Political Correctness takes another step forward

As the Gay Brownshirts take over the DOJ. J. Edgar Hoover would be so proud!

Comments

Unknown said…
LGBTs seem to have gained the upper hand on the traditional values people. It's as if the latter's God-given rights to put down the former has been taken away from them by human institutions. All the latter can do is cry persecution.
May 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
The truth isn't democratic, and this shows where society is going.

When being heterosexual becomes illegal, it will be too late to cry persecution.
May 22, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
Note, however, that I didn't say the bigotry wasn't justified, at least in their minds. Once you accept subjective morality, anything is justifiable.
May 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM
Unknown said…
"I went from being that nice progressive liberal Catholic guy in favor of civil unions to that evil Catholic bigot who wants to limit gays and non-Catholic heterosexuals to civil unions."

You say that facetiously but I can see some truth to the way you are now. I think I would have liked you better in one of your past lives. The atheist one was probably you at your best and you just don't see it because you have drank the Kool-Aid.
May 23, 2013 at 6:29 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
The Atheist me was killed by atheists, just as the pro-gay me was killed by homosexuals. The old song "They will know we are Christians by our love" has a darker side few people ever run into- there is no dignity in committing suicide by sin, and tolerance is just another name for negligent indifference and hate.
May 23, 2013 at 6:38 AM
Unknown said…
"The old song "They will know we are Christians by our love" has a darker side few people ever run into."

I think people see that darker side all the time.

"..tolerance is just another name for negligent indifference and hate."

Wait a minute. Tolerance is not a good thing? You have a sick twisted attitude toward our modern world. Tolerance exudes love, not hate? What's the matter with you?
May 23, 2013 at 6:52 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
I have learned that "twisted attitude" from the original twisted attitude of tolerance. You can't help the world be a better place if you can't even name what is wrong with it.

Tolerance is hatred- of a very dark sort. Love is grabbing the man before he falls off the cliff; tolerance is saying that he must want to run off the cliff and thus we shouldn't interfere.
May 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM
Unknown said…
I get what you are saying. I'll still take tolerance over intolerance in most cases where there is no clear right and wrong.
May 23, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Unknown said…
Actually, monogomy reduces the chances of STD, and that is the purpose of taking wedding vows. So SSM will help prevent the spread of STDs. Promoting abstinence is not being realistic. People just don't take to it.
May 23, 2013 at 7:54 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
Yes, but given the tendency of men to cheat, and the fact that such people have already rejected any sort of sexual morality, what are the chances of such a union staying monogamous? Plus, given the state of civil marriage today with easy no-fault divorce, there is NOTHING LEFT in non-sacramental marriage (or even sacramental marriage- the annulment rate in the Catholic Church is 50%) that links it to lifelong monogamy at all.

Always bet on Original Sin- even if the fall never happened, the disobedience is universal. Vows are hard, cheating is easy; cowardice is rampant.
May 23, 2013 at 7:58 AM
Unknown said…
You are using the breaking of the marriage vows to say that marriage is not the proper mechanism for fidelity. But only as it applies to homosexuals and not to heterosexuals.

I'm going to give this a rest and focus on my work.
May 23, 2013 at 8:05 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
Modern marriage has nothing to do with fidelity at all.
May 23, 2013 at 8:06 AM
Unknown said…
Maybe not for heterosexuals. But why should their not honoring their vows affect homosexuals' right to give it a try?
May 23, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
Maybe because gay marriage, given the arguments presented, currently has NOTHING to do with vows or commitment, but only finances?
May 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Unknown said…
That is a very cynical view of marriage. Some marriages really are commitments to one another and not just financial arrangements.
May 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
Heterosexual marriage is. But I have yet to see an argument from the gay marriage side that has convinced me of anything other than the financial aspects (which, BTW, is why I'm for civil unions and a separation of Church and State on the issue of marriage- the financial side *IS* important and we need to be extending it to far more than just heterosexuals and gays; polygamous, polyamerist, incestous, beastiality, and pseudosexual relationships all deserve equal protection under the law when it comes to saving our culture resources by cohabitating; as a software engineer I even favor making such contracts able to be registered online with no other human beings involved than the people enacting the contract).

Of course, part of this comes from my experience with homosexuality- which has almost always been one partner having some level of control over the other, almost NEVER a truly equal partnership.

And then of course there is also the religious side, which says that if you love somebody of the same gender you *won't* force them into homosexual acts that could damage their bodies and do eternal damage to their souls.
May 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Unknown said…
"And then of course there is also the religious side, which says that if you love somebody of the same gender you *won't* force them into homosexual acts that could damage their bodies and do eternal damage to their souls."

Yes. That is the religious side. That is why religion isn't necessarily a good thing. Religiously induced homophobia is a major problem in this world.
May 29, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
So preventing the spread of AIDS is now homophobia. Good to know.
May 29, 2013 at 6:01 PM
Unknown said…
Not all people who point at STDs as a reason for two males to not have sex with one another are homophobes. But you just might be a homophobe if you use the risk of STDs as a reason to be against all gay rights across the board.
May 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
But I am not against same sex attracted people across the board- I am for civil unions. I am using the risk of STDs (and the decision to expose a partner to that risk) as proof that homosexuals do not love their partners.

If I was exposed to an STD, I would rather stay celibate than expose my wife. Homosexuals do not do that.
May 29, 2013 at 8:38 PM
Unknown said…
"I am using the risk of STDs (and the decision to expose a partner to that risk) as proof that homosexuals do not love their partners."

Only those exposing their partners to the risk. Not all homosexuals in general. You can't condemn all homosexual behavior just because a small percentage of it is risky.
May 30, 2013 at 3:11 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
According to the Center for Disease Control, it is not a small percentage. There is only ONE homosexual lifestyle that is free of this scourge: celibacy.

Being an active homosexual is as much a method of suicide as my own gluttony.
May 30, 2013 at 4:47 AM
Unknown said…
"There is only ONE homosexual lifestyle that is free of this scourge: celibacy."

You obviously are not an expert on human sexuality if you consider all homosexual activities to be risky. Some obviously are not.
May 30, 2013 at 7:21 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
Once again, not according to the data from the Center for Disease Control. They're not experts on human sexuality either- but they are most certainly experts on DISEASE CONTROL.

One cannot support active homosexuality if one loves the same sex attracted person.
May 30, 2013 at 7:27 AM
Unknown said…
"One cannot support active homosexuality if one loves the same sex attracted person."

Therein lies the problem. What they need is your acceptance of their lifestyle and you can't give it, supposedly out of concern for their own well being but really because your faith won't allow you to. So you look for other reasons not to. The risk of STDs comes to your rescue. You can go with that and not have to make excuses for the institutional homophobia of the Catholic Church.
May 30, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
" What they need is your acceptance of their lifestyle"

They need lies? I reject that completely.

Nobody needs "acceptance of their lifestyle", what they need is TRUTH. No more lies, please, Bill.

I rejected Catholic Church teaching on this subject until March 2004. It was only after that I began to learn the *scientific* truth around this subject- and for you to ignore it is irrational and showing hatred for homosexuals.
May 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Unknown said…
I'm the one who hates them? That's an interesting twist.
May 30, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
Bill, you are the one in this discussion promoting behavior that spreads STDs. You are the one in this discussion who "accepts their lifestyle" even when that lifestyle has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt to be damaging and destructive.

I am the one promoting inclusion (through Courage, Dignity, and civil unions) and telling the homosexuals the truth about the risks and dangers of their lifestyle instead of merely "accepting" it.

Acceptance of harm is promotion of harm.
May 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM
Unknown said…
"even when that lifestyle has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt to be damaging and destructive."

So you say. I am not aware of any studies supporting claims that gay marriage will be damaging and destructive to couples.
May 30, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
You are unaware of this?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/

or this?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

or this?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

Three studies showing homosexuality either *is* damaging and destructive (to the homosexuals themselves) or *can be* damaging and destructive (due to a severe lack of data on the subject thanks to the idea that 10% of America is homosexual being a lie, it is really more around 2%).
May 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Father claims 15 year old girl is capable of consent in Lesbian Rape Case

Father claims 15 year old girl from another family is capable of consent : I'm beginning to really like the change in Florida's government.  First they stop handing out welfare checks to junkies.  Now they are treating Lesbians under the same rules as Heterosexuals, gasp, what a concept!  Don't sign this petition unless you are FOR statutory rape of younger girls by predatory lesbians. How many 18 year old boys have been prosecuted for having sex with 16 year old women under "minors can't give consent"?    Special treatment for lesbians?  Please, no.
Read more

Call them what you like, Broken Families are still a TRAGEDY!

Yes, liberals value family , but not enough to recognize that a broken family is a tragedy. Divorce is actually worse than death as far as the grieving process goes- especially when there are children, custody battles, parental support, and alimony involved. And homosexuals raising children? That is tragic, not something to be celebrated. Maybe if we'd *recognize* that a broken family is a tragedy we would be more willing to say, pay taxes for WIC so that the single mother working a minimum wage job actually has the ability to choose life. Maybe we'd have more men willing to stick around and help raise the children they cause because the condom broke while they were stupidly using sex only for recreation. Maybe, just maybe, we'd be raising men instead of a generation of cowardly wimps who choose homosexuality and suicide over real life. Suffering and tragedy is valuable- but only if we recognize that it exists.
Read more

Fundamentalist Atheism

Strange Notions is a new Disqus site run by Brandon Vogt to try to discuss Rationality and Reason with Athiests. He may well succeed with some, but there is one subset of atheism he will never succeed with. On Richard Dawkin's spectrum of theistic probability , those with a score 6 and above often fall into something I term fundamentalist atheism. Many of them come from fundamentalist Christian backgrounds, if not in their generation, then within three generations of their recent past. Fundamentalist Atheism starts with the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist and that the natural world is all there is, and runs with it, denying any data to the contrary. I've always been one to consider the natural to be a subset of the supernatural- that is the only real difference between the natural and the supernatural to me is the line of the shared scientific knowledge of mankind. A scientist, therefore, if he is to learn anything new about the universe, needs to have h...
Read more