Sad Spectacles of the Sunday Talking Heads on Marriage Equality

Gary Bauer was on a panel today on Fox News Sunday and between him, Newt Gingrich, and the host, Chrissy Poo, the most nauseating spectacle evolved. First, Newt said that allowing gay marriage would demean the institution -- not his exact word, but that was the gist of it. What is this man thinking? Gingrich has no business saying such a thing; after all, he divorced two women and married a trophy platinum blonde who wears enough makeup to put Max Factor, Revlon, and several other make pretty manufacturers all on back order status. (Clarissa smiles a lot, suggesting that when she goes, "I don't know!" she has to have shoulder pads sewn into her blouses to keep from banging her ears on her collar bones.)

Then there was Bauer, who said pretty much the same thing. If you look at the man, you realize that his Family Values PAC is really a cover for his private activities, mainly dressing up like a woman and borrowing Clarissa's makeup so he can get girly. Finally, Chrissy Poo uttered a Freudian slip that left the viewer with little doubt and considerable insight into his feelings about queer people. He was trying to compare heterosexuals' rights to pension benefits and such and referred to such unions as "normal marriage" flying in the face of long-standing American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association positions that there is nothing ABnormal about being gay or lesbian. And who is Wallace to say what is "normal"? I should imagine that he screws his wife in the missionary position and ejaculates prematurely, which in my book is not only abnormal, it is an abomination.

But perhaps the most ludicrous ten cents was supplied on Meet the Press when that arch asshole Ralph Reed blabbed and blabbed about how allowing gays and lesbians to marry is a violation of all that is sacred. The Buy Bull is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Reed kept interrupting, and almost got into a shouting match with Hilary Rosen, who took the pro-Equality position. Disgraced by his connections with that prick Tom DeLay and involved up to his ears in the Jack Abramoff native American casino scandal, Reed now runs something called the Freedom Coalition. Isn't it the ultimate hypocrisy to label yourself a freedom fighter when what they really want to do is deprive a significant number of Americans of the same rights they enjoy, indeed take for granted? As for family values, all of these creepy crawlers represent neither family nor values. Their insult to the U. S. Constitution is only exceeded by their inability to empathize with anyone except the wealthy contributors to their asinine causes.

Views: 857

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks.  Someone has stay in Texas and fight the bastards.

I just take care of my cats.

One meets the nicest people at A|N.  I am so glad I don't have to search for them at :-)))

If you listen to the TV commercials their tout is fallacious on its face.  They insinuate that "God" matched the member with someone of perfect compatibility when, in fact, a computer program does it.  Now, somehow, I think the John Lilly notion that the computer may be a legitimate "simulation-of-God" is lost on the average Christian. No, his God is a grey-beard loon in a white toga who tells Saint Peter who can and who cannot enter the Pearly Gates to meet the 79 Virgins, er, ah, I mean... Drat, wrong religion.  The only novelty not found in most computer dating services is an apotheosis: a creature of myth, though of course there is nothing illegitimate about seeing the Internet as God.  Is there?

Yeah, a good husband is hard to find.  A hard one, well, that is another story.

I met my wife BethKZ on a dating site (not Christian Mingles). I am not much into the club scene or whatnot, and I was a homeless vet (no money for clubbing anyway).

Curiously, I was only looking for pen pals on the site. (I'd vowed never again to marry after my first wife pilloried me in divorce court because of my epilepsy—that was why I was homeless, the court awarded her my VA benefits except for $20/month, and would not overturn that after she got a $120k/year job).

I know Beth didn't marry me for my riches or military benefits.

It's pretty hypocritical to call yourself a freedom fighter when you are really trying to deprive people of their freedom.

But note this research that is showing another form of hypocrissy.

In essence, if you are a man who is homophobic, you are far more likely to have a physical reaction to male with male sexuality where non-homophobes do not.  Therefore, if you have a physical reaction, you are either a closet bisexual or homosexual.

If THAT news would get around, then people like the ones you mention - as well as a lot of Christian ministers and Muslim Imams - will not be so quick to publicly advertise their own desire for homosexual sex on such a public forum.

Illustrates why I continue to argue that Freud was right on when he was right on and he was right on about what he termed "projection."  As I understand it, projection is when one casts off unwanted personal traits or tendencies and projects them onto others so that he or she can appear to dislike those traits or tendencies so that people will think he or she is the last person on earth who might have those traits or tendencies.  I have had personal experience and confirm this as true.

That would be an extreme form of projection, if so. 

My only problem with Schaeffer is that he is STILL a believer.  Remember the Sam Harris-Andrew Sullivan debate on whether the mainstream religions are "enablers" (A.A. term) for the evangelical nutjobs?  I for one took the Harris position: yes, they are enablers.  That is, the Methodist who lives next door makes Joel Osteen possible.  No, I am not saying Osteen is an evangelical; he's just handy, and if we taxed the guy's actual income and that of his Houston, Texas megachurch, we could pay off a portion of the Chinese debt.  Joel Osteen enables the Ralph Reeds.  Osteen and Reid enable the war on women, the war on the sexual minorities, and the war on the poor.

I wonder, do these men have any moral core? There is no sign of ethics in their mutterings. Glad I don't have a TV; what a waste of a perfectly fine day to see or hear or read their nonsense.

Joan, the problem is that they THINK they have a moral core and/or ethics ... because of their supposed god.  They think that because they side with that particular deity that they automatically are "righteous" (whatever that means) and therefore are ethical / moral / whatever.  The phenomenon is not much different from the proposition that says that if god did it, it MUST be moral, a proposition I suspect most of us emphatically disagree with.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service