Skip to content

Andrew Sullivan Weighs in on Frum, Horowitz, Beck

September 22, 2009


Many on the Right tend to dismiss Andrew Sullivan these days. After his fierce criticism of George W. Bush, his enthusiastic embrace of Barack Obama, and his all out assault on Sarah Palin most conservatives now regard Sullivan as a vile enemy.

I refuse to succumb to this mentality for a few reasons, the most important of which is Sullivan’s book The Conservative Soul. When I was still a leftist Sullivan’s magnum opus managed to reframe conservatism in a way I’d never seen before. His conception of a “conservatism of doubt” inspired by Michael Oakeshott would profoundly influence me and prepare me for my engagement with David Horowitz’s means of understanding the Left as a religious movement. And, of course, Sullivan’s blog The Daily Dish remains continually entertaining, witty, and provocative whether one agrees with its views or not.

As such I bristle a bit when those on the Right make particularly harsh cracks about him. Regardless of important policy differences we have, The Conservative Soul is required reading for anyone interested in Conservatism.

So I was a tad disappointed when last night he chose not to weigh in on the Frum Vs. Horowitz debate and instead only snipe from the sidelines. He titled his post, “Dispatches From a Parallel Universe”:

David Frum and David Horowitz have been debating the worth of Glenn Beck. Frum is anti-Beck and thinks he should be cast out of the GOP; Horowitz thinks Beck provides a necessary service and deserves a seat at the table. Unsurprisingly the two are talking past each other.

Then after quoting from Horowitz’s response to Frum, Sullivan asks:

Where does one begin?

Thankfully Sullivan made his position a bit clearer this morning in a post titled “Beck to the Future” in which he commented on Peter Wehner’s anti-Beck piece at Commentary.

Noting Wehner’s statements that,

he [Beck] isn’t the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism… he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on.

Sullivan replied, basically siding with Frum,

I agree, of course. But I do think that Beck deserves some kudos for putting defense on the table as an issue for small government conservatives. There is no way the US can return to limited government without abandoning its neo-imperial ambitions and its middle class entitlements. The Pentagon, as that limited government president Eisenhower understood, is as much a big government program as Medicare or Social Security. Limited government Americans are rightly skeptical of a government that insists on a massive investment of time, money and human beings in open-ended nation-building in a place where these is no nation and no credible government.

So Sullivan likes that Beck is drifting toward a less aggressive foreign policy. Delightful.

Andrew_Sullivan_croppedI think one of the major reasons for why Frum, Sullivan, and Wehner do not see the value in Beck is simple: They do not understand the nature of the Left. Because if they did then they would realize that engaging with much of the Left in a friendly, low volume fashion is not going to work.

So instead Sullivan mocks the idea that anyone could have views similar to the fellow travelers of the Cold War. In a post on September 11 titled  “Now: Commies!” Sullivan wrote,

The latest Drudge headline describes Putin and Chavez as “reds”. Putin a commie? WND is accusing Valerie Jarrett of being a communist. And Van Jones is also, apparently, a communist. Are we really back in the 1950s?

Now I’ll be the first to acknowledge when conservatives go too far in their rhetoric. I’ve often checked people for labeling Obama a socialist. Obama certainly emerges from the culture of the Left but calling him a “communist”? It just isn’t accurate. (Jones, though, said in 2005 that his radical views had not changed, he’d only adopted moderate tactics.)

What also isn’t accurate is to deny that such people have significant pull within the Democratic Party. What isn’t accurate is to jump on board the Left’s slander that opposition to Van Jones, ACORN, and Obama comes from racist animosity toward a black president and African-Americans.

In a post condemning Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin for racially politicizing a video of a black student beating up a white student Sullivan wrote of Limbaugh,

This man is spewing incendiary racial hatred. He is conjuring up images of lonely whites being besieged by angry violent blacks … based on an incident that had nothing to do with race at all. And why, by the way, does someone immediately go to the racial angle when looking at such a tape?

These people are going off the deep end entirely: open panic at a black president is morphing into the conscious fanning of racial polarization, via Gates or ACORN or Van Jones or a schoolbus in Saint Louis. What we’re seeing is the Jeremiah Wright moment repeated and repeated. The far right is seizing any racial story to fan white fears of black power in order to destroy Obama. And the far right now controls the entire right.

Do they understand how irresonsible this is? How recklessly dangerous to a society’s cohesion and calm? Or is that what they need and thrive on?

(Note how the critique mirrors Frum almost perfectly. Take an instance in which a talker oversteps in their rhetoric or is off base in their analysis and declare them poisonous in the harshest terms.)

I used to be like Sullivan, perpetually disgusted by figures like Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, and Ann Coulter. I knew that Conservatism could only survive if it vomited them out and labeled them dangerous kooks.Olbermann preparing to vomit up Media Matters' poison onto the American People.

Then I got mugged by reality.

I realized that I cannot sit down and reason with every political opponent. I realized that there are people who reject capitalism and American freedom. There are people more concerned with protecting Islamofascist terrorists than American citizens. There are people who see Israel as equivalent to a totalitarian state. And I realized that we conservatives of doubt are ill-equipped to grapple with them.

Coulter/Beck/Limbaugh/Malkin — those I’ve described as Conservatism’s Rooks — are. And the proper response of we conservatives of doubt (the bishops and knights) is not to try and knock the Rooks off the board, but to pull them back when they go too far. (Ron Radosh wrote about this  yesterday.) And by the same token, the Rooks must push us when we do not go far enough. Thus the founders’ concept of checks and balances is absorbed fully into the Conservative Movement.

I’m discouraged that Sullivan has grown so disillusioned by the rise of Conservatism’s Rooks and the imbalance of influence they’ve developed  over the past few years that he’s more or less completely abandoned the Right. Because one thing that I came to accept when I finally caved and joined the Freedom Center is this: one cannot influence the Conservative Movement and try and save it from itself if one is not a part of it. One has little influence over the Becks if one is not friends with them.

Maybe the tide will turn at some point for Sullivan. Maybe he’ll realize that as a conservative of doubt he actually has more in common with Beck than he does with Obama’s inner circle and most fervent supporters. Maybe he’ll discover that the noble gay rights cause he champions with such skill will be best served through a continued engagement with the Right as he had been doing before abandoning the movement. Maybe he’ll realize that the Conservatism being shaped by those of us in Generation Y might be more to his liking (libertarian, gay-friendly, optimistic, less dogmatic) than that fashioned primarily by his Gen X and Boomer colleagues.

If he does have something approximating these “second thoughts” then he should be welcomed back into the Conservative fold. He’s too talented a thinker to be surrendered to the Left.

  1. jbtrevor permalink
    September 22, 2009 3:17 pm

    Is there some elistism in our conservative opiners?

