Pajamas Media

64 Comments

1. Never For Obama:

This article was very true. The left is always preaching tolerance, but practicing censorship of those who dare to express any true freedom of speech.

I believe it was Andrew Klavan who said that the Left responds to any facts or viewpoints that do not support their opinions with, “Shut Up!”

Jun 16, 2009 - 4:06 am 2. Martin:

Thanks Prof. Douglas. I admire Ms Prejean and pray many more will resist the illiberal radical liberals.

Amazing how quickly things are moving. To be persecuted for holding that belief and not only that but qualifying it by saying it was merely personal opinion? Incredible only a few years ago.

If more Carrie Prejean’s take a stand perhaps enough apathetic Americans will finally see what SSM proponents really are, cultural destroyers. Maggie Gallagher outlined will happen if the State has to promote homosexuality along with marriage in schools and public generally – religious freedom loses.

In other words Christian anthropology and teaching about sexuality will be considered bigoted akin to racism. This means the effective marginalisation of public Christianity – and the coup will have been completed.

Jun 16, 2009 - 4:50 am 3. karlstro1:

It’s really a non-issue and always has been. I do, however, support Carrie and her great stance. What ever happen to discussion “agree to disagree”. The far left is tearing down this country brick by brick.

Jun 16, 2009 - 8:11 am 4. Well Educated Cad:

The Left has always been a big backer of the First Amendment- as long as you agree with them.

Jun 16, 2009 - 8:26 am 5. oldguy:

You will find a lot more bitches among men than women in America.

Jun 16, 2009 - 8:52 am 6. Fitch:

I’m sorry if progress is scary for slack-jawed yokels, but
let’s face it- Christianity is false, even if all those who practice
it weren’t hypocritical half-wits. You think homosexuality is
perversion, I think Christianity is perversion. Without the good sex.

Jun 16, 2009 - 8:54 am 7. Terbreugghen:

I was happy to hear Prejean’s statement, and disgusted at the intolerant and hypocritical reception it got from pageant judges and organizers.

After reading Prejean’s email stream to Lewis, however, I got the sense that Ms. Prejean is not the virtuous and innocent party for which we’d hoped. Yes, the pageant administration does seem to have wanted to “trap” Prejean by making contract-breaking offers, but Ms.Prejean’s responses appear to reveal a prima-donna personality unwilling to cooperate. I wish it were not so.

Jun 16, 2009 - 9:09 am 8. Robert V:

This would not be that big of a deal if she had not openly taken a Christian stance. The photographs, breast enhancement, and beauty pagent participation shows that she is not really serious about her faith, and that is one of the things that people saw, and one of the reasons that people reacted the way that they did towards her.

Many conservatives will call out Obama as a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do person, and I agree with them. However, you also have to hold someone like Carrie Prejean to the same standard.

Jun 16, 2009 - 9:39 am 9. Bill Perron:

I have noticed a great preponderance of homosexuals are also atheists, as well as liberals. … Allah Akbar

Jun 16, 2009 - 9:54 am 10. Bohemond:

“The photographs, breast enhancement, and beauty pagent participation shows that she is not really serious about her faith”

WTF??

What do you know about Christianity?

Jun 16, 2009 - 9:57 am 11. gdad:

Conservative icon??? She’s a pretty pitiful “icon.”

Jun 16, 2009 - 10:11 am 12. blotto:

I’ll try this again.

Fitch: Using your upside down logic, you must be homosexual. Because if you had sex with a woman, that would invalidate your argument. Your argument only works if all of nature is wrong-that homosexual sex is natural and heterosexual sex is perverted. Wow! All these eons and us humans had it wrong..

RobertV: Her answer is one in which over 70% of the American public both Christian and not hold. So YOUR argument is likewise invalid. What does her improving her looks and probably going to college to improve her education have to do with her Christianity?? So Michael Jordan must not be a Christian because of his Hanes commercials??? That is just stupid logic, or it is grasping at straws.

Jun 16, 2009 - 10:39 am 13. Peter the Bubblehead:

8. Robert V wrote:
This would not be that big of a deal if she had not openly taken a Christian stance. The photographs, breast enhancement, and beauty pagent participation shows that she is not really serious about her faith

Peter writes: I don’t recall there being a “Thou shalt not enhance thy body” among the biblical commandments. Nor any prohibition against photography. (That actually seems more an Islamic decree.) So where is what she has done stated as being un-Christian?

Jun 16, 2009 - 10:53 am 14. Peter the Bubblehead:

Please also keep in mind that Carrie’s answer to the gay marriage question is the EXACT same answer Obama gives when asked the same question. So why aren’t the lefty liberal loonies demanding Obama’s resignation?!?

Jun 16, 2009 - 10:55 am 15. aclay1:

As someone who favors gay marriage, I am surprised to find myself having more sympathy for those who oppose it that for those who agree with me. Those who oppose it are exercising their First Amanedment rights, while those who agree with me are intolerant, ignorant, vulgar bullies. Are the gay activists unaware of the hypocrisy of their behavior? Don’t they realize that their intolerance undermines their long-term goals? This isn’t about gay marriage, this is about self-indulgent enjoyment of a state outrage. Pathetic.

Jun 16, 2009 - 11:10 am 16. Delia:

5. oldguy:

“You will find a lot more bitches among men than women in America.”
~

ZOMG! Can I kiss you? BEST COMMENT EVER! LMFAO!

Jun 16, 2009 - 11:25 am 17. Old Soldier:

Robert V: She didn’t “openly taken a Christian stance”. She honestly answered a question – as noted above – the same way Obama did.

Jun 16, 2009 - 11:26 am 18. Themistocles:

Pay no attention to Robert V. He is a hypocrite who presumes to be able to see the motivations in others. As Carrie Prejean said, “I’m not perfect.” But she is a lot closer to perfection than those who think they are perfect enough to judge others.

Donald Trump also emerges tarnished from this sorry event. He ruled that Prejean could keep her crown, but said nothing when a lower level guy, Keith Lewis, who pulled the rug out. Lewis is completely unethical, but if Trump had been a stand-up guy, he could have easily corrected this by barring California from participating in future events based on the bad faith of Lewis and the Miss California USA organizers — who would have caved in a heartbeat.

Finally, the entire gay movement demonstrated that they are not evolved enough to be entitled to any putative “rights.” They would not stand up for the rights of an innocent person, therefore they are not entitled to any special rights themselves. Could they have acted any more despicably? Their odious denial of the rights of someone who spoke honestly makes clear their universal lack of character.

Jun 16, 2009 - 11:34 am 19. Genghis Kohn:

We need to do a poll. Who would you rather see: Ms. Prejean in lingerie, or Barney Frank is his undies?

Jun 16, 2009 - 11:35 am 20. Delia:

19. Genghis Kohn:

“We need to do a poll. Who would you rather see: Ms. Prejean in lingerie, or Barney Frank is his undies?”
~

Bahahahahahahahahahaha! There went my monitor! *swipes tear* You dudes are on a roll today! Call me lesbionic but I’ll take Carrie any day over Bwarny Fwank in his grundies. lmfao

Jun 16, 2009 - 11:45 am 21. Peter the Bubblehead:

To Genghis Kohn @ #19:
You should be severely punished for putting that second image in my head! (shudder!)

Jun 16, 2009 - 11:47 am 22. The Shadow:

wow – hunger in Africa, Election stolen in Iran, Drug Cartels in Mexico, N Korea has the bomb and this is the issue that the wingnuts want to discuss. No wonder you lost the last election

Jun 16, 2009 - 12:21 pm 23. repsac3:

Support gay marriage, had no problem with the question or the answer–though I disagreed with the answer–and thought Perez was awful the day after. Beyond that, I think that being held up as some kinda cause celeb by the right was the worst thing that could’ve happened to Carrie. Yes, she was a victim of some serious bigotry (Perez, and a few others) but victimhood isn’t pretty, and will only take you so far.

I just have the feeling that, were it not for her being celebrated on every right wing blog in the country, she might’ve gotten on with doing the job of Miss CA.

My reading of events up to the time of the big Trump news conference was, she had broken some pageant rules. I don’t believe that she was victimized by the CA pageant people–though perhaps they might’ve not noticed the infractions, or not cared as much about them, if she wasn’t getting so much attention & scrutiny. (The photos from her past and the enhancement surgery would’ve come out no matter how she gained notoriety, like if, for instance, she’d gotten one of the other questions, but also somehow won the pageant. The “appearance” problems were likely the result of the marriage issue, but those things were the result of her fame, and it wouldn’t've mattered how she got that fame.)

After she dropped out of sight (at least here in NY… I’d assume–& hope–folks in CA still saw her, occasionally), I didn’t give Carrie another thought (& don’t know much of anyone who did), and I was very surprised to hear she was fired, but less surprised to hear the reason for it.

All that to say, I reject the whole “leftwing plot” angle. She got mistreated, some, became a spokesperson for a cause that wasn’t really her own, and may turn out to be the only one hurt by the whole episode. (Though I also won’t be surprised to find her as a FoxNews reader, or hosting her own infomercial, or something. She may be down, but she ain’t out.)

Jun 16, 2009 - 12:33 pm 24. ic:

Donald: Are you tenured yet? Miss Prejean lost her crown for being honest, you may lose your livelihood for supporting her.

Jun 16, 2009 - 12:35 pm 25. Tri Geek:

Shadow: It seems you too are here discussing this topic. What can we make of that? And what exactly have you or your fellow Libs done about starvation in Africa???? Any comments on how much the Bush Admin spent on AIDS in Africa?

Jun 16, 2009 - 12:46 pm 26. Larsen E. Whipsnade:

15. aclay1:”Are the gay activists unaware of the hypocrisy of their behavior? Don’t they realize that their intolerance undermines their long-term goals?”

Apparently they’re not concerned. Now you can see why the level of debate is so low. Hypocrites are debate resistant. As a result, the opposing sides are reduced to trading insults. This will only get worse.

Jun 16, 2009 - 1:11 pm 27. noname:

Ms.Prejean might be beautiful but stupid…. though she stood up for what she believed and instead of being hypocritical she said what she felt and thats the most important thing…. speak the truth not bullshit

Jun 16, 2009 - 1:11 pm 28. G Alston:

#9 — I have noticed a great preponderance of homosexuals are also atheists, as well as liberals.

I know a number of gays from small religious towns and it seems that they all learned atheism after being disowned and spit upon by their tolerant churchgoing families and neighbours.

Perhaps the christian hypocrisy they perceive is a myth; they’re simply depraved, like anyone else who is an atheist, and they can’t face up to the truth.

Atheism: worse than being gay.

Jun 16, 2009 - 1:24 pm 29. The Shadow:

TG – One of the few good things that Bush did. I take it you are in favor of the increase in the IMF aid that Obama has proposed

Jun 16, 2009 - 1:53 pm 30. Marc Malone:

#22 Shadow – Is this what we want to discuss? Actually, yes! I care more about the free speech in this country than I do about free elections in Iran… or any of the other things you mentioned. When one is persecuted for expressing one’s opinion (especially such a mainstream one) in a respectful manner, then Liberty is in real danger here in this country.

As for the guy who has the impression that she is a Prima Donna, that’s bull. She was being railroaded, and so, she wrapped herself in dignity in defense. Remember, this is a business deal, and she has to stand up for herself. Lewis offering her appearances that would violate her contract with him is fraudulent. Either way she loses. She turns him down enough, because the offers are fraudulent, and he cans her for being “uncooperative”.

She should sue him for breach of contract. It would be a circus, and she’d kill him in court and in the court of public opinion. He might even lose his franchise. Sweet justice.

Jun 16, 2009 - 1:56 pm 31. Mongoose:

G. Alston

No one is “spitting on gays”, they are calling attention to their sin. If your “small town gays” feel compelled to denounce their faith and renouce their communities over their inability to face this, then it indicates there was little faith or regard for their communities in the first place. Either that, or it indicated a profound sense of shame and an inablity to face it.

It shows just how little you know about Christianity. (Or decent Americans for that matter).

Those “small town Christians”, like that vast majority of their fellow citizens, vehmently disagree wth the idiotic formulation that marriage is anything other than between a man and a woman.
They do not accept homosexuality as normal, healthy activity that society should encourage.
They are not “ignorant bigots”; they are decent people defending their civilization.
The fact that you can not see this points to your own moral debasement, not the morality of others.

The gays pridefully disregard all this, and attack people of faith: It is they how are spitting on people.

It is they that insist that decent people acknowledging their perversity as normal and even moral act.

Moreover, one need not surrender one’s free speech, merely because one “offends” someone.
There is no “right” not to be “offended”, a fact that the Left would wish us to forget.
This rhetorical dodge of “victims” and “offensive speech” of Leftists is purely a cynical hustle. You care not one whit how you “offend” the rest of us, or truly victimize the innocent or the spiritually disturbed.

You have stood reality on its head, as liberals are wont to do: It is this woman that is “being spat on” not some small town gay, and it is gays, and their mindless and immoral liberal cohorts that are doing the spitting.

Liberals like you that wish to cast aside all of history; thousands of centuries of moral, economic, cultural and social teaching you toss away in you vain delusions of “revolution” and “superior” intellect, culture and morality. You wish to duck the whole notion of sin altogether. You wish to toss out civilization itself for civilization is not possible in the climate of moral relativism or an absence of concrete moral standards. It is you that are the barbarians, not some decent, hard working citizen of a “small town” out there in the heartland, one who no doubt has children to protect and morally instruct.

And what in the blue blazes do “small towns” have to do with all of this?
Another gratuitous dig at decent Middle America? Another telling and bizarre bit of Left Wing bigotry. I can assure you that residency in a large city
is no guarantee of morality, or “superiority”. Far from it.
Urban “sophistication” is usually just self serving rationalization for moral indifference to the sinfulness of others masked as “tolerance”, or, worse, denial of one’s own sinfulness.

If you tried this sort of dishonest rhetoric as a resident of small town, you would quickly be given a robust lesson in public manners and comportment. Try silencing opinions there. Try the sniffling moral posturing there.

The vast majority of so called “urban liberal sophisticates” would not survive long in a small town in the heartlands.
Those without trust funds would be challenged to actually earn a living at a real job, and the trust fund brats would find that nobody is particularly impressed by their pretensions, money or high self regard.

There is nothing “superior” about you people at all: You are spoiled, over-indulged, overgrown children. There is hardly an “idea” that escapes from you that is not absolutely toxic to our civilization.

It is a sign of the sickness of our civlization that you have been so tolerated for so long.

One day this will end, one prays, and this society will come back to its sense.

Jun 16, 2009 - 3:26 pm 32. G Alston:

Homer would have a hard time topping the former Miss California’s story of being persecuted for her honesty.

Interesting term, persecuted. After 2000 years the christians are still claiming persecution. Every time you turn around a christian is being persecuted. Oh my.

Of course, it could never be that Prejean was widely regarded as a dead weight by many of the very people who would otherwise use her image. Let’s see… would I like my business image to be intertwined with hers? Sure, if I ran a christian bookstore. Does the concept of business decision ever enter your mind?

Prejean is NOT being persecuted, and claiming this only makes you look like a hysterical, screeching, fire and brimstone bible thumper. Where was your outrage when non-christian spokespersons lost their income and/or contract due to having the stupidity to say something that would cause their business value to plummet?

#30 — When one is persecuted for expressing one’s opinion (especially such a mainstream one) in a respectful manner, then Liberty is in real danger here in this country.

What is this, the soiled panties section?

This woman said what she wanted to say. The government didn’t censor her. She is not in chains. The right to free speech is intact. It hasn’t gone anywhere, nor will it. Oh, and there’s that persecuted bit again. Get a grip.

Jun 16, 2009 - 3:37 pm 33. Tri Geek:

Shadow: What I have trouble with is sending aid to those countries that have corrupt governments. No amount of aid will reduce the amount of starving people in Africa. These programs are simply designed to make liberal Americans “Feel” good about themselves.

Jun 16, 2009 - 3:49 pm 34. Bill Perron:

G Alston: You obviously don’t read much because it is common knowledge the lady was persecuted and attacked in the media viciously by homosexuals.

