105 1 min 10 yrs

A few images of the US Military that would have been inconceivable until the recent  few years. These people serve their Nation, risk their lives, so what is the problem? It’s the relaxed face of Obama’s United States. But how do YOU feel about it? I have to say that whilst I respect individuals right to do as they wish, the images are a tad unsettling.

Sgt Brandon Morgan's embrace with boyfriend Dalan Wells has gone viral in the blogosphere after it was posted on Facebook.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta (left) kisses her partner Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell, following the ship's return to homeport after a three-month deployment in the Caribbean.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

105 thoughts on “UNDER OBAMA, THE NEW AMERICA..

  1. I find the homophobia unsettling, but I support your right to be unsettled by people in the armed forces returning to their loved ones.

    Incidently, it appears that both couples in each photo each served or serve in the military.

  2. Suggesting would imply that there might be another way to describe the comment. So no, I am not suggesting it, I am plainly stating that the comment is homophobic. Are you suggesting the comment is not homophobic?

    You certainly have indicated that there is something wrong with the behavior of the servicepersons (although you indicate they served their nation I don’t think that observation mitigates against the post).

    When you isolate the homecoings of gay soldiers and hold it up as some political example of the failure of the Obama Administration then I think you have a hard time distancing yourself from homophobia, even if it is of a far lesser degree than can be found elsewhere.

  3. The second one’s perfectly fine. Anyone who doesn’t see that women are made for loving is a bit odd. Stay at home girls, that’s where you belong.

    The first one is an abomination. It ought to be censored.

  4. Mahons

    With respect, that is trash.

    For starters, it was Obama who signed the bill repealing the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. This has opened the doors leading to the imagery shown which is clearly in the public domain.

    Next, I assume gay soldiers have been returning to US shores for decades, if not centuries. But it is only in 2012 there is a photocall for it. Again, this is simply factual. I do not see this as a failure of the Obama administration. I see it as a feature of the Obama administration. I leave it for others to pass judgement.

    Finally, I plainly state I find the images unsettling. Why? Because like so many Christian people, I take the Biblical view of homosexuality. Is that a sin in liberal eyes? If so, isn’t that a bit…Christianphobic? Are Christians no longer allowed to actually state what they think lest it offends some tender sensibilities?

  5. Are Christians no longer allowed to actually state what they think lest it offends some tender sensibilities?

    Not at all — and I am sure that Mahons does not need anyone to argue his case for him. He wrote ” I support your right to be unsettled by people in the armed forces returning to their loved ones,” thereby making it clear that it is no objection to the stating of your opinion.

    However there is no escaping the reality that your comment “I find the images unsettling” and the fact that you take “the Biblical view of homosexuality”, mean that you hold homophobic views. Why argue against it — surely if you take the Biblical view of homosexuality this is not even a contentious statement, simply a matter of fact. If you really hold to the biblical view of homosexuality then you support the death penalty for it.

    ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death.

    Leviticus 20:13

    While he respects your right to express homophobic opinions, you seem to be attacking the counter right for people to call you out for the views you hold (unless you are going to produce the fallacious paradox of tolerance argument, yet again).

  6. Geoff

    If I understand you, you are claiming that all Biblical believing Christian across the world are “homophobes”.

    Now I am unsure of how you understand the Bible but you appear to miss out how Christ utterly changed the Mosaic laws. Maybe rather than read ATW you could try reading the New Testament. Suggest you try I Corinthians 6:9; 10. Kinda simple really.

  7. Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

    So what in these chapters you cite refutes the argument?

    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    All that seems to be saying is that not only (under Leviticus) should gay people be killed, but if they are killed they will suffer eternal damnation. That seems pretty homophobic to me.

  8. “Where is the tolerance? Where is the pluralism?”

    – David Vance

    right, ok…

    “I do not see this as a failure of the Obama administration. I see it as a feature of the Obama administration. I leave it for others to pass judgement.”

