Posted on 03/11/2004 5:58:28 AM PST by mrustow
As everyone knows, gay activists and their supporters are tolerant, compassionate, sensitive people. Apparently some of them thought I forgot that, and so they responded to my column, “Mainstream Media Queers Marriage,” with some reminders. I’ll follow each letter with a brief response.
First, a gentleman from Atlanta.
FYI,
Bush did lie. In the 2000 Presidential race, Bush and Cheney both said that same sex marriage should be left to the states. Now that Mass. has decided to do the right thing and grant civil marriage, he's changed his tune. So, Rosie was correct in saying the Bush lied.
In addition, I would like you to tell me how same sex marriage affects you or your marriage (if you are married). If you marriage is so fragile that another couple's marriage affects yours, I think you need to take a look at your marriage to see what is wrong.
If you are basing your opinion on your religious values, I applaud you. However, marriage is not simply a religious institution. If it were, then there would be laws banning civil marriage.
Perhaps you should focus your attention on ways to strengthen marriage, for example, allow only one marriage or enact laws forbidding "quickie" marriages like that of Brittany Spears or marriages performed on television for money.
Same sex marriage is not about getting your approval, rather it is about rights.
Marriage is a civil right, not a heterosexual privilege.
I re-read my column, to see where I had quoted anyone as saying that Pres. Bush had lied. I hadn’t. I accused Rosie O’Donnell of lying, and backed up my charge. So, the writer was not responding to my column at all. In fact, in claiming that “Rosie said Bush lied,” he lied.
As for the charge that Bush lied, Massachusetts did not grant civil marriage; that would have to be done through the state legislature. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violated the separation of powers, and usurped the power of the legislature. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, and her three like-minded usurpers, should be impeached. And so, Bush didn't lie.
The problem is that statists on the Left are talking "states’ rights," when in fact they are undermining them, and seeking to use a states rights facade to force same-sex marriage on the nation. George W. Bush is under no obligation to stand by passively, and let them get away with that.
My marriage is none of the writer’s damned business. Now, if I cavorted in public with my wife, that’d be another thing. But the correspondent’s baiting notwithstanding, same-sex marriage affects all marriages, and all children.
The demand by gays for same-sex marriage is an assault on Christianity. These people don’t give a damn about getting married. Never did.
Publicity stunts like Britney Spears and TV “marriages” are irrelevant to this debate. Refusing to yield to demands for same-sex “marriage” is indeed one step toward strengthening marriage. Making divorce more difficult is another. Ending all sex ed is yet one more. A lefty critic of same-sex marriage opponents suggested, with tongue in cheek, that we re-institute stoning homosexuals to death, as per the Old Testament. Considering that Islam exacts the same penalty, that American Muslims seek to impose Sharia on America, and that lefties today are terribly solicitous of Islam, I’m not sure whom the joke is on.
Same-sex marriage is definitely about getting my approval. It is about forcing heterosexuals to publicly approve of that which they disdain, and about destroying the institution of marriage.
If same-sex marriage is a “right,” then so are incestuous marriages, polygamy (one member of one sex to multiple members of the other), and polyamory (multiple members of both sexes). There is no reason to favor homosexuals over those who want to marry their siblings, parents, multiple partners, or an open-ended number of people. Just because homosexuals demand something, doesn’t make it a “right.” The logic of “civil rights” is such that certain groups demand special privileges for themselves, to other groups’ disadvantage … which is why I oppose all “civil rights” movements.
And now, from Brooklyn, N.Y.
This world will be a better place when you no longer walk it. I've got no time for your hate. There are so many more important things to worry about than a miserable person like yourself.
He wishes me dead, but I'm the "hater"? And he can't be honest about even the tiniest matter, since he obviously DOES have time for me, and I am important enough for him to worry (or at least, rage) about. If he has a problem with hatred and intolerance, he needs to take a good look in the mirror, and then take his irony supplement. It's totalitarians like him that took a beautiful town like New York, and turned it into a crime-ridden, smoke-free, pc nightmare.
And I have not yet begun to fight gay "marriage"! My article showing pro-gay marriage media bias should have made him happy. After all, would he rather the media were anti-gay marriage? Or am I simply not permitted to report on the facts?
He'll stroke out when he sees my serious commentary.
And from an anonymous feminist in the “ether” …
Are you always such an ---hole? I really feel sorry for people like you. To be so miserable in your own life that you have to bring others down with you, that's just pathetic. You pointed out quite frequently how everyone else on the planet (besides you Fundie ---holes) was ignoring the Law, so I thought I'd point out your own omission. Ready? You may want to sit down, this could come as a shock. This country doesn't revolve around whatever your twisted religious beliefs (that apparently entitle you to ignore one of God's Laws, which we'll get to in a second) tell you is what God wants. You don't know the first thing about what God wants. I always thought that God wanted us to love each other. To "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF" you may have heard it put. So maybe you really hate yourself. Maybe it's because you're gay. Regardless, I think you need some therapy. This country is not a religious country. That is, we are a SECULAR country. Is your head really so thick that you can't comprehend such a simple idea? Wow. You must be absolutely miserable. But that doesn't excuse you from preventing everyone else their right to pursue happiness. I'm also curious as to how criticizing the President for being an arrogant Jackass is a lie. Please, explain it to me, I'm DYING to know.
