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: 858

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

Sad to report that tonight's local NBC affiliate weather man, a person who gardens so he really is the most reliable of the three we have, said that we had a little rain last night, but it was to the east of the city, "where Monsignor Prelati was praying for rain, and they got it there."  Thus, centuries of science delving into climatology and related disciplines were swept away, one fell swoop, and replaced by millenia old superstition and myth.

I can't resist posting, for those who may not have seen it before, this Churchill letter apropos of praying for rain. In a season of drought the Duke of Rutland, an eccentric and temperamental old Tory, called on the faithful to avail themselves of the Prayers for Rain in the Anglican Prayerbook, as he had done once before. Winston Churchill, tongue well in cheek, wrote the following letter to The Times. It's a masterpiece.

To the Editor of The Times 12 June 1919

Sir,-Observing reports in various newspapers that prayers are about to be offered up for rain in order that the present serious drought may be terminated, I venture to suggest that great care should be taken in framing the appeal.

---On the last occasion when this extreme step was resorted to, the Duke of Rutland took the leading part with so much well-meaning enthusiasm that the resulting downpour was not only sufficient for all immediate needs, but was considerably in excess of what was actually required, with the consequence that the agricultural community had no sooner been delivered from the drought than they were clamouring for a special interposition to relieve them from the deluge.

 ---Profiting by this experience, we ought surely on this occasion to be extremely careful to state exactly what we want in precise terms, so as to obviate the possibility of any misunderstanding, and to economize so far as the need for these special appeals. After so many days of drought, it certainly does not seem unreasonable to ask for a change in the weather, and faith in a favourable response may well be fortified by actuarial probabilities.

 ---While therefore welcoming the suggestion that His Grace should once again come forward, I cannot help feeling that the Board of Agriculture should first of all be consulted. They should draw up a schedule of the exact amount of rainfall required in the interest of this year's harvest in different parts of the country. This schedule should be placarded in the various places of worship at the time when the appeal is made. It would no doubt be unnecessary to read out the whole schedule during the service, so long as it was made clear at the time that this is what we have in our minds, and what we actually want at this present serious juncture.

---I feel sure that this would be a much more business-like manner of dealing with the emergency than mere vague appeals for rain. But, after all, even this scheme, though greatly preferable to the haphazard methods previously employed, is in itself only a partial makeshift. What we really require to pray for is the general amelioration of the British climate. What is the use of having these piecemeal interpositions-now asking for sunshine, and now for rain? Would it not be far better to ascertain by scientific investigation, conducted under the auspices of a Royal Commission, what is the proportion of sunshine and rain best suited to the ripening of the British crops? It would no doubt be necessary that other interests beside agriculture should be represented, but there must be certain broad general reforms in the British weather upon which an overwhelming consensus of opinion could be found. The proper proportion of rain to sunshine during each period of the year; the relegation of rain largely to the hours of darkness; the apportionment of rain and sunshine as between different months, with proper reference not only to crops but to holidays; all these could receive due consideration. A really scientific basis of climatic reform would be achieved.

---These reforms, when duly embodied in an official volume, could be made the object of the sustained appeals of the nation over many years, and embodied in general prayers of a permanent and not of an exceptional character. We would not then be forced from time to time to have recourse to such appeals at particular periods, which, since they are unrelated to any general plan, must run the risk of deranging the whole economy of nature, and involve the interruption and deflection of universal processes, causing reactions of the utmost complexity in many directions which it is impossible for us with our limited knowledge to foresee.

---I urge you, Sir, to lend the weight of your powerful organ to the systematization of our appeals for the reform of the British climate.

 ---Yours very faithfully, ",SCORPIO

Now, that is a really personal prayer for specific needs of many communities with details spelled out so exactly, how could any loving god deny him?




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