    If i may interject, that is trash. You never mention the Obama administration, without attempting to cast it in a bad light. That’s fair enough, but to use this, then to deny it is so, does sound ridiculous.

    As for taking the biblical view on homosexuality .. give us a break. I’m sure it’s been in one ear and out the other on multiple occasions, but to cling to that ‘rule’ and to ignore the majority of the rest of the claptrap described as ‘abominable’ in that leviticus book metioned above .. well, the absurdity really speaks for itself.

  9. It’s unsettling because it’s unnatural. I’m sure that it will be argued that homosexuality is ‘natural’ but that is the same as arguing that cancer is natural and should be welcomed – no thanks! An MP in NZ (it’s acronym night) argued against legalising homosexuality by stating that if God intended us to procreate through the rectum, he would have put a womb there.

  10. David, it is perfectly understandable that you find the images unsettling. Most straight folks are uncomfortable viewing homosexual public displays of affection (particularly by gay males), whether they’re Christian or not. And that’s okay.

    This was not a particular press photo call to specifically capture returning gay service members, it happens every time our troops return home from one of our many war fronts and every time they leave. It’s simply standard operating procedure in America.

    I actually applaud Obama for repealing DADT. It was the worst sort of bigoted hypocrisy by our government. These men and women were allowed to serve and die for the nation, but were required to hide an integral part of themselves.

    By the way, the majority of our service members wholeheartedly supported the repeal.

  11. Why argue against it — surely if you take the Biblical view of homosexuality this is not even a contentious statement, simply a matter of fact.

    Exactly.

    Presumably David is also unsettled by the spectacle of a person picking up sticks on the sabbath day!

  12. Most straight folks are uncomfortable viewing homosexual public displays of affection (particularly by gay males), whether they’re Christian or not

    Presumably you can support that with evidence, Daphne?

  13. Yes, Petr. Nearly every straight person I’ve ever known is either mildly or seriously uncomfortable watching gay people make out in public.

    (Come to think of it, nearly all of my lesbian friends find gay male PDA’s revolting.)

    You need to remember, it’s a rather new phenomena – openly gay people expressing affection in a predominately straight public environment. At least it is in America outside of the major cities.

    You sound chuffed, why is that?

  14. Most straight people are uncomfortable about it.

    Discrimination based on sexuality and race is positively correlated for age and negatively correlated for education. (ie people who are homophobic and/or racist are more likely to be old and stupid than young and clever)

  15. It is quite self evident that most straight people will be uncomfortable with such displays of affection from same sex couples simply because they are not used to it, and it strikes sharply against the grain of expected behaviour (particularly in males) – it doesn’t necessarily reflect an ideological hostility to homosexual relationships .

  16. David – With respect, those that you almost daily suggest must go to war include gay people, who now can serve overseas and embrace their partner upon return publically and without fear that their service to the nation will be curtailed by those professing that they are following some Biblical instruction.

    This right is not merely a feature of the Obama Adminsitration, it is the law of the land and supported by a significant majority of people.

    You take your interpretation of Christianity and suggest it is the Christian view, when of course it is one view of Christianity.

    The naval officers kissing above actually won the raffle on their ship for this homecoming greeting – it is a tradition, not their effort to be on camera for some particular political agenda.

  17. I thought the first couple was a picture from when Phantom and Troll met up for a mini ATW summit 🙂

  18. Pete: It’s plainly obvious. Most straight people are uncomfortable about it.

    No it’s not obvious at all. You’re making the mistake of projecting your own feeling onto everyone else.

  19. It’s neither discriminatory or homophobic to have uncomfortable feelings about these images.

    People who feel uncomfortable with homosexual displays of public affection are perfectly within their emotional rights to find it off-putting.

    Acting in a hostile, discriminatory or rude manner in response to one’s uncomfortable feelings is an entirely different matter.

    Insisting people magically conform to your (Petr & Geoff) personal, natural acceptance seems it bit bullying.