Speaking of lies, Rosie is not trying to take away your right to have a gun, she's promoting the rights of her three children and other children not to die because people who shouldn't have guns are given guns by zealots. And insulting someone about how they look is unfair. I'd like you to post a picture so we can have a new target for darts (Mr. Bush is getting a bit worn out). I'm thinking you're not such a looker yourself. I must say, your work doesn't resemble that of an award-winning journalist. I knew writers in High School who has [sic] more finesse than you do. Firing off a bunch of bigotry doesn't seem like journalism for me. I can read the same bullshit on the AFA, FoF, and CWFA websites. Way to spread the hatred.
My correspondent doesn’t feel sorry for anyone who disagrees with her.
Now, I have never questioned homosexuals’ prerogative to use their appendages and orifices in whichever way they choose, as long as only consenting adults are involved, it’s behind closed doors, and no corpses turn up in the morning. But they decided to bring down everyone else. Rather than respond to criticism, they tarred everyone who would not submit to them, as a “homophobe,” a “hater,” a “bigot.” As historian Paul Johnson observed in 1996, in The Quest for God, homosexuals have exploited Western societies’ tolerance, in order to win privileged status. They don’t play such games with Islamic and communist tyrannies. The gay movement and its heterosexual supporters are fascists who respect only brute force.
Not only am I not an Evangelical, I’m not even a Christian. I’m a Jew, and not a terribly religious one. I was raised on the gospel of secular humanism. And yet, America is not a secular country, it’s a Christian one. Granted, for over forty years, secularists have sought to force their vision, or lack thereof, on America. They have won their share of beachheads, but the war is far from over.
As for whether I hate myself because I’m really “gay,” I thought everyone was gay. That’s what I was taught in college, courtesy of Rita Mae Brown (Rubyfruit Jungle). So, anyone who disagrees with homosexuals is a self-hating, closet homosexual. (And I didn’t even argue against same-sex marriage! All I did was point out the pro-same-sex-marriage bias of the media.) This of course, is the tactic popularized by the pc 1999 movie, American Beauty. But the writer forgot to call me a Nazi. So, what does that make someone who agrees with homosexuals – a self-loving, out-of-the-closet homosexual? Is that what mayors Gavin Newsom and Jason West are? Or are same-sex marriage supporters utterly incapable of rational thought, so that all they can do is engage in psychobabble? And disagree with these people, even in the most decent, compassionate terms, and you’re an “arrogant Jackass.” Why didn’t the writer accuse Pres. Bush of being a self-hating homosexual?
Back to Rosie. When someone lies about a statement that has been universally published, one’s first reaction is to wonder whether the liar in question is mentally retarded. But that would be an insult to the mentally retarded, for whose care I was once responsible. As a moderately retarded man named Greg once told me, “I may be retarded, but I’m not stupid!”
And so, I conclude that I am dealing with someone who is used to getting away with telling the dumbest, most obvious lies imaginable, without being contradicted.
Here’s what Rosie O’Donnell, who goes nowhere without the company of paid gunsels, said:
"I don't care if you think it's your right. I say: Sorry, it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
So, Rosie O’Donnell has the right to keep and bear arms; the rest of us don’t.
As for the writer’s next charge, I have never criticized anyone based on how he looks. And what do all those acronyms stand for?
So, there you have it: tolerance, compassion, and honesty, gay-style. And in case anyone should claim that the above letters are unrepresentative, the New York Times has published countless op-eds that are in substance, if not syntax, the same. Instead of providing arguments, they demonize all who disagree with them. Take Harvey Fierstein’s November 26 piece … please.
“Still, as we approach the holiday season I'd like to imagine that fear and bigotry will not prevail in this land. Maybe this holiday season we can toss out some of the intolerance that nests in our hearts and make room for more love and acceptance.”
Not only did the Times publish Fierstein’s empty essay, but a few days later, the editors ran a letter from a reader, praising it as “sensitive.”
Note that for “oppressed” people, homosexuals and their supporters act more like conquerors. The correspondent from Brooklyn gave his name, and the writer from Atlanta not only gave his job title, as a “customer service manager” at an Atlanta business, but used his business e-mail.
Imagine if a gay marriage critic did the same thing? He’d be told not to let the door hit him on his homophobic, repressed gay butt, on the way out. Heck, back in 1991, a man observing the Gay Pride March in Manhattan was overheard muttering some criticism to his girlfriend, the bystander announced the criticism to the entire area, and a lynch mob quickly formed to murder the “oppresser.” As Jim Dwyer alone reported in Newsday, the man was saved when a cop put him in a taxi, which sped off. No members of the would-be lynch mob were arrested. I suppose today the man would be arrested.
True.
Imagine if a gay marriage critic did the same thing? He’d be told not to let the door hit him on his homophobic, repressed gay butt, on the way out. Heck, back in 1991, a man observing the Gay Pride March in Manhattan was overheard muttering some criticism to his girlfriend, the bystander announced the criticism to the entire area, and a lynch mob quickly formed to murder the “oppresser.” As Jim Dwyer alone reported in Newsday, the man was saved when a cop put him in a taxi, which sped off. No members of the would-be lynch mob were arrested. I suppose today the man would be arrested.
Pitiful
Given? Where does the line form for that? :D
Yes, that's what often happens. It's not restricted to political disagreements, either--if you disagree with a homosexual, so often that person, if they want revenge, will begin a whispering campaign, claiming that YOU are really a homosexual. I've seen it done several times.
It really makes one wonder. What sort of people, when they wish to insult someone, do so by bitterly saying to their targets, "You're one just like me"?? This sort of behavior tells us that many homosexuals inwardly regard homosexuality as a negative thing.
How funny!
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
These people think that safe streets are something they have a right to expect the government to provide, not something free men primarily provide for themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.