Is there a Republican leader who is not a faggot?
WARNING: THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE MORALITY OF REPUBLICAN LEADERS. PLEASE DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY DISCUSSIONS OF SEXUAL PERVERSITY.
Yet another Republican has been outed as a sexual pervert. St. Bernard Parish (Louisiana) Councilman Joey DiFatta was involved in two instances of sexual misconduct in men’s restrooms. Read the linked article if you wish to see the seedy details.
Just one more sexual pervert to add to the growing roll of Republican sodomites. So far the list includes Senator Larry Craig (Idaho), Congressman Mark Foley (Florida), Congressman David Dreier (Orange County, California), Congressman Ed Schrock (Virginia), and Republican shill Ted Haggard.
There are many more that have not been outed yet. A friend of mine who was an intern for an Orange County, California Republican Congressmen told me that his boss was known by all in the office as a sodomite. And insiders in the District of Corruption say it is a commonplace that many of our great Republican leaders have a thing for perverted sex.
As for those Republican leaders who are not themselves sodomites (seemingly few), many are advocates of legitimizing homosexuality. Take the top Republican contenders for President.
The Republican Contenders
While the leading Republican contenders try to sell themselves as strong on “social issues,” their track record reveals something different.
The cross-dressing ex-Mayor of New York has made it clear that he supports the sodomite agenda. Consider the following.
- In a 1999 Interview with CNN’s Inside Politics, then-mayor Giuliani said, “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro–gay rights.”
- Rudy Giuliani extended New York City partner benefits to same sex couples in 1998.
- He was one of the first New York State Republicans to support a statewide Hate Crimes Bill that included sexual orientation.
Mitt the Mormon is also a supporter of sodomite marriage. In a letter to Log Cabin Republicans, the Mormon wrote,
I am not unaware of my opponents [sic] considerable record in the area of civil rights… For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.
Mitt has made it clear that his Mormonic theology has room for not only celestial marriage, but terrestrial sodomy as well.
John McCain says he is against sodomite marriage, but he also adds that homosexuality is neither a sin nor a defect. And just to make himself clear, McCain has stated,
I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people [who] have relationships can enter into.
In other words, while he is against domestic partnerships for homosexuals, he is also in favor of them, just as long as they are not called “domestic partnerships” or “marriages.”
I don’t know where the Fred the Actor stands on sodomy. My guess is that he will speak vaguely against it during the primaries and do an about face if he wins the race.
There is, of course, nothing here that is surprising. What is surprising (though becoming less so) is that there are Christian incrementalists who are actively endorsing these candidates. Their reasoning goes something like this: “yes, candidate x is pro-sodomite, but at least he has vowed to nuke Arabs and Iranians.” The only problem with this reasoning (assuming you think it is a good thing to nuke Arabs and Iranians) is that Hillary has made the same vow. Oh well, nobody ever said that incrementalists were good reasoners.
(To be fair, the incrementalists also use the Supreme Court nominee issue. I will refute this argument in an upcoming post.)
Is Bush a sodomite?
That Bush is pro-sodomy can be easily demonstrated. I will do so presently. But the bigger question is whether the C-in-C (as he likes others to refer to him) is himself a sodomite. Consider the following.
Bush was a cheerleader at Andover and roomed with his fellow cheerleader and Skull and Bonesman, Victor Ashe, at Yale. Ashe, a known sodomite, was the mayor of Nashville, Tennessee until he was appointed by Bush to be Ambassador to Poland in 2004. Bush traveled with Ashe on a seven city tour during the latter’s unsuccessful bid for the Senate in 1984 even though Bush was relatively unknown at the time.
Rooming with a fellow cheerleader who is a known homosexual and joining a secret society together that is known for its sexual perversity is odd behavior for a normal man. But according to Leola McConnell, a dominatrix who ran for governor of Nevada, Bush is not a normal man. McConnell claims that she witnessed Bush and Ashe engage in homosexual activity.
Perhaps McConnell was just out for publicity. But then again, perhaps not. Consider the case of James Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon. Guckert/Gannon posed as a reporter for Talon News and received a coveted White House press pass. After asking a number of soft-ball questions to Bush, bloggers (not the main stream media) discovered that he worked for a sodomite escort service.
The media controversy that ensued revolved around how a male prostitute with no journalistic credentials was able to get secret security clearance for the White House press room. But the bigger scandal is less known. House Democrats obtained the Secret Service log and discovered about forty discrepancies.
Gluckert/Gannon signed in 32 times on days there were no briefings or returned later in a day after a briefing. There are also twelve occasions when he checked in but did not check out. Apparently he spent the whole night in the White House each time. Just think of it. A sodomite hooker posing as a reporter stays over night at the White House on twelve different occasions and on each occasion Bush was also staying in the White House.
It gets weirder. There are several photos of Bush kissing Gluckert/Gannon on his bald head. See here and here. What kind of a man kisses another man’s bald head? Gluckert’s/Gannon’s hooker name was “Bulldog”. This is the same pet name that Bush calls Victor Ashe.
(George Walker is not the only Bush to have male escorts in the White House. In 1989 The Washington Times reported that male prostitutes had a midnight tour of the White House.)
Bush has also made a number of remarks that no normal male would utter. Here is just one example. In 2004, Bush approached Scott Reid, an aid of Canada’s Prime Minister Paul Martin, and said to him with a coy smile, “well, you got a pretty face.” He then said it again. “You got a pretty face. You’re a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott [Scott McClellan] anyway.”
All of this circumstantial evidence may shed light on why Laura Bush told a crude joke during the 2005 White House Correspondents’ dinner about her husband trying to milk a male horse.
There is a good deal of evidence to suspect that Bush is a sodomite. But while we cannot say he is for certain, we do know that his ostensive policy of being against homosexuality is a farce. Here is just one example of his real stand of the issue.
In 2006, Bush appointed Mark Dybul to be the US Global Aids Coordinator. When Dybul was sworn into office, he took his oath of office on a Bible held by his “domestic partner,” Jason Claire. Condi Rice presided at the ceremony and called Claire’s mother, who was standing by watching, Dybul’s mother-in-law. All the while Bush’s wife Laura looked on with a smirk of satisfaction. See a photo of the ceremony here.
Conclusion
No doubt there are some Republican leaders who are not faggots. But with so many being “outed,” one begins to wonder.
And whether they are faggots or not, many Republican leaders think that sodomy is a legitimate practice. This is why the only time sodomy becomes an issue with them is when they want to gin up support from their conservative Christian base.
And their base is easily ginned up. Committed to playing the role of perpetual sucker, Republican Christians will line up at the polls to elect one of the pro-sodomite candidates. If the Republicans win the general election, they will congratulate themselves that they avoided the disaster of having Hillary as the next President.
The Republican leaders will also congratulate themselves. Once again they were able to fool gullible Christians into electing another pervert to the White House.
“Their reasoning goes something like this: “yes, candidate x is pro-sodomite, but at least he has vowed to nuke Arabs and Iranians.””
You forgot to mention ole Ron Paul. I was informed by several individuals that he is pro-sodemite. Paul has apparently said that he doesn’t believe sodomy is a sin.
Comment by BillyJoeJimBob IV — October 13, 2007 @ 9:37 am
He hedges on whether it is a sin but that’s a little different than being “pro-sodomite.”
Comment by TJH — October 13, 2007 @ 10:19 am
I’m thinkin, with the Republicans mostly fags and the Democrats fag-lovers, I don’t know why they don’t get along better together.
Or maybe they do.
Comment by Candyman — October 13, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
“Is there a Republican leader who is not a faggot?” Are there any politicians in either party that aren’t closet Muslims? I doubt it.
Comment by jk — October 16, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
As a theonomist, MRB, do you happen to have at least two independant lines of testimony to back up your charges against Craig?
Comment by Fred Phelps — October 16, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
Fred — I’m not MRB, but I’m going to guess:
(1) the cop that busted him.
(2) his own guilty-plea.
Comment by Candyman — October 17, 2007 @ 12:30 am
Uno Mas: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071013/GPG0101/710130528/1207/GPGnews
At least the Papists can blame it on their doctrine of clerical celibacy. Those of the Republican party faith have no such alibi for their priests.
Comment by DPW — October 17, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
OK, OK everybody. Given the level of police abuse (by police, not of police)currently going on, does the policeman’s word count as a “witness”? Certainly he’s an interested party to the whole thing. Sitting around all day in less than pleasant circumstances, trying to catch evil men. An innocent bystander would be a better witness. Or even an innocent person who was “solicited”. As for Witness #2 “his own guilty plea”–it was for “disorderly conduct” not what everybody says. The media combines the alleged charges with the words “guilty plea” and dupes over half the populace. “I am guilty of the alleged charges”. Whether or not the guy is guilty or not is unknown. He says No. God knows. At this point no one has the information needed to find him guilty in a court of law. I heard snippets of the arresting officer speaking to Craig. The policeman sounded like a 30 year old jerk and Craig sounded like a decent guy who was entrapped. I don’t know his personal life, I just think we should be more careful of his reputation. I know I (were I a guy) wouldn’t want to be treated as he was.
Comment by ElizaF — October 17, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
I believe that he:
1) pled guilty to a crime, that was
2) committed in a men’s bathroom involving another man, and which (the crime) was
3) “sexual in nature.”
I’m not sure how to string those three things together in such a way that avoids queer behavior.
Comment by Joshua — October 17, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Joshua and Candyman,
The crime he pled quilty to was not “sexual in nature.” He was trying to avoid having any “queer” connotations attached to him, so why plead guilty to a crime that implied he was engaged in some kind of sexual activity? Now, he may very well be guilty, but can accusations be leveled against him if we assume Christian presuppositions regarding making public charges?
Furthermore, the cop’s testimony was that he did some things indicative of what someone looking for gay sex would do. That’s not necessarily “testimony” that he *did* commit said crimes. It was an admitted conclusion drawn from a profile.
Comment by Fred Phelps — October 17, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Why would Greig plead guilty to “disorderly conduct” if he did nothing wrong as he suggests? Is taking a leak “with a wide stance” and picking up a piece of toilet paper on the floor or on the floor of your neighbors stall a crime? What a kind and conscientious politician, picking up toilet paper from the floor of a public restroom. Moreover if he picked up the toilet paper with one hand while taking care of business with the other all the while maintaining the “wide stance” then I would add that he is quite the acrobatic politician as well.
On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on suspicion of lewd conduct.[36] The nature of the alleged activity has been categorized by some as cottaging.[37] According to the police report, the police officer sat in a bathroom stall as part of an undercover operation investigating complaints of sexual activity in the restroom. After about 13 minutes of sitting in the stall, the police officer observed Craig lingering outside and frequently peeking through the crack of the door on the stall. Craig then entered the stall to the left of the officer’s stall. The police officer made the following observations, which he recorded in his report of the incident, as to what happened next:
At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. … The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward.[36]
According to the incident report and criminal complaint filed in court,[38][39][40] the officer showed Craig his police identification beneath the partition separating their stalls, and the officer then pointed his finger towards the restroom exit. Craig initially said no, but he ultimately complied with the officer’s request to leave the restroom. After Craig and the officer left the restroom, Craig was reluctant to go with the officer and demanded the officer to show his police identification a second time. Once the officer complied with the request, Craig, the arresting officer and a police detective, who was stationed outside of the restroom, went to the airport police station.[36]
After the arresting officer read to Craig his Miranda rights, the officer interviewed Craig about the restroom incident. At one point, Craig handed his business card to the arresting officer, which identified him as a U.S. Senator, and said to him, “What do you think about that?”[36] Craig told the officer that he was worried about missing his flight, and the arresting officer asked the police detective to call the airline to hold the flight. The detective reported that no one answered the telephone for the airline, and the arresting officer proceeded with the interview.
Craig explained the movement of his foot by saying that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched [the foot of the arresting officer]. When the officer asked Craig about the use of his hands, Craig said that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor. The officer disputed Craig’s version by saying “there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper.” Craig also disputed the officer’s assertion about the position of his hand, claiming that his right palm was faced down as he picked up the paper from the floor. The officer disputed Craig’s version, alleging that Craig used his left hand because his thumb “was positioned in a faceward motion.” During the interview and in the incident report, the officer commented that Craig either disagreed with what happened in the restroom or could not recall the events as they happened.[36]
Craig returned to the airport on June 22 to complain about how he had been treated by the police. According to the police report about Craig’s return, Craig said he wanted information for his lawyer.[41]
Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct by signing and mailing a plea petition, dated August 1, 2007, to the District Court in Hennepin County, Minnesota.[42][43] He paid $575, including fines and fees. Senator Craig signed the petition to enter his guilty plea, which contained the provisions “I understand that the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent,” and “I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty.” Craig mailed his signed petition to the court, and his petition to plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge was accepted and filed by the court on August 8, 2007.[42]
Comment by BillyJoeJimBob IV — October 17, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Tuff luck for the “picks up toilet paper from the floor of the public restroom while maintaining the wide stance senator”. Imagine of all the public restrooms in the world he just happens to pull his conscientious acrobatic stunt in one known for gay sex activity, in a stall right next to an undercover po po that Creig apparently looked at for awhile through the crack of the door before selecting the empty stall next to him. I don’t know about you guys but I never take a closed door in a public restroom to be a sign that it’s occupied; I generally always peer through the cracks for a while just to make sure before going to the opened stall immediately next to it.
Comment by BillyJoeJimBob IV — October 17, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Mr. Phelps,
Do we really need to debate whether Craig is a perv.? He goes to a known hang-out for fag sex. He scopes out an occupied stall and enters the one next to it. He then proceeds to do the typical fag pick up routine. The cop busts him and he pleads guilty to disorderly conduct.
This incident is not the first for Craig. The Idaho Statesman recently ran an article in which three other men said that Craig either had sex with them or that he tried to pick them up.
It is one thing to think the best of people and attempt to preserve their reputations, its another thing to be gullible.
The surprising thing about the responses to my post is that nobody has said a word in defense of Bush. I thought the Bush cult would be all over me. But then again, since the Bush cultists now seem to be backing the cross-dresser, I probably shouldn’t be so surprised.
Eliza,
The problem with your response is that you are not a guy. Normal men do not behave the way Craig did. Ask your husband what he would think of a man who taped his foot and reached under his stall while in a public facility.
Men don’t talk to other men (strangers or friends) in public restrooms. In fact, men don’t even make intentional eye contact. It violates the code. If someone violates the code, let alone makes physical contact, most men would conclude that the culprit was a perv. And in saner days the culprit would get a bloody nose for his indiscretion. Today they are elected to congress as Republicans.
DPW,
You can also add Ken Mehlman to the list. Mehlman was the Chairman of the Republican Party. No points for guessing which President chose him for this position.
Comment by MRB — October 18, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Michael, an excellent post, as always. One thing I would love to read your take on: Why is David Bahnsen, the son of your mentor, the late apologetic and theonomic genius Greg Bahnsen, promoting a pro-abortion, pro-faggot, pro-war immoral piece of human garbage like Rudy Giuliani? He brags on his blog about it, for crying out loud! Where did the father fail to educate the son?
Comment by Andrew Taylor — October 18, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
BillyJoeJimBob IV (a.k.a Josh),
Your comment regarding Ron Paul, shows the same mistake that you always seem to do with the majority of your comments; not looking into the facts. You have to use reasoning and search for the Truth (Evidence my friend). Also you should look into your sources a little better before stating what they say to be fact. Just because someone has posted something on a website or told you something that sounds convincing, is no reason to lay aside all common sense and look into the details for evidence.
Ron Paul is opposed to Sodomy and Sodomites as well. A video here will help straighten out your view of him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
Comment by MJM — October 18, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
All I can say BillyJoeJimBobIV, is that the people that you heard Ron Paul is pro-sodomy from, must be as shallow and gullible as you. Terrible things have been started by gossips like yourself, who, with no foundation, go accusing people of anything reprobate they think they can get to stick. The slander you have brought against Dr. Paul is founded on nothing more than what is called heresay. You are starting to sound like a regular neo-conservative Republican wanting to give the government the power to dictate what people can and can’t do with their lives. You might like that BillyJoeJimBobIV, but I’m fed up with it myself. Am in favor of homosexuality? NO! But we should take our marching orders from the Bible; not be forced into it by our inconsistent Federal Government. Do you think it is right that homosexuality be outlawed while our babies are being aborted left and right? There’s you a crime! Murder! Howl about that if you will! Perhaps you ought to look up John Stuart Mill’s “Harm Principle” which has been adhered to by lovers of freedom for years.
What Dr. Paul said is that our military has set up brothels on our military bases for our heterosexual men and provided them with prostitues. He believes that this is disgraceful and doesn’t see it as a one sided issue. He believes that women in our military are one of our biggest problems-”I think that one of our biggest problems we’re facing right now is young women in our military. Then we end up with pregnancies in the military and I see that as a heterosexual problem and I’ll bet you that is financially as big a problem as any homosexual problems that we have”. That was a direct quote from him-something a little more substantial that the flaky evidence you presented. I trust nobody will believe this warmonger, and do the research for themselves. I’m sure that all of the regulars will because they have seen enough of his posts to know him for the blundering, rambling nincompoop that he is. This is more for the sake of the newcomers and to keep a good man’s name from getting drug through the mud.
Another direct quote from Dr. Paul when posed with the question why shouldn’t we keep out fornicators, homosexuals, adulterers or contained a character flaw: “Looking at it in protecting the military, if they’re going to perform their services and they’re imperfect, we’re all imperfect because we all sin–If the heterosexual or homosexual sins, to me it is a category dealing with our own soul. Since we can’t have only perfect people going into the military, I want to seperate the two because I don’t want to know the heterosexual flaws nor the homosexual flaws…”
Hello!! If we so much as look in a direction lustfully we’re guilty of the very act!!! We’d have a mighty small military if we went by that!
If it’s possible for you BJJBIV; try to get your information from a reliable source, don’t exhibit your stupidity for the world to see and stop debasing the only honest presidential candidate God has seen fit to give us!!!
Comment by Sandy — October 18, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
All-
Please moderate the tone of the comments.
Comment by MRB — October 18, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
One tear runs down the check of BillyJoeJimBob IV’s as he reads the comments of those bashing him, accusing him of being irrational, a neo-conservative, a slanderer, shallow and gullible, a warmonger, stupid and my personal favorite a blundering rambling nincompoop (Sandy you get points for style). And what has provoked such hatred and name calling? None other than my comment that several sources have informed me that Paul apparently said that he doesn’t believe homosexuality is a sin. Has Paul said that he doesn’t believe sodomy is a sin? Well Paul seemingly believes that his almighty medical training trumps the bible on the matter of homosexuality. He further states that he has trouble believing that God says it’s a sin, after all “We are all God’s children right?” The interview is public record. Either one believes homosexuality is or isn’t a sin. If it’s not a sin or if you have trouble believing that God says it’s a sin then you’re certainly not on solid ground being against it especially if you claim to adhere to God and His word. I certainly am not going to respond with mane calling and the like I will however say that those who have a strong emotional attachment to certain politicians and firmly believe that they will bring blessing and restore truth and order to this country, then by all means reflect that in your demeanor. Although Paul has said what he has said regarding homosexuality, even if I was misinformed after all I merely said that he apparently said such and such, then be a light and gently direct BiilyBob to other sources that would say otherwise. With your tactic you will only draw others away from your cause. MJM thanks for providing me with a source I will gladly look into it. And MJM I’m a.k.a Billy or Joe or Jim or Bob for sort not Josh and don’t feel the need to call me Mr. BillyJoeJimBob that’s my dad’s name.
Comment by BillyJoeJimBob IV — October 20, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Moreover how one could deduce from my comment regarding Ron’s view on homosexuality that I’m a warmongering, neoconcervative so on and so forth is beyond me.
Comment by BillyJoeJimBob IV — October 20, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
If you want to debate the Ron Paul issue, then debate it. Most of the last few comments are filled with little that advance either side of the argument. If the commentators have personal scores to settle with each other, do so at another venue.
As it stands, the substance of the debate blurs over the distinction between saying sodomy is not a sin and actively endorsing a pro-sodomy agenda.
Comment by MRB — October 20, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Regarding the debate you mention. My initial comment regarding Paul’s view and my statement about him being pro-sodomy wasn’t intended to mean that he has a pro-gay agenda so to speak. It was loosely meant to suggest that since he doesn’t understand homosexuality to be sin then he couldn’t be against what God considers permissible or natural in which case he would fall into the other camp. It seemed as though other commentators were suggesting that he is against homosexuality. I don’t see this on the basis of Ron’s statements. In one of my latest comments I said “If it’s not a sin or if you have trouble believing that God says it’s a sin then you’re certainly not on solid ground being against it especially if you claim to adhere to God and His word.” I felt that Tim in the second comment understood my usage of the term which is why he responded that there is a little difference. What will be the outcome of one who doesn’t believe sodomy is a sin, of a leader who is ashamed to speak the truth on such a basic matter? At what level does the word of God really inform his ideas and policy?
Comment by BillyJoeJimBob IV — October 20, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
BJJBIV asks, “At what level does the word of God really inform [Ron Paul’s] ideas and policy.” Probably not much. Paul is a Baptist and his interview with John Lofton (linked by TJH @ #2) demonstrates that he’s not a Christian reconstructionist or a theonomist. He’s a laissez-faire libertarian, which is far closer in most areas to CR (Rushdoony told Bill Moyers, “I’m almost a libertarian”) than so-called “conservative Republicanism.” Yes, yes, Ron Paul is not perfect. But why on earth are we splitting hairs here? He’s far better than any other GOP candidate and probably closer to my views than any other presidential candidate in my half-century (save for Patrick J. Buchanan). Go Ron Paul!
Comment by Andrew Taylor — October 20, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
BillyJoeJimBob IV(Jr),
My apologies for seeming harsh in my response (comment 15) to your intial missclaim of Dr. Ron Paul’s stance. Your writing style and comments seemed very reminiscent to that of a friend of mine.
In order to understand Dr. Ron Paul’s stance you have to look closely at his response to the questions.
When asked whether or not he believes Homosexuality to be a sin, he stated that he views it differently than most do, and he understands that the majority of people find the Bible to condemn homosexuality. It is this statement, combined with a understanding of the “old school” psychology view of homosexuality.
The APA (American Psychological Association) used to hold homosexuality to be a treatable mental disorder, wherein the patient suffering from homosexual feelings would be given treatments and receive therapy (much akin to how a pyromaniac, or dare I say… a schizophrenic would be treated). It was understood that the majority of people with homosexual tendencies had similar occurrences in their backgrounds, whether it be AFS, or MBFM.
Dr. Paul was educated briefly on this topic during his studies (and possibly while even in practice), even though he may have never practiced psychology, it was taught in basic curricula around the country in colleges and universities. It was standard textbook teaching on this issue, until the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the APA changed their stance and removed their treatment methods from their books (for largely political and agenda related purposes).
Nevertheless, this view is still held onto today by many Christian Psychologists and counselors. It is believed that a Christian can suffer from homosexual feelings, which (like heterosexual feelings) are not considered a sin unless they are acted upon or influence the persons behavior; changing one’s Heterosexual identity, or acting in a way that draws attention to the disorder. The homosexual is not held to be normal, on the contrary, a person suffering from such tendencies with/or without acting upon them is considered to be mentally unstable and in need of psychological help. In other words a mentally ill/troubled person.
Though I do not fully agree with this position, It must be understood if we are to make sense of Dr. Paul’s stance (”come to terms with the author” -M J Adler)
Now with this view in mind, when one examines Dr. Paul’s response, his position is more clearly understood. Homosexuality in itself (not being acted upon) would not be considered a sin, but a mental disorder. By bringing to light the more prevalent Heterosexual sins that are occurring blatantly in our military Dr. Paul was showing what he considers to be a sin (the immoral action itself, not the tendency). For Dr. Ron Paul, the biggest issue would not be the private who hides his homosexual feelings, but rather the heterosexual who blatantly engages in immorality to the utmost, without any type discipline or correction for the misbehavior. A pressing issue, which has been kept silent and ignored by many, but still demands immediate attention.
Comment by MJM — October 21, 2007 @ 11:59 am
I’m not sure I buy everything MJM just said (even about what he thinks Dr. Paul believes). However, I do think it is important to realize that due to sin some people have conflicted feelings, beliefs, lusts, etc. which are sinful in themselves, but are worse if acted upon. While I wouldn’t necessarily express myself the way Dr. Paul did, neither would I be surprised by a professing Christian so expressing himself, esp. coming to it from a medical perspective.
I am not really sure what the reasoning was behind the original post (by MRB) in the first place. Do we really need a catalog of certain sins of particular lawmakers to the exclusion of other sins of other lawmakers, to say nothing of the particular sins of other people in general? (That is intended to be confusing). Where is the edification in this? To me, the original post has more in common with a Jerry Falwell than a WCF Calvinist.
Comment by ElizaF — October 21, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
As I ponder jk’s comment #4, I think he was too subtle for us at first. I think he is using the “closet muslim” example as a way of asking whether the thesis of this post involves a sweeping generalization.
Comment by Tim H — October 22, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Eliza (#24) -
I thought the purpose of the article would be obvious to most and especially to long time readers of FW such as yourself. It provides one more reason for Christians to abandon the Republican Party.
As my colleague recently wrote:
“Extracting the Republican Party from the Christian Right’s thinking is as urgent as amputating a gangrenous limb. In the political sphere, there is no task more important.”
You ask, “Do we really need a catalog of certain sins of particular lawmakers to the exclusion of other sins of other lawmakers?”
Rather than giving the answer (which I think is obvious), it would perhaps be more fruitful to consider what lies behind your question.
I believe that the differences between men and women is at play here. My wife did not like this post either. To interpret her henid for her, she thought it was too direct, too unvarnished, and too harsh. And she is probably right . . . for ladies. But not for men. I am, thus, sorry that she and Eliza, and any other lady for that matter, read it. Originally the warning at the top read, “Not for the gentler sex.” I probably should have stuck with that.
This is one problem with our blog and the internet in general. It is public and accessible to anyone who wants to read it: man, woman, child. I would not allow my children to read all my posts and not all of them are appropriate for my wife (although I have not forbidden her to read any of them).
Once again, the Godfather may help. Think of the scene in Godfather II when the young Don closes the bathroom door on his wife in order to protect her from the uglier side of life. Michael continues this noble practice. In Godfather III he tells Kay that he spent his life shielding his wife and family from the horrors of the world.
In the future I will place more explicit warnings on material not suitable for women and children. Please take the warnings seriously. And I apologize to all of the ladies for not giving a stronger warning about the nature of the post.
#25 -
Well, if this was the intention of comment #4, I think he is missing the humor.
That aside, a better question would be: Are there any politicians in either party that aren’t closet Jews?
Mr. Taylor #14 -
You will have to direct this one to Dave Bahnsen. Dave is a good kid — loyal, hospitable, generous. Why he holds some of the views he does is a mystery to me.
Comment by MRB — October 22, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
hi MRB,
just saw a blurb that of all places and people Bob Jones Univ. in my beloved SC has endorsed….Mitt and in the text of the story redefine “Cult” so they can fit him in….They don’t like Calvin, but will vote for a Mormon thats it I am done………..
steve hoffmeister
Comment by steve hoffmeister — October 23, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
woe is me i cannot for the life of me find the original article i stated earlier, but here is a good one.
s hofmeister
Comment by steve hoffmeister — October 31, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
Another Republican faggot has been caught. Perhaps “GOP” stand for “gang of perverts.”
Comment by MRB — November 2, 2007 @ 12:09 am
It is amazing how the church has been ethically robbed of her standards. I simply did a short post on the Dybul photo (linked above), showing the silliness and hypocracy of it. Yet some leaders of a conservative reformed church objected to my usage of the word “sodomite” to describe Dybul.
Comment by Joshua — November 27, 2007 @ 9:55 am
While Joshua’s elders debate the weighty and subtle ethical issue of what to call a sodomite, it may be that another Republican faggot has just been exposed. This time its Trent Lott.
According to the article on a DC based blog (which I will not link to): “e-mail and other records confirm that the two [Lott and a “gay” male escort] have met on at least two occasions.”
Comment by MRB — November 27, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
It’s kinda like this. There’s a bunch of guys out there splashing gasoline all around our house, and one of them is poking around in the trunk looking for the box of matches. Someone runs out of the house with a shotgun shouting “get outta here you flamin’ arsonists.” Then the elder arrives and says, “no no no you must call them what they want to be called — ‘deconstruction consultants’ — and take a plate of cookies out to them. If you do that, then maybe next year they will invite you over for tea and ask you to explain the gospel.”
Comment by TJH — November 28, 2007 @ 11:56 am
A federal judge appointed by W resigned his position after he was arrested for drunk driving and crashing into another car. You may or may not hear this on the corporate news. But you probably will not hear what Paul Harvey calls “the rest of the story.”
According to the police report, “[Somma] had a difficult time locating his license in his purse. He passed over it multiple times before removing it.” Yes, that is purse, not wallet. It seems that Mrs. Somma was out of town and so judge Somma (one of W’s conservative appointees) decided to go to a well-known fag bar in New Hampshire.
When police arrived on the scene of the accident they found the drunk Somma in a black cocktail dress, high heals and fishnet stockings. And if you look carefully at Somma’s mug shot (found here), you will also notice that he was wearing blue eye shadow.
It is fitting that Somma was a bankruptcy judge. He is the perfect metaphor for Republican values.
Comment by MRB — February 19, 2008 @ 5:41 pm