  20. Petr and Pete

    Why don’t you 2 meet up and test out who is right. Stand in the middle of Piccadilly Circus, lock lips for 10 minutes and a neutral observer can count the respective brickbats and bouquets 😉

  21. Try these three from around the world for starters:

    Mapping Homophobia in Australia: Michael Flood and Clive Hamilton

    Scottish Social Attitudes survey 2010: Attitudes to discrimination and positive action – Research Findings

    Survey on Public Attitudes towards Homosexuals 2006

    Oh – and homophobic views are more likely to be associated with Republicans than Democrats. So old, stupid and right wing people are more likely to hold prejudicial views than young, clever, and left wing people.

    Religiosity is also positively correlated. If you are old, stupid, right wing and have a make-believe friend then you are much more likely to hold prejudicial views than the population at large.

    There is no evidence to support claims that “most straight people will be uncomfortable with such displays of affection”.

    Claims like “Nearly every straight person I’ve ever known” is just anecdata. Maybe your group of friends is not representative of the population at large.

  22. David, if you think that men kissing men is wrong, don’t do it. If you think that women kissing women is wrong, hush, you’re not a woman and it doesn’t affect you. If you are unsettled by seeing a serviceman or woman kiss their loved one on returning from months of dangerous service abroad, try to imagine yourself into either role.

  23. And all of sudden I understand the madness of Santorum.

    The economy’s going to crap, Bernanke’s inflation will crucify most, there’s no end of war, liberty is as good as history, the government/big pharma complex is poisoning ever more people and the government/Wall Street is more corrupt than ever.

    But no-one cares, because everyone wants to talk about gays.

  24. People who feel uncomfortable with homosexual displays of public affection are perfectly within their emotional rights to find it off-putting.

    No one is denying them that right, nor the right to express it; the very first response made that clear.

    But equally well you cannot deny the counter-right to be called out for holding what are prejudicial views.

  25. Nearly every straight person I’ve ever known is either mildly or seriously uncomfortable watching gay people make out in public.

    You’ve asked that question to nearly every straight person you know?! And then the very subject comes up here. That was handy! Still, it’s anecdotal isn’t it? Even though you asked nearly every straight person you know, it’s hard to defend your claim that “Most straight folks are uncomfortable viewing homosexual public displays of affection (particularly by gay males), whether they’re Christian or not” merely with the results of the survey of most of your straight friends.

    People who feel uncomfortable with homosexual displays of public affection are perfectly within their emotional rights to find it off-putting.

    Lot of people used to find it unsettling when people with disabilities appeared in public. They were on the word side of history, I’m sure you’ll agree.

    I love the *some of my best friends are lesbians* bit, by the way! lol

  26. Colm –

    I’m going to disregard that.

    In fact I’m not convinced that male homo thingy stuff exists. Evidence? You are the evidence. Ask yourself: Have you, Colm, ever wanted to bum a bloke? No? Case closed.

  27. Well lets note I haven’t seen uncomfort expressed at heterosexual displays of affection among our homecoming troops (incidently you want a good cry one of the benefits of the youtube age is some of the great homecoming videos that people post).

    Look singling out one group’s homecoming embrace as unsettling, combining that claim with some political jab at the current administration makes it less than a simple expression of uncomfortableness of the author. Is it vile discrimination, of course not. Is it homophobia (even if only of a mild degree)? I don’t see how it can be otherwise.

    Why are homosexuals so often decried as militant, then when they are in the military asked to keep from unsettling us?

  28. You got that right, Pete.

    The republican party has been hijacked by hardcore Christianists, these people are salivating at the opportunity to elect their own personal theocrat to wage their crusades, both at home and abroad.

    It’s sheer madness.

  29. My bias for basing arguments on facts and research you mean? Yes it does. So far every time you have challenged me I have produced the facts to back up my argument. If you want to reduce the argument to trading personal comments then fine.

