Gays versus The Passion in America’s great divide

[Seshmeister]

Andrew Sullivan UK Sunday Times.



Maybe we will one day look back on last week as the moment when the culture war in America finally eclipsed the other war President George Bush is still waging. Two apparently unconnected events converged to split the country in two. All it took to set the tinder ablaze was a presidential announcement and the opening of a film. Trivial in some respects. Anything but trivial in reality.

Last Tuesday, Bush announced he would support an amendment to the constitution of the United States that would forbid any state, city or locality from ever allowing two people of the same gender to marry. There is no more drastic action than amending the constitution. Banning civil marriage for gays therefore represents a huge and risky upping of the ante in the strife over marital rights.

The president had many other options. He could have said nothing. He could have said that the legal, legislative and court battles over gay marriage that are now going on in California and Massachusetts should be left alone to resolve themselves. He could have said that the Defence of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton, his predecessor, in 1996, would prevent marriages in Massachusetts or California from being recognised in any other state, thereby minimising the scope of the rulings. Or he could have argued that if the act were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, he would support a constitutional amendment to ensure its principles remained the law of the land.

He could even have proposed some kind of compromise — backing federal civil unions for gay couples, speaking to gay citizens about his own views about religious marriage or explaining to the religious right that civil marriage is not a sectarian issue but a secular, civil one.

Instead, he dropped the equivalent of a political nuclear bomb. He repeated the word “sanctity” again and again when referring to marriage, which is a civil institution. The religious right was ecstatic. For evangelical Protestants, preventing gay couples from legally marrying is the most important issue in America right now. The bedrock base of Bush’s Republican party will not tolerate even the most minimal civil unions for gay couples — which is why Bush was forced to make an entire speech on the subject without saying the words “gay”, “lesbian”, “homosexual” or “civil union”.

When he had to utter some words to describe what protections he would deign to give gay relationships, he spluttered “legal arrangements”.

As he made the speech, Bush seemed to wince in discomfort. He wants the whole issue to go away, but he also knows politics requires that he use it, especially in a week when he sunk to new lows in the polls. So he dropped the bomb.

Bush’s calculation is that he can mobilise his political base while not alienating the moderate voters he needs if he is going to win the election. Using an inflammatory amendment is an old and trusty tool when you are behind in an election year.

His father backed a constitutional amendment to ban burning the American flag back in 1988. It never passed; but Bush Sr was able to portray his opponent, Michael Dukakis, as a wimpy liberal because he believed in free speech — even to the extent of letting protesters incinerate Old Glory.

This year, Bush’s political advisers realised that John Kerry could be skewered on the issue. Kerry is from Massachusetts, where the first civil marriage licences for gays will be issued in May. If Bush can make Kerry seem pro-gay, he calculates he can peel away some conservative Democrats.

It’s called a “wedge issue”. You use a disliked minority — black criminals, gay couples; you get your opponent to defend them; then you get to win over all those offended by the association. Nifty. And disgusting.

The trouble is, this isn’t 1988. Gays are by no means the reviled minority they once were. And by raising the issue to the level of a constitutional amendment, Bush shifts the grounds of the debate. Polls show that about 60% of Americans oppose civil marriage for gays. But other polls show that a narrow majority also opposes amending the constitution to prevent it.

Even those Americans who oppose letting gays marry tend to think an amendment is too extreme a step and that the matter should be left to individual states.

The constitution has never before been used to limit civil rights, only to expand them. Denying rights to one group of Americans — gays — might also conflict with other amendments guaranteeing equal protection of the laws or separation of church and state. And the last amendment designed to enact social policy sponsored by religious groups — that prohibited the sale of alcohol — was not exactly a good precedent.

Any amendment is also very hard to pass. It requires two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, then it needs to be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. Even its most passionate religious supporters acknowledge they will need a miracle to get it through.

But in some ways Bush had no choice. His political base is the growing population of white evangelical Protestants whose pastors have been inveighing against the menace of gay marriage. All the inchoate anxieties of the modern world — sex and violence on television, abortion, feminism, divorce — have somehow coalesced on this issue. While the Bible-belt states have some of the highest divorce rates in the country (Texas has double the rate of Massachusetts), the main focus is on the threat of homosexuality. When the mayor of San Francisco started issuing civil licences to gay couples on Valentine’s Day this year, it sent the religious right into hysteria. They threatened to withhold their support if Bush didn’t stop it.

But at the same time, in the big cities, gays are part of the mainstream. One-third of Americans support gay marriage and more support civil unions; gays are everywhere in popular culture (the television series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is just the tip of the iceberg). There are openly gay congressmen, mayors, talk-show hosts, comedians, film actors.

As one part of the country has intensified its religiosity and abhorrence of gay relationships, another part — particularly those under 30 years of age — is adamant about gay normality and equality and supports gay marriage. Among independent voters, the amendment is opposed by almost 60%. So one America looked at the images in San Francisco and sent bouquets of flowers. The other America went ballistic.

Into this came Mel Gibson with a film about the Passion of Jesus. In most circumstances this kind of movie would be primarily a cultural event. But this time it was deeply politicised. The film was shown in advance of its general release to select groups of religious-right intellectuals, theologians and activists — as well as to very conservative Catholics.

The word was out: this was a conservative movie and all conservatives were urged to endorse it. Evangelical groups booked cinemas for thousands in advance — despite the fact that the film (which I had the misfortune of sitting through on opening night) is medieval in its Catholicism and anti-semitism. But today’s social conservatives in America form what appears to be a popular front. Old Catholic-Protestant divisions are subsumed under the rubric of opposition to secular, liberal America.

National Review, a good bellwether of social conservatism, said the film was better than any ever made. Charges of anti-semitism were dismissed as “chutzpah” by the head of the conservative Catholic League. Other contributors focused on the film’s implicit rebuke to Hollywood: “For the first time the film industry will realise that profits have been forfeited over the years by creating films which were out of sync with the interests of the citizens.”

Even Jewish conservatives toed the party line. The classic and gratuitously anti-semitic imagery in the film was overlooked in the interests of solidarity with the social-conservative cause.

I have yet to read a single conservative pundit criticise the movie. My own view is that it is largely a piece of soul-deadening, pornographic sadism. If Quentin Tarantino became a member of Opus Dei, this is the kind of film he would make. And with 20 minutes of a man being flayed alive as the centrepiece, social conservatives will never be able to criticise film violence again.

But as soon as you venture outside the conservative or religious press, the reaction is equally strong. In the liberal New Republic, Leon Wieseltier wrote: “It is a repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film.”

Frank Rich, of The New York Times, said of the movie’s defenders: “They practise what can only be called spiritual McCarthyism, a witch-hunt in which ‘secularists’ are targeted as if they were subversives and those who wrap themselves in God are patriots.”

I agree with those who found the film repulsive in almost every respect. But that is not the point. The point is that America saw two different films. The enormous gulf between viewpoints shows no sign of moderating.

This is not merely a cultural divide, it is a political-cultural divide, a dangerous and at times frightening curdling of the United States into two countries. We knew already that these two countries existed. We found out in the last election that they are excruciatingly evenly matched. But what we are beginning to realise is that, even during the war on terror, there is no chance of reconciliation. Indeed, war is breaking out.

In the gay marriage debate, each side believes the other is morally wrong. One side sees the very existence of marriages for gay people as tantamount to the abolition of America. The other side sees writing anti-gay discrimination into the constitution as an emblem that they are about to be written out of their own country.

One side looks at a movie and sees love; the other side looks and sees hate. Gays and evangelicals; Jews and Catholics; urbanites and heartlanders; blacks and whites.

President Bush came into office pledging to be a “uniter not a divider”. But the nation under his leadership has rarely been more polarised. The war is upon us. And the presidential election will be its battleground.

[DaveIsKing]

Boooo...gays.

Can you imagine what will happen if the human extinquishing lifestyle takes over...or will it be??

[Rubnose]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Andrew Sullivan UK Sunday Times.



Maybe we will one day look back on last week as the moment when the culture war in America finally eclipsed the other war President George Bush is still waging. Two apparently unconnected events converged to split the country in two. All it took to set the tinder ablaze was a presidential announcement and the opening of a film. Trivial in some respects. Anything but trivial in reality.



Last Tuesday, Bush announced he would support an amendment to the constitution of the United States that would forbid any state, city or locality from ever allowing two people of the same gender to marry. There is no more drastic action than amending the constitution. Banning civil marriage for gays therefore represents a huge and risky upping of the ante in the strife over marital rights.

The president had many other options. He could have said nothing. He could have said that the legal, legislative and court battles over gay marriage that are now going on in California and Massachusetts should be left alone to resolve themselves. He could have said that the Defence of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton, his predecessor, in 1996, would prevent marriages in Massachusetts or California from being recognised in any other state, thereby minimising the scope of the rulings. Or he could have argued that if the act were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, he would support a constitutional amendment to ensure its principles remained the law of the land.

He could even have proposed some kind of compromise — backing federal civil unions for gay couples, speaking to gay citizens about his own views about religious marriage or explaining to the religious right that civil marriage is not a sectarian issue but a secular, civil one.

Instead, he dropped the equivalent of a political nuclear bomb. He repeated the word “sanctity” again and again when referring to marriage, which is a civil institution. The religious right was ecstatic. For evangelical Protestants, preventing gay couples from legally marrying is the most important issue in America right now. The bedrock base of Bush’s Republican party will not tolerate even the most minimal civil unions for gay couples — which is why Bush was forced to make an entire speech on the subject without saying the words “gay”, “lesbian”, “homosexual” or “civil union”.

When he had to utter some words to describe what protections he would deign to give gay relationships, he spluttered “legal arrangements”.

As he made the speech, Bush seemed to wince in discomfort. He wants the whole issue to go away, but he also knows politics requires that he use it, especially in a week when he sunk to new lows in the polls. So he dropped the bomb.

Bush’s calculation is that he can mobilise his political base while not alienating the moderate voters he needs if he is going to win the election. Using an inflammatory amendment is an old and trusty tool when you are behind in an election year.

His father backed a constitutional amendment to ban burning the American flag back in 1988. It never passed; but Bush Sr was able to portray his opponent, Michael Dukakis, as a wimpy liberal because he believed in free speech — even to the extent of letting protesters incinerate Old Glory.

This year, Bush’s political advisers realised that John Kerry could be skewered on the issue. Kerry is from Massachusetts, where the first civil marriage licences for gays will be issued in May. If Bush can make Kerry seem pro-gay, he calculates he can peel away some conservative Democrats.

It’s called a “wedge issue”. You use a disliked minority — black criminals, gay couples; you get your opponent to defend them; then you get to win over all those offended by the association. Nifty. And disgusting.

The trouble is, this isn’t 1988. Gays are by no means the reviled minority they once were. And by raising the issue to the level of a constitutional amendment, Bush shifts the grounds of the debate. Polls show that about 60% of Americans oppose civil marriage for gays. But other polls show that a narrow majority also opposes amending the constitution to prevent it.

Even those Americans who oppose letting gays marry tend to think an amendment is too extreme a step and that the matter should be left to individual states.

The constitution has never before been used to limit civil rights, only to expand them. Denying rights to one group of Americans — gays — might also conflict with other amendments guaranteeing equal protection of the laws or separation of church and state. And the last amendment designed to enact social policy sponsored by religious groups — that prohibited the sale of alcohol — was not exactly a good precedent.

Any amendment is also very hard to pass. It requires two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, then it needs to be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. Even its most passionate religious supporters acknowledge they will need a miracle to get it through.

But in some ways Bush had no choice. His political base is the growing population of white evangelical Protestants whose pastors have been inveighing against the menace of gay marriage. All the inchoate anxieties of the modern world — sex and violence on television, abortion, feminism, divorce — have somehow coalesced on this issue. While the Bible-belt states have some of the highest divorce rates in the country (Texas has double the rate of Massachusetts), the main focus is on the threat of homosexuality. When the mayor of San Francisco started issuing civil licences to gay couples on Valentine’s Day this year, it sent the religious right into hysteria. They threatened to withhold their support if Bush didn’t stop it.

But at the same time, in the big cities, gays are part of the mainstream. One-third of Americans support gay marriage and more support civil unions; gays are everywhere in popular culture (the television series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is just the tip of the iceberg). There are openly gay congressmen, mayors, talk-show hosts, comedians, film actors.

As one part of the country has intensified its religiosity and abhorrence of gay relationships, another part — particularly those under 30 years of age — is adamant about gay normality and equality and supports gay marriage. Among independent voters, the amendment is opposed by almost 60%. So one America looked at the images in San Francisco and sent bouquets of flowers. The other America went ballistic.

Into this came Mel Gibson with a film about the Passion of Jesus. In most circumstances this kind of movie would be primarily a cultural event. But this time it was deeply politicised. The film was shown in advance of its general release to select groups of religious-right intellectuals, theologians and activists — as well as to very conservative Catholics.

The word was out: this was a conservative movie and all conservatives were urged to endorse it. Evangelical groups booked cinemas for thousands in advance — despite the fact that the film (which I had the misfortune of sitting through on opening night) is medieval in its Catholicism and anti-semitism. But today’s social conservatives in America form what appears to be a popular front. Old Catholic-Protestant divisions are subsumed under the rubric of opposition to secular, liberal America.

National Review, a good bellwether of social conservatism, said the film was better than any ever made. Charges of anti-semitism were dismissed as “chutzpah” by the head of the conservative Catholic League. Other contributors focused on the film’s implicit rebuke to Hollywood: “For the first time the film industry will realise that profits have been forfeited over the years by creating films which were out of sync with the interests of the citizens.”

Even Jewish conservatives toed the party line. The classic and gratuitously anti-semitic imagery in the film was overlooked in the interests of solidarity with the social-conservative cause.

I have yet to read a single conservative pundit criticise the movie. My own view is that it is largely a piece of soul-deadening, pornographic sadism. If Quentin Tarantino became a member of Opus Dei, this is the kind of film he would make. And with 20 minutes of a man being flayed alive as the centrepiece, social conservatives will never be able to criticise film violence again.

But as soon as you venture outside the conservative or religious press, the reaction is equally strong. In the liberal New Republic, Leon Wieseltier wrote: “It is a repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film.”

Frank Rich, of The New York Times, said of the movie’s defenders: “They practise what can only be called spiritual McCarthyism, a witch-hunt in which ‘secularists’ are targeted as if they were subversives and those who wrap themselves in God are patriots.”

I agree with those who found the film repulsive in almost every respect. But that is not the point. The point is that America saw two different films. The enormous gulf between viewpoints shows no sign of moderating.

This is not merely a cultural divide, it is a political-cultural divide, a dangerous and at times frightening curdling of the United States into two countries. We knew already that these two countries existed. We found out in the last election that they are excruciatingly evenly matched. But what we are beginning to realise is that, even during the war on terror, there is no chance of reconciliation. Indeed, war is breaking out.

In the gay marriage debate, each side believes the other is morally wrong. One side sees the very existence of marriages for gay people as tantamount to the abolition of America. The other side sees writing anti-gay discrimination into the constitution as an emblem that they are about to be written out of their own country.

One side looks at a movie and sees love; the other side looks and sees hate. Gays and evangelicals; Jews and Catholics; urbanites and heartlanders; blacks and whites.

President Bush came into office pledging to be a “uniter not a divider”. But the nation under his leadership has rarely been more polarised. The war is upon us. And the presidential election will be its battleground.


I was going to reply to this rubbish but why bother.

When we start taking advice from a has been super power like the UK then it is time to pack it in as a country.

Who was it that bailed these over polite snobs out of 2 world wars?

Gay marriage is a simply silly issue. A non issue. Men marrying men is silly and a mockery of marriage. I guess it will open up the door to me marrying my left hand. Or my VCR. Or a poligimous relationship between my box of tissues and my bottle of Jergins

[Pink Spider]

Speaking of comparisons...

Worshiping Jesus is sillier than worshipping Santa Claus.

[DaveIsKing]

RELIGION or HOMOSEXUALITY... Pick your poison.

[Pink Spider]

I've never heard of a homo war, just holy wars.
Homosexuality has the moral highground by far.

As far as reproduction, are we on the verge of endangerment or something? It makes sense to trim the herd naturally by homosexuality than by war over natural resources later.

[DaveIsKing]

Another argument for faggotry, eh?

[Pink Spider]

You found the pic.

The question is, do you enjoy it? :p

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
I've never heard of a homo war, just holy wars.
Homosexuality has the moral highground by far.

As far as reproduction, are we on the verge of endangerment or something? It makes sense to trim the herd naturally by homosexuality than by war over natural resources later.

Thin the herd? You're an idiot who is just trying to piss everyone off here. You instead come off sounding silly and pathetic. Go home loser.

[Simplywonderful]

Gay marriage is an issue. After marriage they want children and that is a huge issue. The children will be mentally abused in school and they will always be assumed gay. Is this what the children of tomorrow should have to deal with.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Thin the herd? You're an idiot who is just trying to piss everyone off here. You instead come off sounding silly and pathetic. Go home loser.

Yeah...What He Said! :mad:

[Jerry Falwell]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Speaking of comparisons...

Worshiping Jesus is sillier than worshipping Santa Claus.

You are an extremely confused individual who probably has a really hard time truly enjoying life if this is the view that you have.

[FORD]

Looks like the Busheep finally found a right winger they don't agree with.

[Jerry Falwell]

Originally posted by Simplywonderful
Gay marriage is an issue. After marriage they want children and that is a huge issue. The children will be mentally abused in school and they will always be assumed gay. Is this what the children of tomorrow should have to deal with.

It's sad that the gay supporters are trying to use children to sway opinion. These children wouldn't be in a mentally abusing situation if two gay people didn't try to raise them. So why should the gay couples be so selfish as to put these kids in such a mentally abusive situation?

The majority of society will not change their view, Ever! The gay issue stems back thousands of years. If gay people choose to live that lifestyle, then they should look at history and understand that they are going to get ridiculed from now until the end of time (unless they all purchase some island to live on). Sometimes the truth hurts, but this is just the way it is in life. If you live certain lifestyles, then you will be plagued with hardships...physically, mentally, and spiritually (most important).

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Speaking of comparisons...

Worshiping Jesus is sillier than worshipping Santa Claus.

Now that was uncalled for! :(

[DaveIsKing]

AMEN, SANTA...er I mean JESUS!!

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Thin the herd? You're an idiot who is just trying to piss everyone off here. You instead come off sounding silly and pathetic. Go home loser.

Stop whining. You'll find the right guy someday. ;)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Stop whining. You'll find the right guy someday. ;)

So might you, you lonely unsexed wench! :gulp:

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Jerry Falwell
You are an extremely confused individual who probably has a really hard time truly enjoying life if this is the view that you have.

I'm not the one worshipping a 2000 year old dead guy (which was mainly based off of previous pagan mythology). Go pray for a new mansion and a new Rolls Royce, Falwell.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Jerry Falwell
It's sad that the gay supporters are trying to use children to sway opinion. These children wouldn't be in a mentally abusing situation if two gay people didn't try to raise them. So why should the gay couples be so selfish as to put these kids in such a mentally abusive situation?

The majority of society will not change their view, Ever! The gay issue stems back thousands of years. If gay people choose to live that lifestyle, then they should look at history and understand that they are going to get ridiculed from now until the end of time (unless they all purchase some island to live on). Sometimes the truth hurts, but this is just the way it is in life. If you live certain lifestyles, then you will be plagued with hardships...physically, mentally, and spiritually (most important).

So, should they grow up with no parents in an orphanage than be raised by a gay couple?

The majority of society IS changing. 50 years ago there was still segregation. Socially we're a freer society today. In 20 years or less the majority will be supporting the other side of gay marriage.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Thin the herd? You're an idiot who is just trying to piss everyone off here. You instead come off sounding silly and pathetic. Go home loser.

Where oh where is Dr. Love to point out the hypocrisy of this post?!?!?!

Some moderator he is. :(

[Dr. Love]

Sorry, GS. The whole thread was getting so high and mighty that I was too dizzy to read it.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Where oh where is Dr. Love to point out the hypocrisy of this post?!?!?!

Some moderator he is. :(

Aren't they missing you over at Sam-O-Rama?

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
I'm not the one worshipping a 2000 year old dead guy

Hey! I was only dead for 3 days. :mad:

[DaveIsKing]

Ok, Pink Spider.

Pinkie = Commie.
Spider = Web-weaving deadly predator.

Hmmm...

Would you like some KGB with your political correctness, sirs?

[Rubnose]

Comparing innocent black people forced into slavery, to grown men acting dainty and cramming thier cocks up each others shit hole is really a bad comparison. Just really unintelligent.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Rubnose
Comparing innocent black people forced into slavery, to grown men acting dainty and cramming thier cocks up each others shit hole is really a bad comparison. Just really unintelligent.


Thank you. :D

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Rubnose
Just really unintelligent.

Says the bigot.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Says the bigot.


Says the Faggot.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by DaveIsKing
Says the Faggot.

Says the confused one.

[DaveIsKing]

Not hardly, sally.

I don't stick my cock up a hairy male ass.

But, where nature intended it to be, sweets.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Rubnose
Comparing innocent black people forced into slavery, to grown men acting dainty and cramming thier cocks up each others shit hole is really a bad comparison. Just really unintelligent.

Agreed. Most minority leaders have rejected such comparisons as well. Comparing racism to homosexuality is silly and illogical.

[Jesus Freak]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Hey! I was only dead for 3 days. :mad:

And the 500 people that hung out with you for a while after those three days were up might have a differing opinion as well.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Agreed. Most minority leaders have rejected such comparisons as well. Comparing racism to homosexuality is silly and illogical.

Who says that the persecuted can't become the persecutor when given the chance? Homosexuality isn't a choice. It's funny that the ones who know nothing about it are the ones claiming otherwise.

So, homosexuality is sinful in your religion? What isn't???! If denying consensual adults the freedom to marry is supposed to be virtuous then what good is virtue if it's against freedom? That's just it, you can't have freedom with dogma. Just a close minded view of the world

[ELVIS]

Homosexuality IS a choice...

[FORD]

Bullshit.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Homosexuality IS a choice...

Then heterosexuality would also be a choice. So when did you choose to be straight?

Another question.... Could you choose to be gay?

And if YOU couldn't make that choice, why assume someone else could?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Then heterosexuality would also be a choice. So when did you choose to be straight?

As soon as I held hands with a girl...

Another question.... Could you choose to be gay?

Yes.. being an ex-drug addict I can understand developing a mindset for anything given the right circumstances.. I admit that if the hypothetical circumstances were right I could have wound up gay...

And if YOU couldn't make that choice, why assume someone else could?

Everything is a choice.. God gave us free will... That means choice...

I choose pussy... I also choose abstinance as I also choose Jesus...






:elvis:

[DaveIsKing]

There is absolute ZERO, ZIL, NADA Scientific Evidence that Homosexuality is a biological norm.

If it is biological (which I doubt), it is a disorder. Plain and simple. Because it deviates from the natural way.

Anuses are NOT made for dicks. They are not lubricated and the sex of homosexuals is forced and completely in contrast with the natural order of the UNIVERSE.

Just as there are disorders and malfunctions in the Universe, Homosexuality could only be classified as such.

All arguments FOR it are strictly EMOTIVE.

[Seshmeister]

"Deviates from the natural way"

Interesting. I think Adolf Hitler would be in full support of your post.

Of course he was a vegetarian that liked his girl to shit on him.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by DaveIsKing
There is absolute ZERO, ZIL, NADA Scientific Evidence that Homosexuality is a biological norm.

If it is biological (which I doubt), it is a disorder. Plain and simple. Because it deviates from the natural way.


Anuses are NOT made for dicks. They are not lubricated and the sex of homosexuals is forced and completely in contrast with the natural order of the UNIVERSE.

Just as there are disorders and malfunctions in the Universe, Homosexuality could only be classified as such.

All arguments FOR it are strictly EMOTIVE.

What natural way? People weren't made to fly in airplanes either. Who cares about the "natural way"? There is no natural way anymore. Humans have broken out of it. Besides, there are plenty of people fucking the "normal" (whatever that is) way and reproducing, why do you care so much about the small minority that don't?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Who cares about the "natural way"? There is no natural way anymore. Humans have broken out of it.

Explain yourself you silly cunt...

[Seshmeister]

There are plenty of gay monkeys.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
What natural way? People weren't made to fly in airplanes either. Who cares about the "natural way"? There is no natural way anymore. Humans have broken out of it. Besides, there are plenty of people fucking the "normal" (whatever that is) way and reproducing, why do you care so much about the small minority that don't?

Get a clue, chick.

Pussies + Dicks = A NATURAL SEXUAL UNION

Dick + Asshole = DISEASE

Pussies and Dicks are naturally harmonious.

Dicks are not made for assholes.

You'd think it would be self-evident to people, hello? Like 2+2= 4.

AIRPLANES were created for usage and do not contradict nature because it is created from natural resources by the natural BRAINS and reason of humans.

HOMOSEXUALITY is a sexual deviance (or perhaps even a disorder).

Denying REALITY doesn't make it go away.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
There are plenty of gay monkeys.


There are plenty of disorders in the animal kingdom as well.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
There are plenty of gay monkeys.

Exactly. What do you think a chimpanzee is??

[DaveIsKing]

Homosexuals have been helped by therapy. I know a former gay man and he will tell you that he himself and several other former fairies he knows are being treated for this disorder.

I don't know, I am not a Doctor.

But, I do believe in common sense and logic before EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS for practices which are in contradiction with the NATURAL PROCESS.

And I don't believe in God or religion so don't shit religion on me, Pinkie.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Explain yourself you silly cunt...

Is the Prozac not working?

Try to define "the natual way". You can't because it's always evolving and changing.

[FORD]

There were these 2 supposedly "cured" homosexuals who started a ministry called "Exodus" to "cure" other gays of their "afflictions".

Neither one is associated with the ministry anymore. They both resigned from the group when they fell in love...

....with each other.


I'd be willing to bet your friend the "former fairy" was either bisexual all along, in which case feelings for women would be normal, or he's living in deep denial because people like yourself would have him believe God HATES him for being himself.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Is the Prozac not working?

Try to define "the natual way". You can't because it's always evolving and changing.

Hello, Pinkie?

Do you COMPREHEND logic??

The natural way is the way things ARE by the natural selective order of the universe.

Don't act so ignorant. You are an adult.

You liberals are all the same. "That depends on what your defintion of IS is?" C'mon. Use some fuckin' sense, girl.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by FORD
There were these 2 supposedly "cured" homosexuals who started a ministry called "Exodus" to "cure" other gays of their "afflictions".

Neither one is associated with the ministry anymore. They both resigned from the group when they fell in love...

....with each other.


I'd be willing to bet your friend the "former fairy" was either bisexual all along, in which case feelings for women would be normal, or he's living in deep denial because people like yourself would have him believe God HATES him for being himself.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, FUCKER.

I am not a goddamn religious nut. I respect NATURE and the ORDER of it. Faggotry is a disorder.

Are you the fourth Stooge?

[FORD]

Listen you goddamned hatemongering fucking piece of shit. This is NOT fucking KKK.com so take your hatred elsewhere. Where the fucking Hell dos shitbags like you crawl out of the slime from anyway?

[DaveIsKing]

What's a matter, fluffy?

Well done! You are doing a fine job being an idiot.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by DaveIsKing
Do you COMPREHEND logic??

The natural way is the way things ARE by the natural selective order of the universe.

You're argument is just getting laughable now. There is no fixed natural selective order of the universe, at least not that we can comprehend. Why would evolution still take place if things were "perfect"? You know there are also species that are Asexual on this planet. Tell me, was it a choice for you? ;)

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by FORD
Listen you goddamned hatemongering fucking piece of shit. This is NOT fucking KKK.com so take your hatred elsewhere. Where the fucking Hell dos shitbags like you crawl out of the slime from anyway?


I agree with ELVIS, the other moderator.

And I would like you to tell my BLACK uncle and my HALF-INDIAN grandfather that I am a "hatemonger" (another trigger word you libbies use to avoid FACTS)

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
You're argument is just getting laughable now. There is no fixed natural selective order of the universe, at least not that we can comprehend. Why would evolution still take place if things were "perfect"? You know there are also species that are Asexual on this planet. Tell me, was it a choice for you? ;)

You can't argue with someone who doesn't understand logic.

So, what's the point?

[DaveIsKing]

Hey guys, below is a list of PINK SPIDER's debate arsenal:

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by DaveIsKing
You can't argue with someone who doesn't understand logic.

So, what's the point?

I agree. Since you don't understand logic, I'm not arguing with you anymore. ;)

[DaveIsKing]

Pinkie, you may be a sweetheart and I am sure you are, but I am afraid the Liberals have....welll.....

[FORD]

This guy is a fucking Klansman . I don't give a fuck if he's a DLR fan or not, we don't need shit like this here.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
There is no fixed natural selective order of the universe, at least not that we can comprehend.

Speak for yourself...

I do understand and comprehend the natural order that God put in place.

[Dr. Love]

LOL, FORD. There's a lot of kinds of people in the world. If you really want him to shut up, everyone has to ignore him.



So delete every post that addresses him, of course.

[Dr. Love]

So you understand God's mind, eh?

You're doing better than me.

Anyway, I feel sorry for the homos that are getting "therapy" for their "disease". I don't buy into the idea that it's a conscious choice. Sure, I choose whether or not to fuck a chick or a dude, but given the fact that I unerring pick a chick and am completely turned off by the idea of fucking guys, I come to the conclusion that I'm driven by desires I can't control.

I can see homosexuality being a physical disorder; There's people that have all sorts of strange problems from their genetics.


But look at it this way: The sooner we accept homosexuality, the sooner homos will die out. If we let them get together, get married, whatever, almost none of them will procreate.

Homosexual genes will die out from natural causes to a level much lower than it is now. Of course, if you're threatened by the whole idea of two people not getting married that has nothing to do with you, that's another problem all together...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
So you understand God's mind, eh?

God's word is clear on what woman was made for...

You're doing better than me.

I know that...

Anyway, I feel sorry for the homos that are getting "therapy" for their "disease".

That's ok. Liberals feel sorry for everybody and everything...

I don't buy into the idea that it's a conscious choice. Sure, I choose whether or not to fuck a chick or a dude, but given the fact that I unerring pick a chick and am completely turned off by the idea of fucking guys, I come to the conclusion that I'm driven by desires I can't control.

What if a really nice boy flirted with you when you were about ten years old...

I can see homosexuality being a physical disorder; There's people that have all sorts of strange problems from their genetics.

That's right...

But look at it this way: The sooner we accept homosexuality, the sooner homos will die out. If we let them get together, get married, whatever, almost none of them will procreate.

I accept homosexuality. I just don't think letting them get married is right. Civil unions are ok I guess...

Homosexual genes will die out from natural causes to a level much lower than it is now.

Aids is a start...





:elvis:

[Dr. Love]

Civil Unions vs Marriage is a semantic debate. Legally it winds down to the same thing. Semantic debates are stupid (imo).

I liked girls when I was young. I had girlfriends. I was naturally drawn to them. I've known kids that were gay when I was growing up, and I was never interested in that. That was their deal, not mine. I didn't go beating them up, though, cause that's stupid.

The idea that being gay is a choice implies that if the circumstances were right, you could change your mind and decide to be gay.

I'm sorry, but I can't think of any situation where I would be compelled to be homosexual.

[Dr. Love]

Btw, I don't see how people that believe in God can view the Bible as the truth.

The Bible is good for Christians. But look at the whole thing like a stream flowing down a mountain.

You can drink from water coming down the mountain, and it might be clean enough to drink. But as the water has gone down the mountain, it's picked up some impurities and pollutants. If you want the best water, you go up the mountain to the source.

Same thing with the Bible. It may be good to read and study, but as it was handed down through "divine inspiration", it went through humans and became impure and polluted. If you really want the good stuff, you go to the source of it all.

To cite the Bible as pointing out what women are good for ... the Bible is pretty mysoginistic at times and if it were the standard, women would still be nothing more than servants.

Which is fine by me. :cool:

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Btw, I don't see how people that believe in God can view the Bible as the truth.


The bible is the word of God.. Period!

[Dr. Love]

The bible is the words of men.

So far as I know, God only dictated 10 commandments himself.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
The bible is the words of men.

Think what you want. The Bible says trust not in your own understanding. I truly believe the Bible is the word of God...

So far as I know, God only dictated 10 commandments himself.

Again... Trust not in your own understanding...





:elvis:

[Dr. Love]

I'll be damned (literally) before I decide to abandon my own capacity for reason.

That's and incredibly flawed idea. No offense.

[ELVIS]

No offense.. but you will go to hell for it...

[Dr. Love]

That's fine by me. I'd rather go to hell than subscribe to that idea.

[steve]

Originally posted by Jerry Falwell
It's sad that INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE supporters are trying to use children to sway opinion. These children wouldn't be in a mentally abusing situation if two MIXED RACE didn't try to raise them. So why should the HYBRID couples be so selfish as to put these kids in such a mentally abusive situation?

The majority of society will not change their view, Ever! The BLACK-WHITE-YELLOW-BROWN issue stems back thousands of years. If ITERRACIAL COUPLES choose to live that lifestyle, then they should look at history and understand that they are going to get ridiculed from now until the end of time (unless they all purchase some island to live on). Sometimes the truth hurts, but this is just the way it is in life. If you live certain lifestyles, then you will be plagued with hardships...physically, mentally, and spiritually (most important).


Also, the argument concerning gays raising children does not take into account that STATISTICALLY, homosexual males are less abusive to children than hetrosexual males (higher testosterone, perhaps? Who knows...). So, by that logic, we should say that HETROSEXUALS should be banned from raising children.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Aids is a start...


Tell me you did NOT just fucking say that??

I thought you were a nurse, Elvis? Certainly you should know better than to spread a lie that's about 20 years too old.

Diseases don't have sexual orientations, nor do they discriminate. Maybe your church should send you on a medical mission to Africa and you can see how millions of apparently "homosexual" Africans are doing?

BTW the disease known as AIDS didn't come from God or any force of nature. It came right out of a government laboratory (http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/the_aids_conspiracy/govtaids.html)

[steve]

It's beyond belief to me that so many folks posting at the David Lee Roth message boards are so unaccepting of alternative lifestyles.

Half the chapters in Crazy From the Heat are Dave attributing much of his personality to being exposed to a wide variety of different people at a young age (Cafe Wha? as a kid, lesbian nightclubs as a teenager, travelling the world as an adult).

I mean, that's why we all post here in the first place, right - because Dave's got a great spirit and has led and interesting life with a million stories to tell, right?

[Dr. Love]

No. We must all believe the same thing. Differing opinions are wrong. We must all be drones. Everything must be the same.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Then heterosexuality would also be a choice. So when did you choose to be straight?



When all the girls in class started giving me a boner! :killer:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
There are plenty of gay monkeys.

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom occurs during overcrowding, high-stress situations such as not enough food to go around. I don't have the sources handy, but that is a fact.

Also there are animals that eat their own kind. Using your logic that animals show what is normal both for themselves and man, is it OK for humans to eat one another? I think not.

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
The bible is the words of men.

So far as I know, God only dictated 10 commandments himself.

You show a complete lack of understanding of the basic tenets of the Christian faith, doc. Give it up. Arguing over faith is rather silly. Neither side will change the other's mind. That being said.....Elvis is correct in his statements here in this thread. :gulp:

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You show a complete lack of understanding of the basic tenets of the Christian faith, doc. Give it up. Arguing over faith is rather silly. Neither side will change the other's mind. That being said.....Elvis is correct in his statements here in this thread. :gulp:

Right ... I'm willing to bet that I've been put through my steps over the Bible much more thoroughly than you have. I've had to take 3 reading/writing intensive courses over the thing in the last year and a half. We read the Bible, and wrote plenty of damn essays on it.

You guys can think what you want about the issue, but believing the Bible is infallible is like believing in Santa Claus.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Right ... I'm willing to bet that I've been put through my steps over the Bible much more thoroughly than you have. I've had to take 3 reading/writing intensive courses over the thing in the last year and a half. We read the Bible, and wrote plenty of damn essays on it.

Big deal. I've read all the other stuff you've written about Christianity. You're off base. You haven't spiritually experienced the Bible.

You guys can think what you want about the issue, but believing the Bible is infallible is like believing in Santa Claus.

Believe as you wish. I don't really care one way or another. Elvis is still correct, though. :D

[Dr. Love]

You'll forgive me if I don't quite buy into the idea that you're the resident Theology expert, and therefore, don't subscribe to your limited view of reality.

[Pink Spider]

Every religion believes it's holy book, holy scrolls written on llama carcass or whatever is the one true source of information.

"Lean not to your own understanding"

That's why religion works so well. "Don't think and you'll be rewarded".

[ELVIS]

Tee hee hee...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
You'll forgive me if I don't quite buy into the idea that you're the resident Theology expert, and therefore, don't subscribe to your limited view of reality.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Bible, but know basic claims about the Bible when they are wrong. Like yours, for example. Later dude, gotta go to church! :)

[Dr. Love]

Well, then, tell me what basic claims about the Bible I've made that are wrong.

Since you know more about me on the subject, I'm sure you won't mind sharing that education. :)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Well, then, tell me what basic claims about the Bible I've made that are wrong.

Since you know more about me on the subject, I'm sure you won't mind sharing that education. :)

I would, doc, if I thought you were genuine. However, I think your intent is only to denigrate the beliefs of others and to get a reaction out of me. Remember, pissing people off with controversial remarks is MY GAME. ;) :D

Besides, a good New Testament based church is where you need to be to learn what you say you want, not an Internet board. :)

[Mr Grimsdale]

says aunty ethel

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I would, doc, if I thought you were genuine. However, I think your intent is only to denigrate the beliefs of others and to get a reaction out of me. Remember, pissing people off with controversial remarks is MY GAME. ;) :D



And ye should not be playing games with My word, My son! :mad:

[DaveIsKing]

How many dick-lovers and dick-lover-lovers are on this board??

A Man's Hairy Ass and Another Man's Hairy Cock = LOVE???

WTF??

Remember now, if WE don't accept Larry sucking off Dennis after he's bummed his asshole, then we are HATERS.

What the fuck is the world coming too??

I do HATE certain things. That's what makes us HUMAN. I hate any practice which PURPOSEFULLY leads to the extinction of mankind= DISEASE, FAMINE, WAR, ABSTINENCE (heh heh), and FAGGOTRY.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by steve
Also, the argument concerning gays raising children does not take into account that STATISTICALLY, homosexual males are less abusive to children than hetrosexual males (higher testosterone, perhaps? Who knows...). So, by that logic, we should say that HETROSEXUALS should be banned from raising children.

[DaveIsKing]

Steve, using your logic we should lock up all Black males ages 20-29 because STATISTICALLY they will commit a crime and we want to be one step ahead, don't we?

STATISTICALLY Africa is plagued with AIDS worse than any other continent, should we quarantine them??

Statistics can lead to a lot of HASTY GENERALIZATIONS and illogical reasoning.

Your reasoning must be as follows:

[Big Troubles]

It's funny ya know? Im totally staright and the thought of two men together make me want to drink my own liquified shit in a blender sized mug, and the thought of women together is very curious and exciting to me; I still think it's a great way to keep the population down. Too many dumb fucks running around already.

[DaveIsKing]

BIG T... fuck faggotry as a population decreaser.

How about KILL AN ASSHOLE WEEK instead??

[Big Troubles]

sounds like hunting time. Yeah we could start with the Van Fagar fans. There's got to be at least 100 of those somewhere? :lol:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
And ye should not be playing games with My word, My son! :mad:

Shut your pie hole, FORD. I was talking about this board in general, not what I've said in this topic. What I said about this topic true...........Elvis is correct in his statements.

:gulp:

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Big Troubles
sounds like hunting time. Yeah we could start with the Van Fagar fans. There's got to be at least 100 of those somewhere? :lol:

NOW YOU'RE TALKIN':cool:

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I would, doc, if I thought you were genuine. However, I think your intent is only to denigrate the beliefs of others and to get a reaction out of me. Remember, pissing people off with controversial remarks is MY GAME. ;) :D

Besides, a good New Testament based church is where you need to be to learn what you say you want, not an Internet board. :)

I wouldn't even try to get a reaction out of you, I know it's not worth the effort. All I'm saying is that if you're going to tell me that I'm wrong about something, I'd expect you to prove it, or at least make an attempt to explain it.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
I wouldn't even try to get a reaction out of you, I know it's not worth the effort. All I'm saying is that if you're going to tell me that I'm wrong about something, I'd expect you to prove it, or at least make an attempt to explain it.

Considering the topic at hand, I don't need to prove anything. You'll find out soon enough. :gulp:

[Dr. Love]

Fine, then I stand by my comments, and believe you're just doing what you always do -- disagreeing to try to get a rise out of someone.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Fine, then I stand by my comments, and believe you're just doing what you always do -- disagreeing to try to get a rise out of someone.

Nope. You can disagree all you wish and that is your right. I made my comments, however, because I am right and you are not. :gulp: