Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
McCain sibs disagree
Following the president’s speech where he promised to end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” Meghan McCain – pro-gay rights pundit and daughter to Sen. John McCain – weighed in on the Daily Beast blog.
Now, I cannot speak for my brothers, but I know many men and women who serve in the military. Let’s give them more credit. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect it could be said that there is no homophobia in foxholes either. I find it hard to imagine that when a soldier is in a Humvee fighting terrorist insurgents, that the thing on his mind is who his fellow soldier chooses to sleep with when he’s off duty.
She concluded:
I am a daughter of a famous military hero and the sister of two soldiers. Mr. President, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell makes my family and this country less safe.
One of her brothers, John McCain IV, who serves in the Navy, responded on Twitter:
Contrary to my sisters article, being an active military member I think don’t ask don’t tell works. I don’t bring my political views to work
So why should anyone have to bring their sexual orientation to work. It’s not a perfect policy but it works.
back to top146 Comments to “McCain sibs disagree”
I have always found it interesting that, with the exception of the boastful playboy types, it tends to be homosexuals who want everyone to know what they are. Personal, intimate relationships should remain personal and intimate with the partner, not the rest of the world regardless of the choice of partner.
Report comment to moderator
Please note, John McCain IV doesn’t say he opposes permitting openly gay people to serve in the military.
Report comment to moderator
Sheesh, there goes Peter L being all reasonable again!
Report comment to moderator
Hardly reasonable at all, Peter. You sound like a cloistered hillbilly living alone in a cabin!
“Why do they gays have to throw it in my face?! We’re not all in their faces.”
It’s a tired and boring “line of reasoning” (yes, those are scare quotes).
Do you know what American culture looks like? Heterosexuality! Literally every where you look. Just try and escape it if you can…It’s in every bodies face.
And somehow I doubt that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” has inspired a lot of closed mouth privacy about bedroom affairs among the straight military men. Or are you suggesting that we wouldn’t hear talk about girls, about breasts, about sex if we recorded the campfire talk of our “boys” in Iraq?
Report comment to moderator
Because of my age and my attitude, I never understood why homosexuals were not allowed in the military or to work on really sensitive government stuff, until I had lunch a week ago with my across the street neighbor who is an agent with the government. Years ago when so many homosexuals felt they had to stay in the closet the fear was that they would be blackmailed into giving up sensitive information. Today with the attitudes people have it isn’t such a big deal. Like I have always said…the truth will set you free and if you tell it on yourself, no one can hold it over your head. That is one of the reasons I admire David Letterman for going on tv, admitting what he did and taking the wind out of the blackmailers sails. That doesn’t mean I condone what
Report comment to moderator
he did. Beyond that? I agree with Peter. I won’t ask and you don’t tell.
Report comment to moderator
Kim, can you do me a favor and not tell too? That would be great.
Do you have an amusing anecdote about your family? Please keep it to yourself. I don’t want to hear it…
Did you learn a valuable lesson from a hardship you and your husband went through? That’s inappropriate to talk about! Stop it…
Can you relate to a current event because of something you have gone through with your children? Eww, gross! Don’t mention it; we are all trying to be professional around here…
The holidays are coming up, do you and your “partner” have plans? That’s disgusting! Why would you mention that here…
Please Kim, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF…
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, your attack of my is completely inappropriate and I think if you will remember, I have a nephew who is gay and a stepbrother and a cousin who is also gay. One of me most dependable friends is a lesbian. I am all for gay people being out in the open. What I am against is the details. I don’t share with others what goes on in my bedroom and don’t want the details of others gay or straight. Oh, and I also happened to work with a lesbian who brought her partner to all the company parties and they danced together. No one said a word.
Stuff a sock in your mouth, get off your high horse and quit being so *&^% offended over EVERY little thing.
Report comment to moderator
M McCain wrote; “Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect it could be said that there is no homophobia in foxholes either.”
That’s ridiculous.
___________________
First, supporting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is NOT (I reapeant–absolutely NOT) “homophobia.” See how mindless supporters of forcing the homosexual agenda on our society use subtle smears against those with whom they disagree. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a reasonable position to take and it is evil and dishonest to accuse supporters of that policy of “homophobia.”
Second, soldiers and all military probably spend about .0001 % of their time actually in foxholes under fire. The vast majority who serve, never have that expereicne. There is a much much bigger picture than foxholes and humvees to be considered here. The military is an entire culture in and of itself. That’s why homosexualists want to force changes on it.
_____________________
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK hits the nail on the head at (7):
The militant sexual perverts want their perversion to be accepted as just as “normal” (yes, those are scare quotes) as what everybody knows is really normal.
To put it another way, “If you refuse to normalize our abnormalcy, I don’t want you telling me about your normalcy.”
With all due respect to the sexually rebellious “community” (look, there they are again), sorry, the aberrant don’t get to dictate the terms of social interaction and acceptance to the decent.
Report comment to moderator
hm..
Report comment to moderator
To repeat and emphasize:
Supporting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is NOT “homophobia.” Legitimate policy dofferences should be addressed with more respect from the homosexuals and homosexualists. Don’t demonize those who simply disagree.
Report comment to moderator
KIM, while I might not have expressed my view the same way you did (I suspect I may be more conserviative than you and more blunt), I still respect your point of view and your right to express it. And there was absolutely nothing worong or inappropriate in the way who commented. I really did not even understand Mynock’s apparent objection.
KIM, you decide for yourself what to keep to yourself. But please feel totally free to openly share with us all you want.
Report comment to moderator
Of course DADT is homophobic, because it 1) goes so far as to abridge the 1st Amendment in order to prohibit explicit knowledge of homosexuality and 2) discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
Report comment to moderator
KIM (8): What I am against is the details. I don’t share with others what goes on in my bedroom and don’t want the details of others gay or straight.
FRANK: IMO, that’s only a partially correct assessment of the situation.
The part you have correct is re. the word “details.” But aside from the “details,” we must realize that marriage is a public sexual relationship.
