@SamusVSMC Gotta love that good ole wholesome Conservative generalization that Liberals are some how more humble, kinder, or less tenacious, or less up to a combative situation then Neo-Cons.
@ProRanting It's not my generalization. It's straight from the definition of a liberal in their own words. I believe they are far from humble, kind, and less tenacious.
My comment was a sarcastic reference on the part of liberals politicians/commentators that Conservatives were spewing imflamatory rhetoric that caused the recent shooting. That it was a one sided affair and conservatives needed to shut up so that we might avert more violence.
You cannot have it both ways? Every time the Republicans have tried this they loose! You need to be what and who you are! To live in denial of who you are or multiple personalities makes a schizzo person that frustrates voters! Thankyou. James Sasse.
For what it's worth, Rush is butchering history. He specifically chose failures for his top 10, not landmark legislation that benefited the nation. Those failures had many other faults, besides their moderation. Bush Quayle '92? They sure made it in '88, and you can set your watch to how the swing voters swich parties. Dole in '96? Nobody was gonna touch Clinton. Ford 76? He was Nixon's VP during Watergate. Good luck.
McCain Palin? Following Bush? Good luck. Propagandists only look at 1 aspect.
And these are modern Republicans. Old Republicans of the early-to-mid 20th Century and the 19th Century often were hard lefties. Like Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, and pro-women's reproductive rights socialist Margaret Sander.
It's a fairly non-idiotic list. A race oasis in Rush's desert of a show. But I don't get how resigning from office after being accused of a political scandal makes you a "moderate" Republican...
Do non-moderate Republicans stay in office after political scandals? Like Sanford and Ensign? Or do they not commit scandals at all?
newzflash are you making fun of homosexuals or transgendered people? Surely someone as culturally adept as you can hate rush for a real reason as opposed to making such racist comments. but as you scroll down the comments it seems that that all your liberal peers have got the same type of racist homophobic comments to lash out at anybody that disagrees with your opinion.
Nixon was a MODERATE. Just because you didn't know that - and don't even know what a moderate Republican is, doesn't mean you should spout ignorance on YouTube. Go to bed, dweeb.
@Nalsii Read on and learn. A moderate Republican is a conservative Democrat. You are probably a red marxist tomato. Nobody needs your input, totalitarian dreamer.
@faelismaegnus I read on and learned that Godwin's law should also include references to communism and Stalin. And ketchup.
Lol since it's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you're talking and that my admittedly unskilled attempt at humorous sarcasm concerning the semantic incongruity of "moderate" and "republican" was irrevocably lost on you, I think it'd be better if you just went shave your head and polish your Parteiadler, sodass jeder sehen wann, was fuer ein Grosskotz du bist.
@Nalsii Too many words. You could have boiled it down to: I'm smarter than you, faelismaegnus." Keep living in your textbooks and philosophical commentaries. We Americans conservatives know what we mean when we say "moderate". Like The Rock says, "It doesn't matter what YOU think." It only matters what the people think.
I am not German, though I can read it and speak it passably. But you are a product of your brainwashing masters. You are the real Nazi. You have a lot in common with them.
@faelismaegnus Actually, I don't. I'm not christian, I'm not a right-wing extremist, I have no animosity towards minorities, I'm not a violent person and I don't blindly accept propaganda. Also, unlike you "American conservatives", I don't live in the past. Furthermore, I don't claim I'm smarter than you because a claim without evidence is not enough for me, though it might be for you (which I would call being brainwashed).
So if what I think doesn't matter, YOU start thinking for once.
@Nalsii You are so unworthy to comment here. Who cares if you aren't Christian? To be on the political right is a matter of relativity, since the political spectrum is a closed circle. I love all people and wouldn't call any people minorities. You are definitely thinking in the past as you see conservatives as Nazis. You aren't smarter than me - I don't need evidence to make that call. I think you are just a silly blabber mouth.
@faelismaegnus YOU obviously care, for YOU, sir, have called me a Nazi. Nazis were christians, right-wing extremists, were anti-Jew, etc., all of which I am not, therefore I am not "the real Nazi", which is what YOU have called me. If you take this personally, politically or in any way other than this, you're a dumbass.
Also, I see conservatives as living in the past, because "to conserve" means "to preserve", like, y'know, "as it was", like, "in the past", you non-genius.
@faelismaegnus Interesting you use the "other N word", since everyone's favorite pillhead recently blasted Jews for being "too liberal". Seriously, why does the Right still bother with that obese Klansman? He just makes you look bad.
@streetswell Why do people like you bother getting out of bed in the morning? You're attacks on Rush are so monopic. All you leftist losers can say is "racist" because you are no match for conservative arguments. In truth, it is the liberals in the Democratic Party who have been screwing over the blacks in America since LBJ's Great Society. Great job, racist morons!
You would be right if you were referring to the Democrats of the Old South, but they're long gone, as is the abolitionist, progressive Republican Party of Lincoln's day.
BTW, Limbaugh is not a real conservative; he's an anti-intellectual bigot, as evidenced by three decades worth of insulting black, gays, Hispanics... pretty much anyone who isn't just like him.
@streetswell Your rhetoric and your "real" conservatives are both figments of your own fevered imaginations. Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism = the HIV of the Western World) has been victimizing white Europeans for far longer. Rush has a right to make fun of people for being wrong and stupid - race (a non-scientific construct like Marxism) is not a shield.
Spoken like a true lemming. Right-wing extremists like your hero are a big part of the reason that the Republican Party is in exile; moderates are the only future it has, no matter how loud Limbaugh screams about his ass-backward vision of America. Don't let him lead you off the cliff.
@streetswell When leftists agree are they also "lemmings"? Please spare us your lightweight wit. The Republican Party lost because they became so "moderate" that there was no difference between them and the Big Government Democrats. Please vote for the moderate Democrats and Republicans and I'll vote for Small Government and Constitutionalist candidates. Rush is right about RINO's. Taking advice from a LEFTIST like you is the last thing a thinking conservative would do. Be gone, fly.
Rush is a so called "reformed" drunk, a drug abuser and a people abuser. I hate this man with every fiber of my being. His mouth makes me want to vomit. I'm successful in life, financially, socially, spiritually ( in the non-radical sense) and this loser seems to feel he has earned the right to speak for my welfare. Keep eating those cheeseburgers...looking forward to you having "the big one"!
Anyone with a happy family life, however poor, is richer than this wealthy Republican, who goes home with his bodyguards. Else why is he so fat (poor image), a drug addict, and has to use viagra. Being so filled with hate and malice eats at his very being. I apologize to over-weight people but I think Rush eats to fell the void in his life...he was much thinner when he was chewing oxy-contin.
People have rejected LIBERALISM...as evidenced by the election last night....And thats only the beginning, theres a LOT more pain coming in 2010 for you commies. :)
Faeligmunus- I just gave some of the highlights of the debate but there were alot of other things said. The caller also just happened to mention that Bush ran up a 1 trillion dollar deficit after Clinton left office with a 230 billion dollar surplus.
Rush is the best. George Washington, Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln would all be so proud of him. Less Power to the Government. More to the People. We will all find out soon enough
At least being a Moderate Republican is better than being a right-wing fascist who believes their way is the only way to do anything. Rush calls moderates arrogant yet he talks like the very conservative right has all the answers. Isn't that, I don't know, kind of arrogant of him to think such a thing? It just amazes me how people listen to such trash.
Being a "moderate Republican" means being replaced by a conservative Democrat in the next election cycle, or by a conservative Republican. The "moderate" Republicans are nothing but big government statists who only pretend to be any different from Democrats. Nobody needs a RINO.
alwaysright5- read a book lol.. that lawyer that brought that suit to the supreme court over obamas birth cirtificate was FINED$20,000. so im preetty sure he was born in america
Why are you liberals a bunch sissy ass faggot's.If your a man and you are a liberal you must be gay that's the only thing that can possibly be wrong with you..
Listening to Rush should be mandatory and a requirement for voting. We would not have an ignorant kenyan marxist in the White House, nor communist anti-americans in Congress.
Yes, I have listened to Rush alot. Believe me. And the guy's a complete idiot. It was funny, I was listening to Rush a little this morning and a liberal called. He was saying we shouldn't cut taxes during the war. He also pointed out to Rush that Obama inherited these wars. Rush said we had to go to war because we were attacked and that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Can you believe that? We ALL know by now that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
And after that the only thing Rush could say was that this caller was badly suffering from"Bush derangment syndrome" and that he was cast under the "Obama spell" and the "democratic spell." It was obvious he had lost the argument and this was all Rush could say at the end of this argument. It's so funny how Rush reacts when somebody disagrees with him!
If you are a Democrat of the "gay marriage" and "abortion is a woman's right" variety, you're already on your way to hell. Rush is not at fault for your failure to uphold common human decency.
Sorry, I don't like to play with assholes. I'm normal. I have never made anyone suffer. If you are suffering, stop doing the bad things you are doing, and don't blame it on people who avoid doing things that create suffering. Rush is a good man who believes passionately in defending Christian morality and fair and effective government.
No I'm not suffering one bit. I was talking about minorities that are defenseless against fools that think their way is the best way. You indirectly make people suffer through your hate of "gay marriage". In my book there is nothing wrong with Christianity, but Christians who pick and choose from the bible to make their point and use it against people annoy me.
Oh no I'm not. There is no such thing as a marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. You are extremely annoyed by the fact that the Bible teaches AGAINST gay marriage. There is not one instance of a gay marriage, nor one positive depiction of a homosexual in the entire Biblical corpus. You need to get your head OUT of your ass and wash your sad and stinky face.
I'd like to point out that homosexuality is mentioned 12 times in the Bible, and most of them seem to be referring more specifically to homosexual prostitution, not regular relationships.
Two of the mentions in the bible are in Leviticus, and Christians aren't bound by the rules in Leviticus. Also, Christians make a point of saying that all people sin in their own ways, do they not? While a homosexual might be going against God in his or her own way, you surely do too.
So, you're all on equal footing. All are imperfect, but all are loved; isn't that what Christians believe?
Are Christians also not taught not to judge others? Are they not taught to forgive and turn the other cheek instead of chastise and hurt?
In short: why are you so dense? I know you'll probably be offended by somebody taking issue with your fundamentalist nonsense, but you should at least think a little bit about the most prominent and important message of the Bible: Forgiveness and love
Forgiveness and love are the ultimate reward for those who accept God's Divinity and the goodness of God's Moral Laws. Jesus Himself condemned hypocrisy in scathing terms. Your limp-wristed version of Christianity is not Christianity at all. We love the sinner and HATE the sin. The only nonsense here is your fundamental distortion of Christ's Message. I suppose you also discount the Revelation of Jesus Christ where God and Christ loose their wrath upon the unrepentant. Don't preach nonsense!
@Termite551 You're ignorant of the fact that homosexuality is also condemned (for Christians) in the New Testament. It's ignorant to contend that the Old Testament moral laws are'nt binding for Christians. They are, only the communal death penalty is lifted. Jewish ritual laws are not binding. Foolishly, you think all sins are equal. All sins are sins, and sin will send you to Hell if not repented for and atoned for by Christ's Sacrifice, but all water bodies are not freshwater lakes.
Yes, I realize that homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament, but once again, it is mentioned sparsely. Is it not logical to believe that Jesus, who spoke MUCH more about forgiveness and loving thy neighbor than of homosexuality being a sin thought the former more important?
What I was trying to get at is that the Bible teaches to respect others, and that it takes precedence over its condemnation of homosexuality.
I'll agree that the Bible says to love the sinner and "hate" the sin, but I have seen no indication from the Christian right of loving homosexuals AT ALL. How is trying to "fix" homosexuals loving in the least? From all indications it simply causes incredible emotional duress and doesn't work. How is preventing them from taking part in a legal contract that formalizes their relationship, whilst also calling it marriage, loving?
Well, you're blind. The problem is that homosexuals insist that Christians (there's no such thing as a Christian left, nor any moderates) accept their deviancy as normal. These homos don't agree that their actions are sinful. And being a fundamentalist with gay family members I know that you are 100% wrong. Sure many Christians don't love gays, but many non-Christians hate gays as well. I don't. But I know they are WRONG. Defining yourself by a sex act is just STUPID.
First off, I'm the grandson of a Lutheran minister who attended seminary, preached for many years, and is just as much a Christian as anybody in America. He's also fine with homosexuals. I'm sure he has his reservations, but he himself said that the Lutheran church's debate about whether or not to let homosexuals become clergy was absurd and that homosexuals should be evaluated based on their faith, not their sexual orientation.
He's also a man who has preached on how the Bible isn't a textbook, it is a book of morality and ethics. He believes in the divinity of Christ and all of the essentials of course, and he believes them to be true, but he does not see acknowledge Genesis as a factual account of the origin of the planet.
I guess I forgot to mention, he also has a Master's degree in psychology. His experiences in higher education are probably what informed his opinions on these matters.
Well, I do take the Genesis account literally, as literal as it can be taken, and see no problem with some kind of evolution taking place, even human from animal evolution. But speaking of evolution, you might notice that homosexuality is an abnormality in the animal world, which includes humans. It is immoral and unethical to be a homosexual according to the Bible. You can't escape this fact. Your position is scripturally untenable. It's simply a philosophical-political innovation.
It doesn't matter that your gramps was a Lutheran seminarian. Again, Luther was against homosexuality on Biblical grounds. A bishop (clergyman) is to be the husband of one wife. That excludes gays. The Bible is not a textbook, but it is the CREED of the FAITH you claim to be yours. You can't just rewrite it to suit postmodern humanist philosophies.
So since Jesus wants us to love sinners we shouldn't condemn sins. NONSENSE. Jesus' very actions (driving out the money-changers with a whip) and condemning the pharisees and scribes, etc. show you to be barking up a dead tree. I condemn homosexuality and love homosexual people.
Once again, you don't have to approve of the sin. But, in condemning the sin, you are hurting the person as well, and I'm sure you realize this. I can understand that for something like murder, which must be condemned regardless of the murderer's feelings, but homosexuality? Simply because it is mentioned in a few instances, you seem to think that homosexuality is way up there in the list of sins a person can commit.
Continued...
It simply does not make any sort of sense whatsoever.
Homosexuality and fornication and adultery have terrible social, physical, and psychological consequences. You either don't realize this or your refuse to accept the facts. If it wasn't important, it wouldn't be mentioned at all. The number of mentions of a sin in the Bible is not what qualifies the severity of the sin. If you accept homosexual clergy, then why not polygamists, polyandrists, pedophiles, bestialists, etc.? It makes a lot of sense to hold your moral ground. Sin hurts people.
First off I'm going to point out that I myself don't care whether or not polyandrists are allowed to be clergy. As long as all of the members of the relationship are consenting adults, then what harm comes of it?
Secondly, I am not Christian. I can see why you would be misled to believe that from my previous posts, but I myself am not a Christian. Many of my family members are however, and I have a deep respect for the religion.
This is why I find it offensive when people interpret the Bible in hateful and ignorant ways. To me, reading the Bible and only taking it at face value is like reading a Tale of Two Cities and analyzing it: you are left without a true understanding of its message.
I will agree that adultery can have terrible consequences, but fornication? Are you yet another abstinence pusher? Once again, I will agree that Christian doctrine looks down upon these things, but let me explain something
George Bush, and his family, are extremely wealthy. Now, I know that you are aware of what the Bible says about the rich and their chance of getting into heaven.
Taking that at purely face value, it would appear that Bush isn't going to get into heaven any time soon (unless he figures out how to get a camel through the eye of a needle).
Do you agree that Bush will go to hell or not? Because to say that he won't would require at least some amount of interpretation.
I'm sure these are things both of us can agree on. You aren't perfect and neither am I. The clergy you DO approve of aren't perfect either, but apparently you're fine with them. Have you given away your possessions to the poor? Have you never lied? Have you never had impure thoughts?
The Bible condemns homosexuality, but lets face it, the Bible condemns a LOT of things.
I suppose the ideal Christian should feel guilt for their transgressions. From the things I've heard gay Christians say on the matter, it would seem to me that they have felt enough guilt to last a lifetime. The confusion and disillusionment they feel we can only imagine. They carry a great burden, but unless you wish to deny the claims of the great psychological institutions of the United States and other nations, they have no choice in the matter.
So, coming back to my initial point, is acceptance, or at the very least, tolerance, not the best path to go down? A person's relationship with God should be between them and God, do you not agree? Leave them to sort out their minor transgressions.
That's right, minor transgressions. While you are right in saying that the frequency of it being mentioned does not determine how important a rule it is, do you not think it at least indicative?
A philosopher would not quickly gloss over an important point of his philosophy in a mere 12 lines in a 1000+ page treatise, and I do not suppose the authors of the Bible would do so either. And, even if it is to be taken as an equal rule to the others, you would dare compare it to pedophilia? Pedophilia involves violating a non-consenting person, and hurting them physically, and mentally, in the process. Homosexuality on the other hand, or at least the form I'm talking about, is
It's not the same, but all parties are similarly being hurt. The child is innocent, of course. You missed my point that if you don't have a clear moral code then you cannot really argue against any kind of sexual acts. If a juvenile agrees to have sex with an adult how can you then claim it is without consent? Polyandrists and polygamists would destroy society as we know it if their numbers became great. The same is true for homosexuality. Anal penetration is un-natural and destructive.
The Bible was not written as philosophy. And in those days, Jews already understood that homosexuality was immoral. Paul forbade it strongly. He need not write ten pages about it to get the point across. It was classed as a sexual sin just as orgies and adultery were. I am not one who goes around preaching hour long sermons against homosexuality. It's enough to teach that it is forbidden for Christians. Cultural marxism (P.C.) is the real problem. It seeks to destroy Christianity. Look it up.
You only seek to ignore the injunction against homosexuality by saying that it does not appear often enough in the Christian text. The argument is useless.
If you claim that human beings are born to be gay, then you must accept that human beings are born to be murderes or pedophiles. You can't use this rationale for homos, but not for the other sinners. Humans have enough free will and self-control to resist their baser instincts. Sexual promiscuity of the heterosexual kind is also condemned by Christian morality.
I don't think people very well could be born to be murderers, but no pedophiles. I have seen no scientific evidence to support the claim that pedophiles have some innate characteristic that makes them what they are. As for murderers, there is lots of evidence of actual mental and physical characteristics that correlate to violent behavior. I'm not saying they can't repress them, but there is something there.
Gah, lots of typos in that one. This is what I get for trying to respond right when I get up.
The first line should read "I DO think people could be born murderers, but not pedophiles."
I do not think that homosexuals and murderers should be treated in the same way though, for that is absurd. Homosexuals being born with their sexual orientation is on about the same level as somebody being born tall, it's just a trait.
And, not to go off on too big a tangent here, but can a tall person NOT be tall? If the Bible condemned tallness, would you attack it as you do homosexuality? Because to me tallness and homosexuality are basically the same thing: traits that one cannot change, or at least cannot change without extreme duress and suffering. One could chop of their legs in order to not be tall...
I think that if a person can really be born to be gay, then he or she can also be born to be a pedophile. There's no logic in your rejection of pedophilia as a genetically-endowed condition. Personally I think it's nonsense. As a Christian we already know that people are tempted to do evil. For us, the idea that someone was born to feel gay is moot. Being gay, like being a pedophile, or being a liar, is WRONG. The fact that some people can't help it sometimes is why Jesus died for us.
There are studies showing correlations between features of the brain and homosexuality. That is indicative of a genetic influence on whether or not one is homosexual. Granted, there are studies in support of the "nurture" side of things too. Most likely homosexuality is caused by a combination of the two.
I have seen no such studies showing that pedophiles are born that way, and even if they were, it wouldn't matter.
And none of the above can change the fact that Christians believe in the God of the Bible who made it clear to us that homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is immorality and that these things are terrible sins which create terrible consequences. Would do you think it only matters that homos are born gay but NOT that pedophiles are born that way? Why do you hate them (pedophiles) for who they are?
Like I have clearly stated (but apparently, you still fail to grasp), I object to the actions of a pedophile because he or she is violating a child, and since children cannot give informed consent, it is tantamount to rape.
It's the "rape" part, in case you didn't catch that.
In case you didn't grasp it, I hate homosexuality because it is being marketed to children in schools by people like you as a normal and healthy way of life. I am not for criminalizing immorality, so your friendly neighborhood gays can go about their gay business without any threat of government interference. I am against GAY IDEOLOGY being taught to children (this is tantamount to intellectual and psychological rape) in schools and other children's media.
Again, the Bible clearly ranks homosexuality as a gross sin. It says that people who do such things have reprobate minds which no longer hold to any Christian morality. The Bible condemns sin, and condemns certain sins in a harsher manner than others. You're trying to find a loophole for homosexuals. That's just stupid. First of all, no one should define themselves by their sexual habits. And homosexuality is considered to be normal by postmodernists. We know that it is abnormal. Gender matters.
Fundamentalists always go on about how our leaders should be good Christians, people of upstanding character, etc. Are you going to tell me that a person who isn't a good Christian would be a good leader for the Christian people?
That seems kinda weird.
Also, relating to a different comment, yes we do know that homosexuality is abnormal. Nobody is claiming that it is normal to be homosexual, but not being normal doesn't necessarily mean being bad.
There are more white people than any other race in America, so one could suppose that, it being the norm, being white is normal. And since the opposite of normal is abnormal, minorities are abnormal. Are minorities bad? Is what is most common good all of a sudden?
Being gay is not like being white or black. There are so many differences among whites that your analogy doesn't work. I suppose its normal to be a yankee, or is it normal to be a Democrat, or is it normal to be rich and white or poor and white? Still has nothing to do with an action. Homosexuality is defined by the homosexual act.
If homosexuality is defined by the act, then a person who is homosexually raped is homosexual? That's laughably stupid. Homosexuality is defined by a person's desire to have homosexual relationships.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Of course we wish that our leaders would be good Christians, but it's not always possible. So we choose the lesser of the evils. So what defines "bad" for you? I used "normal" in the sense of a moral norm.
"Bad" is what is bad for society and individuals. The violation or deprivation of a person's rights is bad, thus rape, murder, theft, etc. are all bad.
Bad is a rather nebulous term though, so I'm going to refrain from using it too much.
Immorality is not nebulous for Christians. There are a few things that aren't so clear, but a true Christian won't condemn something sinful that isn't condemned by the Word of God.
Again, too many words to say nothing important. Since you don't accept the Bible or Christianity you shouldn't try to tell Christians how to interpret the Bible.
More blather. Since you aren't a Christian why are you trying to push a politically-correct version of Christianity? Why don't you go find a Muslim and convert him to your world view?
If I saw a Muslim spouting as much nonsense as you are right now, I'd discuss these things with him or her as well.
And since I'm not going to reply to each of your comments one by one, I'll start here.
Do you actually not understand the concepts behind informed consent? It's founded upon the (entirely correct) assumption that children and juveniles are often incapable of understanding or knowing what is best for them.
Thus, they cannot give informed consent. This makes it tantamount to rape, and so it is illegal. I don't need the Bible for me to make a case against pedophilia, and as for polyandry, I could care less. You're going to need to give a convincing argument as to HOW exactly polyandry and homosexuality lead to the destruction of society, because I'm just not seeing it.
As for me trying to change how you view the Bible, I don't see why a non-believer can't discuss these matters with a Christian. I'm no Objectivist, but if I saw somebody reading Atlas Shrugged and claiming that it promotes collectivism I would quickly denounce their claim and provide them with ample evidence to the contrary.
You aren't being forced to continue this dialogue with me, but obviously you are compelled enough by something to keep replying, so I will too.
Informed consent to commit sin is still sin. Don't you understand the concept of morality? And who are you to say that a juvenile can't give informed consent? Juveniles have sex with one another. Do you find that morally repugnant?
First, let's define juvenile. I'm using it to mean anybody from birth to, say, 16. By that point, I think some are responsible enough (SOME) to handle the decision of whether or not they want to have sex. Below that age, I think they are too young and immature to deal with it.
I brought up informed consent because rape is condemned by the Bible, and so it ties in to pedophilia.
Even if you are to put homosexuality and pedophilia on the same level, since pedophilia involves rape and consensual homosexual relationships do not, they are not equal...
can we agree on this?
It seems to be a perfectly logical deduction.
Anyway, here is a website (written by a fundamentalist like yourself, obviously) that lists the verses in the Bible that condemn homosexual relationship, and the gay community's "false" responses to them.
Sorry about that, I was hungry so I had a quick breakfast.
I`m using a different computer right now so I don`t have the link I was going to use. I`ll come back to this later, don`t you worry.
I`ll respond to some of your smaller comments instead. I do not know of any polyandrous or homosexual societies (although the Ancient Greeks had some homosexual practices, for certain).
I don`t recall any evidence of there EVER being a society in which the majority was homosexual. This is simply because homosexuality is far less common than heterosexuality. This is also because the societies of olden days could not be founded upon homosexuality, as they would need an abundance of children to keep growing. This is a moot point in the modern era where increasing our population is the last thing we ought to be thinking about.
Heterosexuality and monogamy are the roots of Western Civilization. The most successful societies on earth. According to evolutionary biology, groups which have traits profitable for survival will overbreed, overtake, overwhelm, and outnumber those with negative traits. I take it then that you don't accept the tenents of natural selection according to Charles Darwin?
Now I'm rather confused; what groups are we talking about here? Is this suddenly some heterosexuality vs homosexuality fight based on the rules of social Darwinism?
*I was going to invoke the Nazis here, since your deluded social Darwinism bears some similarities to theirs, but since I see you are from Germany I'll show some discretion and not.*
The funny thing is that what you call "deluded social darwinism" is actually the basis of evolutionary sociology. The Nazis were on YOUR side of the fence regarding traditional Western civilization, BUT they also hated homosexuals. I'm not FROM Germany. I hate racism based upon the same principles that make me hate homosexuality and your harmful world view.
Uh huh, how exactly is it that I resemble the Nazis?
OK, if you're not from Germany, then I'll draw the comparison I refrained from writing earlier. The Nazis thought that the disabled were not useful for the furthering and preservation of their society, so they did away with them. You think that homosexuals are not useful for the furthering and preservation of society (in tandem with your fundamentalist view), so you shun them and speak ill of them.
I don't SHUN them. I don't speak ill of them as persons. I speak ILL of homosexuality. I speak ill of all the apologists like you who think that defending people's right to be gay MEANS silencing people who think HOMOSEXUALITY is a negative influence upon all people.
I don't think I've ever given any indication of wanting to "silence" you. I think you're ideas are stupid and dangerous, but I believe in freedom of speech as much as the next guy so I think you should be allowed to say what you wanna say.
We will see whose ideas are "stupid and dangerous" as time goes by. The really stupid ideas are the ones you have been clumsily trying to disseminate here.
Maybe YOU don't want to silence me, but their are plenty of people who share your views that want to silence me in the name of "tolerance" and label my traditional opinions "hate speech". You need to wake up.
LOL! You truly think that having a post modern society that is reproducing at less than replacement rate is sustainable or even desirable!!!??? If you don't reproduce, your culture will DIE. That includes everything you believe in and defend here on YouTube. Europe is on the road to demographic suicide.
'My' culture has had a declining population for quite some time now, and it isn't because of homosexuality, but because of people not showing interest in having children.
Am I worried about my country running out of people? Of course not.
Homosexuality, as you stated yourself, is not normal. I cannot fathom it ever becoming the norm, and thus 'population decline by homosexuality' will likely NEVER become a reality.
LOL! The more homosexuality spreads, the more other sexually deviant lifestyles will spread, the more bullshit propaganda about the threats of "overpopulation" to the earth, the more it is taught that heterosexual monogamous child-bearing marriage is a joke or unimportant to society, the more it is taught that the purpose of life is to make money and spend money doing whatever feels good, the less children the Europeans and other industrialized nations will produce. That's the real THREAT.
I'm a historian. The slippery slope is no fallacy. Time will prive me right and you W R O N G. Polymorphous perversity knows NO BOUNDS and is the hidden precept of SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES. They will continue to push the envelope until their is NOTHING FORBIDDEN. LOL! The signs of this are already apparent around the world. You jettison Judaeo-Christian morality and a new one will take its place. Shariah or cultural marxism? Only the demographics and the youth trends will tell.
I was referring to the rhetorical fallacy of not presenting evidence in support of your position, and instead simply chalking up all of your wild assumptions as inevitable due to a slippery slope effect.
Evidence? I have observed history for a long time. I KNOW that these things progressively develop over time. The direction that the left of center "progressives" have embarked upon is leading logically to legalization of all forms of sexuality. Sexuality has a tremendous effect upon fertility, and fertility effects population size and this will determine which cultural values survive into the future.
No, you've "observed" history for perhaps 21 years of your lifetime, which is a very short span of time. I can't imagine anybody in their low teens "observing" history. What you've read doesn't count as what you have observed, it's what you've learned.
Semantics, yes, but important to note.
Now, if you don't mind, I have work to do. I'll be back in perhaps 5-6 hours.
LOL! Observing history is not limited semantically to actually being there. As a historian I am immersed in history. I have all kinds of historical records and have access to much more. I don't mind. A historian knows that what you read is not the only way to understand history. You're deconstructionist tendencies are showing! See you later. Have a great work day.
You are the quintessential agent of the end of civilization. Your vested interest in your own culture is not something that need be "fascist" or discriminatory. Hooray for Japan. Although I think the society as a whole, from what I've heard, is a little too xenophobic. You can better your culture. All cultures change. You don't need to approve of everything in order to be a moral or just person.
My BIG point is for you to research Critical Theory, Polymorphous Perversity, Cultural Marxism (Freud plus Marx), Liberating Tolerance, namely what we call Political Correctness. This is the root of YOUR belief system.
Take another oxy fat ass..
jerodwilson 11 months ago 2
@jerodwilson
Gotta love that liberal generosity.
Gotta love that liberal compassion.
Gotta love that Liberal forgiveness.
Gotta love that liberal call to civil discourse.
Gotta love that Liberal tendancy to ignore their own rules.
SamusVSMC 10 months ago
@SamusVSMC Gotta love that good ole wholesome Conservative generalization that Liberals are some how more humble, kinder, or less tenacious, or less up to a combative situation then Neo-Cons.
ProRanting 10 months ago
@ProRanting It's not my generalization. It's straight from the definition of a liberal in their own words. I believe they are far from humble, kind, and less tenacious.
My comment was a sarcastic reference on the part of liberals politicians/commentators that Conservatives were spewing imflamatory rhetoric that caused the recent shooting. That it was a one sided affair and conservatives needed to shut up so that we might avert more violence.
SamusVSMC 10 months ago
You cannot have it both ways? Every time the Republicans have tried this they loose! You need to be what and who you are! To live in denial of who you are or multiple personalities makes a schizzo person that frustrates voters! Thankyou. James Sasse.
indiajesuslovesyou 11 months ago
For what it's worth, Rush is butchering history. He specifically chose failures for his top 10, not landmark legislation that benefited the nation. Those failures had many other faults, besides their moderation. Bush Quayle '92? They sure made it in '88, and you can set your watch to how the swing voters swich parties. Dole in '96? Nobody was gonna touch Clinton. Ford 76? He was Nixon's VP during Watergate. Good luck.
McCain Palin? Following Bush? Good luck. Propagandists only look at 1 aspect.
LukeShetler 1 year ago
Rush even dogs don't like what obama is about take a look at this dog attacking obama look up "obama dog attack"
PersonalBrandingOG 1 year ago
Rush even dogs don't like what obama is about take a look at this dog attacking obama
PersonalBrandingOG 1 year ago
And these are modern Republicans. Old Republicans of the early-to-mid 20th Century and the 19th Century often were hard lefties. Like Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, and pro-women's reproductive rights socialist Margaret Sander.
nafaidni 1 year ago
It's a fairly non-idiotic list. A race oasis in Rush's desert of a show. But I don't get how resigning from office after being accused of a political scandal makes you a "moderate" Republican...
Do non-moderate Republicans stay in office after political scandals? Like Sanford and Ensign? Or do they not commit scandals at all?
nafaidni 1 year ago
newzflash are you making fun of homosexuals or transgendered people? Surely someone as culturally adept as you can hate rush for a real reason as opposed to making such racist comments. but as you scroll down the comments it seems that that all your liberal peers have got the same type of racist homophobic comments to lash out at anybody that disagrees with your opinion.
nugeforprez32264 1 year ago
hes absolutely right.
nugeforprez32264 1 year ago
@nugeforprez32264 he'll love that... he said he loves wearing blonde wigs, red pumps and black dresses.
newzflash101 1 year ago
lol rush is 100% still on the pills. look at him fidget and twitch around that studio
FoxAirfieldMaverick 1 year ago
@FoxAirfieldMaverick Cold Turkey I reckon,,,
SG55OVCam 1 year ago
@SG55OVCam do you listen to rush sg? he is my ideological hero. literally everything he says is true and right
FoxAirfieldMaverick 1 year ago
@FoxAirfieldMaverick Not really, i know he is very controversial and he insulted Michael J Fox a few years ago(Any relation to you fox??)
SG55OVCam 1 year ago
Surprised he didn't mention Swartznegger
andro89 1 year ago
Yeah, Nixon residing in shame was sooo moderate and it got you sooo nowhere.
What an absolute asshole Rush is...
Nalsii 1 year ago
Nixon was a MODERATE. Just because you didn't know that - and don't even know what a moderate Republican is, doesn't mean you should spout ignorance on YouTube. Go to bed, dweeb.
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
@faelismaegnus "Moderate Republican" is an oxymoron, you moron.
Nalsii 1 year ago
@Nalsii Read on and learn. A moderate Republican is a conservative Democrat. You are probably a red marxist tomato. Nobody needs your input, totalitarian dreamer.
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
@faelismaegnus I read on and learned that Godwin's law should also include references to communism and Stalin. And ketchup.
Lol since it's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you're talking and that my admittedly unskilled attempt at humorous sarcasm concerning the semantic incongruity of "moderate" and "republican" was irrevocably lost on you, I think it'd be better if you just went shave your head and polish your Parteiadler, sodass jeder sehen wann, was fuer ein Grosskotz du bist.
Nalsii 1 year ago
@Nalsii Too many words. You could have boiled it down to: I'm smarter than you, faelismaegnus." Keep living in your textbooks and philosophical commentaries. We Americans conservatives know what we mean when we say "moderate". Like The Rock says, "It doesn't matter what YOU think." It only matters what the people think.
I am not German, though I can read it and speak it passably. But you are a product of your brainwashing masters. You are the real Nazi. You have a lot in common with them.
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
@faelismaegnus Actually, I don't. I'm not christian, I'm not a right-wing extremist, I have no animosity towards minorities, I'm not a violent person and I don't blindly accept propaganda. Also, unlike you "American conservatives", I don't live in the past. Furthermore, I don't claim I'm smarter than you because a claim without evidence is not enough for me, though it might be for you (which I would call being brainwashed).
So if what I think doesn't matter, YOU start thinking for once.
Nalsii 1 year ago
@Nalsii You are so unworthy to comment here. Who cares if you aren't Christian? To be on the political right is a matter of relativity, since the political spectrum is a closed circle. I love all people and wouldn't call any people minorities. You are definitely thinking in the past as you see conservatives as Nazis. You aren't smarter than me - I don't need evidence to make that call. I think you are just a silly blabber mouth.
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
@faelismaegnus YOU obviously care, for YOU, sir, have called me a Nazi. Nazis were christians, right-wing extremists, were anti-Jew, etc., all of which I am not, therefore I am not "the real Nazi", which is what YOU have called me. If you take this personally, politically or in any way other than this, you're a dumbass.
Also, I see conservatives as living in the past, because "to conserve" means "to preserve", like, y'know, "as it was", like, "in the past", you non-genius.
Stop wasting my time.
Nalsii 1 year ago
@Nalsii Did I call you a Nazi first?
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
To Limbaugh, anything less than bringing back segregation is "too moderate". He's not a conservative, he's a Nazi.
streetswell 1 year ago
@streetswell Bullshit. You are the Nazi.
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
@faelismaegnus Interesting you use the "other N word", since everyone's favorite pillhead recently blasted Jews for being "too liberal". Seriously, why does the Right still bother with that obese Klansman? He just makes you look bad.
streetswell 1 year ago
@streetswell Why do people like you bother getting out of bed in the morning? You're attacks on Rush are so monopic. All you leftist losers can say is "racist" because you are no match for conservative arguments. In truth, it is the liberals in the Democratic Party who have been screwing over the blacks in America since LBJ's Great Society. Great job, racist morons!
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
You would be right if you were referring to the Democrats of the Old South, but they're long gone, as is the abolitionist, progressive Republican Party of Lincoln's day.
BTW, Limbaugh is not a real conservative; he's an anti-intellectual bigot, as evidenced by three decades worth of insulting black, gays, Hispanics... pretty much anyone who isn't just like him.
streetswell 1 year ago
@streetswell Your rhetoric and your "real" conservatives are both figments of your own fevered imaginations. Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism = the HIV of the Western World) has been victimizing white Europeans for far longer. Rush has a right to make fun of people for being wrong and stupid - race (a non-scientific construct like Marxism) is not a shield.
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
Spoken like a true lemming. Right-wing extremists like your hero are a big part of the reason that the Republican Party is in exile; moderates are the only future it has, no matter how loud Limbaugh screams about his ass-backward vision of America. Don't let him lead you off the cliff.
streetswell 1 year ago
@streetswell When leftists agree are they also "lemmings"? Please spare us your lightweight wit. The Republican Party lost because they became so "moderate" that there was no difference between them and the Big Government Democrats. Please vote for the moderate Democrats and Republicans and I'll vote for Small Government and Constitutionalist candidates. Rush is right about RINO's. Taking advice from a LEFTIST like you is the last thing a thinking conservative would do. Be gone, fly.
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
@faelismaegnus Have fun marginalizing yourself. You're in good company
streetswell 1 year ago
@streetswell We'll see who is marginalized this November, won't we?
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
Rush you look like john wayne gacy
mattwicky 1 year ago
Interesting you say that about a guy who was busted with Viagra while coming back from a country known for child prostitution. Just a thought.
streetswell 1 year ago
RUSH, i hope you choke taking your VIAGRA , you fat racist hidden behind the mic coward.
ihateumore100 1 year ago
MEGA DITTOS! RUSH!
RocketRitch88 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
Comment removed
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
He's right.
randyjsing 2 years ago
Rush is a so called "reformed" drunk, a drug abuser and a people abuser. I hate this man with every fiber of my being. His mouth makes me want to vomit. I'm successful in life, financially, socially, spiritually ( in the non-radical sense) and this loser seems to feel he has earned the right to speak for my welfare. Keep eating those cheeseburgers...looking forward to you having "the big one"!
bonnieclyde123 2 years ago
Anyone with a happy family life, however poor, is richer than this wealthy Republican, who goes home with his bodyguards. Else why is he so fat (poor image), a drug addict, and has to use viagra. Being so filled with hate and malice eats at his very being. I apologize to over-weight people but I think Rush eats to fell the void in his life...he was much thinner when he was chewing oxy-contin.
glennis3 2 years ago
Nah, Rush just keeps kickin ass..
People have rejected LIBERALISM...as evidenced by the election last night....And thats only the beginning, theres a LOT more pain coming in 2010 for you commies. :)
bucs2921 2 years ago
Great segment by Rush.
Thankfully the American people have awakened and are rejecting socialism
bucs2921 2 years ago
People should reject Rush
mooneymanl337 2 years ago
@mooneyman
Rush is rejecting Rush - the spaceship that is his body has been trying to kill him for years!
Candyliz2003 1 year ago
@mooneymanl337 Reject him from what? Hello...He's not in office anymore!
av8or46 1 year ago
@badasschill
If I could rate this comment with more thumbs up I would
ransomdave 2 years ago 2
Rush is an unfunny version of Howard Stern.
mojotruth 2 years ago
Rush for right wing president
hannity for right wing vice president
raydentou 2 years ago
Faeligmunus- I just gave some of the highlights of the debate but there were alot of other things said. The caller also just happened to mention that Bush ran up a 1 trillion dollar deficit after Clinton left office with a 230 billion dollar surplus.
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
Clinton was forced into the 230 billion dollar surplus by the Gingrich Republican Congress. Remember 1994?
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Comment removed
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
Rush is right. So true.
darlena1956 2 years ago
Rush is the best. George Washington, Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln would all be so proud of him. Less Power to the Government. More to the People. We will all find out soon enough
VerbumQuercus 2 years ago
the japanese have invented a camera with a shutter speed so fast it can actually capture an image of rush with his mouth shut.
Bluessontlavie 2 years ago 2
At least being a Moderate Republican is better than being a right-wing fascist who believes their way is the only way to do anything. Rush calls moderates arrogant yet he talks like the very conservative right has all the answers. Isn't that, I don't know, kind of arrogant of him to think such a thing? It just amazes me how people listen to such trash.
Peterfookertube 2 years ago
Being a "moderate Republican" means being replaced by a conservative Democrat in the next election cycle, or by a conservative Republican. The "moderate" Republicans are nothing but big government statists who only pretend to be any different from Democrats. Nobody needs a RINO.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
alwaysright5- read a book lol.. that lawyer that brought that suit to the supreme court over obamas birth cirtificate was FINED$20,000. so im preetty sure he was born in america
bryarcole4 2 years ago
Nobody knows where Obama was really born because he doesn't want anyone to know. And his citizen is in question EVEN IF he was born in Hawaii.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Why are you liberals a bunch sissy ass faggot's.If your a man and you are a liberal you must be gay that's the only thing that can possibly be wrong with you..
spahnman 2 years ago
Listening to Rush should be mandatory and a requirement for voting. We would not have an ignorant kenyan marxist in the White House, nor communist anti-americans in Congress.
alwaysright5 2 years ago
You're kidding right? Listen to Rush?!!
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
Have you listened to Rush??
alwaysright5 2 years ago
Yes, I have listened to Rush alot. Believe me. And the guy's a complete idiot. It was funny, I was listening to Rush a little this morning and a liberal called. He was saying we shouldn't cut taxes during the war. He also pointed out to Rush that Obama inherited these wars. Rush said we had to go to war because we were attacked and that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Can you believe that? We ALL know by now that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
And after that the only thing Rush could say was that this caller was badly suffering from"Bush derangment syndrome" and that he was cast under the "Obama spell" and the "democratic spell." It was obvious he had lost the argument and this was all Rush could say at the end of this argument. It's so funny how Rush reacts when somebody disagrees with him!
Kobeforever211 2 years ago 2
You are of the MEGA stupid type.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
faelismaegnus- And why is that? Please tell me.
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
Because after observing the evidence presented in your comments it's the only rational conclusion.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Tell me what is stupid about my comments, if you can.
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
The ignorant Bush bashing, for starters.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
There was very little Bush bashing in my comments it was mostly Rush bashing. The U.N inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
Ignorant Bush bashing huh, faelismaegnus? HAHAHAHAHAHA
You're too funny.
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
You're even funnier - not comedically either.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
@faelismaegnus "there was very little Bush bashing it was mostly rush bashing."
I hope this calms your fears.
Kobeforever211 1 year ago
There is no fear of your soggy arguments in this man.
faelismaegnus 1 year ago
@faelismaegnus - You must really like Bush. Didn't mean to offend you there buddy.
Good luck in your future endeavors!
Kobeforever211 1 year ago
Faelismaegnus- So is this all you have to say you ignorant prick?
Kobeforever211 2 years ago
I have a lot more to say, you ignorant prick.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Let's pretend that there are
2 major political parties.
TheReboundingWorld 2 years ago
Top 3 most disastrous Republican moments:
#3. Rush Limbaugh becomes defacto head of the GOP.
#2. Fox News appoints itself the voice of the opposition.
#1. John McCain selects wing nut Governor from Alaska, Sarah Palin to be his VP candidate.
azxff1 2 years ago
I love Limbaugh. Arrogant Republicans and faggot liberals that go to Harvard go the hell the brilliance lies in Middle America!
BadaBingBadaBoom012 2 years ago
Limbaugh is an arrogant republican. disagree with me and you can go the hell.
haneous37 2 years ago
If you are a Democrat of the "gay marriage" and "abortion is a woman's right" variety, you're already on your way to hell. Rush is not at fault for your failure to uphold common human decency.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
my definition of human decency is obviously much different from yours. I hope you enjoy making people suffer because your a close minded asshole
haneous37 2 years ago 2
Sorry, I don't like to play with assholes. I'm normal. I have never made anyone suffer. If you are suffering, stop doing the bad things you are doing, and don't blame it on people who avoid doing things that create suffering. Rush is a good man who believes passionately in defending Christian morality and fair and effective government.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
No I'm not suffering one bit. I was talking about minorities that are defenseless against fools that think their way is the best way. You indirectly make people suffer through your hate of "gay marriage". In my book there is nothing wrong with Christianity, but Christians who pick and choose from the bible to make their point and use it against people annoy me.
haneous37 2 years ago
OH and yes you are an asshole.
haneous37 2 years ago
Oh no I'm not. There is no such thing as a marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. You are extremely annoyed by the fact that the Bible teaches AGAINST gay marriage. There is not one instance of a gay marriage, nor one positive depiction of a homosexual in the entire Biblical corpus. You need to get your head OUT of your ass and wash your sad and stinky face.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
I'd like to point out that homosexuality is mentioned 12 times in the Bible, and most of them seem to be referring more specifically to homosexual prostitution, not regular relationships.
Two of the mentions in the bible are in Leviticus, and Christians aren't bound by the rules in Leviticus. Also, Christians make a point of saying that all people sin in their own ways, do they not? While a homosexual might be going against God in his or her own way, you surely do too.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
So, you're all on equal footing. All are imperfect, but all are loved; isn't that what Christians believe?
Are Christians also not taught not to judge others? Are they not taught to forgive and turn the other cheek instead of chastise and hurt?
In short: why are you so dense? I know you'll probably be offended by somebody taking issue with your fundamentalist nonsense, but you should at least think a little bit about the most prominent and important message of the Bible: Forgiveness and love
Termite551 2 years ago
Forgiveness and love are the ultimate reward for those who accept God's Divinity and the goodness of God's Moral Laws. Jesus Himself condemned hypocrisy in scathing terms. Your limp-wristed version of Christianity is not Christianity at all. We love the sinner and HATE the sin. The only nonsense here is your fundamental distortion of Christ's Message. I suppose you also discount the Revelation of Jesus Christ where God and Christ loose their wrath upon the unrepentant. Don't preach nonsense!
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
@Termite551 You're ignorant of the fact that homosexuality is also condemned (for Christians) in the New Testament. It's ignorant to contend that the Old Testament moral laws are'nt binding for Christians. They are, only the communal death penalty is lifted. Jewish ritual laws are not binding. Foolishly, you think all sins are equal. All sins are sins, and sin will send you to Hell if not repented for and atoned for by Christ's Sacrifice, but all water bodies are not freshwater lakes.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Yes, I realize that homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament, but once again, it is mentioned sparsely. Is it not logical to believe that Jesus, who spoke MUCH more about forgiveness and loving thy neighbor than of homosexuality being a sin thought the former more important?
What I was trying to get at is that the Bible teaches to respect others, and that it takes precedence over its condemnation of homosexuality.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
I'll agree that the Bible says to love the sinner and "hate" the sin, but I have seen no indication from the Christian right of loving homosexuals AT ALL. How is trying to "fix" homosexuals loving in the least? From all indications it simply causes incredible emotional duress and doesn't work. How is preventing them from taking part in a legal contract that formalizes their relationship, whilst also calling it marriage, loving?
Termite551 2 years ago
Well, you're blind. The problem is that homosexuals insist that Christians (there's no such thing as a Christian left, nor any moderates) accept their deviancy as normal. These homos don't agree that their actions are sinful. And being a fundamentalist with gay family members I know that you are 100% wrong. Sure many Christians don't love gays, but many non-Christians hate gays as well. I don't. But I know they are WRONG. Defining yourself by a sex act is just STUPID.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Phew, I don't know where to start.
First off, I'm the grandson of a Lutheran minister who attended seminary, preached for many years, and is just as much a Christian as anybody in America. He's also fine with homosexuals. I'm sure he has his reservations, but he himself said that the Lutheran church's debate about whether or not to let homosexuals become clergy was absurd and that homosexuals should be evaluated based on their faith, not their sexual orientation.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
He's also a man who has preached on how the Bible isn't a textbook, it is a book of morality and ethics. He believes in the divinity of Christ and all of the essentials of course, and he believes them to be true, but he does not see acknowledge Genesis as a factual account of the origin of the planet.
I guess I forgot to mention, he also has a Master's degree in psychology. His experiences in higher education are probably what informed his opinions on these matters.
^^^
That was a tangent
Termite551 2 years ago
Well, I do take the Genesis account literally, as literal as it can be taken, and see no problem with some kind of evolution taking place, even human from animal evolution. But speaking of evolution, you might notice that homosexuality is an abnormality in the animal world, which includes humans. It is immoral and unethical to be a homosexual according to the Bible. You can't escape this fact. Your position is scripturally untenable. It's simply a philosophical-political innovation.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
It doesn't matter that your gramps was a Lutheran seminarian. Again, Luther was against homosexuality on Biblical grounds. A bishop (clergyman) is to be the husband of one wife. That excludes gays. The Bible is not a textbook, but it is the CREED of the FAITH you claim to be yours. You can't just rewrite it to suit postmodern humanist philosophies.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
So since Jesus wants us to love sinners we shouldn't condemn sins. NONSENSE. Jesus' very actions (driving out the money-changers with a whip) and condemning the pharisees and scribes, etc. show you to be barking up a dead tree. I condemn homosexuality and love homosexual people.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Once again, you don't have to approve of the sin. But, in condemning the sin, you are hurting the person as well, and I'm sure you realize this. I can understand that for something like murder, which must be condemned regardless of the murderer's feelings, but homosexuality? Simply because it is mentioned in a few instances, you seem to think that homosexuality is way up there in the list of sins a person can commit.
Continued...
It simply does not make any sort of sense whatsoever.
Termite551 2 years ago
Homosexuality and fornication and adultery have terrible social, physical, and psychological consequences. You either don't realize this or your refuse to accept the facts. If it wasn't important, it wouldn't be mentioned at all. The number of mentions of a sin in the Bible is not what qualifies the severity of the sin. If you accept homosexual clergy, then why not polygamists, polyandrists, pedophiles, bestialists, etc.? It makes a lot of sense to hold your moral ground. Sin hurts people.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
First off I'm going to point out that I myself don't care whether or not polyandrists are allowed to be clergy. As long as all of the members of the relationship are consenting adults, then what harm comes of it?
Secondly, I am not Christian. I can see why you would be misled to believe that from my previous posts, but I myself am not a Christian. Many of my family members are however, and I have a deep respect for the religion.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
This is why I find it offensive when people interpret the Bible in hateful and ignorant ways. To me, reading the Bible and only taking it at face value is like reading a Tale of Two Cities and analyzing it: you are left without a true understanding of its message.
I will agree that adultery can have terrible consequences, but fornication? Are you yet another abstinence pusher? Once again, I will agree that Christian doctrine looks down upon these things, but let me explain something
Continued
Termite551 2 years ago
George Bush, and his family, are extremely wealthy. Now, I know that you are aware of what the Bible says about the rich and their chance of getting into heaven.
Taking that at purely face value, it would appear that Bush isn't going to get into heaven any time soon (unless he figures out how to get a camel through the eye of a needle).
Do you agree that Bush will go to hell or not? Because to say that he won't would require at least some amount of interpretation.
Termite551 2 years ago
Everybody is a sinner.
Nobody is perfect.
I'm sure these are things both of us can agree on. You aren't perfect and neither am I. The clergy you DO approve of aren't perfect either, but apparently you're fine with them. Have you given away your possessions to the poor? Have you never lied? Have you never had impure thoughts?
The Bible condemns homosexuality, but lets face it, the Bible condemns a LOT of things.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
I suppose the ideal Christian should feel guilt for their transgressions. From the things I've heard gay Christians say on the matter, it would seem to me that they have felt enough guilt to last a lifetime. The confusion and disillusionment they feel we can only imagine. They carry a great burden, but unless you wish to deny the claims of the great psychological institutions of the United States and other nations, they have no choice in the matter.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
So, coming back to my initial point, is acceptance, or at the very least, tolerance, not the best path to go down? A person's relationship with God should be between them and God, do you not agree? Leave them to sort out their minor transgressions.
That's right, minor transgressions. While you are right in saying that the frequency of it being mentioned does not determine how important a rule it is, do you not think it at least indicative?
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
A philosopher would not quickly gloss over an important point of his philosophy in a mere 12 lines in a 1000+ page treatise, and I do not suppose the authors of the Bible would do so either. And, even if it is to be taken as an equal rule to the others, you would dare compare it to pedophilia? Pedophilia involves violating a non-consenting person, and hurting them physically, and mentally, in the process. Homosexuality on the other hand, or at least the form I'm talking about, is
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
Between consenting adults. They are not hurting each-other or bringing pain to unrelated parties.
And really, that's all I have to say on that until you reply.
Termite551 2 years ago
It's not the same, but all parties are similarly being hurt. The child is innocent, of course. You missed my point that if you don't have a clear moral code then you cannot really argue against any kind of sexual acts. If a juvenile agrees to have sex with an adult how can you then claim it is without consent? Polyandrists and polygamists would destroy society as we know it if their numbers became great. The same is true for homosexuality. Anal penetration is un-natural and destructive.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
The Bible was not written as philosophy. And in those days, Jews already understood that homosexuality was immoral. Paul forbade it strongly. He need not write ten pages about it to get the point across. It was classed as a sexual sin just as orgies and adultery were. I am not one who goes around preaching hour long sermons against homosexuality. It's enough to teach that it is forbidden for Christians. Cultural marxism (P.C.) is the real problem. It seeks to destroy Christianity. Look it up.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
You only seek to ignore the injunction against homosexuality by saying that it does not appear often enough in the Christian text. The argument is useless.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
If you claim that human beings are born to be gay, then you must accept that human beings are born to be murderes or pedophiles. You can't use this rationale for homos, but not for the other sinners. Humans have enough free will and self-control to resist their baser instincts. Sexual promiscuity of the heterosexual kind is also condemned by Christian morality.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
I don't think people very well could be born to be murderers, but no pedophiles. I have seen no scientific evidence to support the claim that pedophiles have some innate characteristic that makes them what they are. As for murderers, there is lots of evidence of actual mental and physical characteristics that correlate to violent behavior. I'm not saying they can't repress them, but there is something there.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
Gah, lots of typos in that one. This is what I get for trying to respond right when I get up.
The first line should read "I DO think people could be born murderers, but not pedophiles."
I do not think that homosexuals and murderers should be treated in the same way though, for that is absurd. Homosexuals being born with their sexual orientation is on about the same level as somebody being born tall, it's just a trait.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
And, not to go off on too big a tangent here, but can a tall person NOT be tall? If the Bible condemned tallness, would you attack it as you do homosexuality? Because to me tallness and homosexuality are basically the same thing: traits that one cannot change, or at least cannot change without extreme duress and suffering. One could chop of their legs in order to not be tall...
But seriously, who'd want to do that?
Termite551 2 years ago
Homosexuality is not genetic. Acts are always changeable. Environment and conditioning make homosexuals.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
I think that if a person can really be born to be gay, then he or she can also be born to be a pedophile. There's no logic in your rejection of pedophilia as a genetically-endowed condition. Personally I think it's nonsense. As a Christian we already know that people are tempted to do evil. For us, the idea that someone was born to feel gay is moot. Being gay, like being a pedophile, or being a liar, is WRONG. The fact that some people can't help it sometimes is why Jesus died for us.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
There are studies showing correlations between features of the brain and homosexuality. That is indicative of a genetic influence on whether or not one is homosexual. Granted, there are studies in support of the "nurture" side of things too. Most likely homosexuality is caused by a combination of the two.
I have seen no such studies showing that pedophiles are born that way, and even if they were, it wouldn't matter.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
And none of the above can change the fact that Christians believe in the God of the Bible who made it clear to us that homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is immorality and that these things are terrible sins which create terrible consequences. Would do you think it only matters that homos are born gay but NOT that pedophiles are born that way? Why do you hate them (pedophiles) for who they are?
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Like I have clearly stated (but apparently, you still fail to grasp), I object to the actions of a pedophile because he or she is violating a child, and since children cannot give informed consent, it is tantamount to rape.
It's the "rape" part, in case you didn't catch that.
Termite551 2 years ago
In case you didn't grasp it, I hate homosexuality because it is being marketed to children in schools by people like you as a normal and healthy way of life. I am not for criminalizing immorality, so your friendly neighborhood gays can go about their gay business without any threat of government interference. I am against GAY IDEOLOGY being taught to children (this is tantamount to intellectual and psychological rape) in schools and other children's media.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Again, the Bible clearly ranks homosexuality as a gross sin. It says that people who do such things have reprobate minds which no longer hold to any Christian morality. The Bible condemns sin, and condemns certain sins in a harsher manner than others. You're trying to find a loophole for homosexuals. That's just stupid. First of all, no one should define themselves by their sexual habits. And homosexuality is considered to be normal by postmodernists. We know that it is abnormal. Gender matters.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
George Bush might go to Hell, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a better president for Christian people.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Fundamentalists always go on about how our leaders should be good Christians, people of upstanding character, etc. Are you going to tell me that a person who isn't a good Christian would be a good leader for the Christian people?
That seems kinda weird.
Also, relating to a different comment, yes we do know that homosexuality is abnormal. Nobody is claiming that it is normal to be homosexual, but not being normal doesn't necessarily mean being bad.
Continued.
Termite551 2 years ago
There are more white people than any other race in America, so one could suppose that, it being the norm, being white is normal. And since the opposite of normal is abnormal, minorities are abnormal. Are minorities bad? Is what is most common good all of a sudden?
Termite551 2 years ago
Being gay is not like being white or black. There are so many differences among whites that your analogy doesn't work. I suppose its normal to be a yankee, or is it normal to be a Democrat, or is it normal to be rich and white or poor and white? Still has nothing to do with an action. Homosexuality is defined by the homosexual act.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
If homosexuality is defined by the act, then a person who is homosexually raped is homosexual? That's laughably stupid. Homosexuality is defined by a person's desire to have homosexual relationships.
Termite551 2 years ago
You can't be defined by something done TO YOU aginst your will, but you CAN be defined by something you willfully engage in.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Of course we wish that our leaders would be good Christians, but it's not always possible. So we choose the lesser of the evils. So what defines "bad" for you? I used "normal" in the sense of a moral norm.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
"Bad" is what is bad for society and individuals. The violation or deprivation of a person's rights is bad, thus rape, murder, theft, etc. are all bad.
Bad is a rather nebulous term though, so I'm going to refrain from using it too much.
Termite551 2 years ago
Immorality is not nebulous for Christians. There are a few things that aren't so clear, but a true Christian won't condemn something sinful that isn't condemned by the Word of God.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Again, too many words to say nothing important. Since you don't accept the Bible or Christianity you shouldn't try to tell Christians how to interpret the Bible.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
More blather. Since you aren't a Christian why are you trying to push a politically-correct version of Christianity? Why don't you go find a Muslim and convert him to your world view?
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
If I saw a Muslim spouting as much nonsense as you are right now, I'd discuss these things with him or her as well.
And since I'm not going to reply to each of your comments one by one, I'll start here.
Do you actually not understand the concepts behind informed consent? It's founded upon the (entirely correct) assumption that children and juveniles are often incapable of understanding or knowing what is best for them.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
Thus, they cannot give informed consent. This makes it tantamount to rape, and so it is illegal. I don't need the Bible for me to make a case against pedophilia, and as for polyandry, I could care less. You're going to need to give a convincing argument as to HOW exactly polyandry and homosexuality lead to the destruction of society, because I'm just not seeing it.
Termite551 2 years ago
As for me trying to change how you view the Bible, I don't see why a non-believer can't discuss these matters with a Christian. I'm no Objectivist, but if I saw somebody reading Atlas Shrugged and claiming that it promotes collectivism I would quickly denounce their claim and provide them with ample evidence to the contrary.
You aren't being forced to continue this dialogue with me, but obviously you are compelled enough by something to keep replying, so I will too.
Termite551 2 years ago
I enjoy discussions.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
How many polyandrous societies do you know of? How many majority homosexual societies do you know of?
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Informed consent to commit sin is still sin. Don't you understand the concept of morality? And who are you to say that a juvenile can't give informed consent? Juveniles have sex with one another. Do you find that morally repugnant?
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
First, let's define juvenile. I'm using it to mean anybody from birth to, say, 16. By that point, I think some are responsible enough (SOME) to handle the decision of whether or not they want to have sex. Below that age, I think they are too young and immature to deal with it.
I brought up informed consent because rape is condemned by the Bible, and so it ties in to pedophilia.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
Even if you are to put homosexuality and pedophilia on the same level, since pedophilia involves rape and consensual homosexual relationships do not, they are not equal...
can we agree on this?
It seems to be a perfectly logical deduction.
Anyway, here is a website (written by a fundamentalist like yourself, obviously) that lists the verses in the Bible that condemn homosexual relationship, and the gay community's "false" responses to them.
continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
Sorry about that, I was hungry so I had a quick breakfast.
I`m using a different computer right now so I don`t have the link I was going to use. I`ll come back to this later, don`t you worry.
I`ll respond to some of your smaller comments instead. I do not know of any polyandrous or homosexual societies (although the Ancient Greeks had some homosexual practices, for certain).
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
I don`t recall any evidence of there EVER being a society in which the majority was homosexual. This is simply because homosexuality is far less common than heterosexuality. This is also because the societies of olden days could not be founded upon homosexuality, as they would need an abundance of children to keep growing. This is a moot point in the modern era where increasing our population is the last thing we ought to be thinking about.
Continued...
Termite551 2 years ago
As for having multiple partners, there are lots of examples of this, although it is hard to say that a society could be `based` on polyandry.
The absence of homosexual or polyandrous societies is far from evidence of them being threats to society.
Termite551 2 years ago
Heterosexuality and monogamy are the roots of Western Civilization. The most successful societies on earth. According to evolutionary biology, groups which have traits profitable for survival will overbreed, overtake, overwhelm, and outnumber those with negative traits. I take it then that you don't accept the tenents of natural selection according to Charles Darwin?
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Now I'm rather confused; what groups are we talking about here? Is this suddenly some heterosexuality vs homosexuality fight based on the rules of social Darwinism?
*I was going to invoke the Nazis here, since your deluded social Darwinism bears some similarities to theirs, but since I see you are from Germany I'll show some discretion and not.*
Termite551 2 years ago
The funny thing is that what you call "deluded social darwinism" is actually the basis of evolutionary sociology. The Nazis were on YOUR side of the fence regarding traditional Western civilization, BUT they also hated homosexuals. I'm not FROM Germany. I hate racism based upon the same principles that make me hate homosexuality and your harmful world view.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Uh huh, how exactly is it that I resemble the Nazis?
OK, if you're not from Germany, then I'll draw the comparison I refrained from writing earlier. The Nazis thought that the disabled were not useful for the furthering and preservation of their society, so they did away with them. You think that homosexuals are not useful for the furthering and preservation of society (in tandem with your fundamentalist view), so you shun them and speak ill of them.
Termite551 2 years ago
I don't SHUN them. I don't speak ill of them as persons. I speak ILL of homosexuality. I speak ill of all the apologists like you who think that defending people's right to be gay MEANS silencing people who think HOMOSEXUALITY is a negative influence upon all people.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
I don't think I've ever given any indication of wanting to "silence" you. I think you're ideas are stupid and dangerous, but I believe in freedom of speech as much as the next guy so I think you should be allowed to say what you wanna say.
Termite551 2 years ago
We will see whose ideas are "stupid and dangerous" as time goes by. The really stupid ideas are the ones you have been clumsily trying to disseminate here.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Maybe YOU don't want to silence me, but their are plenty of people who share your views that want to silence me in the name of "tolerance" and label my traditional opinions "hate speech". You need to wake up.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
LOL! You truly think that having a post modern society that is reproducing at less than replacement rate is sustainable or even desirable!!!??? If you don't reproduce, your culture will DIE. That includes everything you believe in and defend here on YouTube. Europe is on the road to demographic suicide.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
'My' culture has had a declining population for quite some time now, and it isn't because of homosexuality, but because of people not showing interest in having children.
Am I worried about my country running out of people? Of course not.
Homosexuality, as you stated yourself, is not normal. I cannot fathom it ever becoming the norm, and thus 'population decline by homosexuality' will likely NEVER become a reality.
Termite551 2 years ago
LOL! The more homosexuality spreads, the more other sexually deviant lifestyles will spread, the more bullshit propaganda about the threats of "overpopulation" to the earth, the more it is taught that heterosexual monogamous child-bearing marriage is a joke or unimportant to society, the more it is taught that the purpose of life is to make money and spend money doing whatever feels good, the less children the Europeans and other industrialized nations will produce. That's the real THREAT.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
I have seen no evidence of any of this.
Slippery slope fallacy ftw
Termite551 2 years ago
I'm a historian. The slippery slope is no fallacy. Time will prive me right and you W R O N G. Polymorphous perversity knows NO BOUNDS and is the hidden precept of SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES. They will continue to push the envelope until their is NOTHING FORBIDDEN. LOL! The signs of this are already apparent around the world. You jettison Judaeo-Christian morality and a new one will take its place. Shariah or cultural marxism? Only the demographics and the youth trends will tell.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
I was referring to the rhetorical fallacy of not presenting evidence in support of your position, and instead simply chalking up all of your wild assumptions as inevitable due to a slippery slope effect.
Termite551 2 years ago
Evidence? I have observed history for a long time. I KNOW that these things progressively develop over time. The direction that the left of center "progressives" have embarked upon is leading logically to legalization of all forms of sexuality. Sexuality has a tremendous effect upon fertility, and fertility effects population size and this will determine which cultural values survive into the future.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
"I have observed history for a long time"
No, you've "observed" history for perhaps 21 years of your lifetime, which is a very short span of time. I can't imagine anybody in their low teens "observing" history. What you've read doesn't count as what you have observed, it's what you've learned.
Semantics, yes, but important to note.
Now, if you don't mind, I have work to do. I'll be back in perhaps 5-6 hours.
Termite551 2 years ago
LOL! Observing history is not limited semantically to actually being there. As a historian I am immersed in history. I have all kinds of historical records and have access to much more. I don't mind. A historian knows that what you read is not the only way to understand history. You're deconstructionist tendencies are showing! See you later. Have a great work day.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Why does your culture want to self-destruct?
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
My culture doesn't want to self-destruct, which is why the Japanese government has been doing things to encourage couples to have children.
Does it really matter though? I have no vested interest in the perpetuation of my culture; I am who I am, independent of where I am.
Termite551 2 years ago
You are the quintessential agent of the end of civilization. Your vested interest in your own culture is not something that need be "fascist" or discriminatory. Hooray for Japan. Although I think the society as a whole, from what I've heard, is a little too xenophobic. You can better your culture. All cultures change. You don't need to approve of everything in order to be a moral or just person.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
My BIG point is for you to research Critical Theory, Polymorphous Perversity, Cultural Marxism (Freud plus Marx), Liberating Tolerance, namely what we call Political Correctness. This is the root of YOUR belief system.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago