Warren: Nature Inclines Me To Have Sex With Every Beautiful Woman, But That Doesn't Make It Right

Warren: Nature Inclines Me To Have Sex With Every Beautiful Woman, But That Doesn't Make It Right

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
December 19, 2008 - 07:13 ET

Rick Warren had a surprisingly candid response to Ann Curry's question as to whether he would change his views on homosexuality if it were established that people are born gay. The pastor of the Saddleback Church, explaining why such a finding wouldn't cause him to change his position, observed that he is inclined to want to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees, but that that doesn't make it right.

Curry interviewed Warren for a Dateline segment that will be aired tonight on NBC. As noteworthy as Warren's candor was Curry's ostentatious display of righteous liberal anger, captured in the screengrab, while asking Warren whether he is homophobic.

View video here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Morning Joe aired the clip today at 6:11 AM ET.

ANN CURRY: Your position [on gay marriage] has raised the spectre that you are homophobic.

Warren responds with a hearty laugh.

CURRY: You laugh, but that is why gay people are angry.

RICK WARREN: Well, I could give you a hundred --

CURRY: Are you homophobic?

WARREN: I don't know any church in America that's done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback. But the hate speech against me is incendiary.

CURRY: If science finds that this is biological, that people are born gay, would you change your position?

WARREN: No, and the reason why is because we all have biological predispositions. I'm naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Back in the studio, Willie Geist couldn't suppress a chuckle as he let viewers know the rest of the interview could be seen tonight at 9. That in turn led to his repartee.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Are you a member of that church, Willie?

WILLIE GEIST No, sir. No I am not, sir.

The married Geist, clearly wanting nothing to do with Warren's pronouncement on men's nature, quickly threw the discussion to the morning's guests.

Credit Warren for his candor. At the same time, it's instructive to watch Curry go after the pastor. You can almost hear her inner dialogue: "OK, Ann, your liberal constituencies are watching. Here's where I really have to go after this guy and display my righteous anger." Her facial expression is both telling and, in its seeming artifice, amusing.

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Ann

December 19, 2008 - 07:26 ET by jed58

Ann is a beautiful woamn but a walking, talking stupidl liberal. Hey Ann, why not just have the Christian thrown to the lions?

"Hey Ann, why not just have

December 19, 2008 - 07:30 ET by HeavyChevy

"Hey Ann, why not just have the Christian thrown to the lions?"

Don't give her any ideas jed58.

Hell hath no Fury Like A Liberal Scorned

December 19, 2008 - 09:45 ET by allanf

Why is it that liberals seem unwilling to even try to grasp the reasoning of people they disagree with. All emotion all the time.

Nobody said brains and

December 19, 2008 - 13:51 ET by misterbee241

Nobody said brains and beauty had to go together. Look at Britney Spears.

Double post...

December 19, 2008 - 14:51 ET by unkeeaf

Double post...

Here is what I don't understand...

December 19, 2008 - 14:49 ET by unkeeaf

If Christians are bigots for disagreeing with the gay agenda, why wouldn't gay people be considered bigots for disagreeing with the Christian agenda? Wouldn't that make them intolerant as well?

MSM = PR firm for the Democrat Party

Consistent thought process

December 19, 2008 - 15:10 ET by dscott

Consistent linear thought process using critical thinking, that's your problem, thinking like a conservative.

In the liberal worldview assertions are the truth, everything else is hateful opposition to the agenda. All those who oppose the agenda are evil. There are no facts other than what proves the assertion, all else is misinterpreted or irrelevant data. The agenda determines the assertion, the assertion is the truth and only the relevant facts support the assertion. Anyone who attempts to subvert the truth of the assertion is evil and their minds are full of hate. Thus forms the perfect circle of liberal thought, the agenda, the truth and the relevant facts.

If you are a lawyer reading this, you know why the American system of law has nothing to do with justice, the perfect circle is drawn by the line of argument.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Yeah I saw a little of that on O`Reilly last night

December 19, 2008 - 07:28 ET by HeavyChevy

The term Homophobes always seem to be the liberals last ditch effort to make someone feel bad for not accepting their choices (which it is a CHOICE)

and for the last time a phobia is a "fear of" and the last time I checked me and many others are not afraid of gays. I accept you and your right as a fellow human being but don't expect me to accept your lifestyle pure and simple. So in the immortal words of all liberals everywhere I will tell you what you told us about this election. "Get over it and move on because that fact is not going to change."

I, for one...

December 19, 2008 - 07:32 ET by AJB

I, for one, am not a Homophobe. I am homo-intolerant. Live with it. Your bad choice is not a right.

I'm related to a lesbian,

December 19, 2008 - 08:32 ET by dmntd1

I'm related to a lesbian, and I've talked at great length with other homosexuals. I've come to believe that a lot of homosexuals are that way due to sexual trama in their life at a young age. Some of them do appear to make the conscious choice to stick with their gender.

I do believe that a small, and I mean SMALL, TINY, ITTY-BITTY, percentage of people are born homosexual. I also believe that the genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality is actually the brain re-wiring itself to match the reality.

If one looks around at nature, especially the higher-order animals (which includes humans), you'll notice a striking difference between the males and the females. Even the pagans noticed it. Nature seems to require a male and female personality to survive at the highest level. If you look at most homosexual relationships, you can almost always point out the masculine and the feminine side as well. (Don't do that to their face, they do get a bit hostile with that observation!)

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill

at best

December 19, 2008 - 08:57 ET by AJB

For over 100 years, scientists have been searching for the holy grail of gaydom -- the gay gene. It have not been found and I suspect it will never be found. There are two theories on homosexual tendencies... one is a developmental disability which occurs during early life with and absent/weak father figure and an overly assertive mother figure. I read last week where they were theorizing that something even happens in the womb, but that hasn't been confirmed yet. Could match your feelings about some being 'born' predisposed.

No matter. Who you get in bed with is your CHOICE. Period. The color of your eyes, skin, is a physical attribute you're born with. You do not choose (unless, you're Michael Jackson) your physical attributes. However, the entire gay movement is to force their bad choices on us a 'normal'. Its not. Its a perversion. I truly feel sorry for people attracted to that lifestyle...

I agree.

December 19, 2008 - 12:34 ET by andophiroxia

I have noticed a large number of gay and bisexuals that have had some sort of horrible emotional/sexual trauma happen to them. I would agree there is perhaps a few people that are genuinely gay, but overall I would think it's a choice.

Funny enough, MOST lesbians I have spoken to indepth, hate men on a certain level. Usually, they have had a male role model be abusive to them, or a horrible boyfriend and then they blame the men all for it--but turn up just like them. However, they don't see it because they're a woman and the other person is a "horrible man".

I also have had seen instances of "butch" and "femme" in the gay and bisexual community. I guess they're going into the sex roles of the "breeders" because it's really a natural thing for humans to do.

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill

And then I can not help

December 19, 2008 - 13:09 ET by PeskyDane

And then I can not help but wonder at some people's definition of "abuse," and "oppression."

you're doing better than I

December 19, 2008 - 13:44 ET by UndercoverConservative

so far, *all* of the homosexuals I know well were either abused sexually or abused mentally or physically.

Of course, they tell me of people they know who are in it for the "identity". Girls play at "gay" so they can elevate their sexual qualifications to get attention from boys who'd ordinarily ignore them. Boys who don't fit in are given a convenient excuse and force themselves into a mold they end up despising. Both forcibly defend gay causes and deny there was any "choice" because it would show the fraud behind their current "lifestyle".

Of the abused folks, many found comfort in the smaller "community" gay-ness offered. Or they found what they thought was acceptance from the gay community when others shied away when knowledge of their abuse got out...but whether it was acceptance or predation, you never get a true answer until they're much older and either stay in their "lifestyle" out of habit and the time they've invested in the identity, or they "grow out of it" and attribute it to their "wild adolescence".

So there's the self-admitted "damaged" ones, the attention whores, and the ones doing it for "rebellion" or to assault their parents, and the actually deranged.

Tho I must admit my sample might have a flaw-it's mostly knowledge from bisexual or homosexual women, and the anecdotal evidence they provide. I don't hang with the gay men much. Around here they're too into the stereotypical flamer stuff. The authentic butch womyn, they get into guns, home improvement, motorcycles, mucle cars, hot rods, and other politically incorrectand/or dangerous fun stuff:)

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"

Rhetoric

December 19, 2008 - 09:41 ET by KC Mulville

If you oppose gay marriage, (some) gays argue that you must be afraid of them. It's the same argument as when they wonder why their love "threatens" you. Why do they play the fear card?

The rhetoric is that they are brave, and that we are fearful, and that we can't accept their bravery. It's not easy to congratulate yourself and demean others in the same sentence, but that's what their rhetoric tries to do.

Remember, we've long since abandoned any effort to prevent gays from living together. That's not good enough, however - they want us to approve their lifestyle. They won't accept mere civil unions (even if such unions answer every legal concern they have). Instead, they want society to bestow the same respect for their lifestyle as it bestows on married parents within families. Why must it be called marriage? Because they want the same respect.

So, in the request for social respectability, the gay lobby starts by demeaning all opponents. Then they attempt to circumvent the political process and steal the "respect" through compliant judges and mayors who ignore the law and simply declare gay marriages legal, despite the majority voting to the contrary. Proposition 8 passed, but the gay lobby went/is going nuts about it.

The irony is that in their demand for respect, they show none, neither for the political process, nor for plain votes. They just want what they want, and they're going to throw the kitchen sink to get it.

KC, I disagree

December 19, 2008 - 10:50 ET by motherbelt

KC, I disagree.

I think their tactic of "why does our love threaten you?" is just that: a tactic. It turns the argument back on the opposer, and puts them on the defensive. So instead of arguing about gay marriage, the opposer has to "prove" that he/she doesn't hate gays (which of course, they can't because if they didn't, they wouldn't be against same-sex "marriage.")

I wish I could remember who wrote this column I'm about to refer to, but I can't. However, it was about how judgment of change has been turned on its head.

It used to be that when a group wanted to overthrow a long-standing tradition and societal norm they had to make an argument that it would be a good thing, and show reason why the change should be made. Now they just throw out their ideas, and the onus is put on those opposed, to argue and prove why the change shouldn't be made.

Maybe

December 19, 2008 - 12:11 ET by KC Mulville

Could be, MB, although I'm not sure they do it deliberately. It's more like an argument that "caught on" among gay supporters, and it works on an emotional level, even if the intellectual debating points are fuzzy.

You're right about turning the tables, of course. To oppose gay marriage is immediately turned into an attack on gays ... whereas I see it as a defense of marriage. But that's because I'm very much a traditionalist when it comes to marriage. In my argument, marriage is intimately tied to family, and the reason we give it such respect is because of its role in creating families, which is how we build society from the ground up.

For most of history, marriage was the creation of a new family, and a new bloodline (i.e., children), from the union of two existing families. In fact, the love between the spouses was secondary to the families' desire to merge - that's why parents picked the spouses, with little input from the prospective bride or groom.

We've (wisely) stopped that, and we now base families on the voluntary love between spouses ... but the goal is still the same: the creation of a new family.

As a traditionalist, I think we've gone too far in the opposite direction. At one point, marriage was all about children and nothing about mutual love. Now it's all about mutual love, and nothing about family/children. Children are now treated as accidents, to be disposed of when "unwanted." For most of history, society didn't think this way. It wouldn't have occurred to anyone in a family that a child would be unwanted, since that's why families were formed in the first place! It would be as weird to them as if we had a business that didn't care about making money. It didn't compute.

In my argument, I equally oppose the idea of heterosexual couples, who don't intend to have children, from getting married. To my way of thinking, that's a solid case for "civil unions," which address all the legal concerns, but still give family-based marriage a privileged place. These days, we just call it "living together," and they can be dissolved quickly if the couples get bored. In my view, if you want to go beyond civil unions and start a family, we'll give you all the extra privileges and respect, in exchange for a promise to stay together as a family. Since it's such a deeper commitment, we give it extra help. But these days, couples live together for a while and only get married for the tax breaks. That strikes me as complete nonsense. For me, the argument against gay marriage is a last stand for traditional marriage, and traditional families, and for society. It has little to do with homosexuality.

So I'm a traditionalist. I don't apologize for it.

The Marketing of Evil

December 20, 2008 - 08:39 ET by BlueCat57

If you want a clear explanation of the marketing of homosexuality to America then read The Marketing of Evil. Most here are on the right track. This book lays it all out. There are also chapters on abortion and other topics.

Marriage is a religious

December 19, 2008 - 10:42 ET by Texasteacher

Marriage is a religious institution. Find me one religion in this country (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.) that supports homosexualiy and they would have some room to complain. However, there are no religions that support homosexuality. If anyone tries to say that the Bible supports their twisted lifestyle, then that is blasphemy of the highest order.

No no no

December 19, 2008 - 07:28 ET by AJB

Yet again, they just can't get it right. You have NO choice with whom you get in bed with. Myriad beautiful women, boys, men, sheep, dogs and small horses are in my bed weekly. Can I help it? NO. That's the way I was born. I must succumb to those yearnings. To suggest you have a choice is the big conservative LIE.

Please sign my petition to let me marry my sheep, my 13 year old cub scout, my dead grandmother and my twelve cousins. I HAVE NO CHOICE. YOU MUST ACCEPT ME AND MY BEHAVIOR because THAT'S THE WAY I WAS BORN.

I also will be robbing the 5th street Bank later today right after I beat my wife. Again, I have NO CHOICE in this matter. Your undertanding is appreciated.

Hey AJB...

December 19, 2008 - 07:33 ET by HeavyChevy

let me know when you do the bank robbing part I'm a pretty good "wheel man" :-) and if I'm caught I will just blame society or the fact that was not hugged enough growing up.

will you?

December 19, 2008 - 07:34 ET by AJB

Will you be driving an over-priced, poorly engineered, poorly built American gas guzzler car? If so, you're IN!

I think I can "acquire"

December 19, 2008 - 08:18 ET by HeavyChevy

I think I can "acquire" something of that nature and just to really piss off the greenies while we make our break I will pull the catalytic converter off as well...yeah cuz I'm bad ass like that!

I can't help myself, I'll

December 19, 2008 - 09:02 ET by dscott

I can't help myself, I'll supply the weapons, you know it's in my blood.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Well, we have no choice but

December 19, 2008 - 09:04 ET by SRPwrd

Well, we have no choice but to leave our get away car in 3rd gear while travelling 70 then.

Will a full size Cadillac

December 19, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Tom in NC

with a V8 and (gasp) leather seats and wood grain dash do the job?

Everything liberals hate in one automobile!

except for the 13 year old cub scout

December 19, 2008 - 09:12 ET by mom_rox

ajb, I'd sign your petition if it excluded children, and don't be limiting - if 3 women and 5 men all wanted to marry each other, go for it.

Either maintain the definition of marriage to one man and one woman, or open it up to all possibilities - otherwise, that's discrimination, right?

why

December 19, 2008 - 09:25 ET by AJB

Oh no. I have no choice. Its in my blood! Why should children matter? Why should sheep or dead grandmothers be excluded? I CAN'T HELP WHO I'M ATTRACTED TO! We have to have the laws changed. Why should marriage be limited to just one man and one woman? I want Sheep and Cub Scouts!

"I want sheep and Cub

December 19, 2008 - 09:38 ET by sherylsims

"I want sheep and Cub Scouts"

You guys are killin me here! I love a good tag line. I think this is it. (Only would require too much explanation so I will pass)

I'll admit...

December 19, 2008 - 12:27 ET by AJB

In reality, I find attraction to sheep, dead people and Cub Scouts extremely offensive. I use the argument to see where people draw the line. If you relax the rules, then you have to relax them all the way, no? So at what point, if we allow same sex marriage does the argument stop? The answer? It doesn't. I read a while back that marriage for gays is only the first step. They truly want all sex, including sex with young adolescents legalized. All they need do is get their foot in the door. Everyone can sympathize with them wanting the same rights as heterosexual couples when the poster boys for gay sex include very normal looking people. However, if you want to see their true colors, google the Folsom Street Fair, or the Gay Pride parade in New York. See for yourself that their poster boys are NOT representative of their lifestyle, nor their desires.

So where do you draw the line?

the slippery slope, proven

December 19, 2008 - 14:00 ET by UndercoverConservative

reminds me of a big kerfluffel about the Seafair parade in Seattle over a decade ago. A Gay Rights group was denied entry in the parade. They called in the ACLU and made a huge legal case out of it, screaming about discrimination. The counter arguments included the fact that homosexuality was not about friendships or platonic things but who intercourse was with, and the parade was a *family* event. The other argument I remember was, to the effect, "if we let these guys in, how can we justify holding out other groups like pedophiles"?

well of course the city caved in, and the gay rights group got their crossdressers on parade. The very next year, NAMBLA (gay pedophelia) demanded to be allowed into the parade. Their arguments to be allowed in, their justifications and threats, were *identical* to the ones given by the gay rights community.

Fortunately, since there was an age of consent law, that gave the city the right to keep this group of freaks out.

Also, that was about the same time the notorious "Seafair Pirates" got into legal trouble for doing the same sort of politically incorrect shenanigans they'd been allowed and accepted for doing for decades.."kidnapping" various and sundry "wenches" off the parade route and taking them onboard their amphibious truck and back to a big rousing holiday party at the end. Needless to say, such *hetero* activity could not be tolerated and they were ordered to "tone it down".

Between that and legal challenges from Island Liberals to the Blue Angels and the hydroplane races, Seafair has dropped greatly in popularity and attendance. I didn't attend the last few years I was in the area when I even had the time and money to go. But the "civil rights" of the minorities (the rich liberals with lakefront property, and the very small at the time gay community) were promoted over...err.."protected"over the desires, will and good of the People.

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"

You guys, we gotta find Sheryl

December 19, 2008 - 13:35 ET by choselife3x

A bad@ss tagline.
My submission:
Blue State Black Belt, kicking liberal @ss since 1998!

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

Or how about,

December 19, 2008 - 13:50 ET by choselife3x

Go ahead, take my gun. I kill liberals with my feet(thumbs?) anyway.

Oh yeah, Sheryl is a bad@ss!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

not a Sims but i play

December 19, 2008 - 13:42 ET by botg

not a Sims but i play one on teh weebs??

----- Radical Liberal

Only I am a Sims. I

December 20, 2008 - 08:50 ET by sherylsims

Only I am a Sims. I married one. Its cute when we argue because he makes the unintelligible sounds and waves his arms and stomps. (Not really, I was trying to describe the little sim people's arguments...) I haven't played the game in many years, but I did really marry a Sims.

Must show proper amount of hatred

December 19, 2008 - 07:29 ET by Mica the Magnificent

Ann Curry will be attending all those 'Holiday' parties on the Upper West Side this weekend, so she must compete with other libs for attention at those parties.

Showing the proper amount of disdain for anyone remotely conservative will accomplish that.

Suck-Up

December 19, 2008 - 08:57 ET by Seashell

I've always called Ann Curry: Ann "Suck-Up" Curry. She was always sucking up to Katie and now to Matt. It was/is obnoxious. She is definitely sucking up to the liberal elite in this piece.

Liberal Suck Up

December 19, 2008 - 09:49 ET by allanf

Here is Ann sucking up to feminist icon Helen Reddy:

"Up next a gourmet picnic in Today's Kitchen but first this is today on NBC. We just talked to Helen Reddy!"

Who the heck made Curry the

December 19, 2008 - 07:44 ET by motherbelt

Who the heck made Curry the Grand Inquisitor?

She also showed her teeth to the late Benazir Bhutto, browbeating her for returning to Pakistan, blaming her for bombs set by others.

I'm not particularly a Rick Warren fan, but kudos to him for putting Curry in her place.

She was dumbstruck and had no response to his logic.

