Skip to content

From the Pen of David Horowitz: October 16, 2009

October 16, 2009

david_p

When homosexuals object to the term “abnormal,” they are objecting to its prescriptive use —  for example in the claim that homosexuality is unnatural or immoral or should be illegal. As a matter of description, homosexuality appears to be both a fact of nature and abnormal. According to the best statistics available, between two and five percent of a population will be homosexual in any given society, whether that society is tolerant or intolerant of homosexual behavior. Studies of identical twins indicate that upbringing has little bearing on homosexual development. The conservative conclusion will be that homosexuality is normal in that it is rooted in nature, but that socially it is abnormal in that the vast majority of people are not and will never be homosexually inclined.

But description in this sense does not necessarily lead to prescriptive conclusions. The claim that homosexuality is socially abnormal does not lead to any conclusion as to whether it is immoral or not. Such conclusions must be a matter of individual principles and communal preferences. Many communities and religions do view homosexuality as immoral. These attitudes may be “oppressive” to homosexuals, but no more so than are some gentile attitudes towards Jews as souls condemned to eternal damnation. Jews can live with this attitude in a society that protects their rights as citizens and invokes tolerance of difference as its central virtue: e pluribus unum.

The demand that homosexuality should be made illegal, on the other hand, is not a matter of mere communal prejudice or individual preference. It is a demand that violates the social contract and its pluralist imperative, and runs counter to the very idea of America’s unity as a nation. The ideal of American pluralism — the political norm that governs the behavior of its citizen democrats — is the necessary embrace of diverse communities, even communities in fundamental conflict. The pluralistic norm of American democracy requires that the deviant community and the abnormal citizen (black, homosexual, immigrant, Jew) be equal before the law and enjoy the same inalienable rights as everyone else. To violate this norm, to break the law of America’s social contract, is to invite terrible consequences, as the bloodiest and most shameful pages of America’s history attest.

The Politics of Bad Faith

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include:

  1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
  2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
  3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
  4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
Advertisements
75 Comments
  1. October 16, 2009 3:47 am

    The main problem as I see it is that homosexuality is an abberation and homosexuals know this to be true. As such they spend quite a bit of emotional energy attempting to rationalize their condition to themselves and the to the rest of the world, going so far as to spread their need for acceptance to kindergarten classroms across America. This ipso facto, speaks to the immature, selfish pathology of their efforts.

    Homosexual desire to redefine marriage and to transform society to ignore and accept their condition can never have an end, as their status represents a very small percentage of the world’s population. Thus, complete equality here lacking (ad infinitum), means America has “failed” as a tolerant and fair nation, and is bigoted and homophobic.

    America cannot continue sustain itself as the amusement park of the world. The redefining America as an “entity” consisting purely of freedoms and rights (freedom and right to do anything) clearly is leading to a disasterous outcome as it is now a most confusing, conflicted place where the assault, the hatred, the envy and selfishness (e.g. immiture homosexual activists redefining marriage), is now directed at what was and still is, those principles that built this nation in the first place.

    But this is what can be expected when people are no longer constrained by morality and virtue and God.

    • swemson permalink
      October 16, 2009 10:54 am

      Great post David.

      It gives a chance for Anthony (above) and several others (below), to demonstrate how religion infects most “believers” with fear, hatred and bigotry towards anyone who fails to live according the their religion’s guidelines about moral and ethical behavior.

      Homosexuality is a fact.. and whether one is born gay, or whether one becomes gay because of early childhood experiences, the fact remains, that they don’t just wake up one day, throw their bible in the trash, and decide to try living the gay lifestyle..

      The underlying reason why all of these brainwashed bigots freak out over the idea of two gays getting married, is because they’re insecure about their own religious beliefs, and therefore lash out instinctively when anyone flaunts behavior proscribed by their church.

      What bothers me most however is their hypocrisy. They know that those people are simply trying to do something to make themselves feel a little better about themselves.. gays know they’re not “normal”, but they’re human beings who want to be accepted and loved just like anyone else, so if going through that silly ritual makes them feel a bit more normal, why the hell should a religious person object ?

      Isn’t compassion for others one of the alleged cornerstones of christianity ?

      A gay couple getting married has nothing whatsoever to do with their lives, and they should just mind their own business.

      When they try to force their religious principles on others through the law, they demonstrate why religion must be kept separate from government.

      In the Newsreel blog about the islamic student group at Temple U, I just read a post by “PRCS” who, after quoting a definition of islam said the following

      “Islam is the name of a way of life which the Creator wants us to follow. We avoid the word religion because in many non-Islamic societies, there is a separation of “religion and state.” This separation is not recognized at all in Islam: the Creator is very much concerned with all that we do, including the political, social, economic, and other aspects of our society. Hence, Islam is a complete way of life.”

      That definition makes clear that:

      Islam is no mere religion, and that one of the ‘core principles’ of that complete way of life–religion and state as one entity–leaves no doubt that Islam is incompatible with the United States Constitution.

      Because religious law (the Shari’ah) is part and parcel of Islam, it has no legitimate place in this country, and the word is getting out.

      I think that says it all.

      If the combination of islam and sharia law is incompatible with our Constitution, so is ANY proposed law based on ANY other religion’s principles incompatible with our Constitution, and a substantial percentage of the American electorate knows that, which is, at least partly to blame for BHO’s election.

      If the religious right would only shut the hell up about abortion and gay marriage, we’d have a far better chance of throwing those communist bastards out of the White House….

      Like it or not, the influence of religion on society is diminishing quite rapidly with time, and it is a fact that many who voted for BHO did so not because they liked him, but because the religious right and it’s influence over the republican party simply scared the crap out of them…

      • Julie Trevor permalink
        October 16, 2009 11:37 am

        Swemson said:

        “many who voted for BHO did so not because they liked him, but because the religious right and it’s influence over the republican party simply scared the crap out of them”

        While I don’t agree with you all the time – I do on this. The term I would use instead of scared though is repulsed.

        Julie

        • swemson permalink
          October 16, 2009 12:34 pm

          Julie;

          The recent fight over the teaching of Darwin in Dover PA, is a terrific example of why the religious right should stay the hell out of the political arena…

          I highly recommend the documentary about the trial, which is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohxDRhji0C0

          I want people to watch it, not to make the point that religion is a waste of time, but rather to show how dishonest and deceitful the proponents of creationism (intelligent design) actually were in trying to sneak their religious views into the 9th grade science curriculum in their town.

          I think you know that my views about religion, no matter how negative they be, do not mean that I have any problem with people practicing whatever religions or other silly superstitious rituals (such as astrology) that they wish in their own homes and places of worship…

          It’s when they stick their bigoted noses in other people’s affairs that I get really mad.

          The only question I have is how big the group of voters who would switch their votes to the right if the republican party would distance itself from the religious right would be.

          We know how big the influence of gays is in Hollywood and the other performing arts. Does anyone really believe that all those rich entertainers really want to pay more taxes than they already do ? But they vote left because they ARE so DISGUSTED by the religious bigots on the right caterwauling all the time about gay marriage…

          The sad irony of it is, that the religious right is almost 100% in favor of a small government restricted to the responsibilities that the founding fathers intended for it to have, and yet their religion itself, when inserted into the political arena is helping to destroy that part of our magnificent country.

      • October 16, 2009 12:01 pm

        And the truth shall set you free! Tell it, Rev;-) Hallelujah! Amen! Glory!

  2. MaryAnn permalink
    October 16, 2009 5:11 am

    Do the majority of Americans want to make homosexuality illegal? Do the majority of Americans want to deprive homosexuals of their rights? I wasn’t aware of that. The majority of Americans do want to protect the status and definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. How that interferes with the rights of homosexuals is not clear. Homosexuals are just as free to marry as any other citizen- just not someone of the same gender. Homosexuals have the same access to lawyers as anyone else to work out whatever monetary and property details they wish. That aside, most Americans have no problem with civil unions. The homosexual agenda goes way beyond altering the definition of marriage; the agenda is to redefine the moral and religious foundation of the country. That would be to the detriment of society, and that they have no right to do.

    • October 16, 2009 3:43 pm

      WHAT???

      You say that marriage (a civil union that may or may not have a religious ceremony involved) may only involve one man an one woman.

      But homersexchulzs may not marry each other, this is illegal and would make “our” marriages a farce. Instead they should form a “civil Union” legally (and religiously if they desire – kind of like those “real” marriages”.) that results in a “Civil Union” as closely identical to a “marriage” as the homos want.

      But to allow them to just marry like normal human beings and let each RELIGIOUS group perform or not these marriages would shake the very souls of Christians around the country resulting in…just what? Fundamentalist Christians living together rather than be in a relationship called a “marriage”??

      I guess you are like those “Christians” from the 50’s and 60’s who refused to accept the legality of inter-racial marriages. For the good of the children of course!!!

      The fact that inter-racial relationships would continue and children would be born of them meant nothing. “Screw those little half Ni**er kids” they said, we must protect all the ones not born yet from that same fate!!! And all in the name of the Love of Jesus.

      Nowhere is the difference between a Conservative and a Right Winger seen more clearly than in the “right”‘s response over the years to women’s right’s, child labor, civil right’s and homosexual right’s.

      GO DAVID!

      Though even he can get partisan at times…David, Come Home!

  3. MaryAnn permalink
    October 16, 2009 5:16 am

    Also, while I am sure that there are some people who believe blacks, homosexuals, immigrants and Jews to be deviant and abnormal, I’m equally sure their numbers are as small or smaller than the percentage of homosexuals in society.

  4. Julie Trevor permalink
    October 16, 2009 5:25 am

    Well it’s my birthday and I’ve received a great present from Mr. Horowitz…another well articulated straw in my hat of understanding. I would have preferred a different topic but accept the gift as packaged…

    • therealend permalink
      October 16, 2009 7:42 am

      Happy birthday!

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 16, 2009 12:32 pm

      JT
      I hope you have a very happy birthday and many more. God Bless

  5. Rogert permalink
    October 16, 2009 5:56 am

    Many have tried to define homosexuality as “normal,” and, therefore they say, it should be granted acceptance in the “marriage” arena. However, when one looks at both the faith-based, scientific and societal concepts, this is revealed as the attack on the institution that it is.

    The original concept of a “married family” was to rear and protect the product, i.e. children. Using that definition alone we are forced to remember the laws of God, the Creator. Should one choose to deny His existence, then he/she still cannot deny the very process of conception, whether it be animal or human.

    Yes, there are extremely rare examples of deviance from the general practice, but certainly not in the human race, nor in the overwhelming varieties of animals and vegetables.

    Therefore, it must be understood that two males cannot produce a child, anymore than two females. Both concepts require the intervention of a third member; that being of the opposite sex. Sorry, but you cannot circumvent the process. Egg + sperm is required. this is a law of nature, or, if you will (and I do) The Law of The Creator.

    • October 16, 2009 3:29 pm

      That has to be the most specious argument I have ever heard.

      By your logic no infertile person, man or woman should be allowed to marry at all!!!
      No one who intends to stay childless would be a “Fit” candidate for marriage in your perfect world it seems.

      While the prime reason for the development of marriage may surely have been the protection and nurturing of children the joining of two (or more) people in a permanent bond of companionship and mutual support (in myriad ways) seems to me as just as central.
      Do you advocate marriages arranged solely for the ideal environment for kids?

      If two people you feel are not suited to an economically prosperous life together want to marry will you legislate against that as well?

      Now that I have shown your “marriage is for Procreation” argument to be fallacious let us move on to your virtually inevitable back-up position;
      “It ain’t natchooral for two wimin or two faggy boys to raise an emotionally healthy child!”
      It seems to me that the result of a child’s upbringing has more to do with the quality of the parent than the number or sexes involved.