    (PS – I changed by log in info and it changed everything about me – well not everything)

    • carterthewriter permalink
      September 22, 2009 4:03 pm


      • jbtrevor permalink
        September 23, 2009 6:11 am


        By my elitism comment I was referring to the tendency to criticize those in our tent leading to marginalization rather than constructive criticism resulting in understanding and inclusion. It is often a disagreement on a single issue (and perhaps the audacity of style) that causes the leap to marginalization where agreement on other issues is overlooked or seen only through that single issues lens of disagreement.

        Regardless, being open to being wrong or on the wrong side of the discussion; requires interior courage and honesty.

        As a side, I think this is what happens just prior to “jumping ship” to the other side. If people aren’t comfortable with something that is as important to them as some “single issues” may be; they find comfort elsewhere. I could be way off base here, but I think single issue contributed more to David Brock’s leap out of our tent into the Leftist smokehut/mediamatters than political ideology. I also don’t think he’s got got his stakes very firmly planted.

  2. Jerrel permalink
    September 22, 2009 7:07 pm

    “I think one of the major reasons for why Frum, Sullivan, and Wehner do not see the value in Beck is simple: They do not understand the nature of the Left. Because if they did then they would realize that engaging with much of the Left in a friendly, low volume fashion is not going to work.”

    BULLS-EYE David!

  3. mark permalink
    September 22, 2009 8:01 pm

    Certainly, Andrew is a talented writer. That’s probably the nicest thing I can say about him. Considering his political/philosophical about-face during the recent Bush administration, I wouldn’t be so quick to welcome him back into the fold. While I appreciate the role that Sullivan’s writings have evidently played in influencing my colleague David Swindle, I remain (as do many conservatives) distrustful of his motives. I’m in fact highly suspicious of same, given the rather stunning disparity of positions he has taken over the years on very similar issues. While there’s certainly nothing wrong with an evolution in one’s thinking, rather than acknowledge his shifts as such, Andrew typically denies he’s contradicted himself, thereby avoiding any responsibility to explain his reasoning. Quite simply, I consider him intellectually dishonest at best and at worst a political and social opportunist, taking whatever position he happens to feel is most personally advantageous at the time.

    Not coincidentally, Sullivan’s been effectively banned from FNC, telling in itself considering that Fox welcomes articulate commentators from virtually any point on the political spectrum. In my view he’s watered down his conservative stance into something more politically palatable to his gay associates (a calculus about which I happen to know quite a lot) and in the process sold his soul in exchange for acceptance within “the community”. As with David Brock (who made an even more radical shift in political alliances for what I believe were similar reasons), I find such a move contemptible.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 19, 2009 4:36 am

      That was very aluminating and answered I believe some questions for me Mark. I would not trust Sullivan either.

  4. David Forsmark permalink
    September 22, 2009 8:59 pm

    Andrew Sullivan began his hissy fit when George W. Bush stood against gay marriage. He also would basically give constitutional rights to ununiformed enemy combatants, and screams Geneva Convention. If he were half the intellect he thinks he is, he would realize that extending the GC to the non-uniformed makes a uniform a disadvantage while the GC was there to PROMOTE rules of war, including wearing a uniform and distinguishing warriors from civilians. He is just too prissy and squeamish on the issue and wants to think of himself as above all that rough stuff.

    However, his persistence beyond ALL reason in insisting that Sarah Palin did not give birth to her last child made him a national joke. He shouldn’t be allowed to live that down any more than Al Sharpton should escape his past and be mainstreamed.

    He used to be must-read for me, too. But he’s lost his mind.

    • jbtrevor permalink
      September 23, 2009 5:23 am

      David Forsmark said: “He {Sullivan} used to be must-read for me, too. But he’s lost his mind.”

      And David Brock found it…

    • September 23, 2009 6:31 am

      Well he wrote “The Conservative Soul” before he “lost his mind.” Does that make it worth considering?

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 19, 2009 5:57 am

      David Forsmark,
      Sir these comments and many others is why I keep reading Newsreel. With the excellent moderation of David Swindle it is a free for all of opinion as long as it remains in the sensible realm. As more than a casual observer of people in reference to David Brock he was an angry man when he departed. I read some of his articles and his anger was palpable. I had to wonder if he really thought that the majority of the American people were going to give up there beliefs in regard to homosexuality that they would accept the destruction of marriage completely by approving of a union that would be both to most unholy and adverse to all that believed marriage to be a union blessed by God. Destroy marriage and you destroy the corner stone of civilization. There are those that mistakenly think that when older people die out that homosexual marriage will be accepted just as normal marriage. They are fooling them self it will never be accepted by the vast majority of the people as a real marriage. If the current administration tries some back handed way to make it legal it will simply be another nail in the coffin of the current union which now is fragile at best. The introduction of openly serving homosexuals into the military will be the death knell of the greatest military the world has ever seen. It would be another issue that would help splinter the union which is now a powder keg.

  5. Cynthia Lauren permalink
    September 22, 2009 11:01 pm

    David…………. I appreciated hearing how your ‘mugging’ by reality influenced your world view. I too, was one in the same, as I sat listening to my ADMITTEDLY Socialist teachers (Yes. He SAID he was a Socialist and he was paid to teach me HISTORY, David.) and my peers and I were taught to literally HATE our country. No wonder; now that I consider “WHERE” I grew up.

    But, Kiddo??? I ASSURE YOU that if either you or Mr. Sullivan met up with the 120 homosexuals that invaded the hotel where my family and I were staying… you’d have a definitely different ‘view’/heart change/SEA change within yourselves regarding the accommodation of their numerous agendas.

    The ‘Gays’ (an oxymoron, when one actually KNOWS any homosexuals.) came into the hotel for the weekend. They flew in from Denver, Colorado because their accountants had given them ‘inside information’. They knew that Salt Lake City, Utah was going to be ‘winning’ the bid to host the Winter Olympics of 2002 and these ‘men’ (?) came in to BUY UP all the Park City properties they could BEFORE the general public could even smell what was ‘in the wind’. The year was 2000.

    What happened after they descended upon the property like literal filthy flies ~ was that they hooted and hollered throughout the hotel… they picked up hoses off the maids cleaning trollies and made sexual contact with their fellow ‘buddies’ through their clothes (perhaps today ~ they’d’ve been naked in the hallways? Is that what Mr. Sullivan would support, I wonder? (Afterall…they have RIGHTS; so we’re told.)

    Unfortunately for me ~ I’d left a pair of earrings on a dresser in my room (we left in haste because I instinctively knew this was NOT a healthy environment for my child or ANYONE ELSE for that matter) and I had to travel up in an elevator with 6 of their ilk. As the door to the elevator closed, one of the ‘men’ walked up and grinned into my face.

    David. He put his face 2 inches from my mine… He placed his two filthy hands on my breasts and gave them a hearty sqeeze, kept his hands firmly on my person and asked me if I was afraid.