When the bride and groom say “I do!” at the altar, and when they drive off in their limo at the end of the reception, the guests all know just what it is those newlyweds are going to be doing before the night is out — and those guests will be celebrating the couple’s anticipation and excitement and arousal, because they are affirming God’s created order in their sexual relationship and they have solemnly covenanted to remain faithful to each other “for better or for worse, till death do us part.”
Homosexuals and the “transgendered” (LOL!) are demanding the same public recognition that married hetero couples enjoy — i.e., public acceptance of their sexual union.
Except that theirs are sexual unions that deny God’s created order and point to death, not life. (The sexual rebels cannot even have a family children without appropriating the seed of a MAN and the egg of a WOMAN — and make no mistake, that galls them to no end.)
So Kim, the issue isn’t that we don’t want to know the details of their sexual relationships — it is that decent people don’t want to know about their sexual relationships at all.
If you’re going to “come out,” then come out to ask God’s forgiveness for your rebellion against Him, repent, and seek pastoral help in fighting your sin.
But if (you think) you’re happy and fulfilled in your sin, just stay in the closet, please.
Doesn’t anyone remember “shame” anymore?
Report comment to moderator
Meghan McCain wrote; “…as far as I’m concerned, when an Arabic translator is kicked out of the military for being gay, it quite literally makes my brothers and our troops less safe.”
But this would not happen under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unless that translator blatantly and rebelliously disobeyed policy by making an issue over his being gay and refusing to keep it private.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth fell right in place by illustrating how the homosexualists just cannot disagree honorably or respectfully with those who have other policy points of view from them.
Report comment to moderator
Can some one prove to me objectively that honosexuality is abnormal?
On what basis is it objectively abnormal?
Report comment to moderator
Nobody answered the profound point MYNOCK made at #7, except to label it as an “attack”, dismiss it as unintelligible, or sneer at “abberation.”
Well, let me tell you!
KIM’s response was unnecessarily self-defensive and gratuitously self righteous. Everyone knows gay people. So what? She proved that even someone with gay friends & family will disregard a reasonable opportunity to see things from MYNOCK’s point of view — on a gay thread, of all places.
JOEL MARK is not as obtuse as he pretended to be. FRANK In SPOKANE saw the point, after all. Yes, Frank you do have to listen to what queers say about the human condition, because they already have defined who you are and given you the tools that you use to understand yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Now it appears that Dont Ask dont Tell is actualy enacted legislation: Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654).
If I understand this correctly then legislation is required to reverse it.
I believe, however, the president has wide latitude in enforcing it while legislative action is being ursued.
In the end this is legacy issue which will be understood the same way Jim Crow was: a quaint and perhaps unpleasant aspect of our past.
At this point New England and Iowa allow full marriage of homosexuals (I know Maine is working on a repeal: do you seriously think it will succeed?).
And the clock is ticking. In the end, just as with slavery, it will be tough to be half slave and half free or in this case half restricting gay rights and have protecting them.
And as noted earlier: so long as there is a public display of heterosexuality, one can hardly complain about purlic display of homosexuality (and now we hear the various other fomrs of sexuality ready to line up ?
Do you reaaly want that discussion? ).
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
This likely won’t suffice for you, but here goes:
Conception is a fundamentally sexual occurrence.
Homosexual couples cannot conceive children.
Thus, homosexual behavior eventually ends in death — the species generally– and particularly, the homosexual couple’s lineage — is not perpetuated. (Only the lineage of one of the members of the couple can even possibly be continued, and that only with the co-operation of a friend or relative of the opposite sex.)
(That, and the fact that the Creator of the universe and human sexuality calls homosexual behavior an abomination to Him. But I don’t think that will suffice, for you either … )
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Hilarious question (post 22). You really don’t know?!
Report comment to moderator
Frank in spokane post 25,
but you have failed to establish what appears to be a fundamental assumption: the only purpose for sex is procreation.
Observationally, the majority of sex is not for procreation, so it would seem your fundamental assumption is not true and therefore your syllogism is in error.
On what objective basis do you assert that sex is solely for procreation?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D post 26,
humor me, and provide the answer.
But do be careful to ensure that your argument is objectvie.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH (23): Yes, Frank you do have to listen to what queers say about the human condition, because they already have defined who you are and given you the tools that you use to understand yourself.
FRANK: Wha … ?! That’s a mighty big — and mighty risible! — sodomite boast!!
Nay, God has defined who I am, and who the sexually perverse are — bearers of His image, all!
And God — not queers — has given me the tools I use to understand myself!
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK #17: Scroop Moth fell right in place by illustrating how the homosexualists just cannot disagree honorably or respectfully with those who have other policy points of view from them.
This is a lie. #14 says that a military regulation is homophobic and gives two reasons. JOEL MARK’s post attacks me without addressing my post. His dishonest rhetorical strategy deserves no respect.
Report comment to moderator
Not God, FRANK, Shakespeare (and other queers).
Report comment to moderator
MUSING (27): … you have failed to establish what appears to be a fundamental assumption: the only purpose for sex is procreation.
… On what objective basis do you assert that sex is solely for procreation?
FRANK: Rearead my post and tell me, Where did I assert that sex was only for procreation?
I never said that. Rather, you erroneously inferred it in a weak attempt to try to support your position. Indeed, you’ve gotten my assertion exactly backward!
What I said was that procreation is a fundamentally — I’ll even say solely — sexual occurrence, even when facilitated in a laboratory test tube, with the donors of their respective biological material absent.
Homosex may involve deep emotional exchange and “feel great,” but it is a sexual behavior that manifestly does not propagate the human species. Hence, it is abnormal.
But I’ll go further: Not only it it physiologically abnormal, but it is both socially aberrant and theologically abominable as well.
And all the politically correct recognition and legislating in the world will never change that inescapable fact.
Report comment to moderator
Musing and Scroop, Once again I will tell both of you to stuff a sock in it. I am sick of being nice to the “other point of view” just to have you attack me. Well for once I am striking back. Gay people have always been welcome in my home. I just really think it is such a non- issue. My first post was to explain that I had not known why it was so against the rules to have gay people in the military until someone explained it to me. Perhaps I lot of problems could be solved if we ONLY allowed gay people in the military instead of hetero’s. Sometimes a little passive resistance gets you further than being in someone’s face ticking them off at every turn. So back off!!!