Liberal Morality

December 19, 2008 - 07:56 ET by BlueCat57

Yes, that seems like an oxymoron. I just discovered a podcast called The Conservative Fun House. In episode 1 they talk about the liberal's view of morality. To a liberal there is only collective morality. It's immoral for society to ..... fill in the blank. There is no need for personal morality. I want to have sex with...fill in the blank. That's private and protected by the right to privacy that is found in the Constitution. Silly me, I seem to have forgotten where.

To a liberal, abortion is a

December 19, 2008 - 08:09 ET by motherbelt

To a liberal, abortion is a personal choice, or a women's reproductive health issue.

Global warming? Now that's a moral issue!

And every impulse that's not resisted becomes an irresistible impulse.

Hostility to Christians

December 19, 2008 - 08:15 ET by The Smokin Frog

Curry clearly exhibited hostility, much as the gay representative did last night on O'Reilly. But still, they keep accusing those that don't agree with them as haters and intolerant. I do know what both of those words mean, but they most certainly are being redefined these days. Just as Obama has been redefining 'Christian' terms, and turning them into terms of 'citizenship'. We will have to agree with him or....

See my reply above,

December 19, 2008 - 08:37 ET by motherbelt

See my reply above, regarding wha liberals define as choice vs. morals.

Curry is not having a great month

December 19, 2008 - 08:16 ET by SickofLibs

1) Scale/save Mt. Kilamanjaro - epic fail

2) Browbeat preeminent Evangelical pastor into agreeing that homosexuality is biological - epic fail

3) stay tuned...

If homosexuality is

December 19, 2008 - 08:31 ET by red_dragon311

If homosexuality is biological, then homosexuals are genetic defectives.

it's animals nature to be attrated to the oppisite sex for for gene line to continue if you are attracted to the same sex there is no way for you to pass on your genes, naturaly without you throwing up

bottom line either its a choice or they are geneticly handicapped

FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!

http://zod2008.com/index.htm

But it doesn't mean they

December 19, 2008 - 08:53 ET by SickofLibs

But it doesn't mean they can't be good parents

Homophobic, just like

December 19, 2008 - 08:26 ET by tater

Homophobic, just like racist and bigot...a liberal insult when you know you are winning.

You know something...I think gays are heterophobic. By the way who you choose to bed with is a choice, you aren't born that way.

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia

So Friggin' what??!!!!!

December 19, 2008 - 08:27 ET by c5then

What if people are born pedophiles? Does that make their behavior OK? What if sociopaths are born that way? Is it then OK if they simply kill people they get angry at?

If some people want to engage in immoral behavior in private, that is none of my business. But don't flaunt it in public and then ask to be treated as a "special" minority because of that certain behavior that they can't seem to control. Then it does become my business and I have just as much right to oppose that idea as they do to request it. If you ask for society to grant a certain acceptance on a certain behavior, society has just as much "right" to say NO as it does to say YES.

Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!

Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012

c5then

December 19, 2008 - 10:56 ET by okiehawk44

Exactly! Society, any society, sets rules that members of that society must obey or face certain consequences.

I do not know if attraction to the same sex is driven by some biological imperative, but I do believe that we as a society have the right to determine its acceptance.

Actually I know the term

December 19, 2008 - 08:38 ET by tater

Actually I know the term that Ann is showing.

FAKE OUTRAGE!!!

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia

The American Liberal

December 19, 2008 - 08:42 ET by Retired Geek

The American Liberal waits for the day that they have lived for and trained for their entire life - to attack and defeat, America and its citizens.

Homosexual Marriage is about a license

December 19, 2008 - 08:45 ET by Retired Geek

There are restrictions on acquiring licenses.

Not everyone can acquire a 'Medical' license because there are restrictions.

Not everyone can acquire a 'Drivers' license because there are restrictions.

Not everyone can acquire a 'Pilot' license because there are restrictions.

Not everyone can acquire a 'Marriage' license because there are restrictions.

This is NOT about 'Civil Rights' it is about restrictions on acquiring a license.

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights and protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights as every other American Citizen.

This whole controversy is about a group of people who have chosen to be deviants and want everyone else to call them normal - it has NOTHING to do with Civil Rights.

Homosexuals want NO license restrictions for themselves, just license restrictions for everyone else.

Genetic?

December 19, 2008 - 08:46 ET by richb313

One thing has always bothered me about the argument that being gay is genetic. If it were a genetic predisposition wouldn't it have been bred out of the human species by now?

The other possibility is a common genetic mutation, but this mutation, unlike other mutations, would be unlikely to be passed on, wouldn't it? And also other common mutations are the causes of genetic disorders that result in conditions requiring medical intervention.

To discuss such issues calmly means I must be a homophobe, right? Well I could care less. If some people want to engage in this activity, I do not care. I have great tolerance of others and thier lifestyles, but do not ask me to approve of it. I wish people would learn the meaning of words. Being tolerant does not mean approve, it actually has the opposite meaning.

Well said, rich..

December 19, 2008 - 09:07 ET by rimsky

Well said, rich.. tolerance? no problem.. neutrality.. NO!

Homosexuals 'Vulgarize Society'

December 19, 2008 - 08:53 ET by Retired Geek

Homosexuals want respect of both themselves and their lifestyle - yet most homosexuals and certainly their leaders, show NO respect for anyone else and their lifestyle.

The goal of most Homosexuals is a complete and utter vulgarization of society.

Ever watch a Homosexual parade? The only goal is to shock and degrade any semblance of normality.

This is NOT about 'Civil Rights', but about 'Vulgar Rights'.

There are no orderly quests for Civil Unions which most Americans would agree to - rather it is a vicious attack on anything 'Sacred' - anything 'Traditional'.

Most Homosexuals hate themselves and anyone who does not agree with their vulgar lifestyle.

Regardless of what Homosexuals gain, it will never be enough to satisfy or sate their unnatural lusts.

Homosexuals want to deny others freedom of religion, freedom of speech and even freedom of thought - unless all others praise them and their deviance from normality.

The concept of live and let live is 'Anathema' to militant Homosexuals.

Perfect screenscrape

December 19, 2008 - 08:57 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTraining

Well the 'if it's biological' comment is so funny to me. It's fact, don't you know??? Right just like global warming is proven in fact.

My gay friends say to me that being gay is like being left handed. So does that mean that being bisexual is like being ambidextrous I say?

From my experience of

December 19, 2008 - 09:15 ET by Hero Squad

From my experience of being left-handed, I can say that it is absolutely nothing like being gay.

*
Hero's "retro" blog. / "People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will

Yep

December 19, 2008 - 09:42 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTraining

Righto.

The other one I have heard is breathing--all involuntary.

All you can do is smile and nod. I'm not going to criticize their lifestyle. But as someone above brilliantly already pointed out, not being accepeting of the choice does not equate to being intolerant.

That is something I will never understand about liberal thought. Why is it the word choice only applies to reproductive rights? I have never understood why liberals are so allergic to that word in any other political context?

The choice to attend one's school of choice? Nope, homeschooled freaks!
The choice to own a gun? Ew, why would you want to?
The choice to critizie broad taxation? Ingrate! We are all one! Submit immediately!

On and on I could go here....

I'm ambidextrous and I don't

December 19, 2008 - 09:51 ET by ThatDude

I'm ambidextrous and I don't see any real connection aside from face value here. I believe that being right or left handed is caused by a slight difference in the mind to control one side of the body. It might be a predisposition acquired through genetics, but ultimately you can decide which hand you develop strength and motor functions in. For most things I'm right hand dominant because that's how I learned them. For others I'm left hand dominant because it was more comfortable (I was initially left-handed for writing, but encouraged to do it right-handed.) Habits and preferences are likely more influenced by environmental and developmental factors than any genetic dispositions. No science obviously has gone into my conclusions, so they're up for debate.

Gays' position seems to

December 19, 2008 - 11:58 ET by Tailgunner

Gays' position seems to be that they're born that way, that there is a 'gay gene' that predestines them towards homosexuality.

I only have one question: How is it passed on?

After all, gays don't reproduce.

LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Probaly in the same way that

December 19, 2008 - 12:20 ET by mandrake

Probaly in the same way that genius is NOT passed on from generation to generation. It's a genetic mutation at the quantum level..you know, evolution at work.

I saw a clip of the

December 19, 2008 - 09:14 ET by GregE

I saw a clip of the interview this morning. When she asked about his hostility (I think that was the part) and he laughed, she seemed a bit P.O.ed as she continued to talk. Her tone changed noticeably for that brief moment.

She was, and it did. She

December 19, 2008 - 09:25 ET by motherbelt

She was, and it did.

She was on the attack, not as bad as she was with Mrs. Bhutto, but still on the attack.

She needs to learn to ask questions without showing her personal animus and being directly confrontational.

She also uses the "can't you see why people hate you?" method.

My guess is she wants to be seen as a tough interviewer, but she just comes off as a nagging b-word.

My guess is she wants to be

December 19, 2008 - 09:52 ET by Seashell

My guess is she wants to be seen as a tough interviewer, but she just comes off as a nagging b-word

Right. She over does things or tries to hard to be this "tough interviewer". And as I said above it just comes off as obnoxious, or better yet as you put it, "a nagging b-word".

Time to plug a book

December 19, 2008 - 09:16 ET by BlueCat57

Time to plug a book again. (Did I make a funny?)

The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian

Explains how much of what is seen as evil by society is marketed and forced on the majority.

Warren and the Chosen president select

December 19, 2008 - 09:23 ET by cocodrie

The chosen one's selection of Warren is the One's way of voting "present" on christianity. Warren is christian but certainly no Hal lindsey on the right nor Duddley Do-no Wright on the left.

As far as the sex with Beautiful women comment goes, all men and women should be locked up for rape. We are all equipped for it, it's just a matter of time til we decide to do it.

Gay and aborted

December 19, 2008 - 09:25 ET by jed58

So if a gay gene were found and then people starting aborting babies because they would be born gay, what would happen?

well

December 19, 2008 - 09:29 ET by AJB

I we can spend a bazillion dollars to find a vaccine for AIDS so gays can continue to have risky unprotected sex, we certainly can wear purple ribbons to support the cause to fund stem cell research to fix a gay gene. No life deserves to be aborted.

I think you are missing the irony

December 19, 2008 - 09:48 ET by jed58

I think you are missing the irony in the position the ant-abortion people would be put in.

meant pro

December 19, 2008 - 09:50 ET by jed58

Pardon, I meant pro-abortion

no...

December 19, 2008 - 10:02 ET by AJB

I do get the irony. I am, however, confused how the eight or tenth cause of death out raises EVERY other charity 100 to 1 just so gays can have sex. Astounding.

→ That's better Jed

December 19, 2008 - 10:13 ET by Cool Arrow

Aborting kids is one thing, but aborting ants? That would be despicable.

Every pupa deserves a birthday.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

180 degrees out of sync with reality

December 19, 2008 - 09:38 ET by Jonah Johansen

I am sure others have noticed the way in which lib talk is almost always not just off target, skewed or misses the mark but a full 180 degrees off target.

liberals denouncing "hate" speech seem to be overflowing with hate themselves

"Professional educators" seam to be the greatest obstacle to improving education in this country

Organizations, groups and individuals who complain the loudest about bigotry and prejudice themselves are full of bigotry and racial animosity.

The liberals claim that the best way to fight terroism is to stop fighting terrorists or the primary cause of terrorism is the fight against it.

The ACLU is probably the gretest single enemy of freedom in this country(unless you are a criminal).

etc,etc,etc

In fact, when in doubt on a particualr issue or public controversy, if you can discern the liberal position just adopt its negation/reverse and you have an excellent chance of being correct.

and the obvious is there any lifestyle that is less 'gay' than the 'gay' lifestyle.

I hear ya JJ

December 19, 2008 - 09:49 ET by general company

In fact, when in doubt on a particualr issue or public controversy, if
you can discern the liberal position just adopt its
negation/reverse and you have an excellent chance of being correct.

Very true, great post. My 15yr old son and I talk about this all of the time. Just unbelivable what some people expect. No responsibility or self control at all, just apathy and hiderance to others. There is no way I could live in the liberal land again,

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Who is Ann Curry?

December 19, 2008 - 09:39 ET by awffp1890

Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" has had a positive impact on millions of people. What of worth has Ann Curry contributed to society?

"Not for fame or reward, not for place or rank, not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity. But in simple obedience to duty." - From the barracks at Ft. Benning

That was a lame answer by

December 19, 2008 - 09:55 ET by mattm

That was a lame answer by Warren.

It's not analogous. The fact of the matter is it hasn't been proven that people are "born gay" - and if they are, it's a birth defect - not a biological predisposition.

To analogize heterosexual attraction with something that is at best a developmental disorder shows a lack of judgment on Warren's part - as does his willingness to buddy-up with Mr. Hussein.

I would not call it lame

December 19, 2008 - 10:09 ET by lotr

Yes, what you say is by and large true, but Warren cut to the chase by saying that "even assuming for the sake of argument that people are born with gay inclinations, that would not change the fact that homosexual acts are still immoral, and thus never to be condoned."

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

But that is where the left

December 19, 2008 - 11:28 ET by dscott

But that is where the left universe is divided from the right universe, the left believes people to be essentially good while the right believes the essential nature of man is fallen, given to evil, thus the need for rules of conduct to limit inappropriate behavior to live in harmony.

To the left, a thief is only so because of economic (environmental) disadvantage thus his/her action is NOT unacceptable. (which is why they won't question Obama's failure to out Blagojevich for corruption since he became a politician in chicago's corrupt system). To the right, a thief is so by a conscious choice to allow him/her to gain an advantage at the expense of others, thus his/her action IS unacceptable.

The very essence of evil is gaining the advantage at the expense of another to their harm or loss. Evil it could be said is a zero sum view of the world, where good is the creation of love. Thus it is said you shall love your neighbor as yourself because there is NO Law against love.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

The Masque of the Red Death

December 19, 2008 - 16:18 ET by reasonsjester

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of
their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Great line. Much props lotr.

reasonsjester

December 19, 2008 - 17:21 ET by lotr

One of my favorite short stories, it is just dripping with allegory (whether this was the author's intent or not...).

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Edgar Allen Poe sidebar

December 20, 2008 - 02:04 ET by reasonsjester

I actually wrote a review article back in college on The Masque of the Red Death that my prof liked so much he posted it on his website as an example of a good review article. My hypothesis was that Poe's possible inspiration for the short story was Thessalonians 5:2: "For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." Mega brownie points. Good to see a fellow lit fan out there.

sidebar continued

December 20, 2008 - 13:58 ET by lotr

Cool. We know that Poe must've been quite familiar with this verse (as well as other Scripture) since he quotes it himself at the climax....

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

I dont really like Warren

December 19, 2008 - 11:18 ET by Dan The Man 2

I dont really like Warren that much as a role model or teacher but this "as does his willingness to buddy-up with Mr. Hussein" is hard to swallow. I dont fault Warren for saying yes to the invocation just as I dont fault Billy Graham for being buddy buddy to any number of world leaders. Paul said in Corinthians, "Be all things to all people" wherein he meant for Christians to get the message out there in forms so all peopel will understand it.

Jesus Himself went to where teh sinners were and prostylized them in language and methods they could understand.

So if Warren and Graham smooze with world leaders and have an opportunity to reach a wider circle of people then more power to them.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Jesus went to where the

December 19, 2008 - 12:18 ET by mattm

Jesus went to where the sinners were to make disciples out of them. Then he told the disciples to go into the whole world making disciples. He did not command preachers to sanction political officeholders whose policy agenda runs counter to everything Christianity stands for.

By agreeing to do the prayer with Obama, Warren is falling for a PR scam by Obama. Jeremiah Wright should be doing the prayer.

Christians are commanded to be "wise as serpents, but harmless as doves." (Mt. 10:16) Too many so-called Christian Leaders seem to have overlooked the "wise as serpents" part.

a picture is worth 1000 words

December 19, 2008 - 10:03 ET by lotr

Great screencapture. It reveals the bodylanguage of a detached, objective, professional, open-minded reporter. Not.

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

maybe...

December 19, 2008 - 10:26 ET by AJB

maybe she's one of the journalists who wanted to give a Lewinsky to Clinton... and now Obama too?

After Proposition 8 on Town Hall

December 19, 2008 - 10:40 ET by Retired Geek

After Proposition 8 on Town Hall I was commenting on a article and there were 50 or more Homosexuals on the thread.

I aksed them this question:

Is Homosexuality a birth defect?

Is Homosexuality a free will chosen behavior?

Is Homosexuality an infusion of evil?

Most of the comments directed at me were personal attacks accusing me of being mean spirited and NOT enlightened enough to be alive.

Many said that Homosexuality is as 'Normal' as being left-handed or having 'Blue Eyes'.

I also asked, if a Homosexual 'gene' was found would they be in favor of aborting those babies to 'Save' them from a life of despair, suicide and disease?

I received death threats for that question.

As I've said before, if

December 19, 2008 - 11:21 ET by Kevroy

As I've said before, if people are born gay, then it is a defect. Just as a baby is born with 3 arms, it is deformed. It is not normal. That doesn't mean we love the 3 armed baby any less, but don't tell us it's normal.

And another thing - I

December 19, 2008 - 12:21 ET by mattm

And another thing -

I wonder if Ann Curry and her ilk would change their minds about homosexuality if it were proven that people were NOT born that way.... I somehow think not.

for your contemplation

December 19, 2008 - 12:51 ET by lotr

"Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, for John had been saying to him: "It is not lawful for you to have her." Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, ..." -- Matt 14:3-4

and

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. -- Matt 5:11-12

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." -- Rom 1:21

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Moral standards be damned,

December 19, 2008 - 11:52 ET by AJ

Moral standards be damned, I say. I'm going to petition for a new law that will free serial killers from prison because they're born with a genetic trait that makes them psycho. They can't help it. Thus our society MUST accept them and their lifestyle!

Sarcasm aside, as many of you have noted, this whole homosexuality thing is about the homosexual community's utlerior motive: absolute acceptance and nothing less. They're like this black hole that is looming over every corrupt sector of societal morality, looking for some way to gain acceptance. It isn't really about the proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait, they merely want absolution against moral integrity.

In our society-- at least for now-- it's daft to say something like "serial killers should be set free because they can't help it that they were born with a genetic trait that made them go crazy." Yet we have the exact some problem but with homosexuals, but there seems to be significantly less resistance to that notion than freeing genetically predisposed serial killers.

The Nanny State

December 19, 2008 - 12:26 ET by BKeyser

The Left' montra is simply- "its not your fault." To the left, it takes a village to raise a child. And that child can grow to be whatever it wants to be so long as it doesn't disparage anyone within the village. It will grow its own pot and feed off its own veggies. It will have unprotected sex with men, or women, or little boys, or little girls; entirely without scrutiny or disdain from the villagers. It will not have a name, only an aura, and it will believe that it is he (or she) that is the center of the village- that all things revolve around it. It will not be punished for its ills, for it will not be seen as having any; it will be tolerant of those with whom it agrees. It will be devoid of original thought, and will seek only to regurgitate what has been tried -and failed- by countless villagers who've come, and gone, before it. It will believe that it controls the weather, life or death of all species, and that it is the descendant of an abolutely astonishing array of coincidences, all blindly accepted as "science" because it was described that way by other villagers. It will wear only pink, the color of peace- and all those outside the village are evil (and apparently republicans.) It is: Barney Frank (or Rachel Maddow)

and when...

December 19, 2008 - 14:52 ET by AJB

And when the villagers who are not as civilized as this tribe come over and take all their stuff, burn their house and eat their young, our enlightened few will try to hand them flowers, or hold hands and sing kum-ba-yah. It will then take approximately 2 tenths of a second as they observe the rest of their body as their head falls to the ground and it will eventually end up on a pole to warn their neighbors of the stupidity of that tribe. Happens every day.