‘You are the epitome of everything we talk about’: Pat & Stu talk to a very insightful caller about hypocrisy

On radio this morning, Pat and Stu talked to a fan from Massachusetts named Eric, who spoke candidly about the various hypocrisies he witnesses on a daily basis as both a homosexual and conservative in today’s society. As Pat explained, Eric is the “epitome of everything we talk about every day” because he is “involved in virtually every issue we speak on.” From immigration to freedom of expression, Eric offered fascinating insight into some of the biggest issues facing this nation.

Listen to the call below:

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV
  • Anonymous

    This caller doesn’t sound very conservative when it comes to gay marriage. On the issue of immigration reform, it is entirely impracticable to deport illegal immigrants due to the shear volume and damage to our economy.

  • William Dear

    This person is the epitome of conservatism. He just also happens to be gay.

  • Matthew Sailor-Mann

    It’s not impractical at all. Remove the incentives that brought them here on their own dime and they will leave on their own dime.

  • Anonymous

    Except that he chose to live in a state that allows same-sex marriage and his spouse is a man. That doesn’t sound like a typical conservative.

  • Anonymous

    The incentive usually is that poor people might be able to escape living on a dirt floor in their country and earn a small wage by risking their life being smuggled across the border. We already have laws against illegal labor. How would you remove the incentive of employers that break that law?

  • Humorless

    So now, conservatives are “cool” with gay married conservatives?

  • Michael F

    We put ever incentive against them coming here we morally can, and yet, they still find it better here than Mexico, or Columbia, or wherever. Perhaps we’d be better off just making legal immigration easier, and actually securing the border.

  • Guest

    He doesn’t ‘fit in’ with either side, because he doesn’t fit either side well.
    He is both conservative on some issues and far left on at least one. Seems
    obvious.

  • James Fisher

    Since when does being conservative mean up holding a religious value that he may or may not agree with? The conservative (the real one – not the bible thumper) would recognize that he is FOR freedom for YOU to say just that and doesn’t want to shut you down. He doesn’t align with the left and their communist propaganda. It’s faux conservatives like you that give the entire right and conservative movement a bad name.

    Why should you be able to say who can and cannot be married? I’m all for taking government out of the business of marriage personally but it’ll never happen. See the forest through the trees….

  • Anonymous

    Tried to delete this and put it under the main post, not a reply, it won’t let me after three attempts, so it wins.

  • Matthew Sailor-Mann

    First, enforce the laws in place. Second, remove welfare benefits across the board. Third, include barring any state benefits including tax returns-which yes-they still get. Fourth, remove incentives for employers that makes illegals not worth the risk.

  • JMACZ

    Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to have a Sofia Vegara commercial lead off this piece? She’s very a big lib pro-immigration/citizenship type.

  • Anonymous

    You can’t but what can be done is to punish businesses that are breaking the law. Now we haul off the workers and threaten the business, at the most they are cited with an inconsequential fine.
    Every time I have been hired I have been required to present 3 forms of ID then had to go through E-Verify. The incentive is the jobs, the law breakers are the corporations (who oddly, are pushing for and financing illegal immigration reform) and the secret is that the corporations created and fed illegal immigration to exploit poor foreigners and that the left supports this exploitation so they can further exploit these for votes.

  • Kristine

    A major incentive is for an illegal immigrant to be able to give birth in the US and have the baby become an American citizen. Few countries have this policy, and it is at the root of our complex problem of deportation. Just end it and see what happens.

  • Anonymous

    he sounds more Libertarian than Conservative… conservative on fiscal issues, liberal on social issues… (over-simplified)

    you don’t have to be conservative on both, or liberal on both…

    I think much of the problem with our discourse, is that we don’t distinguish often enough, if we are talking about being conservative fiscally, or conservative socially… and it is possible to hold a position, that matches a liberal outcome, but the reasons why your outcome matches their outcome, to be based on a conservative view, instead of a liberal view.

    Just because one may favor gay people being able to marry, doesn’t make them liberal… if your reason behind it, is based on getting government out of our personal lives and minding its own business… that is a conservative position.

  • Anonymous

    If you are able to rid yourself of the stereotyping mindset, you would realize that there is not a single cookie-cutter shape, size, color, gender, ethnicity, religion, financial situation or sexual preference for all conservatives.

  • Anonymous

    the bible-thumper “conservative” to me, sounds more like a liberal than a conservative… they only disagree about what form of the big, controlling government will end up being. How is that supposed to be conservative?

  • Anonymous

    HEAR HEAR!!! :clap clap clap:

  • Abe Sir Tiddy

    I’m a typical conservative. I really don’t give a rat’s booty about gay marriage myself so please do not speak for me. You know nothing about me or the millions of other so called “typical conservatives” you speak of. You sound like a “poser” – quick to point out what others stereotypical behavior/beliefs are. Speak about yourself, and get rid of that other face. I don’t care what side you are on.

  • Phydeux

    Well, if Hillary and Obama can “evolve” on the gay marriage issue, why not conservatives?

  • Sheriff Matt Dillon

    Conservatives aren’t typical, unlike liberals. I am a bible thumping conservative, BUT I accept this gay man for who he is. His choice hurts no one. The government should not be involved in marriage, that is the only reason we are having this discussion. IF the government wasn’t given special tax breaks to certain married couples it would not be an issue. The Bible is clear, so if he wants to get married in a church I am not sure what Bible he is reading. Given that, if there is a church that wishes to perform such ceremony that’s great.

  • Christopher Midkiff

    I can’t speak for Republican Conservatives. But I can say as a Conservative Libertarian, I have no problem with gays and the question with gay marriage. As a Christian, I feel it’s a sin. But politically I have no authority to deny rights to anyone else. Honestly I don’t believe that any marriage should be “okayed” by any government.

  • E Van

    How about some text/transcript for hearing-impaired?

  • Anonymous

    Quitter!!!! Impractical my foot! The savings over a couple of years in medical, school, off the books money, tac credit savings, EBY savings, welfare , Section 8 housing (and on and on), will more than offset the cost of sending them home.

    We are Americans. We can accomplish anything. Don’t you wish our politicians would remember that?

  • Anonymous

    I agree. Government should not be involved in the gay marriage issue. The Feds are moving that way, and the states are hearing the issue in the court. It’s about time.

  • Michael DeCastro

    Well said Christopher. Thank you.

  • Anonymous

    How do illegals with no social security number pay taxes and get returns? There aren’t enough Federal agents to police all the companies using illegal labor.

  • Anonymous

    IMHO, the government has no business granting “permission” when it comes to marriage… they should only be limited to “recognition” of who is or isn’t married… nothing more… (as there are very valid reasons where the gov’t should recognize when people have joined their households… either through whatever flavor of “marriage” people choose, or contractually… when it comes to who has the right to make decisions for another, like for medical reasons, or property ownership issues…)

  • Anonymous

    For what purpose does Gay marriage exist? Certainly not procreation, unless by design we want to encourage children to grow up without either a father or a mother. There is nothing conservative about that. Maybe the purpose of Gay marriage is to defy God? Nothing conservative in that. There is something demonic though.

  • Anonymous

    You aint no Bible thumper sir, if ou believe that the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual unions in America “hurt(s) no one.” “If theres a church that wishes to perfrom such a ceremony thats great.” Great? Certainly not. Its awful. Any “church” that performs the ritual of joining same sexes together in the name of Yahweh-God, will have to repent or have their lampstand taken away. This is no church in the eyes of God. It defiles his holy name, and encourages the most abominable of sins.

  • Anonymous

    Eric from MA. spoke volumes about hypocrisy. He IS in the current of virtually everything that Conservatives have been trying to point out since 2009. I enjoyed his short time on the air here and wish I was able to speak with him more. Many of those on the right are quite hostile in their response to Obamas crimes and the idiocy of the left. Nearly all of the left wingers are so off the charts on any subject that the thought of speaking with them on a weather topic gives me a headache and will not be attempted without a copious supply of Tums. I would like to hear more from him.

  • Anonymous

    That is between the individual, and whatever deity he or she chooses to worship, if at all, and isn’t any of your business to begin with. THAT, is conservative.

  • Anonymous

    Wrong. Conservatism is a set of principles and beliefs. Its not a matter of opinion concerning what “conservatism” means. It has an established definition in the English language and a definate set of values in American politics. Conservative- to preserve or protect the existing or to restore tradition. The homosexual agenda is antithetical to conservatism. You may choose to stray from the conservative platform on certain issues, but the conservative platform remains. Landree is correct, the homosexual agenda is not a tennant of conservatism. Anyone who harbors such beliefs IS NOT A TYPICAL, TRUE CONSERVATIVE. END OF STORY.

  • E Van

    and therefore the State has no interest in promoting it.

  • Anonymous

    No, it isn’t… that is just the definition of “conservative” you choose to embrace, to the exclusion of the others. You don’t get to decree what being “conservative” means, and you don’t get to own the word, just because you happen to be religious, just like your type try to do with the concept of marriage in itself. “Conservative” and “marriage”, are concepts that do not belong to you. Disagree all you want to, but it isn’t your place to dictate to others what those things mean to them.

  • BMW FXR

    Sign em up with the IRS, let them pay taxes, past/present/future and all penalties/interest/fees that Americans pay. Bet most will leave when they find out what they owe in past taxes and penalties. Let them find out just what it means to be an American and oh yeah….welcome.

  • Anonymous

    Absolutely right on! No person should have to be legitimized by a group of other human beings. The government should not be in the marriage business.

  • Anonymous

    Yep! That a problem for you?

  • Anonymous

    Do we get rid of age restrictions? Is Polygamy OK?

    Both are actually scripturally supported.

  • Anonymous

    The states that have passed marriage laws have done so to “recognize” a specific institution of marriage. It is stated that way in each case. The offer of “civil unions” addressed the legal concerns you mention allowing medical decisions, property inheritance, end of life choices, joint coverage in insurance, and joint responsibility in legal matters to name a few.

  • october

    Thank you!! You nailed it!!

  • Anonymous

    The volume of illegals makes it difficult but not impossible. The economic damage comes from illegals willing to work for much less than minimum wage, making jobs even more scarce for legal Americans. It comes from the benefits they gain without any recompense or history of “putting in” to help balance those benefits. And finally, the harm comes from the using up of resources (that the left claim are becoming more and more scarce everyday), again, with no recompense. Taking them back to Mexico would, if anything, create some fairly long term jobs for law enforcement, transportation, and Border patrol.

  • Tim Peek

    As Christians we can never be “OK” with Homosexuals because it is very harmful for them to continue down that road….if you believe Gods Word. If you don’t care about people then go ahead and condone sinful activity. If someone claims to be a Christian and Gay..then it is our duty to judge them in love. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES……..now….that wont be very popular with Liberals but I didn’t write it nor did I inspire it to be written. They can take that up with the Apostle Paul.

  • Anonymous

    The “coyotes”, or their brethren on this side, supply them with fake soc.sec. numbers that enable them to get refunds. I’m surprised you weren’t aware of that. One of the 60 Minutes type shows had an episode about it a couple of years or so ago. None of this is new stuff and has been going on for decades. By now the illegal facilitators have it down to a science.

  • Anonymous

    That has been the point of many of the anti illegal immigration groups. People coming in are not the problem. The vast uncontrollable numbers, and the criminal element that jumps in along with all the others, have been. Border control is the worst here than anywhere else in the world, with the possible exceptions of Sweden and France. But their problems are of much lesser scale than ours, but much more politically violent than we have at this point.

  • Anonymous

    doesn’t bother me, but I’m not weighted down by some “religious” texts men wrote centuries ago… if people choose to join their households in whatever combinations they wish to (consentually), what business is it of mine? Their family, not mine.

  • Anonymous

    that’s my problem with it tho… as far as the state is concerned, all “marriages” in whatever combination or denomination, should all be “civil unions”… making the distinction just feels too much like “separate but equal” nonsense.

  • Dianne McCaul

    I agree, just not age restrictions. The age of consent is a protection for children who have not yet developed the ability to make an informed decision. Polygamy among consenting adults is not my concern.

  • Anonymous

    Because too many “conservatives” have the warped notion that to be conservative means molding government into a theocracy, in every way but officially calling it one. If a position is contrary to whatever bible they’re thumping, it isn’t conservative, and has to be stopped. Those types actually scare me the most.

  • Anonymous

    He sounds more Libertarian than either Conservative (Republican) or Progressive (Democrat)

  • Anonymous

    No… we really don’t…

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    Hello Smoovious,

    Interesting… if what you wrote is the case, then why do you get to decree what “conservative” and other concepts mean while CapnCrumbles does not? or are you the rightful owner of them?

    If the definition of conservatism is open to individual interpretation, then the word is meaningless. There has to be a fixed definition otherwise there is only confusion.

    ~BTG

    “When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.” ~Confucius

  • Anonymous

    How very unchristian of you…

  • ItalianScallion

    But he is still gay!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    but the age itself is still arbitrary… “ability to make an informed decision” has less to do with how old they are, and more to do with being raised to be an adult in the first place. With children being raised to stay children as long as possible, such a huge number reach the age of consent, and never have developed that ability to make those kinds of decisions…

    I agree there has to be some age set… and I’m fine with the bar being 18, as that is the legal age of majority, where one can legally enter into a contract, and their other ‘adult’ rights become available to them… but if 2 17-yr olds want to marry, emancipate, and their parents consent, I find no problem with that too…

  • AZ BOB

    It our favorite Congress that started this. They set the policy’s and tax laws.
    A married Couple have tax advantages and Legal rights such as hospital visitations, SS Benefits ,etc. The Democrats have not allowed Civil Unions the same benefits federal or State. So the Gay movement quoting equality in rights (supported by the party who denies them) pushed for legal marriage over civil unions. “Stupid is as Stupid does”

  • Dianne McCaul

    Agreed. :D

  • Anonymous

    I would say that non-liberals for the most part don’t give a rat’s about somebody’s sexual orientation. Liberals would love to lay claim to being the only ones accepting Gay rights and tend to focus on the most radical of Conservatives to make moot points. How about we start using Sheila Jackson Lee as the standard of the Democrat Party and an example of the other 14 Black Women in Congress? Would that be fair? I think not, Lee is a nut bag. I am still looking for an open minded Liberal, Liberals are great for free speech and acceptance as long as it follows their guidelines and feelings.

  • Lizz

    I disagree. Christian conservatives are not trying to make this country a theocracy–but they are trying to be able to live and talk about their religion in public, without having to hide it. They also want to see the principles of their religion–protection of life and family, to name a two–reflected in the way the government is run. You, too, have principles that you want reflected in the government, namely that of freedom. You just have different principles than Christian conservatives do.

  • Anonymous

    Girls are “good to go” when they start their periods. God made them able to bear a child,,,good enough for me. After all, that is the purpose of marriage.

  • Anonymous

    See my post from above.

  • Abe Sir Tiddy

    The main problem today is everything to people like you is black and white. And then you propose that there is some wall with the rules and regulations that members of the club have to adhere to to be considered a part. I have to burst your bubble, but there is no such wall. There is no such centralization in person or on paper that states what you state or anything else that every single conservative will agree on. I see homosexuality as a religious issue, not a political issue. I really have not seen any proof otherwise.

  • Dianne McCaul

    My daughter was menstruating at 12. That to you is “good to go”? You are a sick individual.

  • Anonymous

    The term of ‘conservative’ I use, is a more generic form of the word, with no attachment at all to people’s religious doctrines… (along with the lines of what a “conservative estimate” is)

    The word means different things to different people, with what their idea of what being conservative is, but when someone is trying to bash other people over the head with their bibles, and calling it conservatism, I have a problem with that… because that seems more like the actions of a liberal to me, instead of what conservatism is supposed to be about when it comes to our government.

  • Anonymous

    so what?

  • Christopher Midkiff

    Tell me where I mentioned age. Or polygamy for that matter. If you seek to “destroy” my comment, at least stick to the outline at hand.

  • Anonymous

    actually, a married couple’s “tax advantages” aren’t so clear… as many couples find it makes more financial sense to live together unmarried, to avoid the “tax penalty”… tho I have to admit, it has been a long time since I was as well versed on the specifics of that math, tho I still have friends who won’t marry because of it, feeling like it is better to have that amount of money still available for their kids instead of it being taxed away.

    Otherwise, I seem to be in agreement with you. The Democrats seem to be willing to do only just enough to keep shaking the carrot on the stick to keep their constituency voting for them, without any real drive to do it proper.

  • Anonymous

    um… from the way the site changed how down-voting works, “above” isn’t necessarily above anymore… :( (wish we could still see downvotes)

  • Anonymous

    Rather take it up with God. All scripture is God breathed.

  • Anonymous

    I have no problem with them talking about it, and not having to hide it… that isn’t the issue…

    It is when it comes to _legislating_ it, that is a whole different thing. When you legislate it, it forces people to conform or be punished for it… and then, we’re not talking about freedom of expression anymore, we’re talking tyranny. That is not “conservative”… that is liberalism/progressivism with a different face/flavor.

    I do have principles that I use to choose which way I want government to run also… and those are all about the government staying out of your business, and out of my business, and sticking with doing what our ancestors formed that government to do in the first place. No more, no less. Your life is yours to live how you see fit, and I have no right to tell you how to live your life. My life is mine to live how I see fit, and you have no right to tell me how to live my life.

    As for “Christian conservatives”… don’t delude yourself into thinking that they all think the way you think they do.

  • Anonymous

    I completely agree, about homosexuality not being a political issue… it is all about the religious views, that all of the opposition to it, is all about.

  • TrakterFickser

    That used to be the incentive, if the 20′s and 30′s. Now the incentive is tax free welfare based upon the number of U.S. born babies (most of whom take up a life of crime). Pair that with socialized and subsidized health care, THEY DON’T WANT TO WORK!! Wake up liberal.

  • Anonymous

    So your daughter became a young woman at age 12. Just clarifying. And of course waiting your your sociological and moralistic gymnastic act to follow.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    you are right. my wife and I filed “married filing separately” because the level we would have been taxed at filing jointly, was much higher. In addition, my wife is responsible for many of the federal tax liabilities placed on me, because she is my spouse.

    marriage has always had a historically religious connection, especially in the US, and it has been the intervention and infiltration by the government, that has created these problems.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

    The government should stay out of marriage; no “benefits”, penalties, or otherwise. Allow each individual to designate another person who can act on their behalf and visit them in the hospital, etcetra (which can be done through current legal mechanisms, such as power of attorney and healthcare proxy).

  • Anonymous

    set your “sort by” setting to oldest or newest, instead of best.

  • Dianne McCaul

    Sure, how about scientific journals on brain development and decision making? Two adults making a decision is one thing, someone taking advantage of a child is something else.

  • Anonymous

    they get fake SS numbers (usually copies of a real person’s, or a dead person’s). the IRS doesn’t have a check in place for redundant SS numbers.

  • Anonymous

    I think part of the problem also was when the bulk of those tax laws were implemented, your typical family was single-breadwinner with the other spouse not ‘working’ and tending to the home full time.

    Today, that is more of your atypical family, and I don’t really know anyone who is married today, who can afford to raise a family on a single income anymore.

    Raising minimum wages isn’t going to solve things, when the problem driving prices up and reducing the family’s net pay is all about the taxes upon taxes upon taxes at every point in the economy.

    Unfortunately, it all still seems to come down to gov’t making things worse for us, while they keep trying to blame the companies. The companies are just trying to do the best they can to survive… particularly the small-to-midsize businesses who feel forced to close when they just can’t keep up with it all anymore. At some point, it is just no longer worth it to keep dealing with such a massive regulatory and tax nightmare, for ever-dwindling gains… can’t really blame em either. :(

  • Anonymous

    I would, but I just don’t really feel like chasing down a reply the author didn’t care enough about to reply directly. :)

  • Jeff Noncent

    let me put this this way we’re done in these country, we’re done

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    my kingdom for a gay conservative. they’ll rule the world, look sharp and tidy up along the way.

  • Anonymous

    “Honestly I don’t believe that any marriage should be “okayed” by any government.” I believe that “any marriage” does include polygamy which is not “okayed” by government and age restrictions are enforced by government. You seem to be in favor of some restrictions but draw your own line contrary to your blanket statement of “any marriage” should be allowed.

  • Anonymous

    Where do you get your information about illegal immigrants and their kids not wanting to work? I’ve lived in a Latino populated blue collar area and that’s sure not what I experienced.

  • Anonymous

    Face it, immigration reform will happen. Republicans and conservatives know it.

  • Anonymous

    could you be less ambiguous?

  • Anonymous

    You miss his point… his point is, that he doesn’t believe government should be in the position of saying who can or can’t marry, in the first place… which it currently is in the position. People should be able to marry who they want to marry, without any interference from any gov’t of any kind… (although I would go along with the standard age-of-majority, which is when a person is legally able to enter into a contract, and issues where one person is married away to someone else against their will, but those have nothing to do with what form the marriage itself, is based on… which I believe is his position as well. Aside from that, if you and 4 other people wish to join your households together into a single family unit, that’s your business, and none of the state’s business. The state’s only obligation is to recognize that you have become a family unit… “Recognition”… not “Regulation”…)

  • Anonymous

    You contradict yourself….

    “without any interference from any gov’t of any kind… (although I would go along with the standard age-of-majority”
    So people who believe in age restrictions should be heard but no one else?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t contradict myself at all… a non-emancipated person in the US isn’t legally considered an adult until they are 18… and can’t enter into a binding contract (without an adult cosigner) until they reach age-of-majority (which is 18). Marriage is a contract.

    Further, a contract isn’t valid unless both sides have in good faith, entered into the contract. You can’t force a contract onto someone who did not agree to the contract. Since marriage is a contract, you cannot be forced into marriage. The marriage wouldn’t be valid, as one party in the marriage contract, did not in good faith enter into it. (meaning, they didn’t, or couldn’t, consent to it, either by choice, or by not being age-of-majority)

    (an emancipated person, is a minor, who has applied for, and was granted, adult status, before reaching their age-of-majority)

    None of these restrictions has anything to do with marriage itself, or what form that marriage takes, but is about being legally able to enter into a contract in the first place.

    There is no contradiction in what I said.

  • Anonymous

    so “US isn’t legally considered an adult until they are 18… and can’t enter into a binding contract (without an adult cosigner) until they reach age-of-majority (which is 18). Marriage is a contract.” is not a restriction enforced by the government on the act of getting married?

  • Anonymous

    Nope, it isn’t.

    It is a restriction on entering into a contract.

    The restrictions gov’t imposes upon marriage itself, is about the form the marriage has to be… which it has no business in.

    Only 1 man and 1 woman, period… that is their additional restriction on marriage, specifically, that is what so many of us believe to be wrong. What business is it of theirs, what supposedly free people, enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, choose to do in that pursuit?

  • Christopher Midkiff

    Smoovious did a great job explaining what my original thought was. Polygamy is a whole other argument altogether. I personally don’t see the advantages of having multiple spouses. Yet again, if a religious sect believes in this institution, why would, or should government be allowed to bar this practice? I digress.

    Back to my original argument; if someone wishes to live out their life involved in a lifestyle I don’t agree with, they should have that freedom. Because my rights end where theirs begin. This is also a double-edged sword for them. My hetero lifestyle, with one wife, should likewise respected.

    It seems to me that our willingness to to decide is often clouded with the assumption that it extends to the rights of others, which it does not. My freedom of speech, religious preferences, my right to be armed as well as my right to be unmolested in my travels should be held in regard by others. Because if we do not respect the rights of others, we will likely cease to cherish our own.

  • Anonymous

    It mirrors a concept from a sci-fi series I enjoyed a long time ago too, about the Dorsai! culture… which were kinda your uber-libertarian types represented in that universe.

    “I have the right to do anything I want, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the right of my neighbor, to do anything he wants.”… paraphrased.

    The freedom to live our lives however we see fit, without interference, but still respecting others who wish to do the same.

    (should clarify, it was a book series, not a TV series)

  • Christopher Midkiff

    I have found that most Christians who use the Bible as a weapon are the ones who are largely ignorant of it’s contents. I will say, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. Yet at the same time it is clear that I should not take violent opposition to them. At worst, we are to “shake the dust off our feet.” Hardly something that should be taken as judgmental contempt. And those who wish to throw theocracy around, or try and force the concept into our Republic are not doing so with pure motives. Often it’s an effort to control or remove a group from society. I personally find this offensive and scary.

    As for the Left supporting Gay rights; I believe their “support” is hollow. It’s really for votes only. If Conservative Republicans were to come to terms with their ignorance, they would likely earn the trust of people who don’t normally associate themselves with the GOP. Sadly though, I see the GOP drifting down the same path the Whig Party occupied a little more than a century before…

  • Christopher Midkiff

    Pray tell, how shall we deal then with people who refuse to listen and understand that homosexuality is a sin? Legislate them into prisons? Legislate them into exile? Bring them to ruin? I personally understand the Biblical teachings on homosexuality. What I don’t see, however, is where Jesus commanded His followers to slaughter them, or shove them out of society, or shun them into silence.

  • Anonymous

    Their bible makes it ok for them to force themselves upon others who disagree with them.

    Their beliefs are between that individual, and whatever deity they choose to believe in.

    They don’t get to force others against their will to fall in line with what they individually believe, anymore than I have the right to force what I believe (atheism) upon them.

    They have the right to be heard, I have the right to be heard, but when we all start forcing each other to conform to some arbitrary standard that is NOT based on reality, we violate each other’s freedom.

    Don’t like homosexuality? Fine… don’t engage in it.

    Attempting to rid the world of every act one believes is a sin, does nothing to get you closer to whatever you consider “heaven”… nor does it make one righteous…

    My understanding is, the way to the Christian form of heaven, is based upon the choices you as an individual make, and the reasons behind those choices, throughout your lives. Remove those choices, and people no longer make them, and you don’t get there…

    One doesn’t get to “heaven” by default. One has to make active choices, and you make your own choices for yourself, and let the chips fall where they may. Same for anyone who subscribes to that.

    When you force your beliefs upon others against their will, you become the threat to society. You aren’t helping it.

    (not directed at you, Christopher :) “You” in the person reading this right now, sense.)

    – Smoov

  • Sheriff Matt Dillon

    I agree with you, there are many churches out there that for whatever reason don’t find homosexuality a sin. I agree they are not a church in the eyes of God. My comment was more tongue in cheek, about finding a “church. But in general who is this homosexual man hurting. The homosexual political agenda is damaging the very fabric of our society, my statement was “his choice hurts no one”.

  • Al Bumen

    A lighthouse in the fog conjured up by the quacks, progressives, and clowns of today’s TV media: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • Anonymous

    I have been off email for a few days, a minor operation. I take note of some rather good entries on this topic.. I’ll specifically mention Midkoff, Smoovious and Sheriff Dillon as I received their comments directly in my email (haven’t figured out how to reply directly without signing up for something I don’t want to sign up for). ‘

    There are many bibles, the word only means a book. Some are Bibles, the Torah, the Kama Sutra, and the Christian Bible (the old Testament being the Torah and the Prophets and some of the Midrash) Sin is defined differently in each, but evil is the same in all. In the Qu’ran it is a sin, worthy of death, to be apostate (i.e., a believer who changes his mind). For those who would defend Islam and say that that is tribal Sharia law and a misinterpretation I’ll go to my bookshelf and quote Sura and verse – I have read the Qu’ran in a good translation (a Pakistani imam and scholar of old Arabic with a facility in English).

    Evil is the killing or subjugation of people, or any belief, for who they are or what they believe. If I were a religious person, which I’m not, I’d say that homosexuality is a sin – although in some old polytheistic religions, including the American Indians of some tribes, the homosexual was considered sacred shaman. Personally I believe that homosexuality is an abberation not to be promoted – a denial of the basic format of human survival, but not an evil. If a church wants to regard it as a sin then it has that right – and it should not be forced to recognize it. If a church wants consider it evil, and worthy or trial and execution, then it doesn’t have that right. Only one church does that today, and it is the church of Islam.

    We are arguing about the wrong thing. There are many fundamentalist Christians on this forum who consider homosexuality a sin and a bar to heaven – but none i know of who consider it a capital offense. I am opposed to gay marriage only because of the word – marriage is a function of a church, and a contract with the God of that church. If gays get married in a church that allows it then so be it. The recognition of “marriage” by the government is another thing, government doesn’t belong in the act. Let all unions be civil unions in the eyes of the government, contracts between two (or more) people that involve shared responsibility for each other. And let them bear the legal responsibility for breaking that contract with a judgement in court (that will cut down the number of “marriages” for tax benefits)

    It comes down to something Glenn has illustrated in his own way, but something I’ve been pointing out for longer than he has been alive. It is an accident of a parliament, I believe it was an early French one, that we have left and right. Glenn shows a drawing in his way, mine is the Greek capital letter Omega. The spectrum is not a line it is a circle not quite complete. At the top of the Omega we have those who believe in a form of democracy – and to the left of the center those who believe in government, To the right we have those who prefer bottom up governing. But as we procede to the left, or to the right, we fall off the curve and start to converge at the bottom. The far left and the far right are almost the same. Each believes that he is right and that there should be laws that force agreement.

    With great trepidation I’ll suggest that some in this forum, and sometimes even Glenn, appear to subscribe to that view. The Fascist of the right and the Fascist of the left are in full agreement as to the rule of a central law – they only disagree as to what that law should be. I am not Libertarian in the current sense, some of our Libertarians are almost Anarchist – but not all. Words are a problem as they try to summarize the complexities of thought. I am conservative and I am liberal. I appreciate the idea of keeping what has worked, and also am open to new ideas if we can show they work. What is anathema to me is a theory from academia that is settled as a program for the nation. We have fifty states, each different in geography, geology, population and demographics (wow, never thought I’d use that last loaded term).A central government should be anathema to the liberal or conserative but the Liberals have a “knee jerk” in favor of it, and, sadly, some Conservatives also accept the idea of central government when it fits their purpose.

    Sin is a matter for the particular church, evil is the killing or torturing of innocents. Gay marriage is a sin in the eyes of some churches, but a minor one when compared to the evils committed by others.

  • SavageShooter64

    I didn’t say that stuff …..the Apostle Paul did. Take it up with him…he was Jesus disciple. Use scripture and you can’t get in trouble that way. The bible had a lot to say about using Gods word and its effectiveness.