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Objectively, if any clan or colony unit of animals (including humans) were to engage solely in homo sex, it would die out in precisely one generation.
But if any clan or colony unit of animals (including humans) were to engage solely in hetero sex, it would continue propagate itself.
Like I said: abnormal.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in spokane post 32,
observationally very little sex among humans actually results in procreation. Indeed even heterosexual sex often occurs under conditions where procreation is either very unlikely or impossible.
So objectviely, we have clear evidence that most human sex is not directed towards procreation.
I believe you now have the onus of proving objectively that the only purpose of sex is procreation.
I would be delighted to hear your argument.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH (31): Not God, FRANK, Shakespeare (and other queers).
FRANK: Queer or not, what makes you think I turn to Shakespeare to “understand myself”?!
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane post 34,
you are most certainly correct if that any group which partiicpated in only homosexual sex would not continue.
However, as I noted, that is a far cry from then arguing that the only purpose of sex is procreation since as I noted, so much heterosexual sex is directed in ways that do not result in procreation.
I dont think you have moved the gauge yet.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokan post 25,
ok, lets restart with your quote:
“Conception is a fundamentally sexual occurrence. ”
You have I noted inverted the question.
certainly conception is fundamentally a sexual occurance.
But that is far from arguing that conception is the major or even the primary outcome or purpose of sex.
If you insist on your wording and not mine, then your argument is even more flawed.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING (35): … observationally very little sex among humans actually results in procreation.
FRANK:But observationally very little procreation among any of the mammals actually results without sex.
And precisely NO procreation among mammals actually results from homo sex.
Abnormal.
(Why do you keep attributing to me the opposite of what I’m actually saying?!)
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I have answered your question and said what I have to say.
I’m not the least bit surprised that you have tried to invert my observation in order to support your position.
Nor am I the least bit surprised that you have found my observations … shall we say, unsatisfying.
Nevertheless, there I stand.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING (38): If you insist on your wording and not mine, then your argument is even more flawed.
FRANK: No, if you insist on inverting my argument to buttress your position, it only reveals its flaws.
That said, I readily grant that sexual intercourse is not merely procreative. That is a biblical position, as well.
But homosexual intercourse stands God’s created order on its head, and probably one of the most fundamental of social rebellions.
“‘Male and female created He them’?! Hey, I know what let’s do … !”
Nope, it doesn’t work that way.
Report comment to moderator
Say “goodnight,” Gracie …
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane post 39,
when you say:
“ANK:But observationally very little procreation among any of the mammals actually results without sex. ”
I suggest you are confounding the inverse with the contrapositive.
And no where have you provided a tight link between sex and procreation. You have done an admirable job of linking procreation with sex, but that is, as we say, besides the point.
Report comment to moderator
Stuff a sock in what? I thought we were leaving illicit sexual details out of this discussion? Or am I misreading (deliberately)?
The fall off that high horse will either kill Kim or knock some sense into her. And sense is what you need, Kim. Your attempt to redefine your objectionable position as one where you only request that gay people spare you the gory sexual details is a deliberate lie. Their is nothing about DADT that welcomes open gay people, but asks them to not discuss the finer politics of gay intercourse in public. It is a policy that forbids a disadvantaged class of people in the military from sharing anecdotes about their families, lessons they learned from their partners and children, and the conditions that shape their emotional and personal development with their peers, things they have a right to share with people they depend on and who depend on them.
If you care for all the gay people you claim to have in your life, try imagining what they go through, and are put through by their friendship with an emotionally immature, sanctimonious, befuddled woman. You owe it to your friends and family to start being honest with yourself & with them and GROW UP.
And wake up to what your culture is like…
Your sex is everywhere!
Report comment to moderator
The military has a mission that sets it apart (or at least it should) from those who seek to socially re-engineer our culture and force a homosexualist agenda on to it.
#17 and #30: Scroop Moth again illustrates how the homosexualists just cannot disagree honorably or respectfully with those who have other policy points of view from them.
Since Obama blatantly discriminates against polygamists and polyamorists in his civil union and marriage policies, perhaps the military should also be able to discriminate in favor of and on behalf of those who recognize realistic gender and sexual-preference dynamics that effect their lives and their mission.
______________
Report comment to moderator
Frank in spokane post 41,
when you say:
“That said, I readily grant that sexual intercourse is not merely procreative. That is a biblical position, as well.
But homosexual intercourse stands God’s created order on its head, and probably one of the most fundamental of social rebellions.”
your first line concedes my point.
Your second is a religious, not an objective, position.
And since this government does not enforce religious law, and arguably under the first amendment must not enforce religious law, I believe your own statement undermines your position.
Report comment to moderator
Enough with the personal attacks, Mynock.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
It’s within Frank’s right to reject syllogistic logic if he feels like it. “Proof” is after all a very un-Christian value.
That’s why I don’t try to reason with Frank.
Frank, your comments and your ideological position are filthy, morally bankrupt trash. And when you see that bright light on your death bed, I hope it instills in you a devastating and reflective sense of shame. I say this because I love you. And that hope for shame is your only chance at redemption.
God bless!
Report comment to moderator
#23, Scroop Moth wrote; “Nobody answered the profound point MYNOCK made at #7, except to label it as an “attack.”
In all honesty and sincerity, I did not see a good point in Mynock’s post. What was it? What I saw was an attempt to bully another blogger into silence. I don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not a personal attack, Ty. It’s a behavior based observational assessment that I understand might make people not feel good. You get the right to speak, but feeling good is not a guaranteed right when you step up to the plate and mouth bigoted, repressive political opinions.
They can ban me if that is their pleasure.
But to do so without being hypocrites, they would also need to ban Kim for telling us all to shove socks we will assume in our mouths. And they will need to ban Frank for calling us all perverts.
Report comment to moderator
Except when the buddy sitting next to him is also his ‘boyfriend’. Then it’s all the more personal. But, a liberal could hardly imagine the reaction a soldier would have to suddenly lose the ‘love of his life’.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know, CCC. Books about Alexander The Great might provide some insight on that subject.
Report comment to moderator
I am sick of sanctimonious, in your face homosexuals never being satisfied with what they HAVE GAINED and always wanting to push people beyond their comfort levels. You are on a Christian blog site. Have a little courtesy. Everyone in my family adores my nephews boyfriend. He is adorable (at 20 he can still be called adorable.) We are trying to figure out how to keep him without him finding out what a pain (can’t type the 3 letter word that best describes my nephew here) and said nephew running him off. My stepbrother and his partner have been together for going on 20 years. When I didn’t like Bruce it wasn’t because of being gay it was because he was a know it all yankee.
Report comment to moderator
CCC,
I’m not sure how that changes from when the soldier in the Humvee is his brother or (has Tom Hanks tells us) his “brother.” Deep emotional ties will develop among soldiers.
And your scenario isn’t less likely to happen under DADT. Their is nothing in the current policy that prevents two male soldiers from dating, only from telling people about it. Is that safer?
And soldiers serving are already losing boyfriends and girlfriends in combat! DADT doesn’t change the likelihood that some soldier will watch his or her lover get blown away and still be asked to preform.
Throwing away logic and reason is your right if they conflict with your religious beliefs. But if you want to continue discriminating…see post 48.
DADT is “working,” but working at what? Certainly it isn’t working to help us staff people who speak Arabic or are trained to fly planes in combat.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, just curios, against what standard do you determine bigotry vs. nonbigotry? To what authority do you appeal to suggest hypocrisy is wrong? How do you measure moral bankruptcy and shame–and redeemed from what?– in #48?
By what objective standard do you measure your “shoulds” and “should nots”?
Report comment to moderator
Kim post 53,
the same was said of black in the 60s. It is as wrong a statement now as it was then.
Report comment to moderator
until now Mynock I haven’t known if you were gay or straight and still am not sure and really don’t care. I have been nice and middle of the road to all the gay people and atheists that frequent a CHRISTIAN blog site. But I am tired of you telling me how I feel. I think most people in the world can handle a man saying “Last night Bruce and I were making dinner and having a glass of wine and this….happened. They don’t want to here “last night my lover and I were making dinner and having a glass of wine. Be low key. Be truthful, and just live your life. And by the way. Any high horse I was ever on? I got knocked off of it a long, long time ago.
Report comment to moderator
rkg post 53,
now this questions is of course critical:
“To what authority do you appeal to suggest hypocrisy is wrong?”
and of course the only standard one can hold is ther persons own.
And if their standards are not troubled by hypocricy, then there is no other control one can provide except ifor the extreme cases, the law.
You have hit on a key iobservation: one can truly only really hold people accountable to thier onw standards. And if their standards do not find hypocricy objectionable and if their standards do not re
Report comment to moderator
WARNING:
Cut out the comments directed at other individuals, and that includes retaliations.
ARGUE THE TOPIC NOT THE PERSON!
Report comment to moderator
trying again.
rkg post 53,
now this questions is of course critical:
“To what authority do you appeal to suggest hypocrisy is wrong?”
and of course the only standard one can hold is ther persons own.
And if their standards are not troubled by hypocricy, then there is no other control one can provide except ifor the extreme cases, the law.
You have hit on a key observation: one can truly only really hold people accountable to their own standards. And if their standards do not find hypocricy objectionable and if their standards do not require satisfying first order logic, then there is no way to enforce meeting these standards.
Report comment to moderator
So, Musing are you discounting everything that Martin Luther King Jr did or stood for? Go about your daily lives. Be out in the open. Where I live there is a fairly large gay community. I frequently run into two men or two women doing their weekly grocery shopping. I really don’t think too much about it except for noticing that it is two of the same sex rather than a single women (we all know married men aren’t allowed in the grocery store–they buy too much and blame their wives). As my friend Dooze once told me, her family isn’t much different than mine except that whoever is best at cutting the grass cuts the grass and whoever is best at cleaning the house cleans the house. Whoever is the best cook; cooks and whoever can remember to get
Report comment to moderator
You’re not alone, Kim. But as the chant goes…We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it. And if you want to keep discriminating, the personal cost to you is sanctimonious and hostile queers, getting in your face. Because you’re actions are morally repugnant.
And what you should really be worried about is whether your nephew’s boyfriend will get sick of his sanctimonious, emotional immature family before he gets sick of him!
…and you know is getting lost in all of this Kim?
Do you even support these discriminatory policies? I haven’t heard you say one thing to support DADT expect for some concern about potential blackmailers that hasn’t been an issue since Reagen, expert in persisting via DADT. Because right now you actually could blackmail a LGBT person in the military by threatening to expose him/her.
So if you’re sick of the flack you get, and you can’t think of a good reason to discriminate, why do you do it? Sounds like joining HRC and marching in the streets would be in your better interest.
Report comment to moderator
mynock’s argument in post 48 specifically call out Frank in Spokane’s posts and positons:
“Frank, your comments and your ideological position are filthy, morally bankrupt trash.”
As such they are not per se personally dircted, although I suggest they add little to the conversation.
Mickey: are you serious about arguing the topic and not the person? Are ou actually going to call out the recent specfic categorizations of individuals rather than their positions?
This would indeed be a welcome relief. It has been lacking in WMB for a bit here.
Report comment to moderator
oil changed in the cars is the one responsible for getting the oil changed in the cars.
Me? Obviously, I am too mean and bitter to be in a relationship with a man or a woman so I do everything. You really should see me on my Husgavarna. All the men in the neighborhood stare in pure lust and it isn’t me they’re looking at.
Report comment to moderator
Musing (60), suppose it can’t be proved either way whether DADT make the military more effective, or makes us safer. Then whose standards get to govern the policy? Those who have the power to make the law?
Report comment to moderator
Now, I was typing when Mickey posted and not refreshed…
So in the interest of playing nice, I’d like to edit the phrase “his sanctimonious, emotional (sic) immature family” in post 62 to “the sanctimonious and emotionally immature attitudes of his family.”
We can all be nice.
Report comment to moderator
Kim post 61,
when you say:
“So, Musing are you discounting everything that Martin Luther King Jr did or stood for? ”
I think you are misreading my material.
I am specficaly saying it was appropriate for Martin Luther King to demand now back then and for gays to demand now during the present.
