A Brave New World

The President has gotten his repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.   I find it disgusting that they warped surveys which showed opposition and tried to make opponents in the military seem supportive.  When people said that it would cause some problems instead of a lot of problems, they were lumped in as supporting the repeal instead of opposing it.  They are basing policy upon a pack of lies.  They have the majority thanks to some of you so it is their right.  It is still a disgrace to implement unnecessary left wing experiments during a time of war.   The reasons for implementing the law after World War 2 were sound and frankly they have not disappeared.   If done carefully, I believe this repeal can be implemented with only some issues.  My greater concern is that these radicals are more likely to try to reeducate people and force an embrace of the gay agenda including recognizing gay marriages.  The worse is yet to come. To the victor belongs the spoils.  A statement from the President.
Moments ago, the Senate voted to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” When that bill reaches my desk, I will sign it, and this discriminatory law will be repealed. Gay and lesbian service members — brave Americans who enable our freedoms — will no longer have to hide who they are. The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one. This victory belongs to you. Without your commitment, the promise I made as a candidate would have remained just that. Instead, you helped prove again that no one should underestimate this movement. Every phone call to a senator on the fence, every letter to the editor in a local paper, and every message in a congressional inbox makes it clear to those who would stand in the way of justice: We will not quit. This victory also belongs to Senator Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and our many allies in Congress who refused to let politics get in the way of what was right. Like you, they never gave up, and I want them to know how grateful we are for that commitment. As Commander in Chief, I fought to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because it weakens our national security and military readiness. It violates the fundamental American principles of equality and fairness. But this victory is also personal. I will never know what it feels like to be discriminated against because of my sexual orientation. But I know my story would not be possible without the sacrifice and struggle of those who came before me — many I will never meet, and can never thank. I know this repeal is a crucial step for civil rights, and that it strengthens our military and national security. I know it is the right thing to do. But the rightness of our cause does not guarantee success, and today, celebration of this historic step forward is tempered by the defeat of another — the DREAM Act. I am incredibly disappointed that a minority of senators refused to move forward on this important, commonsense reform that most Americans understand is the right thing for our country. On this issue, our work must continue. Today, I’m proud that we took these fights on. Please join me in thanking those in Congress who helped make “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal possible: http://my.barackobama.com/Repealed Thank you, Barack

150 thoughts on “A Brave New World”

  1. Being gay isn’t abnormal; it’s how God made you.

    It’s funny how Geezer probably won’t ask you how you have a direct line to God and so on. I could be wrong, maybe he’ll ask.

    Being gay, whatever that is, is abnormal to the same extent that the complementarity of the sexes is normal.

  2. I always suspect the men most outspoken against gays have some hidden homosexual thing going on. Look at all the prominent anti-gay crusaders who turn out to be closeted homosexuals. This weird unnatural interest in other peoples sex life amounts to a sexual fetish. If there were no gays in the world, I suspect these sex policemen would most likely be ranting against other sexual practices regarding who puts what in where with whom.

    The Ten Commandments directly prohibit adultery, yet there is no mention of homosexuality. Why not enforce the Ten Commandments then move on to the lesser crimes against God’s will?

    These are the Ten Commandments given directly by God:

    ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

    TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’

    THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’

    FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’

    FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’

    SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’

    SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

    EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’

    NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’

    TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’

    How many anti-gay in the military crusaders have trashed the Ten Commandments then come to us with all the highminded bullshit about gays and civilization and God.

    Why not enforce these foundations of civilization in the military then move on to who loves who for what reasons.

  3. Being gay isn’t abnormal; it’s how God made you.…nativebluecrybaby

    Inserting the male sex organ into the rectum of another male is abnormal.

    Can’t you take a stand on anything?

  4. “A gay openly talking about how they find some celebrity or another attractive despite knowing that everyone else finds such talk repulsive.”

    You give yourself away. YOU might find this repulsive; “everyone” does not, and your assumption that they do reveals your bias.

    “It’s funny how Geezer probably won’t ask you how you have a direct line to God and so on.”

    I dismiss such comments as ignorance, since “God” didn’t “make” anyone. It’s a nature-vs.-nurture argument.