      To grab an example sure to rile the partisan Right Wingers look at the Clinton girl and the Bush girls. The all but Leftist Clintons seem to have produced a stable, sensible young woman. On the other hand the Bush girls…..well to be charitable they have some problems with acting out.

      The one thing that David did not bring up in that excerpt is the concept of worrying about actual criminal behavior, the kind that is a danger to others instead of trying to criminalize all gays as “bad for kids”. The very fact that homosexuality is mainly genetic should reassure parents that Johnny is not going to be “tempted” to become a raging Queen.

      It is the very demonization of ALL gays by the far right that causes almost everyone else to close ranks around them..EVEN WHEN THEY ARE DOING THINGS THAT ARE OVER THE TOP.

      The hostility and aggressiveness of the Radical Right’s assault on a Gay person’s right to have any kind of relationship that is “natural” to them is one of the main causes of the extremism of the “out and Proud” community.

      And I am still waiting for a good answer to the one about how someone else’s marriage affects yours.

      Is it not possible for the more Conservative churches to forbid their MEMBERS from being involved in a gay marriage?

      There have been many times in history where different kinds of marriage existed both civil and religious. Republican Rome and to a certain extent Imperial Rome there were “strict Form” marriages and “new” marriages with limits on who may marry and how the marriage must be conducted.

      The comment about insecurity in faith hits home. You are free to restrict who YOUR preachers and Priests marry, what is your problem?

      Just as with Muslims the problem is not how many wives they have but the other rules that give them total control and the ability to coerce co-operation i the few areas that Islamic law gives the woman rights.

      As we have found it impossible to forbid the de facto plural marriage of Radical Mormons and some radical Christians it is impossible to keep gays from being “married” if they choose to be.
      And we end up back at your supposed “it’s about the CHILLINS” argument…You are willing to subject any children who find themselves with a parent in a gay relationship to have NONE of the protections and benefits that are reserved for “families”. If you are willing to see children suffer to make your point that children should not suffer then who is the villain here? You or gays who wish to marry?

  6. angela permalink
    October 16, 2009 6:33 am

    To Mary Ann:

    “The homosexual agenda goes way beyond altering the definition of marriage; the agenda is to redefine the moral and religious foundation of the country. That would be to the detriment of society, and that they have no right to do.”

    Gays do not want to alter the definition of marriage; they simply want an extension of that definition as to also mean “civil union.” Heterosexual divorce has contributed so much more to the detriment of society, yet no one is criminizaling divorce – which, by the way – is condemned by Jesus. Historically, traditional marriage doesn’t have anything to do with love as much as it had something to do with proprietorship. Why do you think women take their husbands’ last name?

    Early Christianity actually approved and blessed same-sex marriage. Read John Boswell’s monumental work on this subject: The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe (New York: Villard, 1994). Boswell argues that the adelphopoiia liturgy was evidence that the attitude of the Christian church towards homosexuality has changed over time, and that early Christians did on occasion accept same-sex relationships.

    • Rogert permalink
      October 16, 2009 8:25 am

      While same sex unions may have existed during the time of Christianity (and before), to state that “early Christianity approved and blessed” it is the same as saying Christianity approves of it today. There are certain divisions of it which extend, as some did then, an invitation under the guise of “accepting brotherly love.” To do so, they must ignore or pervert the Word of God. I would suggest that anyone believing otherwise read 1 Corinthians Chapter 5, for one passage among many.

      As for the condemnation of divorce, it is a refutation of the marriage vow. However, when one actually reads the Bible to discern what it actually says, it is permitted in incidences of adultery/fornication. To use heterosexual divorce as justification for further perversion of the Biblical view of marriage is ludicrous, if not blasphemous. It is an attempt to portray homosexual marriage as morally superior.

      The Bible condemns homosexuality in the same vein as it does adultery…it “is an abomination.”

      I have many acquaintances in the homosexual community and none of them could or would say that I in anyway hate them. I “hate” their sin, but I love them in so much that I pray for their Salvation and deliverance from their sins. In no way do I “approve or bless” their behavior as I believe what God has said in His Word. Which, by the way, I have studied extensively, looking particularly at the original languages and the meaning of the Words. Words DO mean things.

      God’s Word never changes. He meant it then and He means it now…it is man that changes it to suit his own conscience.

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 16, 2009 12:59 pm

        Rogert
        Superb comments and words of courage as well you have to know you will be denigrated.

        • October 16, 2009 3:50 pm

          Of course he will be raked over the coals for his comment.

          Show how his argument is ANY DIFERENT than a Muslim man who shows you IRRIFUTABLEY that Islam permits him to marry a pre-pubescent girl and to “get off” with her any way that does not cause her PHYSICAL damage.

          This is the same mentality that produced the paragraph in the mainstream Shia law books explaining how a man who allows one of his wives to suckle another “wife” (i.e. an infant) the first wife becomes forbidden to him.

          Oh, right, YOUR absolute, not to be questioned Truth is the CORRECT one, RIIGHT, I must remember that in the future.

          My apologies!

      • Larry permalink
        October 18, 2009 5:25 am

        God’s word never changes? Oh really?

        So I guess it’s okay to murder transgressors because God says so…

        For touching Mount Sinai

        Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13

        For taking “accursed things”

        Achan … took of the accursed thing. … And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. … So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26

        For cursing or blaspheming

        And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

        For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)

        If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

        For animals (like an ox that gores a human)

        If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28

        For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night

        If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

        For worshipping other gods

        If there be found among you … that … hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them … Then shalt thou … tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

        If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers … thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

        For disobeying parents

        If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

        For witches and wizards

        A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

        For giving your children to Molech

        Whosoever … giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

        For breaking the Sabbath

        They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. … And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones…. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

        For cursing the king

        Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10

        If this is Christianity, then I’d rather be atheist.

    • laura permalink
      October 16, 2009 12:19 pm

      “Early Christianity actually approved and blessed same-sex marriage”.

      Exactly where is that in the Bible?

      • Larry permalink
        October 18, 2009 5:26 am

        Uhhh….. just because it’s not in the Bible doesn’t mean it never happened.

        • swemson permalink
          October 18, 2009 12:04 pm

          Yeah.. true

          But to certain people, if it isn’t in the bible, then they won’t ever believe it..

  7. Josey permalink
    October 16, 2009 7:09 am

    The big question today is.. Are people born gay? The answer is not an easy yes or no. If a child during the formative years does not receive a full loving relationship by a parent, that child will grow into adulthood with an unmet developmental need. The child, now an adult, will always have this yearning for fullfillment.

    What happens in most instances is that the person will mistake that yearning for an attraction to the same sex. Most people with gender identity disorder will say “i’ve always felt this way since as long as i can remeber.” This points back to the unmet developmental need during those formative childhood years.

    There are physcologists who treat people with this condition… sometimes known as same sex attraction. And they have a 100% success rate in incorporating their clients back into a more healthy heterosexual lifestyle. So, uprbinging has a lot to do with homosexuality.

    I’m not saying this is true for every homosexual as their are exceptions but for the great majority…yes.

    • October 16, 2009 11:48 pm

      Given the side of the argument you are taking I will assume you are a conservative Christian. As Christian are you not aware that the BEARING OF FALSE WITNESS AGAINST SOMEONE is considered “not a good thing”?

      Let us dissect the parts of your post that show either a complete ignorance of modern science or a willful deceit designed to fool anyone undecided:

      <<>>

      This is complete armchair psychology, and not even smartly applied. Most of human behavior especially the strong drives and powerful inhibitions stem from “not receiving a ‘full’ loving relationship” in childhood. As Roxie says to her audience in “Chicago”, “you’re loving me and I’m loving you and we both are loving each other. And that’s because none of us got enough love in our childhoods, and THAT’s showbiz”.
      The post also completely fails to note or account for the FACT that studies of separated twins show that if one twin is gay then the other twin is 50% likely to also be gay.
      That leaves open the door for an environmental “trigger” but how genes are expressed in the development of a child is ridiculously complex. For the science challenged; When you are born some of the “blueprint” in your genes is used. As you develop other genes will turn on and off. Just which ones and what their effect will be based on their “program” is far from cut and dried.
      Fundamentalists would like us to believe that as long as daddy is a properly macho patriarch then the “gay gene” will not be expressed and a the child will like the opposite sex. Unfortunately for them the truth seems to be a bit more complicated.

      <<>>

      Again with the imagination being used instead of facts and reason. Actually most kids who grow up feeling a lack of love from one parent or the other act as adults in ways that their subconscious thinks will gain the parents approval. They don’t usually get horny for the same sex as the “bad” parent. [Recovering Gay to pretend psych: “Daddy never loving me makes me think girls smell like bad fish and makes the smell of a man get me hot.” …”Hey doc, since yo showed me that it doesn’t matter that daddy was an emotional cripple I am still a good person…WOW DOC, I just realized PAMELA ANDERSON IS SEXY! PRAISE GAWD I AM CURED!” ] At least that is how Josey wants us to think it works.

      Outside of the “pretend you are straight and we will pretend you are straight and God will love you” school of mind-intercourse there is not a jot of evidence for your “theory”. And again you ignore completely that 50% of identical twins who share their twins’ homosexuality. How can kids raised in different households share the expression of gayness HALF THE TIME when the genes are identical? Hmm? “I can’t hear you!” as Sgt. Carter used to say.

      <<>

      Here we get to the absolute LIE. Either the poster has swallowed it from some “authority” they trust or Josey KNOWS that this is completely false and cannot be proven.
      The only 100% success they produce is that 100% of the people who complete the insane course pretend they are straight and been able to program themselves to attain physical arousal with an opposite sex partner. The long term failure of this “treatment” is the only thing real that is close to 100%. In long term interviews MOST have “cheated” in some way within 2 years. The suicide rate for “graduates” is significantly higher than for “normal” gays – who already have an elevated suicide rate.

      Just look at the two men who founded “Exodus” the first big “ex-gay” organization. They were “counseling” gays on how to be like them, straight and good with Jesus, then they fell in love with each other and left their wives. These two are far from atypical.

      The AMA and virtually all psychiatric associations NOT possessing a conservative Christian agenda condemn the entire concept of “reprogramming” sexual desire from one sex to another.
      The closest these mind-Nazis come is to “success” is with bisexuals who can suppress one side of their desires while indulging the other.

      <<>>

      RIIIGHT! And George Washington was really Martha Stewart’s Great, Great Grandmother.
      Somehow no one but those that make money from “Ex-Gay” therapy can commit, um conduct a study that confirms your tale.
      Bearing False Witness. For shame, for shame, for shame…as Gomer would say.

      • October 16, 2009 11:51 pm

        OOPS, my bad, I used formatting that the comment editor swallowed up when I hit submit, let us try that again:

        Given the side of the argument you are taking I will assume you are a conservative Christian. As Christian are you not aware that the BEARING OF FALSE WITNESS AGAINST SOMEONE is considered “not a good thing”?

        Let us dissect the parts of your post that show either a complete ignorance of modern science or a willful deceit designed to fool anyone undecided:

        (Josey)The big question today is.. Are people born gay? The answer is not an easy yes or no. If a child during the formative years does not receive a full loving relationship by a parent, that child will grow into adulthood with an unmet developmental need. The child, now an adult, will always have this yearning for fulfillment.)

        This is complete armchair psychology, and not even smartly applied. Most of human behavior especially the strong drives and powerful inhibitions stem from “not receiving a ‘full’ loving relationship” in childhood. As Roxie says to her audience in “Chicago”, “you’re loving me and I’m loving you and we both are loving each other. And that’s because none of us got enough love in our childhoods, and THAT’s showbiz”.
        The post also completely fails to note or account for the FACT that studies of separated twins show that if one twin is gay then the other twin is 50% likely to also be gay.
        That leaves open the door for an environmental “trigger” but how genes are expressed in the development of a child is ridiculously complex. For the science challenged; When you are born some of the “blueprint” in your genes is used. As you develop other genes will turn on and off. Just which ones and what their effect will be based on their “program” is far from cut and dried.
        Fundamentalists would like us to believe that as long as daddy is a properly macho patriarch then the “gay gene” will not be expressed and a the child will like the opposite sex. Unfortunately for them the truth seems to be a bit more complicated.

        (Josey)What happens in most instances is that the person will mistake that yearning for an attraction to the same sex. Most people with gender identity disorder will say “i’ve always felt this way since as long as i can remeber.” This points back to the unmet developmental need during those formative childhood years.)

        Again with the imagination being used instead of facts and reason. Actually most kids who grow up feeling a lack of love from one parent or the other act as adults in ways that their subconscious thinks will gain the parents approval. They don’t usually get horny for the same sex as the “bad” parent. [Recovering Gay to pretend psych: “Daddy never loving me makes me think girls smell like bad fish and makes the smell of a man get me hot.” …”Hey doc, since yo showed me that it doesn’t matter that daddy was an emotional cripple I am still a good person…WOW DOC, I just realized PAMELA ANDERSON IS SEXY! PRAISE GAWD I AM CURED!” ] At least that is how Josey wants us to think it works.

        Outside of the “pretend you are straight and we will pretend you are straight and God will love you” school of mind-intercourse there is not a jot of evidence for your “theory”. And again you ignore completely that 50% of identical twins who share their twins’ homosexuality. How can kids raised in different households share the expression of gayness HALF THE TIME when the genes are identical? Hmm? “I can’t hear you!” as Sgt. Carter used to say.

        (Josey)There are psychologists who treat people with this condition… sometimes known as same sex attraction. And they have a 100% success rate in incorporating their clients back into a more healthy heterosexual lifestyle. So, upbringing has a lot to do with homosexuality.)

        Here we get to the absolute LIE. Either the poster has swallowed it from some “authority” they trust or Josey KNOWS that this is completely false and cannot be proven.
        The only 100% success they produce is that 100% of the people who complete the insane course pretend they are straight and been able to program themselves to attain physical arousal with an opposite sex partner. The long term failure of this “treatment” is the only thing real that is close to 100%. In long term interviews MOST have “cheated” in some way within 2 years. The suicide rate for “graduates” is significantly higher than for “normal” gays – who already have an elevated suicide rate.

        Just look at the two men who founded “Exodus” the first big “ex-gay” organization. They were “counseling” gays on how to be like them, straight and good with Jesus, then they fell in love with each other and left their wives. These two are far from atypical.

        The AMA and virtually all psychiatric associations NOT possessing a conservative Christian agenda condemn the entire concept of “reprogramming” sexual desire from one sex to another.
        The closest these mind-Nazis come is to “success” is with bisexuals who can suppress one side of their desires while indulging the other.

        (Josey)I’m not saying this is true for every homosexual as there are exceptions but for the great majority…yes.)

        RIIIGHT! And George Washington was really Martha Stewart’s Great, Great Grandmother.
        Somehow no one but those that make money from “Ex-Gay” therapy can commit, um conduct a study that confirms your tale.
        Bearing False Witness. For shame, for shame, for shame…as Gomer would say.

      • Josey permalink
        October 17, 2009 8:51 am

        Head Heretic…your username says it all…

        I could give you the names, websites, phone #’s, pay for your airfair lodging, car rental and expsneses to do your due dilligence on the organisations i was refering to but it would be a complete waste of time becuase the findings would not fit your world view.

        What is it with you atheists puffing your chests out as if you have some proven historical track record of having a positive influence on humanity?

        Atheism as a phenomenon has only existed since the 1800’s after Christianity was pushed out of the public square starting with the French Revolution. All the ancient civilisations (Persian, Greek, Roman, etc.) though pagan were very religious. Socrates was put to death because he wouldn’t worship the state sponsored gods.

        The vaccumm after the Revolution was soon filled by the godless religions of marxism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, etc. And within a 100 years we had the bloodiest century in the history of the world precisely because these ideologies are based on man alone with no room for the divine. That is the true legacy of Head Heretic’s crowd.

        Who are the intellectual giants shoulders you stand upon? Voltiare? Freud? Nietzsche? Richard Dawkings? PLEASE. Your ilk represent a few percent of the 300 million Americans. Just because that small percent controls the news media, schools/universities, and entertainment industies does not mean there’s any truth in what you spew.

        The left looks at the world and thinks, no political systems, ideologies or religions have solved the world’s problmes so let’s not judge anyone, let everyone do what they want and the world will be ok and we’ll all live in peace. Another simplistic utopian view of the world destined for the dustbin of history with all the rest.

        When sane people try to make the proper decision in a situation, they try to make the correct MORAL decision. However, the left won’t do that because morals implie a hiearchy of values, namely the objective truth of the 3,500 year old Judeo-Christian tradition. This doesn’t fit in with their multi-cultural agenda.

        Relativism is the intellectual framework of the left in which there’s your truth, my truth but there’s no THE truth. That’s why the left is always on the wrong side of history.

        Equality, deomocracy, individualism, human rights, international law, justice, science, capitalism, charity, hospitals, orphanages, the university system, opera, the abolition of slavery are just a few of the accomplishments that arose from Chrsitan Europe – not from any other culture. The left has no comparable legacy only nihilism.

        I find it silly when you atheists cherry picks phrases from the Bible, pervert their proper interpretation and use them to try and refute the right.

        Head Heretic is just another neo-pagan with tired, worn out views, too scared to be honest with himself because of what it may reveal, too much of an ego to show respect towards others with different views. And too much of a narcissist to make any lasting postive contribution to society – armchair psychoanalyze that Freud.

        • October 17, 2009 3:52 pm

          My, my, my!

          Another partisan to dissect. I know that Josey is not actually talking to ME. That would require him-possibly-her to have paid attention to what I said as opposed to arguing with the pretend atheist/Leftist/NAMBLA apologist in Josey’s head.

          It is as though someone triggered his/her Fundamentalist Jukebox. All I had to do was say anything that adds up to not worshiping the same fantasy that she is. Bing, Bang, Wrrr out comes Tape#3 for the Godless, Pro-Homo Communist Pedophile Reformation seminar ™.

          I will go through her auto-diatribe bit by bit but I do not think she addressed even ONE thing I actually said. Nor did she attack anything I actually AM.

          O.k. Josey; Buckle up and hang on, we’re going to take a ride on the reality railroad:

          (Josey) I could give you the names, websites, phone #’s, pay for your airfair lodging, car rental and expsneses to do your due dilligence on the organisations i was refering to but it would be a complete waste of time becuase the findings would not fit your world view.)

          Is that an argument? Are you really saying that you COULD give evidence but you know I won’t accept it so you won’t give it. Hmm, that seems rather convenient for you doesn’t it?

          How about you give the name of this organization that can take gay and 100% turn them into opposite sex desiring straight folk? I really think with a name and a website I can do the rest myself, thanks for your generous offer anyway.

          Here is an idea, how about ANY reputable scientific studies that support your claim? Do you have ANY studies done by someone who does not have religious or financial associations with the practice that support your claims?

          (Josey)What is it with you atheists puffing your chests out as if you have some proven historical track record of having a positive influence on humanity?)

          I don’t know, what is it with you heretical “Christians” labeling anyone who is not as merciless as you or as idolatrously attached to the Bible as an atheist?

          To make this as clear as I can for you; I am not nor have I EVER been an Atheist. I think that a true blue Atheist is professing a faith just as intangible as any “religious” person.

          To put it into perspective just how deeply you have placed your foot into your mouth let me share with you that under another my real name I am a writer on theology, science and the intersection of the two. We should debate why I feel you are a heretic sometime, but not now. Right now the subject is homosexuals:

          (Josey)Atheism as a phenomenon has only existed since the 1800’s after Christianity was pushed out of the public square starting with the French Revolution. All the ancient civilisations (Persian, Greek, Roman, etc.) though pagan were very religious. Socrates was put to death because he wouldn’t worship the state sponsored gods. )

          Really? The vast majority of historians would be shocked to learn that. If it were true. The historical fact, established from their own letters and records, is that the Greeks and the Romans both were only pious at the lower levels of society. JUST LIKE today and most times in the past the more educated people are and the more political power they hold already the more secular minded and agnostic they tend to be.

          Atheism and agnosticism are ancient, no one knows just how old. You refute yourself with Socrates. If you were not distorting the reality why would we even know his name? His agnostic philosophy threatened the entrenched authorities but no one else. That is the hallmark of a Liberal as opposed to a Leftist; Leftist philosophy threatens all traditions and values, Liberal thought only threatens totalitarians.

          (Josey)The vacuum after the Revolution was soon filled by the godless religions of Marxism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, etc. )

          Um, no. The Enlightenment produced the modern cycle of agnosticism. Then the liberal successes of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution got a bunch of liberals in France excited but also emboldened French Leftists. It was this Radical Left movement that was the source of the atheistic and bloodthirsty aftermath to the revolution itself. The term Left comes from this period.

          (Josey)And within a 100 years we had the bloodiest century in the history of the world precisely because these ideologies are based on man alone with no room for the divine. That is the true legacy of Head Heretic’s crowd.)

          So then, philosophies that had been around on and off for thousands of years gained unprecedented weapons technology but the REAL reason these modern idiots (no more evil than many from the past) killed so many is that the divine right of King’s and the Authority of The Pope had been discarded by America and Western Europe? Correct me if that is NOT your premise.

          Forgive me if I respond with stunned incredulity. Pesaro with 150 men armed and armored with horses destroyed the entire Incan empire in a few years. Do you claim he did it solely by virtue of his fanatical Catholicism? Or maybe the guns, cannon, armor and horses had a LITTLE to do with it?

          Fast forward a bit and just try to see that a squad of Nazis or Red Chinese could cow and or kill hundreds to thousands of people unarmed or armed with outdated weapons. In witness I produce the defeat of the Zulu Nation by a handful of British. That sort of thing was impossible before multi-shot rifles. Accept it, move on.

          Oh, and what the heck did I say that makes ME out to be a Leftist? Not wanting you to force your ways on others? I never said I wanted to overturn or destroy anything. I just want you to stop making a selfish mountain out of a non-existent mole-hill.

          (Josey)Who are the intellectual giants shoulders you stand upon? Voltaire? Freud? Nietzsche? Richard Dawkins? PLEASE. Your ilk represent a few percent of the 300 million Americans. Just because that small percent controls the news media, schools/universities, and entertainment industries does not mean there’s any truth in what you spew.

          Voltaire was brilliant but had a serious authority complex. Freud had many insights but barely opened the door of understanding due to his own lack of objectivity. Nietzsche? Please, a few insights does not an encompassing philosophy make. I am still giggling over you attacking me as a Leftist simply because I am not pressing my nose against the Right wall as you do.

          (Josey)The left looks at the world and thinks, no political systems, ideologies or religions have solved the world’s problems so let’s not judge anyone, let everyone do what they want and the world will be ok and we’ll all live in peace. Another simplistic utopian view of the world destined for the dustbin of history with all the rest.

          Yada, yada, yada. Now Josey will define the political animal whose bloody skin she has draped over my identity in order to be “moral” in denying my position…which is not even MY position…are any of you following her logic because I fell off about two turns ago.

          (Josey)When sane people try to make the proper decision in a situation, they try to make the correct MORAL decision. However, the left won’t do that because morals imply a hierarchy of values, namely the objective truth of the 3,500 year old Judeo-Christian tradition. This doesn’t fit in with their multi-cultural agenda.

          O.K. Josey seems to be one of the Neo-Platonic folks who can’t see that people derive “moral” judgments all the time without relying on the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Josey seems to pretend that until Moses people had no problem with murder, slander, theft or mistreatment of elders. Josey also seems to be unaware that toddlers who know nothing of the Bible show the same basic “moral” perspective that is taught by MOST religions.

          In my book SANE people might look to their religion in times of moral confusion but if the end result is pain and hate and shame they will take another look at the morals of the HUMANS who wrote the relevant scripture.

          Otherwise how are you different from a Muslim who kills his daughter because his scripture says she has been “polluted” by being raped and his honor cannot be clean while she lives. IS that the kind of “god Given” rules you would follow without blinking an eye if your pastor could show you chapter and verse?

          (Josey)Relativism is the intellectual framework of the left in which there’s your truth, my truth but there’s no THE truth. That’s why the left is always on the wrong side of history.

          Yes, there is a “truth” but it is the one that we arrive at only by testing and comparing our “truths” to reality. If our “truth” fails to reflect reality (like anti-evolution) then it is not true, it is a fantasy. The problem is that people like you and Fundamentalist Muslims feel that we can NOT figure out “truth” period. Instead your ilk claims that we must find the “one true prophet” who has been given the cheat-sheet by God. This person is to be followed, not questioned, obeyed, not understood.

          Josey, don’t you realize the mindset you hold so close to your bosom is the mindset of Plato and his antlike, totalitarian “Republic” not of the Enlightenment and the ideals of most of the Founding Fathers.

          (Josey)Equality, democracy, individualism, human rights, international law, justice, science, capitalism, charity, hospitals, orphanages, the university system, opera, the abolition of slavery are just a few of the accomplishments that arose from Christian Europe – not from any other culture. The left has no comparable legacy only nihilism.

          Do you get any guilty feelings for such distortions or have you really never read a non-fundamentalist history?

          Equality? Which kind? Of the races? Rome had that. Roman citizenship was all important. Skin color amounted to nothing. Pompey the Great was a “black” man but you have to dig to find out.. it WAS NOT AN ISSUE. Actually Christianity (and other religions) promoted racial discrimination. Or have you not heard of the story of Esau and Jacob for just one example?
          Democracy? Again, hunh? There have bee many forms of republics and democraticly based governments through time. What really tickles my ribs though is that you don’t seem to understand that the democracy of the Protestants and of the Deist and Agnostic Founding Fathers was a REFUTATION of the traditional “kings are divinely ordained” dogma.

          Human rights? Rome didn’t have that, naw. Neither did any Buddhists. If you mean full abandonment of slavery and bonding with equality under the law then NONE of those were supported by the CONSE$RVATIVE churches of the time. It was the cherry-picking, hell-bound Liberal Churches that lead the way each time. Face the shame, the historical equivalent of the Church of Josey would have been on the WRONG side of every human rights fight in the last 200 years.

          And the rest? (international law, justice, science, capitalism, charity, hospitals, orphanages, the university system, opera,)

          How is international law Christian? If anything it should be a Leftist accomplishent in your book right? One world order and all that? Justice? JUSTICE? No civilization undestood the concept of equity or justice until the Jews and Christians taught them better? I assume you can defend that? Capitalism is a Christian invention? If anything Jesus propounded a society based on religious communism not capitalism.

          Charity invented by Jews? Wrong answer! I guess those Hawaiians had no concept of charity when good old Christian Capt. Cooke found them. No? Oops, I guess that one bites the dust too.

          Ditto for orphanages, Eastern Religious orders had them as well as other institutions through history. University system? Umm, that would be from the Greeks I believe.

          Opera? Since Europe was Christian when Opera came around on the Musical evolution timetable I guess you can have that one..Here we have it. Josey believes in her religion because it made opera possible!! Forgive me if I want arguments with a touch more spiritual depth to choose a faith to guide my life by.

          (Josey)I find it silly when you atheists cherry picks phrases from the Bible, pervert their proper interpretation and use them to try and refute the right.

          Bring it on! Let us start with you explaining how when Jesus said NOT to pray in public and NOT to pray as a social spectacle he really meant for Christians to get together at football games, school events and any other non-religious event and pin their faith to their sleeve with a loud, tightly sectarian prayer? Then you can explain why your most Christian states have the highest divorce rates. And why the Biblically “enlightened” that call THEMSELVES evangelicals have the highest divorce rate of any religious demographic in the country. Since literal interpretation of the Bible is what you feel is the ONLY source of morality how come it has failed to produce moral choices? After all Jesus said that the ONLY reason for divorce was adultery. If George divorces his wife for other reasons and he remarries is he welcome in your church? He is “Embracing his sin” by keeping his “adulterous” wife is he not? How is he different from a homosexual who has gay sex? Who does YOUR “correct” interpretation say is saved and who is not?

          Better yet, don’t go there.

          (Josey)Head Heretic is just another neo-pagan (HH:I am?) with tired, worn out views (that you ignored in order to attack a pet peeve of your own), too scared to be honest with himself because of what it may reveal(HH:did I miss something? Is Josey under the impression that I am gay?), too much of an ego to show respect towards others with different views.(Like Josey has? Gotta love those double standards from “holy” folks don’t you?) And too much of a narcissist to make any lasting positive contribution to society – armchair psychoanalyze that Freud.

          I am narcissistic for pointing out that Fundamentalist Christianity and other homophobic ideologies are narcissistically attached to their own feelings for what SHOULD be instead of what is? Well I don’t know about Freud but I think you are so insecure in your “faith” that ANY admission of inperfection pulls the rug right out from under you. I think that you never think about why you think anything. You think it therefore it must be the best to be thunk.

          You total disregard for MY actual message proves my point.

          Here is a parting shot sure t keep you awake if you think about it. Christians in the days just after the crucifixion lived as Jews and kept the Law. These were people who KNEW Him. Who spoke to Him. How did not base their faith on fragmented books written decades later.
          Yet these Chrestians embraced a faith that would NOT include accepting YOU as having a clue about Jesus, His message or how to be faithful to Him.

          This is not an opinion, it is just an observation of the facts on the ground then and now.
          SO, think on this, if THEY were right are you saved? Only after Paul would you be even CLOSE to eligible to be an official Christian. Does that mean that Peter, who rejected Paul for years, was evil? Was James also wrong to oppose Paul until his congregation grew so large the threatened to eclipse the original Christians?

          “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, [Josey] than Are Dreamt of in Your Philosophy…”

          Now then, if you actually want to debate some of what I ACTUALLY SAID go for it!

          • October 17, 2009 4:40 pm

            This is the longest comment I have yet to see at NewsReal. You ran for 2600 words. Not criticizing, just, well, observing in a bemused fashion.

            • swemson permalink
              October 17, 2009 6:13 pm

              Longest perhaps….

              But also one of the most scholarly and interesting postings I’ve ever read.

              Josey is a perfect example of my contention that religion rots the mind… and our resident Head Heretic does a masterful job of showing everyone how how ignorant and naive she and her ideas truly are.

              Hear Hear !

              • October 17, 2009 7:27 pm

                Well shucks, I just started at one end and kept going til I ran out of Josey.
                And you can’t count Josey’s words, though I did correct a lot of spelling in her parts.

                It is nice to have a nice clear target in a Right Wing partisan these days what with our Lord and President making the Left such an easy target.

                As a moderate writer I try to not let myself get to down on one side of the spectrum. Obviously it was a lot easier to find that balance when the Left were not so blatant and the folks like the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority had such a low bar for “Christian” ethics.

                The people I support are the Liberals and Conservatives. There are Liberals and Conservatives and Leftists and Right Wingers. Not all combinations are possible. There is no such thing as a Leftist Conservative though a Liberal Conservative is what we call a Conservative who is NOT a Right Winger. They CARE about finding better ways to do things when certain “traditional” ways patently suck (if I may use a technical term.).

                Frankly I would like to hear Republicans defend their keeping Newt Gingrich in a position of influence. As I recall his own party got sick of his lack of anything that was too low for him to do. (divorcing his wife for his lover and delivering the papers to her when she was still groggy after cancer surgery, boasting that oral sex allowed him to say with a straight face that he had not “slept” with this or that girl and the best of all, Republican “allies” outing Newt for getting “oral satisfaction” in a parked car while his too young to see over teh door daughter stood by.

                I put this persons record for sleeze on a par with anything the thankfully gone Van Jones ever did. More so given the “high moral tone” that he took with non-Conservatives.

                When I see a “liberal” who is really a Leftist and call them on it I am attacked as though I was the spiritual twin to Joe McCarthy; when I skewer the Right I get called a “Leftist” like Josey did. In neither case will my IDEAS be addressed. In neither case will logic beyond the certain possesion of “the Truth” be applied to their “arguments”.

                Recently David Horowitz wrote a great piece about how to confront Leftist in ways they can’t avoid. (http://frontpagemagazine.com/readBlog.aspx?BLOGID=1056&dsq=16774047#comment-16774047)
                I felt compelled to counter that everything David had to say about Leftists applied IN DETAIL to the extreme Right as well. http://hereticscrusade.blogspot.com/2009/09/david-come-home.html

                I feel it is my mission in life to offend all who have no business being offended by other people not thinking like they do with no ox gored and no dolls broken.

                • swemson permalink
                  October 17, 2009 8:44 pm

                  That last comment is VERRRRRRY interesting !

    • swemson permalink
      October 17, 2009 4:44 pm

      Josey;

      Thanks for once again proving my assertion that religion makes normally rational people say and do idiotic things….

      You know NOTHING about atheists…..

      First off, you’re in deep denial about our numbers… one or two percent ? LOL !

      The real number in America, is somewhere between 15 to 30% of the overall population, and more like 50% to 75% of all college educated Americans…

      In Europe, it’s somewhere between 40 to 60% of the overall population, and more like 80% to 90% of all those with a college education.

      During polling on the subject, a large percentage of those who say they believe in god, do so because they don’t want to upset or offend anyone who might be in earshot….

      Your absurd superstitions have been slowly dying out for centuries, but the decline is diminishing faster than ever in recent decades because of the explosion of knowledge that’s been taking place recently….

      The day is coming when people like you will be seen as a fringe bunch of crazies.. like astrology nuts… or druids

      Darwin struck the first serious blow to your fairy tales, and mankind’s infancy ended for good when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon…

      It’s time to grow up darlin….

      All the good teachings that you take from religion, stand on their own because they’re all sound and rational ways for people to live… And logic and reason form a far more sturdy foundation for a just and fair politico-economic system, than any of your supernatural delusions…

  8. Jack Zeller permalink
    October 16, 2009 8:00 am

    Rather than try to establish homosexuality as ‘normal’, one must define the norm. That is to say, as Mr. Swindle did, that the norm is around 97% non-homosexuality in the population. Therefore, homosexuality is abnormal. It is no more complicated than that, and to make it so, you must re-write the English dictionary.

  9. therealend permalink
    October 16, 2009 8:03 am

    The question here is are we to be required to accept what we may not agree with. In this case, it’s homosexual behavior. There is nothing I can do about people being homosexuals any more than I could stop adultery. But am I not to be allowed to say anything negative about either?

  10. MaryAnn permalink
    October 16, 2009 8:19 am

    Angela, there have always been, and will always be people who object to the teaching of Christianity concerning homosexuality. Hell, Bishop Gumbleton is a Catholic priest who is gay, supports abortion and the ordination of women. To say that Christianity itself, rather than some Christians, has ever blessed homosexual marriage is like saying Gumbleton speaks for the Catholic Church. Homosexuality is outside the teachings of Christianity because it is contradictory to God’s plan for humanity. This has been, and continues to be the teaching of Christianity, again regardless of the views of certain Christians past or present. You are right, divorce has done great damage to the institution of marriage. As has cohabitation and pre-marital sex. That does not justify adding another insult to the institution. And I am not hearing calls to criminalize homosexuality.

    • Walt permalink
      October 16, 2009 6:07 pm

      “Early Christianity actually approved and blessed same-sex marriage. Read John Boswell’s monumental work on this subject: The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe (New York: Villard, 1994). Boswell argues that the adelphopoiia liturgy was evidence that the attitude of the Christian church towards homosexuality has changed over time, and that early Christians did on occasion accept same-sex relationships”

      I did actually take the time to look up Boswell. He was not a mainstream scholar by any stretch, and his findings were questioned during his life. He seemed to basis his same sex marriage claims to the rite of adelphopoiesis(making of brothers). The rite expressed a spiritual bond or blood brotherhood, and did not connote a sexual aspect. This is on a par with activists claiming that Abraham Lincoln was gay because he shared beds with men. What is not mentioned is that people sharing beds was quite common before the wealth of the 20th Century made such measures unnecessary. Dr. Boswell admitted during his life to being a gay activist, and his advocacy was seen to color his work. If you have any quesions about where Christianity stands on this, check out the New Testament from stem to stern. More specifically, you might want to look at St. Paul’s epistles. It will be a dry stream for gay rights activists. Finally, why even bother to recast Christianity? There is no requirement to be one, and many follow no faith at all. Why try to turn lead into gold or gold into lead?

  11. Rogert permalink
    October 16, 2009 8:31 am

    I just want to add to my previous post, while the Bible allows for divorce in the case of adultery/fornication, this is for permissible re-marriage. Other divorce is not condemned per se, but re-marriage is then classified as adultery.

  12. Knar permalink
    October 16, 2009 9:14 am

    On the right track, but for one that resents the chains imposed by “political correctness”upon free expression , the word “tolerance” churns the intestines!

  13. October 16, 2009 11:50 am

    In this time in our collective human history this is a very volatile subject. Since our country is rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics, we have, as whole, been raised to believe anything not approved of the Bible is a sin and in some cases called “abomination”. I beg to differ!

    I was raised in the Catholic Church during the 50’s & 60’s, even did a stint in the seminary myself and as part of this experience I was exposed a diversity of ideas and philosophies. Ideas and philosophies that would never even be considered in today’s one sided liberal indoctrination stations called “Public Schools” or the right wing opposite in so called “Christian Schools” (Not Catholic, that’s a whole different world today;-)

    But the over all guiding principle we were taught in Cathlic’ Skool, was to treat everyone as Jesus would have treated them. Now when your child, you believe all this stuff because it just seems to make perfect sense. Treat EVERYONE with kindness and you’ll be treated the same. (Sound Bite Familiar?) Well, when we get to be adults, we learn very quickly that being “nice” to some people will only get you into trouble, real quick!

    But I still keep that “give people a chance” adage in the back of me head and I try to be affable with everyone until they exhibit the danger signs I have learned to recognize and I then quickly pull the disconnect on those who are out to cause me or mine harm in whatever fashion!

    My experience with homosexuality goes way back. I have known or been around gay men and women all my life at one time or another, whether I knew it at the time or not. I was raised in and lived in central Louisiana up till about 1975 and then moved on compliments of the US Air Force, where believe it or not I received more instruction in diversity than I got from the priests and nuns! I learned more about human nature from the military that anywhere else so far. I could not have gotten the eye opening education I received from any university or institution of higher larnin’;-)

    Although the military of the time was extremely prejudiced against gays via the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and still is somewhat, the folks in the trenches seemed to be very open minded about working and living with folks who were obviously gay. The only problems came when someone gets in trouble or under suspicion of whatever, then sometimes the openly gay person will be identified as an attempted deflection away from the suspects activities.

    It does not work, but the result is, the gay person is now ‘officially identified’ and the UCMJ legal machine now takes over. The gay person is now subjected to an open and obvious witch hunt persecution that borders on hysteria! I personally witnessed this up close and personal, as I was living off base sharing a house with a wonderful young woman who was mentally brutalized by said witch hunt! (As a result I was given the “Friday & Gannon” routine by the OSI and treated like I was a suspect also!)

    Was she a threat to anyone? No! Did her personal activities threaten the US government or security? No more than anyone else her age group! Her commander, her supervisor, her co-workers, and others wrote glowing letters of support, to no avail! The infallible UCMJ had spoken and there was no reprieve! Administrative discharge under articles dealing with ‘military incompatibility’! A black mark on your record no matter what anyone tries to say otherwise. Forget ever getting any gov’t related job or work for a government contractor, which many people, myself included, easily find employment after military service! (My first employer out the AF practically begged me to come work for them!)

    So my life learned libertarian attitude on subjects like this is, live and let live, unless it’s trying to sting, bite, or kill me or force some asinine political ideology on me that may sting, bite, or kill me;-)

    And don’t forget: America Again in 2010;-)

    • Julie Trevor permalink
      October 18, 2009 6:01 am

      Tommy Barrios – good one!!

  14. angela permalink
    October 16, 2009 12:27 pm

    To Mary Ann:

    “Homosexuality is outside the teachings of Christianity because it is contradictory to God’s plan for humanity. This has been, and continues to be the teaching of Christianity, again regardless of the views of certain Christians past or present. You are right, divorce has done great damage to the institution of marriage. As has cohabitation and pre-marital sex. That does not justify adding another insult to the institution. And I am not hearing calls to criminalize homosexuality.”

    As a secular humanist who have been raised in a “fundamentalist” Christian household, I no longer yield to a literal interpretation of the text but rather to a contextual one. There are many barren married couples, as well as members of religious orders who opt to be celibate – aren’t they doing something contradictory to God’s plan for humanity also? What do you do with barren couples who opt for in-vitro fertilization and gay couples who want to adopt children abandoned by neglectful parents (some of whom are “Christian”)? Are they condemned too because they opt to reach out to kids who need love? I’d like to think of God as a fair and compassionate judge, but your statements prove otherwise.

    For your information, homosexuality is criminalized in MOST non-Western countries, most of the Caribbean, and of course Muslim-dominated countries. Whereas heterosexuality has never been criminalized because it is considered the norm. David Horowitz’s argument is that homosexuals should have the same CIVIL rights as the heterosexual majority. It’s not a religious issue. But even if it’s a religious issue, no one expects for everyone to agree with you. Even in fundamentalist churches, you will always find dissenting opinions about certain topics. There’s a reason why Catholics didn’t read the Bible for centuries – because the Church knew that it would suffer great turmoil if everyone had his/her own interpretation of the Bible. Alas, it’s too late now. Everyone has access to the Bible and they can interpret it whatever they want.

    And this is why I stop debating with fundamentalists like Rogert above because they’re more into circular reasoning (“The Bible says so… The Bible states that… The Bible this and that…” – not much intellectual/scientific involvement there).

    Gay, straight, bisexual, trisexual, married, divorce, single, virgin… we will all be judged by how we treat others and how we remain faithful to God and not so much by following every law, commandment or verse in the Bible (I don’t think anyone can do this, which gives credence to the verse, “we will always fall short of the glory of God.”

    • Rogert permalink
      October 16, 2009 1:55 pm

      You imply a curious definition to circular reasoning. You are correct in that no one can obey every law to the letter, which is the very reason Christ dies in self sacrifice for our sins. No where do I imply we can remain sinless. However, The…yes, “Bible” does give us what God Himself intends with His creation. All sins are forgivable with the exception of the one blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.

      For 45 years I was much like the rest of the world, not needing or wanting Him.
      Then I had a very real personal experience with Him. My life was changed. The Bible…again…says we are to warn those outside of His Will about their sins or we will share in the blood guilt. When they are warned the guilt is theirs alone.

      I have studied the…here I go again…Bible…for many years. When it is studied closely, there is no room for “many interpretations.” Only personal bias. Which I see repeatedly above.

      I do not share these warnings with anyone out of an arrogance or greed. I share them because I know they will face a very unpleasant future ahead. I refuse to go to a heavenly eternity alone. I want as many as possible to go with me. For that reason I impart what changes God made in my life.

      For the one above who wants me and others to “stay the hell out of politics;” you only declare that your brand of – religion/bias – is superior to mine. Religion is also the classification of atheists. They went to court to obtain just that classification. Now, atheism has become the state religion for the nation.

      I wish you no harm, but you wish me silence to not obey God’s command. He really does tell us to tell others about Him and warn them of condemnation. If that ultimately is shown to be true, which is the most loving way to treat others…to warn them, as I have attempted…or to keep silent and let their train rush to the gorge which has no bridge?

      • swemson permalink
        October 16, 2009 3:02 pm

        Rogert

        As I’m sure you saw in my reply to Julie above, I said

        I think you know that my views about religion, no matter how negative they be, do not mean that I have any problem with people practicing whatever religions or other silly superstitious rituals (such as astrology) that they wish in their own homes and places of worship…

        It’s when they stick their bigoted noses in other people’s affairs that I get really mad.

        I couldn’t care less what you believe… in fact religious people usually make great neighbors.. My only problem with you is when you try to force your beliefs down my throat by trying to pass laws that regulate behavior that’s none of your damn business…

        The purpose of our government as defined by our founding fathers is to protect the rights of INDIVIDUALS… I’ll bet there’s a bunch of whackos sitting in someone’s basement not too far from you right now engaging in devil worship…. Do you want to make that illegal as well…? I couldn’t care less because I know that it’s just a bunch of relatively harmless nonsense, no different than what goes on in every house of worship in the world… If you want to waste your life on your knees praying to some imaginary being that’s your business.. I don’t care…

        The problem is, that I’m a fiscal conservative, in favor of a small unobtrusive government, that encourages personal responsibility and productivity. I’m a former Marine who risked his life for this country, and I’m pretty damned mad about what’s happening to it today, as I’m willing to bet you are as well… But your religion has you so brainwashed that you can’t see that when you carry your signs and and religious symbols into the town square during elections, you’re turning off so many people that you lend aid and comfort to the enemy….

        I repeat: I don’t give a damn about whatever silly fairy tales and superstitions you believe in.

        So I’ll ask you just one question, and hope for a thoughtful rational and honest answer from you:

        If keeping religious issues private and out of the public debate, will help insure that we get our country back from these damned communists, what’s in your best interest… ?

        A: To keep marching around with your anti gay marriage and anti abortion signs, in a crumbling civilization, with NO values or ethical standards at all (think of Communist Russia, China, Cuba and what the citizens suffered there) one in which your grandchildren will eventually be forced to pray covertly, in underground churches… or

        B: That we all live together peacefully and prosperously, in a free country, where you can worship freely whenever or wherever you want, where everyone is free to pursue their own happiness in whatever way they please, as long as they don’t violate any other individual’s rights to the same freedoms.

        What’ll it be ?

        Please keep in mind the fact that our country is in deep doo doo right now, which I’m guessing you’re well aware of, and that all I’m saying is that circumstances are SO bad now, that we have a duty to ourselves to do whatever we can to save this country and the freedom and liberty of our grandchildren…

        Elections are often won or lost by only 1 or 2 percent of the votes…

        50% or more of all Europeans no longer believe in god.

        15% to 30% of Americans no longer believe in god. (Yeah.. I know you don’t believe that)

        If 10% of those Americans (1.5% to 3% of the electorate, and it could well be more) decide to switch their vote from democratic to republican candidates in the next few elections, it just might prove to be the margin that we need to win back our country…

        What the hell do you have to lose ?

        • Rogert permalink
          October 16, 2009 4:24 pm

          We both have the same goal in mind when the aim is to remove the current mis-administration.

          I have never marched with signs anywhere. In fact, I have spoken out against the false believers who display no love of Christ by doing so. If you read all of my posts, you will see where I have said that I many acquaintances in the homosexual community…friendly acquaintances! I do believe the Bible to be God’s Word and I will not apologize for that. Many times I have had His existence proven to me, too many to be coincidence. He pulled me out of a life which was ever bit as slimy as anything you might imagine. Since then, I have studied the history of the Bible and even its correlation to science. Rather than simply attack it one should read it first.

          I am a veteran of 8 years as a military medic. I have had the privilege of being involved in critical aid to all branches of the service and they all have my deepest respect. You speak as if I have no interest in a free country…you speak in error. But I also look beyond that and will witness for a better future in eternity.

          Brainwashed? That’s hardly true and is a tired old attack against someone who has looked seriously into the subject of religion and faith. It would better suit the person who puts his faith into the theory that the magnificent life we have came about as an accident. Ever take a good look at the working of the human body. Science can’t even explain a thought, let alone the intricate mechanics of the body. The eye? Unfathomably complex and defies description.
          I have(!) given this much study and thought. I do not believe in a fairy tale that says an amoeba suddenly appeared and grew into a man.

          I went kicking and screaming out of unbelief.

          Ever hold a 3 month old unborn child (fetus) in your hand? I have! It was a spontaneously aborted child which was wanted by the mother. It had all of the components of my child when she was born. But she never got the chance to use them Eyes that will never see. Ears that will never hear. A mouth that will never cry or speak. Etcetera, etcetera…etcetera. How that life came to be is nothing short of a miracle.

          You accuse me of anti gay and anti abortion actions. Again, I have never marched or carried a sign against either. But I have done exactly what I am doing now. Speaking out through the written word.

          I cannot forget that child I held. I speak out in love to warn those who go against my Lord’s Will, by perverting it. I will answer to Him on that day and no one else. To say there is no right or wrong, morally speaking, is absurd.
          How will I defend speaking out for His Word?
          How will you defend speaking out against it?

          I wish you no ill will, I care for you, especially as a veteran. I was once like you…til I found out what true freedom was. Now I will speak out to defend the country which allows me to worship Him. But I will not deny Him to soothe the conscience of those who refuse to.

          I am sorry that you have such anger against those who worship God. I won’t take it personal, because, as God said to Samuel…”It is not you they reject, but Me.”

          Beyond that, we both want the same end in this battle for the America we both love.

          • swemson permalink
            October 16, 2009 7:22 pm

            Rogert;

            You’re obviously sincere, and certainly not an idiot, but here’s where you go wrong:

            To say there is no right or wrong, morally speaking, is absurd. How will I defend speaking out for His Word? How will you defend speaking out against it?

            You make the same fatal mistake that almost all religious people make about atheists like me…

            Certainly there is a right and a wrong, in every situation, and yes, there are absolutes !

            You say that stealing is wrong, because god says so… I say that stealing is wrong, because if everyone stole, we’d all be living in chaos… you come to your conclusion by faith, and I come to mine through logic…..

            I can give you a rational reason for virtually every moral rule and ethical principle that your religion teaches you… Atheists don’t claim that all of the lessons in the bible are wrong.. in fact very few are… It’s a great book, based on the combined learnings of thousands of years of human experience….

            I’d like nothing more than to live in a community of people who lived by the rules of the bible…

            It’s just that I’m rational enough to know that it’s just a book, and that there’s nothing “divine” about it…

            There’s a huge difference between knowing something through faith, and knowing something by virtue of reason… I think that it’s better for a politico/economic system to be built on a foundation of reason and logic.. then the facts are the facts, and nobody with a different inexplicable faith can challenge it successfully…..

            Unlike what many think, atheists don’t say there is no god… all we really say is that we’ve never seen one bit of real (empirical) evidence to support the belief that such a thing exists…

            Want to talk to me about god….. ?

            Show me one iota of empirical evidence and we’re off to the races…. until then, I’ll stick with what I KNOW… and you can stick with what you BELIEVE… And don’t ever confuse the two !

            • Rogert permalink
              October 16, 2009 8:32 pm

              I certainly would enjoy the opportunity to explain my views, “ere the twain should meet.”

              But you have an inaccurate view of Biblical views and their followers. Admittedly, there are many who present themselves as wild eyed loons. But many are scholars of every profession.

              My Faith is also solidified by reasoning. The more I studied Biblical history and the original languages, the more I became convinced of His existence. As I said earlier, I went through a period of time where I was in great need of things. I’m talking of several weeks. As I prayed, He supplied. I swear the needs were supplied at the very hour they were needed! Not once but every week for well over a month. That was only one period in time, there were more. For that reason, but not alone, I can hold to my Faith and not be swayed. It is not Faith alone which helps me to know. My Faith guides me and piques my curiosity.

              I will not belabor the point, but I would ask that you not classify Christians as mere “believers,” without knowing. We know in the same way you “know.”

              As I looked into the working of the human body, I realized the impossibility of the incredible complexity not being designed. There are many scientists who became believers after studies in their fields. There are also evolutionists who will admit that the theory of evolution is the “most preposterous thing ” they have ever known…but they cannot accept a Creator. Therefore they profess evolution because they cannot/will not explain life in any other way.

              The Bible even mentions many things which man did not know of for centuries after they were written. Such as the seas being comprised of underwater mountains. Ocean currents and jet streams were discovered because the secretary of the navy read it in the Bible and began the scientific study.

              You speak of what I “believe” and you “know.” Actually, as I said, I did not take things at face value, but rather came to know, through study (which I dearly love), of the accuracy of the Bible.

              You sound more agnostic than atheist.

              • swemson permalink
                October 16, 2009 9:12 pm

                I assure you my friend that I am indeed an atheist…

                I understand the degree to which your faith is real to you… but when you say

                We know in the same way you “know

                You’re simply wrong..

                Have you studied epistemology ? I have

                I’m using words very precisely here because I don’t want any misunderstandings….

                Think for the moment about the subject in very general terms….

                Each and every one of the world’s religions have members that are just as sure as you are that their version of the god myth is the one and only true one…. As Richard Dawkins said, “we’re all atheists about almost all of the gods that man has invented over history… Some of us just go one god further…”

                Looking at the issue dispassionately if you can, tell me what are the odds that any one version of the fairy tale is true… ? Remember there have been thousands…. from the most primitive witch doctor, to today’s religious leaders.

                The moslems are pretty damned sure about allah… considering how many of them are happy to die for him, I think you’ll have to grant my point….

                So how can you be THAT sure that yours is the real one… ?

                The answer is that no matter how real it is to you, you have no proof, at least no empirical proof…

                No religion has ever had any empirical proof for any of it’s tenets…

                You write:

                As I looked into the working of the human body, I realized the impossibility of the incredible complexity not being designed..

                YOU realize that the COMPLEXITY of life proves Darwin to be wrong ?

                Who are you ? One of the divine apostles ? Does god speak personally to YOU ?

                If you say yes, we’re going to have to have you fitted for a rubber suit, and keep you in a padded room….

                Anecdotal evidence doesn’t stand up to the truth of science…. And supernatural answers to questions are antithetical to the very concept of science.. The two are 100% incompatible. Next, you might argue that Einstein believed in god… So what… it doesn’t prove a thing…

                I don’t care how many coincidences you see in nature, your beliefs are just that… beliefs…. They’re not substantiated by any facts let alone any empirical evidence…. If they comfort you in some way, knock yourself out…. to me, you’re just wasting your time…

                The human intellect has a fragile ego… It’s hard for us to admit that we don’t understand things… Subconsciously we think it makes us look weak or stupid in front of others… so we tend to make up answers to those questions.. People tend to think that if they can’t understand things, that the answer must be extremely sophisticated and esoteric…. that’s the basis for the success of a huge percentage of modern art… Sometimes it takes a kid’s innocent mind to observe that the king isn’t wearing any clothes….

                It’s harder for you especially, because you’re not a kook who came up with a crazy theory on your own… You’re part of the vast majority of people who believe as you do…..

                Hopefully, someday you’ll understand.. that believing in something, simply doesn’t make it so….

                • Rogert permalink
                  October 17, 2009 6:13 am

                  This has been an interesting discourse. However, I cannot cast any further pearls in your direction.

                  I say it sincerely when I say I have enjoyed this. I also am sincere when i say I could turn almost all of your statements around, most assuredly the last…but it would do no good. I apologize for the aspersions toward you. I don’t believe I use any, but the others are every bit as sincere.

                  We, I believe, have had a decent give and take, regardless of the “fairy tale” remarks. If it’s okay with you I will consider this to be a “friendly enemy” situation and I will call you a friend.

                  I look forward to possibly “meeting” again in cyber-chat.

                  Lastly, I would…again, sincerely…like to meet up with you someday

                  • Rogert permalink
                    October 17, 2009 6:15 am

                    One last thing…if it’s alright with you I will place you on my prayer list.
                    Actually, even if it’s NOT alright…I will do the same.

                  • swemson permalink
                    October 17, 2009 4:11 pm

                    Rogert;

                    The feeling is entirely mutual….. I too enjoy the badinage…

                    My closest friend over the last 7 or 8 years (he also a business partner of mine) happens to be an evangelical christian… and we’ve been carrying on this discussion for years… He’s currently got me reading Velikovsky’s “Worlds in Collision” as part of his constant attempt to find some anecdotal evidence impressive enough to get me to consider the possibility of a god…. He gave up on finding any empirical evidence years ago… But the conversation goes on..

                    I think we tend to lear a lot more by talking to people who disagree with us, rather than just those we see eye to eye with.

                    Cheers;
                    S

            • Anthony Damato permalink
              October 18, 2009 6:20 am

              Swemson,

              You use logic to contrast the athiest position to the believer, but consider the limitations of your logic when applying it to the subject of the debate :

              Swemson:

              “You say that stealing is wrong, because god says so… I say that stealing is wrong, because if everyone stole, we’d all be living in chaos…”

              OK, seems logical. But, if everyone were homosexual, what would happen?

              This type of argument is not sophisticated enough to analyize the question at hand, since statistics could show that an entire given population at any one time will not be stealing, nor homosexual.

              It is better to let your God given conscience be you guide.

              • swemson permalink
                October 18, 2009 12:31 pm

                You create a specious argument, for which there’s no rational answer.

                First off, I’ve never made any value judgments about gays… I don’t believe they choose to be gay, and I think it’s really tough for a gay to grow up while hiding his or her true feelings…

                I wouldn’t want to be gay… but then again, I wouldn’t say that being gay is wrong or evil… To be wrong or evil in my eyes, a person must be doing something that hurts others… and gays don’t do that…

                Clearly, like virtually every other creature, we’ve evolved into a species that procreates through sex, which is something that a very small percentage of people cannot participate in due to something that we may never fully understand. But we’re not talking about aberrant psycho killers here, we’re talking about a small minority of the population that doesn’t harm other people, so why can’t we just leave them alone…?

                The answer once again, the reason why so many people get all bent out of shape about gays, is religion, which instills hatred into the small and intolerant minds of many believers, simply because they don’t follow god’s law….

                Religion may not be harmful to the vast majority of the population, but there are plenty of bible thumping bigots, including some on this blog, who are so full of hate that they make asses of themselves every time they open their mouths… One of the most offensive ones here, just said that I’m obviously openly gay, because I simply asked everyone to please leave these unfortunate people alone….

                To be gay, is simply to be different than the norm…

                To be a bible thumping bigot spewing hate at everyone who doesn’t agree with their “holy” rules, is to be truly EVIL…

      • Larry permalink
        October 18, 2009 5:29 am

        Muslims would so disagree with you, force to convert you to Islam because Mohammed is the ultimate prophet, so everything you just said is irrelevant to a Muslim.

  15. Rogert permalink
    October 16, 2009 2:02 pm

    I would amend one sentence above. The LACK of Bible study is what leads to many interpretations which are based only on…”personal bias.”

  16. Stephen permalink
    October 16, 2009 2:45 pm

    Some thoughts:

    1. Interesting idea by Mr. Horowitz equating “abnormal” with minority.
    2. What guides us or moral compass? What is “wrong” and “right”?
    3. It would be fallacious to determine right by majority.

    • swemson permalink
      October 16, 2009 3:08 pm

      Stephen

      I think that your misinterpreting David’s use of the word..

      Anything “different” from the norm is by definition abnormal

      There’s no way that David Horowitz is equating the term with a value judgment, and as a member of this little community here at Newsreel, YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO SAY SUCH A THING.

  17. Stephen permalink
    October 16, 2009 3:13 pm

    I believe a complaint against Christians not upholding the teachings of their Bible is justified when true. Too often Christians stand before the judge dissolving a marriage agreement they swore to uphold. That is wrong on many fronts and the criticism is valid. In fact, it has weakened their (our) argument against same-sex marriages. However, the fact that so many Christians or “Christians” (for who truly knows save that person and God”) are poor examples of the sanctity of marriage in no way justifies or rationalizes the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality. And lest one cries, “Bible, Bible, Bible, always holding up that old, archaic, flawed book…”, I reply, well, you seem confident holding up your U.S. Constitution, and our book has fewer amendments.

    But then again, God’s Word describes many actions that displeases Him, like adultery, lying, coveting, anger, bitterness, gluttony, etc.

    For me, my argument against same-sex marriages is strictly the message it gives of what our society holds as honorable or accepted behavior. Should their be a movement by professing adulterers or hatemongers to have legal standing in society, I’d stand against those as well. And by stand, I mean telling people my beliefs and voting. So far, nothing like marching or demonstrating has been my answer.

  18. Stephen permalink
    October 16, 2009 3:40 pm

    Swemson wrote: “I think that your [sic] misinterpreting David’s use of the word..

    Anything “different” from the norm is by definition abnormal

    There’s no way that David Horowitz is equating the term with a value judgment, and as a member of this little community here at Newsreel, YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO SAY SUCH A THING.”

    I didn’t misinterpret. I believe I understand his point, to which I responded with “interesting.” I find it interesting how Mr. Horowitz combined two unconnected concepts, abnormal and minority, in describing this issue.

    I wouldn’t say I’m a “member of this little community here at Newsreel” and am not sure I understand your capitalized statement…though I don’t need to.

    In American society at least, we attempt to be moral or fair, and our laws reflect it. However, we are not a Theocracy. Would you agree with this? So if someone were to make hating and harming homosexuals a law, I would oppose such a thing. It is immoral to do such a thing. But, it is enough to extend civil liberties and rights to the “abnormal”, it is too much to allow the minority to redefine what is normal for the majority. Would you disagree, Swemson?

  19. swemson permalink
    October 16, 2009 6:16 pm

    Stephen asks:

    In American society at least, we attempt to be moral or fair, and our laws reflect it. However, we are not a Theocracy. Would you agree with this?

    Of course… But I have serious fears about what America could morph itself into if the religious right were allowed too much influence over our government…

    But, it is enough to extend civil liberties and rights to the “abnormal”, it is too much to allow the minority to redefine what is normal for the majority. Would you disagree, Swemson?

    I don’t think that that’s what they’re doing, and it’s certainly not their INTENTION !

    And remember, only a very small portion of gays are fighting for the right to marry, so please tell me how, less than a few hundredths of 1% of the population, is REDEFINING what’s normal for the rest of us… Your premise is PATENTLY ABSURD !!!!!

    Look…If two gays want to get married, I don’t see how that’s a threat to anyone wanting to marry a member of the opposite sex. But it obviously freaks out a lot of religious people…

    Why do you suppose that is…?

    I’ve said the following to a number of my male friends over the poker table and on the golf course over the years, ( And PLEASE… to Julie and all the rest of the lovely ladies on Newsreel, I honestly don’t mean this in a sexist way.. I love you all, but the fact remains) that there are only two things that always seem to make otherwise rational men act in irrational ways: One is pu$$y, and the other is religion….

    You’re behaving irrationally…

    It’s not your fault.. I understand it…..

    But I make my case above, about keeping religion out of the public debate for a few years at least, with sincerity, and with much much thought… I honestly think that religion should be completely separated from government, and if there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that this could help us get rid of the Obama administration, isn’t it worth trying…. ?

    Isn’t there enough at state care ?

    We’re only talking about the freedom of liberty of our grandchildren here.. you know that the commies are going to be far more hostile to religion than what I’m proposing.. Isn’t the risk reqard factor in my favor here.. ??

    You tell me !

  20. October 16, 2009 6:18 pm

    Although I am not personally in favor of gay marriage, Carrie Prejean is not my hero by any means. When it comes to allowing gay marriage, it is a very contentious debate. Everybody has a position on the issue. This isn’t one of those issues nobody understands, like healthcare.
    It is unfortunate that the torch of gay marriage has been picked up by the far left who is only in favor of furthering their agenda at all cause.
    However, it would be better for the nation if gay marriage were left up to the states. I’m not referring to the state legislature. I’m referring to the ballot box. That way, everybody has the opportunity to have a say in the matter, since again, everybody has a position on gay marriage.
    It’s not that gays don’t deserve the same rights as everybody else. It’s just something people may, or may not support, and it’s more democratic to allow individuals to vote on it in their state, or even in their municipality.
    Carrie Prejean never answered the actual question. She merely voiced her opinion on the issue, which sparked a firestorm media frenzy. This is why it should stay within the states. It is an issue everybody can identify with, and everybody should have the opportunity to vote on this particular issue.
    Like I said, I personally do not support gay marriage. In 2004, my state had an issue banning same sex marriage on the ballot, and I personally voted in favor of it. Apparently, 63% of voters in my state happened to agree with my personal position. However, had 63% of the people in my state disagreed with my personal position, I would have been grateful to at least have my chance to vote on this issue.

  21. Jenn permalink
    October 16, 2009 8:46 pm

    It isn’t immoral or a sin to be black. Or Jewish. It isn’t a sin to have homosexual inclinations. What IS immoral and IS a sin is to be a PRACTICING homosexual. Mankind should not base its laws on immoral actions.

    Because “between two to five percent of the population choose to be ruthless murderers in any given society” should we then pass laws saying its OK to murder for the sake of unity? The demand that murder should be made illegal – which would be “oppressive” to all practicing murderers – is not a matter of mere communal prejudice or individual preference. It is a demand that violates the social contract and its pluralistic imperative, and runs counter to the very idea of America’s unity as a nation.

    Let’s face it – to choose to murder or to choose to engage in homosexual acts are both the same thing in that each is the individual CHOICE of a human person to engage in a certain action. The result of either action is the same. Death. One is the physical death of another human person; the other is the death of a human person’s soul.

  22. Jenn permalink
    October 16, 2009 9:41 pm

    My, what a thoughtful reasoned response. (David Horowitz, it’s amazing that you let unreasonable people post such common ad hominem attacks.)

    • Larry permalink
      October 17, 2009 5:50 am

      As of today, I will stop subscribing to Frontpage Mag. I am a gay man involved in a 21-year-old monogamous relationship. To read and to allow ad hominem attacks on gay people you don’t even know is disgusting and frankly demoralizing to me and to my many gay friends who are in monogamous, faithful relationships. I’ll take my business elsewhere.

      • October 17, 2009 6:41 am

        Homophobic comments will be deleted when I see them. If you see something that’s wildly out of line then please let me know. Please don’t abandon FrontPage and the Center because a commenter said something offensive and I did not find and delete it prompt enough.

    • October 17, 2009 6:40 am

      We don’t let people post ad hominem attacks. The comment which rightfully offended you (I think) has been deleted. Not every single comment is moderated before it shows up but we try and clean up comments that violate our commenting guidelines. Please let me know if you see a comment that violates our commenting guidelines.

      If there’s any I’ve missed (or haven’t found yet) then please let me know.

  23. Jennifer permalink
    October 16, 2009 9:42 pm

    Well, I see much division. I happen not to be religious, but I do happen to be freed from the religious trappings by one fact, set free in Jesus. Setting that aside, if that alone in some way makes me “superstitious” and prone to believe other “silly” little superstitions, then an opinion is that, a simple opinion. I am not offended in the least because I am confident in the truth.

    In either way you look at it, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. It is not a practice entered into by the majority at all. However, they have been with us through the ages. I have had them for family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, business owners and have personally seen the very dark nature of their existence and struggle to “hide” a lust which they know is not normal. This does not mean they did not have good qualities or virtue in other areas. But I will not deny the terrible toll it took on our family and the destructive personality behind some of the homosexuals I have encountered (particularly my family).

    I absolutely do NOT agree with it or put a seal of approval on the behavior, nor should I. That said I absolutely do NOT believe that a person with an abnormal sexual appetite should be condemned by me or anyone else. I don’t have a desire to hate or mistreat. However, to say that all members in the gay community have completely benign motives toward the “Christian” right is simplistic and illogical; quite short sighted really, very reflective of an inability to put the pieces of information together which are accumulating in regard to the “pride movement”. I have seen their hatred, their cynical jeering and relentless attack on someone even if it is an erroneously “perceived” slight. It is almost as if they were looking for a reason to condemn and start an argument.

    Any research on the matter will turn up countless petitions, proposals of measures, suits, counter-suits and other activity directly aimed at turning any form of dissent toward their sexual preference a crime! A crime? Yet, I am not allowed to disagree based on logic? Yes, I see the point of their attacks and recruitment. I just don’t see why I have to sit idle and take it in the name of brotherly love and acceptance…I will not be silent.

    And here is one, for the Atheists who believe or rely on the big-bang-we-crawled-out-of the-pond-sludge crowd….IF according to your own view we evolved and have two sexes then homosexuality is possibly a move toward elimination by natural selection….either way, it is a dead end lifestyle….no matter how you slice it. Otherwise there would never be two sexes. But since that was a complete hypothetical instance I will move on.

    It amazes me an argument for logic and empirical evidence comes in the way of things when in fact all you need to do is ask even the youngest child capable of logic…in plain terms…ask them…lay before them a simple statement of the big bang theory, the pond sludge idea, the evolution model, the monkey is our uncle theory etc….and then lay before them God, Creation, Reason, Explanation, and then ultimately Jesus…..and every time…I have had this response…. “so what made the big explosion happen, how did the stuff catch on fire to blow up?” “How did the stuff just come out of nowhere?” “If we came from monkeys, why are the monkeys still here?” “Where are the black, Indian, and Chinese monkeys?”…..real questions by real kids.

    But those are just stupid silly little questions from stupid little kids I guess, well at least in the Atheist/Evolution/Darwin estimation but it certainly shows you that they QUESTION. As I think anyone should. The fact scientists who are heavily influenced by Federal Funding to come to a consensus on SCIENCE is alarming MORE THAN THE GAY COMMUNITY. If you want a smart approach to true science then please go read Richard Feynman’s writings, he was a brilliant mind with the genius to see that science is NOT CONSENSUS. Try his speech to Caltech back in the 60’s I believe….good stuff, eye opening.

    My intent was not to enter into the Creation vs. Spontaneous out of nothing debate…but it does come into play in either side….homosexuality=deviation from the norm.

    Finally, if it is a forced issued,and we as a society are led kicking and screaming to place our seal of approval on something which should have never been public discourse in the first place; let me pose another problem in this so called “great expansion of humanity and compassion and acceptance” movement to continually increase our tolerance for the intolerable. ( I am aware of my horrible grammar, it is late, tolerate me)

    My proposed problem in the tolerance theory is that once this issue has dulled the senses of people what next? It sees an even more devious group is on the rise known as NAMBLA. Ever hear of them? North American Man Boy Love Association. I have known about this disgusting group of perverts for nearly 20 years now, no I did not just see this on TV and decided to wave it around. I don’t watch television anymore, I have way too many projects and reading and kids to raise for idle time like that.

    Are we to tolerate that deviance of the norm? There are men who want to change our Constitution to say that it is a good thing for boys of 8 years of age to engage in consensual sex with an adult male. Are we to tolerate that because of its alternate lifestyle definition? After all these are people too right? Where does it stop? You say I just compared the incomparable perhaps…but before you go rolling your eyes thinking this sort of perversion is not on the horizon then you need to do your homework on NAMBLA and your homework on the Roman Empire.

    There, those are my 5 cents worth of grammatical errors and observations….
    carry on …..

    • swemson permalink
      October 17, 2009 3:05 pm

      I find it interesting that all of the devout christians here, who are allegedly supposed to be compassionate and tolerant of others, are so willing to spew their hatred and fear of one small and harmless minority group (gays), in such an irrational and offensive a manner, while the one “sick, disturbed, deviant, bogey of a godless and evil” atheist, is the only one who rose to their defense…

      Was nobody else was outraged when she equates being homosexual with being a murderer ?

      And it’s also interesting how you religious folks all immediately interpret my words as meaning that I am approving of, or endorsing, or even praising the homosexual lifestyle, when in fact I was simply saying was that we should leave these poor and generally unhappy people alone, and that any sexual behavior between 2 consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, is nobody’s business but theirs…

      The reason why religious folks get so bent out of shape about this issue, is that religion has twisted and corrupted it’s followers view of sexuality so terribly, that they can’t look at the question in an unbiased and objective manner. All christians have been brainwashed from their earliest days to believe in the revolting concept of original sin, as a result of which, a huge percentage of the MOST devout, are all screwed up inside when it comes to anything related to sex.

      Humans are sexual beings. It’s an integral and major part of who we are. It’s at the core of how we continue to exist, and the most joyful act that two loving humans can experience… BUT… unless you’re doing it missionary style for the sole purpose of having a child, the church tells you that it’s a SIN against god…!

      It’s never been about god… It’s about the clergy, and it’s one of their most potent tools with which to maintain their influence and control over their flock… Original sin is one of the most evil and anti-human lies of all times.

      If there’s any one individual outside cause of human sexual perversion it’s religion itself….

      Celibacy is the cruelest of all perversions… And twisted old men in robes, abusing young boys runs a close 2nd.

      People who carry such hatred around for gays, do so because they see themselves as dirty and sinful creatures who can’t resolve the conflict between their natural feelings and desires, with that arcane bunch of unnatural rules imposed on them by the priests, and subconsciously, one of the few ways that they can make themselves feel a little better than themselves, is to point at another group who they can accuse of being more sinful and evil than they themselves are…. That’s the essential essence of all forms of bigotry..

      Religion divides people and is responsible for more human misery than any other factor in mankind’s history….. And on 9/11, we saw the ultimate insanity of it that can result, when the priests, shamans, ayatollahs are left unchecked…

      There’s a good reason why our founding fathers wanted religion to be kept separate from our government. Thomas Jefferson spoke of it wisely and often.

      My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there. –Thomas Jefferson

      History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. –Thomas Jefferson

      In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. –Thomas Jefferson

      Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” –Thomas Jefferson

      Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. –Thomas Jefferson

      Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. –Thomas Jefferson

      BTW: All you devout christians should feel free to hurl your ridiculous insults at me… I consider it a mark of honor, when it comes from the likes of you.

      • October 18, 2009 12:42 am

        “when in fact I was simply saying was that we should leave these poor and generally unhappy people alone”

        I take strong umbrage with the above statement and your negative generalizing of the gay community. I personally do not know of any large contingent of ‘poor’ gay people, most of them are pretty well off from what I seen and experienced. (See my other comment)

        I do not know of a large contingent of gays that are unhappy these days, other than the ones who can’t seem to get enough media attention to fill their narcissistic needs! But that’s true of any narcissist gay or otherwise!

        I understand your antagonism with religion and it’s attendant negatives. Been there, done that, got the collar! But as I stated somewhere else, true religions and true religious people are much more tolerant of gays than you make out. It’s only these religious fanatics who profess to know God or Christ or Allah or Jehovah or whatever that go around spouting hateful rhetoric and moronic assumptions based on their own ignorance and learned prejudices that many times have nothing to do with any true religion that promotes peace and love.

        Religious people in this world have literally performed miracles for a great many unfortunate people on this planet and those are the examples to emulate and admire. On the other hand as you pointed out, much of the greatest evils of mankind have been perpetrated in the name of some distorted religious ideology or another. (Take a look a Liberation Theology, called Black Liberation Theology in the US and used in Central and S. America to murder thousands) Thomas Jefferson was right to call attention to this kind of religious chicanery.

        But Thomas Jefferson also understood the beauty and the power of the human spirit/soul connected to any form spiritual enlightenment! If you have not experienced this yet yourself then maybe you try harder;-) May you find the god with in you (as the Hindus say) and experience the power, its not a myth;-)

        America Again in 2010;-)

        • swemson permalink
          October 18, 2009 12:48 pm

          Tommy;

          I think you know that I wasn’t referring to financial status when I said that we should “leave these poor people alone”.. nor was I implying that I thought that all gays were living dreadfully unhappy lives…

          I saw a fellow in a park once slap the woman he was with viciously… and as he was about to do it again, I grabbed his wrist, and twisted it into a painful karate hold, and said something like, why are you being so abusive to this poor lady…..

          It’s the same here.. it’s a figure of speech, & it can legitimately be used in reference to anyone who’s been a victim of hatred and abuse, as so many gays have been over the years…

          Hell, we’ve seen cases of young teenaged boys ganging up on a young gay man and stoning him to death…. Does anyone really think that if they hadn’t been exposed to religious indoctrination that says gays are godless sinful creatures, that they could have committed such a heinous act ?

          I agree that a substantial portion of the openly gay population lives happy and prosperous lives…. and the contribution of gays to art, literature, music, and all other human endeavors is undeniable..

          What bothers me is ALL types of bigotry… and homophobia is certainly a form of bigotry…

          Sorry… I never meant to offend by my use of that word.

  24. Stephen Scott permalink
    October 17, 2009 1:39 am

    Methinks Swenson to be an aberration, a hallucination, a bogey, for real people concerned with issues and capable of real and honest discussion don’t respond as Swenson.

    Have a nice time and enjoy yourself, Swenson.

    Stephen

    • swemson permalink
      October 18, 2009 12:49 pm

      See what I mean !

  25. Julie Trevor permalink
    October 17, 2009 9:04 am

    Another way to look at Mr. Horowitz thoughts on this matter is to substitute the word obesity for homosexuality.
    No doubt there is an environmental (self inflicted) obesity, however there is a genetical dispostion to obesity. It is therefore abnormal as a human condition, but a normal variant of a whole species.
    Both genetic and environmentally caused obesity require enormous effort on the part of the obese person to overcome. It is nearly impossible for the genetically caused obese person to overcome their state, as I’m sure it would be for homosexual people who are “born” that way.

  26. October 17, 2009 11:36 pm

    I have a dear friend of mind who is gay, or homosexual, or whatever label you want to put on the relationship between him and his partner. We as a team run several libertarian motivated websites. He is very libertarian and registered as Republican just so could he vote in the CA primaries to oppose Obomber all asinine liberal policies in CA and nationwide. I am a libertarian in absolute determination to see that the US is returned to the sanity of a Federated Republic under law and not a bread circuses oligarchy as presently exists!

    We first started our association when I offered casually to take him and his partner on a tour of select wineries in Central CA. As it turned out he took me up on my offer. On our very first outing he tried to feel me out by telling me he was a Gay man. I told him I knew that at once after seeing him and his partner at the winery where we first met him with my wife and daughter.

    He asked straight up if that was going to be a problem? I told him as long he did try to push his lifestyle on me, we’d get along fine. And we have ever since! Since that time over four years ago we have had these little talks about the social political implications of homosexuality, among other things. Many will be stunned to learn that his attitudes are quite different from the attitudes of the yammering gay left, or the pevish straight right! His biggest complaint is the politicization and thereby political exploitation of his lifestyle!

    He did not elect, appoint, or approve of anyone to go out and act his champion for his lifestyle. He sees gay rights activists as nothing more than pandering agitators and a turn off to middle America. He sees the Right Wing Christian homophobia on the Republican side as the main reason the Repub’s are being so marginalized by a great many folks that would vote their way otherwise!

    We both agree that there is wrong headed attitudes on both sides of the issue and that is why much of VOTING America, like us, are stuck in the middle of a raving ideological quagmire of rhetoric and hate. Neither side can stand the thought that either side may have a valid argument or point! So the present stupid behavior on the issue continues.

    The pejoratives get flung back and forth, the MGMSM runs up the sanctimonious victim platform flag every time the subject of gay rights comes up so as to stir up and invoke collective guilt. So that some how once again we have to make special laws, and unconstitutionally so, for a special class of victims/citizens who for some odd reason now need special rights and protections not afforded anyone else, sound familiar!

    To sum this all we both believe that a persons sexual preferences is NOT something that should be flaunted like a badge of honor. We both believe that openly flamboyant, in your face gay activism does nothing to positive promote gay rights or cast cast a positive light on the many monogamous loving gay relationships that exist all across our great nation. Gay couples are contributors to society in every field and trade! They go to work, pay their bills and are consumers just like everyone else. The overwhelming majority of gay people are not on welfare or any kind of government assistance, unlike much of the other designated victim groups!

    To sum up, all this talk about Gays being contrary to Gods plan and all other such tripe is just that, tripe! I’m certainly disappointed with all the bigots in here calling themselves Christians, what slap in the face of Jesus for any of you bigots to call yourself a Christian. Anyone who spouts hateful things in the name of Jesus, knows not Jesus, but only perdition! On the other hand the leftists of this country need to get a clue as to who the gay community really is, and what values they really hold, because the rhetoric of the left and particularly the gay left, does not represent the gay middle class in any form or fashion!

    “Gnaw on the bones of hatred and you will starve at the table of the soul”
    ME

    PS America Again in 2010;-)

  27. October 18, 2009 1:34 am

    Hail the pejorative slinger,
    Their words hath barbed stinger.
    But for them to imply
    That they know why,
    The truth is a dead ringer!

    America Again in 2010;-)

Comments are closed.