Morford: The Love That Killed America (Bible-clutching homophobes recoil, violently to gay marriage)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Wednesday, November 19, 2003 | Mark Morford, Always a Bridesmaid

[Moby Grape]

"....hate-filled right"

There can be no argument that the left OWNS hate, while defining those who disagree as doing so from hate, not reason.

You don't have to be a Bible-thumper to be recoiled by same-sex marriage. As the late Strom Thurmond once said, "It ain't normal."

[ArGee]

I hate Morford, but he is right that the bible can be used to condemn just about anything.

People can misinterpret anything they wish to.

Quoting the Bible is for believers. For the rest, it is obvious that homosexuality is the death of any society into which it enters. Society is about people giving of themselves as individuals for the greater good. Homosexuality is the ultimate expression of narcissism. It never has been able to support a society (and it has been tried before) and it never will.

Me is the enemy of us. Homosexuality is the ultimate in me. Heterosexual marriage (as it should be) is the ultimate in us. That is why no society without a strong working family foundation can stand.

But don't blame the queers. It's the straights who started this self-destructive trip in making marriage a selfish institution rather than the selfless one it was designed to be.

Shalom.

[Petronski]

Nothing personal, but I really don't understand the Morford fetish. Humor, I suppose, but aside from FR, what other attention does he get? He's just a blogger on the SFgate website, this garbage doesn't appear in the printed version of the paper, or realistically, anyplace else but here.

Sorry, I just had to vent.

[netmilsmom]

>>Can I be a charter member of the Vast Painful Wart on the Toe of Progress Conspiracy (VPWOTTOPC)? Please, please, pretty please? <<

I'm marking you in my Slipper Shaped Book with Compound W. Welcome!!

[aloysius89]

A pretty good test of any philosophy or political system is whether it is successful at "passing it on" to the next generation. A lot of 'isms flunk this critical test. No stable marriage, no stable next generation, no system, no civilization, Quod erat demonstrandam. (or something like that.)

[T.Smith]

But don't blame the queers. It's the straights who started this self-destructive trip in making marriage a selfish institution rather than the selfless one it was designed to be.

I'll agree with that. Marriage ceased to be the firm idyllac foundation that most people claim a long time ago. Society cannot stand without the family unit, but straights started trashing the institution a long time ago. If a higher proportion of gay "marriages" stand the test of time than do hetero marriages, then more power to them. I'm happy to see people committed to each other.

[sheik yerbouty]

Nu, they want a 15.8 quake on the Rectum scale(Oooogggaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!)

[John Lenin]

The homos keep bashing Christians like it's just religious people who are against gay marriage. It just proves that being gay is a sickness.

[TRY ONE]

"Homoloathic"

Good one!

[ArGee]

Quod erat demonstrandam.

Well, no, I've never et a demonstrandum, but I'll try anything once.

What's it taste like?

Seriously, though, people need to remember that marriage is about more than sex, more than property rights, even more than children. It's about love that gives without taking, gives no matter what goes wrong, love that gives selflessly. It's about training men and women to make the kinds of sacrifices required to join two completely different kinds of people into one. Those two are then prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to keep society going smoothly. They also becomes the model for the children who must learn to do the same thing.

When people started getting out of marriages for no better reason than the sex wasn't good enough, or they had to "find themselves" the model was broken.

Homosexual relationships are for people who can't even make the sacrifices necessary to live with a member of the opposite sex. Anyone can live with a member of the same sex (with or without the sex) as most of us have proven by living with roommates in school.

Marriage, true marriage, "'till death do us part marriage" makes men out of boys and women out of girls. And it is such a universally recognized pillar of civilization that every culture in the history of mankind has included it.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

If a higher proportion of gay "marriages" stand the test of time than do hetero marriages, then more power to them.

Why wouldn't they? Men have a far easier time living with men than with women, and vice versa. But that's hardly a basis for creating the adults necessary to sustain a culture.

That's why civilizations that embrace homosexuality always have faild shortly (in an historic perspective) thereafter.

It takes a real man to live with the differences a woman brings into his life. And it takes a special kind of love.

Shalom.

[dighton]

Humor, I suppose, but aside from FR, what other attention does he get?

You may be on to something.

Morford's sole purpose, as far as I can tell, is to "freak out the straights." It's an old schtick and a colossal bore.

[GeekDejure]

Morford: The Love That Killed America (Bible-clutching homophobes recoil, violently to gay marriage)

More Morford Hetrophobic Hype !!!

[T.Smith]

That's why civilizations that embrace homosexuality always have faild shortly (in an historic perspective) thereafter.

Can you cite historical precedence? What are the gay civilizations of which you speak?

[GrandMoM]

BUMP

[bc2]

the govt has no business recognizing or sactioning marriages, period end of discussion.

it is a matter between a couple, their Church, their God, and their insurance company/companies.

[Truth Table]

hmmmmmm. Marriage is not a "right". It's an institution, like the military. The military will not let an openly gay person enlist nor will it offer a comission to somebody openly gay. It's simple--Homosexuals want to be accepted by society and if they cannot convince society, they will get courts to force the notion down our collective gullet. The whole issue is not about anything else. Any other argument is pure sophistry to make this issue about "homophobes" when it's really about "homosexuals".

Here is a better title:

Leather Wearing homosexuals recoil, violently to marriage ammendment

[bc2]

I did not say we need to get rid of marriage, nor did I say that it is not an important institution.

I said it is one that the government has no business putting it's hand in. It is between Churches, God, and private insurance companies.

I do not see anything in the US Constitution that says the US Government has to recognize, promote, or have anything to do with marriage; the burdon of proof is now on you.