  5. Rick: Define “normal.”

    In this context, using the male sex organ for its intended purpose is normal. Normal intercourse is heterosexual; it is the means by which the species propagates and survives.

    Placing the male sex organ into the rectum of another male is abnormal.

    Leftists always try to complicate the obvious.

  6. what about sex that cannot end with conception? is that normal? is masturbation normal? is oral sex normal? if so, is it still normal if its two dudes?

  7. …if so, is it still normal if its two dudes?

    Do you know why males in the animal kingdom have sex organs? If so, you wouldn’t ask such an idiotic question.

    Two males performing sex is obviously abnormal.

    Robert Knight has a insightful piece in today’s ‘Washington Times.’

    “Once again, as in 2008, Sen. John McCain has led conservatives over a cliff. Both defeats were a result of a conscious decision to unilaterally disarm morally and allow spurious claims to go unchallenged.

    “When an opponent advances by asserting moral authority, it’s powerful even when wrong, as just occurred in the Senate vote to overturn the military’s ban on homosexuality. The most effective defense is a superior moral offensive. That did not happen.”

    This is to be expected from the ‘cross-the-aisle’ moderate appeaser McCain. From a conservative’s point-of-view, he worthless- to this blogs’ RINO appeaser wing, I’m sure he’s just fabulous.

    “…the moral invertebrates that populate some of the GOP leadership refrained from making a clear case. They also failed to examine the core issue — homosexual behavior, and its impact on morale, health, discipline and the freedoms of soldiers to disagree.”

    “Moral invertebrates” is synonymous with ‘GOP moderates.’

    “Instead of using the military debate to bring to light many suppressed facts that could cripple the homosexual juggernaut if Americans only knew, they played by their opponents’ rule book.”

    This is because gutless ‘moderates’ don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, even when the survival of their culture is at stake.

    In “After the Ball,” a 1989 gay-strategy manual, two Harvard-trained public relations experts warn that “the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.” Elsewhere, the authors say, “first, you get your foot in the door by being as similar as possible; then and only then … can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first … allow the camel’s nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.”

    And that is the agenda, from the horse’s mouth. Eye-opening, huh? A foot in the door. Turning freakish, perverted behavior into the new ‘normal.’ That’s the long-term plan- too bad our resident ‘moderates’ are too naive to see it, and comprehend the consequences. It’s all part of the lefts’ ‘destroy the culture’ agenda.

    Inserting the male sex organ into the rectum of another male is abnormal behavior. None of your desperate, hysterical rationalizations can change that obvious fact.

  8. “Inserting the male sex organ into the rectum of another male is abnormal behavior.”
    Spending this much time thinking about it is abnormal behavior. When you type it, are you imagining the sensation of a male sex organ in your rectum?

    Is putting the male sex organ in the mouth of anyone, male or female, “normal” behavior? How about the rectum of a female? How about your hand? What about role-playing during sex? Is that normal? Handcuffs? Whips and chains? Sex toys? How about taking Viagra?

    If any of those things also qualify as “abnormal” for you, should we fight against them? Are they bringing down civilization, too, or is it just teh gays?

  9. The Ten Commandments directly prohibit adultery, yet there is no mention of homosexuality. Why not enforce the Ten Commandments then move on to the lesser crimes against God’s will?

    In Jewish philosophy mentioning adultery is mentioning homosexuality because there are no separate categories of people who have a different morality based on sexual desires/orientations. This is actually the correct philosophy, as pro-gay sociologists have published in peer reviewed journals: “Homosexuality is something people do; it is not who they are.” –Pepper Swartz

    I should probably begin every comment having anything to do with this by noting that this is a matter of philosophy which applies to everyone equally and not a matter of defining people by their sexual desires. And in the case of codes of conduct having to do with adultery in the military the same juvenile “no harm” standard could be advanced here. After all, doesn’t Bill Clinton prove that it has nothing to do with being capable of doing a job and so on? So there’s nothing wrong with lines at the bathroom for gay sex at the Pentagon either.

    I would note one irony about this though. People who support Mill’s juvenile and uncivilized philosophy are often the first to have no problem with doing away with basic aspects of liberty like freedom of association due to victimization or mere victimization propaganda. Supposedly they support liberty and yet it seems to be an illusion. And their own liberty will also be done away with. For example, if someone so much as mentions his personal feelings, preferences or who he would not want to associate with others will begin to treat that as the equivalent of “bashing,” i.e. physical violence which must be done away with by law.

    It bears repeating that these are matters of philosophy which apply to all equally, not supposed groups defined solely by sexual desires.

  10. So, mynym, what unassailable truth is YOUR philosophy based on?

    Natural Law and self-evident truths that are evidence in the Self. It’s the same thing that America is based on.

    Note that given the broad scope of history and philosophy in the rest of the world that the tolerance brought about by the Judeo-Christian understanding of natural law is an anomaly. The vast majority of people react mercilessly when it is violated. E.g., the lesbian I cited above talking about necrophilia and the Final Solution. Despite all the victimization propaganda typical to “perverts” that is actually the norm and tolerance of Jews and Christians is anomaly. Despite victimization propaganda in the West the vast majority of the world has always reacted without mercy to violations of natural law, most of it still does. And politically, given the focus of Communists on the general welfare or the National Socialists’ penchant for Darwinian creation myths and so on history shows that even socialists often react mercilessly. I suppose that the MTV generation can always imagine that everyone is going to come together to sing “We are the World” with Michael Jackson (who wasn’t a pervert) but that seems unlikely. One can always imagine things about a future without the “intolerance” supposedly typical to Western civilization (and the vast tolerance of Marxists or Islam) but it’s best to remember that tolerance of that sort is imaginary.

  11. Spending this much time thinking about it is abnormal behavior……geezer

    Wrong. Re-read the paragraph in bold in the post above.

    If placing the male sex organ into the rectum of another male is ‘normal,’ why should you object to the description?

    Maybe you should change your handle to Ellsworth Toohey. Your efforts to obfuscate and complicate the obvious, fails.

  12. Spending this much time thinking about it is abnormal behavior.

    In trying to stop people from thinking you’ve just caused everyone with philosophical tendencies to think. You will never stop philosophers by trying to use perversions against them.

    Are they bringing down civilization, too, or is it just teh gays?

    A Sadean sexual ethic undermines civilization by perverting the basic natural categories that it rests on. People who engage in homosexuality are agreeing with the philosophy of Sade, so even if they are good people otherwise it will naturally corrupt them and turn them toward sadism no matter what their sexual desires are.

    E.g.

    …inside the charred King house, investigators found a note Alex had written saying he admired Chavis and wanted to be just like him. “Before I met Rick I was straight but now I am gay,” Alex wrote.
    (The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN) August 26, 2002
    Monday Final Edition
    NEWS; Pg. A4
    HEADLINE: TWO JURIES TO DECIDE IF CHILD MOLESTER, 2 BROTHERS OR ALL 3 KILLED FLA. FATHER
    BYLINE: Bill Kaczor)

    It’s difficult to overcome emotional conditioning in order to actually think about things for yourself, isn’t it? I suppose every image promulgated on TV is true? As Kirk and Madsen suggest the “Everyman” is the best image to combine with victimization propaganda and yet it seems that the philosophy of Sade is still there:

    Most recent violent crimes involving gays and lesbians were committed by other homosexuals…
    ‘We realized that there is a lot of conjugal violence and violence within the gay community.’
    (The Gazette (Montreal)
    April 4, 1996, Thursday.
    News; In Brief; Pg. A3
    Pilot project tracking violence against gays)

    Gays and lesbians are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than anti-gay violence, according to a survey made public yesterday by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.
    (The Gazette (Montreal) October 23, 1996, Wednesday,
    Final Edition. News; Pg. F10 Gay domestic violence; Study
    documents abuse in homosexual relationships
    Byline: Vicki Haddock)

    Battering is also a problem among gay couples: the National Coalition on Domestic Violence estimates that almost one in three same-sex relationships are abusive, seemingly more than among heterosexual couples.
    (Newsweek October 4, 1993 , U.S. Edition Special Report; Pg. 26 Patterns of Abuse
    Byline: By Michele Ingrassia et al.)

    Some people in history have thought that it would be better to have an army of sadists instead of civilized soldiers. Actually, you never answered, isn’t it true that you believe that those who fight for civilization are sadists themselves? That seems to be what the “tea bagging” Left believes about the military. It was interesting how you tried to portray the increasingly sadistic MTV Generation as merely following the orders of the Greatest Generation. Not to mention that your attitude towards those who support civilization philosophically is that they must be “perverts” and so on themselves.

    In some sense we’re all perverts because if our categories are corrupted then it’s impossible to live up to a true version of things. As Jesus said, “You must be born again.” Etc. It seems that most of us are a long way from even beginning to try to get close to the Logos of things.

  13. Rick: I’m not trying to obfuscate anything. I’m asking for the parameters of your definition of “normal.” OK, granted, the first comment was just to tweak you. But the rest are honest questions.

  14. I think gay people are great. Part of what makes life interesting. What exactly is it we fight for? The short answer is always “freedom”. Is freedom a word or a deed, a way of life. So how is it we still have backward people trying to make lessor citizens out of fellow Americans? Rick should do unto himself what he describes others doing to each other.

  15. Mynym: I confess I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you talk about “sadism.” I mean, I know what that is, but I think you’re using it in a wider sense. Illuminate me.

  16. As to the notion that more gays are victims of domestic violence than anti-gay violence: Well, duh. Most murders are domestic cases, too, but it doesn’t stop people from worrying about being assaulted by a stranger with a gun.

  17. Rick has shown that even he realizes the logical inconsistencies in his argument. That is why he refused to answer all these simple questions:

    “on 21 Dec 2010 at 18:08109anon1
    what about sex that cannot end with conception? is that normal? is masturbation normal? is oral sex normal? if so, is it still normal if its two dudes?”

    He only addressed the last half of the last question. His “answer was completely out of context because to answer the last half, the first MUST have been answered as indicated by the clause “if so,…” Why won’t Rick answer these simple questions? I believe it’s because he isn’t willing to say that oral sex is abnormal. He isn’t willing to say that sex between people who can’t conceive is abnormal. He isn’t willing to say that masturbation is abnormal. If he isn’t willing to admit he finds those acts abnormal, then his argument against gay anal sex falls apart. Remember, Rick’s argument that gay sex is abnormal is that it uses the male sex organ for some purpose other than what nature intends, i.e. reproduction.

    So, man up Rick, answer the questions.

    “”on 21 Dec 2010 at 18:08109anon1
    what about sex that cannot end with conception? is that normal? is masturbation normal? is oral sex normal? if so, is it still normal if its two dudes?””

  18. I think gay people are great.

    This is basically all that matters to people who take the provincial liberal view. Perhaps they know a nice person who they think of as gay and therefore everyone should try to change civilization or codes of conduct and so on. But notice how they’ve been conditioned to make a special case in this case that they would not make for any other behavior pattern or desire. “I think fat people are great.” would not be thought to have much to do with the military’s fitness requirements. One wonders if fat people formed organizations and advanced put forth fat soldiers who were victimized by the standard or those who could do the job perfectly well “per se” if people could be conditioned to start talking about how nice their fat friends are any time the standard was debated. In any event, any standard having to do with human behavior patterns can be done away with in this way.

    What exactly is it we fight for? The short answer is always “freedom.”

    Not exactly, that’s what American’s say due to the civilization that they are fighting for.

  19. Good God, man- how many times do I need to answer it?

    The ultimate purpose of the male (and, female) sex organ is propagation; without heterosexual attraction and mating, any species would soon become extinct. Thus, an attraction toward the opposite sex is normal and an attraction toward the same sex is abnormal.

    …what about sex that cannot end with conception?

    What about it? Humans (and other animals) are pre-wired to propagate, whether they can or not.

    … is masturbation normal?

    Yes. The intent of the pleasure, whether a gift of God or nature, is still propagation.

    is oral sex normal?

    Again, yes. For the same reason as above; the intent of the pleasure is propagation, whether propagation occurs, or not.

    if so, is it still normal if its two dudes?””

    No. Because being attracted to the same sex is abnormal. I’m sure gay sex is pleasurable; I don’t deny this. But the whole biological reason for the pleasure isn’t the pleasure itself. The desired end is propagation. Without it, no species could survive.

    Thus, an attraction to the same sex- and homosexual intercourse- is abnormal.

  20. Mynym: I confess I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you talk about “sadism.” I mean, I know what that is, but I think you’re using it in a wider sense.

    A political philosopher once summarized Nazism as: “The practical and violent resistance to transcendence.” I would summarize sadism similarly as: “The practical and violent perversion of civilization.” Hopefully people won’t wait until they’re doing things which aren’t “harmful” per se like writing perverse things on the wall with their own excrement to recognize that things like sanity, sanitation and civilization are a matter of admitting to objective order evident in Nature. Americans should be the first to recognize this due to their philosophical foundation in natural law and not the last due to their decadence, hedonism and rebellion against the Creator.

    This is a matter of philosophy and not sexual desires, let alone supposed categories of people who have their own sexual ethic due to their sexual desires. There is evidence that American civilization is on the decline and this applies to everyone. San Fransisco will be bankrupt and so on first due to their philosophy, not their sexual desires/”orientations.”

  21. Why won’t Rick answer these simple questions?

    Anything directed at the good of a singular marriage between a male and female is as good as the universe of life it often gives birth to. This is why Sade’s view leads him to misanthropy, naturally.

    As long as people are obligated to answer questions, what is wrong with zoophilia per se? Not that it would matter given that according to your philosophy one would also have to demonstrate that a disorder impacts job performance. Why are you talking about what’s right and wrong if it doesn’t matter to you anyway? But given that you’re demanding answers about the sexual ethic of others it would seem that you’re obligated to answer the question. So what is wrong with zoophilia, per se?

  22. animals have been judged incapable of consenting to sex.

    question for you: are you winning or losing this argument against your philosophical strawmen?

  23. As to the notion that more gays are victims of domestic violence than anti-gay violence: Well, duh. Most murders are domestic cases, too, but it doesn’t stop people from worrying about being assaulted by a stranger with a gun.

    Actually most people should not worry about being assaulted by a stranger on a day to day basis and if they did it would be a phobia.

    This is all just a hypothesis but it’s interesting that the propaganda typical to those who have “gender identity disorders” invokes phobias. Psychologists studying it have noted that those with gender identity disorders or “sissy boy syndrome” tend to be prone to phobias when it comes to day to day life. It would seem that they may be projecting their own psychological dynamics in their propaganda, as often happens. And their methods of propaganda are so effective in the West that now even Islamic men who seem to like to think of themselves as masculine above all else often talk about victimization and “Islamophobia.”

  24. animals have been judged incapable of consenting to sex.

    Do we ask their consent to eat them? It would seem that you’re trying to fit your philosophy on this back into the juvenile philosophy of Mill that you seemed to be going by before. I could be wrong.

    question for you: are you winning or losing this argument against your philosophical strawmen?

    Feel free to state your philosophy if I do not understand it. It seemed to me that you were going with the supposedly “harmless” John Stuart Mill, a rather infantile philosopher… although that might be an insult to infants.

    Again, what is wrong with zoophilia per se?

  25. God said I could eat them.

    There’s your problem, you think I’m engaging you in some sort of philosophical debate. I assure you I am not. I deal in terms of real people and common sense. All that crap you post with footnotes and what not…I havent read any of it, I see a block of quoted text and skip over it. Mostly, your posts bore me. sorry.

  26. ..ok, so why does gay sex feel good ( i assume it must) if reproduction isnt possible?

    Because the pleasure is a means to an end, not an end in itself. God or nature made sex pleasurable- desirable- so that the intercourse which leads to propagation would occur. The biological and psychological purpose of the pleasure is propagation, which ensures the survival of the species.

    The pleasure still exists in gay sex; but, the natural purpose has been short-circuited (due most likely to some early psychological event). Same-sex attraction and intercourse is contrary to the natural purpose of the pleasure, i.e., propagation; and is thus unnatural or abnormal behavior.

    While I vehemently oppose the ‘gay movement,’ I harbor no animosity toward gay individuals; I believe that they are the unfortunate victims of a pernicious form of psychosis. But, as I stated earlier, homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal.

  27. I deal in terms of real people and common sense.

    Then it should be obvious to you that homosexuality is abnormal.

    All that crap you post with footnotes and what not…I havent read any of it…

    Is that because you know it all or just that you are so innured to media that you can no longer muster the will to engage in a five minute intellectual effort?

    No wonder BO won.

  28. God said I could eat them.

    Who, the God of the Jews? I thought it was downright sinful for the moral degenerates of the “tea bagging” Left to even mention God, let alone cite Jewish tradition. Did you know that the Nazis were the first to advance anti-vivisection laws for the sake of animals while experimenting on Jews? Why do you suppose that is?

    In any event, apparently you cannot say that bestiality is perverse and yet you know it is.

    There’s your problem, you think I’m engaging you in some sort of philosophical debate. I assure you I am not.

    Not at all, to the extent that you even have a philosophy it is infantile.

    I deal in terms of real people….

    I.e. to the extent that your philosophy isn’t infantile it’s provincial.

    ….and common sense.

    Only common sense in the sense of being provincial and accepting whatever conditioning your culture gives you. It’s little wonder that you’re so easily swayed by the “sissy” propagandists who have shaped your culture.

    All that crap you post with footnotes and what not…I havent read any of it, I see a block of quoted text and skip over it. Mostly, your posts bore me. sorry.

    I’m not trying to interest you. I would rather develop a theory which can be verified by evidence and so on.

  29. actually, you know what, im kinda tired of this thread, peace out guys.

    Later, maybe that fundamentalist I mentioned before was right about making an idol out of knowledge.

  30. But, as I stated earlier, homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal.

    This is actually the way that many psychologists still treat it, despite their general liberalism. In fact, this is the way that everyone here has been treating it as well. I.e. “Why would anyone choose that. It’s so terrible!”

    I was talking to a guy in the military today and essentially he said the same thing, it’s not going to change anything. It may change a few things for Democrats politically though because Americans generally love their civilized military and hate their corrupt politicians.

  31. I guess I have to come back to clear up your misconceptions and assumptions about where I stand.

    “No wonder BO won.”

    I voted for McCain, worked very hard against Obama.

    “I thought it was downright sinful for the moral degenerates of the “tea bagging” Left to even mention God, let alone cite Jewish tradition.”

    I don’t know what the rules are for the Left. I am a Christian Conservative Republican.

    “It’s little wonder that you’re so easily swayed by the “sissy” propagandists who have shaped your culture.”

    Since you obviously know nothing about me, I’m not sure what you think “[my] culture” is.

  32. Our culture is being destroyed, brick by brick, and you idiots cheer. Just remember, at some point you may go too far. Worse yet, you may succeed.

  33. By “you idiots” you mean me, a Christian Conservative Republican?

    I gave a reason zoophilia was wrong, you just didnt like my answer and i dont care whether or not you accept it.

  34. Not at all, it’s not a matter of personal preference or what I like or do not like. We slaughter animals, we eat animals, we herd animals, we experiment on animals and even make them do little dances in circuses all without their consent. Yet here you are saying that the reason that sex with animals is immoral is not that it is perverse but because they cannot consent? You seem to be willing to make yourself into the material of satire.

    The insanity that you’ve been conditioned to promote might actually make you insane if you did not try to reject philosophy and actually allowed yourself to think. An example of someone who did try to rebel against natural law while still thinking philosophically might be instructive, although you will not understand why:

    As the correspondence of his last period reveals, he imagined himself to be either the God Dionysos or the Crucified. In this latter role he caused a public—and in reality humanely beautiful—scandal, which led to his transfer to the asylum for nervous diseases in Turin:
    Nietzsche interfered in Turin with a cab driver who was mistreating his horse, as so often happens in Italy. Nietzsche embraced the horse’s neck and prayed that it be beatified in the name of God. Then he collapsed.
    (Nietzsche and After
    by Robert Rie
    Journal of the History of Ideas,
    Vol. 13, No. 3. (Jun., 1952) :366)

  35. By “you idiots” you mean me, a Christian Conservative Republican?

    I mean any of the ‘moderates’ on this blog who don’t have the common sense or the guts to stand-up for their own culture, those who, under the guise of ‘cooperation’ or ‘comity,’ tacitly assist the destroyers of their own history and destiny. If that’s not ‘idiotic,’ I don’t know what is.

  36. ” Yet here you are saying that the reason that sex with animals is immoral is not that it is perverse but because they cannot consent? ”

    Actually, I’m saying it is perverse because they cannot consent. You asked why it was wrong. I gave you a reason. My answer says exactly the same thing as saying “it’s perverse” except it is more precise. “Why is X wrong?” “Because X is perverse.” Ok….you didn’t tell me anything….

  37. Actually, I’m saying it is perverse because they cannot consent.

    Which is totally irrelevant given the context of civilization and the distinction between human and animal that it rests on.

    I’d hate to know what you’d say about the mythological Nephilim who perverted the categories of angel and human. Not to mention modernized myths about visitors and aliens with their anal probes and so on. I suppose it could give one a whole new perspective on the animal rights movement if it were true that a different category of beings wanted to treat us as we treat animals, eh? But I guess as a Christian you know all about the Lamb of God and things of that sort.

    My answer says exactly the same thing as saying “it’s perverse” except it is more precise.

    No it doesn’t say the exact same thing, although it’s good that you want it to. It doesn’t because you are making objective order and reality based on basic natural categories that civilization rests on into a subjective matter of the will. That is why you are one step away from a rebellious pervert proving that an animal consents and supposedly doing away with your reason that it is perverse. As a Christian, it would seem that you already know God’s position on basic natural categories vs. the will.

    On another note, if zoophiles weren’t an even more vanishingly small minority than homophiles in American civilization then you wouldn’t be able to invoke “common sense” in these matters. Note that I’m not saying that all perversions are morally equivalent, it’s just an example of natural law. Another example, I debated a gay activist for a while and it turned out that he had been what we would think of as “abused” as a teenager. Yet he said that it wasn’t abuse and was not perverse. So even if you invoke basic natural distinctions typical to civilization like child and adult to say that children can never consent he maintained in retrospect as an adult that he did consent. What would you say about his position given that your philosophy on perversion seems to be based on the totally subjective notion of consent? Another example is David Epstein, apparently a “tea bagging” Leftist and moral degenerate who had a consensual relationship with his daughter. According to your Millian philosophy of “no harm per se” consent and so on is what he did perverse?

  38. I still wonder why you’re talking about whether or not things are right or wrong. You’ve already said that it’s irrelevant to doing the job so apparently the military doesn’t need any civilized codes of conduct. Given that philosophy they should change their standards on adultery and allow zoophiles if American civilization ever degenerates to that point. After all, according to you what is viewed as order and disorder or right and wrong does not effect their job per se.

  39. I feel the same way about you:

    The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.
    And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. …. As it happens, the AIDS epidemic-ever a curse and a boon for the gay movement-provides ample opportunity to emphasize the civil rights/discrimination side of things, but unfortunately it also permits our enemies to draw attention to gay sex habits that provoke public revulsion.
    (After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen :178)

    Ever a curse and yet a boon because even when people wind up dead at least a Gay© philosophy of hedonism is advanced. There has always been a stygian stench surrounding some philosophies, as a Greek philosopher said: “…Hades is the same as Dionysus, in whose honour they go mad and rave.”

  40. Why are smokers, helmetless motorcycle riders and conservatives continually abused by the media, but men who have anal sex with each other, frequently with a high number of partners, who suffer the highest incidence of AIDS, and who, in the cases of ac/dc homos, can spread the deadly virus to unwitting heterosexual women, why is their lifestyle celebrated by the left?

    AIDS is murder.

Comments are closed.