    I ask you and anyone else in this world ~ in the name of ALL THAT IS DECENT AND civilized ~ WHAT would you or any ‘non-homophobe’ like Mr. Sullivan done???????????? Would you have simply slipped your hand onto his privates while his Fellow ‘tea baggers’ watched in glee? I sincerely doubt it. My question to you and to ANY OTHERS who ‘support’ homosexual agendas to answer me: WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE? I dare you to respond ~ anyone.

    Well, my new friend ~ I did what I could ONLY do. I stood and didn’t make the slightest effort to remove his hands and start a conflict in a closed elevator. I boldly looked into his loveless eyes and said that he didn’t scare me in the least and that I’d crapped bigger than this him. My glare was uncompromising, my tone of voice, unflinching. We rode the elevator in total silence to the 2nd floor.
    The door opened and I saw ‘men’ feigning fornication in the hallways. They were unable to contain themselves till they got into their rooms. I asked ‘him’ if he was through and he took his hands off me and I walked calmly to my room, found my earrings and took the stairwell on the way down. Sure, after wards I was flustered ~ I took numerous baths that evening because the sense of wickedness was THAT thick in that elevator… but, David and ALL others………I stood my ground.

    And, now ~ ‘why’ did I share this with you AND Mr. Sullivan and ALL the ‘activists’ that simply want ‘gays’ to have ‘rights’???

    Well, Sir. I’ll tell You. Do you or any other rational caring human being THINK that your innocent son or daughter ~ when placed in the situation that I found myself ~ would have the presence of mind to get outta that without harm of some kind?????????????? I daresay NOT. Before ‘straight’ men of conscience go about condoning and supporting demonic activities such as homosexuality brings about…………. Unless you’ve LIVED and LEARNED what they can and DO do…. I strongly suggest that we keep these men (and women) away from our children.
    Yeah. It’s a HOT BUTTON for me, guys.

    The ‘dirty little secret’ is that many homosexuals are NOT little sissys that run away when you say ‘boo’. They can cause irreparable harm to others. Everyone should wake to this, one of many Truths that have been hidden by these ‘so called’ progressives.

    I walked out of that elevator with my body bruised but my confidence unshaken, in fact ~ it was only increased. I suggest other ‘rights’ based individuals research their subject before we allow their cascading agendas to come to fruition. They want your children. Will you fight for them?

    Cindy Thorpe
    South Australia

    • September 23, 2009 6:10 am

      I’m sorry about what happened to you Cindy but you’re not thinking clearly. You had negative experiences with one group of gays and thus conclude that all gays are immoral, horrible people. That’s like having negative experiences with one group of blacks or one group of Jews and then deciding that all blacks and Jews must be like that.

      Thinking that the group of gays you encountered is representative of the whole and should drive how you feel about gay rights issue is a logical fallacy I suggest you reexamine.

  6. A.C. permalink
    September 23, 2009 4:11 am

    Frankly, I NEVER thought he was ‘must-read’ and have been continuously perplexed at everyone’s praise of him as either a) intelligent or interesting, or b) even remotely conservative or libertarian in any way shape or form. He’s a cultural leftist and always has been! I don’t need to read someone who calls me a “Christianist” (whatever that is) bigot because I care about defending religious liberty. And it’s hard to trust one who takes Sullivan seriously.

    • September 23, 2009 6:05 am

      “And it’s hard to trust one who takes Sullivan seriously.”

      Then don’t trust me. I don’t need the trust of people who demonstrate they don’t know how to think properly.

      Unless you’ve read “The Conservative Soul” then you’re in no position to judge me. Had he not written that book I wouldn’t be defending him as I am.

      Further you’re committing an ad hominem logical fallacy. You’ve decided that because Sullivan has advocated some ideas you don’t like he therefore can present no ideas of value. This is irrational thinking. I suggest you read my recent piece on ad hominem:

  7. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 23, 2009 6:49 am

    I read Sullivans book and it was interesting but since he has completely gone off the rails. You have to remember that every one of the 3 great religions condemn homosexual conduct. On the personal side many of the homosexual homes I have searched I found child porn so I do believe there is a problem there. I remember one picticular house in GA. a town close to Atlanta it was horrific my experience prompts me to oppose homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption. We all have to go by our personal experiences I also know what is seen in any of the homosexual pride parades in many of the major cities is a disgrace. San Francisco has men performing sexual acts openly on the streets it violates all human decency and has been attempted to be main streamed by the media. Besides I thought Sullivan went into interior decorating? Just a little humor.

    • September 23, 2009 8:01 am

      1. That Judaism condemns homosexuality is irrelevant. It also proscribes execution as punishment for it. It also condemns wearing clothes of 2 different fabrics. You can’t just pick and choose which laws you want to follow from Leviticus.

      2. That Islam condemns homosexuality is even more irrelevant. You would take moral advice from a religion that legitimizes wife-beating?

      3. Christianity does not condemn homosexuality. The passages commonly interpreted as blanket condemnations of homosexuality are misinterpreted and read out of context. I’ve blogged about this:

      4. Conservatives should not be anti-homosexuality, we should be anti-promiscuity and pro-marriage. Why would you have any problem with a committed gay couple who possess the same morals and attitudes of a married heterosexual couple? You seem to primarily be disgusted with gay promiscuity — as you should be. (And I’m not saying religious conservatives need to be pro-gay marriage. But they should be pro-committed relationships.)

      5. Regarding gays and child porn, see my above comment about logical fallacies. Because you come across child porn in the homes of a few gays does not mean it should have any relevance in attacking all gays.

      6. Conservatism cannot survive if it is to maintain it’s anti-gay bigotry. In fact it’s quickly losing its anti-gay sentiment. And as more Generation Y Conservatives such as myself begin participating in the movement anti-gay attitudes will naturally be diminished.

      7. No we don’t have to go by our personal experiences. We have to go by the facts and by logic. Your personal experiences with a few gays translating into anti-gay bigotry is no different than someone have negative experiences with a handful of Jews or blacks and then becoming a racist or anti-Semite. It’s like a woman being raped by one man and thus becoming an anti-male sexist. Clear logical fallacy.

      • Samuel permalink
        September 23, 2009 9:06 am

        Hi David,

        What you say would be valid, if the very nature, the brain wiring, of a homosexual didn’t seek promiscuity. In addition, several years ago research showed the vast majority of homosexuals first experiences were while they were under the age of consent and with someone over the age of consent. This was statistically significant when compared to a heterosexuals first experience, commonly with someone of closely equal age.

        If it is a brain wiring question, than lumping the dislike/distrust of homosexuals with racism is a completely fallacious argument. If you do an IQ test where you lump like items you wouldn’t lump homosexuality with race because homosexuality is a innate behavior not an appearance or trained behavior.

        Recognizing the limitations as well as the positive attributes of the wiring doesn’t necessarily make one anti-homosexual. But, ignoring the limitations to appear openminded could be naive.