  30. Geoff

    No, I am afraid you conflate picking bias insubstantial waffle with empirical quantitative evidence. Understandable given the sheer inanity of your wild claims about the elderly, those to the left of Marx, and those you determine are not “smart”

    Petr

    Facts. Ah – surely something that you have but a passing interest in. Remind me of your view on Iran and its intention re Israel

  31. David – I suspect you are the only TUV politician (former or current) who is on the record as expressing the Roman Catholic Church as being in good company.

    I don’t share Vatican views about homosexuality, among other things (I wish the Boys in Rome could grow up a bit and concentrate on the things the Church does well like helping the sick, the poor and the oppressed).

  32. Mahons

    As ever, we probably agree on more than we might wish! And yes, I suspect I am the only former TUV politician with such a view but then again I am a natural contrarian!!

  33. David
    Clearly you do want to reduce the argument to trading personal comments.
    I have made no “wild claims”. You asked me for evidence and I have given it to you. Did you read the evidence? Or would you rather just continue trading insults?
    If you think that research, and those were just the first three I found, are “biased insubstantial waffle”, then perhaps you could say on what grounds you formed that opinion and produce some “empirical quantitative evidence” that demonstrates why they are false?
    I do hope so, otherwise that might make me think you are a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her own opinions and dismissive of evidence that does not fit with his or her view of the world.

  34. “Discrimination based on sexuality and race is positively correlated for age and negatively correlated for education. (ie people who are homophobic and/or racist are more likely to be old and stupid than young and clever)”

    Firstly how is being uncomfortable with gay men kissing a sign of discrimination. Secondly how does it square with your world view that I am a 24 year old with 10 GCSEs, 5 A Levels and in the third year of a degree yet I am still uncomfortable with homosexual displays of affection?

  35. I certainly am grateful to them for their service and glad that they came home alive and healthy, something I forgot to mention above.

  36. Hugs and kisses, David.

    Mahons, I think it’s entirely possible to separate David’s private feelings regarding homosexuality (he’s not fond of it, but would never treat a person badly because of it) from his antipathy towards Obama.

    He simply used a convenient, politically hot bludgeon to smack the president upside the head. He’s a blogger, that’s what bloggers do to drive discussion and traffic.

    Why are homosexuals so often decried as militant, then when they are in the military asked to keep from unsettling us?

    Great question and I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment.

    **Petr, I leave you to your communist utopia. Peace out.

  37. David – we may very well. I don’t want to come off as too picky, or holier (or more secular) than thou. In truth the photo of the gay soldiers embracing is to me more extraordinary than a “conventional” image (The old Life magazine photo in Times Square of the Navy vet kissing a dame at the end of WW2). But that is on me, not them. I support and encourage their right to do so, but it is striking, even to me.

  38. Firstly how is being uncomfortable with gay men kissing a sign of discrimination.
    It doesn’t necessarily but it is not unreasonable to suggest that if discrimination is linked so, then holding of prejudicial views is also linked in the same way, as the Australian paper showed.

    Secondly how does it square with your world view that I am a 24 year old with 10 GCSEs, 5 A Levels and in the third year of a degree yet I am still uncomfortable with homosexual displays of affection?
    Because it is correlative not causative. But you would score highly for religiosity, so your views would be consistent with the findings.

  39. Daphne- I have no doubt that David would not treat anyone unkindly, look how tolerant he is of me!

    And (as usual damn you) you made some very good points about a non-discriminatory yet still not quite there yet view of homosexual pda that many of us in the hetero world might have (to different degrees of course).

  40. Remind me of your view on Iran and its intention re Israel

    I’m more than happy to remind you that my view on the issue matches that of the US government!

  41. Except for the fact that I am a 24 year old (whose group has the lowest % of people who are homophobic), currently at University (whose group has the second lowest % of people who are homophobic) and a Catholic (whose group has the second lowest % of people who are homophobic).