If there is a challenge to Obama, it is that he is moving too slowly on these issues, issues which have a ringing cry for action now.
I believe I understand why, but this is one of several concerns I have wiht Obama’s policies.
Report comment to moderator
rkg post 65,
I would argue a pragmatic one: if you can show a driving governmental need this would dominate.
Having said that, the evidence form ,in modern times, Britain and the Netherlands specifically argues that this is not a major issue in combat effectiveness.
Further Dont Ask Dont Tell has specficialy deprived the US of critical skills.
So the objective data available today argues for eliminating Dont Ask Dont Tell and I suggest would justify immediate emergency action by Obama while enabling legislation is being passed.
Report comment to moderator
How can you tell my family is sanctimonious and emotionally immature? Did you not read that we all ADORE the boyfriend????
Report comment to moderator
And just to prove I can be nice, I’ll give you props, Kim, for naming the fictional boyfriend in your anecdote Bruce. I’ll also retract “the gay people you claim to have in your life” from post 44 and replace it with “the gay people you have in your life.”
There: I’m friendly. Now could you please abandon the bigoted ideologies?
Report comment to moderator
All I am saying is that homosexuals can gain more by living their lives just like everyone else and showing that they aren’t much different than everyone else. When you start arguing and demanding that things change overnight that is when you meet with resistance. Gay people have been around since the beginning of time. I realize that to you and me 30 or 40 years seems like forever but when you compare that to the history of the world it isn’t much time at all. You are also forgetting that homosexuality was pretty much open and accepted in Greek history and military. I once had a straight Greek man explain their history and that they only thought men were capable of a certain level of love and that women were for reproductive liasons only. As
Report comment to moderator
Kim post 71,
but of course when you say:
“demanding that things change overnight”
Martin Luther King did demand that things change quickly: it is part of what made his movement so successful.
Report comment to moderator
Kim @ 62 (no jokes please, Kim doesn’t like them),
I already retracted that, but you do have a point. I don’t know that the attitudes of your entire family are sanctimonious and emotionally immature.
You’re attitudes as you have displayed them here are sanctimonious and emotionally immature (and I mean specifically the whole conservative Christian thing), but you are correct to point out that it is wrong of me to ascribe those attitudes to your whole family.
So I apologize.
Report comment to moderator
62 = 69,
Cute joke FAIL!
Report comment to moderator
I really am on your side, I just am coming at it from a different direction. If I have Bruce and Jerry over for Thanksgiving and Christmas that goes a lot further towards acceptance. If I have my nephew come cut my grass (so he can have extra money) and I sit and talk to his boyfriend while he is doing it or write the check to him so he can go cash it for my nephew that goes further towards acceptance. I just want my nephew to live a happy successful life. What I have noticed is that the younger homosexuals don’t have the hangups about being gay that you older ones have. And if my 72 year old southern belle of a mother in law can welcome her grandson’s boyfriend into her home graciously, that means that a lot more has been accomplished that yo
Report comment to moderator
you would have people believe. I really and truly don’t think people in the military care whether the guy carrying the gun next to him is gay or not. I think he is in a war zone and is most worried that the guy is a good shot.
Report comment to moderator
I am not clever enough to remember the old joke about all men named Bruce being gay. I actually had to read your post several times to “get it”. His name is actually Bruce. He now owns his own realty company.
Report comment to moderator
And I guess along the lines of full disclosure I should probably tell you that they live in Key West. Jerry has fathered two children for a woman he went to law school with and both children live in Los Angeles with their mommies.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING @ 22: Actually sodomy is not abnormal, it is subnormal.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 79,
and your objective data to support this?
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Scroop Moth again illustrates how the homosexualists just cannot disagree honorably or respectfully with those who have other policy points of view from them.
This is argument by repetition. Joel can’t say what was dishonorable and disrespectful about #14 because it was an argument against a federal regulation not an attack on people. Instead of debating my arguments, Joel flings out the pejorative “homosexualist.” I haven’t seen Joel’s definition of “homosexualist,” but according to the way he’s using the term, he could be a “homosexualist” because he is not disagreeing honorably or respectfully with those who have other piolicy points of view from him.
Report comment to moderator
When I read the arcane term “homosexualist”, I automatically think of a wise old owl with a monocle, or perhaps a jeweler’s loupe, diligently studying all things homosexual.
“Great Scott! Look, Miss Yakamoto! It’s the rare and elusive gay longshoreman! Note the fine knit of his Irish sweater and how he trills the “r” when he curses!”
Or: “Note the instinctive disdain of the lesbian for petit fours!”
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 79,
actually I suggest that you will find there is far more heterosexual sodomy than there is homosexual sodomy!
There are quite simply more heterosexuals. 
Report comment to moderator
KIM @ 64: Sigh! And here I am to old to lust after either one!
Report comment to moderator
Birds don’t do it, bees don’t do it, only human beings do it.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING @ 83; And your objective data to prove this?
Report comment to moderator
Oh and Musing, as far as the details of homosexual sex go, I asked Dooze once about it and she told me she was tired of telling straight women how to have great sex.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 85,
actually it would seem that many mammals do it or some of its variants.
Even so, there are many things humans do which animals dont. Just because animals dont do it means that we should not?
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 83,
ah but I did not assert it was true, just suggeste dit, however:
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
with the peculiar observatons that vastly more individuals have demonstrated homosexual activity than are homosexual (note perhaps 10% of the population is homosexual).
and the Kinsey study:
Google Books on Kinsey
seems to suggest as I read that 17% of couples practice felatio.
I think we have enough data to confirm my observation, but then I suspect you already knew these numbers.
Report comment to moderator
#81 – Joel can’t say what was dishonorable and disrespectful about #14…”
I already said it! Please read my posts. To say that those who differ with you in policy are “homophobic” is illegitiamte in this discussion. It shows that the accuser is not able to disagree on this policy issue in a way that is honorable or respetful. Instead, they have to call illegitimate names of the other side.
“Homosexualist” is not a pejorative. It is the English language and it refers to those who advocate a homosexual agenda (whether they are homosexual themselves or not).
Report comment to moderator
Lots of neat words are in the English language: twitterpatter, snickerdoodle, knave, addlepate, whippersnapper, and jackanapes come to mind just now. Use ‘em in everyday conversation for fun!
Report comment to moderator
MUSING @ 88: Help me out. I am not aware of any mammales who sodomize one another. Could you objectively list a few?
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 92,
I believe that male sheep are found to express homosexual behaviors:
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/
is but one example of these reports.
There are more examples than just sheep, but as with NJLawyer, but one example is needed to disprove a genralization.
If you dont like this reference there are indeed many more.
Report comment to moderator
When I am wrong I like to admit it and get it over quickly. I was not as knowledgeable about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as I should have been. The guys I just sold a home to, one of them is a diesel mechanic and a boat captain. I am sure part of his interview process did not include asking if he was a homosexual or not. I am finding that I have to agree more with Musing on this than disagree. As I stated above, I think someone in a war zone is much more concerned that their fellow soldier be capable than what their sexual orientation is.
Report comment to moderator
@ Roger Patno – check out bonobos (not the clothing line, the primate).
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 92,
now I pondering what it woul dmean to be a homosexual bee. Effectviely all bees are female, but only one in a hive is sexually active.
It is interesting to compare this to naked mole rat behavior.
Hmmm, something to puzzle over, but sex as we typicaly discuss it for humans seems to be a mammal thing, although I could be wrong on this (birds possibly??? How about frogs ).
Report comment to moderator
thomas1 pst 95,
how could I have been so dense!!! But of course, and a very near relative of ours too!!
It is fun to compare the three classes of chimpanzee (greater chimps, bonobos, and humans) for their behaviors. I find that the social behavir of humans seems to fit nicely between those of greater chimps and bonobos.
Report comment to moderator
#1
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Perhaps that is a requirement to get an account at worldmagblog.
There are many homosexuals, just as there are many heterosexuals, who lead perfectly ordinary lives and do not talk about their sex lives with their families, business associates, fellow church members, and so on.
On the other hand, I wonder if you actually know any homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
To say that those who differ with you in policy are “homophobic” is illegitiamte in this discussion.
What is your definition of “homophobic” ?
I called nobody homophobic.
Report comment to moderator
KIM, I am disappointed with your point of view but, unlike others, I have all along supported your right to speak your mind and I still do, respectfully.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING @ 93: Very interesring article. I must consider it unbiasdly.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t understand how it would work “TO TELL” in the military.
Would gay people wear pink dog tags so others would know?
Is that a good idea when you are fighting in places like Afghanistan–they don’t treat homosexuals with equality.
Report comment to moderator
I’m a hetero male. I spent 4 years in the army. I never once had to have sex to confirm my identity. I was actually virginal for four years and remained so right up to the night of my honeymoon. The armed forces for those of us in the lower enlisted pay grades was a spartan and austere time. Was I not attracted to gals? Oh yes I was but I feared entangling myself to the point of falling in love and compromising myself into a shotgun wedding. (Although they dont have those anymore, do they?)
So yes friends, I was able to forego sexual pursuits for FOUR WHOLE YEARS. Can homosexuals do that? Indeed, many do. But there are others who are so fixated on their “sexuality” that setting that part of their life aside (even for something as noble as military service) is simply not conceivable.
In various posts I served at it was commonly known or suspected who the homosexual men and women were. But it wasnt an issue. It wasnt made an issue by them or us.
Now on the issue of Lt Col Fehrenbach the gay USAF man about to chaptered out and forfeit all pay and benefits.. well, dont get me started.
Eventually WORLD will cover his plight.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 101,
my understanding that there are a number of studies showing similar data.
Report comment to moderator
new2me post 102,
I don’t know, perhaps invite ones partner to a party???
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner post 103,
but of course there are peple who maintain celebicacy and people who dont.
Should that say that homosexuals should be differently treated for this than heterosexuals?
Report comment to moderator
It seems the discussion of DADT so far concedes that “homosexuality” is an immutable characteristic, rather than a description of conduct. In other words, don’t ask whether someone “is” gay, and if you “are” gay, don’t tell. Because if DADT were directed at conduct, it would be most peculiar to encourage not asking, and not telling, of prohibited conduct. So get rid of DADT, and prohibit the conduct. Or, don’t prohibit the conduct. In any event, I think it’s wrong to presuppose that homosexuality is an identity rather than an act, and to base a policy on the supposed identity.
Report comment to moderator
#99 After KarenO said something along the lines of “I am not afraid of homosexuals,” I stopped using the term homophobic.
I now use the term “homohysteric,” which I think is an accurate description of much of the posting I read at this web site.
I suspect it is a condition that could be overcome with much prayer, but that remains to be seen.
Report comment to moderator
I sometimes trade the word “homophobic” for the word “sexist” except in cases like describing the implication of a “rectal examines this way” sign in a political cartoon bashing healthcare reform. Sometimes “homophobic” in the full narrowness that conservatives like to ascribe it is still the most appropriate term, especially when talking about stuff like DADT. All this panic about what gays would do to military morale, or worse the “what about bathrooms and sleeping arrangements” nonsense, is indicative of a full on irrational and paranoid FEAR of gay people!
Report comment to moderator
You might say that Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah was homohysteric.
We have been drilled by the homosexual community for so long that there can’t be that many homohysteric people out there. Just because we talk about it doesn’t mean we are homohysteric or phobic. But I am concerned to think we are coming very close to what Sodom and Gomorrah became.
Report comment to moderator
“it tends to be homosexuals who want everyone to know what they are.”
Rubbish – heterosexuals want every one to know their not homosexual.
Let’s have a special law for heterosexuals – if you admit you’re straight, or have an “opposite marriage”, then we kick you out.
Heterosexuals would NEVER stand for such a policy. Neither should anyone stand for such a policy imposed on gays and lesbians.
Report comment to moderator
er “they’re” not homosexual … (oops)
Report comment to moderator
McCain’s Navy boy may be in the minority –
Straight Guys Tell
Report comment to moderator
The homosexual community can make their own interpretation of the Bible, but the Bible still stays the same. A priest or pastor having homosexual relations is just as bad as a heterosexual who has sex out of wedlock.
You can make laws that will probably eventually put us in jail. But we are who we are. We believe God and His Word. You can’t change that no matter how many laws you make.
Report comment to moderator
N2M: We are getting there faster than can be imagined. The Church that Christ is building must remain vigilent. Refrain from evil, and when we stumble ( and we all do), repent and keep on the narrow way. Let the dead bury the dead.
I had to conceed MUSING’s post 93, and I do so without reluctance.
I Thank God that He made us in His image and likeness; spirit, soul and body. An animal lives by instinct, man lives by reason ((often misapplied), but reason nonetheless, which of course differntiates us from animals. For that I am eternally greatful.
Report comment to moderator
Having said what I have said; I do not believe that Christians should attempt to impose on homosexual men and women; uncivil laws (if that’s the way to state it). I do believe that we can stand firm in our belief, and teach our children the truth, but not to criminalize distastful behavior. I reffer to the discussion at hand. We should let the dead marry the dead, because they know not that they are dead. I have a relative who is gay. That person is one of the most unhappy persons that I know of, but has never been rejected by any of the family.
DEAD IN TRESSPASSES AND SIN, OR ALIVE IN CHRIST JESUS! is the bottom line.
Report comment to moderator
We have been drilled by the homosexual community for so long
So to speak.
Please get a grip.
Report comment to moderator
Having said what I have said; I do not believe that Christians should attempt to impose on homosexual men and women; uncivil laws (if that’s the way to state it). I do believe that we can stand firm in our belief, and teach our children the truth, but not to criminalize distastful behavior. I reffer to the discussion at hand. We should let the dead marry the dead, because they know not that they are dead. I have a relative who is gay. That person is one of the most unhappy persons that I know of, but has never been rejected by any of the family.
DEAD IN TRESSPASSES AND SIN, OR ALIVE IN CHRIST JESUS! is the bottom line.
That has to be one of the most incoherent comments I have read in … at least five minutes.
Please, read your comments carefully and use the backspace key or delete key before you click on “Post.”
I especially like the dead marrying the dead. You are asking a lot of the pastor.
Report comment to moderator
I especially like the dead marrying the dead. You are asking a lot of the pastor.
LOL!!!
Is same-sex marriage okay if both parties are dead?
Report comment to moderator
Man is dead in tresspasses and sin. Only in Christ Jesus can man bd made alive again. Sneer, jeer and laugh as you will , you won’t be answering to me.
Report comment to moderator
Random
Just as all the up close killing is breaking us down to murder, death and gore, the homosexual community has imposed its lifestyle in every TV show. The sensation of girl kissing girl was reserved for pornography but is becoming a part of every day TV in the life of Americans. That is what I mean by DRILL.
The homosexual community leaders have told us that they are coming for our children.
How do you like the taste of that threat hitting home?
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK (48): … God bless!
FRANK: Which “god”?
The god of My Orgasm, the Way I Want It?
Or the One who calls homosexual behavior an abomination?
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK (50): And [WMB] will need to ban Frank for calling us all perverts.
FRANK:
As I said before, the aberrant don’t get to dictate the terms of social interaction and acceptance to the decent.
My (ahem) “name-calling” stands.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I generally don’t read your posts, since they seem like endless arguments, backed up by questionable “proofs.” In this case, I’ll have to point out that quoting Kinsey for statistics on sex is quite careless; he and his methods have been heartily debunked. The 10% figure on homosexuality isn’t being cited by anybody anymore. And Kinsey’s researchers were testing babies (yes, infants of a few months old) for sexual arousal and orgasm . . . so I think that distancing oneself as far from the man as possible might be wise.
Report comment to moderator
Kim, I’m fairly sure that the idea of homosexuals not being an asset in the military has little or nothing to do with whether your assigned partner’s sex life will bother you. I think the idea is that in an all-male military with no men sleeping with other men, sexuality isn’t there to disrupt things. There should be an absence of sexual tension.
Lesbians tend to be “polite” about their orientation (not trying to hit on random other women); men aren’t always. So we have men in a battle zone who may have other men lusting after them, and other men granting each other sexual favors. It rather messes up morale. Yes, battle zones often draw prostitutes and such, and I’m sure that messes up morale too, and should definitely not be encouraged. But at least that threat is external. (I am strongly against integrated units, also, of course, or women anywhere near battle, period. Men and women serving together cause the same issues, and in some ways maybe greater ones, since men should be protecting women and not serving alongside them as physical equals.)
Report comment to moderator
BTW, the question of whether animals are ever “homosexual” really isn’t terribly relevant to the discussion of how humans should act. Animals sometimes eat their own young, especially if there isn’t enough food. Male lions who take over a pride will kill all the cubs in it to bring the females into estrus. At least one species of songbird, the female often keeps a second mate on the side so that he’ll also bring food to her and the young. (The main male tolerates his presence, but goes out of his way to try to avoid letting the second male father any of their young. No, you don’t want to know the details.) Some animals more or less “rape” their mates. Others eat their mates during the act. Will we applaud (or even tolerate) any of these behaviors in human beings? Do we really want to start looking to animals for our morality?
But that also avoids something else that should be really, really obvious–where an animal is “homosexual,” that behavior is dysfunctional. It doesn’t serve the animal well, and it takes that animal out of the gene pool. It’s not just an “alternative lifestyle” for animals, either. Biologically it is on exactly the same level as a female that consistently fails to feed her young or an infertile animal. We humans have more purpose in life than reproduction, and thus we really can’t be compared to animals at all . . . but if you want to use animal dysfunction as an excuse for why human sin isn’t dysfunction, your logic is lacking.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
Your morally repugnant attitudes are not well defended by a cobbled together, cliché response that is the epitome of ignorance masquerading as something else. I think that–following the prescriptions of Fredrick Douglas–you should be made fun of for your incredibly high school “retort” (yes, scare quotes). But we are trying to be nice, so here is a more calculated response.
You imply that the existence of a dictionary definition of your choice slur means that it is not merely name calling. That, however, only adds intellectual bankruptcy to the moral bankruptcy of your earlier comments.