        • September 23, 2009 9:27 am

          The “brain-wiring of a homosexual” does not seek promiscuity. The male sex drive (both homo and hetereo) seeks promiscuity. And with gay men there is not a female check on the male sex drive, hence you see greater promiscuity with gay men than you do with lesbians. But that doesn’t mean that plenty of gay men don’t eventually realize that monogamy is superior to promiscuity. And we as conservatives should encourage them in that instead of embracing evangelicals’ fantasy of “reprogramming” gays to be straight.

        • brimp permalink
          September 23, 2009 9:38 am

          The males that were most successful in passing their genes along were the ones who had the most copulations with females aged 14-40. The females that were most successful in passing their genes along were the ones that found one male to support her and the children. Males have a predisposition to be promiscuous. Women are a taming influence on men. In the gay community that taming influence is missing. The promiscuous nature of males in magnified in an all male environment. I’m not making a value judgment on this.

          As for the age of consent comments, I have no idea whether they are valid or not. But, what is the age of consent. Is it 21? 18? 16? 14? 12? Clearly there is some age that a person is not able to consent to engage in sexual activity. But what is the age? If you say 18 and your neighbors say 14 then how do you resolve this conflict? Should there be a difference in the age of consent for heterosexual activity than homosexual? There does seem to be a fixation of gay men to teen age boys. I can not tell if this is different from heterosexual men’s attractions to 16 year old girls.

          The real question is homosexuality learned or is it something that you are born with? I don’t know if anyone has come up with the answer to this question.

          • September 23, 2009 9:51 am

            Age of consent is a tough question. I don’t think there should be a difference for whether the sex is homosexual or heterosexual. 16 seems like a good age for someone to have sex with someone 18 or older. However if someone 17 has sex with someone that’s 15? Or if 2 15 year olds have sex? It’s all very complicated and difficult.

            It’s probably a mix of nature and nurture. Who knows? Not that it really matters.

            I think you’re on the right track regarding adult males being attracted to teenagers no matter their orientation.

            • Samuel permalink
              September 23, 2009 6:56 pm

              “I think you’re on the right track regarding adult males being attracted to teenagers no matter their orientation.”

              No question, it is just that the wiring of homosexuals allow them to act on that impulse over a heterosexual. You can’t ignore all the statistics on homosexual promiscuity. I’m not saying it doesn’t occur in heterosexuals, we are talking behavioral statistics. Are you finding yourself rationalizing because you don’t want to appear openminded?


            • Jack Hampton permalink
              October 19, 2009 6:07 am

              I was never attracted to young girls as an adult I mean the teenage type I guess I was different. But I believe that adult males that seek out underage females are just as bad as adult males that seek out underage males and the weight of the laws should fall on both equally.

  8. brimp permalink
    September 23, 2009 7:46 am

    The principles of the declaration of Independence (that my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from a higher power and that governments are instituted to secure these rights) are worth conserving. The words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are meaningless because their definitions are so vague. What are conservatives conserving? What are liberals liberating? Is Sullivan a conservative? Is Beck? Since the definition of the word is so vague, the answer to both questions is yes and no. Latin is a dead language. The reason why we use Latin words in Law is because the meanings don’t change. Trying to purify the conservative movement without creating a precise definition of the word is doomed to failure.

    • September 23, 2009 8:05 am

      “The principles of the declaration of Independence (that my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from a higher power and that governments are instituted to secure these rights) are worth conserving.”

      That is the definition of Conservatism — that the principles of the founders should be defended. We should have a society in which freedom is the central value.

      • brimp permalink
        September 23, 2009 8:48 am

        Was George W. Bush a conservative? Was Jerry Falwell? Is Ron Paul? How about David Horowitz? Clearly the definition of the word Conservatism is not agreed upon. The K.K.K. and Martin Luther King used the same Bible to support very different ideas. Yet they considered themselves to be Christians. George W. Bush increased the welfare state and Ron Paul tried to decrease it. If they are both conservatives then the word should be voided for vagueness.

        • September 23, 2009 9:41 am

          Being conservative in one’s politics and BEING A CONSERVATIVE are two different things. To be a conservative suggests that one is a participant in the conservative movement. To merely be conservative means one holds certain ideas and values. See the distinction? (I think Rush Limbaugh talked about this before.)

          Increasing the size of the welfare state is not a litmus test for being a conservative or being conservative. One who identifies as a conservative is not always going to do conservative things.

          But on both counts one could argue that neither Bush nor Paul are true conservatives. Bush is a politician who USED the conservative movement to get elected. (See the new book “Speech-Less” by a former Bush speechwriter who attacks him from the Right.) And Paul’s politics have more to do with libertarianism than conservatism.

          Jerry Falwell was more of a fundamentalist Christian political activist than a conservative. David Horowitz is a conservative in that he identifies with and supports the conservative movement.

  9. Samuel permalink
    September 23, 2009 8:04 am

    Sullivan wrote:
    “The Pentagon, as that limited government president Eisenhower understood, is as much a big government program as Medicare or Social Security.”

    Limited was meant to cover scope more than size. Where in the scope of the Constitution is funding for Medicare and Social Security? It isn’t there, government should be limited in the programs it gets into, that is limited government by enumerated powers. Defense, by its collective value to all citizens is one of the very few things the government should be involved in.


  10. Mr. GJG permalink
    September 23, 2009 9:18 am

    I’m not sure what to make of your chess analogy other than that it has a tinge of elitism.
    The “Rooks” you mention don’t need to be “pulled back” as you say, when YOU think they go to far, because you and your ilk are not the voices of the movement, but the (barely) tolerated fringe.
    I don’t agree with the “birther movement” but I’ll align myself with them any day if the alternative is joining a group of phony elitists who care more what Katy Couric thinks of them then Sarah Palin.

    • September 23, 2009 9:34 am

      And what is this “tinge of elitism” you speak?

      Conservative intellectuals and conservative entertainment figures need to work together, support each other, and check one another. What’s elitist about that sentiment? Limbaugh and Beck have intellectuals like Horowitz, Sowell, etc. on all the time. They get their ideas from conservative intellectuals. As Ron Radosh pointed out, Beck rips his ideas of Wilson from Jonah Goldberg.

      The rooks do go far. Beck admitted that he made a mistake with saying Obama hates white people. It’s not hard to find instances in which talkers’ rhetoric or thinking goes over the top.

      Who says that rejecting the Birthers as poisonous, conspiracist crackpots means one must “align” oneself (whatever that means) with Katie Couric?

  11. Mr. GJG permalink
    September 23, 2009 11:04 am

    I personally don’t think Beck should have backed off his charge of Obama being anti-white.
    Conservative’s get accused of racism all the time with nary a modicum of evidence, and its being levied by the so called leaders of their party.
    I think even you’d have to agree that the Wrights, Van Jones, Mark Lloyds and Frank Marshalls have expressed some views that would be considered anti-white.
    These are the people who the president aligns himself with.
    I think Obama needs to explain what about these people he finds appealing, because frankly, most fair minded people see them for what they are, and its anything but mainstream.
    Why are you focusing on the proverbial twig in Becks eye while ignoring the two by four in Obama’s?

    • September 23, 2009 11:08 am

      “Why are you focusing on the proverbial twig in Becks eye while ignoring the two by four in Obama’s?”

      I don’t think anyone that’s read my posts and read this publication which I edit could claim that I’m ignoring the 2×4 in Obama’s eye. We confront Obama’s problematic ideas 24/7.

  12. Mr. GJG permalink
    September 23, 2009 11:14 am

    Fair enough.
    I will peruse some of your articles.

  13. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 23, 2009 11:50 am

    David in all respect to you I will have to take the Holy Fathers word for it and again go by what I have witnessed in life. I also know the vast majority of people regardless of there positions do not agree with you It is obvious by the referendums that have been held all over the country. I do not think homosexuals should be attacked period and anyone that does attack or advocates attacking homosexuals and commiting violence against them are violating the law just as someone from the Aryan brotherhood that assaults a black person and I locked up plenty of those. I did not just have a few cantacts with homosexuals before I retired but many in different states as far away as Hawaii. I do not hate homosexuals no more than I hate someone that commits adultry both are sin to me and one of the best pardners I ever had for an 18 month period was a homosexual that I trusted with my life and would again. But we argued about this all across the country and we remain friends to this day. Now I am retired and he cannot be more than a year from retirement if we were to work again the discussion would begin again I know what your thinking when all the older people like me die off it will be different. I thought the same thing about some things my grandfather and father told me as well it is just not that simple and San Francisco and a few other homosexual enclaves are not the norm nor do they set the standard for the rest of the country. I want to make it clear if I have not already done so I do not hate any homosexual but I will never be able to see it as normative behavior and if you have thoughts that you will see that in your life time on a national scale you will be badly disapointed. There are also research and study going on at different universities and even private concerns so I by no means think the question is settled yet. But I have to disagree. but they by no means should be barred from any political party.

    • September 23, 2009 12:08 pm

      Did you go to the links I provided? In the New Testament Paul is condemning Pagan fertility cults, not our modern day understanding of what homosexuality means. And as demonstrated you’re already not following what the Old Testament says about gays since you don’t think violence should be inflicted on them.

      “I thought the same thing about some things my grandfather and father told me as well it is just not that simple”

      Yeah, it is that simple. Would your grandfather and father have ever expected to see a black President? Heck, it used to be illegal for people of different races to get married. But over the decades the country has evolved on that civil rights issue and it will evolve on this one too. It already has and it will continue to.

      However, I do respect your religious convictions and your clarifications.

  14. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 23, 2009 12:29 pm

    I believe and a lot of people are going back to the theory that it is caused by several things one is molestation at a young age by an older male also by an over bearing and domineering female figure mother or some one in that role and lack of a strong male role model. The promiscuous conduct is prevalent in the homosexual comunity and is well documented. But it is still conduct and it is I believe something a person is born with. Of course there will be those that disagree.

    • brimp permalink
      September 23, 2009 12:36 pm

      Is it strong mothers and lack of strong fathers that cause homosexuality in children or is it that the mothers detect that their kid is homosexual and that the kid need to be protected more and the fathers distancing themselves from the kid for the same reason?

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 19, 2009 6:17 am

        I do not believe that mothers detect there child is a homosexual. There have been to many that have been stunned to learn there son was a homosexual.

        • brimp permalink
          October 19, 2009 9:47 am

          When I was in elementary school, I detected that some boys acted more like girls and some girls acted more like boys (tomboys). As I grew up, the effeminate boys were obviously gay. Most of the tomboys lost their tomboyness at about age 15. If I detected this, surely their parents could have detected this also.

          This is not to say that all homosexual males are effeminate or that all effeminate men are homosexual. It is a proxy that I have used to comprehend this complex phenomenon.

  15. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 23, 2009 12:31 pm

    Age of consent is determined by state legislatures. Now Nambla has been trying to get it reduced for years. In most states it is 16.

  16. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 23, 2009 12:50 pm

    Yes sir
    My grandfather told me absolutely that we would have a black president. He also told me we would put men on the moon which some people did not believe. But again we are talking about two different things someone is born black you are not born homosexual there is no homosexual gene. You are also quite right it will evolve but not they way you believe. I have read the bible and I know what you refer to but that does not alter the facts. know in my heart what is right and what is wrong. It appears that we will just disagree on this subject like gentlemen.

    • September 23, 2009 12:57 pm

      Fair enough, my friend. 🙂

  17. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 23, 2009 12:58 pm

    I believe it is just an oppressive female that does not realize what she is doing nor does the absent father if by not being married or he has his head up and not involved with the child. This has been listed as the cause I think it was by Sigman Freued. But it was excepted by the Phys. Doctors up until a several years ago. Many are refocusing on that in the medical comunity.

    • brimp permalink
      September 23, 2009 1:38 pm

      I heard a statistic a few months ago that I found hard to believe: 92% of American black babies are born out of wedlock. If this number is even close then we will see in a few years whether the absent father is causing homosexuality in their children. I’m not sure what the current percentage of black men are homosexual but If Freud’s theory is correct, we should see that percentage going up dramatically.

      • jbtrevor permalink
        September 23, 2009 3:39 pm

        Regarding the 92% of American black babies being born out of wedlock: That seems a bit high to me but I opine that the “war on poverty” has destroyed the American family in general and specifically the black American family.

        Far too many women birth babies not only out of wedlock but with out a father presence. I believe this phenomenon has been enabled largely because the taxpayers have taken the place of daddy. And when relationships don’t work out with daddy; it is often daddy that get’s the shaft.

        Whether they are gay or not doesn’t bother me…that the likelihood of becoming a successful & contributing member of society is diminished in “families” without daddies, bothers me greatly.

  18. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 23, 2009 1:07 pm

    I appreciate that comment Mr. Swindle I gave you a thumbs up wish you were here to try my chicken enchialades.

  19. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 23, 2009 1:46 pm

    I do not know if it is that high but the absence of the father alone does not cause a male to become a homosexual. A woman can raise a son and him be perfectly normal it depends on how over powering her personality is. If you look I said there were more than one factor as well molestion being one. If you can review what Freud had to say it must be on line. So just the absence of the father alone does not mean the boy will be homosexual there are several factors.

  20. John Schuh permalink
    October 18, 2009 9:49 pm

    Brimp, No one knows what causes homosexuality. What I find a convincing explanation for the POLITICAL homosexuality is a reaction to exclusion from a society that follows Judeo-Christian norms of sexuality. all those in society who deviate from it are banding together to compel society to change those norms by force of law. Gays are joined by those who don’t want to be constrained by laws based on Christian morality. My problem is that such radical changes produce undesirable results, or at least results that are going to change American society in ways that may undermine it. Radical individualism recognizes no authority and bows only to raw power. It opposes the traditional family, tribe, Church and all other tradition and intermediate associations except the state. The Gay rights movement organizes like other intermediate associations to capture the power of the state to destroy its opponents. Gay marriage is only a tactic that aims to reform family law to its own advantage. It has no interest in what other gays think about sexual relations. Most gays, I suppose, find the ideas a bit absurd, since marriage fetters their actions. It is being sold, I guess, by the social advantages of seeming moderation in adopting the outward forms of marriage. In an way it is the imitation of the actions of many “straights” who see marriage as just a social convention, which leads to the serial polygamy that results from easy divorce laws. No one seems to put much stress on marriage as a structure for reproduction and the care of children. That seems to be an afterthought. We have no idea what a society will look like if marriages cease to be about children and become no more than partnerships between couples. The number of two-parent households has dropped to about 25%. The number of single-parent households has risen phenomenally. What will happens when the per cent. drops lower? Gays, of course, have little interest in children except for those who wish for personal and philanthropic reasons to nature children. How does this jell with the thinking of the many gays whose couplings are just for sex or for not being alone? Gays have noticed the increase in the number of childless straight couples, childless because children are unwanted. They argued –in effect–that this makes such marriages “dishonest”. So why should they be discriminated against for wanting the same rights?

    • brimp permalink
      October 18, 2009 11:09 pm

      What is marriage? A license or a contract? A license is a grant from a competent authority to do what would otherwise be unlawful or a tort. A contract is an agreement between parties. Some contracts are recognized by others, like insurance (two unmarried people do not get the same price as a married couple), and some don’t, like plane tickets (two unmarried people pay the same price as a married couple). If two men, or two women, wish to enter a marriage contract, who am I to have an opinion on this? The marriage license was originated when the King of England did not want Scots and English to intermarry. He could not stop two English people or two Scots from marrying.

      The problem with the current marriage licensing scheme is that if same sex couples are prohibited then the rights of each person would be violated. If it is allowed, then the rights of those who have moral objections would be violated. Forcing Christian churches to perform services that violate their dogma is very destabilizing. Since churches are 501 c(3) ‘religious organizations’ , they may be forced to recognize the homosexual couple or loose their tax exempt status. If Christian people can use the machinery of government to promote their values, then the precedent has been set and the gay people can hijack the machinery for their ends.

      The benefit of the current marriage license is that a bundle of contracts are created automatically. These contracts include durable power of attorney, government welfare payments like social security, contracts with companies in regulated industries like insurance, and others. Can one get married in America without a license? That is the question. If we did away with licensing, I think that the issue would resolve itself: Same sex couples could get married and those who have a problem with this will not recognize the contracts.

      As to the percentage of people, straight or gay, who are married, or have children; I don’t have enough knowledge to have an opinion. Even if I did, it is none of my business what other people do.

      The rolls of the state in the marriage contract scheme are: 1) to determine that all parties have reached the age of consent, 2) That all parties have consented, 3) to resolve breeches of contract and terminations of contracts.

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 19, 2009 6:25 am

        What two adult women or men do in the privacy of there abode I do not care. However I do care when they try to push it off as normal on me or my family. It is just not going to happen. That is another reason that you see the explosion of private and home schooling. It will be from these learning enviorments that tomorrows leaders will come.

        • brimp permalink
          October 19, 2009 10:05 am

          The government indoctrination centers, also known as ‘public schools’, are used to program the next generation. This is not new. It was set up in the 1800’s to produce good factory workers. That is: someone who does not challenge authority, that shows up every day on time, and that compares himself to his peers and not to the teacher/boss. If you give the government authority to program your children then your children will probably have different values than you have. The reason that you allow this is because of the programming that you received as a child. The separation of school and state is what is needed. Governments’ purpose is to secure my, and your, unalienable rights. Period. Once you allow it out of constitutional cage, the servant becomes the master.

  21. Samuel permalink
    October 19, 2009 5:55 pm

    One other problem with devaluing marriage is that heterosexual couples eventually see it as meaningless, resulting in more abandoned single mothers. Understandably.

    • October 19, 2009 6:05 pm

      How does allowing gays to get married “devalue” marriage? How would my wife and I supporing our gay friends getting married in any way encourage us to get a divorce? Aren’t we showing how much we value marriage by wanting our friends who we love to be able to know the joy that we have?

      • Samuel permalink
        October 19, 2009 7:03 pm

        David, does it devalue the olympics if everyone gets a gold metal? Does it devalue sex if you have it with multiple partners, with your children…in public? Does it devalue marrage if I have multiple partners or marry my son, or my dog? If marriage has limits, keep it heterosexual, and recommend your friends have a civil union.

        Regardless, research has shown that countries allowing homosexual marriage have less heterosexual marriage, and the resulting problems of single mothers. Marriage was devalued to the point of “why bother”.

        • October 19, 2009 7:11 pm

          Your comparisons are absurd and you know it.

          If you had a gay son or daughter and they wanted to marry their partner you wouldn’t support them? You wouldn’t attend their wedding? DO NOT DODGE THESE 2 QUESTIONS.

          I’ve seen the “research” you’re talking about and it’s bunk. Correlation does not equal causation. One cannot demonstrate from the research you’re talking about that gay marriage causes straight people to act any differently.

          • Samuel permalink
            October 19, 2009 8:05 pm

            Absurd because you don’t want to address them? Are you dodging?

            I wouldn’t support my son’s marriage to another guy any more than to him marrying his sister. It wouldn’t be marriage.

            Arguing that gay marriage has no effect on heterosexual marriage is like a democrat arguing that taxes have no effect on production. Might not be a liner link, eh?

            David, we’re not going to change each other’s mind. Please don’t take offense, but you seem young and idealistic and want the world to fit in your happy vision. Please read the research if you are going to make homosexual marriage a core principle you’re going to fight for. In this day and age it isn’t really one of my bigger worries.

            • brimp permalink
              October 19, 2009 8:43 pm

              If your son is gay he has a number of choices: 1) find one guy that he is compatible with and be monogamous with him, 2) find a new guy every night, 3) remain celibate, 4) act heterosexual by marrying a woman and have children, 5) kill himself. From your comments, I guess that you do not like options 1 or 2. I hope you would be against option 5. That leaves option 3 and 4. Which is better? Option 4 has problems that he might do his husbandly duties but, if he is not into it, he will be tempted to find fulfillment outside of his marriage. How would feel if your daughter found a man to marry and a few years into the marriage, and perhaps a few children later, her husband is having secretive sex with men? This would be risking you daughter’s health by exposing her to STDs like HIV. Option 4 could be helped by joining the priesthood. Given the recent history with ‘celibate’ priests having there way with children, this may not workout as anticipated. Are there other options that I missed? If not, holding your tongue and accepting option 1 seems the most reasonable. I would suggest teaching your kids, regardless of their sexual identity, to put off sexual activity until they are old enough to know what they are doing.

              A bigger question is ‘Is sexuality a choice?’. If it is, who would choose it? What would it take to persuade you to become homosexual?

              • Jack Hampton permalink
                October 20, 2009 4:13 am

                It is conduct and we are not required to accept deviant and aberrant conduct to placate a tiny segment of people that want to act on that conduct. Sure there are a couple of ultra liberal states that have had there over the top supreme court grant some marriage rights to homosexuals and liberal pols have denied its citizens a vote so far but that vote will come and in California when the vote is counted the homosexuals almost go into open revolt. I can assure you this will not happen in most of the country people are becoming more and more weary of this noise. Of course they will try and force it down peoples throat by the, full faith and credit clause of the constitution that will not fly either. Millions of people are prepared to fight it tooth and nail.

            • October 20, 2009 6:59 am

              “Please don’t take offense, but you seem young and idealistic and want the world to fit in your happy vision.”

              I do take offense and won’t be wasting my time responding to your comments if that’s how you’re going to respond to me.

              Your ad hominems against me for my age won’t be tolerated. Your suggestions that I’m just ignorant and haven’t done any research (when I’ve told you I’m familiar with the research you’ve cited) is an insult.

              The fact that I’m younger than you should have no bearing in this discussion. Swemson, one of NewsReal’s regulars, has pretty much identical views on this subject as I do. But you wouldn’t pull the kind of crap with him that you’re pulling with me.

              As soon as someone goes ad hominem in a discussion with me then I know they’re not worth my time. Not sure if you read this article:


              • Samuel permalink
                October 20, 2009 8:27 am


                Calm down. Did I claim you were attacking me when you wrote “DO NOT DODGE THESE 2 QUESTIONS.” No I didn’t, I answered. Did I take offense when you wrote “Your comparisons are absurd and you know it.” My comparisons aren’t absurd, but rather than address that, you say that me saying you are young and idealistic is an an ad hominem attack on you? Being young and idealistic could be a compliment. Then, you over blow the example, just because someone doesn’t support their child in a homosexual marriage, and I even said I’d support a civil union, doesn’t prompt the question of whether someone would disown their child. You’re becoming reactionary and showing what you called an ad hominem attack statement is valid.

                Again, this isn’t worth it, we are not discussing rights, or freedom we are arguing over what amounts to ramifications of a use of the contract of marriage.


                • October 20, 2009 8:46 am

                  I did not make any ad hominem attacks on you with my comments. Your tying my political position to me being an allegedly uninformed, idealistic young person was inappropriate and disrespectful.

                  Yes, comparing homosexuality to bestiality, public sex, everyone getting gold medals, and marrying family members is absurd.

                  • Samuel permalink
                    October 20, 2009 9:44 am


                    I’ll apologize for saying you are young and idealistic. Maybe it was inappropriate, maybe disrespectful, but all subject to interpretation. I wish I was young and idealistic.

                    What if I said comparing me marrying my sister to bestiality is absurd. You would ask that I deconstruct the statement. And I point out that I love my sister and I’ve been faithful to her and comparing me to having sex with an animal was crude.

                    Then the bestiality guy could say the comparison with homosexuality is absurd, after all, he could say: No one gets hurt, no STD’s, no children involved, no obligations of property, health care or government…just simple masturbation with animals.

                    If you are going to say my comparison is absurd, spell it out. I draw a tighter line for the definition of marriage and I explained why. You draw a looser line and you need to defend your position over those that would draw an even looser line than you.


          • Jack Hampton permalink
            October 20, 2009 3:21 am

            There is no doubt that homosexual marriage would be disastrous effect on marriage as a whole in my mind. I have witnessed the downward spiral of marriage for years. Homosexual marriage would just complete that destruction. Homosexuals started out pleading just to be tolerated to now demanding that there laughable union be given legitimate status by Government and they are already suing churches on some occasions. They are suing Christian organizations to force acceptance of there deviant conduct. But in every place it is brought to a vote of the people they are defeated even in California. The American people are beginning to recognize what I saw twenty years ago that homosexuals aided by there friends in Hollywood are trying to impose deviant conduct on everyone else and force them to except it by every chicanery available to them through a liberal court. If we make it through the next four years with the Current balance of SCOTUS preserved we might survive if other reasons do not splinter the union along with this one. Many people forget that the east coast and west cost do not make up the majority of this nation.

          • Jack Hampton permalink
            October 20, 2009 4:19 am

            I have to say if I had a homosexual son, no I would not attend any marriage ceremony. No I would not support there depravity in any form to do so would make me a contributor to there deviant and perverted conduct.

            • October 20, 2009 7:00 am

              You would disown a gay child?

              • Jack Hampton permalink
                October 21, 2009 3:32 am

                Absolutely not nor did I say I would disown him. I would love him and pray for him but I would not be a party to his self distruction. He would be welcome in my home just as my son is now. I would offer ever support I could and provide any treatment possible. I would move heaven and earth. I have stated before they are still doing research on homosexuality. I believe they will find a treatment and it will be treated in ways like Depression or Bi Polar disorder. I want you to know that I am not applying this to you but to some of the population in general. Hollywood has made it almost fashionable to be homosexual and there were a few articles a couple of years ago that stated how chic it was a must to have a couple of lesbian partners at every Hollywood party. This has been a planned and sustained campaign since before Archie Bunker ever hit the airwaves.

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 20, 2009 3:54 am

          Not to mention that it will open the flood gates of other deviant groups seeking marriage rights as well. NAMBLA will be seeking rights to marry young boys and also mutilpile partner marriages will claim the same right as well it is already occuring. It will contribute to the further destruction of marriage as a matter of course.

  22. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 20, 2009 4:33 am

    These are the words of Samuel Adams please read them they are as true today as they were when he first penned them.

    Is it not High Time for the People of this Country explicitly to
    declare, whether they will be Freemen or Slaves? It is an
    important Question which ought to be decided. It concerns us more
    than any Thing in this Life. The Salvation of our Souls is
    interested in the Event: For wherever Tyranny is established,
    Immorality of every Kind comes in like a Torrent. It is in the
    Interest of Tyrants to reduce the People to Ignorance and Vice.
    For they cannot live in any Country where Virtue and Knowledge
    prevail. The Religion and public Liberty of a People are
    intimately connected; their Interests are interwoven, they cannot
    subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together. For
    this Reason, it is always observable, that those who are combined
    to destroy the People’s Liberties, practice every Art to poison
    their Morals. How greatly then does it concern us, at all Events,
    to put a Stop to the Progress of Tyranny. It is advanced already
    by far too many Strides. We are at this moment upon a precipice.
    The next step may be fatal to us. Let us then act like wise Men;
    calmly took around us and consider what is best to be done. Let us
    converse together upon this most interesting Subject and open our
    minds freely to each other. Let it be the topic of conversation in
    every social Club. Let every Town assemble. Let Associations &
    Combinations be everywhere set up to consult and recover our just

    “The Country claims our active Aid.
    That let us roam; & where we find a Spark
    Of public Virtue, blow it into Flame.”