    Also it is statistical analysis and simply isn’t worth the paper its written on. A statistician could put his head in the oven and his feet in the freezer and on average he’d be all right.

  42. Seamus,

    I teach people in your age group. Many are openly gay which seems to be pretty cool with their peers.

    You sound like a bit of a square.

  43. Seamus
    All the evidence shows is a correlation, not a causation. It doesn’t say that because you are a Catholic you will hold these views, it says among people who hold these views, certain factors (age, education – or lack of, religiosity and the holding of right-wing views) are likely to be over-represented when compared to a normalized population.
    It is not inconsistent that there will be people who are older than Methuselah, further to the right of Hitler himself, believe in all manner of things and can be as dumb as a sack of spanners who could be the most gay tolerant person in the world, it simply says it is less likely that such a person would be.

  44. Well these photos have got ATW buzzing tonight haven’t they. All we need now is to see a photo of 2 Gay muslim soldiers snogging – under a stop global warming banner, that will really set the ATW crowd alight 😉

  45. This is truly the new America, that the Democrat Party has quietly ” evolving ” towards for some time.

    No thanks.

  46. It’s not OK.

    I’m saying what most feel.

    You shouldn’t need any holy book to figure this one out.

  47. Lawyerman, I’ve been working very hard to curb my no-grey zone, Asperger tendencies.

    Discussing politics and the ever-changing human experience is one of the most difficult topics to handle with polite equanimity. I think there is probably room for tolerance and learning on both sides of any sensitive issue.

  48. I’m saying what most feel.

    No you are not. As has been shown you are saying what one demographic group feels, a demographic group that appears to be over-represented on here. It is not representative of the population at large — nor of the next generation (Seamus excepted).

    History is a liberalising force.

  49. Except for one thing, as pointed out in the research you linked to. People’s views as they age change which is why teenage boys are some of the most homophobic in that survey but then change as they get a bit older. So as the current young generation age what is to stop them becoming more socially conservative?

  50. The republican party has been hijacked by hardcore Christianists, these people are salivating at the opportunity to elect their own personal theocrat to wage their crusades, both at home and abroad.

    Exactly right Daphne. I’m starting to think that Santorum makes Palin look like a liberal.

  51. Seamus
    That is a fair point. Maybe it will, we will have to see. But it seems unlikely given the increasing trend towards liberalisation and tolerance. Homosexuality in the UK was only decriminalised in 1967. Anyone who is older than 60 would have a memory of that event, and of course their parents would have been steeped in the cultural norms of the time.
    Someone born in the last few years could be a second generation of people for whom that is just a historical fact, so the prejudices are less likely to be passed on (it will still happen of course).
    When I was at school it was inconceivable that a boy would be openly gay; now it isn’t exactly commonplace, but it does happen.
    The whole culture has shifted. There will be people who resist that change — and there will be some who do — will be increasingly marginalised and their impact will be increasingly diminished.
    History is a liberalising force — look at attitudes to race, gender, sexuality, etc.

  52. I’d agree with that Geoff, and not just because it’s what I want to see. Normally I’m quite negative about possibilities for positive change but I believe history is going in a particularly definite way here.

    I have a two nieces in secondary school and I teach at third level. For my mid-teen nieces, peers being gay is really no big deal. I’ve often heard mention of gay school friends and indeed gay teachers, in a very casual way. It’s normal. Moreover, my nieces are used to gay friends of their parent coming for dinner because it’s always happened. I don’t believe this family are particularly unusual.

    The young peope I teach come from every walk of life. No doubt some are homophobic (they probably picked it up from bigoted paretns) but the vast majority are not in my opinion. Alway, same-sex public displays of affection on campus are normal and routine.

    I’m glad it’s going this way. Gay people should not have to hide out somewhere anymore than black people or people with disabilities, for example. We live in a big, beautiful, diverse world. And I for one am glad we’re not all the same.

  53. Until there is a reactionary backlash. A degeneration of culture, tradition and society that causes people to yearn to roll the clock back.