Jun 16, 2009 - 4:06 pm 35. steveg:

This reminds me of a movie I watched last night called, “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry”. The movie was actually rather funny early on, and was wondering why the reviews were so bad . That is until it became another preachy left-wing movie about tolerance for the gay community. They basically ruined what could have been a hit movie, if they had only stuck with comedy, instead of an agenda.

The scene where greasy haired Christians were protesting gays at a NYC nightclub was so over the top I almost stopped watching the movie. (I’m sure something like this happened in NYC maybe 30 or 40 years ago)

The progressives are like Rev. Wright. Stuck in the 50’s, and with the belief that nothing has changed.

Jun 16, 2009 - 4:36 pm 36. Never For Obama:

Marc Malone and Mongoose,
thanks for your well-reasoned responses!
I agree with you both.

Jun 16, 2009 - 5:09 pm 37. Well Educated Cad:

Using other people’s money, of course…

Jun 16, 2009 - 5:16 pm 38. Tri Geek:

Sorry- I seem to have gotten off the topic. I apologize to all.

Jun 16, 2009 - 5:17 pm 39. Jose Garcia:

Carrie, You will always be my Miss California… Mighty proud of you kid.

SFC Jose A. Garcia
Veteran, Op Desert Storm & Desert Shield, Op Iraqi Freedom 1, & Op Noble Eagle.
Californian

Jun 16, 2009 - 6:21 pm 40. Jose Garcia:

where do we send her fan mail to?

Jun 16, 2009 - 6:21 pm 41. Rashputin:

Fitch (6)

LOL, you’re funny

have a day

Jun 16, 2009 - 6:23 pm 42. sheesh:

32 G Alston . . . exactly right. Is there anybody here who doesn’t think this is the best thing that ever happened to this woman?

Jun 16, 2009 - 6:24 pm 43. kevinS:

So, while there are more important stories to talk about, like “hunger in Africa, Election stolen in Iran, Drug Cartels in Mexico, N Korea has the bomb…” we are to be enjoined from discussing anything considered less weighty, and if we are so benighted as to do so we must, of necessity, be silly and stupid. However, I fail to see how the malicious wrecking of someone’s career and reputation is to be reckoned as something less weighty. I suppose it could be so for those who think that such behavior is required, even demanded, when confronted with opinions with which you associate pure evil.
Of course such people who do so only highlight their own rather shallow set of values, principles and insights, and go farto underscore that they are merely echoing the words and thoughts of others without understanding in the least the meaning and ramifications.

Jun 16, 2009 - 6:48 pm 44. Rashputin:

G Alston (28)

That’s odd. I’m Christian and I attend church with a load of sinners all the time. There are gays in my church, both sexes, and there are adulterers, thieves, people who covet the property of others, plenty who are into sloth, etc., etc. While homosexuals may be more self-destructive than others, they’re just run of the mill sinners, nothing special. As long as they see themselves as just more folks and don’t demand some special treatment, what the hell, a sinner is a sinner is a sinner.

G Alston (32)

“This woman said what she wanted to say. The government didn’t censor her. She is not in chains. The right to free speech is intact. It hasn’t gone anywhere, nor will it. Oh, and there’s that persecuted bit again. Get a grip.”

I agree with you on that. Someone owns the pageant, so someone gets to make the rules. I do think they should have said that answers you gave were subject to PC scrutiny on that issue. Did they have rules about asking whether contestants were lesbian or is it that no one thought to ask? I don’t think it would be a bit more or less proper to do so. Someone should have told her which way the judges leaned and had her say, “I’d rather not answer that question one way or another”. If anyone had been real swooft, that’s what all the constants should have said. I give her credit for honesty, but honesty can often be tough on your career these days. You probably know that as well as she or I.

Have a nice day

Jun 16, 2009 - 7:12 pm 45. Bill Perron:

I don’t think it is the best thing to happen to “this woman”. The best “thing” that ever happened for “this woman” is that Jesus died for her sins, as well as all of ours.

Jun 16, 2009 - 7:27 pm 46. Meryl:

Whether individuals are dealing with appearance on a show such as American Idol or Miss America, they surely have to know that when they sign all that paperwork up front–before knowing how far they’re going to advance–that anything in their lives will be subject to scrutiny.

What Miss Prejean has endured from the hypocritical media is disgusting. However, I find myself thinking that if I could talk with her, at some point I would be asking, “What, exactly, did you think was going to happen? Did you really think they were going to give you a pass on the old photos? Did you really think the old photos would stay out of sight?”

This is not a matter of faith, but common sense.

And I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would not choose to sign away their future rights on what is essentially a blank piece of paper–before they ever know what’s at stake.

Look at Susan Boyle’s situation. They keep on saying they intend to protect her and do whatever is needed for her welfare. But at some point, the attorneys for Britain’s Got Talent are going to be backing her in a corner that she can’t even imagine right now. And all they have to do is wave in her face the piece of paper she signed back when she was just 1 of 10,000 contestants.

There was a short blurb on some article a couple of days after American Idol, reporting that whathisname’s young wife was “pushed out of camera range” the night he won, as she came to greet him and wanted to give him a congratulatory kiss. Again, I want to say to her: do you really think that you will be welcome on stage, in the photos, in the studios…modeling a happy or even working marriage, when those who own the pieces of paper he signed when HE was 1 of 10,000 are just trying to figure out how to best market him to the screaming teenyboppers across the nation. Happy young wives are not exactly easy to work in to their marketing plans.

Jun 16, 2009 - 8:43 pm 47. AtheistConservative:

“Of course, it could never be that Prejean was widely regarded as a dead weight by many of the very people who would otherwise use her image.”

Nonsense. That’s only true if you admit that the same people who persecuted – yes, persecuted – Prejean for answering a question would direct their violence and hatred at her sponsors. Given their animalistic response to Prop 8 I’m pretty sure you’re right about that. But it doesn’t mean you have to give in to their intimidation.

“Where was your outrage when non-christian spokespersons lost their income and/or contract due to having the stupidity to say something that would cause their business value to plummet?”

Disregarding that standard, tired left-wing trope of “where was your outrage” (you never read Conservative media except to troll articles, so I’m not surprised you don’t know where the outrage was) … what does that sentence even mean? It’s the most vague bit of blustering I’ve ever read.

“The government didn’t censor her.”

Do us a favor: get a dictionary. Note that ‘censorship’ and ‘persecution’ are different words. They even have different meanings and everything!

Jun 16, 2009 - 9:55 pm 48. alan:

I respect and admire Ms. Prejean for not backing down. Yes, she is a problem for gays and leftists, but she did nothing other than express her own personal beliefs. What is more pathetic than watching a grown man, gay or straight, attacking a young woman the way Michael Musto and David Letterman recently have? Eventually, if the Carrie Prejeans and Sarah Palins of this country can continue stand up for themselves and their families, people will start to see that the overwhelming majority of fascist hate-mongers, mysogynists and racists in this country are left wingers.

Jun 16, 2009 - 10:27 pm 49. Caestal:

As it happens, I disagree with Ms. Prejean on the issue, but find it reprehensible that she was treated so shabbily. It just makes me sad and weary, and all because of some nasty little nobody who asked a politically loaded question specifically hoping to get the response he did.

Jun 17, 2009 - 12:47 am 50. Class Clown:

Caestal,

actually, the fact is that in todays debased popular culture, a truly nasty guy like Perez Hilton can be influential, if not truly powerful. He obviously is NOT a nobody, and that is totally depressing.

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:35 am 51. G Alston:

#47 — Do us a favor: get a dictionary. Note that ‘censorship’ and ‘persecution’ are different words.

Do us a favour: do try to keep up. #30 — to whom I replied — was railing about free speech.

#44 — That’s odd. I’m Christian and I attend church with a load of sinners all the time.

Being gay isn’t a sin. Gays know it. It’s physiological. I know this; why don’t you? Is it also a sin to read?

#31 — rant god rant liberal rant leftist rant

I live in a small midwestern town and I’m very well known for my views. I work with a number of gays from small towns like mine, so I happen to have not made that up. Oh wait, I already mentioned this part in #28. So much for your theory.

Jun 17, 2009 - 6:30 am 52. Middleman:

Comparing Prejean’s situation with Homer’s Odyssey?! You see that’s the problem with America these days. Manufactured melodrama.

I can respect her for standing up for her opinion, and give her credit for being very well spoken and taking a stand, but it’s not like she’s suffering to the point where her life is in danger. It’s not like she has angry gay mobs burning her out of her home. She’s been a guest anchor on Fox News, and probably will be full-time by the end of the year. She’ll make out like a bandit on a book she didn’t write. At the end of the day she’ll be no different than a reality star, or Paris Hilton. A profiteer with very little to actually contribute. One of the biggest signs our society is headed straight down the crapper.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:52 am 53. The Shadow:

Tri Greek – I guess your stance must make you feel like the “good samaritan.”

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:09 pm 54. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"Being gay isn’t a sin. Gays know it. It’s physiological. I know this; why don’t you? Is it also a sin to read?”"”"”

There is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality among some who engage in homosexual activity, and that number goes up to a majority for those who live a homosexual lifestyle. It doesn’t hold true that this is always the case. For instance, explain prison sex and ancient Greece.

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:51 pm 55. Roderick Reilly:

My dear fellow agnostics, atheists and secular humanists: Christians are NOT, by and large “yokels and knuckleheads.”

WHERE do those anachronistic, simplistic notions come from? And why do those of you who express those retarded opinions use them as a springboard to announce your supposed superiority?

And what’s with getting on Carrie Prejean’s case for going topless, or whatever? She’s a Christian, NOT Amish. Seriously.

As to my fellow “conservatives and libertarians’ (what do those labels mean anymore?), what’s with getting infected with the same celebrity virus as your detractors? Carrie Prejean is a 21-year-old beauty contestant, not a “conservative spokesperson.” It’s appalling how she was treated, granted, but does that really rate her a special anchor appearance on a Fox show? Ditto with Joe the Plumber — I also don’t like the shabby treatment he got, but enough with this elevating the “man on the street” to iconic status just because he got victimized. Yes, I am addressing this comment to Pajamas Media. In a world that now celebrates awful, narcissistic mediocrities on reality shows, do we have to play along, even if our “mediocrities” do have more character?

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:50 pm 56. Rashputin:

“Being gay isn’t a sin. Gays know it. It’s physiological. I know this; why “don’t you? Is it also a sin to read?”

You obviously, ‘know’, quite a bit not supported by the evidence. On this as on other topics you have some tidbit yanked out of context and suddenly, it’s the total explanation. Homosexuality is far more complex than your simplistic assertion implies. As with many other things, there is an entire range of causes for the range of behaviors commonly called homosexuality. Were you sincerely interested in the causes, you’d know that. Obviously you just picked your favorite excuse or rationalization and now proclaim it.

Homosexuality is a sin. Theft is a sin. Just as there are homosexuals that cannot control themselves, there are thieves who cannot control themselves. That doesn’t alter the fact that both are sins. The same is true of a wide range of things classed as sins. That’s human condition, they’re sinners and can’t even keep themselves from indulging in the sins they have particular weaknesses for.

Reading is not a sin, although your comparing homosexuality to a the learned ability to read is interesting. Does that mean that both are learned skills? In this and other posts you’ve made, you seem to be the one who avoids reading for whatever reason.

You’re in real trouble now, there will be Christians praying for you.

have a nice midwestern day

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:28 pm 57. G Alston:

#56 — You obviously, ‘know’, quite a bit not supported by the evidence.

Nah. I rely on the experts who know stuff about evolutionary biology and such. They’re the ones who know.

Here’s one take:

http://gc.homeunix.net/home/post/5

And chances are he’s correct. Bear in mind it’s not a good idea to dismiss the smartest guy in the room out of hand, because this guy is that guy in almost any room you can find. Here’s an idea: why don’t you email him tell him it’s a sin. You won’t, because in a debate he’d tear you to shreds.

I’m certainly not going to debate people like you. I have no need: this is what experts are about.

There are other EXPERTS who may disagree with Cochran, some who will assume a more conventional approach and suggest hormones in the womb and/or gene malfunction. But they all agree on one thing: it’s physiological.

OK, I showed you mine. Show me your renowned expert.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:45 pm 58. Marc Malone:

#57 G Alston – I read through your link. It is very clear that he’s just speculating. It’s a theory with no evidence, but you quote it as fact. There is yet no proof of natural causes for homosexuality. There is quite a bit of proof of environmental conditioning (e.g., Ancient Greek Armies, lack of available women in polygamist societies, childhood rape, etc).

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:28 pm 59. Larsen E. Whipsnade:

57. G.Alston: “But they all agree on one thing: it’s physiological”

You’re kidding, right? Your expert is a physicist, not a geneticist. He’s playing with hobby-level statistics, just for something to do on his day off, and you’re taking this as serious science? He says, inter alia, that “Actually, we can be pretty sure that there is no gene that codes for male homosexuality . . . There is no positive evidence. There is no positive evidence for any explanation, really.”

And from this you are trying to extract some truth to support your position? As your source says, there’s no support at all. The only reasonable explanation that stands up to the most rigorous analysis is that homosexuality is deviant. In plain English, it’s a sin. Why are you so afraid of this explanation? Isn’t it about time to man up to it and admit that it’s a sin and that you enjoy being deviant? And spare us the phony scientific explanations!

Jun 18, 2009 - 12:22 am 60. Rashputin:

G Alston (57)

Read no further than Wikpedia and the references therein. In addition, you might want to check out :

American Psychological Association (APA) website
‘Homosexuality: Innate and immutable?’ by Dr A Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen
`The Masculine Journey’ by Dr Robert Hicks

and for a quick intro to the above :

Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, who attempted to find a genetic basis for homosexuality by examining the differences in the hypothalamus between “homosexual” and “heterosexual” males, has written: “I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

from AP May 5, 2002

have a nice show me yours kind of say

Jun 18, 2009 - 10:57 am 61. Banned by Huffpo:

The hatred and intolerance of the left for any view or belief other than their own is just stunning.

Jun 18, 2009 - 2:05 pm 62. misanthropicus:

I agree with Dougles’ article, and I think this is what normally should be in LA Times, not their trash which tried to ratiocinate this ugly affair – ugly affair, and Musto is an equally ugly yet valid symbol for the liberals’ jubilation regarding this matter.

Yet, even when looking at this situation I still can find a silver lining here – I am left with Hilton Perez’s rants and videos.
And this is not little thing, because the nastier the liberals get, more skeptical (if not outright with antipathy) mainstream America will regard their soooooo! legitimate causes for protests, rants and commotion.
So, sorry for Prejean, but now Perez Hilton has entered in the public consciousness – and he’s not a pleasant vision to entertain.
We need more Perez Hilton-s, they help a lot!

Jun 18, 2009 - 5:17 pm 63. caestal:

Troll quote of the moment: “wow – hunger in
Africa, Election stolen in Iran, Drug Cartels
in Mexico, N Korea has the bomb and this is
the issue that the wingnuts want to discuss.
No wonder you lost the last election”
Some folks can probably handle more than one discussion in a day… if you can’t, perhaps you should ease up on the crack?

“the nastier the liberals get, more skeptical
(if not outright with antipathy) mainstream
America will regard their soooooo! legitimate
causes for protests, rants and commotion.”
This is true in both directions. It is something to keep in mind when posting here. Personally, I am not fish nor fowl — not a liberal or conservative, in the way folks ’round here seem to think of it — but pretty solidly in the center of things. Extremely hateful posts/articles/shows from the Left tend to push me to the right; ugly mean-spirited posts/articles/shows from the Right make me lean left to avoid the radiating ugliness.

Jun 20, 2009 - 12:33 am 64. sammie:

“do as I say…not as I do”..should be the motto for perez and keith.

although, she should have kept her title, i wish she had resigned, she knew they were out to get her in the dirtiest of ways.

However, she will do fine. She is a example to people that should and need to have a voice!!!

AND WHERE IS DONALD THE MOUTH WHEN HE’S NEEDED????

Jun 22, 2009 - 2:24 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: