Andrew Sullivan: God help us: a holy war for the White House [BARF ALERT]

London Times | June 20, 2004 | Andrew Sullivan

[AlbionGirl]

No, Sullivan, God help us if you get your way and destroy a 3,000 year old Institution that binds man to woman, woman to man, not man to diseased man. How, where and when you want to fornicate is nothing to build law upon, you myopic, self-interested, blowhard.

(My apologies for the president’s grammar.)

A gratutituous, cowardly and very unimaginative, wholly overdone slam. How cerebral...NOT!

And don't try telling us that homosexuality is about more than wanting sex with your own kind. Like it or not, your band of brothers loves to love indiscriminately, promiscuous is the word. So, it's all about sex, otherwise your love for your fellow 'man' would be called friendship.

Here's a bit of consolation for you though, if the 3,000 year old institution is lost, the loss can be laid squarely at the feet of the heterosexuals out there who brought the institution to its knees, rendering it meaningless, and as consequence, ripe for the homosexual taking.

It's an absolute certainty that if Marriage meant forever, you and your boys would want no 'lifetime commitment' part of it.

[Servant of the 9]

The Republicans are now consciously organising their re-election campaign on a church-by-church basis, targeting groups according to their religiosity and church-going habits

A technique they learned from watching Democrats work Southern Blacks and Catholic ethnic neighborhoods in the North in the past.

The dichotomy is caused by the Democrat Party becomming explicitly anti-religious.

SO9

[DianeDePoitiers]

"David Frum, the former speech writer, observed that one of the first things he was asked when he got his job was whether he was going to Bible study. He’s Jewish."

What's wrong with that? Does Andrew know the origins of the Old Testament? Does he know that the Old Testament is part of the Bible? Has Andrew heard the expression "Judeo-Christian tradition"? This is a "man of faith"?

[MEG33]

Sullivan, like some posters here, has become a one issue voter...and he can see nothing else...I used to enjoy reading Sullivan, I've deleted his blog from my favorites.

[risk]

Why does Sullivan think that redefining marriage is about religion. It's typical of a closet leftist to think that some new government involvement in peoples' lives is a good idea. There are numerous secular arguments against allowing anyone and anything to marry.

1. Marriage is a cultural concept that is naturally exclusive. We limit it to two people, for example.
2. Marriage confers economic and status advantages to the couple in our culture. We do this to acknowledge the family unit and to offer our shared encouragement. Why should we have to extend that to couples who are by their very nature incapable of producing families?
3. Our founding fathers believed that no man should be required to pay taxes to support something he found morally reprehensible. Many Americans agree that one man and one woman marrying is moral. No sizable majority agrees to any other union. Therefore, taxes paid to offset social security and exemptions paid to same sex couples would be without representation.
4. Marriage states that an entire county honors and hallows a union between a man and a woman. A considerable majority would find this untenable were it to be changed to include non-traditional unions.
5. Most proponents of same sex unions agree that more than two people marrying wouldn't be required to satisfy their demands. However, isn't this an exclusion, as I suggested above? But America has found polygamy unacceptable as a legal arrangement for family units since the days when Utah was struggling to join the union. the Republican National Platform Committee paired polygamy with slavery when it declared it the "duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." -- Linda Thatcher's Utah History - Struggle for Statehood.

Sullivan confuses liberty with support. A community is no more obligated to support a coupling of identically sexed individuals than it is to marry a trio, a quadrupling, or any other number.

Americans want men and women to marry. All Americans support that. Only a radical few want to redefine that. And why may we ask? For the collectivist benefits, for the blow to our shared sense of cultural morality (both in Christian terms and others), and our shared sense that children should be raised free from discussions of many of us find to be prurient and unsafe.

This is not to suggest that any Americans should hate people who follow Mr. Sullivan's preference. Neither is it to suggest that they are unacceptable citizens of our country. Their individual rights end where our shared value for the traditional family beings.

The most disturbing thing about Sullivan's and many other homosexual activist's attitudes on these matters is that they want to redefine our civil rights, which are soundly based on individuality as human beings and confer them to groupings of people. In this case, they demand it for pairings.

Does this impact religious Americans? Of course. Does it impact all Americans? Yes. And negatively. Suddenly we are asked to join in and bless behavior that we may find unwise, and do so in front of our children.

This is both taxation and legislation without representation. It is undemocratic, and it is the tyranny of the minority through government. What difference is there between this and communism?

Anyone who claims to be a conservative should understand this. Sullivan is a closet collectivist without a doubt. He's out of the closet now.

[rintense]

Spot on.

[Paul Atreides]

That's his man-kootchie talking.

[Libertina]

Not "until the DemonRat party decided to embrace child buggerers, athiests, traitors, radical feminists, pro- abortion fanatics, and philanderers."

Awfully picky, aren't you? ;)

[Windsong]

"(Note to self. Keep in mind this guy is a queer and has no business telling me about religion or culture.)

I was initially going to say that this article has *some* valid points, before reading the second half, and your quote. Methinks there will be a gay-only "Christian" church opening soon for these vermin.

[Deb8]

I discovered Andrew Sullivan's blog as a link off of Horowitz's frontpagemag.com about 2 years ago. I read it almost every day. My conclusions:
1. Is he an intellectual? Yes, top drawer thinker.
2. Is he a single-issue homo? No, he's a true conservative who happens to be gay. There are some out there. He's just obsessed with the gay marriage issues and his arguments are very strong even though I disagree with them.
3. If you think he's a liberal why don't you actually read his stuff: www.andrewsullivan.com

[Windsong]

"Drudge is also gay and he talks about religion"

A lie.

[Dane]

2. Is he a single-issue homo? No, he's a true conservative who happens to be gay. There are some out there. He's just obsessed with the gay marriage issues and his arguments are very strong even though I disagree with them

Uh Deb, IMO, it seems that you are very fluent in john fffin kerryese.

[AmishDude]

Well-written. Thanks.

[jamfull]

Andrew, get a grip. Most believers are flocking to the Republican party because the Democratic party now represents: Atheism and anti-Christianity (yet the Christian influence in founding and shaping this country towards its greatness is undeniable), the ubber liberal media (sure not many Repubs in this group), anti-Military (sure wasn't Repubs holding those peace rallies that encouraged soldiers to shoot their officers), Academia (left over 60's marxists run the Universities), hard core gay activists (not the log cabin types militantly forcing their agenda on America), Hollywood (Michael Moore...need I say more?), Class warfare specialists such as Jesse Jackson and Rev Al (where's their concern for Sudan and for present slavery in Africa?), and the outstanding political all-start team of Ted (I beat that rap) Kennedy, John (the flip-floppin' Frenchman who served in Vietnam )Kerry, Al Screamin' Mad Gore, Howlin' Howard Dean, Nancy (left her mind in San Francisco) Pelosi, KKK (kooky, kookier, and kookiest) Robert Byrd, Jim (misleads the American people) McDermott, among others.

PS Didn't even mention Hill or Bill

PPS If it dawns on the average American what the Democratic party now represents...there will be mass exodus to the Repubs and Independent parties.

[don-o]

This "gayness" issue consumes his entire mind.

Bingo!

I, me, mine. I think the Beatles had a song with that for a title. As I recall, it was tongue in cheek.

For Sullivan and others, it is a lifestyle and mindset.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Really? I don't think so, but maybe you know best. I wonder what Ann Coulter would say about that.

[Deb8]

Would you care to explain your remarks?

[freeangel]

Whoa! What did I miss? Was it really a group of Baptists that attacked the WTC? or would this numbskull prefer that we convert to islam to prevent any hard feelings?