  54. Seamus,

    Again, you might have a point. I don’t agree with Geoff that history is necessarily emancipatory. Look at Iran.

    I suppose my question for you is, what do you want gay people to do? Not appear in public? What exactly is your problem with them?

  55. No. I have no issue, per say, with gay people being in public and having public displays of affection. It just makes me uncomfortable. I can’t turn on a switch in my head that makes me comfortable with it.

  56. “Until there is a reactionary backlash. A degeneration of culture, tradition and society that causes people to yearn to roll the clock back.”

    Whenever that backlash has come, it was not directed at any “degeneration”, but simply at the very many things reactionaries don’t understand, fear and are confused by.

    Their back to basics movement usually never got far, and almost always ended in oppression and murder.

    The “degeneration” that mobilised reactionaires from Cromwell to the Nazis and the Ayatollahs was usually no more than shifting social patterns, new forms of expression and dress, and of course young people having fun and preferring to make love than war.

  57. Considering that the first major reactionary movement was to curb the excesses caused by the Reign of Terror in France. Some reactionary decisions are correct, when a policy has overstepped its mark, something has gone too far. The second one was to roll back the influence of France and repair the damage caused by Napoleon. Some of it makes sense. There is no reason to suggest that when people look around at some of the problems caused by sometimes sensible decisions they may want to reverse those decisions. It is the rational thing to do.

  58. Me too, Peter. A shocking state of affairs!

    To Geoff – the demographics show homosexuals to be no more than 5% of the population, if you’re generously counting on the high side. Given those statistics, it seems perfectly normal that the greater heterosexual majority might find public displays of open homosexuality a tad unsettling.

    Homosexuality is not, by any means, normal human behavior. It is, like our good Seamus, a perfect outlier. That does not mean gay people (or Seamus) should be civilly discriminated against, treated unfairly under the law or subjected to brutality or hateful treatment by their fellow citizens.

    All people should be accepted, protected and accorded full legal rights as human beings, regardless of their minority status; sexual, religious or otherwise.

    By chastising the majority, who may feel somewhat uncomfortable or mildly unsympathetic towards gay folk, as hateful homophobics, ignorant bigots and discriminatory theocrats, doesn’t do your cause any favors.

  59. What a sad debate! This single post has raised many more comments than it deserves.

    Is it not possible to dislike/disapprove of homosexuality without hating homosexuals? I find homosexuality distasteful and I am particularly fed up hearing about it in the MSM. What consenting adults do in private is – well, private. Or at least should be.

    There was a fascinating documentary on the BBC on Monday night about David Hockney who is openly homosexual. This seems irrelevant when considering his ability as an artist which after all is all that matters as far as Hockney is concerned.

    I do think David has a point, however, about images of the military in this respect. It is unsettling. It is hard to say why. An image of two homosexual artist or musicians is somehow not the same as two homosexual servicemen.

  60. By chastising the majority, who may feel somewhat uncomfortable or mildly unsympathetic towards gay folk, as hateful homophobics, ignorant bigots and discriminatory theocrats, doesn’t do your cause any favors.

    Now the majority only ‘may’ feel uncomfortable. Observe the goalposts as they dance a gig!

    The problem with the attitude you advocate is that it’s akin to saying someone is ‘only a bit racist’ so that’s fine then.

    No! Bigotry should be called out for what it is.

    By the way, this summer I’m going to a special party; two girls I know are entering into a civil partnership. They couldn’t be happier and I couldn’t be happier for them. I dare say they’ll have a grand auld’ snog at the alter and nobody present will be unsettled or uncomfortable.

  61. It is an involuntary reaction. You don’t choose to be uncomfortable with it. It is isn’t something you decide one day to be uncomfortable with. So how can it be bigotry?

  62. It is an involuntary reaction. You don’t choose to be uncomfortable with seeing taigs about the place. It is isn’t something you decide one day to be uncomfortable with. So how can it be bigotry?

