanctions-on-russia-why-the-europeans-may-say-nyet
Hi Courtnay,
LOLLL. Must have been another teleprompter failure.