Can you not also find dictionary definitions for any number of insults and childish name calling? I happen to know for a fact that Word Net, a resource of Princeton University, lists an official definition of a slur for an unintelligent person that is a combination of a vulgar term for feces and what rests on your neck!
No really…you can check.
The translation of your less the stellar thought process is a nice demonstration of the filth that undergirds your beliefs. You seem to think that not only can you call anyone a pervert, but that once you do you also magically remove from him/her any ability to object. That’s real nice. “I called you a pervert and your can’t do anything about it. Why? Because you’re a pervert.” Classy!
This are not the beliefs of morally competent or intelligent people. While I have no way of knowing what you are like on a day -to-day basis and you may in fact be quite decent, your current behavior is disgusting, filthy, and childish.
The end point is, straight people should have to live little cloistered, silent existences before they argue that it’s right for other people. Instead, your sexuality is everywhere I look, and until you sweep it from my sight your tear jerking cries for decency and privacy are going to be ridiculed…quite completely!
Report comment to moderator
#103 argues that extinguishing your expectation of sexual gratification is the same as deferral. I don’t think that’s honest. In fact, it’s mean. Telling people they may not fulfill their sexual desires is sadistic.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH (128): Telling people they may not fulfill their sexual desires is sadistic.
FRANK: Even pedophiles? Or bestialists?
No?
By what standard, then?
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK,
Yes, straight sexuality is everywhere you look. It is the way God made the world. Deal with it.
As re. words (like “pervert”) … well, words mean things.
One who exchanges his beer mug for his chamber pot has perverted the use of both vessels. And such a one is manifestly a pervert.
And God’s Word makes quite clear what mankind already knows: A man who exchanges the natural use of a woman for another man is, likewise, a pervert.
“Pervert” is a perfectly useful and meaningful word. Because you don’t like it in the context of proper and improper human sexuality doesn’t make it any less so.
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK (127): The end point is, straight people should have to live little cloistered, silent existences before they argue that it’s right for other people.
FRANK: An utter non sequitur,like saying, “Non-criminals should have to live in prisons before they argue that it’s right for criminals.”
Report comment to moderator
Just as criminals don’t get to dictate the terms of social interaction and acceptance to non-criminals, so the perverse don’t get to dictate the terms of social interaction and acceptance to the normal.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP:
Is it likewise “sadistic” for society to tell brother and sister they may not marry?
Why not?
By what standard?
(Incidentally, your choice of the word “sadistic” demonstrates an almost complete misunderstanding of the meaning of that word. Perhaps the word you’re thinking of is “cruel” … )
Report comment to moderator
There are genetic reasons for brother and sister not to marry. However, if all brothers and sisters who wanted to marry were “fixed” first (a la cats and dogs), what would be the problem?
Whether that would be sadistic would only be true if Michael Vick forced them to fight at their wedding. It would be cruel if they were forced to read worldmagblog every day after the wedding.
Although I am completely heterosexual and have been married and faithful for 43 years, I am a masochist. Evangelical Christians are masochists also, but of a different denomination.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes I can’t believe how dumb the people at this web site are. (Yes, I include myself; so [censoring screen name] save yourself the trouble of posting that comment.)
Then I think: yes they are that dumb. Much better proof that evolution can’t be true than any of the creationist arguments I have ever read here.
Practice what you preach challenge #1: ignore the troll for 30 days.
Practice what you preach challenge #2: be respectful of other groups for 30 days.
Christians can’t control themselves and can’t practice what they preach in even the smallest, tiniest ways.
Report comment to moderator
It’s fine if you would like to adopt that repugnant, nonsensical philosophy, Frank. But you are sacrificing the right to complain about your mistreatment when people who don’t appreciate your behavior come into power. The cultural and political influence of your ideological cabal is waning. You may want to reconsider, unless you think your God will come save you once the liberal intelligentsia internalize the standards you have created and decide that “the bigoted have no right to dictate the terms of social interaction and acceptance to the tolerant” (I know you love the T word).
Report comment to moderator
Random Name (134): There are genetic reasons for brother and sister not to marry.
Frank: 1) I think you meant to say, “There are genetic reasons not to engage in sexual intercourse.”
2) But then, that’s not true if — as Musing has been angling at — the brother and sister only want to have a publicly-recognized sexual relationship to manifest their deep and abiding commitment to each other as husband and wife, and not to procreate. They can always a) undergo surgical sterilization, or b) abort the by-product of their sexual union. What business is that of the State? (Whose body is it, anyway?)
Report comment to moderator
Random Name (135): Practice what you preach challenge #2: be respectful of other groups for 30 days.
Frank: If by “be respectful of other groups” you mean “treat them with the dignity due to any bearer of God’s image,” fine.
But if you mean “pretend that their publicly declared and sexually perverse relationships are normal and socially acceptable” … well, nope.
Would you similarly “be respectful” — i.e., in the second sense cited above — of a blatantly unrepentant drunkard, liar, thief or adulterer?
Report comment to moderator
MyNock,
What is “repugnant and non-sensical” is engaging in sexual practices that speak death rather than life.
Report comment to moderator
MyNock,
And speaking of “tolerance,” what kinds of socio-sexual relationships are you not prepared to “tolerate,” and why? (IOW, by what standard?)
Report comment to moderator
Sadistic is exactly what I meant, FRANK. The “loving” acceptance of homosexuals, so long as they are celibate, and the attempts to “cure” a wonderful behavioral adaptation are self-serving. For all I know, Evangelical big shots feel enhanced when they inflict these humiliations.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
I assume then that you also believe Christianity to be (ahem) “sadistic” for upholding the Bible’s teachings re. no sexual activity until marriage?
Those poor, poor teenagers. all those raging hormones and no release until their honeymoon?!
“Sadistic.” Talk about overstating your case!
Report comment to moderator
While she has every right to, Meghan McCain talks too much.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane has only asked about 17 times, “By what standard?”
You’d think with all the pro-homosexual bluster there’d be at least one ready answer.
Report comment to moderator
MACRUTABAGA – That’s unfair. The liberals here do most of the heavy lifting, including keeping y’all gratified with answers
Report comment to moderator
I’m guessing you’re calling that an “answer.”
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!