  63. It probably isn’t. If they act on that uncomfortableness then it is bigotry. But otherwise it isn’t bigotry because that person has no choice in the matter.

  64. I would say that if he refers to them as taigs then he does but if he is only uncomfortable with a group of people who he is separate from and different from then no I wouldn’t classify that as bigotry.

  65. They want to serve their country, marry the person they love and some adopt children who have been abandoned.

    And conservatives are worried about these people?

  66. Given those statistics, it seems perfectly normal that the greater heterosexual majority might find public displays of open homosexuality a tad unsettling.

    About 18% of the population are disabled – do you find people with disabilities unsettling? Vegetarians constitute 7% to 11% of the population. Do you find carrot munchers unsettling?

    What I find interesting about this post — and about some respondents on this site — is that there is a very clear hierarchy of acceptable prejudices.

    So on ATW being prejudiced against muslims is positively encouraged, they are the subject of the daily hate on here.

    Being prejudiced against gay people is sort of ok (although curiously the very same people who say they are unsettled by seeing gay people displaying affection are very quick to rally those very same gay people that “unsettle” them to the cause to bash muslims)

    But say something, anything, bad against Israel (not even against jews) and you are a rampant anti-semite and beyond the pale.

    ignorant bigots and discriminatory theocrats, doesn’t do your cause any favors.
    That is what the statistics show – don’t shoot the messenger. So far no one has shown that the research is false, or has produced research to refute it.

    And the only cause that I have is against prejudice and in favour of fact-based opinion not anecdata.

  67. It is intellectually lazy ( quelle surprise ) to wave the bloody shirt of ” prejudice ” against those who decline to condone aberrant behavior.

    This is defining deviancy down at warp speed, courtesy of Obama and the Democrat Party. They’ve all quietly wanted this for a couple of decades, and now they have it.

  68. So apart from opposing gay marriage and wanting to keeps gay people in the military in the closet, you have no problem at all with them?!

    I think I get it.

  69. This is a so called ” extreme social conservative ” position as posited by the great fascist Bill Clinton and his Democrat Party in the very, very recent past.

    What is happening is a major marker of social decline in the West. It has zero to do with liberating anyone. It is sad, and wrong, and I’m not debating this all day either.

  70. yeah that’s about right. Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman, and what you do in your bedroom, I don’t want to know…..

  71. Phantom,

    I genuinely want to understand your position. But you just make these huge, bald statements.

    How on earth is it a social decline? Why is it sad and wrong? Genuine questions.

  72. Why though?

    I mean, I advocate high tax and you ask me to explain. Why do you feel so strongly about this? Again, I ask because it baffles me. I don’t understand it at all.

    See my February 29th, 2012 at 1:13 am for how I feel.

  73. Petr
    Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman, and what you do in your bedroom, I don’t want to know.

    Why can’t it be just that simple? That is the way it has been for 2000 years. If a person is gay that’s their business, why do they have to shove it in my face, and why do they need or want approval from anyone except themselves?

  74. It is wrong, Petr.

    Sometimes it’s that simple.

    And it goes way deeper than religion. Religion recognized that it was wrong, it isn’t wrong because some holy guy said so.

  75. I find all Public Displays of Affection rather neauseating….I’m British.

    Though those two ‘happy’ girls in the picture …I can make an exception for them…..

  76. I’m curious as to why you can’t find words of explanation when you’re not usually lacking in that department.

    Troll – Just because something has ‘always’ been a certain way, doesn’t mean it’s right.

  77. some things that are right have been around for a very long time. I don’t condemn or condone.

    I object to the subjects politics, because they’re are trying to force their view on others, it’s exactly the same as ordering the catholic church to pay for abortion. It isn’t the abortion, it’s the governments lack of the right to push any one view.

    They don’t have that right.

  78. “It is wrong, Petr.

    Sometimes it’s that simple. ”

    Does that mean, it’s wrong because you say so?

Comments are closed.