  23. October 20, 2009 9:55 am

    I accept your apology and we can move on.

    You have not made a coherent argument yet explaining why homosexuality is comparable to bestiality and incest. You’ve just thrown out a comparison which — to those of us who have gay friends and family members — is utterly absurd and offensive.

    Incest is illegal because sibilings or family members breeding causes birth defects and genetic problems. Bestiality is illegal because it’s a form of animal abuse.

    But what of homosexuality? It’s not illegal anymore for two people of the same gender to have sex or be in relationships. The only problem with it is that some people are grossed out by it and against it due to misreadings of biblical passages.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 20, 2009 10:22 am

      I have to say I do not agree it is a misreading of bibical passages. There are some very knowledgeable people in that realm including the Pope that do not believe that it is misreading. It is I believe sin just as adultry is sin. However I have never thought you ignorant to any degree we just disagree.

      • October 21, 2009 7:35 am

        One must read the passages in Romans in context. Paul was talking about promiscuous Pagan fertility cults. He was not talking about a monogamous gay couple — our modern institution of homosexuality.

        And bringing up the passages in Leviticus is a fool’s errand since the second half of the verse says that gays are to be killed and only whackjobs advocate that. (And also since Christians ignore most of those archaic OT laws — you wear clothing with 2 fabrics don’t you? You touch a woman when she’s on her period don’t you? etc.)

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 21, 2009 11:53 am

          Well not lately. I do not believe that homosexual marriage will ever be main streamed. There are more in your generation opposed to it than support it. No matter how many Trips GLESEN makes to schools it will just not be accepted in the general population. There are of course some pratices in the church that is not acceptable and never should have been because of brutality but it is not comparable in any fashion to depravity and abberant conduct. This will just be an impass every culture that has embrassed homosexuality and extreme perversion dies. It may play in Boston or New York & SF but not in Nashville or Evanston. If fifty million find it exceptable 250 million do not.

    • Samuel permalink
      October 20, 2009 10:25 am


      You can’t see my argument because you are holding too tightly to your view. Let me please try again.

      What if I said that I should be able to marry my sister since she is sterile and no children would be produced? Or I could show the benefits of line breeding if she wasn’t sterile, or that we are both clean of recessive genetic defects? That completely cancels your only argument. Would you require that any marriage that might have genetic defects be illegal?

      Regarding bestiality, (I can’t believe I’m having to argue this side to make a point, nor do I understand the spelling…it should be beast…) but, animal abuse? Show that normal species breeding is less abusive? Or, that there is less “pain” at a vets, or doing AI, have you seen that done before? Or have you ever taken a mare to a stallion? Gadz

      Now if you go back to just say “well the difference is that bestiality is illegal”, would that make your view of homosexuality mute if it was illegal? I don’t think so, the legal/illegal position isn’t one of principle, it is a cop out.


      • October 20, 2009 10:47 am

        OK… Well I can’t really prove a negative now can I? It’s impossible to prove that homosexuality is NOT like incest and bestiality. It’s up to you to demonstrate that the two are comparable — something you have not done yet. It’s just a rather offensive comparison that you’ve chosen to throw out.

        In fact I don’t think you’ve even made a coherent argument. What is your argument for why we should not have gay marriage? Because you’ve thrown around all kinds of points.

        • Samuel permalink
          October 20, 2009 8:58 pm

          Hi again David,

          Where did I ask you to prove a negative? Maybe you’re on so many threads your getting confused?

          You don’t have to go back too far to where this started. We started at the devaluing of heterosexual marriage by allowing homosexual marriage, which was my original point that answers last question: “What is your argument for why we should not have gay marriage?”

          The whole conversation followed a perfectly logical path, you apparently didn’t follow.

          brimp is correct, and so is Jack, let’s call this and move on.

          And congratulations on your 31st Jack.

          (I’m out of here for 5 days)

          • October 21, 2009 7:25 am

            You were basically asking me to explain how homosexuality is not like like incest and bestiality. (To prove a negative.) I tried to and you rejected my explanation. Now I’m asking you to explain and justify your initial offensive statement (and as someone with many gay friends who I love and care for I find it to be very offensive) and now you want to end the debate and suggest that I’m confused and don’t know what I’m talking about.

            The issue of homosexuality is one that the Right is going to need to continue to deal with. Maintaining this kind of offensive “homosexuality is no different than bestiality” rhetoric is only going to further marginalize conservatism as my Generation continues to rise. I don’t think you understand the degree to which the Right being perceived as hateful to gays is a serious stumbling block for people considering conservative ideas.

            Running from this issue and just agreeing to disagree won’t solve the problem.

    • brimp permalink
      October 20, 2009 11:33 am

      You are confusing ethics with law. You suggest that incest and bestiality are unacceptable because they are illegal and homosexuality is acceptable because it is legal. If the government banned big screen TVs would you say that watching a big TVs as a vice? While I agree with your conclusions, your logic makes the government the arbitrator of morality. This makes the government your master and not your servant.

      • October 20, 2009 11:50 am

        I don’t make the confusion you’re talking about and understand your point. We’re just having a jumbled conversation where the issues of whether homosexuality is ethical and whether gay marriage should be legal are jammed together.

        • jbtrevor permalink
          October 20, 2009 2:27 pm

          Well since the topic has turned to homosexuality:

          “Andrew Sullivan Weighs in on Frum, Horowitz, Beck”


  24. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 20, 2009 10:46 am

    I disagree with Mr. Swindle on this issue. I do because of my life experiences and what I have seen and also because of my faith. Him and I have respectfully agreed to disagree I am not going to change mt mind and I doubt5 he cnanges his any way soon. But I agrre with him on to many other things so I believe we can all learn to accomadate each other. Hell I might even ask Swemson for a date after this conversation but would prefer JB Trevor she makes biscuits she is smart to.

    • jbtrevor permalink
      October 20, 2009 2:24 pm

      LOL Jack,
      But my heart is already taken by a very nice man…who sent me 2 dozen roses today while I’m on a 2 week fitness retreat….


      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 20, 2009 2:35 pm

        I know what you mean I was sending those flowers last month my self for our 31st.

  25. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 20, 2009 10:49 am

    Sorry about the typos above can anyone tell me of a spell checker I can intergrate with the comment block here. I am not a typist and I hit the submit button to soon.


  1. Steynian 385 « Free Canuckistan!

Comments are closed.